Whether Article III federal courts may apply the 'persons aggrieved' pecuniary-interest test to preclude judicial review of orders entered by an Article I bankruptcy court when an appellant suffers an inherently non-pecuniary injury that arises from impairment of the integrity of the bankruptcy process and inaccessibility of court records

QUESTION PRESENTED Respondent McKinsey Recovery & Transformation Services US LLC (“McKinsey”) was employed to assist debtors in a bankruptcy reorganization. Petitioner and creditor Mar-Bow Value Partners, LLC (“Mar-Bow”) alleges that McKinsey failed to disclose information during bankruptcy proceedings required by Bankruptcy Rule 2014 relating to potential conflicts of interest and bias, and thereby injured the interests of parties and the public in the fairness and integrity of the bankruptcy process. The Bankruptcy Court granted MarBow’s objection in part and denied it in part, ordering that certain disclosures be in camera despite no evidence supporting sealing. The District Court dismissed Mar-Bow’s appeal because it found that Mar-Bow lacked a pecuniary interest in the outcome and therefore could not meet the prudential “persons aggrieved” test for bankruptcy appellate standing. The Fourth Circuit summarily affirmed the District Court’s decision “for the reasons stated by the district court.” The Question Presented is whether Article III federal courts may apply the “persons aggrieved” pecuniary-interest test (a judge-made prudential standing doctrine) to preclude judicial review of orders entered by an Article I bankruptcy court when an appellant suffers an inherently non-pecuniary injury that arises from impairment of the integrity of the bankruptcy process and inaccessibility of court records.