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. Some are above the law in Indiana. Some lined up with Lodges have controlled power in the state since the 1920s when the Klan ruled Indiana. Consider the comments at this post and note the international h.q. in Indianapolis. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/human-trafficking-rising-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/42468. Brave journalists need to take this child torturing, above the law and antimarriage cult on just like The Globe courageously took on Cardinal Law. Are there any brave Hoosier journalists?

  2. I am nearing 66 years old..... I have no interest in contacting anyone. All I need to have is a nationality....a REAL Birthday...... the place U was born...... my soul will never be at peace. I have lived my life without identity.... if anyone can help me please contact me.

  3. This is the dissent discussed in the comment below. See comments on that story for an amazing discussion of likely judicial corruption of some kind, the rejection of the rule of law at the very least. http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774#comment

  4. That means much to me, thank you. My own communion, to which I came in my 30's from a protestant evangelical background, refuses to so affirm me, the Bishop's courtiers all saying, when it matters, that they defer to the state, and trust that the state would not be wrong as to me. (LIttle did I know that is the most common modernist catholic position on the state -- at least when the state acts consistent with the philosophy of the democrat party). I asked my RCC pastor to stand with me before the Examiners after they demanded that I disavow God's law on the record .... he refused, saying the Bishop would not allow it. I filed all of my file in the open in federal court so the Bishop's men could see what had been done ... they refused to look. (But the 7th Cir and federal judge Theresa Springmann gave me the honor of admission after so reading, even though ISC had denied me, rendering me a very rare bird). Such affirmation from a fellow believer as you have done here has been rare for me, and that dearth of solidarity, and the economic pain visited upon my wife and five children, have been the hardest part of the struggle. They did indeed banish me, for life, and so, in substance did the the Diocese, which treated me like a pariah, but thanks to this ezine ... and this is simply amazing to me .... because of this ezine I am not silenced. This ezine allowing us to speak to the corruption that the former chief "justice" left behind, yet embedded in his systems when he retired ... the openness to discuss that corruption (like that revealed in the recent whistleblowing dissent by courageous Justice David and fresh breath of air Chief Justice Rush,) is a great example of the First Amendment at work. I will not be silenced as long as this tree falling in the wood can be heard. The Hoosier Judiciary has deep seated problems, generational corruption, ideological corruption. Many cases demonstrate this. It must be spotlighted. The corrupted system has no hold on me now, none. I have survived their best shots. It is now my time to not be silent. To the Glory of God, and for the good of man's law. (It almost always works that way as to the true law, as I explained the bar examiners -- who refused to follow even their own statutory law and violated core organic law when banishing me for life -- actually revealing themselves to be lawless.)

  5. to answer your questions, you would still be practicing law and its very sad because we need lawyers like you to stand up for the little guy who have no voice. You probably were a threat to them and they didnt know how to handle the truth and did not want anyone to "rock the boat" so instead of allowing you to keep praticing they banished you, silenced you , the cowards that they are.

ADVERTISEMENT