Steve McCroskey: Jacobs, I want to know absolutely everything that’s happened up ‘til now.

Jacobs: Well, let’s see. First the earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. . . .

-Airplane II: the Sequel

For a Throwback Thursday, we often go way back, to cases establishing first principles. This time, however, we travel not so far back, but still to a bygone era, the early 80’s. It was a time when the Bankruptcy Code was still new, and judges could interpret it without the weight of much practice and precedent. Often, these cases present the starting point for familiar interpretations that continued to develop in later years, but other times it’s surprising to see a new interpretive opening that, years later, is not thoroughly explored.

As we noted last month, the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, Case No. 12-1200, 573 U.S. ___ (2014), affirmed the constitutional authority of bankruptcy courts to issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to federal district courts in connection with “Stern claims”.

One topic we regularly write about on the Bankruptcy Blog is releases – especially third-party releases. In fact, as recently as Thursday, we wrote about third-party releases. The topic of third-party releases is often controversial, and circuits disagree about the extent to which they are permissible, if at all.

On July 15, 2014, the Wisconsin Supreme Court made it much more difficult, costly and cumbersome for a judgment creditor to obtain a priority lien against the personal property of a judgment debtor. Associated Bank, N.A., v. Jack W. Collier, 2014 WI 62. Two members of the court disagreed with the decision and argued that it has changed 150 years of Wisconsin law.

When a key customer files bankruptcy, one of the first questions you will face is whether to keep doing business or end the relationship. (Another key question is making sure your pre-bankruptcy claim gets on file or otherwise acknowledged.) Since companies in bankruptcy (called debtors or debtors in possession) usually cannot survive without trade support, they often reach out to suppliers to ask for trade terms, or at least a steady supply of goods, after a Chapter 11 reorganization bankruptcy is filed.

Mortgage litigators often face a variety of bankruptcy issues. There are three main chapters of bankruptcy that affect the average mortgage litigator: Chapter 7, Chapter 13 and Chapter 11. Upon the filing of Chapter 7, Chapter 13 and Chapter 11 by a borrower, the bankruptcy code provides for a bankruptcy automatic stay. The automatic stay provides that all judicial or administrative proceedings or actions against a borrower must immediately stop. This includes all foreclosure actions, eviction actions and general state court litigation against a borrower.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Clark v. Rameker has given individuals with IRAs a new reason to consider the use of trusts as their designated beneficiaries.  On June 12, 2014, the Court’s unanimous decision made clear that inherited IRAs do not receive bankruptcy protection under federal law.

FEDERAL EXEMPTION

On June 27, 2014, in National Heritage Foundation, Inc. v. Highbourne Foundation, 1 the United States  Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, agreeing with decisions by the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern  District of Virginia and the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, which were issued upon  remand from a prior appeal, held that the third-party non-debtor release provision in the chapter 11 plan  of reorganization of National Heritage Foundation, Inc.  was invalid.

When an oversecured creditor forecloses on a debtor’s property after the automatic stay has been lifted, does the Bankruptcy Code (as opposed to state law) govern recovery of attorney’s fees and other amounts from the sale proceeds? Does the bankruptcy court have jurisdiction over the distribution of such proceeds? In Goldsby v.