How a Judge Makes Mediation Work: Supporting Mediation with Timely Orders

By Donald L. Swanson “We in bankruptcy impair contracts all day, every day . . . That is what we do.” --Judge Steven Rhodes, as quoted by Nathan Bomey in “Detroit Resurrected: To Bankruptcy and Back.” Michigan’s State Constitution provides that public pension rights cannot be impaired.  So, pensioners take the position, in Detroit’s bankruptcy,... Continue Reading →

Romance and “Insider” Status, with Other Oddities, at U.S. Supreme Court (U.S. Bank v. Village at Lakeridge)

By Donald L. Swanson On March 27, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari in the case of U.S. Bank N.A. v. Village at Lakeridge, LLC, U.S. Supreme Court Case No. 15-1509. The Facts Kathie Bartlett is one of five owners of a company that owns the Debtor. So, both Kathie Bartlett and her company... Continue Reading →

Mandating Mediation to Develop a Mediation Culture

By:  Donald L. Swanson “[T]he full benefits of mediation are not reaped when parties are left to participate in it voluntarily.” D. Quek, Mandatory Mediation: An Oxymoron? Examining the Feasibility of Implementing a Court-Mandated Mediation Program, Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol 11:479, at 483 (Spring 2010). The article linked above is written by Dorcas... Continue Reading →

How a Judge Makes Mediation Work: Minimizing Risks in Close-Call and Winner-Take-All Disputes

By Donald L. Swanson “The decision here is most likely all or nothing.  One side is going to win and the other side is going to lose—and that’s going to be very happy on one side and very tough on the other side.” --Judge Steven Rhodes, encouraging parties to reach a settlement, as quoted in... Continue Reading →

A Proactive Mediator Role: “Special Settlement Master”

By Donald L. Swanson Mediators are appointed as “special masters” in the U.S. District Courts.  Such appointments are authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 53. Examples of Mediators as Special Settlement Masters Mediators appointed as special settlement masters are often given a broad range of authority to act proactively on the court’s behalf. One example is In... Continue Reading →

In re SunEdison: Mandatory Mediation to the Rescue?

By:  Donald L. Swanson “Whereas, mediation may provide an opportunity to consensually resolve the Mediation Issues . . . It Is Therefore, Ordered” that “Representatives of the following parties and their counsel are directed to attend the Mediation in person: (i) the Debtors, (ii) the Committee, . . . [etc.] . . . “ Stuart... Continue Reading →

Next Steps for a Court with Basic Mediation Rules: Mandated and Early Mediation

By: Donald L. Swanson Here is a common experience in the bankruptcy courts (and other courts) where mediation is a new or little-used tool: Attorneys have been practicing for years in this court without using mediation.  And mediation is slow to catch on.  Here’s why: --Attorneys who practice in this court aren’t accustomed to using... Continue Reading →

Puerto Rico Turns to Mediation for Assistance in Solving its Financial Crisis

By Donald L. Swanson “Puerto Rico’s federally appointed financial oversight board scheduled mediation in debt restructuring talks between the U.S. Territory’s general obligation bondholders and holders [of other debts] backed by sales tax revenue.” The mediation “will run from April 10-13 in New York.” --Reuters.com, March 31, 2017, at 11:09 a.m. An hour later, March... Continue Reading →

Structured Dismissal Negotiations are Ripe for Mediation: Until the Supreme Court Upends Precedent (In re Jevic)

By: Donald L. Swanson “We are not final because we are infallible, but we are infallible only because we are final.” --From concurring opinion of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, in Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443 (1953), on role and function of the U.S. Supreme Court. Structured dismissals are [correction: were] a... Continue Reading →

In re Jevic: Once Again, the Supreme Court Screws Up Our Bankruptcy World — And Justice Thomas is Wise in His Dissent

By: Donald L. Swanson “I think it is unwise for the Court to decide” this issue because: (i) “Experience shows that we would greatly benefit from the view of additional courts of appeals on this question,” and (ii) “We also would have benefited from full, adversarial briefing.” --Justice Clarence Thomas, dissenting in Czyzewski v. Jevic... Continue Reading →

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