Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
This installment of our appellate practice series reviews recent cases addressing the appellate jurisdiction of district courts and the courts of appeals, referred to as the "finality" doctrine. The relevant sections of the Judicial Code — §§157, 158, 1298 and 1292 — seem straightforward and clear. As shown below, though, the courts have often been inconsistent in applying the statute. (See Part One: Appellate Standing of this series in the December 2021 issue, and Part 2: Equitable Mootness in the January 2022 issue.)
Appeals to District Courts. District courts 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)(1). See, e.g., In re Purdue Pharma, L.P., 2021 WL 5979108, ** 41-42 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 16, 2021) ("release of [third party] claim," in absence of consent, "a final judgment" in context of plan confirmation order; but bankruptcy court not constitutionally authorized to enter judgment on tort claim, which is subject to de novo review as a proposed legal conclusion under 28 U.S.C. §157(c)(1)); court vacated confirmation order in non-final interlocutory ruling because plan still can be modified on remand). Also, 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. 28 U.S.C. §158(a)(2). As a practical matter, the appellate jurisdiction of district courts is limited to proceedings in which bankruptcy courts are authorized to issue judicial determinations under 28 U.S.C §§1334(a) and 157(a). In re Walker, 51 F.3d 562 (5th Cir. 1995) (bankruptcy judge lacks power to hear proceedings that district court cannot hear and determine; §157 allows district court to refer cases to bankruptcy court).
Appeals to Bankruptcy Appellate Panels. A bankruptcy appellate panel (BAP) is made up of three bankruptcy judges to hear appeals from bankruptcy court final judgments, orders, and decrees. 28 U.S.C. §158(b)(1). Those who serve on the panels hear appeals from bankruptcy court orders entered in other districts. 28 U.S.C. §158 (b)(2), (5). BAPs may grant leave to appeal from bankruptcy courts' interlocutory "orders or decrees," id., but Article III courts are not bound by the decisions of BAPs. In re Cardelucci, 285 F.3d 1231, 1234 (9th Cir. 2002). BAPs must: a) be established by a judicial council of a circuit; b) be approved by a majority of the district judges for the district in which the appeals occur; and c) all parties must consent to a disposition by the panel. The district court must hear an appeal if these criteria are not satisfied. 28 U.S.C. §158(b), (c). One side to a litigation may thus preclude BAP review.
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.