ILNews

Ex-mayor argues $108 million judgment can be discharged in bankruptcy

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The ex-East Chicago mayor hit with a $108 million racketeering judgment because of public corruption wants a federal bankruptcy court to dismiss a civil complaint against him that questions whether the judgment is dischargeable under bankruptcy code.

In a brief filed earlier this week, former mayor Robert Pastrick contends that the Indiana attorney general’s adverse action doesn’t prove that he acted willfully or maliciously as required to make the multi-million dollar judgment nondischargeable.

On March 25, the state agency filed a 22-page complaint against Pastrick in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Indiana, alleging that five provisions of the federal bankruptcy law exempt this debt from being eligible for discharge through bankruptcy. This came in response to the 2010 judgment against Pastrick and his former aids, who admitted their roles in a “sidewalk for votes” scheme that funneled $24 million in public money to pay for sidewalks and concrete paving in exchange for votes in the city’s 1999 primary election. The AG’s office has been trying to collect that money for the past year, but Pastrick in December filed for bankruptcy to avoid paying the amount.

In the civil complaint, the AG’s office contends that Pastrick’s theft, abuse of power while in office, and federal racketeering means the $108 million can’t be dismissed through bankruptcy proceedings. The five counts spell out the arguments that the debt shouldn’t be discharged because of Bankruptcy Code sections 523(a)(6), 523(a)(4), 523(a)(7), 523(a)(13), and 523(a)(2)(A).

But Pastrick argues that bankruptcy code requires his conduct have been “willful” or “malicious,” and that isn’t the case here.

“There is a clear distinction between an act that is intentional and an act that is intentional and ‘malicious,’” the brief says. “The Plaintiff’s response did not address this distinction and relies on the findings and suggestion that Defendant’s actions were ‘intentional.’”

Pastrick also argues that he didn’t receive any financial benefit from the alleged activities, and that’s a requirement under bankruptcy code in classifying the debt as nondischargeable. He also points out the judgment was compensatory as well as punitive, and that it doesn’t include any specific restitution order so the debt can be written off.

“The mere allegations or findings of morally repugnant activity does not guarantee that any civil judgment resulting therefrom would qualify as nondischargeable,” Pastrick’s brief says.

How the court decides this issue of dismissal could determine how the underlying bankruptcy case proceeds against Pastrick, and ultimately how the AG’s office is able to pursue collecting the $108 million judgment.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT