Bankruptcy Courts Largely Silent On Whether They Can Police Their Own Limited Authority Under Stern V. Marshall

Almost a year has passed since the Supreme Court issued its landmark decision in Stern v. Marshall.[1]  And courts and commentators are all over the map about the limits that Stern placed on the bankruptcy courts’ authority.  Despite extensive published discourse regarding Stern’s constitutional importance, however, almost no one seems to have addressed a more basic question: who is responsible for policing the constitutional limits …

In Re: C.W. Mining Company, D/B/A Co-Op Mining Company, Debtor. Standard Industries, Inc.: C.O.P Coal Development Compant V. Aquila, Inc.: Kenneth A. Rushton, Trustee; C.W. Mining Company

(Originally posted to http://volo.abi.org/circuits/10th by Dan Glasser) Stay violation sanctions, authorized under 11 U.S.C. 105, may include monetary and non-monetary relief. To the extent that monetary sanctions are at issue, such relief is available under Bankruptcy Rule 9014 and no adversary proceeding is required under Bankruptcy Rule 7001. For purposes of civil contempt, constitutional due process merely requires notice and …