Pampa Beverages, LLC d/b/a Transnational Supply v. Hussing et al

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION
In re:
BERNARDO GERMAN HUSSING, 	Case No. 22-16984-SMG
Debtor. 	Chapter 7
_____________________________________/
PAMPA BEVERAGES, LLC d/b/a
TRANSNATIONAL SUPPLY,
Plaintiff,
v. 	Adv. No. 22-1383-SMG1
BERNARDO GERMAN HUSSING, et al.,
Defendants.
_____________________________________/
1 Consolidated with Adv. No. 22-1378.
Scott M. Grossman, Chief Judge
United States Bankruptcy Court	_____________________________________________________________________________
ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on July 13, 2026.
Case 22-01383-SMG Doc 137 Filed 07/13/26 Page 1 of 14

2
MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND
This Court had previously ruled that the defendant and debtor, Bernardo
Hussing, did not owe a fiduciary duty to his former employer, plaintiff Pampa
Beverages, LLC d/b/a Transnational Supply. Pampa appealed that decision to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The District Court
determined that under Florida law, as articulated by Florida’s Third District Court
of Appeal in Phillips Chemical Company v. Morgan,2 an employee who engages in a
kickback scheme – as Mr. Hussing did here – per se breaches a fiduciary duty owed
to the employer.3
With that ruling law of the case, this Court must now determine on remand:
(1) what damages Mr. Hussing owes to Pampa as a result of the breach; (2) whether
the independent tort doctrine nevertheless bars Pampa’s recovery; (3) whether the
resulting debt is excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A); and
(4) whether Fenix Marketing, LLC and Votnik, LLC – two entities controlled by
Mr. Hussing, both of whom have defaulted and not contested Pampa’s allegations –
are liable for aiding and abetting Mr. Hussing’s breach of his fiduciary duty and for
conspiring with Mr. Hussing to breach his fiduciary duty.4
After considering the parties’ supplemental briefs5 and their arguments at a
March 10, 2026 hearing6 – and in light of the District Court’s ruling on appeal – for
2 440 So. 2d 1292 (Fla. 3d DCA 1983).
3 Pampa Beverages, LLC v. Hussing, 674 B.R. 576, 584 (S.D. Fla. 2025), appeal dismissed, 2025 WL
4079183 (11th Cir. Dec. 16, 2025).
4 Id. at 588–89.
5 Dkt. Nos. 135, 136.
6 Dkt. No. 130.
Case 22-01383-SMG Doc 137 Filed 07/13/26 Page 2 of 14

3
the reasons that follow,7 the Court now determines that: (1) Mr. Hussing is liable to
Pampa for $1,762,045.83 in damages as a result of his breach of fiduciary duty; (2) the
independent tort doctrine does not bar Pampa’s recovery; (3) this debt is excepted
from Mr. Hussing’s chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A) as
a 	debt 	for 	money, 	property, 	or 	services 	obtained 	by 	false 	pretenses, 	a 	false
representation, or actual fraud; and (4) Fenix Marketing and Votnik are also liable
to Pampa for $1,762,045.83 in damages for aiding and abetting Mr. Hussing’s breach
of fiduciary duty and conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty.
I. 	BACKGROUND.
On October 13, 2022, Pampa commenced Adversary Proceeding No. 22-1378
(the Dischargeability Action) in this Court against Mr. Hussing. That same date,
Pampa also removed to this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a) the action styled Pampa
Beverages v. Bernardo Hussing, et al., Case No. 2021-019085-CA-01, from the Circuit
Court 	of 	the 	11th 	Judicial 	Circuit 	in 	and 	for 	Miami-Dade 	County, 	Florida,
commencing 	Adversary 	Proceeding 	No. 	22-1383 	(the 	Removed 	Action). 	After
considering the parties’ briefs8 and having conducted a hearing9 to consider this
Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the Removed Action, on January 9, 2023, the
Court entered an Order Granting Motion to Consolidate Adversary Proceedings,10 in
7 This memorandum opinion constitutes the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, as required
by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a)(1), made applicable here by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
Procedure 7052. Except as expressly modified in this opinion, the Court’s findings of fact set forth in
its original opinion, Dkt. No. 113; In re Hussing, 659 B.R. 609 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2024), rev’d and
remanded sub nom. Pampa Beverages, LLC v. Hussing, 674 B.R. 576 (S.D. Fla. 2025), appeal
dismissed, 2025 WL 4079183 (11th Cir. Dec. 16, 2025), remain undisturbed.
8 Dkt. Nos. 16, 22.
9 Dkt. No. 14.
10 Dkt. No. 23.
Case 22-01383-SMG Doc 137 Filed 07/13/26 Page 3 of 14

4
which it determined that it had subject matter jurisdiction over the Removed Action
under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b).
In its December 12, 2023 Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part Motions
for Summary Judgment and Setting Pretrial Conference,11 the Court dismissed Count
II of the Dischargeability Action and Count VI of the Removed Action, which together
sought to enforce a non-compete and non-solicitation agreement. These consolidated
adversary proceedings then proceeded to trial on February 26, 2024.12 In advance of
trial, Pampa voluntarily dismissed without prejudice Count V of the Removed Action
(breach of contract against Mr. Hussing) and all claims asserted against defendant
Ulla Rosensteiner (Mr. Hussing’s spouse) in the Removed Action.13 Trial then
proceeded 	on 	Count 	I 	of 	the 	Dischargeability 	Action 	(determination 	of
dischargeability for actual fraud under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A)) against Mr. Hussing;
Count I of the Removed Action (breach of fiduciary duty) against Mr. Hussing; Count
II of the Removed Action (aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty) against
Carolina Hussing (Mr. Hussing’s daughter), Fenix Marketing, and Votnik; Count III
of the Removed Action (civil conspiracy to breach fiduciary duty) against Fenix
Marketing and Votnik; and Count IV of the Removed Action (civil conspiracy to
breach fiduciary duty) against Ms. Hussing.
After trial, and for the reasons set forth in its May 28, 2024 Memorandum
Opinion,14 the Court entered a final judgment against Pampa and in favor of
11 Dkt. No. 82.
12 Dkt. No. 96.
13 Dkt. No. 87.
14 Dkt. No. 113; Hussing, 659 B.R. 609.
Case 22-01383-SMG Doc 137 Filed 07/13/26 Page 4 of 14

5
Mr. Hussing, Ms. Hussing, Fenix Marketing, and Votnik.15 Pampa appealed that
final judgment.16 In the meantime, on September 18, 2024, the chapter 7 trustee in
Mr. Hussing’s main bankruptcy case filed a report of no distribution.17 And on
September 19, 2025, Mr. Hussing received a discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727.18 On
September 29, 2025, the District Court then reversed this Court as to the final
judgment in these consolidated adversary proceedings and remanded the matter for
further proceedings consistent with its opinion.19
II. 	JURISDICTION.
After the District Court entered its opinion, Mr. Hussing appealed that
decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.20 On
December 16, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit dismissed that appeal – not on the merits,
but 	instead 	for 	want 	of 	prosecution 	after 	Mr. 	Hussing 	failed 	to 	cure 	certain
deficiencies in his initial brief.21 Mr. Hussing moved to vacate that dismissal, but the
Eleventh Circuit declined to act on his motion due to continued deficiencies in his
filings.22 The Eleventh Circuit appeal therefore stands dismissed, and that dismissal
constitutes a final judgment permitting this Court to proceed in accordance with the
District Court’s instructions on remand.23
15 Dkt. No. 114.
16 Dkt. No. 119.
17 Case No. 22-16984-SMG, Dkt. No. 44.
18 Id., Dkt. No. 50.
19 Dkt. No. 128; Pampa Beverages, 674 B.R. 576.
20 Pampa Beverages, LLC v. Hussing, No. 25-13800 (11th Cir.).
21 Id., Dkt. No. 11; see Pampa Beverages, 2025 WL 4079183, at *1; see also 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b).
22 Pampa Beverages, No. 25-13800 (11th Cir.), Dkt. No. 18.
23 See Wilson v. Aderhold, 89 F.2d 903, 904 (5th Cir. 1937) (“The fact of dismissal is the only requisite
to the revival of the proceedings. . . .”); see also Tuitama v. Bank of Am., NA, 552 Fed. App’x 881, 883
(11th Cir. 2014) (“federal law . . . clearly dictates that dismissal for failure to prosecute or for
noncompliance with a court order is a judgment on the merits with claim-preclusive effect.”).
Case 22-01383-SMG Doc 137 Filed 07/13/26 Page 5 of 14

