Creditors in bankruptcy cases may be interested in the July 10, 2014 Opinion issued by the Eleventh Circuit in Crawford v. LVNV Funding, LLC. 

There is nothing more frustrating to a creditor than finally getting paid for goods or services, only to have a customer file for bankruptcy protection and, as a result, ending up on the receiving end of a bankruptcy preference action.

The recent unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court (the “Court”) in Clark v. Rameker, 573 U.S. _____ (2014) held that inherited IRAs do not constitute “retirement funds” within the meaning of section 522(b)(3)(C) of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Consequently, inherited IRAs are not exempt from creditor claims in bankruptcy proceedings. The Court’s holding highlights the importance of sound financial and estate planning to protect inherited retirement plan assets from claims of a beneficiary’s creditors.

Background

One of the most dramatic tools a lender can use in the collection of a loan is the involuntary bankruptcy case.  It is dramatic because of the implications for both the debtor and the lender who files the case.

As most astute manufacturers know, there is a statutory right under Bankruptcy Code section 503(b)(9) to assert an administrative priority claim (one with the highest priority in payment after secured creditors) for goods delivered to a debtor within 20 days before the debtor commences a bankruptcy case. There are, however, other laws that should be considered when dealing with foreign commercial transactions as illustrated in a recent decision by the Bankruptcy Court in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in the case of In re World Imports, Ltd. (No. 13-15929 SR).

The United States Supreme Court, on July 1, 2014, granted a petition for certiorari in an important Seventh Circuit case limiting the power of bankruptcy courts to decide property disputes. Wellness International Network, Ltd. et al. v. Sharif, 727 F.3d 751 (7th Cir. 2013). The Seventh Circuit had held last year that the bankruptcy court lacked the constitutional authority to determine whether purported trust assets were property of the debtor’s estate.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held on June 23, 2014 that an oversecured lender’s legal fees were subject to the bankruptcy court’s review for reasonableness despite a court-ordered non-judicial foreclosure sale of the lender’s collateral. In re 804 Congress, LLC, ­­__ F.3d ­­__, 2014 WL 2816521 (5th Cir. June 23, 2014). Affirming the bankruptcy court’s power and reversing the district court, the Fifth Circuit found the lender’s utter failure to detail its legal fees with any documentary support to be fatal.

Facts

Bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction over "core" and "non-core" proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 157. In "core" proceedings, bankruptcy courts can enter final judgments. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). In "non-core" proceedings, however, bankruptcy courts must make findings of fact and conclusions of law and send their rulings to the district court for de novo review. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(c). 

The Supreme Court has issued two opinions on the subject of bankruptcy court authority and jurisdiction in recent years. The first opinion, Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. _, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011) was a 5-4 split from 2011 that roiled the bankruptcy waters by raising many questions about the constitutionality of the jurisdiction and authority Congress has provided to bankruptcy courts. The more recent opinion— Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Bellingham, Chapter 7 Trustee of Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.,___ U.S. _, No.

In recent installments of the Manufacturer’s Corner, we have discussed how to protect yourself from insolvent customers and how your shipping terms can expose you to unexpected risk.