Location: Hughes Hubbard & Reed, One Battery Park Plaza, NY, NY
Course ID: C02272014A
Number of Sessions: 1
Credits: 1.5 NJ Credits: 1.5 General
1.5 NY Credits: 1.5 PP; Transitional and Non-transitional
This program will focus on two cases on the Supreme Court docket this term.
In Law v. Siegel, the Bankruptcy Court imposed a “surcharge” on an individual debtor’s homestead exemption as punishment for fraudulent conduct. The debtor’s invention of fake lien holders and forged documents led the trustee and his counsel on a merry chase, causing the estate to incur administrative expenses, which were paid (albeit only in part) by using the $75,000 permitted as a homestead exemption under California law. The Supreme Court will decide whether a Bankruptcy Court can use the catch-all provision of Bankruptcy Code Section 105(a) as a basis for such a surcharge, even though Section 522 provides that exempt property “is not liable for payment of any administrative expense.”
Executive Benefits v. Arkison raises an issue left unanswered in Stern v. Marshall: may parties validly consent to Bankruptcy Court jurisdiction in cases where, absent consent, the principles established in Stern would require adjudication by an Article III court. The Circuits are split, with the 5th, 6th and 7th Circuits holding that the jurisdictional defect identified in Stern v. Marshall cannot be waived or cured by consent of the parties, while the 9th Circuit holds that it can. This is a critical question for Bankruptcy Courts and practitioners. Ripple effects of the Court’s resolution may well extend beyond bankruptcy, with possible implications for use of magistrate judges, enforcement of arbitration awards and the adjudicatory functions of federal agencies.
Program Co-Sponsor: NYCLA's Bankruptcy Committee
Faculty: James P. Pagano, Esq.; George Klidonas, Baker Hostetler; David Wiltenburg, Hughes Hubbard & Reed