All posts in Supreme Court

Bellingham-Stern Issues Continue at the Supreme Court

By | July 1, 2014 | Cases, Supreme Court | No comments

The Supreme Court yesterday issued cert in a 7th Circuit case called Wellness International Network v. Sharif.  It looks like a much more direct attack on the powers of bankruptcy courts than Bellingham.

In Wellness, the creditor sued the chapter 7 debtor to deny the discharge and also for declaratory relief asking the bankruptcy court to find that a certain trust was the alter ego of the debtor and therefore the assets were property of the estate.  The creditor won.  The debtor appealed for the first time saying that the bankruptcy court could not enter final judgment because this was a Stern-type claim.  The district court said, too late buddy, you waived the argument i.e. you consented to the bankruptcy court.  The 7th Circuit reversed saying that the bankruptcy court could not enter final judgment on the alter ego issue and that that could not be waived.

I am sure we will discuss this at the July 19 cdcbaa with Prof. Pottow and Judges Paez and Jury.

We have about 50 rsvps for the July 19 program.  I am going to send out the flyer today or tomorrow and expect many more sign ups.  We can only allow 130 persons to attend so please rsvp if you are coming. Remember, telling me you’re coming does not do you any good.  You have to rsvp.

July 19, 2014 – CDCBAA – In re Bellingham

By | June 24, 2014 | Appeals, Bankruptcy Data, Case Briefs, Cases, Chapter 11, Community, Courts, Current Events, Programs, Specialist Information, Supreme Court | No comments

On July 19 the Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attys (cdcbaa) will hold our First Annual James T. King Bankruptcy Symposium. The topic is In re Bellingham, the new Supreme Court case dealing with core/non-core distinctions and the power of Congress to give power to non-Article III Judges (as you all know).

The panel will be Judge Richard Paez who wrote the opinion for the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that was appealed to the Supreme Court; Prof. John Pottow from the University of Michigan School of Law who argued the case successfully for the appellees at the Supreme Court. He is really a fun guy to listen to. And Judge Meredith Jury who sits on the BAP and follows these issues carefully. I will be the moderator and try to stay out of their way.

Besides Bellingham, there will be some discussion generally about appeals process. This is really an exceptional panel!

The program will be at Southwestern Law School on July 19 from 11am to 1pm and will be free to members of cdcbaa as always. We will permit non-members to attend for $95. We will invite the local judges as well.

ONE PROBLEM. The room holds only 130 persons and the law school is adamant that we not permit more than that many to attend.

So we are going to require RSVPs. There is a button on the cdcbaa website for the program to RSVP – www.bklawyers.org. We will cut it off when it gets to 130 persons. So please go to the website and RSVP if you want to attend. You can pay the $95 fee on that website as well. We will allow persons who have not been members of the cdcbaa for the past 3 years to join for the rest of the year 2014 now at the reduced price of $175.00 which includes the Ashland Dinner, this program and the two remaining programs for the year.

Our administrator is Linda Righi at cdcbaa@aol.com.

July 19, 2014 – First Annual James T. King Bankruptcy Symposium – In re Bellingham: From the Insiders

By | June 9, 2014 | Appeals, Bankruptcy Data, Case Briefs, Cases, Community, Courts, Current Events, Specialist Information, Supreme Court | No comments
July 19, 2014
First Annual James T. King Bankruptcy Symposium 

In re Bellingham:  From the Insiders
Judge Richard Paez
9th Circuit Court of Appeals
(Wrote the 9th Circuit Opinion appealed to the Supreme Court)
Judge Meredith Jury
Bankruptcy Court – Riverside Division
Prof. John Pottow, University of Michigan
(Argued for the Appellees at the Supreme Court)
Moderated by M. Jonathan Hayes
Where:
Southwestern Law School
3050 Wilshire Boulevard
Westmoreland Building – 3rd Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90010  

Supreme Court to Consider New Bankruptcy Petition for Certiorari

By | May 22, 2014 | Supreme Court | No comments

The debtor here has filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari on the issue of whether or not denial of confirmation of a plan is a final, appealable Order.  The case is Gordon v. Bank of Amer., S. Ct. No. ____ (filed May 22, 2014).  An article by the National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center can be found here.

