
Joel R. Glucksman
Partner
201-896-7095 jglucksman@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Authors: Joel R. Glucksman, Donald Scarinci
Date: June 19, 2014

Partner
201-896-7095 jglucksman@sh-law.com
Firm Managing Partner
201-896-4100 dscarinci@sh-law.comThe Supreme Court clarified a prior ruling on June 9 that put limits on bankruptcy judges’ powers, according to The Wall Street Journal. The unanimous ruling in the case of Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Peter H. Arkison clarifies a 2011 ruling as to on which claims the bankruptcy may give a final ruling and on which it may not.
The key issue at stake is the difference between bankruptcy judges and district judges, the news source explained. District judges are Article III judges – they are confirmed by the senate and serve for life – whereas bankruptcy judges are not. In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that bankruptcy judges do not possess the authority to issue final rulings on certain claims because of this inferiority. Whether a bankruptcy court can make a ruling on the basis of litigant consent – in which both parties agree to let the court make a final judgment.
According to Forbes, the Supreme Court ruling on June 9 said narrowly that Executive Benefits Insurance Agency – allegedly funded with a debtor’s fraudulent conveyances – had gotten the benefit of an Article III judge’s review, despite disagreeing with the authority of the bankruptcy court in that case. However, the Court specifically and intentionally did not resolve the issue of litigant consent.
“The court specifically said it was not resolving the important issue the case presented, which is whether even with a party’s consent bankruptcy judges can enter final judgment,” Douglas Hallward-Driemeier of Ropes & Gray, lawyer for the losing party, EBIA, told the news source. “One of the reasons that is so important is it also calls into question the ability of magistrate judges to enter final judgments.”
If you have any questions about this post or would like to discuss your company’s creditors’ rights and bankruptcy matters , please contact me, Joel R. Glucksman at www.ScarinciHollenbeck.com.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

As battery energy storage system (BESS) projects move from planning to construction, developers and property owners must address an issue that extends well beyond zoning approvals and interconnection agreements: what happens when something goes wrong? To avoid unforeseen liability, developers should address fire code compliance, emergency response planning, contractual risk allocation, and environmental liability before […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

Case law following the 2010 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 offers guidance on how courts are likely to address whether an expert witness’s AI records are subject to discovery. Key Takeaways Rule 26 Expert Discovery After the 2010 Amendments This article addresses the question courts and lawyers have faced in recent cases: […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

“Show how 3M is 0% at fault.” The absurd tale of how a 350-page ChatGPT history for 3M’s expert witness was produced during a deposition is more likely than you think. It’s an inevitable trend, and an unsettled question for federal courts as experts make generative AI part of their workflow. Key Takeaways Expert Witness […]
Author: Chris Seelinger

Screenshots have changed the risks of electronic communications. The screenshot problem is that messages intended for one person or a small group can be copied, forwarded, preserved, and ultimately presented to opposing counsel, regulators, journalists, customers, or a jury. Businesses should recognize that a truly private digital conversation is increasingly unreliable and ensure their policies, […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Developers, engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, and equipment suppliers each play a critical role in completing a BESS project. However, when equipment costs rise, deliveries are delayed, or regulations change, determining who bears the financial consequences can become contentious. Well-drafted project agreements are essential to sound risk allocation. Key Takeaways This article is Part […]
Author: Nicholas Wall

IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Author: Michael Mietlicki
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!