(Bankr. W.D. Ky. May 19, 2016)

Chapter 13 bankruptcy allows debtors to confirm plans that provide for the payment of their debts through future earnings while, at the same time, retaining their assets. If a creditor wishes to receive payments pursuant to a debtor’s plan, the creditor must file a proof of claim. And it must do so timely.

HIGHLIGHTS:

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Marblegate Asset Management LLC v. Education Management Corp. on May 12, 2016. One might have thought from the courtroom’s overflow crowd that it was the opening argument in a mob trial, but this is a case about a bond indenture. At issue is whether an out-of-court debt restructuring that did not amend the indenture’s principal and interest terms, but that effectively precluded the noteholders’ ability to be repaid, violated § 316(b) of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA).

Introduction

Another North Dakota shale oil driller has filed for bankruptcy protection. On May 20, 2016, Intervention Energy Holdings LLC, and its affiliates (“Debtors”) sought chapter 11 protection from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

Other Williston Basin, ND shale oil victims include Emerald Oil Inc., and Halcón Resources Corp., which indicated that it plans to file for chapter 11 protection if it can get enough creditors to sign off on a deal that would let it restructure more than $3 billion in debt.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court in Husky International Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz held a chapter 7 debtor accountable for “actual fraud” despite the absence of a specific fraudulent misrepresentation. The Court’s expansive reading of section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code gives creditors a new weapon in their fight to attack the discharge of their debts.

The Weil Bankruptcy Blog frequently writes on issues revolving around equitable mootness (See Equitable Mootness on Life Support: The Third Circuit Further Pares Back the Abstention Doctrine in One2One Communications,

In Husky Int’l Electronics, Inc. v. Ritz, No. 15-145 (U.S. May 16, 2016), a 7-1 majority of the Supreme Court held that a fraudulent conveyance scheme comported with the requirements of “actual fraud” to create a potential new debt dischargeability exception pursuant to section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On Monday, May 16, 2016, the Supreme Court issued its decision in the case of Husky Int’l Elecs., Inc. v. Ritz, — S. Ct. —, 2016 WL 2842452 (2016) resolving a split between the Fifth and Seventh Circuit Courts of Appeal regarding the scope of the “actual fraud” exception to an individual debtor’s bankruptcy discharge. In relevant part, Section 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code prohibits debtors from discharging “any debt . . . for money, property, [or] services . . . to the extent obtained, by . . .