Following the lead of the Illinois Supreme Court in In re Pension Reform Litigation, 2015 IL 118585 [see Illinois and New Jersey Pension Decisions: Implications for Bondholders], Judge Rita Novak of the Circuit Court of Cook County has ruled that an Illinois law modifying provisions of Chicago’s pension statute violated the Illinois Constitution.

Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi recently ruled in the Energy Future Holdings case¹ that the debtor will not be required to pay the $431 million “make whole” demanded by bondholders upon the debtor’s early payment of the bonds.²

Two important and very different decisions regarding public pensions were recently issued by the Supreme Court of Illinois and the Supreme Court of New Jersey. These decisions are significant not only for the workers and taxpayers in these States, but also for the owners and insurers of municipal bonds issued in these States.

ILLINOIS

The Supreme Court of the United States unanimously held in Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, Case No. 14-115, that a bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of a debtor’s proposed plan is not a “final” order that can be immediately appealed. The Supreme Court’s decision implicates practical considerations within the bankruptcy process and the appropriate balance between the bargaining power of debtors and creditors.

Case Summary

On May 4, 2015, the United States Supreme Court unanimously held in Bullard v. Blue Hills Bank, Case No. 14-115, that a bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of a debtor’s proposed plan is not a “final” order that can be immediately appealed. The Supreme Court’s decision implicates practical considerations within the bankruptcy process and the appropriate balance between the bargaining power of debtors and creditors

Case Summary

What’s the News?

A US Bankruptcy Judge recently approved the sale of a package of RadioShack’s intellectual property assets—including consumer data obtained from RadioShack customers—to General Wireless Inc., the hedge fund affiliate that acquired over 1,700 RadioShack stores in February. The sale was not without controversy.

In what may become viewed as the de facto standard for selling customer information in bankruptcies, a Delaware bankruptcy court approved, on May 20, 2015, a multi-party agreement that would substantially limit RadioShack’s ability to sell 117 million customer records.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif confirms the long-held and common sense belief that “knowing and voluntary consent” is the key to the exercise of judicial authority by a bankruptcy court judge.1 In short, the Supreme Court held that a litigant in a bankruptcy court can consent—expressly or impliedly through waiver—to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of claims that the bankruptcy court otherwise lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.

Much has been written in the past several years regarding the scope of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. ___ (2011) and Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, 573 U.S. ___ (2014). Now, the Supreme Court has weighed in again in the case of Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd., et al v. Sharif, 575 U.S. ___ (2015) in an attempt to clarify the confusion created by Stern.

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.