首页> 外文OA文献 >The Long and Winding Road: State Sovereign Immunityu27s Effect on Gaming License Revocation for the Casino Debtor
【2h】

The Long and Winding Road: State Sovereign Immunityu27s Effect on Gaming License Revocation for the Casino Debtor

机译:漫长而曲折的道路:国家主权豁免对赌场债务人博彩牌照撤销的影响

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

One of the most vital and contentious proceedings between a casino debtor and a regulatory agency is a post-petition license revocation hearing. Much debate exists about whether the license qualifies as property of the estate and whether the regulatory agency can be exempted from the protections inherent in the Bankruptcy Code due to the use of police and regulatory power. However, maybe the most contentious and impactful debate is whether the regulatory agency is free from the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction due to the Eleventh Amendment’s guarantee of sovereign immunity.At the center of the tension concerning sovereign immunity lies 11 U.S.C. § 106(a), which authorizes the bankruptcy court to abrogate state sovereign immunity. In the past fifteen years, the United States Supreme Court issued three key decisions concerning the federal government’s ability to abrogate statutorily states’ sovereign immunity pursuant to its Article I power and the bankruptcy court’s unique position in the long standing controversy. The states’ ability to assert their sovereign immunity in bankruptcy proceedings is particularly relevant to casino bankruptcies due to the heavy involvement of the state gaming regulator. With the Bankruptcy Code in question, state governmental units and the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court are in direct conflict.This Note outlines the historical context, relevant Supreme Court decisions, and the cloudy, ill-defined area in which bankruptcy courts are authorized to abrogate states’ sovereign immunity. Additionally, this Note explores the analysis courts use when determining whether a regulatory agency’s power to revoke licenses is exempted from the automatic stay. Lastly, this Note argues that the three recent Supreme Court cases restored order to the bankruptcy court’s ability to pierce the sovereign immunity of a regulatory agency during a license revocation hearing of a casino debtor.
机译:赌场债务人与监管机构之间最重要和最具争议的诉讼之一是请愿后吊销听证会。关于许可证是否符合房地产财产的资格,以及由于使用警察和监管权力,监管机构是否可以免于《破产法》固有的保护,存在许多争议。但是,也许最具争议和影响力的辩论是,由于《第十一修正案》对主权豁免权的保证,该监管机构是否不受破产法院的管辖。关于主权豁免权的紧张局势的核心是11 U.S.C.。第106(a)条,授权破产法院废除国家主权豁免权。在过去的15年中,美国最高法院针对联邦政府根据第一条权力废除法定国家主权豁免权的能力以及破产法院在长期争议中的独特地位发布了三项关键决定。由于州博彩监管机构的大量参与,各州在破产程序中主张主权豁免的能力与赌场破产特别相关。由于存在《破产法》,州政府部门与破产法院的管辖权存在直接冲突。本说明概述了历史背景,最高法院的有关决定以及授权破产法院废除的混浊,界限不明确的地区国家的主权豁免权。此外,本说明还探讨了法院在确定监管机构的吊销许可权是否免于自动中止时使用的分析方法。最后,本说明还指出,最高法院最近的三起案件恢复了破产法院在赌场债务人的吊销吊销听证会中刺穿监管机构的主权豁免权的命令。

著录项

  • 作者

    Humes Christopher M.;

  • 作者单位
  • 年度 2012
  • 总页数
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 {"code":"en","name":"English","id":9}
  • 中图分类

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号