The district court in Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company, et al. v. American Capital Equipment, et al., No. 06-0891 (U.S. Dist. Ct. W.D. Pa. May 11, 2007), affirmed that Skinner Engine Company's insurers have standing to move to dismiss Skinner's chapter 11 bankruptcy case and to challenge its bankruptcy plan. However, the court also affirmed the bankruptcy court's denial of the insurers' motion to dismiss the bankruptcy case.

C.A. No. 3017-CC (Del. Ch. May 15, 2009)

On May 15, 2009, Chancellor Chandler issued a four-page order in Fisk Ventures, LLC v. Segal, et al. addressing a motion for injunction or stay of the judicial dissolution of Genetrix, LLC pending appeal by Dr. Andrew Segal. Segal was appealing the January 13, 2009 Memorandum Opinion and the March 10, 2009 Order and decree of judicial dissolution of Genitrix, LLC.

Late Sunday night, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Arthur Gonzalez approved the sale of most of Chrysler's assets to Italian Automaker Fiat S.p.A., as contemplated in the Master Transaction Agreement between the two companies.

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.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held on Nov. 3, 2009, that a district court had improperly dismissed, on mootness grounds, an appeal from a bankruptcy court’s order confirming a reorganization plan. According to the Tenth Circuit, the appeal was reviewable because reversal of the plan confirmation order (1) would not unduly affect innocent third parties, and (2) would not undo any complex transactions.

In a decision that reaffirms its previous rulings on the jurisdictional limits of bankruptcy courts, the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently held in W.R. Grace & Co. v. Chakarian (In re W.R. Grace & Co.)1 that bankruptcy courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over third-party actions against non-debtors if such actions could affect a debtor’s bankruptcy estate only following the filing of another lawsuit.

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

During her lifetime, Vickie Lynn Marshall, publicly known as Anna Nicole Smith (“Vickie”), was hardly a stranger to the prying eyes of the media. Today, the late Vickie is again the subject of media coverage, this time in the context of a fifteen-year legal saga that has twice reached the United States Supreme Court.

The Bottom Line: