ILNews

SCOTUS orders dismissal for Chrysler case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The U.S. Supreme Court took a look at Chrysler's bankruptcy, but decided that the issue is moot and remanded it to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals with instructions to dismiss the case.

In September, three Indiana pension and construction funds asked the nation's highest court to reconsider their objections to the Chrysler bankruptcy proceedings that earlier this year resulted in the sale of most of the American automaker's assets to an Italian company.

The case of In re: Chrysler LLC, Debtor, Indiana State Police Pension Trust, et al., v. Chrysler LLC, et al., No. 09-285, centered on the bankruptcy of Chrysler. Indiana officials claimed the sale to Italian company Fiat unfairly favored Chrysler's unsecured stakeholders like the United Auto Workers ahead of the secured debt holders like the pension funds.

At a minimum, Indiana's funds lost $6 million in value during the bankruptcy sale, according to the state treasurer's office.

The Indiana State Police Pension Trust, Indiana State Teachers Retirement Fund, and the Indiana Major Moves Construction Fund joined together to request certiorari, asking the justices to decide whether bankruptcy proceedings similar to Chrysler should be allowed in the future. The court initially stayed the bankruptcy sale in June but then allowed it to proceed. That move to block the automaker's sale came after the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in New York had given it the green light. At the time, the high court did not consider the merits of the opponents' arguments and left the door open for this certiorari request.

The question presented is whether Section 363 of the bankruptcy code may freely be used as a "side door" to reorganize a debtor's financial affairs without adherence to the creditor protections provided by the Chapter 11 plan-confirmation process.

A paragraph-long summary disposition order was issued today, following the justices' final conference of the year Friday. Justices granted certiorari but dismissed the case.

"The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded ... with instructions to dismiss the appeal as moot," the order says, citing the precedent of United States v. Munsingwear Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (1950). That case from the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals involved price-fixing claims, and the Supreme Court held that the established practice of dealing with an appeal that becomes moot while pending review is to reverse or vacate the judgment and direct that it be dismissed.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT