Respondent McKinsey Recovery & Transformation
Services US LLC ("McKinsey") was employed to assist
debtors in a bankruptcy reorganization. Petitioner and
creditor Mar-Bow Value Partners, LLC ("Mar-Bow") alleges that McKinsey failed to disclose information during bankruptcy proceedings required by Bankruptcy
Rule 2014 relating to potential conflicts of interest and
bias, and thereby injured the interests of parties and
the public in the fairness and integrity of the bankruptcy process. The Bankruptcy Court granted MarBow's objection in part and denied it in part, ordering
that certain disclosures be in camera despite no evidence supporting sealing. The District Court dismissed
Mar-Bow's appeal because it found that Mar-Bow
lacked a pecuniary interest in the outcome and therefore could not meet the prudential "persons aggrieved"
test for bankruptcy appellate standing. The Fourth
Circuit summarily affirmed the District Court's decision "for the reasons stated by the district court."

The Question Presented is whether Article III
federal courts may apply the "persons aggrieved"
pecuniary-interest test (a judge-made prudential
standing doctrine) to preclude judicial review of orders
entered by an Article I bankruptcy court when an appellant suffers an inherently non-pecuniary injury
that arises from impairment of the integrity of the
bankruptcy process and inaccessibility of court records.

Whether Article III federal courts may apply the 'persons aggrieved' pecuniary-interest test to preclude judicial review of orders entered by an Article I bankruptcy court when an appellant suffers an inherently non-pecuniary injury that arises from impairment of the integrity of the bankruptcy process and inaccessibility of court records