The perception that public employee pension obligations cannot be impaired in bankruptcy suffered a damaging blow several months ago in the City of Detroit bankruptcy case, and has now been fatally wounded by 

In the preparation of a comprehensive estate plan for a client, an attorney must consider the size of the estate, the manner in which assets are titled, transfer and income tax issues, and family dynamics.  In light of the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Clark v. Rameker[1], ("Clark") there is now one more area of concern.

Before Clark

On August 28, 2014, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit^[1] delivered a stern admonition about the risk of failing to appeal when it ruled that a union that had not filed a notice of appeal could not benefit from a successful appeal by another union in the same matter.

As this Blog has discussed in a number of recent posts, free and clear sales under section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code often lead to disputes over whether section 363(f) can strip assets of particular types of claims and interests. Although section 363(f) plays an important role in maximizing the value of a debtor’s assets in a section 363 sale, adversely affected parties may object to those assets being sold free and clear of their claims.

Ormet, a Delaware corporation, recently went bankrupt and shuttered its facilities in Ohio and Louisiana. As part of the bankruptcy proceedings, Ormet agreed to sell its Ohio plant for $25 million. The Steelworkers Pension Trust, the union representing Ormet’s employees, tried to delay the closing on the theory that the deal approved by the judge improperly extinguished the Trust’s $5.5 million pension claim and that the Section 363 sale violated the Employee Retirement Income Security Act or the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act. The Trust lost.

Last Friday, the Sixth Circuit postponed oral argument in some of the pending cases in the appeal from the bankruptcy judge’s decision that Detroit was entitled to creditor protection under Chapter 9 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and could try to alter the terms of workers’ pensions. The postponement was apparently granted to allow various pension groups to settle with the city.

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

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

An inherited individual retirement account (IRA) is one set up and funded by the owner, who has died and named someone as the beneficiary of the IRA. As the owner of an inherited IRA, the beneficiary may withdraw the IRA funds at will, and must start withdrawing the funds at some point, depending on who the beneficiary is and whether the owner died before or after age 70 1/2.

On June 12, the United States Supreme Court in Clark v Rameker resolved the question that has recently split the 5th and 7th Circuits– Are inherited IRAs protected from the beneficiary’s creditors in a bankruptcy proceeding? The Court unanimously held that they are not.