Narrow and Limited Effect of U.S. Supreme Court’s Stern v. Marshall Opinion (In re Richards)

By Donald L. Swanson I'm reading a U.S. circuit court's recent bankruptcy opinion that cites Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011).  I'm startled by that and blurt out (to myself), "Who cites Stern anymore?!" and "Is Stern still a thing?!" and "I thought Stern has been narrowed to nearly nothing?!" And then I see... Continue Reading →

Purdue Pharma Oral Arguments at U.S. Supreme Court: A Summary & A Compilation of Justices’ Comments/Questions

By: Donald L Swanson Oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. happened on December 4, 2023.  Here is a link to the official transcript of such arguments. My Impression I’ve read that transcript—and still don't know what the Court is going to do.  But based on the comments/questions of the... Continue Reading →

No Third-Party Releases?  But What About Fraudulent Transfer Claims and Derivative Claims? (Purdue Pharma)

By: Donald L Swanson In Purdue Pharma, the U.S. Supreme Court grants certiorari on this question: “Whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants’ consent” (emphasis... Continue Reading →

Absolute Priority Rule And U.S. Supreme Court — A Refresher (Ahlers & 203 North LaSalle)

An old, long and relatively straight road (photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson The absolute priority rule [Fn. 1] has been a problem for businesses in bankruptcy—for a very long time!  The rule dates back to at least 1899, when the U.S. Supreme Court prevents certain shareholder actions “until the interests of unsecured creditors... Continue Reading →

Unconstitutionality of Bankruptcy Administrator Fees; A Remedies Debacle; & No Accountability For Those Responsible (U.S. Trustee v. John Q. Hammons)

From Official Comment to Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9035 By: Donald L Swanson This isn’t going to end well.  Looks like our bankruptcy system in these United States is about to take a big hit—to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars (projected to be around $350 million).  And those responsible for creating the debacle are going to... Continue Reading →

Equitable Mootness Doctrine At U.S. Supreme Court (U.S. Bank v Windstream)

Enigmatic origins? (Photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson The equitable mootness doctrine is before the U.S. Supreme Court on a Petition for writ of certiorari.  The case is U.S. Bank National Association v. Windstream Holdings, Inc.[Fn. 1] All who’ve seen an effort to abuse equitable mootness, from a creditor’s view, will appreciate the following... Continue Reading →

Third-Party Releases At U.S. Supreme Court & Strong Views Of Individual Victims (In re Purdue Pharma)

Rare and hard to get? (Photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson Here’s my take on third-party releases in a bankruptcy plan [not that anyone asked]: third-party releases should be rare and hard-to-get; but in exceptional circumstances (i.e., when a third-party release is needed to get lots of money to claimants quickly under a plan,... Continue Reading →

How To Win A Battle But Probably Lose The War At U.S. Supreme Court (Mallory v. Norfolk Southern)

Long-arm jurisdiction? (Photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson Mallory v. Norfolk Southern Railway Co.[fn. 1] has got to be one of the most unusual vote-count opinions at the U.S. Supreme Court.  Get this: Justice Gorsuch writes a plurality opinion, vacating the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and remanding the case, (i) based... Continue Reading →

Dissenting Opinions At U.S. Supreme Court (Coinbase v. Bielski & Waleski v. Montgomery)

Dissenters? (Photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson Dissenting opinions are always interesting.  Sometimes, they are even the most interesting part of the entire case. Two recent dissents, in opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court, are decided three days apart: on June 23 & 26 of 2023, respectively. The first opinion has a four-Justices dissent... Continue Reading →

Guidance From Justices Gorsuch and Jackson on “Excessive Fines” Under U.S. Constitution (Tyler v. Hennepin County)

Eighth Amendment to U.S. Constitution By: Donald L Swanson “we need not decide whether she has also alleged an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.” --From U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion, Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota, Case No. 22-166, at 14 (decided May 25, 2023). By now, everyone knows that the U.S. Supreme Court, in Tyler... Continue Reading →

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