In re Primes, 518 B.R. 466 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2014) –

A mortgagee moved for relief from the automatic stay, arguing that it acquired title to property prior to the bankruptcy under a quit claim deed given to it by the debtor. However, the bankruptcy court agreed with the debtor that the deed, which was given in connection with a forbearance agreement, should be treated as an equitable mortgage.

In re Mississippi Valley Livestock, Inc., 745 F.3d 299 (7th Cir. 2014) –

A debtor sold cattle for the account of a cattle producer and then remitted the proceeds to the producer.  A chapter 7 trustee sought to recover the payments as preferential transfers.  The trustee lost in both the bankruptcy and district courts, and then appealed to the 7th Circuit.

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled in Stern v. Marshall1 that a bankruptcy court lacks constitutional authority to render a final judgment on a bankruptcy estate’s counterclaim against a creditor based on state common law, despite an express statutory grant of jurisdiction. This ruling is the most significant decision regarding bankruptcy court jurisdiction since the Court’s 1982 decision in Northern Pipeline v. Marathon2 and it could significantly affect the administration of bankruptcy cases.

Root of the Constitutional Problem

Back in the mists of time, a seller that had a valid reclamation claim but was denied the return of its goods was entitled to an administrative expense claim (a claim with a higher priority than a general unsecured claim and thus a better chance of getting paid) or a lien on the debtor’s assets. The 2005 amendment to § 546(c) of the Bankruptcy Code changed all that by stripping away those alternative remedies.

A disclosure statement and a plan are critical documents in Chapter 11 cases, representing the culmination of a case and a roadmap of the debtor's path forward. A Chapter 11 plan can be either a plan of reorganization, pursuant to which a debtor emerges from bankruptcy as a new, reorganized entity, or a plan of liquidation, pursuant to which a debtor's remaining assets are liquidated and the proceeds are distributed to creditors. Plans of liquidation are common in Chapter 11 cases, where the debtor sells substantially all of its assets.

Preferences are a common issue in bankruptcy proceedings. A general overview of preferences in bankruptcy can be found here.

The Bankruptcy Code provides several affirmative defenses to assist creditors in mitigating or eliminating their preference exposure. We have previously addressed the new value defense2 and the ordinary course of business defense3. This article will briefly address another common affirmative defense: the contemporaneous exchange defense.

Serving as the stalking horse bidder in a Section 363 sale1 can provide a buyer with financial and legal protections, as well as better position the buyer to ultimately acquire the debtor's assets.

General Overview

There are two mechanisms through which a creditor may net amounts owed to the debtor against amounts owed by the debtor -- setoff and recoupment. These mechanisms are distinct and are treated very differently in a bankruptcy setting.

Key Issues

Setoff. Setoff is a right based in state law that allows parties to apply their mutual debts against each other. These rights are preserved in bankruptcy through Section 553(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, which does not create any federal right of setoff, but leaves such state law rights undisturbed.

Under the Absolute Priority Rule, for a Chapter 11 plan to be confirmable, claims of a higher priority must be paid in full in order for lower priority claims to receive any recovery, and all creditors must be paid in full in order for equity interest holders to retain any interest in the debtor, or receive any distribution under the plan. The Absolute Priority Rule is embodied in Section 1129(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On January 2, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) filed an amicus curiae brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to reverse a district court’s decision finding that a debt collector lacked the requisite knowledge and intent to violate the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) when it sent a debt-collection communication prior to any knowledge of the debtor’s bankruptcy filing.