In Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, Chapter 7 Trustee of Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc., — U.S. — (June 9, 2014) (Bellingham), the Supreme Court shed light on how bankruptcy judges must proceed when confronted with claims that they cannot finally adjudicate as non-Article III judges.
The health of the healthcare industry can be summarized as follows: as go federal reimbursement rates, so goes the financial viability of healthcare providers, whether hospitals, nursing homes or medical practices.
The recent Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing by James River Coal was the latest reminder that mining companies continue to face unique and myriad challenges. Several factors, including the depressed global economy, tougher environmental rules and enforcement, funding and liquidity challenges, and market volatility, are causing industry-wide stress, particularly for coal companies. Trade press and pundits suggest that more mining company bankruptcies may be on the horizon.
The Stern v. Marshall Decision. In its 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall, decided by a 5-4 vote, the U.S. Supreme Court held that even though Congress designated certain state law counterclaims as “core” proceedings, Article III of the U.S. Constitution prohibits bankruptcy courts from finally adjudicating those claims. Stern v.
On June 9, 2014, the United States Supreme Court addressed an issue left open in Stern v. Marshall.1 Instead of bringing clarity to procedural confusion created by Stern, the Court’s opinion in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v.
On Monday, the Supreme Court confirmed1 that bankruptcy courts may hear “Stern-type” matters (such as tortious interference counterclaims) that relate to bankruptcy proceedings, so long as a district court reviews the bankruptcy court’s proposed findings and renders the final decision. Other questions left in the wake of Stern v. Marshall,2 however, remain unanswered and will continue to occupy the attention of parties to bankruptcy matters and courts alike.
BACKGROUND: IN THE WAKE OF STERN V. MARSHALL
On June 9, 2014, a unanimous Supreme Court issued the latest in a series of key rulings regarding the extent of a bankruptcy court’s constitutional authority.1 Notably, while Monday’s Executive Benefitsdecision answered one important question arising out of the Court’s 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall,2 it also left the primary question that resulted in a split in the Circuit Courts of Appeals to be decided another day.
The Aftermath of Stern v. Marshall
In Part II of this three-part entry, we mentioned that the District Court for
On June 18, 2014, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Dallas will consider whether to grant recognition to the insolvency case pending in Tokyo. Based on the pleadings filed last week, it is a virtual certainty that the court will enter an order granting recognition.
The Supreme Court of the United States announced decisions in two cases today: