Wortley v. Chrispus Venture Capital, LLC (In Re Global Energies, LLC)
763 F.3d 1341
| 11th Cir. | 2014Background
- Wortley appeals a district court judgment affirming the bankruptcy court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion.
- The plan to use Chrispus to obtain Global Energies assets involved alleged collusion by Tarrant and Juranitch to erase Wortley's stake by filing an involuntary petition.
- June 2010 emails among Tarrant, Juranitch, and Chrispus’s attorney contemplated a strategy leading to an involuntary bankruptcy filing against Global.
- Wortley discovered the June 17–19 emails later, but they were withheld from production and only surfaced in related state litigation.
- The bankruptcy court denied Wortley's Rule 60(b) motion for new evidence, later affirmed by the district court, and Wortley sought appellate review.
- This court reverses and remands with instructions to grant Rule 60(b)(2) relief, vacate the sale, and fashion remedies to address misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether June 17–19 emails are new evidence under Rule 60(b)(2). | Wortley | Chrispus/Juranitch/Tarrant | Yes; new and material evidence warrant relief |
| Whether the bankruptcy court applied the correct standard for Rule 60(b)(2). | Wortley | Chrispus | Abuse of discretion for misapplying standard |
| Whether Rule 60(b)(3) relief for fraud/misconduct is available given the new evidence. | Wortley | Chrispus | Not necessary to decide; remanded on 60(b)(2) |
| Whether withholding evidence and false testimony undermined Wortley's due process rights. | Wortley | Chrispus | Underscored by court as substantive misconduct; supports relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Gen. Trading, Inc. v. Yale Materials Handling Corp., 119 F.3d 1485 (11th Cir. 1997) (tests for bad-faith bankruptcy filing)
- Branca v. Sec. Benefit Life Ins. Co., 789 F.2d 1511 (11th Cir. 1986) (Rule 60(b)(2) relief; new evidence standard (per curiam))
- Waddell v. Hendry Cnty. Sheriff’s Office, 329 F.3d 1300 (11th Cir. 2003) (new evidence must be material and likely to change result)
- Ameritas Variable Life Ins. Co. v. Roach, 411 F.3d 1328 (11th Cir. 2005) (Rule 60(b) abuse of discretion standard; criteria for relief)
- In re Albany Partners, Ltd., 749 F.2d 670 (11th Cir. 1984) (’for cause’ dismissal standard in §1112(b))
- Phoenix Piccadilly, Ltd. v. Life Ins. Co. of Va., 849 F.2d 1393 (11th Cir. 1988) (bad-faith filing standard for involuntary petitions)
- Gen. Trading Inc. v. Yale Materials Handling Corp. (Gen. Trading), 119 F.3d 1485 (11th Cir. 1997) (bad-faith petition tests: improper purpose, improper use, Rule 9011 analogue)