While it has been long recognized that bankruptcy courts have the power to sanction attorneys and litigants pursuant to Rule 9011 of the Bankruptcy Rules of Procedure (a rule that is almost identical in substance to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure), a recent appellate ruling clarifies and expands the power and authority of bankruptcy courts to sanction attorneys and litigants based upon the inherent power of the bankruptcy court as well as the broad authority granted by Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

On April 21, the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the Ninth Circuit (the equivalent of the U.S. District Court bankruptcy appellate ruling in the Eleventh Circuit) held in the case of In re BCB Contracting Services, (BAP No. AZ-21-1254-BSF) that the bankruptcy court’s power to sanction is derived from three separate sources—Bankruptcy Rule 9011, the statutory civil contempt authority under Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and the inherent sanction authority as promulgated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Law v. Siegel, 571 U.S. 415 (2014). This is extremely significant in holding that a bankruptcy court has a virtual “cafeteria of choices” in order to mete out sanctions to attorneys and litigants as the case may be.

This content has been archived.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

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]