The U.S. Supreme Court case Granfinanciera, S.A., et al. v. Nordberg centered around the question of whether a defendant in a fraudulent conveyance action has the right to trial by jury under the Seventh Amendment when that action is brought by a bankruptcy trustee rather than an individual creditor. The plaintiffs, Granfinanciera and its president Carlos Daniel Said, were sued by Nordberg for allegedly receiving fraudulent transfers from Chase & Sanborn Corporation before it declared bankruptcy. They argued they had a constitutional right to have their case heard before a jury instead of just a judge. In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Granfinanciera and Said with Justice Brennan writing for majority opinion (7-2). The court held that defendants in actions initiated by bankruptcy trustees do indeed have rights to trial by jury because such suits are more similar to traditional common law claims than they are matters unique to federal bankruptcy proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision to deny bankruptcy courts jurisdiction over fraudulent conveyance actions against noncreditors was misguided and inconsistent with historical practice. He contended that such claims were traditionally heard by equity courts in England and early American history, which did not require a jury trial right. Furthermore, he asserted that these types of cases are integral to the restructuring process underpinning bankruptcy proceedings and should be handled within this specialized system rather than diverting them into district court litigation where they could disrupt efficient resolution of bankruptcies. The justice also criticized the majority's reliance on an overly broad interpretation of Seventh Amendment rights to a jury trial as being out-of-step with modern realities about complex financial disputes often requiring expert adjudication beyond lay juries' capabilities.