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.
Q: When is a retirement account not a retirement account?
A: When it's an inherited IRA and the owner is bankrupt.
In 2012, the Fifth Circuit ruled in In re Chilton that inherited IRAs constituted retirement funds within the “plain meaning” of §522 of the Bankruptcy Code and were thus exempt from the bankruptcy estate, under § 522(d)(12) (the federal exemptions). See our prior discussion of this case here.
After Chilton, many thought the issue was settled.
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”), requires trustees of multiemployer pension and benefit funds to collect contributions required to be made by contributing employers under their collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) with the labor union sponsoring the plans. This is not always an easy task—often, an employer is an incorporated entity with limited assets or financial resources to satisfy its contractual obligations.
Overnight Income Doesn't Float ERISA Plan's Boat.
In Durango-Georgia Paper Co. v. H. G. Estate, LLC, Case No. 11-15079 (decided January 7, 2014), the Eleventh Circuit addressed what it defined as a question of first impression: “whether under ERISA the trustee of a corporation that is a contributing sponsor and is in bankruptcy can maintain an action for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate and the estate’s unsecured creditors against the corporation’s former owner … for liabilities arising from the termination of a pension plan.” Opinion, p. 5. The Court held that the answer is “no.”
A group of retired employees filed a class-action law suit claiming loss of certain retirement benefits. The employees worked for SPX Corporation until 1996 when it was acquired by Dana Corporation. SPX sponsored a pension plan for these employees. In 2006, Dana filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and sold certain assets to Mahle gmbH. Under the asset purchase agreement, Mahle assumed certain benefit plans. The dispute arises over eligibility for supplemental retirement benefits under a plan Mahle assumed from Dana.
On Tuesday, December 2, 2013, Judge Steven Rhodes of the Eastern District of Michigan ruled that the City of Detroit, which filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court on July 18, 2013, met the specific legal criteria required to receive protection from its creditors and thus could formally enter bankruptcy. The district court further determined that the city’s obligation to pay pensions in full was not "untouchable" while working and negotiating with creditors in restructuring its debt.
On December 5, 2013, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Michigan released its 143 page decision upholding the City of Detroit’s eligibility to be a debtor under chapter 9 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. In re City of Detroit, Michigan, Case No. 13-53846 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. Dec.