Third Circuit Says Bankruptcy Judge Lacked Power to Transfer Trustee's Claims to District Court
In a precedential opinion, a three-judge panel of the appeals court rejected the trustee's argument that bankruptcy courts are included in the definition of "courts" under federal law.
November 30, 2018 at 02:38 PM
3 minute read
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday ruled that a Delaware bankruptcy judge lacked the power to transfer a bankruptcy trustee's claims to a Pennsylvania federal court.
In so holding, the appeals court reaffirmed statutory limits on the jurisdiction of bankruptcy courts.
In a precedential opinion, a three-judge panel of the appeals court rejected the trustee's argument that bankruptcy courts are included in the definition of “courts” under federal law. Instead, the court held, bankruptcy courts are properly defined as “units” of district courts, and thus can only exercise the authority provided to them by federal statute or by a standing order of a district court judge.
“Cognizant of bankruptcy courts' limited authority and our obligation to guard the limits of that authority, we cannot approve of the bankruptcy court's exercise of jurisdiction to transfer the adversary proceeding under these circumstances,” Judge Marjorie O. Rendell wrote in the 16-page opinion.
Judges Patty Shwartz and Jane R. Roth joined Rendell in the opinion.
The ruling stemmed from U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Kevin J. Carey's refusal to hear claims that IMMC Corp.'s former management team team had breached their fiduciary duties by pursuing costly litigation strategy in an unrelated suit against a competitor. IMMC, a Huntington Valley, Pennsylvania-based medical company, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in 2008 as Immunicon Corp.
Carey, who at the time was serving as chief judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, ruled that the claims fell outside the purview of his court because it was neither a core to the bankruptcy proceedings nor related to the underlying Chapter 11 case before him. The decision was later upheld by former U.S. District Judge Gregory M. Sleet.
On appeal, liquidating trustee Robert Troisio argued that Congress meant to authorize bankruptcy courts to transfer proceedings between “any two federal courts. However, Rendell said lawmakers also amended U.S. Code to classify bankruptcy judges as a unit of the district court—an act which constituted an “intentional withdraw of bankruptcy courts' transfer power.”
“Our holding today simply reaffirms the well-established rule that bankruptcy courts may exercise only the authority delegated to them by statute and referred to them by the standing order of the district court,” Rendell wrote. “Because the adversary proceeding in this case fell outside the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction, the bankruptcy court properly declined to transfer the proceeding.”
An attorney for Troisio did not return a call Thursday seeking comment on the ruling, and a lawyer representing IMMC's directors and officers did not respond to a request for comment.
Mara Beth Sommers, a partner with Miami law firm Bales Sommers & Klein, argued for Troisio on appeal. Clair E. Wischusen and Michael Eidel represented IMMC management.
The case, before the Third Circuit, was captioned In re: IMMC Corp.
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
© 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 AllLatham, Finnegan Win $115M Muscular Dystrophy Drug Patent Verdict for Counterclaimant
2 minute readDelaware Supreme Court Adopts Broad Interpretation of Case Law on Anticompetition Provisions
3 minute read3rd Circuit Nominee Mangi Sees 'No Pathway to Confirmation,' Derides 'Organized Smear Campaign'
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Federal Judge Named in Lawsuit Over Underage Drinking Party at His California Home
- 2'Almost an Arms Race': California Law Firms Scooped Up Lateral Talent by the Handful in 2024
- 3Pittsburgh Judge Rules Loan Company's Online Arbitration Agreement Unenforceable
- 4As a New Year Dawns, the Value of Florida’s Revised Mediation Laws Comes Into Greater Focus
- 5Managing Partner Vindicated in Disciplinary Proceeding Brought by Former Associate
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