In a decision that demonstrates the potentially broad impact of the forthcoming Supreme Court decision in Bellingham, the Fifth Circuit held that bankruptcy judges may not “determine” non-core matters even where the parties consent. BP RE, L.P. v. RML Waxahachie Dodge, L.L.C. (In re BP RE, L.P.), No. 12-51270 (5th Cir. Nov. 11, 2013), see Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkinson (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency), 702 F.3d 553 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. granted 133 S.Ct. 2880 (2013) (set for oral argument January 14, 2014).

The Supreme Court of the United States denied a petition for writ of certiorari of the debtor, Castleton Plaza, LP, in Castleton Plaza, LP v. EL-SNPR Notes Holdings, LLC, Case No. 12-1422, meaning the prior opinion from the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in In the Matter of Castleton Plaza, LP, 707 F.3d 821 (7th Cir. 2013), remains intact, protecting creditors who are faced with being shortchanged by a reorganization plan proposed by a debtor that attempts to transfer the future ownership of the debtor to an insider without first putting the ownership stake up for auction.

The Seventh Circuit has explicitly adopted the Second Circuit’s broad interpretation of the terms “transfer” and “settlement payment” in the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions. See Peterson v. Somers Dublin Ltd., No. 12-2463, --- F.3d ----, 2013 WL 4767495 (7th Cir. Sept.

Adding to the split of authority that has developed since the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), in Wellness Int’l Network Ltd. v. Sharif, No. 12-1349 (Aug. 21, 2013), the 7th Circuit aligned with the 6th Circuit’s decision in Waldman v. Stone, 698 F.3d 910 (6th Cir. 2012), to hold that a party may not consent or waive objection to the limited Constitutional authority of an Article I bankruptcy court.

On August 21, 2013, in Wellness International Network v. Sharif, No. 12-1349 (7th Cir. August 21, 2013), the Seventh Circuit issued its latest opinion on the thorny issues emanating from the Supreme Court’s “narrow” decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held on Aug. 26, 2013 that an investment manager’s “failure to keep client funds properly segregated” and subsequent pledge of those funds “to secure an overnight loan” to stay in business may have constituted: (a) a fraudulent transfer to the lender; and (b) grounds for equitably subordinating the lender’s $312 million secured claim. In re Sentinel Management Group, Inc., 2013 WL 4505152, *1 (7th Cir. Aug. 26, 2013) (“Sentinel II”).

It should be common knowledge that a secured creditor, having received proper notice in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, faces the risk that its lien will be extinguished if it fails to object to a reorganization plan that does not specifically preserve the lien. Apparently, however, not all secured lenders realize this risk, and some fall prey to a trap for the unwary in §1141(c) of the Bankruptcy Code by failing to protect their liens and place their collateral at risk.

The Issue

The absolute priority rule ordinarily prevents a Chapter 11 debtor from distributing any money or property to junior creditors and old equity investors unless all senior creditors have first been paid in full. See 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii). Nevertheless, old equity investors may attempt to receive new equity in the reorganized debtor in consideration for providing new (post-bankruptcy) investments in the debtor.

When the Fifth Circuit, in a case of first impression for that circuit and all of its sister circuit, last year ruled in In re Chilton, 11-40377, 2012 WL 762924 (5th Cir. Mar. 12, 2012) 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), many thought the issue was settled.