(U.S. Sup. Ct. Mar. 5, 2018)
The Supreme Court affirms the Ninth Circuit’s determination that a “clear error” review applied to the issue presented. The issue was whether an individual creditor was an “insider” under 11 U.S.C. § 101(31), which in this case determined whether a chapter 11 cramdown plan could be confirmed. The issue required the bankruptcy court to apply established facts to the correct legal standard for determination of insider status (a mixed question of law and fact). The Court holds that this particular question entails primarily legal work rather than factual work. Accordingly, “clear error” review was appropriate. Opinion below.
Author: Matt Lindblom