In re Mississippi Valley Livestock, Inc., 745 F.3d 299 (7th Cir. 2014) –
A debtor sold cattle for the account of a cattle producer and then remitted the proceeds to the producer. A chapter 7 trustee sought to recover the payments as preferential transfers. The trustee lost in both the bankruptcy and district courts, and then appealed to the 7th Circuit.
Order Denying confirmation of chapter 13 plan not final order for purposes of appeal.
On May 6, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit considered whether so-called“Deprizio waivers,”1 where an insider guarantor waives indemnification rights against a debtor, can insulate the guarantor from preference liability arising from payments made by the obligor to the lender. The Ninth Circuit held that if such a waiver is made legitimately—not merely to avoid preference liability—then the guarantor is not a “creditor” and cannot be subject to preference liability.
On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Wellness International Network, Ltd., et al. v. Sharif.1 The Wellness decision clarifies one of the most significant open issues created four years ago by the Court’s highly controversial decision in Stern v.
Currently before the Supreme Court is Baker Botts, L.L.P. v. ASARCO, L.L.C.,2 in which the Court will determine whether bankruptcy judges have discretion to award compensation for the defense of a fee application under 11 U.S.C. § 330(a). The decision in Baker Botts will likely resolve a circuit split and make clear whether a defense of a fee application is necessary to the administration of the case and, therefore, compensable.
Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 13-935 (previously described in the July 1, 2014, Docket Report)
On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the firm’s client Wellness International Network, reversing a Seventh Circuit decision that held that Article III of the Constitution was violated when litigants consented to the entry of judgments by bankruptcy courts on what have come to be known as “Stern” claims. In siding with arguments made by Partner Catherine L.
On May 26, 2015, continuing a springtime ritual for bankruptcy lawyers, the Supreme Court issued its latest “progeny of Stern” ruling on the adjudicative authority of the bankruptcy courts. In a 6-3 decision the Court held that “Our precedents make clear that litigants may validly consent to adjudication by the bankruptcy courts.” Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif __ U.S. __ (May 26, 2015).
The senior secured note holders recently lost their appeal of the bankruptcy court's decision confirming Momentive's chapter 11 plan.1
Extending credit to a financially shaky customer is risky. When the customer files a chapter 11 bankruptcy case and continues to operate, the risks multiply. Properly understood, some of the inherent risks can be reduced.