On May 26, the U.S. Supreme Court held that, so long as parties knowingly and voluntarily consent, a bankruptcy court can issue final orders on matters that it otherwise would not have the constitutional authority to decide. In Wellness Int’l Network v. Sharif,¹ a highly anticipated decision, the majority of the Supreme Court delivered a pragmatic opinion that quelled fears stemming from the Court’s 2011 decision in Stern v.

Whether a provision in a bond indenture or loan agreement obligating a borrower to pay a “make-whole” premium is enforceable in bankruptcy has been the subject of heated debate in recent years. A Delaware bankruptcy court recently weighed in on the issue in Del. Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holding Co. LLC (In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.), 527 B.R. 178 (Bankr. D. Del. 2015).

Four years ago, in Stern v. Marshall, the Supreme Court stunned many observers by re-visiting separation of powers issues regarding the jurisdiction of the United States bankruptcy courts that most legal scholars had viewed as long settled. Stern significantly reduced the authority of bankruptcy courts, and bankruptcy judges and practitioners both have since been grappling with the ramifications of that decision.

The world may end in fire and ice but, at least for now, it will not end in the bankruptcy court.[1]

On Thursday I published a blog article entitled Will “Wellness Make Us Better?, in which I posed the question of whether or not the U.S. Supreme Court would finally rule on whether or not bankruptcy courts can, in Stern type cases, enter a final judgment with the consent of the parties.

San Bernardino’s Chapter 9 case is back in the news. On May 18, the City Council approved the City’s proposed exit plan for filing with the Bankruptcy Court in a 6 to 1 vote. San Bernardino’s plan is challenging to say the least and certainly consistent with Judge Jury’s January comment that “sometimes you have to get ugly to get pretty.” The plan reflects the City’s “Gordian Knot” of financial obligations to bondholders, employees and retirees, and the City’s need to deliver essential services to residents without raising taxes beyond the breaking point.

In a case that could have upended the bankruptcy and magistrate court systems, the Supreme Court took a pragmatic approach yesterday when it held in Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif that with “knowing and voluntary consent” of the parties, a bankruptcy court could adjudicate a so-called “Sternclaim,” which would otherwise be outside the scope of its constitutional power.  The Court’s 2011 ruling in Stern v.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently held that a secured creditor must file its proof of claim no later than the 90-day deadline under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3002(c) in order to receive distributions under a Chapter 13 plan of reorganization.

A copy of the opinion is available here:  Link to Opinion.

In Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Whalen (In re Enron Corp.), the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York considered whether the debtor’s pre-bankruptcy payment of an employment bonus one day before it became due was “for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made” for purposes of determining whether section 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code made the payment avoidable as a preferential transfer.

In the case of Sherman v. Harbin (In re Harbin), the Ninth Circuit decided that in determining the feasibility of a plan under Bankruptcy Code Section 1129(a)(11), a court must evaluate the possible impact of pending litigation, whether at the trial level or on appeal.