Bopfania
Besugo: Tu amiga Bopfan ha posteado de nuevo
I rarely challenge you on this board because you rarely give me reason (i.e., your opinions usually make sense). However, this time you so far off in your opinion "that The Smith case was a very minor specific case and it just seems unreal that the entire bankruptcy system of the US would be thrown into turmoil if it is allowed to be the new standard under which all bankruptcy cases will fall" must be attacked.
The U.S. Supreme Court grants review ('certioari') to about 1% of cases(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certiorari)... and those cases merit its very special attention. In the instant case the Justices were concerned that if bankruptcy courts as Article I (i.e., Congressionally-created) courts could -- pursuant to 28 USC 157 -- adjudicate matters within the jurisdiction of Article III courts (i.e., the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Courts of Appeal, and U.S. District Courts) it would eviscerate the jurisdiction of Article III courts. That is a VERY significant matter (violation of separation of powers), hence the Supremes' grant of cert.
If you think Walrath can give the finger to the Supremes and Stern, you're on the wrong train. Jurisdiction is the heart of a court's power, and is the first topic a first year law student learns in Civil Procedure (yes, it's THAT important). When a jurisdictional challenge is made a court must address the issue. When I hear a non-lawyer discount both a U.S. Supreme Court opinion AND a jurisdictional challenge my dander goes up. Way up.
The bankruptcy system won't be thrown into turmoil; bankruptcy courts will simply have to limit adjudication to matters within their jurisdiction and to refer matters outside their jurisdiction to district courts. Anna Nicole Smith's torts claim against her son-in-law was outside the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction and so are several of the claims WMI purports to settle in the GSA.
Stern marks the first time when equity doesn't have to rely on Walrath's good offices; she has to accept the decision's limit on her authority. Period.
The Hoffman objection to abandonment foreshadowed the foregoing jurisdiction issue with respect to the FIRREA claims, and Walrath ignored the argument. Now she is cornered and has to rule on TPS' objection next week.
As TPS says, if a bankruptcy court doesn't have jurisdiction to adjudicate a type of legal matter, it can't approve compromise of that matter (cf. Hoffman abandonment objection) as entering an order approving the compromise is a final judgment.
The GSA purports to settle claims that could not be adjudicated by Walrath, hence according to TPS and Stern, she can't settle them, either.
By throwing lack of jurisdiction in her face Walrath MUST -- as a preliminary matter -- rule on whether she has jurisdiction. She can't touch the GSA/Plan until she does so.
You'll notice that every pleading and order in this case has contained a preliminary statement regarding the court's jurisdiction. TPS has just attacked that vis a vis the GSA. Walrath must tackle that first because if she doesn't have it and proceeds, she's just wasting everyone's time and will look a fool to her fellow jurists and the bar.
