This morning, the Supreme Court issued its hotly anticipated decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v.
The Supreme Court of the United States announced decisions in three cases today:
In 2011, the US Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Stern v. Marshall. Turning decades of bankruptcy practice on its head, the Supreme Court held that, even though bankruptcy courts are statutorily authorized to enter final judgments in “core” matters, Article III of the Constitution prohibits them from finally adjudicating certain core matters, such as a debtor’s state law counterclaim against a creditor (so-called “Stern claims”).
Secured creditors naturally want to be repaid. Sometimes secured creditors go as far as asking a debtor to waive its right to seek bankruptcy protection. Although such clauses are frequently held to be unenforceable, we previously have discussed exceptions for LLCs.
In In re Residential Capital, LLC, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York recently granted an oversecured creditor's request for postpetition interest at the contractual default rate, even though the debtor was insolvent. In doing so, the Bankruptcy Court rejected an argument that awarding postpetition interest at the default rate (which was 4% higher than the non-default rate) would provide an undue windfall to the oversecured creditor and harm unsecured creditors.
Why This Decision Is Important
The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware has affirmed a bankruptcy court order which approved both a sale of the debtors’ assets and the establishment of an escrow account, which essentially provides a “gift” to fund a distribution to the debtors’ unsecured creditors. What is significant about this order is that it approved the use of gifting in a chapter 11 bankruptcy case.
Recently, the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) filed a limited objection in bankruptcy court to the proposed sale of assets of ConnectEdu, Inc. (“ConnectEdu”) on the grounds that the company’s privacy policy protecting customer personal information had potentially not been complied with.
As one bankruptcy court has said, “[b]ecause deals are the heart and soul of the [c]hapter 11 process, bankruptcy courts enforce them as cut by the parties.” Unfortunately, however, deals do not always turn out as the parties expected and there is sometimes litigation to determine what exactly was bargained for in a chapter 11 plan.
Where a document filed under seal in a bankruptcy case has nothing to do with the bankruptcy itself, is the public entitled to access the document? The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia considered this unique question in Robbins v.