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This content has been archived.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
© 2025 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 AllTopping Kirkland, Weil Won the Most Valuable Major Bankruptcy Retentions of 2024
Beyond Bordeaux’s Bankruptcy: A Lesson In Adapting to the Evolving Sports Media Landscape
6 minute readUS Judge Throws Out Sale of Infowars to The Onion. But That's Not the End of the Road for Sandy Hook Families
4 minute readCleary vs. White & Case: NY Showdown Over $5 Billion Brazilian Bankruptcy
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 2Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
- 3Freshfields Hires Ex-SEC Corporate Finance Director in Silicon Valley
- 4Meet the SEC's New Interim General Counsel
- 5Will Madrid Become the Next Arbitration Hub?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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