Statek Corp. V Development Specialists, Inc. (In Re Coudert Bros. Llp), 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4019

Statek Corporation appeals a district court decision affirming a bankruptcy court order disallowing Statek's claim against Coudert in In re Coudert Brothers LLP, a Chapter 11 case.
The bankruptcy court applied New York choice-of-law rules to Statek's claim, but Statek argues Connecticut choice-of-law rules should govern because the underlying prepetition malpractice action was filed in Connecticut.
Statek's proof of claim in bankruptcy included the complaint from the Connecticut action, which is alleged to be wholly derived from the prepetition claim.
The Connecticut action was removed to federal court, with subsequent stay and relief-from-stay proceedings; the bankruptcy case proceeded in New York while the Connecticut action remained pending, effectively extending the Connecticut action into the bankruptcy forum.
The court vacated the district court’s order and remanded with instructions to apply Connecticut choice-of-law rules to Statek's motion to reconsider; the underlying issue is which state's law governs the prepetition-derived bankruptcy claim.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Timeliness of appeal from the bankruptcy order	Statek argues its appeal of the disallowance was timely	Plan Administrator argues the appeal of the initial order was untimely	Appeal of the initial order was untimely; review is limited to the denial of reconsideration
Applicable choice-of-law rules for a bankruptcy claim derived from a prepetition action	Statek seeks Connecticut choice-of-law rules	Coudert seeks New York choice-of-law rules	Bankruptcy courts should apply Connecticut choice-of-law rules under the Van Dusen/Ferens framework in this hybrid scenario
Whether Klaxon/Van Dusen framework applies in bankruptcy when the source claim was filed in another state	Statek's venue choice in Connecticut should control	New York rules govern by virtue of bankruptcy forum	State/federal uniformity requires applying the source state's choice-of-law rules; Statek is entitled to the Connecticut rule
Standard of review for a bankruptcy court’s denial of a motion to reconsider	Statek requests de novo consideration of law and facts	Court reviews for abuse of discretion	Abuse-of-discretion standard governs the denial of a motion to reconsider

Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (U.S. 1941) (state choice-of-law rules control in federal courts sitting in diversity; prevents intra-state forum shopping)
Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 (U.S. 1964) (venue transfers carry the plaintiff's choice-of-law rules to the new forum)
Ferens v. John Deere Co., 494 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1990) (plaintiff may shop for favorable choice-of-law rules via transfers)
In re Gaston, 243 F.3d 599 (2d Cir. 2001) (bankruptcy court should apply state choice-of-law rules; use of Klaxon framework in bankruptcy context)
In re Gaston, 243 F.3d 601-02 (2d Cir. 2001) (extended discussion on applying state law in bankruptcy-based claims)
In re Siemon, 421 F.3d 167 (2d Cir. 2005) (Rule 8002 timeliness is jurisdictional; independent obligation to assess jurisdiction)
American Electric Power Co. v. Connecticut, 131 S. Ct. 2527 (U.S. 2011) (federal courts adopt ready-made state law as federal decision rule absent need for a federal rule)
Atherton v. FDIC, 519 U.S. 213 (U.S. 1997) (federal policy considerations govern choice of law where federal interests conflict)
Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (U.S. 1938) (state law governs merits; no federal general common law)
Bianco v. Erkins (In re Gaston & Snow), 243 F.3d 599 (2d Cir. 2001) (bankruptcy court’s choice-of-law approach in Gaston)