Skip to main content

Property in bankruptcy

Gilberg v. Power Architects

Updated Nov 12, 2026

In brief

Where it stands
Dismissed

Petition denied.

What it’s about
An arbitration panel found that Mark Kesel’s unscheduled Power Architects shares became his again when his Chapter 11 case was dismissed, and California courts confirmed the award; Larry Gilberg challenged that result.
Who it affects
The California courts' approval remains in place, but the Supreme Court did not rule on the shares' bankruptcy status or the arbitration panel's authority.

Summary: written with AI from the case record.

Illustration for Larry Gilberg, Petitioner v. Power Architects Corporation
Conceptual illustration · AI-generated

What it's about

The Supreme Court refused to hear Gilberg’s case (denied review), so it did not decide the bankruptcy or arbitration questions.

The arbitration panel found that Mark Kesel's unscheduled Power Architects shares returned to him when his Chapter 11 case was dismissed. California courts approved the panel's decision, which Gilberg challenged.

The dispute concerns whether shares left off a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing remained part of the bankruptcy estate or returned to Mark Kesel after his case was dismissed.

Question presented

1. Whether the Supremacy Clause permits a State to confirm and enforce, as a money judgment, a private arbitration award that adjudicated the ownership, voting rights, and dividend entitlement of property the award itself found had entered a federal bankruptcy estate, where 11 U.S.C. §§ 554(d) and 1334(e)(1) commit the status and disposition of such property to the federal courts, and no court exercising that jurisdiction has ever decided the estate-property question. 2. Whether property that a Chapter 11 debtor never scheduled, that was never abandoned, and that was never administered revests in the debtor on dismissal under 11 U.S.C. § 349(b)(3), or remains property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 554(d). 3. Whether a State may structure its arbitration-confirmation system so that a private tribunal’s adjudication of exclusively federal questions is at once insulated from constitutional review as private action and from judicial review as a confirmed award, leaving the affected party no forum in which to challenge the tribunal’s lack of jurisdiction.

Documents

1

Docket activity

6
  • New analysis added

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Case Briefing

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Decision Record

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

Show 1 more
  • Brief added: Petition

    Jun 27, 2026 · Court records

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.

Checked Nov 12, 2026Methodology

Court records and filings

Reporting and analysis