One of the primary reasons that most debtors seek bankruptcy relief is the automatic stay, which prevents creditors from pursuing collection efforts outside of the bankruptcy proceedings. Creditors can, however, seek relief from the automatic stay from the bankruptcy court under certain circumstances.

In a May 16, 2017 ruling, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware affirmed the order of the bankruptcy court denying a party’s motion to compel arbitration. In doing so, the District Court adhered to traditional rules of contract interpretation in holding that the relevant arbitration provision was not written broadly enough to include the type of dispute pending before the bankruptcy court, and thus, the bankruptcy court retained jurisdiction.

The Bottom Line

The Delaware District Court affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision that the combination of a narrow arbitration provision and the bankruptcy court’s reservation of jurisdiction warranted denial of a motion to compel arbitration. The specific language of the arbitration provision, combined with the use of an accounting term of art, narrowed the scope of the arbitration provision sufficiently to rebut the presumption of arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act.

What Happened?

MICHIGAN

milawyersweekly.com

Vol. 31, No. 26 May 1, 2017

$8.50 per copy

From a doodle to the Grand Bargain

How the bankruptcy in Detroit was resolved through mediation

By Hon. Steven W. Rhodes, Retired Chief Judge, U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan and Hon. Gerald E. Rosen, Retired Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan

Miller Act, you’re not in Kansas anymore. In a recent bankruptcy case, the court in Kansas addressed issues of jurisdiction and venue raised by claims asserted by the debtor, an electrical contractor on a federal government project.

On January 31, 2017, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals authorized a court-appointed Receiver to avoid arbitration clauses contained in employment and employment-related agreements.[1] While, at first glance, the Court’s decision not to compel a non-signatory to arbitration appears unremarkable, in fact the decision reflects how far the Court was willing to go in order to protect a Receiver’s choice of a judicial forum.

In this installment of “To Cap or Not to Cap,” which was previously featured on Weil’s Bankruptcy Blog in May of 2015 (see here), we reviewed a recent decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In Kupfer v.

“[T]he bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in denying [the debtor’s former employees’] motion to compel arbitration” when the dispute turned on the relative priority of their claims, held the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Oct. 6, 2016. In re Lehman Bros. Holdings Inc., 2016 WL 5853265, *2 (2d Cir. Oct. 6, 2016). The Securities Investor Protection Act (“SIPA”) trustee in the liquidation of Lehman Brothers Inc.

Summary

An Eleventh Circuit panel recently vacated two district court orders after sending the parties to mediation, and after the parties’ conditioned settlement on vacatur of the orders. In Hartford Casualty Insurance Company v. Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company, after being ordered to mediation a second time by the appellate panel, the parties reached a settlement contingent on the district court’s vacating its orders on summary judgment and attorney’s fees.