6
III. 	MR. HUSSING HAD – AND BREACHED – A FIDUCIARY DUTY TO
PAMPA.
The District Court held that Phillips Chemical is controlling Florida law, under
which “an employee’s engineering of a kickback scheme to the detriment of an
employer is a breach of the employee’s fiduciary duty.”24 This Court had read Phillips
Chemical as holding that if an employee owed a fiduciary duty to his employer, then
engaging in a kickback scheme was a breach of that fiduciary duty.25 Applied to the
facts of this case, this Court determined after an evidentiary hearing that while
Mr. Hussing did engage in a kickback scheme, the evidence did not support a finding
that he owed Pampa any fiduciary duty to begin with.26
The District Court, however, read Phillips Chemical as standing squarely for
the proposition that an employee who engages in a kickback scheme per se breaches
a fiduciary duty to his employer. Thus, because this Court “made a clear factual
finding that [Mr.] Hussing had engaged in a willful kickback scheme, and one which
can only be described as flagrant . . . , it was bound to apply the holding of Phillips
Chemical, which was both on point and binding, to find that [Mr.] Hussing owed
Pampa a fiduciary duty under Florida law and that [Mr.] Hussing breached it.”27
Applying Phillips Chemical to the facts of this case consistent with the District
Court’s mandate thus leads to the conclusion that Mr. Hussing owed Pampa a
24 Pampa Beverages, 674 B.R. at 583.
25 Hussing, 659 B.R. at 619–23.
26 Id. at 622-23.
27 Pampa Beverages, 674 B.R. at 586.
Case 22-01383-SMG Doc 137 Filed 07/13/26 Page 6 of 14

7
fiduciary duty, and that he breached that duty when, over nearly a decade, he secretly
solicited and accepted kickbacks from Pampa’s vendors and suppliers.
IV. 	MR. 	HUSSING 	IS 	LIABLE 	TO 	PAMPA 	FOR 	$1,762,045.83 	IN
DAMAGES.
With the District Court having determined that Phillips Chemical is binding
Florida law, the calculation of damages is now straightforward. Under Phillips
Chemical:
A fiduciary cannot say to the one to whom he bears such relationship:
You have sustained no loss by my misconduct in receiving a commission
from a party opposite to you, and therefore you are without remedy. It
would 	be 	a 	dangerous 	precedent 	for 	us 	to 	say 	that 	unless 	some
affirmative loss can be shown, the person who has violated his fiduciary
relationship with another may hold on to any secret gain or benefit he
may have thereby acquired.28
Thus, the “unfaithful employee . . . [is] clearly liable as a matter of well-established
law for the amounts improperly received.”29 Here, the parties stipulated that
Mr. Hussing received kickbacks totaling $1,762,045.83, which were deposited into
Mr. Hussing’s personal accounts, as well as accounts in the names of Fenix Marketing
and Votnik.30 Under Phillips Chemical, Pampa is therefore entitled to $1,762,045.83
in damages from Mr. Hussing for his breach of fiduciary duty.31
28 440 So. 2d at 1295 (quoting Kinzbach Tool Co. v. Corbett-Wallace Corp., 160 S.W.2d 509, 514 (Tex.
1942)).
29 Id. at 1294; see also See Ft. Myers Dev. Corp. v. J.W. McWilliams Co., 122 So. 264, 268 (Fla. 1929);
Doyle v. Maruszcak, 834 So. 2d 307, 309 (Fla. 5th DCA 2003); Posner v. Flink, 167 So. 2d 259, 262 (Fla.
3d DCA 1964); cf. R ESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF A GENCY § 388 (an agent who profits “in connection with”
a transaction conducted on the principal’s behalf must turn over that profit, even where the agent
otherwise dealt “with perfect fairness to the principal”).
30 See Dkt. No. 96, ¶¶ rrr – uuu. The parties stipulated that the total amount is $1,762,045.83. See
Dkt. No. 135, p. 3.
31 To the extent Mr. Hussing argues that Pampa failed to prove causation or actual loss, under Phillips
Chemical no such showing is required. Causation in the conventional tort sense is not an element of a
disgorgement remedy for breach of fiduciary duty; the wrong is the secret self-dealing itself, not any
downstream pricing effect. See Phillips Chemical, 440 So. 2d at 1294.
Case 22-01383-SMG Doc 137 Filed 07/13/26 Page 7 of 14

