On June 28, 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear a challenge to a Third Circuit-affirmed settlement and dismissal of the chapter 11 cases of Jevic Transportation, Inc. (“Jevic”) and certain of its affiliates. SeeOfficial Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. CIT Grp./Bus. Credit Inc. (In re Jevic Holding Corp.), 787 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2015), cert. grantedCzyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., No. 15-649, 2016 WL 3496769 (U.S. 2016).

While many people only see the glamorous, large Chapter 11 cases filed in the Delaware Bankruptcy Court, the Court still handles individual bankruptcies – treating them with just as much respect as any other case. On July 8, 2016, the chief bankruptcy judge, Brendan L. Shannon, issued an opinion valuing the mobile home of Ms. Anita Barnard.

(Bankr. S.D. Ind. July 8, 2016)

The court overrules the debtor’s ex-spouse’s objection to confirmation of the Chapter 13 plan. The creditor argued her claim could not be discharged because it was a domestic support obligation. However, the court analyzes the divorce decree and determines that the payments ordered were not tied to health or employment prospects or the creditor’s ability to support herself. Under the circumstances, the court concludes the claim is not for a domestic support obligation and may be discharged. Opinion below.

Judge: Moberly

(E.D. Ky. July 8, 2016)

The district court affirms the bankruptcy court’s decision finding the debt dischargeable. The debtor sold a television to the plaintiffs, claiming it was a “high definition” television.The plaintiffs disputed that characterization and obtained a judgment in state court for the purchase price plus punitive damages. However, the court finds that the plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof in showing the requisite elements of § 523(a)(2)(A). Opinion below.

Judge: Schaaf

(W.D. Ky. July 7, 2016)

HIGHLIGHTS:

On June 29, 2016, Judge Sleet of the Delaware District Court entered an order denying a motion for stay of the Debtors’ plan confirmation pending appeal. A copy of the related Opinion is attached here.

On July 1, 2016, SynCardia Systems, Inc. (“Debtor” or “SynCardia”) filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code before the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

According to the Declaration of Stephen Marotta, the Debtor’s Chief Restructuring Officer, SynCardia is a medical technology company that develops artificial heart implants. In the months leading to the Debtor’s filing, SynCardia attempted but then withdrew an IPO attempt due to adverse market conditions. Since then it has become insolvent.

As we have discussed in prior blog posts, The Battle of the Student Loan Discharge, The Eternal Pursuit to Collect: Due Process Rights and Actions to Collect on a Debtor’s Defaulted Student Loans

Plenty of ink has been spilled about how to apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall and the line of cases in which it sits. It is a challenging body of law for many reasons, but perhaps the most difficult reason is that the Court indicated that the scope of power that bankruptcy courts may be given today must be defined by reference to beliefs about the scope of judicial and other governmental powers at the time of the country’s founding, when divisions of governmental power were embedded in the U.S. Constitution.