No. 23-702

Sander L. Esserman, in His Official Capacity as Future Claims Representative v. Bestwall LLC, et al.

Lower Court: Fourth Circuit
Docketed: 2023-12-29
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Experienced Counsel
Tags: asbestos-litigation bankruptcy-jurisdiction bankruptcy-standard corporate-reorganization debtor-protection likelihood-of-success non-debtor-litigation organizational-restructuring preliminary-injunction subject-matter-jurisdiction
Key Terms:
Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri Jurisdiction
Latest Conference: 2024-05-09
Related Cases: 23-675 (Vide)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether a sophisticated corporate defendant may use an organizational reshuffling to devise bankruptcy jurisdiction for a nationwide preliminary injunction halting litigation against it

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Under 28 U.S.C. § 1359, a federal court “shall not have jurisdiction of a civil action in which any party, by assignment or otherwise, has been improperly or collusively made or joined to invoke the jurisdiction of such court.” The Fourth Circuit below held that a sophisticated corporation could create federal subject-matter jurisdiction by reshuffling its organization and entering into contracts with a specially formed affiliate that then filed bankruptcy, all with the goal of obtaining a nationwide preliminary injunction to shield the company, itself a non-debtor, from litigation. The dissent would have rejected these transactions as a basis for federal jurisdiction. The Fourth Circuit further held that a debtor in bankruptcy need not make a clear showing of a likelihood of success on the merits to obtain a preliminary injunction. Instead, an injunction was appropriate if the debtor’s reorganization was a “realistic possibility.” The Bankruptcy Court itself said this was “not intended to be a particularly high standard.” This Petition thus presents two important questions: First, may a sophisticated corporate defendant use an organizational reshuffling to devise bankruptcy jurisdiction for a nationwide preliminary injunction halting litigation against it? Second, may a bankruptcy court issue that injunction without applying the standard that an Article III court would be required to apply outside of bankruptcy?

Docket Entries

2024-05-13
Petition DENIED.
2024-04-17
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/9/2024.
2024-04-15
Reply of petitioner Sander L. Esserman, in his capacity as future claimants' representative filed. (Distributed)
2024-03-29
2024-01-09
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including March 29, 2024.
2024-01-08
Motion to extend the time to file a response from January 29, 2024 to March 29, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
2023-12-20
2023-10-27
Application (23A378) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until December 20, 2023.
2023-10-24
Application (23A378) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from November 5, 2023 to December 20, 2023, submitted to The Chief Justice.

Attorneys

Bestwall LLC, et al.
Noel John FranciscoJones Day, Respondent
Noel John FranciscoJones Day, Respondent
Sander L. Esserman, in his capacity as future claimants' representative
Edwin John HarronYoung Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Petitioner
Edwin John HarronYoung Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, Petitioner