The scenario has become all too familiar in recent years: a borrower defaults on a loan and, when the lender pursues the loan collateral through foreclosure or other proceedings, the borrower files for bankruptcy protection. More often than not, when the lender appears in bankruptcy court to pursue its interest in the collateral, the borrower counterattacks with a host of state law lender liability claims.

The Supreme Court of Delaware recently held that creditors of insolvent Delaware limited liability companies (LLCs) lack standing to bring derivative suits on behalf of the LLCs.

In March 2010, CML V brought both derivative and direct claims against the present and former managers of JetDirect Aviation Holdings LLC in the Court of Chancery after JetDirect defaulted on its loan obligations to CML. The Vice Chancellor dismissed all the claims, finding that, as a creditor, CML lacked standing to bring derivative claims on behalf of JetDirect, and CML appealed.

The Seventh Circuit recently weighed in on the issue of whether a secured creditor has a right to credit bid at the sale of its collateral in connection with a chapter 11 plan of reorganization. In its decision in In re River Road Hotel Partners, LLC, Case Nos. 10-3597 & 10- 3598 (7th Cir. June 28, 2011), the Seventh Circuit split with decisions of the Third and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeal holding that secured creditors have no such right to credit bid, raising the prospect that the issue may be ripe for review by the United States Supreme Court.

The United States Supreme Court recently narrowed the scope of the authority of bankruptcy courts, with potential far-reaching implications on past, present and future bankruptcy matters. The case, Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), began as a dispute between Anna Nicole Smith and the son of her late husband. After several years of litigation and one previous trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ruled bankruptcy courts lack the authority to enter judgments on counterclaims against a debtor that are based on state law.

On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that has sent waves through bankruptcy courts across the nation. Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), is the latest opinion in a long running dispute between the estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall, better known as Anna Nicole Smith, and the estate of her late husband’s son, Pierce Marshall.

The Supreme Court’s 5-to-4 decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594, 2011 WL 2472792 (June 23, 2011), drew upon a tortured factual background filled with sensational accusations and revelations, to deliver an opinion that definitively upsets a quarter- century’s jurisdiction by bankruptcy courts over a large set of actions.

In this en banc decision, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Chancery’s decision that laches, instead of the applicable statute of limitations, applied to the plaintiff corporate officer’s claim for indemnification, and thus upheld the Court of Chancery’s decision that plaintiff was entitled to indemnification for certain actually and reasonably incurred attorneys’ fees and expenses.

Much attention in the commercial bankruptcy world has been devoted recently to judicial pronouncements concerning whether the practice of senior creditor class “gifting” to junior classes under a chapter 1 1 plan violates the Bankruptcy Code’s “absolute priority rule.” Comparatively little scrutiny, by contrast, has been directed toward significant developments in ongoing controversies in the courts regarding the absolute priority rule outside the realm of senior class gifting— namely, in connection with the “new value” exception to the rule and whether the rule was written out of the Bankr

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued two bankruptcy rulings so far in 2007. On February 21, 2007, the Court ruled in Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Massachusetts that a debtor who acts in bad faith in connection with filing a chapter 7 petition may forfeit the right to convert his case to a chapter 13 case. On March 20, 2007, the Court ruled in Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. v. Pacific Gas & Electric Co.

The Supreme Court unanimously held on March 20, 2007, that an unsecured lender could recover contractbased legal fees “incurred in [post-bankruptcy] litigation” on “issues of bankruptcy law.” Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., __ U.S. __ (March 20, 2007). Op., at 1, 3. In doing so, the court vacated a summary ruling by the Ninth Circuit last year. 167 Fed. Appx. 593 (9th Cir. 2006) (held, “attorney fees… not recoverable in bankruptcy for litigating issues ‘peculiar to federal bankruptcy law.’“), citing In re Fobian, 951 F.2d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir.