In its recent decision in Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., No. 18–1269 (Sup. Ct. Feb. 25, 2020), the Supreme Court held that federal courts may not apply the federal common law “Bob Richards Rule” to determine who owns a tax refund when a parent holding company files a tax return but a subsidiary generated the losses giving rise to the refund. Instead, the court should look to applicable state law.

General Legal Background

Bankruptcy Rule 8002 and Federal Rule 58 can sometimes look like this. Carolina and Khaled have a much simpler solution.

When can a Federal Court employ a federal common law rule to make its decision in the case? Justice Gorsuch answer this in Rodriguez v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp., U.S., No. 18-1269, 2/25/20.[1] The answer . . . less often than you might think.

The Bottom Line

In Whirlpool Corp. v. Wells Fargo Bank (In re hhgregg Inc.), Case No. 18-3363 (7th Cir. Feb. 11, 2020), the Seventh Circuit held that a trade creditor’s later-in-time reclamation claim was subordinate to lenders’ pre-petition and debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) financing liens. The Seventh Circuit found that Sction 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code creates a “federal priority rule,” making clear that a reclamation claim is subordinate to prior rights of a secured creditor.

What Happened?

The Bottom Line

In an opinion dated Jan. 10, 2020, Bankruptcy Judge Craig A. Gargotta of the Western District of Texas (San Antonio Division) held that a creditor who submits a proof of claim in bankruptcy waives its right to a jury trial, regardless of whether the creditor has couched its claim in protective language purporting to reserve its right to a jury trial. See Schmidt v. AAF Players LLC (In re Legendary Field Exhibitions LLC), 19-05053 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Jan. 10, 2020).

What Happened?

Background

The Bottom Line

The Bottom Line

The United States Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous decision in Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, No. 19-938 589 U.S. __ (2020), which held that a bankruptcy court’s unreserved denial of a motion for relief from the automatic stay is a final, immediately appealable order within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 158.

What Happened

So you (allegedly) violated a bankruptcy court order. Whether the debtor alleges you violated the terms of a confirmed plan, failed to provide certain notices required by the bankruptcy rules, violated the discharge injunction, or any other court order, you may be wondering what potential redress the debtor may seek. Although many violations of bankruptcy court orders and rules do not provide for a private right of action, many debtors seek to have their rights vindicated (in the form of the greatest vindicator, cash) through an action for contempt.

Introduction

In February 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an opinion that, at first blush, appeared to severely curtail the scope of the transferee protections provided by Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code, the “safe harbor” provision that shields specified types of payments from a bankruptcy trustee’s avoidance powers, including transfers “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” a “financial institution” in connection with a “securities contract.” A recent decision from the Second Circuit breathes fresh life into the defense.