Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The sheer surfeit of factors that the Court was required to consider in this case should arouse the suspicion that something is seriously amiss with our jurisprudence.
Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594, 2621, (U.S. 2011) (Scalia, J., concurring).'
On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to the appeal in In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, 702 F.3d 553 (9th Cir. 2012). In Stern, the Supreme Court had held that Congress' grant of authority for a bankruptcy court to hear and determine all counterclaims is unconstitutional.
Stern created a new category of proceedings of “core” but unconstitutional (Stern Proceeding). While Congress has authorized the entry of a final order in these proceedings, Article III of the Constitution prohibits the exercise of such authority. This has generated myriad diverse and, often, contradictory decisions. Significantly, in Bellingham, the Ninth Circuit's decision addressing a Stern Proceeding conflicted with those of the Sixth and Seventh Circuits. The Supreme Court may finally clarify some of the confusion regarding a bankruptcy court's authority acknowledged by Justice Scalia in Stern.
As noted by Justice Scalia, the interaction between Congress's grant of authority to a bankruptcy court and the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article III is clouded by uncertainty. See also Northern Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 91 (1982), (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (characterizing the dissent's view that the Court's prior decisions are “but landmarks on a judicial 'darkling plain' where ignorant armies have clashed by night.”). Congress expanded the jurisdiction of a bankruptcy court with the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 (the 1978 Act). However, in Northern Pipeline, the Court held that the 1978 Act's grant of authority to a bankruptcy court violated Article III. Congress responded with the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984 (BAFJA) to remedy these constitutional deficiencies.
Almost 30 years later, the Stern Court determined that Congress failed to adequately address Northern Pipeline's concerns. The complexity and ambiguity of Stern and Northern Pipeline heighten this uncertainty. In Northern Pipeline, the Supreme Court could only muster a plurality to address a bankruptcy court's jurisdiction. Stern's broad and numerous rationales belie its insistence that it is a narrow decision. This muddled history chills the expectation that the Supreme Court will clarify the parameters of a bankruptcy court's authority.
The Circuit Splits
In Waldman v. Stone, 698 F.3d 910 (6th Cir. 2012), the Sixth Circuit concluded that consent cannot cure a bankruptcy court's infirmity to enter a final order in a Stern Proceeding. “[Consent] implicates not only ' personal rights, but also the structural principle advanced by Article III. And that principle is not [an individual's] to waive.” Id. at 918.'
“[T]he Seventh Circuit has implied that bankruptcy courts cannot propose findings of fact and conclusions of law in any proceeding classified as core by ' 157.” Bellingham, 702 F.3d 553, 566 (citing Ortiz v. Aurora Health Care, Inc., 665 F.3d 906, 915 (7th Cir.2011). Ortiz explained that “' 157(c)(1) [submitting Proposed Findings] is expressly limited to 'non-core' proceedings [even when the Constitution prevents the entry of a final order in a 'core' proceeding].” Ortiz 665 F.3d at 915.
In contrast, in Bellingham, the Ninth Circuit concluded that consent permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgments in proceedings that would otherwise be the exclusive province of Article III judgment. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that “[i]f consent permits a non-Article III judge to decide finally a non-core proceeding, then it surely permits the same judge to decide a core proceeding in which he would, absent consent, be disentitled to enter final judgment. Bellingham, 702 F.3d 567. Second, the Ninth Circuit concluded, Section 157(b)(1) empowers bankruptcy courts to 'hear and determine' ' and that includes the more modest power to submit [Proposed Findings in Stern Proceedings].” Id. at 565.
While the Bellingham appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit joined the fray and found that consent cannot cure a bankruptcy court's infirmity to enter a final order in a Stern Proceeding. Wellness Intern. Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 2013 WL 4441926 (7th Cir. 2013). The Seventh Circuit explained that “[t]he dual nature of Article III, ' 1, renders notions of waiver and consent more nuanced” and, as such, “it is difficult to separate the “waivable personal safeguard from the nonwaivable structural safeguard.” Id. at 15. Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit concluded that “the Sixth Circuit has the better view under current law.” Id. at 17. Furthermore, the Seventh Circuit reiterated its position in Ortiz. “[I]t is difficult to find a statutory basis on which the district court could rely to treat the bankruptcy court's order [in a Stern Proceeding] as proposed findings and conclusions.” Id. at 17.
Certiorari
The Petitioner in Bellingham sought certiorari regarding the following issues: 1) Whether Article III permits the exercise of the judicial power of the United States by bankruptcy courts on the basis of litigant consent, and, if so, whether “implied consent” is sufficient to satisfy Article III; and 2) Whether a bankruptcy judge may submit propose findings of fact and conclusions of law [where a bankruptcy judge lacks authority to enter a final order] for de novo review by a district court in a “core” proceeding under 28 U.S.C. 157(b).
