Every secured lender hates to hear it: Yet another statutory scheme could potentially cause the lender to lose its first priority security interest in certain collateral. While the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) has been around since 1930, it is often forgotten or overlooked by many lenders. However, to the extent that a lender's collateral includes perishable agricultural commodities, such as when the borrower is a restaurant or grocery store, PACA can present significant risks for a lender.

PACA Basics

On June 14, 2011, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) published its final rule on the termination of an underfunded pension plan when the sponsor is in bankruptcy. The final rule is substantially the same as the proposed rule published in 2008. The Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA) amended the rules for a single-employer pension plan termination when the contributing sponsor is in bankruptcy.

A district court rejected the prudent investor rate theory and applied the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) discount rate to determine the amount of a PBGC termination liability claim. Wolverine, Procter & Schwartz, LLC v. Lynn F. Riley, 2010 WL 1236298 (D. Mass. 2010). This case demonstrates a recent trend among courts. In the 1990s and 2000s, several courts found that an unfunded benefit liability claim may be recalculated in bankruptcy using a "prudent investor rate" to determine the present value of plan liabilities.

Section 524 of the United States Bankruptcy Code (the Code) describes the effect of a discharge of a debtor, and in section 524(e), provides that a discharge of a debtor does not affect the liability of any other entity for the debtor's obligations.  Today, virtually every plan of reorganization or liquidation includes releases for officers, directors and employees of the debtor, affiliates of the debtor, debtor and committee counsel involved in the case, the members of the creditors committee and plan sponsors, among others.

In 1999, the Wisconsin Supreme Court decided Mann v. Badger Lines, Inc. (In re Badger Lines, Inc.), 224 Wis. 2d 646, 590 N.W. 2d 270 (1999), in which it addressed a question certified to it by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals: Does Wisconsin law require that a lien obtained by a judgment creditor who institutes supplementary proceedings under Wisconsin Statutes section 816.04 be perfected, and if so, how is the lien to be perfected?

On June 12, 2014, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled that Inherited IRAs are not exempt in bankruptcy.

The United States Supreme Court, in the case of Clark v. Rameker, ruled that Inherited IRAs enjoy no special protection in bankruptcy, unlike IRAs created and funded by the debtor. Even though the Bankruptcy Code exempts qualified retirement plans, IRAs and similar "retirement funds," the Court decided that this bankruptcy exemption for retirement funds does not extend to an Inherited IRA.

Under section 502(b)(6) of the United States Bankruptcy Code, a landlord's claim for damages under a lease rejected during the bankruptcy proceeding is capped at the greater of rent reserved under the lease for (a) one year; or (b) 15% or the remaining lease term, not to exceed three years. Under that calculation, a lease with a remaining term of 81 months or more would be entitled to claim greater than one year's rent.

The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) is the most recent significant amendment to the United States Bankruptcy Code. Many issues have arisen since its enactment. Of particular interest to those practicing in the Chapter 11 arena involves the absolute priority rule in individual Chapter 11 cases. Courts have split over whether an individual Chapter 11 debtor can confirm a plan of reorganization over the objections of unsecured creditors without regard to the absolute priority rule set forth in section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code (Code).

In a recent Ninth Circuit case, Carpenters Pension Trust Fund for Northern California v. Moxley, 2013 WL 4417594 (9th Cir. 2013), the court held that an employer's withdrawal liability was dischargeable in bankruptcy. In this case, the employer filed for bankruptcy protection after the Pension Fund assessed withdrawal liability.