Madelyn Haines, et al. v. Arthur C. Lange, et al.

“[N]o principle is more fundamental to the judiciary’s proper role in our system of government than the constitutional limitation of federal court jurisdiction to actual cases or controversies.” Clapper v. Amnesty Int’l USA, 568 U.S. 398, 408 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). “[E]very federal appellate court has a special obligation to satisfy itself not only of its own jurisdiction, but also that of the lower courts in a cause under review . . . ” Bender v. Williamsport Area School District, 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Question Presented is: May a federal court assert Article III subject matter jurisdiction over a dispute among sixteen different funds – each fund fighting to maximize its respective share of a finite pool of derivative consideration – where thirteen of those competing funds do not have a representative plaintiff with a personal stake in the outcome of the dispute?