The Significance of Granting Certiorari
The combination of Ortiz and Waldman (inability to enter Proposed Finding or Final Order) prevents a bankruptcy court from meaningfully addressing Stern Proceedings (e.g., avoidance actions), which comprise a significant portion of cases that fill its docket. Furthermore, Waldman's reasoning eviscerates section 157(c)(2), which allows for entry of final order in a “non-core” proceeding with consent. Under Waldman, consent cannot overcome the principles advanced by Article III. Similarly, the Federal Magistrates Act of 1968 (the Magistrates Act) relies on consent to authorize a magistrate judge, a non Article III judge, to enter a final order on common law claims. The application of Waldman's reasoning should render this portion of the Magistrates Act unconstitutional.
The majority of courts have followed the Ninth Circuit in granting little, if any credence, to Waldman and Ortiz.
Waldman
Three courts from different districts have already expressly disagreed with Waldman. Respondents Opposition to Petition for Certiorari (Respondent's Opposition), p. 15. Furthermore, in response to Stern, the proposed Bankruptcy Rules 7008 and 7012 require pleadings to contain “whether [the party] consents to entry of final orders or judgment by the bankruptcy court.” These proposed rules do not evince a concern with Waldman.
Ortiz
Prior to Wellness, the only court that appeared to have adopted Ortiz's rationale, later clarified that it did not view Stern as jurisdictional and, as such, Stern does not prevent a bankruptcy court from entering Proposed Findings. See Blixseth v. Brown, 2012 WL 691598, 7 fn. 4 (D.Mont. 2012). Likewise, many orders of reference contradict Ortiz. For example in the Southern District of New York: “The District Court may treat any order of the bankruptcy court [in a core proceeding] as proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law, if entry of that order was not consistent with Article III.” Standing Order M-431, dated Feb. 1, 2012 (Preska, C.J.)
Now, the grant of certiorari requires the consideration of these cases.
Reading the Tea Leaves
Waldman, Ortiz and Wellness are not consistent with Stern's admonition that “Congress, in one isolated respect, exceeded [Article III's] limitation in the Bankruptcy Act of 1984.” Stern at 2620. These cases severely limit a bankruptcy judge's participation in a Stern Proceeding. Likewise, while Stern repeatedly referenced section 157(c)(2) without disapprobation, Waldman calls into question the constitutionality of that section.
Furthermore, in Stern, four out of the nine Justices did not find any constitutional infirmity in the Bankruptcy Code. Only one of the majority must narrowly construe Stern to affirm Bellingham. On the other hand, while the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Bellingham, it denied certiorari for Waldman, cert. denied, 133 S. Ct. 1604 (2013).
Does Past Performance Indicate Future Results?
“In many important ways, the parties who are affected by a legal document are potential adversaries … There is simply no meeting of the minds … There may be [.] many internal disagreements about how a court would apply the contractual terms.”
Antonin Scalia and Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, p. 392 West, 2012.
This quote may well characterize Stern's varied formulations of Article I jurisprudence. There appears to have never been a meeting of the minds among the majority and, as such, the splits among the lower courts are merely a reflection of the divisions among these five Justices. If the Supreme Court continues to be unable to consolidate the Court's multiple rationales in Northern Pipeline and Stern into a cogent doctrine, then any decision in Bellingham may well just add another layer of confusion to this already beleaguered doctrine.
Yitzhak Greenberg is of counsel with Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, a litigation boutique in New York City. His practice is focused on all aspects of bankruptcy, including the representation of both debtors and creditor. He can be reached at [email protected].
The sheer surfeit of factors that the Court was required to consider in this case should arouse the suspicion that something is seriously amiss with our jurisprudence.
On June 24, 2013, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to the appeal in In re Bellingham Ins. Agency, 702 F.3d 553 (9th Cir. 2012). In Stern, the Supreme Court had held that Congress' grant of authority for a bankruptcy court to hear and determine all counterclaims is unconstitutional.
Stern created a new category of proceedings of “core” but unconstitutional (Stern Proceeding). While Congress has authorized the entry of a final order in these proceedings, Article III of the Constitution prohibits the exercise of such authority. This has generated myriad diverse and, often, contradictory decisions. Significantly, in Bellingham, the Ninth Circuit's decision addressing a Stern Proceeding conflicted with those of the Sixth and Seventh Circuits. The Supreme Court may finally clarify some of the confusion regarding a bankruptcy court's authority acknowledged by Justice Scalia in Stern.
As noted by Justice Scalia, the interaction between Congress's grant of authority to a bankruptcy court and the Supreme Court's interpretation of Article III is clouded by uncertainty. See also
Almost 30 years later, the Stern Court determined that Congress failed to adequately address Northern Pipeline's concerns. The complexity and ambiguity of Stern and Northern Pipeline heighten this uncertainty. In Northern Pipeline, the Supreme Court could only muster a plurality to address a bankruptcy court's jurisdiction. Stern's broad and numerous rationales belie its insistence that it is a narrow decision. This muddled history chills the expectation that the Supreme Court will clarify the parameters of a bankruptcy court's authority.
