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
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
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 All
Retention, Development and 'Empowering Teams': This Am Law 200 Firm's Newest Practice Leader Says Objectives Haven't Changed
6 minute read
JCPenney Seeks Return of More Than $1.1M From Jackson Walker For Bankruptcy Work
3 minute read
Bankruptcy Judge Clears Path for Recovery in High-Profile Crypto Failure
3 minute readLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1How Alzheimer’s and Other Cognitive Diseases Affect Guardianship, POAs and Estate Planning
- 2How Lower Courts Are Interpreting Justices' Decision in 'Muldrow v. City of St. Louis'
- 3Phantom Income/Retained Earnings and the Potential for Inflated Support
- 4Should a Financially Dependent Child Who Rejects One Parent Still Be Emancipated?
- 5Advising Clients on Special Needs Trusts
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
