The Split on Appealing Receivership-Distribution Orders
In SEC v. EquityBuild, Inc., the Seventh Circuit heard an appeal from order approving the distribution of some—but not all—of the assets in a receivership proceeding. The order was appealable under the Seventh Circuit’s caselaw, which deemed these orders appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. Judge Easterbrook concurred to express doubt in this caselaw and suggest that the issue—one on which the courts have split—should be resolved by the Supreme Court.
The Distribution Order in EquityBuild
EquityBuild involved the fallout from a Ponzi scheme. The parties in the appeal had both claimed a right to some of the property that had been recovered after the scheme collapsed. The district court held that individual investors, and not a private lender, should receive the funds in question.
This order did not resolve the distribution of all assets in the receivership. But it resolved all claims regarding some of the property. And under the Seventh Circuit’s decision in SEC v. Wealth Managemenet LLC, such an order is immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine.
A Concurrence Questioning Receivership-Distribution Appeals
Judge Easterbrook concurred to explain why Wealth Management was wrong. The underlying litigation was not over—the district court needed to resolve other claims regarding other property in the receivership. And the order did not satisfy two of the collateral-order doctrine’s requirements.
For one thing, the distribution order was not separate from the merits:
Far from being “collateral” to the merits, a decision about who receives how much of the proceeds from a sale is the merits. The goal of a receivership is to marshal and distribute assets. A distribution order such as the one at issue here is the end of the process for the claimants involved, rather than collateral to something else.
To be sure, liability had been established. But the district court still needed to decide the remedy—who got what. And a decision normally must resolve both liability and the remedy to be final.
For another thing, the distribution order could be resolved in a final-judgment appeal. There was nothing stopping the court of appeals from resolving the same issues after a final judgment. Granted, there might be some concern about distributed money being spent and thus becoming unrecoverable. “But that potential problem has multiple solutions,” including the receiver retaining funds until after a final judgment or the posting of security by prevailing parties.
The Split on Receivership-Distribution Appeals
Judge Easterbrook went on to explain that the courts have split on this matter. Most courts agree with the Seventh Circuit. The Ninth Circuit has gone the other way.
But Judge Easterbrook did not think the Seventh Circuit should reconsider the issue. He said “it is rarely prudent to move from one side of a conflict to the other.” So resolution of this split falls to Supreme Court (via either decision or the rulemaking process).
SEC v. EquityBuild, Inc., 2024 WL 1984874 (7th Cir. May 6, 2024), available at the Seventh Circuit and Westlaw
Final Decisions PLLC is an appellate boutique and consultancy that focuses on federal appellate jurisdiction. We partner with lawyers facing appellate-jurisdiction issues, working as consultants or co-counsel to achieve positive outcomes on appeal. Contact us to learn how we can work together.
Learn More ContactRelated Posts
In New Albany Main Street Properties v. Watco Companies, LLC, the Sixth Circuit held that it could not review a decision granting leave to amend as part of a qualified-immunity appeal. The leave-to-amend decision was not itself immediately appealable. Nor could it tag along with the denial of immunity (which technically involved qualified immunity under […]
Continue reading....
In Coomer v. Make Your Life Epic LLC, the Tenth Circuit held that denials of anti-SLAPP motions under Colorado law are not immediately appealable via the collateral-order doctrine. The court drew an interesting line between appeals involving primarily legal issues—which can warrant immediate appeal—and those involving primarily factual issues—which don’t. The court explained that fact-heavy […]
Continue reading....
In Garrick v. Moody Bible Institute, a divided Seventh Circuit held that a defendant cannot immediately appeal from the denial of a motion to dismiss on church-autonomy grounds. The Seventh Circuit thereby joined the Second and Tenth Circuits in both its ultimate holding and its having a split court.
Continue reading....
In Amisi v. Brooks, the Fourth Circuit held that defendants can immediately appeal from the refusal to dismiss a claim as barred by the Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act. The court thought that the Act provided an immunity from litigation. And that, apparently, was all that was necessary for an appeal via the collateral-order doctrine. But […]
Continue reading....
The collateral-order doctrine is one of the most frequently invoked exceptions to the final-judgment rule. The doctrine deems final a district court order that (1) conclusively resolves an issue, (2) involves an important issue that is separate from the merits, and (3) would be effectively unreviewable in an appeal after a final judgment. The collateral-order doctrine is also […]
Continue reading....Recent Posts
In two appeals—Clark v. Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government and Salter v. City of Detroit, the Sixth Circuit spoke at length about its jurisdiction to review certain Brady issues as part of qualified-immunity appeals. The cases produced a total of six opinions, several of which dove into this jurisdictional issue.
Continue reading....
In Rossy v. City of Buffalo, the Second Circuit appeared to both dismiss a qualified-immunity appeal for a lack of jurisdiction and exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over a plaintiff’s cross-appeal. This is odd. Pendent appellate jurisdiction allows normally non-appealable issues to tag along with appealable ones. But if the denial of qualified immunity was not […]
Continue reading....
I’ve frequently written about the problem of fact-based qualified-immunity appeals both on this website and in my research. I recently decided to collect some new data on how much needless delay these appeals add to civil-rights litigation. I had done something similar a few years ago when writing about the need to sanction defendants for […]
Continue reading....
Yesterday, I filed an amicus brief in support of the petitioner in Parrish v. United States, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court. The case asks if an appellant must file a new notice of appeal after the district court reopens the time to appeal under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(6). Both the […]
Continue reading....
Last month saw another rejection of pure Bivens appeals, an analysis of Perlman appeals in the grand-jury context, and a ruling on mandatory stays during a remand appeal. Plus an odd sovereign-immunity appeal, appeals without the express resolution of all claims, and much more.
Continue reading....