Overturning prior pro-debtor precedent, a federal appeals court recently emphasized that secured lenders are entitled to the benefit of their bargains with defaulting borrowers, by making it easier for lenders to collect default-rate interest from a Chapter 11 debtor under a plan of reorganization. Bankruptcy law has long allowed debtors to pay arrearages under a Chapter 11 plan and thereby reinstate the pre-default terms of their loans.

Federal bankruptcy law confers on trustees the power, in some circumstances, to “avoid”––that is, claw back––from creditors money transferred to those creditors pre-bankruptcy to pay the debtor’s obligations. However, if such a transfer was “made by or to (or for the benefit of)” a financial institution, it may be protected from avoidance under Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e). The transfers at issue here are not ordinary loan payments to lenders by debtors, but, rather, transfers between third parties that make use of banks or other financial institutions.

An individual files a bankruptcy case to have his debts forgiven, or “discharged.” Where that individual is a principal shareholder or officer of a corporate borrower who has guaranteed payment of his company’s loans, those debts can be substantial. An individual guarantor in that dire situation may try to hide assets – his own or those of his company – and then file a bankruptcy case, in an effort to defeat a lender’s right to be repaid.

It is no surprise that there are risks inherent in doing business with a debtor in bankruptcy, including, of course, the risk that the debtor may not have the money to pay for goods sold to it on credit. Businesses can manage those risks by, for example, shortening trade credit terms, obtaining the debtor’s agreement to pay on delivery or in advance for product, or obtaining a deposit or letter of credit as security. But, once a debtor has paid for goods or services it actually received, most vendors would probably assume that the transaction cannot be challenged.

At a time when billions of dollars of assets are under the supervision of federal receivers and bankruptcy trustees, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently ruled in favor of an equity receiver and held that in proposing her plan of distribution to investors, she was not bound by the requirements of state law when establishing priorities for and making distributions to investors.

Below is an excerpt:

Long-term care providers may have a new avenue to stave off financial collapse when faced with a proposed termination by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) — protection and reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

That strategy will likely prove to be a tough row to hoe if pursued in federal court here, though.

A prominent New York bankruptcy court is the latest in a series of courts to deny lenders the full benefit of their bargains when borrowers attempt to restructure debt through a chapter 11 reorganization. Continuing a trend that includes a 2013 decision from the Second Circuit in the American Airlines bankruptcy, the Fifth Circuit's 2014 decision in the case of Denver Merchandise Mart, and the New York federal district court's 2010 affirmance in the Calpine bankruptcy case, the bankruptcy court for the Southern District of New York has ruled, in In re MPM Silicones, LLC (Momen

Before Ruth Heffron passed away in 2001, she named her daughter, Heidi Heffron-Clark, as the beneficiary of her individual retirement account (“IRA”). What seemed like a simple part of Ruth’s estate planning resulted in a U.S. Supreme Court decision that would cause many to reconsider how to address IRA beneficiary designations for creditor protection purposes.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a pair of decisions in July of 2014 that will make life for judgment creditors much more complicated. On July 15, 2014, the court issued Attorney’s Title Guaranty Fund, Inc. v. Town Bank, 2014 WI 63, ¶ 25, ___ Wis. 2d _____ and Associated Bank N.A. v. Collier, 2014 WI 62, ¶ 23-25, 38, ____Wis. 2d ______. These cases change the way judgment creditors must act to obtain a priority interest in the personal property of a debtor.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A., has arguably made it harder for damaged beneficiaries to prevent a negligent or self-interested trustee from filing a bankruptcy case and escaping debts owed to the trust’s beneficiaries. Individual debtors file bankruptcy cases to obtain a discharge of their debts.