8
V. 	THE INDEPENDENT TORT DOCTRINE DOES NOT BAR PAMPA’S
RECOVERY.
Notwithstanding the District Court’s ruling, Mr. Hussing still contends he is
not liable to Pampa under the “independent tort doctrine” – the precise contours and
application of which are unclear under Florida law.32 Where and to the extent it does
apply, this doctrine would preclude a plaintiff from recovering “in tort for a contract
dispute unless the tort is independent of any breach of contract.”33 Mr. Hussing
argues that because the parties had a contractual relationship governing the same
conduct complained of in the breach of fiduciary duty claim, Pampa’s sole remedy is
a breach of contract claim (which generally would be dischargeable in bankruptcy),
and that Pampa may not recast that claim as a tort claim (which might be excepted
from discharge).
“Courts, including the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, have struggled to
ferret out of [the Florida Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Tiara Condominium
Association v. Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc.34] a clear standard for application
of the independent tort doctrine under Florida law.”35 Its application in this case,
however, is straightforward in light of the District Court’s ruling that under Phillips
Chemical Mr. Hussing owed Pampa a fiduciary duty and that he breached that duty.
Whatever the precise contours of Florida’s independent tort doctrine are, it cannot be
32 See Simmons v. USI Ins. Servs., LLC, 2024 WL 946287, at *3 (M.D. Fla. 2024) (describing case law
on the independent tort doctrine as “somewhat vague and at times inconsistent”).
33 Island Travel & Tours, Co. v. MYR Indep., Inc., 300 So. 3d 1236, 1239–40 (Fla. 3d DCA 2020).
34 110 So. 3d 399, 407 (Fla. 2013).
35 In re Jade Winds Ass’n, Inc., 2019 WL 1386048, at *3 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2019) (citing Tiara Condo.
Ass’n, 110 So. 3d 399).
Case 22-01383-SMG Doc 137 Filed 07/13/26 Page 8 of 14

9
applied in a manner that nullifies the rule announced in Phillips Chemical, which is
binding on this Court.
Phillips Chemical recognized a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty
arising from an employee’s receipt of kickbacks. Florida law imposes this duty on an
employee who acts on behalf of an employer in commercial transactions and who
secretly profits from those transactions, regardless of the existence of any contractual
obligations. Indeed, the essential holding of Phillips Chemical is that an employee’s
receipt of undisclosed kickbacks constitutes a breach of “the most elemental fiduciary
duties owed an employer.”36 With the District Court having held that Phillips
Chemical is binding Florida law on this issue, that determination necessarily
forecloses any argument that the independent tort doctrine could still bar the claim.
VI. 	THE ENTIRE DEBT IS EXCEPTED FROM DISCHARGE UNDER 11
U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).
Having determined that Mr. Hussing is liable for $1,762,045.83 in damages to
Pampa for breach of fiduciary duty, the next question is whether this debt is excepted
from Mr. Hussing’s chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge. Bankruptcy Code section
523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge “any debt . . . for money . . . to the extent obtained
by . . . false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.”37 The Supreme Court
has instructed that this provision “prevents discharge of ‘any debt’ respecting ‘money,
property, services, or . . . credit’ that the debtor has fraudulently obtained.”38 In this
36 Phillips Chem., 440 So. 2d at 1294.
37 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A).
38 Cohen v. de la Cruz, 523 U.S. 213, 213 (1998).
Case 22-01383-SMG Doc 137 Filed 07/13/26 Page 9 of 14

