Weisfelner v. Blavatnik (In Re Lyondell Chemical Co.)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “fraudulent conveyance actions . . . are quintessentially suits at common law that more nearly resemble state- law contract claims,” and are therefore “matter[s] of private right.” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)
• noting that “fraudulent conveyance . . . claims do not fall within the public rights exception”
• noting that implied consent is insufficient under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7012(b), which requires express consent for a bankruptcy court to enter final judgment in non-core matters
• finding that efficiency considerations weighed against withdrawal because the district court “ha[d] not performed any work on the outstanding motions, presided over any pretrial proceedings, or overseen any discovery or motion practice”
• denying motion to withdraw the reference where motions for summary judgment were pending and noting that “[i]f and when the defendants assert their jury trial rights and/or the case proceeds to trial, then, the defendants are free to move for withdrawal a second time”
• “The bankruptcy court’s authority to enter final judgment on claims is not determinative in deciding whether to withdraw the reference.... ”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).