Hon. Michael J. Kaplan

1991 – present 

Federal Judicial Service: 

  • Recalled Bankruptcy Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Western District of New York.  Chief Bankruptcy Judge, 1993 to 2000. 

Education: 

  • Boston University School of Law, J.D., 1971 
  • Columbia University, B.A., 1968 

Professional Career: 

  • Lawyers Co-Operative Publishing, Rochester, New York, 1972-1981 
  • Private Practice, Rochester, New York, 1974-1981 
  • Adjunct faculty member, Rochester Institute of Technology and Monroe Community College, Rochester, New York, 1973-1981  

Noteworthy Cases: 

 In re Adelphia Recovery Trust, Nos. 1:07-CV-00553, 1:07-CV-00555, 1:07-CV-00554: 

At the time that Adelphia Communications collapsed in 2002 under the weight of misdoings by John Rigas, it owned (through a subsidiary) the Buffalo Sabres Hockey Club and its affiliated companies.  The NHL consequently caused them to commence Chapter 11 cases.  The League found a buyer in due course – an entity controlled by businessman B. Thomas Golisano.  In April 2003, Judge Kaplan, with the in-court support of the Adelphia debtors and the Adelphia Creditors Committee, approved a sale of all assets of the Sabres affiliates’ assets to the buyer, “free and clear” of relevant liens.  Less than three months later, Adelphia and its creditors committee sued three banks in the Adelphia bankruptcy court (in the Southern District of New York) for $34.1 million, asserting that those banks, which had held liens on those assets until Rigas caused Adelphia to buy the Sabres and cash out those lienholders, had received “fraudulent transfers” when they were so cashed out.  The banks commenced a declaratory judgment action in the WDNY, arguing that the various Sabres’ sale orders insulated them.  Judge Kaplan and Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber (who presided in the Adelphia cases in the SDNY) worked out reciprocal orders by which Judge Kaplan would decide whether that was correct, and if so, the action in the SDNY would be dismissed.  If not, then the WDNY would send the banks to the SDNY to defend on the merits.  Judge Kaplan ruled that the Adelphia participants did not have a “duty to speak” regarding the planned action against the banks, and that because there was no mention or consideration of the banks, none of his orders protected them.  U.S. District Court Judge Richard J. Arcara reversed on grounds that became the focus of review by the Circuit Court.  The Circuit affirmed the District Court in the seminal ruling of In re Adelphia Recovery Trust, 634 F.3d 678 (2011), holding that “judicial estoppel” barred Adelphia from pursuing the action against the banks after standing silent when Judge Kaplan asked in general terms at the hearing on the sale of the assets whether everyone with an interest in the assets had consented.  The court observed, “[i]n our view a party puts the integrity of the judicial process at risk not only when it knowingly lies but when it takes a position in the short term knowing that it may be on the verge of taking an inconsistent future action . . . [and it] cannot escape judicial estoppel by keeping its attorney in the dark about its plans.”  Id. at 696697. 

In re Adelphia Recovery Trust, 2009 WL 385474 (W.D.N.Y. 2009), aff’d, 634 F.3d 678 (2011)
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/09-0799/09-0799_amd_opn-2011-03-27.html 

 

 

In re Laidlaw USA, Inc., Nos. 01-14099 – 01-14104: 

On the business side of the Court’s work, Laidlaw International had been a Canadian corporation until it reorganized before Judge Kaplan in 2003.  The owner of Greyhound bus lines, Laidlaw school buses and Laidlaw ambulance services, it became a U.S. corporation, with annual revenues of over $3 billion. 

 

 

In re Behn, Nos. 99-11231, 99-1165: 

On the consumer side of the work of the Court, the case of Bonnie Behn, 99-11231, presented the question of whether monetary sanctions ordered by the District Court for willful violation of its order limiting protests at abortion clinics were dischargeable in Ms. Behn’s Chapter 7 case.  Judge Kaplan’s ruling that excluded the award from discharge was cited during Congressional debate over whether such result should or should not be codified.  106 CONG. REC. S103-104 (daily ed. January 26, 2000). 

In re Behn, 24 B.R. 229 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. 1999)
https://casetext.com/case/in-re-behn-2