Property in bankruptcy
Gilberg v. Power Architects
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.

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
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: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 1 moreShow fewer
Brief added: Petition
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.