In most financing transactions, particularly project finance transactions, lenders seek to obtain security over all of a borrower’s assets. One crucial asset that sometimes does not get sufficient attention is insurance proceeds. Lenders are accustomed to ensuring access to the borrower’s insurance coverage through “additional insured” or “loss payee” provisions.

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 135 S. Ct. 1932 (2015) Key Issue: Post-Stern v. Marshall, whether a Bankruptcy Court (as an Art. I court) has a proper delegation of authority from the District Court (as an Art. III court) to enter findings of fact and final orders on non-core issues upon the consent of the parties and, if so, whether consent must be express or may be implied? Holding: In a 5/1/3 opinion, relying heavily on Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n v. Schor, 478 U. S.

Imagine that you are an unsecured lender who has learned that a borrower has filed for bankruptcy and has little to no assets available to pay creditors. Is there any way to prevent your debt from being extinguished? This is a common question and often the answer unfortunately is no; however, if the debtor is an individual and the debt meets certain requirements established by the Bankruptcy Code, the court may declare the debt nondischargeable (in other words, the debt will remain with the debtor after the bankruptcy case is closed).

In a brief, 4-page decision released May 26, 2016, Judge Gross of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court granted a motion for summary judgment, barring state court litigation in California on the grounds of res judicata. Judge Gross’ opinion is available here (the “Opinion”).

One of the goals of the Bankruptcy Code is to provide a debtor with a fresh start. The discharge of prepetition debts at the conclusion of a bankruptcy case is one of the most important ways to attain this fresh start.  On May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court made it harder for debtors to obtain a fresh start by broadening an exception to discharge.

Perhaps Next Time the Debtor Will Speak Up a Little Sooner

On March 11, 2016, the Seventh Circuit ruled that a distressed company’s termination of a lease pursuant to an agreement with its landlord and the relinquishment of its leasehold interest to its landlord constituted “transfers” that may be avoidable as fraudulent transfers and preferences under the Bankruptcy Code.  The decision, Official Comm. Of Unsecured Creditors v. T.D. Invs. I, LLP (In re Great Lakes Quick Lube LP, 816 F.3d 482 (7th Cir. 2016)), serves as a cautionary tale for landlords dealing with distressed tenants.

Background

HIGHLIGHTS:

On Monday, May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Husky Int’l Elecs., Inc. v. Ritz, — S. Ct. —, 2016 WL 2842452 (2016) resolving a split between the Fifth and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeal regarding the scope of the “actual fraud” exception to an individual debtor’s bankruptcy discharge. In relevant part, Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits debtors from discharging “any debt . . . for money, property, [or] services . . . to the extent obtained, by . . .

An individual files a bankruptcy case to have his debts forgiven, or “discharged.” Where that individual is a principal shareholder or officer of a corporate borrower who has guaranteed payment of his company’s loans, those debts can be substantial. An individual guarantor in that dire situation may try to hide assets – his own or those of his company – and then file a bankruptcy case, in an effort to defeat a lender’s right to be repaid.