Supreme Court Ruling in Bellingham Offers Comfort but Little Clarity

by Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Contact

A unanimous Supreme Court, in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Arkinson (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc.), 573 U.S. ___ (2014), confirmed a bankruptcy court’s power to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for the district court’s de novo review, even though such court is constitutionally barred from entering a final judgment on a bankruptcy-related claim under Stern v. Marshall. While the Bellingham decision mitigates the jurisdictional uncertainty left in Stern’s wake, the Supreme Court’s decision leaves several significant questions unanswered. While Bellingham leaves the terrain of bankruptcy court jurisdiction somewhat clearer, the bankruptcy jurisdictional statute still contains provisions that the Court has found are unconstitutional.

The Landscape of Bankruptcy Courts’ Jurisdiction
Enacted in 1978, the Bankruptcy Code established a system of non-Article III1 bankruptcy courts vested with broad jurisdiction to hear and determine all civil proceedings arising under or related to the Bankruptcy Code. Four years later, however, the Supreme Court in Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., invalidated this grant of jurisdiction, holding that Congress could not grant non-Article III courts jurisdiction to finally decide state law claims that were merely “related to” a bankruptcy case because doing so removed “the essential attributes of judicial power from the Art. III district court.” 458 U.S. 50, 87 (1982) (internal quotations omitted). Congress responded by enacting 28 U.S.C. § 157, which classified bankruptcy judges as non-Article III “units” of district courts and limited their authority to finally adjudicate matters to those arising under or arising in a case under the Bankruptcy Code. For cases merely “related to” a case under the Bankruptcy Code, bankruptcy court authority was limited to submitting proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, which could then enter a final judgment.

Section 157(c)  

A bankruptcy judge may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11. Among proceedings expressly defined as “core” are “counterclaims by the estate against persons filing claims against the estate[.]”

Section 157(c)

A bankruptcy judge may hear a proceeding that is not a core proceeding but that is otherwise related to a case under title 11, and then submit the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, who may enter a final order or judgment after a de novo review.

Muddied Waters after Stern v. Marshall
In 2011, the Supreme Court threw the jurisdictional provisions of section 157 into disarray by holding, in Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), that Article III of the Constitution prohibits Congress from vesting a bankruptcy court with the authority to finally adjudicate certain claims even if those claims are listed as “core” claims under section 157(b) of the Judicial Code.

In Stern, the now-famous dispute over the estate of former Playboy model Anna Nicole Smith, the Supreme Court considered whether a debtor’s counterclaim against a creditor, an action specifically identified as a “core” proceeding in section 157(b), could be constitutionally adjudicated by a bankruptcy judge. In determining that it could not, the Court held that only an Article III judge has the constitutional authority to resolve such a dispute. The decision, crafted by Chief Justice Roberts, refused to allow Congressional enlargement of bankruptcy judges’ authority to resolve disputes between the debtor and a third party beyond the Court’s view of the proper Article I jurisdiction of legislatively created courts.

The Stern decision thus created a hole in the statutory scheme of jurisdiction for bankruptcy disputes set up in the Judicial Code. A claim designated for final adjudication in the bankruptcy court as a statutory matter, but prohibited from proceeding in that way as a constitutional matter was aptly named a “Stern Claim” by Justice Thomas. Because Stern failed to provide a substitute mechanism for how such claims should be addressed, the result was a “statutory gap” as wide as the unconstitutional provision itself: a Stern Claim is expressly defined as a “core” claim under section 157(b), but cannot be finally adjudicated by a bankruptcy court under section 157(b). However, the alternative statutory mechanism prescribed by section 157(c)—whereby the bankruptcy court submits proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court—by its terms applies only to non-core claims. Arguably, Stern drained bankruptcy courts of authority to act on Stern Claims, requiring all such claims to be heard by district courts in the first instance, although in practice, bankruptcy courts in most circuits labeled their Stern Claims rulings as proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law which then could be reviewed de novo by the district court. However, whether this practice comported with constitutional muster remained in jurisdictional limbo for three years until it was finally resolved by Bellingham.

Bellingham in the Lower Courts
In Bellingham, the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee sought to recover allegedly fraudulent transfers made by the debtor, Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc. (“BIA”) to Executive Benefits Insurance Agency, Inc. (“EBIA”)—not itself a creditor—prior to filing for bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court granted summary judgment to the trustee, and the ruling was affirmed by the District Court after a de novo review.

