In Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC, 589 U.S. ___ (Jan. 14, 2020), the Supreme Court (the Court) agreed with the majority of circuit courts and unanimously held that an order unreservedly, that is, without prejudice or condition, adjudicating relief from the automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a) is final and any appeal must be filed within the 14 day period under Rule 8002.

Safe Harbor Protection Generally

In general, a trustee or debtor-in-possession in a bankruptcy has the power to avoid certain prepetition transfers made by a Debtor. The most common of these are fraudulent transfers and preference payments. But this avoiding power is not unlimited. It is subject to a number of codified exceptions and defenses. And one such exception that has been used to shield an increasing number of transactions is the securities “safe harbor” provision found in section 546(e) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Can a bankruptcy court order the “structured dismissal” of a Chapter 11 case if such dismissal would alter the ordinary priority rules for creditor distributions under the Bankruptcy Code? In Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp., 580 U.S. (March 22, 2017) (Jevic), the Supreme Court recently determined that such an order cannot issue without consent from all affected creditors even in “rare cases in which courts could find sufficient reasons to disregard priority.”

In Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, Chapter 7 Trustee of Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc., — U.S. — (June 9, 2014) (Bellingham), the Supreme Court shed light on how bankruptcy judges must proceed when confronted with claims that they cannot finally adjudicate as non-Article III judges.  

Despite the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkinson, 573 U.S. ___ (2014) (Arkinson) and Stern v. Marshall, 564 U. S. ___ (2011) (Stern),which dealt with the division of authority between bankruptcy courts and Article III courts, the question of whether a party could consent to a bankruptcy court’s final adjudication of so-called “Stern claims” remained an open issue. No longer. Recently, in Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, ___ U.S.

On November 13, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled in the Stanford securities fraud case that the appointed receiver lacked authority to “claw back” principal and interest proceeds distributed to innocent investors/creditors because they have a legitimate ownership interest in the proceeds held in the accounts. This precedent has important implications for this and other ongoing “Ponzi” scheme cases.

The Stanford Case: Alleged Multi-Billion Dollar Ponzi Scheme