News & Analysis as of

Mind the Statutory Gap (aka A Jurisdictional Mess)

As we all know, on June 9 of this year, the Supreme Court issued its long awaited decision in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency vs. Arkison, 134 S. Ct. 2165, 189 L. Ed. 2d 83 (2014), which we had hoped would resolve the open...more

Polsinelli Podcasts - Supreme Court Closes Gap on Bankruptcy Issue [Video]

The United States Supreme Court decided in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison that while bankruptcy courts do not have the power to make final decisions on so-called “Stern claims,” they can try or “hear” those...more

Christmas in July: Will Bankruptcy Lawyers Find a Lump of Coal in Their Stockings?

As spring rolls into summer, bankruptcy practitioners await the Supreme Court’s decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkinson. With the Supreme Court’s term ending June 30, 2014, some wonder if the Court will,...more

Bankruptcy Beat: The US Supreme Court Clarifies the Role of the Bankruptcy Court in Stern v. Marshall-Type Proceedings

On June 19, 2014 the Supreme Court of the United States in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, 134 S. Ct. 2165 (2014) affirmed and clarified its prior decision in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011) which...more

The Supreme Court Continues to Limit Bankruptcy Court Powers: The Constitutional Powers of a Bankruptcy Judge: Why it Matters

On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued the decision Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkinson, Trustee of the Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc., which deals with the constitutional limits on...more

Supreme Court Clarifies Procedure for Deciding Stern Claims in Bankruptcy Courts, But Leaves Big Questions Unresolved

Bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction over "core" and "non-core" proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 157. In "core" proceedings, bankruptcy courts can enter final judgments. See 28 U.S.C. § 157(b). In "non-core" proceedings, however,...more

Stern Revisited: Big Questions Remain Unresolved

In its recent decision, Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.), the Supreme Court reiterated and expanded on the reasoning in Stern v. Marshall and made clear that a...more

Supreme Court Decides Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus

On June 16, 2014, the United States Supreme Court decided Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, No. 13-193, holding that a credible threat of enforcement of a law is sufficient to establish an Article III injury in fact....more

Supreme Court Clarifies Bankruptcy Court Jurisdiction (Somewhat)

In 2011, the Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), which gave voice to the Court’s grave concerns about the constitutional limits of bankruptcy court jurisdiction and raised several...more

Supreme Court Permits Bankruptcy Court to Hear Adversary Proceeding; Bypasses Issues Regarding Party Consent

On June 9, the Supreme Court held that a bankruptcy judge may submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for review by a federal district court in otherwise “core” adversary proceedings where a non-debtor party...more

Supreme Court Ruling in Bellingham Offers Comfort but Little Clarity

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...more

Federal Circuit Dismisses WARF Stem Cell Case – A Missed Opportunity

Recently in Consumer Watchdog v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation, No. 2013-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit) dismissed Appellant Consumer Watchdog’s appeal on the...more

Anna Nicole Smith Revisited: Supreme Court Closes Gap on "Stern claims;" Declines to Clarify Jurisdiction for Certain Bankruptcy...

On Monday, the United States Supreme Court decided in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison that while bankruptcy courts do not have the power to make final decisions on so-called "Stern claims," they can try or...more

The “Law’s” Limits On The Bankruptcy Court’s Ability To Impose Sanctions For Debtor Misconduct

In the first six months of 2014 the Supreme Court has already issued two opinions concerning the authority of the bankruptcy courts. The first opinion, Law v. Siegel, 134 S. Ct. 1188 (2014), was issued in March. In Law,...more

The U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies the Procedure for Unconstitutional “Core” Matters Under Stern v. Marshall in Executive Benefits...

In 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594. In Stern, the Court was faced with the question of whether the Bankruptcy Court had statutory and Constitutional authority to decide a counterclaim...more

Supreme Court Clarifies Stern v. Marshall

Not even Nostradamus could have predicted the profound effect that former Playmate Vickie Lynn Marshall (a/k/a Anna Nicole Smith) would have on the landscape of U.S. bankruptcy court jurisdiction. Nevertheless, two and a half...more

"Supreme Court Holds That Bankruptcy Courts May Report and Recommend on Stern Claims"

On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued its highly anticipated ruling in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.). The Bellingham decision clarifies one of the...more

U.S. Supreme Court Issues Ruling in In re Bellingham

On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion in Exec. Benefits Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc.), 573 U.S. ___ (2014), affirming the Ninth Circuit and holding...more

U.S. Supreme Court Clarifies Bankruptcy Court Jurisdiction but Leaves Some Questions Unanswered in Executive Benefits Insurance...

The Supreme Court issued its decision in the closely followed case of Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, Chapter 7 Trustee of Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc., 573 U.S. ___ (2014) (Bellingham) this...more

Supreme Court Upholds Limited Bankruptcy Court Jurisdiction Over Defendants in Fraudulent Transfer Actions; Leaves an Open Door to...

On June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, a case that tested the extent of the jurisdiction of bankruptcy court judges to decide fraudulent transfer and certain...more

Supreme Court Decides Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison

In Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, No. 12-1200, the Supreme Court ruled that when Article III does not permit a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment on a core bankruptcy claim, the bankruptcy court may issue...more

Supreme Court Set To Rule On Waiver Of Article III Rights

Bankruptcy practitioners are anxiously awaiting a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that will determine whether a party can waive its right to trial before an Article III tribunal. In Exec. Benefits Ins. Agency, Inc. v....more

Stern Revisited, Testing the Jurisdictional Authority of the Bankruptcy Courts and Beyond

In January, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison. Executive Benefits is viewed by many as the sequel to Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594, 180 L. Ed. 2d 475 (2011). In...more

Supreme Court Denies Certiorari for Standing to Sue under the Electronic Fund Transfers Act

The United States Supreme Court declined to grant certiorari to decide whether Congress had the authority to confer Article III standing to sue when the plaintiff suffers no concrete harm and alleges as an injury based on a...more

Cert Petition Asks Supreme Court To Decide Whether Congress Can Allow Uninjured Plaintiffs To Sue In Federal Court

For years, defendants have argued that federal courts may not entertain class-action lawsuits when the plaintiff does not allege that he or she suffered any concrete personal harm and instead relies solely on an “injury in...more

35 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2