« Debt Collection Goes Hollywood with Brad Pitt as Director | Main | Student-Loan Collections Could Be Subject to Drastic Overhaul »

Stern Warnings from the Ninth Circuit

posted by John Pottow

The Ninth Circuit handed down Executive Benefits Insurance v. Arkinson today. [I want to call it "Bellingham Insurance," or "EBIA," but I leave to the Blogosphere to decide.]  It jumped in as a circuit court opining that bankruptcy judges lack the constitutional authority to enter final judgments in fraudulent conveyance actions (yes, federal ones under section 548 of the Code) -- at least as pled against "strangers" to the estate -- and at least if those strangers' claims are not "inextricably intertwined" with the claims resolution process (or whatever test was gleaned from Stern).

But before the Article I Haters Club celebrates too heartily, I should point out that the entire disquisition, illuminating as it is, is obiter dictum.  This is because the court also held the appellant waived its constitutional argument, and because a "Stern" claim is not a subject-matter jurisdiction issue, it is fully waivable (technically, "consentable" through implied consent through conduct).  Thus, the appellant waived the very objection on which the court superfluously opined.

I don't mind dictum here and there, but it's odd that the Ninth Circuit didn't acknowledge its ruminations were such, especially when in the course of the opinion it dropped a FN to the Seventh Circuit's Ortiz opinion (with which it rightly disagreed) and reminded that that court's Stern discussion was dictum.

Still, dictum from a circuit court will surely make others take notice, especially those under its -- yes -- jurisdiction.  But I do feel compelled to play the role of party-pooper and call out the court for having fun by wandering into a constitutinal quagmire and playing around as a pure academic daliance.  (Isn't that what professors are supposed to do?!)

Comments

Mentions Waldman in a footnote, but doesn't discuss its waiver holding - which directly contradicts the Bellingham holding on waiver.

And Waldman doesn't talk about the earlier Stern case in the same circuit, Teleservices.

I think we've gotten so many Stern cases decided that the courts can't find the time to read all the opinions.

Agree with AMC, that there seems to be a clear conflict with Waldman and maybe this should go up on cert, or at least it makes an en banc request more worthy of being granted.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Regulars

Occasionals

Current Guests

Follow Us On Twitter

Like Us on Facebook

  • Like Us on Facebook

    By "Liking" us on Facebook, you will receive excerpts of our posts in your Facebook news feed. (If you change your mind, you can undo it later.) Note that this is different than "Liking" our Facebook page, although a "Like" in either place will get you Credit Slips post on your Facebook news feed.

News Feed

Categories

Bankr-L

OTHER STUFF

Powered by TypePad