The Supreme Court used a bankruptcy case to elucidate the standard of review when an appellate court confronts a mixed question of law and fact, according to an analysis from ABI Editor-at-Large Bill Rochelle. According to Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote the opinion yesterday for the unanimous Court in U.S. Bank National Association v. Village at Lakeridge (15-1509), clear error was the proper standard of review because the arm’s-length nature of the transaction was primarily factual in nature. In concurring opinions, four justices questioned whether the Ninth Circuit employed the proper legal test for non-statutory insider status. Implying that the dissenter in the Ninth Circuit was on the right track, they laid out a test for non-statutory insider status that would be more consonant with the statute and produce a different outcome.