Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Appeals from bankruptcy court orders continue to play a key role in bankruptcy practice. The relevant sections of the Judicial Code and the Federal Bankruptcy Rules arguably cover all the relevant issues in a straightforward manner. Recent cases, however, show that neither Congress nor the Rules Committees could ever address the myriad issues raised by imaginative lawyers. The appellate courts continue to wrestle with standing, jurisdiction, mootness, excusable neglect and finality, among other things. The following overview, in a series of installments, shows what the courts have been addressing during just the past three years. This first installment will cover appellate standing.
The Judicial Code (§§157, 158, 1291 and 1292) governs appellate jurisdiction in bankruptcy cases. The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (Part VIII) and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure determine how and when to file an appeal. 28 U.S.C. §158(c)(2) provides that "an appeal under [section 158(a)-(b) from the bankruptcy court to a district court or bankruptcy appellate panel ("BAP")] shall be taken in the same manner as appeals in civil proceedings generally taken to the courts of appeals from district courts." The case law, though, is inconsistent and more complex.
Appellate standing under Article III of the U.S. Constitution generally "need not be financial and only need be fairly traceable to the alleged illegal action." In re Congoleum Corp., 426 F.3d 675, 685 (3d Cir. 2005), citing Miller v. Nissan Motor Acceptance Corp., 362 F.3d 209, 221 (3d Cir. 2004) (listing elements of Article III standing). But courts have limited appellate standing in bankruptcy cases, as shown below, "to persons or entities that are aggrieved by an order which diminishes their property, increases their burdens, or detrimentally affects their rights." Congoleum, 426 F.3d at 685, citing Travelers Ins. Co. v. H.K. Porter Co., Inc., 45 F.3d 737, 742 (3d Cir. 1995).
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
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.
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 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.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.