“How was I supposed to know that something wasn’t right here … Show me how you want it to be.  Tell me baby ‘cause I need to know now…” – Britney Spears

As Ursula the Sea Witch once said “Life’s full of tough choices, isn’t it?”  The Sixth Circuit was recently faced with its own “tough choice” on choice of law in Sutherland v. DCC Litigation Facility, Inc., No. 13-1497 (6th Cir. Feb.

You might recognize the last name “Underhill” from the 1980’s movie, Fletch. In the movie, the main character, Irwin “Fletch” Fletcher overhears snobby country club member Mr. Underhill speaking rudely to a waiter. To get revenge, Fletch famously tells the waiter he’s “with the Underhills” and proceeds to charge a Bloody Mary, a steak sandwich and…a steak sandwich to the Underhills’ tab.

In the world of bank holding company bankruptcies, often a dispute arises between the parent company and the FDIC (as receiver for parent’s failed bank subsidiary) over the ownership of the tax refunds issued to the bank’s consolidated group pursuant to a consolidated tax return.

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.

Since it was issued three years ago by the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, the Clear Channel decision (Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. Knupfer (In re PW, LLC), 391 B.R. 25 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2008)) has been widely criticized as “an aberration in well-settled bankruptcy jurisprudence.” Before Clear Channel, conventional wisdom (and what most people perceived to be the law) supported the notion that a bankruptcy sale order that contained a good faith finding under Section 363(m) could not be disturbed on appeal.

The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that no exception exists to Tennessee’s general prohibition on direct actions against an insurer, even in cases where the insured has declared bankruptcy triggering an automatic stay before a judgment in the underlying action.  Mauriello v. Great American E&S Insurance Co., 2014 WL 321921 (6th Cir. Jan. 30, 2014).  In so holding, the Sixth Circuit reasoned that an adequate remedy remains notwithstanding the automatic stay for a claimant to obtain a judgment against a bankrupt insured.

In a recent decision, the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York held that a purported debt held by an entity with a near-majority membership interest in the Debtor was actually equity disguised as a loan.

Background

In a recent decision, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that the election of a tenant, under Section 365(h) of the Bankruptcy Code, to remain in possession of real property governed by a rejected lease causes a third-party guaranty on another rejected agreement to remain in effect, to the extent such agreement and the lease are part of an integrated transaction.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently concluded that Michigan’s assignment of rents statute sufficiently deprived the assignor of the ownership of the rents such that the rents could not be included in the assignor’s bankruptcy estate.