The Splits from page 28
Fifth Circuit ’ s view .” Id . at 167 . Beginning with the “ language of the statute itself ,” the court looked at both “ whether the language at issues has a plain and unambiguous meaning ” and whether the plain language has an “ ordinary , common meaning ” rendering it unambiguous . Id . at 167 – 68 . The court interpreted “ case ” as “ a term of art in the bankruptcy context ” that is “ wellunderstood ” as the “ umbrella litigation often covering numerous actions that are related only by the debtor ’ s status as a litigant .” Id . at 168 . The court then referred to Black ’ s Law Dictionary , which interprets “ proceeding ” to have “ a generally accepted meaning in the bankruptcy context ” as a “ particular dispute or matter arising within a pending case — as opposed to the case as a whole .” Id . Finally , again citing Black ’ s Law Dictionary , the court found an “ issue ” to be a “ point in dispute between two or more parties .” Id . at 169 . While it noted that issues are raised in both contested matters and adversary proceedings in bankruptcy , the court found “ the plain text of § 1109 ( b ) does not distinguish between issues that occur in these different types of proceedings within a Chapter 11 case .” Id . at 169 ( emphasis in original ). The court concluded : “ We hold , therefore , that the phrase ‘ any issue in a case ’ plainly grants a right to raise , appear and be heard on any issue regardless whether it arises in a contested matter or an adversary proceeding .” Id . ( emphasis in original ).
The court rejected the argument that differing views on the statute demonstrate that it is ambiguous , pointing out that the decisions had based their conclusions on other than text , including “ the bankruptcy rules , advisory committee notes , legislative history , or policy concerns .” Id . at 170 . The court refused to use these other sources to create ambiguity in what the court found was a plain meaning . The court also noted that section 1109 ( b ) refers to “ parties in interest ,” such that there may be others who do not fit within this category which would be subject to regular intervention rules . Id . at 171 – 72 . The Second Circuit also rejected arguments made on Section 307 and the addition of “ and proceedings ” after “ case ” in granting standing to the United States Trustee because this Code section was not added until 1986 , after the circuit split had already occurred . Upon an extensive review of the intent behind the Bankruptcy Code and its focus on expanding the jurisdiction and ability of bankruptcy courts to manage all proceedings arising in a bankruptcy case , and the Third Circuit ’ s reaffirmance of its holding in Marin , the Second Circuit refused to be drawn into policy discussions and instead relied solely on the “ natural reading of the text .” Id . at 176 .
After another fifteen-year break , the First Circuit addressed this issue in Fin . Oversight and Mgmt . Bd . for Puerto Rico . While decided under PROMESA ( Puerto Rico Oversight , Management , and Economic Stability Act ), which incorporated large parts of the Bankruptcy Code , including Section 1109 , the First Circuit reversed the denial of a motion to intervene brought by a creditors ’ committee and found Section 1109 provides an “‘ unconditional right to intervene ’ within the meaning of Fed . R . Civ . P . 24 ( a )( 1 ).” Fin . Oversight and Mgmt . Bd . for Puerto Rico , 872 F . 3d at 59 . Noting that both the Fourth Circuit and the Tenth Circuit in dicta appeared to follow the Fifth Circuit ’ s lead in Fuel Oil Supply finding no absolute right to intervene , the First Circuit cited as more persuasive the more recent decisions out of the Second and Third Circuits finding Section 1109 ( b ) continued on page 30
29