Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s opinion in Stern v. Marshall (all cites omitted) federal courts have issued differing opinions regarding the range of a bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction to enter final judgments in adversary proceedings. In Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, looking at Stern, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that a bankruptcy court may not enter a final judgment on a claim to avoid a fraudulent conveyance against a noncreditor to a bankruptcy estate.

The situation in the Executive Benefits decision are common of a fraudulent conveyance claim: An insolvent debtor transfers assets (insurance commissions) to a recently formed company and later files for bankruptcy. In the bankruptcy case, the chapter 7 trustee sued the transferee entity (a noncreditor) for, among other things, federal and state law preference and fraudulent transfer claims in order to recover the insurance commissions. In granting the trustee’s motion for summary judgment, the bankruptcy court found the transfers to be fraudulent and entered a final judgment for $373,000. After the district court, on appeal, affirmed the bankruptcy court’s decision, the appellant-transferee appealed to the Ninth Circuit, contesting for the first time the bankruptcy court’s authority to enter a final judgment under Stern.

On appeal, after ruling fraudulent conveyance claims do not fall within the public right exception of in Stern and in Granfinciera S.A. v. Nordberg the Ninth Circuit addressed the argument raised by several amici that bankruptcy courts can render final judgments on fraudulent transfer claims arising under the Bankruptcy Code, as distinguished from fraudulent transfers arising under state law. The Ninth Circuit slammed this position, relying upon Sternand Granfinciera, holding that the Stern court’s characterization of the holding in Granfinanciera would render Stern internally contradictory if a blanket “public right” classification applied for any claim based on federal law.

The Ninth Circuit further said that its decision created a gap in the statutory framework governing the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy courts. Specifically, although federal law authorizes bankruptcy judges to “hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11,” the Constitution prohibits bankruptcy judges from entering a final judgment in core proceedings when the primary cause of action is not against a creditor to the estate.

The Ninth Circuit, having found an absence of authority for a bankruptcy court to enter a final judgment against a noncreditor on a fraudulent transfer claim, also held that § 157 permits bankruptcy courts to submit reports and recommendations to the district courts in core proceedings. The court acknowledged that this finding created a split with the Sixth Circuit, which previously held, in dicta, that bankruptcy courts cannot propose findings of facts and conclusions of law in core proceedings.

Although the Ninth Circuit found that a bankruptcy court lacked the authority to enter a final judgment in such a case, it nevertheless affirmed the district court’s opinion, holding that the defendant waived its right to an Article III hearing by litigating in the bankruptcy court without having raised any objection to that court’s jurisdiction to hear the fraudulent transfer claim. Interestingly, this holding also contradicts the Sixth Court’s Waldman opinion, in which the Court of Appeals found that a party could not waive its Article III rights.

At the law firm of William A. Miller, we take these fraudulent conveyance claims serious. We helped draft the UFTA legislation in Arizona years ago. If you need more direction in this or any other business dispute, call us at 602.319.6899 or stop by for a visit at 8170 North 86th place, suite 208 Scottsdale, Arizona 85258

What happened when a local powerhouse sports bar, http://www.zippssportsgrills.com/ sued a developer for trying to add a southwestern grill known as, http://ztejas.com/ to one of its shopping centers?

The developer fights back.

The Law Firm of William A. Miller is proud to announce the developer of the shopping center at 16^th and Bethany in Phoenix, Arizona used our firm to fight this case. We are also happy to state that, we won. Patrons are now enjoying their margarita’s at Z’Tejas and Zipps is licking its wounds for filing such a case in the first place.

It was a classic war. Millions and millions in valuation and cash-flow were at stake. Zipps hired one of the top law firms in Arizona and every phone call, letter, email, pleading and the actual hearing was fought tooth-and-nail. But, in the end the Court saw through the smoke screen that Zipps had offered to stop the Z’Tejas from breaking ground and it was not long before the case was dismissed.

The case was covered in the Arizona Republic: http://www.azcentral.com/community/phoenix/articles/20130419phoenix-ztejas-location-opens-legal-battle.html

The docket can be found at: http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2012-006285

Feel free to call Bill Miller at 602-319-6899 if you need help in a complex case or one requires that extra effort that a big firm simply can not provide.

We also handle, Breach of contract, Non-compete agreements, Non-disclosure agreements, Employee theft and embezzlement, Insurance purchases and enforcement of policy coverage, Negotiation and/or enforcement of commercial leases, Negligence and gross negligence resulting in losses, Intentional acts causing a company to suffer damages, Tortious interference with contractual relationships, Unjust enrichment, Real Estate fraud, Consumer fraud, Conversion/Theft, Intentional and/or negligent misrepresentation, Business torts and Real estate title & escrow.

It’s hard to figure out why lawyers will not quote what the cost of a suit will be. While, variables do exist, your lawyer should know what these variables might be. That can be factored in. Well, the legal marketplace is changing, and companies are now demanding value-based engagements with their outside firms that create…

At the Law Firm of William A. Miller located in Scottsdale Arizona we are often asked to represent buyers who purchased defective homes. Here is a simple legal analysis we perform: What is the timing? The statute of limitations for breach of a written contract is six years from the date that the breach occurred….

Some folks love and others hate the recent $25-billion federal-state mortgage foreclosure settlement, but there’s no getting around one huge and significant issue: Besides, prolonging the crisis, there’s a large, sink hole right in the middle of it. The hole is that if your home loan has been bought from your lender by Fannie Mae…