The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision today in Midland Funding, LLC v. Johnson, 581 U.S. ___, No. 16-348, draws attention in passing to a peculiar feature of Wisconsin law on the effect of statutes of limitations.

The Bankruptcy Code permits a bankruptcy trustee to compel return of a payment made to a creditor within 90 days before a bankruptcy petition. 11 U.S.C. § 547(b)(4)(A). The justification for compelling the return of preference payments is to level the playing field among creditors by not rewarding those who, perhaps, pressed the debtor the hardest on the eve of bankruptcy.

Equitable subordination in bankruptcy can be a powerful tool, providing a court with considerable latitude to set things right insofar as the estates of the penniless and the rights of their creditors are concerned.

By no means do we think that we might reliably predict the outcome of such a politically charged case as King v. Burwell, No. 14-114, the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act.

Most bankruptcy lawyers might think that the dismissal of a bankruptcy proceeding and the revesting of the bankruptcy estate’s assets in the debtor bring an end to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction.

As we explained in a post yesterday, the Seventh Circuit in In re Bronk (Cirilli v.

In re Bronk (Cirilli v. Bronk), No. 13-1123 (7th Cir. Jan. 5, 2015), resolved a couple of “questions of first impression,” slip op.

Vigilantibus non dormientibus, æquitas subvenit.

* * * * *

The power of an appellate court in the federal system to stay the orders of lower courts or to enjoin conduct that lower courts have refused to enjoin, so as to preserve the appellate court’s jurisdiction to review those orders on ultimate appeal, is clearly established yet infrequently invoked. In addition to other potential sources, the power derives from the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C.