EBIA appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which likewise affirmed the ruling despite noting that Stern’s interpretation of Article III prohibited a bankruptcy court from entering final judgment on a fraudulent conveyance claim against a noncreditor absent the parties’ consent. In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc., 702 F.3d 553, 557 (9th Cir. 2012). The Ninth Circuit cited two alternative grounds for its decision: (i) EBIA had impliedly consented to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction to adjudicate the fraudulent conveyance claim; and (ii) the bankruptcy court’s judgment could be treated as a recommendation to the district court, whose affirmance upon a de novo review was sufficient as a final judgment for Article III purposes.

Circuit Split Concerning the Effect of Consent
The Ninth Circuit’s decision in Bellingham formed the basis of a circuit split: the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals’ opinion in Waldman v. Stone, 698 F.3d 910 (6th Cir. 2012), issued several months earlier, completely rejected bankruptcy courts’ constitutional authority to finally decide Stern Claims notwithstanding the parties’ consent to a final adjudication by the bankruptcy court.

In Waldman, the debtor obtained a $3 million bankruptcy court judgment based on a state law fraud claim against his creditor. Applying Stern, the Sixth Circuit decided that the bankruptcy court’s judgment was unconstitutional because “the structural principle advanced by Article III” was not a personal right that could be waived. The case was remanded back to the bankruptcy court with instructions to recharachterize the judgment as a proposed ruling for district court review. As many courts allow litigants to expressly or impliedly waive their Article III right to have their Stern Claims adjudicated by Article III district courts, Waldman was the first Circuit-level decision to reject consent-based jurisdiction for Stern Claims.

The Supreme Court Ruling
Faced with a circuit split on the consent question, the Supreme Court accepted EBIA’s petition for certiorari on June 24, 2013 and was thereby charged with determining whether the practice of submitting proposed findings and conclusions to the district court for review and approval is a constitutionally acceptable method for handling Stern Claims. The Stern ruling’s effects had the potential to extend beyond the bankruptcy context: implicit in the issue before the Court was whether the practice of holding consent trials before U.S. Magistrates throughout the federal court system would likewise become unworkable.

In a unanimous opinion authored by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court confirmed the power of a bankruptcy court to rule on Stern Claims subject to a federal district court’s de novo review, thereby closing the gap created by Stern. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the Bellingham bankruptcy court did not exceed the scope of its authority when it considered the fraudulent conveyance counterclaim against EBIA.

The Court flatly rejected the notion that Stern’s treatment of certain statutory “core” proceedings left bankruptcy courts powerless to adjudicate them under an alternative process (i.e., as non-core claims under section 157(b)). Applying the well-known cannon of statutory construction that favors “giv[ing] effect to the valid portion of a statute so long as it remains fully operative as a law,” the Court concluded that bankruptcy courts can simply treat Stern Claims as non-core claims and adjudicate them accordingly. Assuming that the fraudulent conveyance claims were indeed Stern Claims, the Supreme Court found that the claims were clearly “related to” the bankruptcy case and fit within the scope of section 157(c). Further, while the bankruptcy court in Bellingham (in a ruling that predated Stern) had adjudicated the issue as a core proceeding and purported to enter a final judgment, the Supreme Court found the district court’s de novo review was sufficient to retroactively “cure any potential error” in the pre-Stern lower court proceedings.

Unresolved Issues
While Bellingham ends a significant legal uncertainty by confirming that Stern Claims may be resolved via the procedural mechanics prescribed for non-core claims and provides assurance that a de novo review by the district court cures any Article III deficiency in earlier proceedings (thereby eliminating post hoc challenges to jurisdiction like that in Bellingham), unresolved questions of consent and waiver remain.

Puzzlingly, the Supreme Court failed to address the issue at the heart of the circuit split: whether Article III permits a bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment on a Stern claim with the consent of the parties. Compare Waldman, 698 F.3d at 918 (“Waldman’s objection thus implicates not only his personal rights, but also the structural principle advanced by Article III. And that principle is not Waldman’s to waive.”), with In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, 702 F.3d at 566. (“The waivable nature of the allocation of adjudicative authority between bankruptcy courts and Article III courts is well established.”)

Perhaps more troubling still is that, because the authority for federal magistrate judges to issue final judgments under the Federal Magistrates Act is very similar to the current statutory authority upon which bankruptcy judges have statutory authority to issue final judgments with the consent of litigants, the effects of Waldman, which holding remains largely intact even after Bellingham, may reach far beyond the bankruptcy context. In light of the continued uncertainty regarding bankruptcy courts’ Constitutional powers, the risk of waiver should remain a significant factor in considering an early objection to a bankruptcy court’s purported jurisdiction.


  1. Article III, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution mandates that the “judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such other inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time establish.”

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Contact
more
less

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):
hide

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.

Security

JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at info@jdsupra.com. In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at: info@jdsupra.com.

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.