The Circuit Splits
“[T]he Seventh Circuit has implied that bankruptcy courts cannot propose findings of fact and conclusions of law in any proceeding classified as core by ' 157.” Bellingham , 702 F.3d 553, 566 (citing
In contrast, in Bellingham, the Ninth Circuit concluded that consent permits a bankruptcy court to enter final judgments in proceedings that would otherwise be the exclusive province of Article III judgment. The Ninth Circuit reasoned that “[i]f consent permits a non-Article III judge to decide finally a non-core proceeding, then it surely permits the same judge to decide a core proceeding in which he would, absent consent, be disentitled to enter final judgment. Bellingham, 702 F.3d 567. Second, the Ninth Circuit concluded, Section 157(b)(1) empowers bankruptcy courts to 'hear and determine' ' and that includes the more modest power to submit [Proposed Findings in Stern Proceedings].” Id. at 565.
While the Bellingham appeal was pending before the Supreme Court, the Seventh Circuit joined the fray and found that consent cannot cure a bankruptcy court's infirmity to enter a final order in a Stern Proceeding. Wellness Intern. Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 2013 WL 4441926 (7th Cir. 2013). The Seventh Circuit explained that “[t]he dual nature of Article III, ' 1, renders notions of waiver and consent more nuanced” and, as such, “it is difficult to separate the “waivable personal safeguard from the nonwaivable structural safeguard.” Id. at 15. Ultimately, the Seventh Circuit concluded that “the Sixth Circuit has the better view under current law.” Id. at 17. Furthermore, the Seventh Circuit reiterated its position in Ortiz. “[I]t is difficult to find a statutory basis on which the district court could rely to treat the bankruptcy court's order [in a Stern Proceeding] as proposed findings and conclusions.” Id. at 17.
Certiorari
The Petitioner in Bellingham sought certiorari regarding the following issues: 1) Whether Article III permits the exercise of the judicial power of the United States by bankruptcy courts on the basis of litigant consent, and, if so, whether “implied consent” is sufficient to satisfy Article III; and 2) Whether a bankruptcy judge may submit propose findings of fact and conclusions of law [where a bankruptcy judge lacks authority to enter a final order] for de novo review by a district court in a “core” proceeding under
The Significance of Granting Certiorari
The combination of Ortiz and Waldman (inability to enter Proposed Finding or Final Order) prevents a bankruptcy court from meaningfully addressing Stern Proceedings (e.g., avoidance actions), which comprise a significant portion of cases that fill its docket. Furthermore, Waldman's reasoning eviscerates section 157(c)(2), which allows for entry of final order in a “non-core” proceeding with consent. Under Waldman, consent cannot overcome the principles advanced by Article III. Similarly, the Federal Magistrates Act of 1968 (the Magistrates Act) relies on consent to authorize a magistrate judge, a non Article III judge, to enter a final order on common law claims. The application of Waldman's reasoning should render this portion of the Magistrates Act unconstitutional.
The majority of courts have followed the Ninth Circuit in granting little, if any credence, to Waldman and Ortiz.
Waldman
Three courts from different districts have already expressly disagreed with Waldman. Respondents Opposition to Petition for Certiorari (Respondent's Opposition), p. 15. Furthermore, in response to Stern, the proposed Bankruptcy Rules 7008 and 7012 require pleadings to contain “whether [the party] consents to entry of final orders or judgment by the bankruptcy court.” These proposed rules do not evince a concern with Waldman.
Ortiz
Prior to Wellness, the only court that appeared to have adopted Ortiz's rationale, later clarified that it did not view Stern as jurisdictional and, as such, Stern does not prevent a bankruptcy court from entering Proposed Findings. See Blixseth v. Brown, 2012 WL 691598, 7 fn. 4 (D.Mont. 2012). Likewise, many orders of reference contradict Ortiz. For example in the Southern District of
Now, the grant of certiorari requires the consideration of these cases.
Reading the Tea Leaves
Waldman, Ortiz and Wellness are not consistent with Stern's admonition that “Congress, in one isolated respect, exceeded [Article III's] limitation in the Bankruptcy Act of 1984.” Stern at 2620. These cases severely limit a bankruptcy judge's participation in a Stern Proceeding. Likewise, while Stern repeatedly referenced section 157(c)(2) without disapprobation, Waldman calls into question the constitutionality of that section.
Furthermore, in Stern, four out of the nine Justices did not find any constitutional infirmity in the Bankruptcy Code. Only one of the majority must narrowly construe Stern to affirm Bellingham. On the other hand, while the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Bellingham, it denied certiorari for Waldman,
Does Past Performance Indicate Future Results?
“In many important ways, the parties who are affected by a legal document are potential adversaries … There is simply no meeting of the minds … There may be [.] many internal disagreements about how a court would apply the contractual terms.”
This quote may well characterize Stern's varied formulations of Article I jurisprudence. There appears to have never been a meeting of the minds among the majority and, as such, the splits among the lower courts are merely a reflection of the divisions among these five Justices. If the Supreme Court continues to be unable to consolidate the Court's multiple rationales in Northern Pipeline and Stern into a cogent doctrine, then any decision in Bellingham may well just add another layer of confusion to this already beleaguered doctrine.
Yitzhak Greenberg is of counsel with
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
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.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?