A unanimous Supreme Court, in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Arkinson (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc.), 573 U.S. ___ (2014), confirmed a bankruptcy court’s power to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for the district court’s de novo review, even though such court is constitutionally barred from entering a final judgment on a bankruptcy-related claim under Stern v. Marshall.

The Order Re Summary Judgment issued on June 11, 2014 by Judge Charles R. Breyer of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in the Heller Ehrman LLP bankruptcy case may prove to be a knock-out punch against “unfinished business” claims by insolvent or bankrupt law firms and their trustees.

The United State Supreme Court issued an opinion on June 12, 2014 in Clark v.

In Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, Chapter 7 Trustee of Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc., — U.S. — (June 9, 2014) (Bellingham), the Supreme Court shed light on how bankruptcy judges must proceed when confronted with claims that they cannot finally adjudicate as non-Article III judges.  

The health of the healthcare industry can be summarized as follows: as go federal reimbursement rates, so goes the financial viability of healthcare providers, whether hospitals, nursing homes or medical practices.

The First Circuit held in a recent decision that bankruptcy courts have wide discretion to apply a flexible approach when valuing (and potentially re-valuing) collateral for purposes of determining whether a secured creditor is oversecured and therefore entitled to receive postpetition interest pursuant to section 506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.   

Readers may recall that, according to at least one bankruptcy court, chapter 9 debtors are not required to obtain bankruptcy court approval of compromises and settlements.

On June 12, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Clark v. Rameker, 537 U.S. __ (2014), resolving a difference between federal circuit courts on the issue of whether an inherited IRA is excluded from the bankruptcy estate under section 522(b)(3)(C) of the federal Bankruptcy Code, which exempts retirement funds from the bankruptcy estate. Recall that an inherited IRA is one that has come to a beneficiary by reason of surviving the participant whose retirement funds had been amassed during their lifetime for their own retirement.

On June 12, 2014, the Supreme Court held that assets of an “inherited IRA” are not exempt from the IRA holder’s bankruptcy estate and are subject to the claims of creditors in bankruptcy. (Clark v. Rameker, Sup. Ct. Slip Op. No. 13-299, affirming In re Clark, 714 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 2013). In Clark, the petitioner, Heidi Heffron-Clark, inherited an IRA worth approximately $450,000. The IRA was originally established by the petitioner’s mother as a traditional IRA and became an inherited IRA upon her death in 2001.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals in In re SW Boston Hotel Venture, LLC, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6768 (1st Cir. Apr. 11, 2014) recently ruled on a number of issues critical to valuing a secured claim in bankruptcy. Specifically, the court 1) endorsed the use of a “flexible approach” to value collateral under the circumstances of this case, 2) recognized that the date collateral should be valued is the lender’s burden to prove, and 3) confirmed that the pre-petition agreement’s default interest rate should generally be used to determine the post-petition interest rate.