In That Case: Securities and Exchange Commission v. Jarkesy
The Justice Insiders Podcast: Jarkesy’s Implications for the Administrative State
5 Key Takeaways | ITC Litigation and Enforcement Conference
Recent Trends in Article III Standing - The Consumer Finance Podcast
AGG Talks: Background Screening - A Refresher on Responding to Consumer File Requests under Section 609 of the FCRA
#WorkforceWednesday: SCOTUS in Review, Biden Acts to Limit Non-Competes, NY HERO Act Model Safety Plans - Employment Law This Week®
SCOTUS Watch: The ACA and Key Health Law Areas Justice Barrett Could Impact - Diagnosing Health Care Podcast
Podcast: Texas v. United States of America
Polsinelli Podcasts - Supreme Court Closes Gap on Bankruptcy Issue
The U.S. Supreme Court handed down three bankruptcy rulings to finish the Term ended in July 2024. The decisions address the validity of nonconsensual third-party releases in chapter 11 plans, the standing of insurance...more
Section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code’s “safe harbor” preventing avoidance in bankruptcy of certain securities, commodity, or forward-contract payments has long been a magnet for controversy. Several noteworthy court rulings...more
In Pucillo v. National Credit Systems, Inc., No. 21-3131, 2023 WL 3090627 (7th Cir. Apr. 26, 2023), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the plaintiff's FDCPA claims for lack of...more
The plaintiff, an individual consumer, filed a chapter 7 bankruptcy petition, including in his schedules a debt for past-due rent for a former apartment. The bankruptcy was a matter of public record and was listed on his...more
In Hafen v. Adams (In re Hafen), 616 B.R. 570 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2020), a bankruptcy appellate panel from the Tenth Circuit ("BAP") held that the bankruptcy court is the only court with subject-matter jurisdiction to decide...more
Who is the real holder of a FCRA claim brought by a Chapter 7 debtor? That’s the question that confronted the Eastern District of Wisconsin recently in Kitchner v. Fiergola, 2018 WL 4473359 (E.D. Wis. Sept. 18, 2018). ...more
REAL PROPERTY UPDATE - Summary Judgment: incorporation of an affirmative defense by referencing “previously filed pleadings” does not obviate movant’s obligation to comply with particularity requirements mandated by rule...more
Debtors beware: The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has recently expanded the ability of parties to appeal a bankruptcy court's approval of a sale of assets notwithstanding the statutory mootness rule set forth in section...more
The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently held that parties arguing mootness under section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code must establish that the appellate court is unable to grant effective relief...more
May is usually a busy month on the Supreme Court before the justices head off for some summer R&R. It is historically a time when many opinions are issued, and May 2016 has been no exception. ...more
Jurisdiction of Bankruptcy Courts to Enter Final Judgment on “Stern Claims” Based on Consent of Parties Affirmed - The U.S. Supreme Court in Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif explicitly affirmed the jurisdiction of...more
On May 26, 2015, the Supreme Court in Wellness Int’l Network, LTD v. Sharif answered one of the foremost questions left open after its decision in Stern v. Marshall – is it permissible for litigants in a Bankruptcy Court to...more
In this Article: - Introduction - A Tale as Old as Time: The Evolution of Bankruptcy Jurisdiction Before Stern - Let’s Talk About Stern, Baby - Much Ado About Nothing: Executive Benefits Insurance...more
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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