Putting it mildly, the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling last year in Stern v. Marshall, 132 S. Ct. 56 (2011), cast a wrench into the day-to-day operation of U.S. bankruptcy courts scrambling to deal with a deluge of challenges—strategic or otherwise—to the scope of their “core” jurisdiction to issue final orders and judgments on a wide range of disputes. In Stern, the Court ruled that, to the extent that 28 U.S.C.
Defanging Stern v. Marshall1: The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Modifies the Reference of Bankruptcy Matters to Address Issues Resulting from the Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Bottom Line:
As expected the Harrisburg City Council has filed a reply to the numerous objections to the Chapter 9 filing of Harrisburg initiated by the City Council. The City Council’s brief (harrisburg response.pdf) appears to be the only timely filed reply to the objections to the Chapter 9 filing.
The scenario has become all too familiar in recent years: a borrower defaults on a loan and, when the lender pursues the loan collateral through foreclosure or other proceedings, the borrower files for bankruptcy protection. More often than not, when the lender appears in bankruptcy court to pursue its interest in the collateral, the borrower counterattacks with a host of state law lender liability claims.
The United States Supreme Court recently narrowed the scope of the authority of bankruptcy courts, with potential far-reaching implications on past, present and future bankruptcy matters. The case, Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), began as a dispute between Anna Nicole Smith and the son of her late husband. After several years of litigation and one previous trip to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court ruled bankruptcy courts lack the authority to enter judgments on counterclaims against a debtor that are based on state law.
On June 23, 2011, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that has sent waves through bankruptcy courts across the nation. Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011), is the latest opinion in a long running dispute between the estate of Vickie Lynn Marshall, better known as Anna Nicole Smith, and the estate of her late husband’s son, Pierce Marshall.
Delaware companies take note: a state court has ruled that companies in apparent good financial health may not use the bankruptcy process to avoid shareholder approval of an asset sale—even in situations in which a shareholder vote may be difficult to obtain.
Two important and very different decisions regarding public pensions were recently issued by the Supreme Court of Illinois and the Supreme Court of New Jersey. These decisions are significant not only for the workers and taxpayers in these States, but also for the owners and insurers of municipal bonds issued in these States.
ILLINOIS
On May 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court ruled that Article III of the U.S. Constitution is not violated when bankruptcy courts decide matters with the knowing and voluntary consent of the litigants. Wellness Int’l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif,No. 13-935 (U.S. May 26, 2015).