|
The 1984 Amendments to the bankruptcy act of 1978 were passed to deal with the Marathon crisis and made significant changes in the structure, jurisdiction and procedures of the bankruptcy court from the provisions of the Reform Act. These amendments remain in effect with modest changes. At the time of their enactment they were highly controversial and while some of the more dire predictions have failed to come to pass some anticipated problems are still with us.
At the heart of the effort to deal with the Marathon problem is 28 United States Code § 157 which provides the procedures for the handling of matters referred to the bankruptcy courts under § 157(a). There is a distinct similarity to the practice under the Emergency Rule discussed in § 2.03. Amended Bankruptcy Rules 5011 and 9033, provide the procedures for withdrawal of the reference and for the entry of a final order under § 157.
Bankruptcy judges are permitted to hear and determine all cases under Title 11 and all core proceedings, a term defined in § 157(b)(2). Core proceedings include administrative matters, motions to terminate, annul, or modify the stay, and most avoiding actions. Under § 157(c)(l) a "related" or "non-core proceeding" may be heard by the bankruptcy judge, who is to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to the district court, which is to enter any final order or judgment after considering the bankruptcy judge's proposed findings and conclusions and after reviewing de novo those matters to which any party has timely and specifically objected. There is also a provision in § 157(c)(2) for the trial of a non-core or related proceeding by the bankruptcy judge upon consent of all of the parties to the proceeding.
The inferior status of the bankruptcy courts is made quite clear by three provisions. First, the reference of bankruptcy matters by the district court under § 157(a) is permissive. Second, under § 157(d) the district court may withdraw any case or proceeding at any time. Finally, appeals are to the district court unless a bankruptcy appellate panel has been formed and all the parties consent to the panel hearing the appeal.
Title I of the 1984 Amendments raised a number of procedural uncertainties. To illustrate, § 157(a) provides for a permissive reference of cases under Title 11 and all proceedings arising in or related to cases under Title 11 to the bankruptcy court. Yet a number of sections refer to actions by the district court, such as § 1412, which empowers the district court to transfer a case or proceeding, and § 1411(b), which permits the district court to order the issues in an involuntary case brought under § 303 of the Code to be tried without a jury. One is entitled to suspect that in some instances, such as abstention determinations under § 1334(c)(2), Congress meant district court when it said district court, while in others, such as change of venue of a case or proceeding, reference of the matter to the bankruptcy court was expected. The Bankruptcy Rules Amendments, which are discussed later in this section, have resolved some, but not all, of these uncertainties. Local rules and some judicial gloss will be required to resolve the remaining issues.Arrange Free Consult
Bankruptcy News