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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?