|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.|
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here:
Cast your vote below!
The “great chief” and the “super chief”: A final showdown in Supreme Court March Madness - SCOTUSblog
Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Celtics vs. Lakers, or Evert vs. Navratilova. It’s time for Marshall vs. Warren. After...
In yet another Friday night shadow docket order, a divided Supreme Court sides with challengers to California’s COVID-related restrictions. Brief per curiam opinion and dissent from Justice Kagan: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
By vote of 5-4, #SCOTUS blocks California's COVID-related restrictions on in-home prayer meetings and worship. Opinion & Kagan's dissent are here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a151_4g15.pdf
President Biden will sign an executive order authorizing a commission to study Supreme Court reform. The commission will review “the length of service and turnover of justices on the court; the membership and size of the court” among other topics.
President Biden to Sign Executive Order Creating the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States | The White House
President Biden will today issue an executive order forming the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States, comprised of a
The Supreme Court will hear April and May oral arguments remotely but with a live audio feed.
#SCOTUS confirms that "[i]n keeping with public health guidance in response to COVID-19," it will hear oral arguments in April and on May 4 remotely, as it has for the other argument sessions this term. Press release here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/Media-Advisory-Teleconference-Arguments.pdf
In a Monday evening shadow-docket filing, Tennessee asks the Supreme Court to reinstate a state law that imposes a 48-hour waiting period for patients to abortions. A federal judge struck down the waiting period as unconstitutional. @AHoweBlogger explains:
Tennessee asks court to restore waiting period for abortions - SCOTUSblog
Tennessee filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court on Monday, asking the justices for permission to enforce...
BREAKING: In major copyright battle between tech giants, SCOTUS sides w/ Google over Oracle, finding that Google didnt commit copyright infringement when it reused lines of code in its Android operating system. The code came from Oracle's JAVA SE platform. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/18-956_d18f.pdf
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.