One hundred forty years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Barton v. Barbour, 104 U.S. 126, 128 (1881), that before suit is brought against a receiver, leave of court by which he was appointed must be obtained. The so-called Barton doctrine has since been expanded to also include bankruptcy trustees and other fiduciaries, but a recent ruling by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has dramatically curtailed its lifespan. On June 15, the Eleventh Circuit issued its opinion in Chua v. Ekonomou, No. 20-12576, holding that once a receivership or bankruptcy proceeding is concluded, a litigant no longer needs to obtain permission from the receivership or bankruptcy court before initiating suit against the court-appointed receiver or trustee. By doing so, the Eleventh Circuit has also created a split among the circuits, creating possible jeopardy for receivers and trustees and paving the way for a possible return of the Barton doctrine to the U.S. Supreme Court

The underlying facts are reminiscent of a Dateline special: Noel Chua was a physician who had his own solo medical practice in St. Mary's, Georgia. In September 2005, a pre-med student at a local college, began working at Chua's medical practice, and then, a short time later, moved into Chua's home. While the student was living at his home, Chua began prescribing the student with hydrocodone and other increasingly stronger medications for headaches and abdominal pains that the student was experiencing. On Dec. 15 of that same year, Chua came home to find the student deceased and lying on the bathroom floor from an apparent drug overdose. The district attorney obtained an indictment against Chua for felony murder and violations of Georgia's Controlled Substances Act, and then initiated a civil-forfeiture action over Chua's assets, at which time the presiding judge issued a temporary restraining order freezing Chua's assets and appointed a receiver. Chua was ultimately found guilty of felony murder and the controlled substance violations, and was sentenced to life imprisonment. As to the forfeiture action, the receiver and his counsel depleted almost all of Chua's assets to the tune of approximately $2 million. Following the conclusion of the forfeiture action, the receiver's appointment was terminated in 2015.