Key Notes:

Creditors seeking to file an involuntary petition against a debtor may want to consider doing their due diligence before using it as a tool in their ongoing disputes with a debtor.

(7th Cir. June 10, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit reverses, holding the bankruptcy court applied too narrow of a baseline payment range to the creditor’s ordinary course defense in this preference action. While this court agreed that there were a few payments outside the ordinary course, the new value defense applied to completely offset those payments. Opinion below.

Judge: Sykes

Attorneys for Appellant: Nixon Peabody LLP, Richard Scott Alsterda, Theodore Eric Harman

Attorneys for Appellee: Clark Hill PLC, Pamela Joy Leichtling, Scott N. Schreiber

On June 10, 2016, the Treasury Department (Treasury) and the Internal Revenue Service (the IRS) issued final regulations on the federal income tax treatment of discharge of debt issued by disregarded entities (e.g., single member LLCs) and grantor trusts (e.g., investment trusts). Under the regulations, the exemption of cancellation of debt income of taxpayers that are insolvent or in a Title 11 case (bankruptcy) only applies if the owner of the disregarded entity or grantor trust is insolvent or is a debtor in a bankruptcy case.

The question of what constitutes “equal treatment” is a question as old as law itself. Though a favored topic by the Aristotles and the Rousseaus of the world, the question is not entirely esoteric. The concept plays a central role in the law of bankruptcy – courts occasionally describe the principle of equitable distribution between similarly situated creditors as one of the “pillars” of the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 502(e)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code allows debtors to seek disallowance of certain types of contingent claims to avoid being twice liable on a single obligation. It has the added benefits of facilitating debtors’ efficient exit from bankruptcy and ensuring that unsecured creditors are paid in a timely fashion. Debtors commonly seek Section 502(e)(1)(B) relief for claims involving environmental remediations or tort lawsuits, for example personal injury actions.

In my May 26th post, I raised several questions that unsecured creditors in any Chapter 11 case should know the answers to and take action where appropriate.

In 2015, the Court of Chancery ruled upon the then novel issue under Delaware law as to what priority level advancement claims should be afforded in a receivership action. Then Vice Chancellor Parsons held that claims for advancement are not entitled to administrative priority, and instead are considered to be pre-petition, non-priority unsecured claims. For a link to a summary of the Court of Chancery decision, click here.

The Bankruptcy Judges and Chapter 13 Trustees for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio have reviewed and approved a proposed District Wide Mandatory Form Chapter 13 Plan and proposed form Order Confirming Chapter 13 Plan and Awarding Attorney Fees. Currently, the Dayton, Cincinnati, and Columbus Bankruptcy Courts use different Chapter 13 form plans. The use of these different form plans makes it difficult for practitioners and creditors to keep track of the particular requirements for each court location.

A recent decision out of a New Jersey Bankruptcy Court highlights a loophole in the Bankruptcy Code which may allow Chapter 7 debtors to keep significant assets out of the hands of trustees and creditors.