The summary judgement based on failure to appear is not a binding judgement, according to my reading. It would seem that the claim is valid and enforceable in the BK based solely on its merit. It is possible that the trustee was not interested in defending the case, knowing that is was a valid claim, and that any funds or portion thereof would need to be issued through the BK.
I have not checked PACER for status of outstanding cases. The Patriot Risk case is clearly the most singificant, as their SEC filing indicated that they were a debtor. If they win, it would significantly reduce any payouts to all claimants in the BK. If they lose, their debt would be collectible. If the fraud claim is defaulted due to failure to appear, the argument would likely proceed to the BK court, to further validate any claims which Patriot might have. Again, it appears that a summary judgement based on failure to appear is not strictly enforceable. The SEC S-1 filing of Patriot could be considered evidence against them, but if nobody appears in the other court to argue it, it will probably be decided by the BK judge.
All IMHO
It won't be over until it is over.
