The Supreme Court has issued two opinions on the subject of bankruptcy court authority and jurisdiction in recent years. The first opinion, Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. _, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011) was a 5-4 split from 2011 that roiled the bankruptcy waters by raising many questions about the constitutionality of the jurisdiction and authority Congress has provided to bankruptcy courts. The more recent opinion— Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Bellingham, Chapter 7 Trustee of Estate of Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.,___ U.S. _, No.

Summary

On June 9, 2014, in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison, the United States Supreme Court ruled that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(c)(1), a bankruptcy court may make proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in a Stern “core” proceeding subject to de novo review by an Article III court.    To read the full decision, click here. 

Facts 

“I’ll be representing, representing” – Ludacris feat. Kelly Rowland

A unanimous Supreme Court, in Executive Benefits Ins. Agency, Inc. v. Arkinson (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, Inc.), 573 U.S. ___ (2014), confirmed a bankruptcy court’s power to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law for the district court’s de novo review, even though such court is constitutionally barred from entering a final judgment on a bankruptcy-related claim under Stern v. Marshall.

The United States Supreme Court, on June 9, 2014, unanimously held that certain “core” proceedings (e.g., fraudulent transfer suits ) could still be litigated in the bankruptcy court, but only if that court’s proposed fact findings and legal conclusions are subject to de novo review by the district court. Executive Benefits Ins. Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Ins. Agency), 2014 WL 2560461 (U.S. Sup. Court, June 9, 2014).

In 2011, the Supreme Court decided Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), which gave voice to the Court’s grave concerns about the constitutional limits of bankruptcy court jurisdiction and raised several questions that have confounded courts and lawyers for three years. Last week, the Supreme Court issued its first follow-up ruling, answering some of those questions and clarifying how bankruptcy courts are to handle so-called Stern claims. Despite that guidance, the opinion leaves several important questions unanswered.

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 First Circuit held in a recent decision that bankruptcy courts have wide discretion to apply a flexible approach when valuing (and potentially re-valuing) collateral for purposes of determining whether a secured creditor is oversecured and therefore entitled to receive postpetition interest pursuant to section 506(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.   

Absolute Priority has regularly covered the impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in Stern v. Marshall on the world of bankruptcy litigation.  In Stern, the Supreme Court held that Article III of the United States Constitution prohibits bankruptcy courts from finally adjudicating certain “core” causes of action (often called “Stern claims”), notwithstanding Congress’s explicit grant of such power to the bankruptcy court.

Readers may recall that, according to at least one bankruptcy court, chapter 9 debtors are not required to obtain bankruptcy court approval of compromises and settlements.