In 2012, the Fifth Circuit ruled in In re Chilton 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). See our prior discussion of this case here.

After Chilton, many thought the issue was settled.

The United States Supreme Court recently denied certiorari to an Eleventh Circuit appeal which would have addressed the issue of whether section 506(d) of the Bankruptcy Code permits a chapter 7 debt to “strip off”¹ a wholly unsecured junior lien in Bank of America, N.A. v. Sinkfield.² As a result, wholly unsecured junior creditors will continue to suffer the harsh consequence of having its junior lien completely “stripped off” in Eleventh Circuit bankruptcy cases, despite other Circuits around the country holding to the contrary.

The Bottom Line:

Introduction
Shifting balance between international arbitration and bankruptcy
Arbitration clauses in US bankruptcy courts
Implications of Stern v Marshall

Introduction

This morning the US Supreme Court issued a ruling providing that severance payments are taxable FICA wages. In United States vs. Quality Stores, Quality Stores made severance payments to employees who were involuntarily terminated as part of Quality Stores’ Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Quality Stores paid and withheld income and FICA taxes from the severance payments. Later, Quality Stores sought a refund on behalf of itself and former employees for FICA taxes withheld and paid.

On March 4, 2014, a unanimous United States Supreme Court decided Law v. Siegel¹ and clarified that exercising statutory or inherent powers, a bankruptcy court may not contravene specific statutory authority. Law will likely have broad implications for business bankruptcy cases even though it directly involved the exercise of a bankruptcy judge’s authority under section 105(a) to create a pragmatic solution to the actions of a bad actor in a consumer bankruptcy case.

On March 4, 2014, the United States Supreme Court decided Law v. Siegel, No. 12-5196. The Court held that the bankruptcy court violated the express terms of § 522 of the Bankruptcy Code when it ordered that the $75,000 protected by a debtor's homestead exemption be available to pay a trustee's attorney's fees as an administrative expense. The order exceeded the limits of the bankruptcy court's authority under § 105(a) of the Code and its inherent powers.

It seems that most bankruptcy decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court involve individual debtors, and the Supreme Court’s latest opinion is no exception. Even though the decision is not in a business bankruptcy case, it examines the bankruptcy court’s powers under Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Stephen Law filed a chapter 7 petition in California.  His only valuable asset was his home, which he scheduled at a value of $363,348.  Washington Mutual Bank held a lien against the home to secure a loan in the amount of $156,929.  Law asserted a homestead exemption under California law of $75,000.  In order to prevent the bankruptcy trustee from selling his home, Law fabricated a second lien against his home which consumed his entire equity, and obtained the cooperation of a Chinese national named Lili Lin to assert that she was actually owed money by the debtor.&nbsp

Supreme Court Rules on Importing And Selling Foreign Made Goods