Ninth Circuit Rules Only Article III Judge Can Rule on Fraudulent Transfer Claims; Bankruptcy Judges Cannot Rule on Fraudulent Transfer Claims, Because They Are Not Article III Judges
In re Bellingham Insurance Agency, Inc. (Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Peter H. Arkinson), ___F.3d ___, 2012 WL 6013836 (9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 12/4/12) Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals holds that only an Article III Judge, such as a US District Judge, or a Circuit Judge, or a US Supreme Court Justice, can adjudicate (rule on) fraudulent transfer claims, and holds that Bankruptcy Judges (which are NOT Article III Judges, they are only ARticle I Judges, appointed for 14 year terms, instead of being appointed for life, as Article III judges are) CANNOT rule on fraudulent transfer claims. Decision is based on the US Supreme Court case, Stern v. Marshall, 131 S. Ct. 2594 (2011), in which the US Supreme Court ruled, inter alia, that bankruptcy judges do not have jurisdiction over some kinds of “core” bankruptcy matters, including bankruptcy judges do not have jurisdiction to rule on state law counterclaims, because it is constitutionally impermissible to give such power to non-Article III judges. Copy of Bellingham attached, copy of 12/13/12 article analyzing Bellingham attached.
Bankruptcy Judges See Authority Sapped