Follow Us
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Jurisdictional boundaries within the federal system as between bankruptcy and district courts as well as various federal agencies can be a maze that is at times nearly impossible to navigate. Further complicating matters are those cases involving state-regulated issues that add abstention to the mix.
Jurisdictional boundaries within the federal system as between bankruptcy and district courts as well as various federal agencies can be a maze that is at times nearly impossible to navigate. Further complicating matters are those cases involving state-regulated issues that add abstention to the mix. On Jan. 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit provided some additional color to the abstention issue by ruling that the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas lacked jurisdiction to decide an exclusively state-governed question related to emergency energy price controls. See, Electric Reliability Council of Texas v. Just Energy Texas (In re Just Energy Group), 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 253, __ F.4th __, 2023 WL 111207. The Just Energy decision, arose from events that took place from Feb. 13, 2021, to Feb. 20, 2021, caused by storm Uri, which severely impacted Texas’ power grid. During the storm, state regulators imposed artificial price caps on the sale of wholesale electricity that upset the entire Texas energy market and forced Just Energy and many others into bankruptcy.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
Appellate Courts Skeptical About Bankruptcy Court Sanctions
By Michael L. Cook
Recent appellate decisions reflect a distaste for appeals from bankruptcy court sanction orders. A split Fourth Circuit even refused to hear such an appeal. Other courts tend to limit sanctions or, alternatively, accept a bankruptcy judge’s findings under a stringent “abuse of discretion” standard.
Supreme Court’s Rejection of Purdue Pharma Settlement Redefines Releases In Chapter 11
By Angelo Castaldi
The U.S. Supreme Court has issued its most anticipated bankruptcy decision in recent memory. In a 5-4 decision entered June 27, the Supreme Court struck down the nonconsensual third-party releases. Writing for the Court, Justice Neil Gorsuch ruled that nothing in the Bankruptcy Code authorized the nonconsensual release or discharge of claims of opioid victims against the Sacklers, who were not debtors themselves.
Ninth Circuit: Debt In Asset Case Is Nondischargeable If Debtor Fails to Properly Schedule the Debt
By Lawrence J. Kotler and Geoffrey A. Heaton
In a recent published decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit addressed a previously unresolved question in that circuit: whether a debtor’s failure to properly schedule a debt in an “asset case” renders the debt nondischargeable.
Is the Rule Preventing Bankruptcy Judges from Appointing Special Masters Outdated?
By Mark B. Conlan and Noel L. Hillman
Rule 9031 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure prevents all bankruptcy judges, and, if broadly interpreted, any federal judge hearing bankruptcy cases and proceedings, from appointing special masters. The rule has not been amended since its adoption in 1983. It is outdated and should be repealed or amended to accord with the reality of today’s complex Chapter 11 cases.
Copyright © ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
