In the ongoing RadioShack (RS) bankruptcy case, a Delaware bankruptcy court took a first look at the enforceability of Agreements Among Lenders (AALs), the contracts governing the often-times complicated relationships among lenders with different risk and yield appetites yet which reside in one credit agreement.  While the RS bankruptcy court provided long-awaited guidance on some aspects of AALs in its recent oral ruling, much has been left to the continued imaginations of those who dream of buy-out rights, waivers of voting rights and the other power-shifting mechanisms in AALs.

In a decision that could have far reaching implications on the manner and level of secured creditor participation in bankruptcy cases, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that the deadline for filing proofs of claim under Bankruptcy Rule 3002(c) applied to all creditors – both unsecured and secured.  Previously, secured creditors had relied on conflicting cases that permitted secured creditors to f

On May 21, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed a decision of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, which had approved the structured dismissal of the Chapter 11 cases of Jevic Holding Corp., et al. The Court of Appeals first held that structured dismissals are not prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code, and then upheld the structured dismissal in the Jevic case, despite the fact that the settlement embodied in the structured dismissal order deviated from the Bankruptcy Code’s priority scheme.

On May 4, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States issued an opinion regarding a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (the “First Circuit”).1 The question on appeal was whether debtor Louis Bullard (“Bullard”) could immediately appeal the bankruptcy court’s order denying confirmation of his proposed Chapter 13 payment plan (the “Plan”).2 The Court held that denial of confirmation of a debtor’s plan is not a final, appealable order.3  

Case Background

In a 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court held that bankruptcy courts have the authority to adjudicate Stern claims so long as the litigant parties provide “knowing and voluntary consent.”  This decision in Wellness International Network, et. al. v. Richard Sharif  provides much needed guidance as to the breadth and applicability of the Supreme Court’s 2011 decision in Stern v.

Much has been written in the past several years regarding the scope of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction in the wake of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. ___ (2011) and Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, 573 U.S. ___ (2014). Now, the Supreme Court has weighed in again in the case of Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd., et al v. Sharif, 575 U.S. ___ (2015) in an attempt to clarify the confusion created by Stern.

On May 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Article III of the U.S. Constitution is not violated when bankruptcy courts decide matters with the knowing and voluntary consent of the litigants.  Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif,No. 13-935 (U.S. May 26, 2015).

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Wellness International Network Ltd. v. Sharif confirms the long-held and common sense belief that “knowing and voluntary consent” is the key to the exercise of judicial authority by a bankruptcy court judge.1 In short, the Supreme Court held that a litigant in a bankruptcy court can consent—expressly or impliedly through waiver—to the bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of claims that the bankruptcy court otherwise lacks constitutional authority to finally decide.

As the market for so-called “unitranche” credit facilities continues to increase, the Delaware Bankruptcy Court had an opportunity recently to answer positively the question of whether bankruptcy courts will enforce the Agreement Among Lenders (“AAL”) (a form of intercreditor agreement) used in such structures.

Today, we follow up on our earlier post where we reviewed the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware’s decision in Energy Future Holdings