Figuring out when a pre-petition waiver of a jury trial will be respected in lawsuits brought in bankruptcy cases can be tricky. In a recent case, In re D.I.T., Inc., 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 3386 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Oct. 2, 2017), a court distinguished between claims belonging to a debtor pre-petition and those belonging to a debtor-in-possession.

Two decades ago, the Supreme Court tackled the issue of whether a third party had submitted itself to jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. In Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg,1 the Supreme Court ruled that a party who has not filed a claim against a bankrupt's estate is not subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts. A year later, in Langenkamp v.

On July 26, 2010, the Indiana Court of Appeals, in the published decision of Green Tree Servicing, LLC., v. Brian D. Brough, No. 88A01-0911-CV-550, addressed the issue raised by Appellant Green Tree as to whether the trial court erred by vacating its prior Order directing the parties to arbitrate their dispute, which involved a prior bankruptcy filing and a claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

In our June 4, 2009 Client Update, we reported on the jury verdict the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") obtained against Charles Conaway, the former CEO of Kmart Corp for misleading investors about inventory and liquidity levels as the company was approaching its January 2002 Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing.

The US Supreme Court has ruled in Stern v. Marshall (June 23, 2011) that a bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction to render final judgment on a bankruptcy estate’s compulsory counterclaim against a creditor arising under common law, despite a statutory grant of jurisdiction.

On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision in the Stern v.

On December 4, 2012, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit added to the growing body of case law delineating the extent of bankruptcy courts’ jurisdiction in the wake the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall.

Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. v. Bethany Holdings Group, LLC, et al., 2011 WL 3427013, (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 5, 2011)

CASE SNAPSHOT

A business consultant who contracted to receive a percentage of a company’s shares in exchange for helping the company go public—but never actually received those shares and obtained a money judgment against the company instead—was not a holder of equity for purposes of subordination under the Bankruptcy Code, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has determined.

In a recent ruling likely to be of great interest to debtors and creditors alike, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (the “Court”) ruled in MC Asset Recovery v. Southern Company1 (the “Southern Co. Litigation”) that fraudulent transfer claims held by a bankruptcy trustee or debtor in possession under the Bankruptcy Code continue to be viable at the conclusion of a bankruptcy case, even if all creditors’ claims have already been satisfied in full pursuant to a plan of reorganization.