Renovo Home Partners Lawsuit: Chapter 7, WARN Act, and AG Cases

The Renovo Home Partners lawsuit landscape centers on a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filed on November 3, 2025, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, along with two federal WARN Act class actions brought by former employees and consumer protection actions opened by state attorneys general in Minnesota and Connecticut.¹²³ For homeowners with unfinished projects and workers laid off without notice, that combination shapes what recovery is actually possible.

The Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Case

Renovo Home Partners, LLC filed for Chapter 7 liquidation on November 3, 2025, as Case No. 1:25-bk-11937 in the District of Delaware. The filing was jointly administered with 18 affiliate entities, sweeping in the parent HomeRenew Buyer, Inc. along with every operating brand: Dreamstyle Remodeling (and its California, Idaho, and Colorado entities), Alure Home Improvements, Alure Designs, NEWPRO Operating, NEWPRO Plumbing, Reborn Cabinets, Reborn Manufacturing, Remodel USA, Minnesota Rusco, Woodbridge Home Solutions, Woodbridge Home Solutions of Kansas, Woodbridge Shower and Bath, and Legacy Custom Building and Remodeling.⁴

Judge Thomas M. Horan is overseeing the case, and Ricardo Palacio was appointed Chapter 7 trustee.³ As of June 2026, the docket remained a no-asset case. Homeowners who paid deposits for work that was never completed and consumers holding warranties from any of the Renovo brands are classified as unsecured creditors, a category that typically recovers little or nothing in a Chapter 7 liquidation.²

WARN Act Class Actions by Former Employees

Two adversary proceedings were filed against Renovo on November 5, 2025, both alleging violations of the federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act. The WARN Act generally requires employers with 100 or more workers to give 60 days’ written notice before a mass layoff or plant closing. Renovo shut its doors in late October 2025 with employees terminated on no advance notice.²

In Harris v. Renovo Home Partners, LLC et al. (1:25-ap-52406), plaintiff Sophia Harris filed a class action on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees against all 19 debtor entities. The response deadline was extended by court order in December 2025, and the case remains active.⁵

In Anderson v. Renovo Home Partners, LLC (1:25-ap-52407), lead plaintiff Kreshawna Anderson brought a parallel WARN Act class action. An amended complaint adding plaintiffs Melody Pinchney and Denice Feltner was filed on May 26, 2026, with a response deadline of August 24, 2026.⁶ If the plaintiffs in either action prevail, affected employees could be entitled to up to 60 days of back pay and benefits.

The Cogliani Adversary Proceeding

In February 2026, Anthony Cogliani filed an adversary proceeding against HomeRenew Buyer, Inc., NEWPRO Operating, LLC, and the Chapter 7 trustee (1:26-ap-50035), seeking recovery of money or property and a declaratory judgment. Cogliani sought a preliminary injunction, and the court entered an agreed order regarding insurance proceeds on February 20, 2026. The parties settled under Bankruptcy Rule 9019, the court approved the settlement on April 24, 2026, and the case was dismissed by stipulation on April 30, 2026.⁷

State Attorney General and Consumer Protection Actions

Minnesota

Minnesota Rusco shut its doors on October 29, 2025, and Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office opened an investigation and began monitoring the bankruptcy.⁸⁹ On May 22, 2026, the bankruptcy court approved a simplified procedure — developed by the AG’s office, the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, and the trustee — that lets Minnesota Rusco customers lift the automatic bankruptcy stay without hiring an attorney. A customer submits a declaration form to the trustee’s counsel, and if no objection is raised within ten days, the stay lifts and the customer can pursue a judgment in state court.

That state-court judgment is a prerequisite for applying to the Minnesota Contractor Recovery Fund. The fund is capped at $550,000 total for all claims against a single contractor, and because claims against Minnesota Rusco are expected to exceed that cap, eligible homeowners may receive only prorated amounts. The AG’s office urged consumers to apply before July 1, 2026.⁸ The bankruptcy court also authorized the trustee to implement similar stay-relief procedures for consumer protection funds in other states.⁴

Connecticut

Following the Chapter 7 filing of NEWPRO Operating LLC, the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection issued a consumer alert directing homeowners to file a Proof of Claim in the federal bankruptcy court by the bar date, or within 70 days of the filing if no bar date was specified, and to file a complaint with the DCP. Once the bankruptcy proceedings are finalized, consumers listed as creditors may be eligible for relief through Connecticut’s Home Improvement Guaranty Fund.¹⁰

What Homeowners Can Do

Because the bankruptcy is a no-asset case, homeowners waiting on refunds or completion of work will need to look outside the estate for meaningful recovery. State agencies and legal experts have recommended the following steps.

Preserve everything. Keep contracts, invoices, proof of payment, all written communications, and photographs of unfinished work.
File a Proof of Claim in the Delaware bankruptcy case. Monitor the docket for bar dates and file through PACER.
Dispute credit card charges. Customers who paid by credit card should contact their issuer to chargeback amounts for services that were never delivered.
Use the FTC’s Holder Rule if you financed the project. That rule allows a consumer to assert claims against the lender when the contractor fails to perform, and can be the basis to stop payments and seek refunds.⁹
Apply to your state’s recovery or guaranty fund. Minnesota and Connecticut both have funds that may provide limited reimbursement. In Minnesota, that requires a state-court judgment first, and payouts may be prorated because of the $550,000 per-contractor cap.
File a complaint with your state attorney general. Several offices are actively collecting consumer complaints to support ongoing investigations.¹¹

What Laid-Off Employees Can Do

Former employees who were terminated without notice should track the Anderson and Harris adversary proceedings in the Delaware bankruptcy court. Those class actions, if successful, could produce back pay and benefits for workers who did not receive the 60-day advance notice the WARN Act requires.⁶ Separately, employees may qualify for priority treatment in the bankruptcy for unpaid wages up to statutory limits, a category that ranks ahead of general unsecured claims.²

1
PACER Monitor. Renovo Home Partners, LLC
2
Qualified Remodeler. Renovo Home Services Reportedly Shutters Operations
3
INFOruptcy. Bankruptcy Case Renovo Home Partners LLC
4
Minnesota Attorney General. Order Approving Stay Relief Procedures
5
PACER Monitor. Harris v. Renovo Home Partners, LLC et al
6
PACER Monitor. Anderson v. Renovo Home Partners, LLC
7
PACER Monitor. Cogliani v. HomeRenew Buyer, Inc. et al
8
Minnesota Attorney General. Customers Shortchanged by Minnesota Rusco Closure
9
KSTP. AG Customers Shortchanged by Minnesota Ruscos Sudden Closure Might Not See Money Again
10
Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection. Home Improvement Company NewPro Files Bankruptcy Leaves Unfinished Projects in Connecticut
11
KARE 11. Minnesota Rusco Files for Bankruptcy