UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN RE: GREEKTOWN HOLDINGS, LLC Bankr. Case No. 08-53104

Chapter 11

Bankruptcy Judge Walter Shapero

Debtor,

_____________________________________/

BUCHWALD CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC,

solely in its capacity as Litigation Trustee for

the Greektown Litigation Trust,

Plaintiff, Adv. Pro. 10-05712

v. 

DIMITROS (“JIM”) PAPAS, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

SAULT STE. MARIE TRIBE OF CHIPPEWA

INDIANS; KEWADIN CASINOS GAMING

AUTHORITY,

Appellants, Case No. 14-14103

v. Paul D. Borman

United States District Judge

BUCHWALD CAPITAL ADVISORS, LLC,

Litigation Trustee for the Greektown

Litigation Trust,

Appellee.

_____________________________________/

ORDER DENYING THE LITIGATION TRUSTEE’S PETITION FOR CERTIFICATION OF

THE COURT’S JUNE 9, 2015 OPINION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) FOR APPEAL

TO UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

On June 22, 2015, Appellee Buchwald Capital Advisors, LLC, Litigation Trustee for the

1

2:14-cv-14103-PDB-RSW Doc # 19 Filed 07/14/15 Pg 1 of 4 Pg ID 1068
Greektown Litigation Trust (the “Litigation Trustee”) filed a petition seeking to have this Court

certify its June 9, 2015 Opinion and Order Reversing the Bankruptcy Court’s August 13, 2014 Order

Denying the Tribe’s Renewed Motion to Dismiss on the Grounds of Sovereign Immunity and

Remanding For Further Proceedings. (ECF No. 16, Petition.) On June 25, 2015, Appellants the

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians and Kewadin Casinos Gamin Authority (“the Tribe”)

filed a Response to the Petition. (ECF No. 18, Response.) For the reasons that follow, the Court

declines to exercise its discretion to certify its interlocutory June 9, 2015 Opinion and Order for

immediate appeal and DENIES the Petition. 

Title 28 U.S.C. § 1292 states as follows:

When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable

under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling

question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and

that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate

termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order. The Court of

Appeals which would have jurisdiction of an appeal of such action may thereupon,

in its discretion, permit an appeal to be taken from such order, if application is made

to it within ten days after the entry of the order: Provided, however, That application

for an appeal hereunder shall not stay proceedings in the district court unless the

district judge or the Court of Appeals or a judge thereof shall so order.

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) (emphasis in original). 

In deciding whether to exercise its discretion under § 1292(b), a district court must consider

whether: “(1) the order involves a controlling question of law, (2) a substantial ground for difference

of opinion exists regarding the correctness of the decision, and (3) an appeal may materially advance

the ultimate termination of the litigation.” In re City of Memphis, 293 F.3d 345, 350 (6th Cir. 2002). 

“Review under § 1292(b) is granted sparingly and only in exceptional cases.” Id. (citing Kraus v.

Bd. of County Rd. Comm’rs, 364 F.2d 919, 922 (6th Cir. 1966)). 

2

2:14-cv-14103-PDB-RSW Doc # 19 Filed 07/14/15 Pg 2 of 4 Pg ID 1069
This is not an exceptional case meriting certification for immediate appellate review. 

Assuming arguendo that the Court’s order involves a controlling question of law and that there is

a substantial ground for a difference of opinion as to whether Congress clearly and unequivocally

expressed an intent to abrogate tribal immunity in § 106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, in this case

certification of this issue for immediate appeal will not materially advance the ultimate termination

of the underlying adversary proceeding. 

If the Sixth Circuit affirms this Court, the parties will be back in the bankruptcy court

litigating the issue of waiver, which is precisely where matters are poised to commence now. If the

Sixth Circuit reverses this Court, and agrees with Judge Shapero that Congress did clearly and

unequivocally express an intent to abrogate tribal immunity in § 106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, the

parties also will return to the bankruptcy court to litigate the underlying fraudulent transfer issues. 

In either case, a Sixth Circuit decision on the issue will not terminate or materially advance the

termination of the underlying litigation. 

The Court is unpersuaded by the Litigation Trustee’s argument that an immediate appeal will

materially advance the litigation because it could eliminate the need for “costly” discovery on the

issue of waiver. The nature and amount of discovery that Judge Shapero may (or may not) deem

necessary to decide the waiver issue is purely a matter of speculation at this point. 

As the parties stipulated in the Bankruptcy Court proceedings on December 23, 2010, the

most logical and appropriate next step in this litigation is a determination of the issue of waiver by

Judge Shapero. Certifying the sovereign immunity issue for immediate appeal now, without a ruling

on the issue of waiver, will not terminate or materially advance resolution of the underlying

litigation. 

3

2:14-cv-14103-PDB-RSW Doc # 19 Filed 07/14/15 Pg 3 of 4 Pg ID 1070
Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Litigation Trustee’s petition for certification of the

Court’s June 9, 2015 Opinion and Order for immediate appeal to the Sixth Circuit. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Paul D. Borman 

PAUL D. BORMAN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: July 14, 2015

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served upon each attorney or party

of record herein by electronic means or first class U.S. mail on July 14, 2015.

s/Deborah Tofil 

Case Manager

4

2:14-cv-14103-PDB-RSW Doc # 19 Filed 07/14/15 Pg 4 of 4 Pg ID 1071