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.
September 25, 2024 at 11:00 AM
11 minute read
Bankruptcy
What You Need to Know
- A Louisiana District Court followed the Fifth Circuit's reasoning and ruled that the denial of a motion to dismiss a bankruptcy petition was a "preliminary step," merely allowing the case to continue.
- A Delaware District Court cited Third Circuit precedence and agreed to hear an appeal from a bankruptcy court order that had denied a motion to dismiss a Chapter 11 reorganization case, holding that the order was final and appealable.
- If Congress does not resolve this particular circuit split, appellate courts should adopt the Third Circuit's "pragmatic" approach to review these denial orders.
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.
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 All
Sullivan & Cromwell Dismissed as Defendant in Lawsuit from FTX Investors
200 Hrs. of Partner Prep Guides Quinn Emanuel's Incredibly Detailed Mock Bankruptcy Trial
Corporate Bankruptcies Slow Down in Q3 as Weil, Davis Polk and Sidley Earn Major Retentions
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
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