July 19, 2014 – In re Bellingham: From the Insiders

By | May 5, 2014 | Appeals, Bankruptcy Data, Case Briefs, Cases, Community, Current Events, Supreme Court | No comments

Cdcbaa Program July 19, 2014

First Annual James T. King Bankruptcy Symposium

In re Bellingham: From the Insiders

Judge Richard Paez
9th Circuit Court of Appeals
(Wrote the 9th Circuit Opinion appealed to the Supreme Court)

Judge Meredith Jury
Bankruptcy Court – Riverside Division

Prof. John Pottow, University of Michigan
(Argued for the Appellees at the Supreme Court)

Moderated by M. Jonathan Hayes

4/29/2014 – San Fernando Valley Bar Association – Section 523(a)(4) Bullock Update Program

By | April 21, 2014 | Appeals, Bankruptcy Data, Case Briefs, Cases, Community, Current Events, Programs, Specialist Information, Supreme Court | No comments

In Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A., 133 S. Ct. 1754 (2013), the Supreme Court resolved a split among the circuits concerning whether a “culpable state of mind” was required in order to come within the “defalcation” exception of § 523(a)(4) and whether such a state of mind was required in order to fall within the exception.

The San Fernando Valley Bar Association is presenting a panel discussion on §523(a)(4) and an update on the Supreme Court’s opinion in Bullock. You are invited to sign up and to attend the panel discussion.

As always, the discussion will be enlightening and informative.  One judge sitting at the Woodland Hills Bankruptcy Court has committed to attending the program, subject to unexpected calendar issues.

Here are the particulars for the program:

San Fernando Valley Bar Association
Attention: Linda Temkin
5567 Reseda Blvd., Ste 200
Tarzana, CA 91356
(101 Freeway at Reseda Blvd.)
Telephone (818) 227-0490 ext.105
Facsimile (818) 227-0499
E-mail: events@sfvba.org

Read more…

Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.)

By | January 17, 2014 | Current Events, Supreme Court | No comments

Dear constituency list members of the Insolvency Law Committee:

Many of you have likely been following the Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc.) case (see Insolvency Law e-Bulletin published on January 3, 2014 for an in-depth summary of the case).  The United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case this week, onJanuary 14, 2014.

For those interested, the transcript of oral argument has been posted on scotusblog.com and can be read by clicking here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/12-1200_f29g.pdf.

Thank you for your continued support of the Committee.

Best regards,

Insolvency Law Committee

***Jon Hayes and Matt Resnik of SIMON RESNIK HAYES LLP attended oral argument at the Supreme Court last week and will be posting interesting tidbits shortly. 

Supreme Court Takes Up Issue of “What is Defalcation”?

By | March 17, 2013 | Supreme Court | 1 Comment

The case of Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A. will be argued before the Supreme Court this Tuesday, March 18, 2013.  All of the briefs can be accessed here.  The debtor is charged with “defalcation by a fiduciary” making the debt non-dischargeable.  It seems that while he was the trustee of a trust, he borrowed money and bought a building.  When his brothers discovered the “loan,” he paid it back with interest.  The brothers wanted the building which had risen in value.  They sued him in state court and won.  He filed bankruptcy and the brothers filed a non-dischargeability complaint.  The bankruptcy court ruled against the debtor and found the debt to be non-dischargeable.  The district court and court of appeals affirmed.

Breyer sometimes poses questions for Thomas during oral arguments

By | February 22, 2013 | Judges Corner, Supreme Court | 1 Comment

A little off-topic, but fascinating! 

By Debra Cassens Weiss, from ABAJournal.com

About seven years have passed since Justice Clarence Thomas has posed a question in oral arguments, though he did recently make a rare remark that appeared to be a joke about the quality of Harvard Law School.

But some of Thomas’ questions are still being aired, despite his silence, the Washington Post reports. Thomas sometimes writes down a question and passes it along to Justice Stephen G. Breyer, Thomas’ “friend and seatmate on the bench,” the story says.

In a recent appearance at Harvard Law School, Thomas confirmed Breyer’s assistance, according to the Post. “I’ll say, ‘What about this, Steve,’ and he’ll pop up and ask a question,” Thomas said. “So you can blame some of those [Breyer questions] on me.”

Thomas told the Harvard law students he doesn’t ask questions because “I think we should listen to lawyers who are arguing their case and I think we should allow the advocates to advocate.”

Thomas said in the speech that he is “quite introverted,” though he makes regular appearances at law schools. The Post described Thomas as “warm and effusive” in his Harvard visit and said that, if he did ask questions in arguments, the public could learn more about his personality on display in the speeches.

Supreme Court Annual Review

By | January 2, 2013 | Supreme Court | 1 Comment

Here the Supreme Court annual review.  Comments from Lyle Denniston.

Some great comments from Chief Justice John Robert including:

  • The entire judiciary budget is two-tenths of one percent of the total government budget.
  • The budget for the coming year for the Supreme Court is $77.2 million.
  • At that rate, each case resolved by the Supreme Court this year costs roughly $1 million.
  • Total cases filed in the Supreme Court were 7,713 – 6,160 were in forma pauperis.
  • “Cases filed with the United States as plaintiff decreased as defaulted student loan cases, which had surged in 2011, declined this year.”
← Older Entries
Newer Entries →