Limits on bankruptcy courts
Raw Materials v. Sonya Salkin Slott
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Raw Materials Corp. and its co-petitioners asked the Supreme Court to review a dispute with Sonya Salkin Slott over whether bankruptcy courts may combine separate debtors’ assets and debts (substantive consolidation), arguing that the power is not expressly granted by the Bankruptcy Code.
- Who it affects
- Raw Materials Corp. and its co-petitioners will not receive Supreme Court review in this case; the Court did not decide their challenge to bankruptcy courts’ authority.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Court refused to hear the case (denied review), so it did not decide that issue.
The dispute concerns substantive consolidation: combining separate debtors’ assets and debts in a bankruptcy case.
Question presented
Whether Bankruptcy Courts’ powers are only those expressed in the Bankruptcy Code?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: status
Show 5 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
New document added
Case data updated: documents, description, proceeding_type
Case data updated: documents, description, document_url, proceeding_type
Brief added: Petition
More questions
- What did Raw Materials argue?
- It argued that the Bankruptcy Code does not expressly give bankruptcy courts the power to combine separate debtors’ assets and debts.
- Was a Supreme Court argument scheduled?
- No; argument had not yet been scheduled when the Court denied the petition.
- Which appeals court did the case come from?
- The case came from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.