| Litigants: | Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg |
| Arguedate: | January 9 |
| Argueyear: | 1989 |
| Decidedate: | June 23 |
| Decideyear: | 1989 |
| Fullname: | Granfinanciera, S.A., et al., Petitioners v. Paul C. Nordberg, Creditor Trustee for the Estate of Chase & Sanborn Corporation, etc. |
| Usvol: | 492 |
| Uspage: | 33 |
| Parallelcitations: | 109 S.Ct. 2782, 106 L.Ed.2d 26 |
| Oralargument: | https://www.oyez.org/cases/1988/87-1716 |
| Prior: | In re Chase & Sanborn Corp., 835 F.2d 1341 (11th Cir. 1988). |
| Holding: | Provided that Congress has not permissibly assigned resolution of the claim to a non-Article III adjudicative body that does not use a jury as factfinder, the Seventh Amendment entitles a person who has not submitted a claim against a bankruptcy estate to a jury trial when sued by the bankruptcy trustee to recover an allegedly fraudulent monetary transfer. |
| Majority: | Brennan |
| Joinmajority: | Rehnquist, Marshall, Stevens, Kennedy; Scalia (Parts I, II, III, and V) |
| Concurrence: | Scalia (in part and in judgment) |
| Dissent: | White |
| Dissent2: | Blackmun |
| Joindissent2: | O'Connor |
Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg,, is a 1989 United States Supreme Court case concerning the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution. In a majority opinion by William J. Brennan, Jr., the Court held that the Seventh Amendment guaranteed individuals the right to a jury trial if they are sued by a bankruptcy trustee seeking the recovery of an allegedly fraudulent monetary transfer, provided that those individuals had not previously submitted a claim against the bankruptcy estate. The decision emphasized that a legal action seeking the recovery of money from someone who allegedly defrauded them would have been litigated at law, rather than in a court of equity, in 18th-century England; it therefore concluded that such an action was a "sui[t] at common law" for which the Seventh Amendment required a jury trial. However, the majority also emphasized that this holding only applied if "Congress has not permissibly assigned resolution of the claim to a non-Article III adjudicative body that does not use a jury as factfinder".