Update On Bankruptcy Appellate Practice: Part One — Appellate Standing
Recent cases show that 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.
December 28, 2021 at 10:09 AM
13 minute read
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.
|Background: Judicial Code and Federal Rules
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).
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllHaynes Boone, Hicks Thomas Get Dismissal of $1.3B Claims in 2022 Freeport LNG Terminal Explosion
3 minute readDavis Polk Lands Spirit Chapter 11 Amid Bankruptcy Resurgence
Court Rules Mere Conduit Defense Not Suitable for a Motion to Dismiss
6 minute readFTX Estate Seeks to Recoup $1.76B From Binance, Plus Exec 'Piggy Bank' Payouts
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250