10
context, “‘fraud’ connotes deception or trickery generally.”39 “Thus, anything that
counts as ‘fraud’ and is done with wrongful intent is ‘actual fraud.’”40
This Court has already found that “some of the evidence – particularly his use
of the made-up name ‘John Votnik’ to obtain $24,800.00 in kickbacks from Kwan
Treats – supported a finding that Mr. Hussing did obtain money by false pretenses,
false representations, or actual fraud.”41 Based on this Court’s earlier determination
that Mr. Hussing did not owe a fiduciary duty to Pampa, however, this Court had
concluded that there was no underlying debt to be excepted from discharge.42 Now
that it has been determined that Mr. Hussing did owe a fiduciary duty to Pampa, and
that Mr. Hussing is liable to Pampa for $1,762,045.83 in damages, this Court must
determine whether that debt is a debt for money to the extent obtained by false
pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud.
In this case, Mr. Hussing did not obtain money directly from Pampa, the
creditor to whom he owes the debt. Rather, the monies paid to him as kickbacks came
from Pampa’s suppliers and vendors. For purposes of determining dischargeabilty of
a debt under section 523(a)(2)(A), however, the source of the money does not make
any difference. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Husky Int’l Elecs., Inc. v.
Ritz43 and the Eleventh Circuit’s “most detailed treatment of Husky”44 in In re
39 Husky Intern. Elecs., Inc. v. Ritz, 578 U.S. 355, 360 (2016).
40 Id.
41 Hussing, 659 B.R. at 624.
42 Id. at 618. (“‘Of course a predicate to this burden is establishing that they have any debt at all that
may be subject to an exception from discharge.’”) (citing In re Daly, 655 B.R. 255, 263 (Bankr. S.D. Fla.
2023)).
43 578 U.S. 355.
44 PRN Real Estate & Investments, Ltd. v. Cole, 85 F.4th 1324, 1344 (11th Cir. 2023).
Case 22-01383-SMG Doc 137 Filed 07/13/26 Page 10 of 14

11
Gaddy,45 the Eleventh Circuit in PRN Real Estate & Investments, Ltd. v. Cole46
squarely held that for a debt to be excepted from discharge under section 523(a)(2)(A),
“the creditor must show that (a) the bankruptcy debtor obtained money, property, or
services by actual fraud; and, (b) the debt to be excepted resulted from the debtor’s
fraudulent receipt.”47
That test is easily satisfied here. This Court previously found that “[o]ver
nearly 	a 	decade, 	Bernardo 	Hussing 	pocketed 	more 	than 	$2 	million 	in 	illicit
commissions – more colloquially known as “kickbacks” – from his former employer’s
suppliers.”48 By way of further detail, the Court found that:
Some of these “commissions” were paid directly to Mr. Hussing and
deposited into his personal bank account. Other “commissions” went
into bank accounts in the name of Fenix Marketing, which Mr. Hussing
had promised to close and not use. Still other “commissions” went into
the account of another entity called Votnik, LLC, which Mr. Hussing
and his wife Ulla Rosensteiner formed in 2020. At one point Mr. Hussing
even created and used the fake name “John Votnik” to sign a consulting
and brokerage agreement with Kwan Treats, one of Transnational’s
suppliers, on behalf of Votnik LLC.49
These findings – and specifically, the finding that Mr. Hussing received $24,800 in
kickbacks from Kwan Treats using the fake name John Votnik – are sufficient, under
Supreme Court precedent, to render the entire $1,762,045.83 debt nondischargeable.
As the Supreme Court stated in Cohen v. de la Cruz,50 “the phrase ‘to the extent
45 977 F.3d 1051 (11th Cir. 2020).
46 85 F.4th at 1346–47.
47 Id.; see also Cohen, 523 U.S. at 220–21 (explaining that throughout section 523, “‘debt for’ is used . .
. to mean ‘debt as a result of,’ ‘debt with respect to,’ ‘debt by reason of,’ and the like,” and that “[w]hen
construed in the context of the statute as a whole, then, § 523(a)(2)(A) is best read to prohibit the
discharge of any liability arising from a debtor’s fraudulent acquisition of money, property, etc.”).
48 Hussing, 659 B.R. at 612.
49 Id. at 615.
50 523 U.S. 213.
Case 22-01383-SMG Doc 137 Filed 07/13/26 Page 11 of 14

