|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-784||7th Cir.||Nov 6, 2017||Feb 27, 2018||9-0||Sotomayor||OT 2017|
Holding: The Bankruptcy Code allows trustees to set aside and recover certain transfers for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate, including certain fraudulent transfers “of an interest of the debtor in property”; the Bankruptcy Code also sets out a number of limits on the exercise of these avoiding powers, including the Section 546(e) safe harbor – which, inter alia, provides that a “trustee may not avoid a transfer that is a … settlement payment … made by or to (or for the benefit of) a … financial institution .. or that is a transfer made by or to (or for the benefit of) a … financial institution … in connection with a securities contract.” In the Chapter 11 bankruptcy filed by Valley View Downs and its parent company, the only relevant transfer for purposes of the Section 546(e) safe harbor is the transfer that the trustee, FTI Consulting Inc., seeks to avoid, i.e., the transfer from Valley View to Merit Management Group for the sale of Bedford Downs Management’s stock.
Judgment: Affirmed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Sotomayor on February 27, 2018.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 14 2016||Application (16A492) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 28, 2016 to December 19, 2016, submitted to Justice Kagan.|
|Nov 17 2016||Application (16A492) granted by Justice Kagan extending the time to file until December 19, 2016.|
|Dec 16 2016||Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due January 19, 2017)|
|Jan 19 2017||Brief of respondent FTI Consulting, Inc. in opposition filed.|
|Feb 03 2017||Reply of petitioner Merit Management Group, LP filed.|
|Feb 08 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 24, 2017.|
|Feb 22 2017||Rescheduled.|
|Feb 27 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 3, 2017.|
|Feb 27 2017||Rescheduled.|
|Mar 13 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 17, 2017.|
|Mar 13 2017||Rescheduled.|
|Mar 20 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017.|
|Mar 20 2017||Rescheduled.|
|Mar 27 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.|
|Mar 28 2017||Rescheduled.|
|Apr 10 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017.|
|Apr 17 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 21, 2017.|
|Apr 24 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 28, 2017.|
|May 01 2017||Petition GRANTED.|
|Jun 05 2017||The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including July 13, 2017.|
|Jun 05 2017||The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including September 11, 2017.|
|Jun 22 2017||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party from counsel for the petitioner.|
|Jun 28 2017||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party received from counsel for the respondent.|
|Jul 13 2017||Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Jul 13 2017||Brief of petitioner Merit Management Group, LP filed.|
|Jul 18 2017||Brief amicus curiae of Opportunity Partners, L.P. filed.|
|Jul 20 2017||Brief amici curiae of Various Former Tribune and Lyondell Shareholders filed.|
|Aug 31 2017||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, November 6, 2017|
|Sep 07 2017||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 11 2017||Brief of respondent FTI Consulting, Inc. filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 18 2017||Brief amici curiae of Tribune Company Retirees and Noteholders filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 18 2017||Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Bankruptcy Trustees filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 18 2017||Brief amici curiae of Bankruptcy Law Professors Ralph Brubaker, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 06 2017||Reply of petitioner Merit Management Group, LP filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 06 2017||Argued. For petitioner: Brian C. Walsh, St. Louis, Mo. For respondent: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C.|
|Feb 27 2018||Judgment is affirmed and case remanded. Sotomayor, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|Apr 02 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...
I really enjoyed getting to chat with the incomparable @AHoweBlogger about (1) why #SCOTUS's "shadow docket" *is* a big deal; (2) why it's so hard to figure out how to include it in broader assessments of the Justices' work; and (3) some possible ways to include it going forward. https://twitter.com/SCOTUSblog/status/1417545384314949635
How do you solve a problem like the shadow docket? @steve_vladeck has some thoughts and shared them with @AHoweBlogger in the latest SCOTUStalk.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.