Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Circuit Courts Split On Review of Bankruptcy Court's Denial of Motion to Dismiss
Appellate courts are split on whether to review a bankruptcy court's denial of a motion to dismiss an entire case. Two district judges within the past few months, hearing appeals from the bankruptcy court, have reached contrary results that underline the split among the nation's courts of appeals noted below. See, e.g., In re Maison Royale, LLC, 2024 WL 2699994 (E.D. La. May 24, 2024) (denied leave to appeal interlocutory order that denied a creditor's "motion to dismiss the bankruptcy case due to bad faith filing.") citing In re Phillips, 844 F.2d 230 (5th Cir. 1988); contra, In re AIG Financial Products Corp., 2024 WL 810051 (D. Del. Feb. 27, 2024) (order denying dismissal of Chapter 11 case is final and appealable), citing In re Brown, 916 F.2d 120 (3d Cir. 1990). As discussed below, if Congress does not resolve this particular circuit split, appellate courts should adopt the Third Circuit's "pragmatic" approach to review these denial orders.
Relevant Statute: 28 U.S.C. §158
District Courts and Bankruptcy Appellate Panels
District courts and bankruptcy appellate panels (BAP) have jurisdiction over final judgments entered by bankruptcy judges as well as the jurisdiction to hear appeals with leave of court from interlocutory orders and decrees. 28 U.S.C. §158(a)(l), (3). See, In re Genter, 2020 WL 3129637 (N.D. Tex. June 12, 2020) (denied motion for leave to appeal interlocutory order; such appeals disfavored; leave to appeal "sparingly granted"; appellants failed to show "substantial ground for difference of opinion" on bankruptcy court's order); In re Latam Airlines Grp. S.A., No. 22-CV-2556 (JMF), 2022 WL 1471125 (S.D.N.Y. May 5, 2022) (dismissed appeal from non-final approval of backstop fee agreements; resolution should await imminent ruling on confirmation of plan). Additionally, an interlocutory order issued under 11 U.S.C. §1121(d) affecting the debtor's exclusive period to file a reorganization plan is automatically appealable.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.