12
obtained by’ in § 523(a)(2)(A)”51 “makes clear that the share of money, property, etc.,
that is obtained by fraud gives rise to a nondischargeable debt. Once it is established
that specific money or property has been obtained by fraud, however, ‘any debt’
arising therefrom is excepted from discharge.”52 By so ruling, “the Supreme Court
made clear that § 523(a)(2)(A) should be read broadly to prevent the discharge of all
liability arising from fraud.”53
Accordingly, based on both the Supreme Court’s and the Eleventh Circuit’s
interpretations of section 523(a)(2)(A) and this Court’s undisturbed factual findings
after trial, this Court concludes that the $1,762,045.83 in payments that Mr. Hussing
obtained through his fraudulent kickback scheme qualifies as money obtained by
fraud. And because the kickback payments qualify as money obtained by fraud, the
debt owed by Mr. Hussing to Pampa – disgorgement of the entire $1,762,045.83 in
kickbacks – qualifies as “any debt”54 arising out of the fraudulent kickback scheme,
even though it was Mr. Hussing’s breach of fiduciary duty that gives rise to the
disgorgement liability.55 Thus, the entire $1,762,045.83 debt owed by Mr. Hussing to
51 Id. at 218.
52 Id.
53 Hernandez v. Pulido, 2009 WL 1442010, at *3 (S.D. Fla. 2009).
54 11 U.S.C. § 523(a).
55 That a different provision of section 523 – subsection (a)(4) – also provides an exception to discharge
for debts “for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity” does not foreclose application of
section 523(a)(2)(A) in this case. Indeed, in Husky the Supreme Court recognized as “inevitable” the
overlap between the various subsections of section 523(a). Husky, 578 U.S. at 363. Bankruptcy Courts
have likewise noted that “[t]here is nothing to suggest that the several subsections of section 523(a)
are mutually exclusive.” In re Campbell, 2021 WL 920060, at *4 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2021); see In re
Tallant, 218 B.R. 58, 64 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1998); In re Vitogiannis, 2009 WL 1372065, at *7 (Bankr. N.D.
Ill. 2009). Thus, the Court need not – and does not – decide whether Mr. Hussing’s conduct would also
satisfy section 523(a)(4), because section 523(a)(2)(A) independently excepts the debt from discharge.
Case 22-01383-SMG Doc 137 Filed 07/13/26 Page 12 of 14

13
Pampa for breach of fiduciary duty is excepted from discharge under 11 U.S.C.
§ 523(a)(2)(A).
VII. 	JUDGMENT WILL BE ENTERED AGAINST FENIX MARKETING AND
VOTNIK AS WELL.
The final issue to be determined on remand is whether Fenix Marketing and
Votnik are liable for aiding and abetting and conspiring to breach Mr. Hussing’s
fiduciary duty. This Court had earlier rejected these claims based on its conclusion
that Mr. Hussing did not have, and therefore did not breach, any fiduciary duty.
Because this Court has now found, consistent with the District Court’s mandate, that
Mr. Hussing did owe and did breach a fiduciary duty to Pampa, and because Fenix
Marketing 	and 	Votnik 	have 	defaulted 	and 	therefore 	have 	not 	contested 	the
substantive allegations against them – including that each received and held
kickback funds on Mr. Hussing’s behalf56 – the predicate for their liability that this
Court previously found lacking57 is no longer absent. Judgment will accordingly be
entered against Fenix Marketing and Votnik, jointly and severally with Mr. Hussing,
on Pampa’s aiding and abetting and conspiracy claims, in the same amount.
VIII. CONCLUSION.
Based on the District Court’s ruling that Phillips Chemical is binding Florida
law holding that an employee who receives a kickback per se breaches his fiduciary
duty to the employer, this Court must conclude that Mr. Hussing is liable to Pampa
for $1,762,045.83 for breaching his fiduciary duty, that this entire debt is excepted
56 Hussing, 659 B.R. at 615.
57 Id. at 624.
Case 22-01383-SMG Doc 137 Filed 07/13/26 Page 13 of 14

14
from Mr. Hussing’s chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge, and that Fenix Marketing and
Votnik are likewise jointly and severally liable with Mr. Hussing for aiding and
abetting, and conspiring to, breach his fiduciary duty. The Court will enter a separate
final judgment consistent with this opinion.
The basis for this Court’s subject matter jurisdiction over the Removed Action,
however, does not extend to post-judgment execution or discovery in aid of execution,
because those proceedings would not have any conceivable effect on the bankruptcy
estate or the administration of the case.58 Thus, upon entry of final judgment, this
Court will remand the Removed Action to the Circuit Court of the 11th Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b),59 for
all further proceedings, including execution, which may issue from that court in
accordance with Florida law.
# # #
Copies furnished to all counsel of record by CM/ECF.
58 See In re Jimenez, 627 B.R. 536, 545 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2021) (in a fully administered no-asset
individual chapter 7 case, the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over proceedings by
judgment creditors to enforce a non-dischargeable money judgment, even one entered by the
bankruptcy court itself).
59 28 U.S.C. § 1452(b) (“The court to which such claim or cause of action is removed may remand such
claim or cause of action on any equitable ground.”).
Case 22-01383-SMG Doc 137 Filed 07/13/26 Page 14 of 14