Publications
Circuit Courts Split On Review of Bankruptcy Court's Denial of Motion to Dismiss
The Bankruptcy Strategist
September 2024
In his latest article for The Bankruptcy Strategist titled, “Circuit Courts Split On Review of Bankruptcy Court's Denial of Motion to Dismiss,” Schulte Roth & Zabel of counsel Michael L. Cook discusses the division of appellate courts in reviewing bankruptcy court denials of motions to dismiss cases, with recent contradictory rulings highlighting this split.
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 in this article, if Congress does not resolve this particular circuit split, appellate courts should adopt the Third Circuit's "pragmatic" approach to review these denial orders.
Read the article.
Related Insights
Alerts
On Aug. 19, 2024, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) charged Obra Capital Management, LLC (“Obra Capital”) with violations of Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, otherwise known as the “Pay-to-Play Rule” (the “Rule”), arising out of a $7,150 campaign contribution made by an individual prior to joining Obra Capital.[1] This campaign contribution was made to a government official in Michigan who had influence over hiring investment advisers for the Michigan Public Employees’ Retirement Fund (the “Michigan Pension Fund”), which was an investor in a fund managed by Obra Capital (the “Obra Fund”). Notably, the Michigan Pension Fund had been an investor in the Obra Fund for several years prior to the hiring of the individual who made the contribution. And perhaps even more notably, this campaign contribution was made several months prior to the individual becoming a “Covered Associate” (as defined by the Rule[2]) of Obra Capital. By virtue of Obra Capital continuing to provide investment advisory services for compensation to the Obra Fund in which the Michigan Pension Fund was invested after hiring the individual, Obra Capital violated the Rule and agreed to pay a $95,000 fine to settle the charges.
Alerts
On Aug. 19, 2024, the US Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) charged Obra Capital Management, LLC (“Obra Capital”) with violations of Rule 206(4)-5 under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, otherwise known as the “Pay-to-Play Rule” (the “Rule”), arising out of a $7,150 campaign contribution made by an individual prior to joining Obra Capital.[1] This campaign contribution was made to a government official in Michigan who had influence over hiring investment advisers for the Michigan Public Employees’ Retirement Fund (the “Michigan Pension Fund”), which was an investor in a fund managed by Obra Capital (the “Obra Fund”). Notably, the Michigan Pension Fund had been an investor in the Obra Fund for several years prior to the hiring of the individual who made the contribution. And perhaps even more notably, this campaign contribution was made several months prior to the individual becoming a “Covered Associate” (as defined by the Rule[2]) of Obra Capital. By virtue of Obra Capital continuing to provide investment advisory services for compensation to the Obra Fund in which the Michigan Pension Fund was invested after hiring the individual, Obra Capital violated the Rule and agreed to pay a $95,000 fine to settle the charges.