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
On Monday, the United States Supreme Court decided in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison that while bankruptcy courts do not have the power to make final decisions on so-called "Stern claims," they can try or "hear" those disputes and then make a recommendation to the district courts for entry of final judgment.
What do you get when you combine a 20+ year old bankruptcy, a contaminated landfill, and a state regulatory agency that moves at a glacial pace? The answer: In re Solitron Devices, Inc., a recent decision from the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida.
In Executive Benefits Insurance Agency, petitioner vs. Peter H. Arkison, Chapter 7 Trustee, Case No. 12-1200, 573 U.S. __(2014) the United States Supreme Court ( Court) delivered its opinion as a follow up to its landmark decision in Stern v. Marshall. In Stern v.
This morning, the Supreme Court issued its hotly anticipated decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v.
The Supreme Court of the United States announced decisions in three cases today:
In 2011, the US Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Stern v. Marshall. Turning decades of bankruptcy practice on its head, the Supreme Court held that, even though bankruptcy courts are statutorily authorized to enter final judgments in “core” matters, Article III of the Constitution prohibits them from finally adjudicating certain core matters, such as a debtor’s state law counterclaim against a creditor (so-called “Stern claims”).
The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkinson, limited somewhat the ramifications of its landmark opinion two years ago in Stern v.
On June 9, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, a case that tested the extent of the jurisdiction of bankruptcy court judges to decide fraudulent transfer and certain other claims against non-debtors. Ropes & Gray LLP represented the petitioner in obtaining certiorari and in the Supreme Court proceedings.
Lenders and their attorneys are conditioned to believe that being over-secured is as good as life gets for a creditor. Lenders want to secure repayment with collateral that is valuable and liquid, while their attorneys ensure that the security interest is properly perfected. But, post-closing confidence in a job well done can quickly evaporate if the borrower files a bankruptcy case intending to sell the collateral.