Justia U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Between 1999 and 2019, Purdue Pharma, owned and controlled by the Sackler family, was at the center of the opioid crisis in the United States. After earning billions from the sale of OxyContin, Purdue faced thousands of lawsuits. In response, the Sacklers withdrew approximately $11 billion from Purdue, leaving the company in a weakened financial state. In 2019, Purdue filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. During the bankruptcy process, the Sacklers proposed to return approximately $4.3 billion to Purdue’s bankruptcy estate in exchange for a judicial order releasing the family from all opioid-related claims and preventing victims from bringing such claims against them in the future.The bankruptcy court approved Purdue’s proposed reorganization plan, including its provisions concerning the Sackler discharge. However, the district court vacated that decision, holding that nothing in the law authorizes bankruptcy courts to extinguish claims against third parties like the Sacklers, without the claimants’ consent. A divided panel of the Second Circuit reversed the district court and revived the bankruptcy court’s order approving a modified reorganization plan.The Supreme Court of the United States held that the bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seek to discharge claims against a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants. The Court found that the Sacklers sought to pay less than the code ordinarily requires and receive more than it normally permits. The Court reversed the Second Circuit's judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P." on Justia Law

The case involves the Office of the United States Trustee and a group of Chapter 11 debtors, John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC, et al. The issue at hand is the remedy for a constitutional violation identified in a previous case, Siegel v. Fitzgerald, where a statute was found to violate the Bankruptcy Clause’s uniformity requirement as it allowed different fees for Chapter 11 debtors depending on the district where their case was filed. The government argued for prospective parity as the appropriate remedy, while the debtors argued for a refund.The Bankruptcy Court found no constitutional violation and did not address the remedial question. The Tenth Circuit reversed this decision, finding that the fee statute permitting nonuniform fees violated the Bankruptcy Clause and ordered a refund of the debtors’ quarterly fees. The U.S. Trustee sought certiorari, which was granted by the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court reversed the Tenth Circuit's decision. The Court agreed with the government that the appropriate remedy for the constitutional violation is prospective parity. The Court held that requiring equal fees for otherwise identical Chapter 11 debtors going forward aligns with congressional intent, corrects the constitutional wrong, and complies with due process. The Court rejected the debtors' argument for a refund, stating that such a remedy would require undercutting congressional intent and transforming a program that Congress designed to be self-funding into a significant bill for taxpayers. The Court concluded that neither remedial principles nor due process requires such an outcome. View "United States Trustee v. John Q. Hammons Fall 2006, LLC" on Justia Law

The case involves Truck Insurance Exchange (Truck), the primary insurer for companies that manufactured and sold products containing asbestos. Two of these companies, Kaiser Gypsum Co. and Hanson Permanente Cement (Debtors), filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after facing thousands of asbestos-related lawsuits. As part of the bankruptcy process, the Debtors proposed a reorganization plan that created an Asbestos Personal Injury Trust (Trust) to handle all present and future asbestos-related claims. Truck, contractually obligated to defend each covered asbestos personal injury claim and to indemnify the Debtors for up to $500,000 per claim, opposed the Plan, arguing that it exposed them to millions of dollars in fraudulent claims due to different disclosure requirements for insured and uninsured claims.The District Court confirmed the Plan, concluding that Truck had limited standing to object to the Plan because it was “insurance neutral,” meaning it did not increase Truck’s prepetition obligations or impair its contractual rights under its insurance policies. The Fourth Circuit affirmed this decision, agreeing that Truck was not a “party in interest” under §1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code because the plan was “insurance neutral.”The Supreme Court of the United States reversed the Fourth Circuit's decision, holding that an insurer with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims is a “party in interest” under §1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and may raise and appear and be heard on any issue in a Chapter 11 case. The Court reasoned that §1109(b)’s text, context, and history confirm that an insurer such as Truck with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a “party in interest” because it may be directly and adversely affected by the reorganization plan. The Court also rejected the “insurance neutrality” doctrine, stating that it conflates the merits of an objection with the threshold party in interest inquiry. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. View "Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Co." on Justia Law

The Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians is a federally recognized Indian tribe. One of its businesses extended Coughlin a payday loan. After receiving the loan, Coughlin filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy, triggering an automatic stay under the Bankruptcy Code against further collection efforts by creditors. The lender allegedly continued attempting to collect Coughlin’s debt. The First Circuit reversed the Bankruptcy Court's dismissal of Coughlin’s subsequent suit on tribal sovereign immunity grounds.The Supreme Court affirmed. The Bankruptcy Code unambiguously abrogates the sovereign immunity of all governments, including federally recognized Indian tribes; 11 U.S.C. 106(a), expressly abrogates the sovereign immunity of “governmental unit[s]” for enumerated purposes. Section 101(27) defines “governmental unit” as “United States; State; Commonwealth; District; Territory; municipality; foreign state; department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States.... a State, a Commonwealth, a District, a Territory, a municipality, or a foreign state; or other foreign or domestic government.” The sections cannot plausibly be read to preserve sovereign immunity. The definition of “governmental unit” exudes comprehensiveness and includes a broad catchall phrase, sweeping in “other foreign or domestic government[s].” Reading the statute to carve out certain governments from the definition of “governmental unit” would risk upending the Code’s policy choices. Federally recognized tribes are indisputably governments. Congress need not use any particular words to make its abrogation intent clear. View "Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin" on Justia Law

In Chapter 11 bankruptcy, Sears, as a debtor in possession, exercised its rights under 11 U.S.C. 363(b)(1) and sold most of its assets to Transform, including the right to designate to whom a lease should be assigned. Section 365 prohibits the assignment of an unexpired lease without “adequate assurance of future performance by the assignee,” and establishes special criteria related to “shopping center[s],” Transform designated the Mall of America lease for assignment. The landlord, MOAC, objected, arguing that Sears had failed to provide adequate assurance. The Bankruptcy Court approved the assignment.Section 363(m) states that the reversal or modification on appeal of a 363(b) authorization of a sale or lease does not affect the validity of a sale or lease to an entity that purchased or leased the property in good faith, even if the entity knew of the pendency of the appeal unless the court entered a stay pending appeal. The Bankruptcy Court denied MOAC’s request for a stay. Sears assigned the lease. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the appeal, treating 363(m) as jurisdictional.The Supreme Court vacated. Section 363(m) is not jurisdictional and is not, therefore, impervious to excuses like waiver or forfeiture. The Court noted the consequences of deeming the section jurisdictional–even egregious conduct by a litigant could permit the application of judicial estoppel against a jurisdictional rule. Courts should only treat a provision as jurisdictional if Congress “clearly states” as much. Nothing in 363(m) purports to govern a court’s adjudicatory capacity; it plainly contemplates that appellate courts might reverse or modify any covered authorization, with a limitation on the consequences. Congress separated 363(m) from jurisdictional provisions. The Court rejected Transform’s argument that the transfer to a good-faith purchaser removes the property from the bankruptcy estate, and so from the court’s in rem jurisdiction. View "MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC" on Justia Law

Kate and David Bartenwerfer remodeled the house they jointly owned. David oversaw the project. Kate remained largely uninvolved. They sold the house to Buckley, attesting that they had disclosed all material facts. Buckley discovered undisclosed defects and won a California state court judgment, leaving the Bartenwerfers jointly responsible for more than $200,000. The Bartenwerfers filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. Buckley filed an adversary complaint, alleging that the state-court judgment debt was non-dischargeable as “any debt . . . for money . . . to the extent obtained by . . . false pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud,” 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(2)(A).The Bankruptcy Court imputed David's fraudulent intent to Kate, citing their legal partnership to renovate and sell the property. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that section 523(a)(2)(A) barred Kate from discharging the debt only if she knew or had reason to know of David’s fraud. The Ninth Circuit reversed.The Supreme Court affirmed. Section 523(a)(2)(A) precludes Kate from discharging a debt obtained by fraud, regardless of her own culpability. The passive voice in section 523(a)(2)(A) removes the actor; fraud liability is not limited to the wrongdoer. The fraud of one partner should be imputed to other partners, who “received and appropriated the fruits of the fraudulent conduct.” Section 523(a)(2)(A) takes the debt as it finds it, so if California did not extend liability to honest partners, it would have no role. Fraud liability generally requires a special relationship with the wrongdoer and, even then, defenses are available. View "Bartenwerfer v. Buckley" on Justia Law

Under the Trustee Program, administrative functions previously handled by bankruptcy judges are handled by U.S. Trustees, within the Department of Justice. Six judicial districts in North Carolina and Alabama opted out of the Trustee Program; those bankruptcy courts continue to appoint bankruptcy administrators. Both programs handle the same administrative functions. The Trustee Program is funded entirely by user fees, largely paid by Chapter 11 debtors, 28 U.S.C. 589a(b)(5). The Administrator Program is funded by the Judiciary’s general budget. Under a Judicial Conference standing order, all districts nationwide charged similarly-situated debtors uniform fees. A 2017 fee increase was made applicable to currently pending and newly-filed cases in the Trustee Program and only to newly-filed cases in Administrator Program districts. Reversing the bankruptcy court, the Fourth Circuit held that the fee increase did not violate the Bankruptcy Clause uniformity requirement.A unanimous Supreme Court reversed, holding that the enactment of a significant fee increase that exempted debtors in two states violated the uniformity requirement. Nothing in the Bankruptcy Clause suggests a distinction between substantive and administrative laws; its language, embracing “laws on the subject of Bankruptcies,” is broad. Congress cannot evade the affirmative limitation of the uniformity requirement by enacting legislation pursuant to other grants of authority such as the Necessary and Proper Clause. The 2017 Act does not confer discretion on bankruptcy districts to set regional policies based on regional needs but exempts debtors in two states from a fee increase that applied to debtors in 48 states, without identifying any material difference between debtors across those states. The Bankruptcy Clause does not permit arbitrary geographically disparate treatment of debtors. View "Siegel v. Fitzgerald" on Justia Law

