Two years ago in Stern v Marshall, the Supreme Court surprised many observers by placing constitutional limits on the jurisdiction of the United States Bankruptcy Courts. The Court, in limiting the ability of a bankruptcy court judge to render a final judgment on a counterclaim against a party who had filed a claim against a debtor’s bankruptcy estate, re-opened separation of powers issues that most bankruptcy practitioners had thought settled since the mid-1980s. While the

The Ninth Circuit in In re Fitness Holdings Int’l, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 8729 (9th Cir. April 30, 2013) recently reversed precedent and established that bankruptcy courts in the Ninth Circuit have the power to determine whether a transaction creates a debt or equity interest for purposes of § 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. In doing so, the Ninth Circuit joins the Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Tenth Circuits in expressly recognizing bankruptcy courts’ ability to recharacterize claims in bankruptcy proceedings.

The ability of a bankruptcy court to reorder the priority of claims or interests by means of equitable subordination or recharacterization of debt as equity is generally recognized. Even so, the Bankruptcy Code itself expressly authorizes only the former of these two remedies. Although common law uniformly acknowledges the power of a court to recast a claim asserted by a creditor as an equity interest in an appropriate case, the Bankruptcy Code is silent upon the availability of the remedy in a bankruptcy case.

Thanks to Anna Nicole Smith and the June 2011 landmark Supreme Court decision in Stern v. Marshall, there are seemingly more questions regarding a bankruptcy judge’s authority to enter final orders (or even proposed orders) than ever before. Those unanswered questions have created considerable uncertainty and, not surprisingly, lengthier and costlier litigation in bankruptcy. Thankfully, the Supremes decided on June 24, 2013 that they will address two of the many questions left unanswered by Stern.

In re Georges Marciano, No. 11-60070 (9th Cir., Feb. 27, 2013)

CASE SNAPSHOT

Judgment creditors of Georges Marciano filed an involuntary chapter 11 petition against Marciano, who appealed the state judgments before the petition was filed. The Ninth Circuit ruled, in a case of first impression, that unstayed state court judgments on appeal were not "the subject of a bona fide dispute," and thus the Bankruptcy Court did not err when it entered an order for relief under chapter 11 against Marciano, notwithstanding the pending appeals.

In In re Village at Lakeridge, LLC, BAP Nos. 12-1456, 12-1474 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2013), the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit clarified that, in order to apply the common interest doctrine, a trial court must make a finding that the parties expressly or implicitly agreed to participate in a joint legal strategy. In this case, secured creditor, US Bank, deposed the sole unsecured creditor, Rabkin.

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently resolved a split within the circuit when it held that a bankruptcy court has the power to recharacterize debt as equity.

One of the prerequisites to confirmation of a cramdown (nonconsensual) chapter 11 plan is that at least one “impaired” class of creditors must vote in favor of the plan. This requirement reflects the basic principle that a plan may not be imposed on a dissident body of stakeholders of which no class has given approval. However, it is sometimes an invitation to creative machinations designed to muster the requisite votes for confirmation of the plan.

On April 30, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the bankruptcy court has authority to recharacterize as equity, rather than debt, advances of funds made purportedly as a loan to the recipient prior to its bankruptcy. In re Fitness Holdings International, Inc., --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 1800000 (9th Cir. 2013).

For the last 27 years, bankruptcy courts in the Ninth Circuit consistently held that debt could not be recharacterized as equity unless the movant proved inequitable conduct by the debt holder. On April 30, 2013, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected that precedent and joined other circuit courts in holding that bankruptcy courts do have the authority to recharacterize a loan as an equity investment to the extent allowed under state law even without inequitable conduct.