On May 26, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the firm’s client Wellness International Network, reversing a Seventh Circuit decision that held that Article III of the Constitution was violated when litigants consented to the entry of judgments by bankruptcy courts on what have come to be known as “Stern” claims.  In siding with arguments made by Partner Catherine L.

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania has held that an excess liability insurer had no standing to object to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy debtor's reorganization plan where the plan, although requiring contributions from the insurer's policyholder, was not contingent on the policyholder obtaining any funds or proceeds from its insurer. Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co., et al. v. North Am. Refractories Cos. et al., Civ. Action No. 07-1750, Bankr. Case No. 02-20198 (JFK) (W. D. Pa. Jul. 25, 2008).

The United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey denied fourteen plans of reorganization filed by Congoleum Corporation before the court finally dismissed the case on February 27, 2009. While the Congoleum bankruptcy proceedings involve numerous issues, this article focuses generally on insurer standing and specifically, on whether Congoleum’s insurers had standing to object to Congoleum’s twelfth plan of reorganization.

On June 23, 2011, the US Supreme Court issued a narrowly-divided decision in Stern v. Marshall, limiting Bankruptcy Court jurisdiction over certain types of claims. The Court found that while the Bankruptcy Court was statutorily authorized to enter final judgment on a tortious interference counterclaim (as a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(C)), it was not constitutionally authorized to do so.

The United States Supreme Court recently ruled in Stern v. Marshall1 that a bankruptcy court lacks constitutional authority to render a final judgment on a bankruptcy estate’s counterclaim against a creditor based on state common law, despite an express statutory grant of jurisdiction. This ruling is the most significant decision regarding bankruptcy court jurisdiction since the Court’s 1982 decision in Northern Pipeline v. Marathon2 and it could significantly affect the administration of bankruptcy cases.

Root of the Constitutional Problem

The Bottom Line:

On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts, that a Bankruptcy Judge lacked constitutional authority to issue a final ruling on state law counterclaims by a debtor against a claimant. This is the latest round of a well-known case involving the estate of former model Anna Nicole Smith and the estate of her late husband, wealthy oil magnate J. Howard Marshall.  

The Bottom Line:

In Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), the estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall, a.k.a. Anna Nicole Smith, lost by a 5-4 margin Round 2 of its Supreme Court bout with the estate of E. Pierce Marshall in a contest over Vickie's rights to a portion of the fortune of her late husband, billionaire J. Howard Marshall II. The dollar figures in dispute, amounting to more than $400 million, and the celebrity status of the original (and now deceased) litigants may grab headlines.

In a case that could have upended the bankruptcy and magistrate court systems, the Supreme Court took a pragmatic approach yesterday when it held in Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif that with “knowing and voluntary consent” of the parties, a bankruptcy court could adjudicate a so-called “Sternclaim,” which would otherwise be outside the scope of its constitutional power.  The Court’s 2011 ruling in Stern v.