The debtors each filed a bankruptcy petition and requested that the city return his vehicle, which had been impounded for failure to pay fines. The filing of a bankruptcy petition automatically “creates an estate,” 11 U.S.C. 541(a), that is intended to include any property made available by other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 542 provides that an entity in possession of bankruptcy estate property “shall deliver to the trustee, and account for” that property. The filing of a petition also automatically “operates as a stay, applicable to all entities,” of efforts to collect prepetition debts outside the bankruptcy forum, section 362(a), including “any act to obtain possession of property of the estate or of property from the estate or to exercise control over property of the estate.”Vacating a Seventh Circuit holding, the Supreme Court held that the mere retention of estate property after the filing of a bankruptcy petition does not violate section 362(a). That section prohibits affirmative acts that would disturb the status quo of estate property as of the time when the bankruptcy petition was filed. Reading section 362(a)(3) to cover mere retention of property would contradict section 542, which carves out exceptions to the turnover command. Under the debtors’ reading, an entity would be required to turn over property under section 362(a)(3) even if that property were exempt from turnover under section 542. View "Chicago v. Fulton" on Justia Law

The IRS allows affiliated corporations to file a consolidated federal return, 26 U.S.C. 1501, and issues any refund as a single payment to the group’s designated agent. If a dispute arises, federal courts normally turn to state law to resolve the question of distribution of the refund. Some courts follow the “Bob Richards Rule,” which initially provided that, absent an agreement, a refund belongs to the group member responsible for the losses that led to it. The Rule has evolved, in some jurisdictions, into a general rule that is always followed unless an agreement unambiguously specifies a different result. Soon after the bank suffered huge losses, its parent, Bancorp, was forced into bankruptcy. When the IRS issued a $4 million tax refund, the bank’s receiver, the FDIC, and Bancorp’s bankruptcy trustee each claimed it. The Tenth Circuit examined the parties’ allocation agreement, applied the more expansive version of Bob Richards, and ruled for the FDIC.The Supreme Court vacated. The Rule is not a legitimate exercise of federal common lawmaking. Federal judges may appropriately craft the rule of decision in only limited areas; claiming a new area is subject to strict conditions. Federal common lawmaking must be necessary to protect uniquely federal interests. The federal courts applying and extending Bob Richards have not pointed to any significant federal interest sufficient to support the rule, nor have these parties. State law is well-equipped to handle disputes involving corporate property rights, even in cases involving bankruptcy and a tax dispute. Whether this case might yield a different result without Bob Richards is a matter for the court of appeals on remand. View "Rodriguez v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp." on Justia Law

Ritzen sued Jackson in Tennessee state court for breach of contract. Jackson filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Under 11 U.S.C. 362(a), filing a bankruptcy petition automatically “operates as a stay” of creditors’ debt-collection efforts outside the bankruptcy case. The Bankruptcy Court denied Ritzen’s motion for relief from the automatic stay. Ritzen did not appeal but filed a proof of claim, which was disallowed. Ritzen then challenged the denial of relief from the automatic stay. The district court rejected Ritzen’s appeal as untimely under 28 U.S.C. 158(c)(2) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002(a), which require appeals from a bankruptcy court order to be filed “within 14 days after entry of [that] order.”The Sixth Circuit and a unanimous Supreme Court affirmed. A bankruptcy court’s order unreservedly denying relief from the automatic stay constitutes a final, immediately appealable order under section 158(a). Adjudication of a creditor’s motion for relief from the stay is a discrete “proceeding” that disposes of a procedural unit anterior to, and separate from, claim-resolution proceedings. The order can have large practical consequences, including whether a creditor can isolate its claim from those of other creditors and proceed outside bankruptcy. Rather than disrupting the efficiency of the bankruptcy process, an immediate appeal may permit creditors to establish their rights expeditiously outside the bankruptcy process, affecting the relief awarded later in the bankruptcy case. View "Ritzen Group, Inc. v. Jackson Masonry, LLC" on Justia Law