The Supreme Court of the United States announced decisions in three cases today:

On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Exec. Benefits Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc.), 573 U.S. ___ (2014), affirming the Ninth Circuit and holding that, while the Constitution does not permit a bankruptcy court to issue a final ruling in certain circumstances, it is permitted to issue proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to be reviewed de novo by the district court.

In 2011, the US Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Stern v. Marshall. Turning decades of bankruptcy practice on its head, the Supreme Court held that, even though bankruptcy courts are statutorily authorized to enter final judgments in “core” matters, Article III of the Constitution prohibits them from finally adjudicating certain core matters, such as a debtor’s state law counterclaim against a creditor (so-called “Stern claims”).

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkinson, limited somewhat the ramifications of its landmark opinion two years ago in Stern v.

On June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, a case that tested the extent of the jurisdiction of bankruptcy court judges to decide fraudulent transfer and certain other claims against non-debtors. Ropes & Gray LLP represented the petitioner in obtaining certiorari and in the Supreme Court proceedings.

On June 9, 2014, the US Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (“Executive Benefits”)¹ that resolved a fundamental bankruptcy procedural issue that had arisen in the wake of Stern v.

Where a document filed under seal in a bankruptcy case has nothing to do with the bankruptcy itself, is the public entitled to access the document?  The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia considered this unique question in Robbins v.

Within one day of each other, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (“District Court”) in Perkins v. Massachusetts Department of Revenue, 507 B.R. 45 (Mar. 7 2014), and the Bankruptcy Appellate Court for the First Circuit (“BAC”) in Gonzalez v. Massachusetts Department of Revenue, 506 B.R. 317 (Mar. 6, 2014), issued contrary appellate rulings as to whether tax liabilities in late-filed state tax returns are dis-chargeable under Chapter 7.

Secured creditors naturally want to be repaid. Sometimes secured creditors go as far as asking a debtor to waive its right to seek bankruptcy protection. Although such clauses are frequently held to be unenforceable, we previously have discussed exceptions for LLCs.

In In re Residential Capital, LLC, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently granted an oversecured creditor's request for postpetition interest at the contractual default rate, even though the debtor was insolvent. In doing so, the Bankruptcy Court rejected an argument that awarding postpetition interest at the default rate (which was 4% higher than the non-default rate) would provide an undue windfall to the oversecured creditor and harm unsecured creditors.

Why This Decision Is Important