Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Bunch v. J.M. Capital Finance, Ltd. (In re Hoffinger Industries, Inc.)

327 B.R. 389 (2005)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 35,600+ case briefs...

Bunch v. J.M. Capital Finance, Ltd. (In re Hoffinger Industries, Inc.)

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern & Western Districts of Arkansas

327 B.R. 389 (2005)

Facts

Hoffinger Industries, Inc. (Hoffinger) (debtor) filed for bankruptcy in 2001 following a $13.5 million personal-injury judgment against Hoffinger in favor of Leesa Bunch (plaintiff). Hoffinger did not adequately address Bunch’s judgment in its proposed reorganization plan. Bunch objected to the proposed plan and brought an adversary proceeding against J.M. Capital Finance, Ltd. (J.M.) (defendant), questioning claims filed in the bankruptcy by J.M. and by Hoffinger’s products-liability insurer, Arrowhead Insurance Company (Arrowhead). J.M. was wholly owned by Arrowhead, and Arrowhead was owned by another entity owned by the Hoffinger family. In 1993, Hoffinger borrowed $8.25 million from Clinton Pool Company (CPC), another Hoffinger-family-controlled entity, for the purpose of distributing interest to Hoffinger’s shareholders. However, no real distribution occurred. Instead, CPC merely claimed that it funded the loan to Hoffinger with the money the family had received from the shareholder distribution. The collateral for the CPC loan was Hoffinger’s assets, making CPC a secured creditor and rendering Hoffinger judgment-proof against collection efforts by unrelated third parties. In 1999, Hoffinger borrowed $10 million from J.M. to pay the purported $8.25 million debt to CPC and distribute $1.75 million to Hoffinger’s shareholders. The financing for the J.M. loan came from Arrowhead. J.M. took liens on Hoffinger’s assets as collateral for the loan. Martin Hoffinger, Hoffinger’s founder and the head of the Hoffinger family, acknowledged that the J.M. loan further judgment-proofed Hoffinger. There was no credible evidence regarding how the CPC or J.M. loan transactions had actually occurred or the relationship between J.M. and CPC regarding the debt obligations created by the J.M. transaction. As the bankruptcy court noted, none of the entities were operating in their own best interests and had not treated the transactions as creating actual debt obligations. Nevertheless, in the bankruptcy, Hoffinger treated J.M.’s claim as secured and planned to fully pay the claim. In the adversary proceeding, Bunch asserted that J.M.’s claim should be disallowed, reconsidered, equitably subordinated, or recharacterized.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Taylor, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 620,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 35,600 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership