The Supreme Court again will be addressing the powers of bankruptcy courts. At the end of the term, the Court granted certiorari in Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. to decide whether a bankruptcy court may authorize the distribution of settlement proceeds in a way that violates the statutory priority scheme in the Bankruptcy Code. No. 15-649, 2016 WL 3496769 (S. Ct. June 28, 2016). The Supreme Court is expected to address this fundamental bankruptcy issue sometime early next year.

Background

(7th Cir. July 26, 2016)

The Seventh Circuit interprets a Wisconsin exemption statute applicable to annuity contracts. The statute provides that such a contract is exempt from assets available to creditors so long as it “complies with the provisions of the internal revenue code.” The trustee argued for a narrow interpretation of this language, while the Court ultimately agrees with the broader interpretation of the statute employed by Wisconsin bankruptcy courts. Opinion below.

Judge: Hamilton

Attorney for Debtors: Dewitt Ross & Stevens S.C., Craig E. Stevenson

The collapse of marine fuel trader OW Bunker & Trading A/S (“OW Bunker”) and its affiliates, in November 2014, has resulted in a blizzard of legal proceedings in the United States. Bunker suppliers and creditors of insolvent OW Bunker entities have sought to secure their claims by arresting vessels or proceeding directly against vessel owners and operators who contracted with OW Bunker entities to supply their vessels with bunkers.

Under Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor or trustee can sell estate assets “free and clear of any interest” in such assets. This short, simple string of six words represents one of the most powerful tools in the bankruptcy professional’s arsenal.

The scope of the Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor for certain financial contracts has been tested again, this time in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The question this time was whether an ipso facto provision continues to be safe harbored if enforcement of that provision is conditioned on other factors – in this case, the debtor’s failure to perform under the contract.

Pursuant to a provision of the Bankruptcy Code familiar to readers of Weil’s Bankruptcy Blog (see our prior post, To Assume or Not to Assume, that Is the Question: What Act Constitutes “Assumption” Under Section 365(d)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code?), the United States District Court for the District of Delaware recently affirmed a bankruptcy c

In re Intervention Energy Holdings, LLC, Case No. 16-11247 (D. Del. June 3, 2016), the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware dealt with the issue of whether a Delaware LLC lacked authority to file a Chapter 11 petition under the Bankruptcy Code because the limited liability company agreement of the LLC in question required the consent of all members and one member did not consent to the filing.

The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware recently held that the Bankruptcy Code Section 546(e) safe harbors do not prevent a liquidation trust from pursuing some state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims assigned to the trust by creditors.1 Notably, the Bankruptcy Court declined to follow the Second Circuit's recent Tribune decision, in which the Second Circuit concluded that the Section 546(e) safe harbors apply to state law constructive fraudulent conveyance claims on federal preemption grounds.2 Instead, the Bankruptcy Court decided that federal preemption did not appl

We have written on other occasions on Civic Partners Sioux City, LLC.

The bankruptcy courts have a long history of being willing to use their judicial power under the Bankruptcy Code to prevent perceived efforts by debtors to inappropriately shield their assets from creditors. This is true even when the debtors employ structures and devices that are complex and crafted in seeming compliance with applicable law.