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
BankruptcyWhat 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 AllDavis 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 readUS Bankruptcy Filings Rise 16.2% as Interest Rates, Inflation, and End of COVID Relief Hit Hard
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Read the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome', DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
- 2Voir Dire Voyeur: I Find Out What Kind of Juror I’d Be
- 3When It Comes to Local Law 97 Compliance, You’ve Gotta Have (Good) Faith
- 4Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Virginia Griffith, Director of Business Development at OutsideGC
- 5Legal Speak at General Counsel Conference East 2024: Bill Tanenbaum, Partner & Chair, AI & Data Law Practice Group at Moses Singer
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