Bankruptcy Code v. ABC Laws: Why Sherwood Partners v. Lycos’s Dissent Is Wrong

Preempting? (photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson The interface between federal bankruptcy law and similar state laws has a long history, going back to at least 1819, when the U.S. Supreme Court rules that a state insolvency law: may discharge a person from debtor’s prison; butmay not discharge that person’s debt.[Fn. 1] A more... Continue Reading →

Mediation-In-Bankruptcy: An Effective, But Difficult, Tool For Resolving Mass Tort Disputes

An effective tool (photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson Mediation-in-bankruptcy has been an effective tool for resolving mass tort cases.  That effectiveness has been for the benefit of all parties involved, such as: helping to maximize recoveries for tort claimants;helping to allocate scarce funds among competing tort claimants and other creditors; andhelping to keep... Continue Reading →

Subchapter V Discharge And § 523(a): A Footnote 2 Problem (Cantwell v. Cleary)

The same . . . or different? (photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson “2 There is one inconsequential difference — § 1228(a) refers to debt ‘of a kind specified,’ while § 1192(2) refers to debt ‘of the kind specified.’” [Fn. 1] This "inconsequential difference" quotation, from footnote 2 in the Fourth Circuit’s Cantwell v.... Continue Reading →

Can § 363(m)’s Appeal Protections Be Waived? (Mall v. Transform)

Waived protections? (Photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L. Swanson Is the § 363(m) limit on appeal of a sale order “subject to waiver”? That’s the essential question before the U.S. Supreme Court in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, Case No. 21-1270 (certiorari granted June 27, 2022). A deep circuit split exists on... Continue Reading →

Why Johnson & Johnson’s Bankruptcy Is Still Alive . . . And InfoWars’ Isn’t

Staying alive? (Photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson Both the Johnson & Johnson and InfoWars bankruptcies are filed to address tort lawsuits. Johnson & Johnson's bankruptcy survives a motions to dismiss.[Fn. 1]  InfoWars' bankruptcy doesn’t.[Fn. 2] What follows is an effort to compare and contrast the two cases, revealing why one survives and the... Continue Reading →

High Costs Of Unconstitutionality, Potential Remedies, & Proposed Accountability (Siegel v. Fitzgerald)

Accountability? (Photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson It seems like a small thing: Chapter 11 debtors in two states paying lower quarterly fees thanChapter 11 debtors in the other 48 states. What’s the big deal?  Alabama and North Carolina throw a political hissy fit, three or four decades ago. They wanttheir own Bankruptcy Administrator... Continue Reading →

U.S. Constitution’s Bankruptcy Clause: On A Roll!

On a roll (photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson “The Congress shall have Power To . . . establish . . . uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.”  --U.S. Constitution’s Bankruptcy Clause (Art. 1, Sec. 8, cl. 4). An Old Losing Streak—Article III We all know about bankruptcy travails,... Continue Reading →

Trouble Brewing? Expanding Debtor/Creditor Laws vs. Constitution’s “Impairing Contracts” Clause

Impairment (photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson “No State shall . . . pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.” --Art. I, Sec. 10, U.S. Constitution Increasingly, states are expanding their laws on debtor/creditor relationships, such as receiverships and assignments for benefit of creditors.  Some of these expansions look suspiciously... Continue Reading →

Bankruptcy: Authority For A Federal Agency’s Constitutional Law? (Jarkesy v. SEC)

Public rights? (Photo by Marilyn Swanson) There’s a new U.S. Circuit Court opinion on a person’s right to a jury trial, when sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission before one of its administrative judges. The opinion is Jarkesy v. SEC, case No. 20-61007 (5th Cir., issued May 18, 2022). And guess what:  the most-cited legal authority in... Continue Reading →

What’s Needed For Subchapter V ”Engaged In” Eligibility? Not Much—Not Even A Profit Motive (RS Air)

Engaged in commercial or business activity? (Photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson Subchapter V has an “engaged in commercial or business activities” criterion for eligibility. Court opinions applying such criterion appear to be trending in this direction: what’s required is “not much.” A new appellate opinion demonstrating this trend is In re RS AIR, LLC,... Continue Reading →

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