%1

Despite the high court’s ban on nunc pro tunc orders, may bankruptcy courts make their orders retroactive?

High court rules that federal courts may make federal common law only to protect ‘uniquely’ federal interests.

Building on Bullard, the Supreme Court rules unanimously that a lift-stay motion is a “procedural unit” that’s appealable if the bankruptcy court “conclusively” denies the motion.

Supreme Court let a First Circuit opinion stand that barred bondholders from compelling payment during Puerto Rico’s restructuring under PROMESA.

The Supreme Court wants the government’s opinion about comity and the extraterritorial application of Sections 548 and 550.

The ‘fraud-specific discovery rule’ might permit FDCPA suits filed more than one year after the occurrence that gives rise to the claim.

At oral argument, the justices seemed to recognize that Rodriguez v. FDIC does not raise the question of whether the lower courts relied on federal common law in deciding the ownership of a tax refund.

Justices may narrow Bullard by drawing back from the requirement that finality requires a change in the status quo.

The justices recognized the practical effects of the decision they will make on Puerto Rico and precedent that could undermine the governance of territories and Washington, D.C.

Professing to follow Ritzen, Sixth Circuit BAP reverts to a more pragmatic approach to ‘finality.’