Are Exculpations From Post-Petition Liability In Chapter 11 Plans Permissible? (Highland Management, at U.S. Supreme Court)

Exculpated? (photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson On June 9, 2025, Justice Alito rules, “denied,” on Debtor’s request for a stay pending appeal in: Highland Capital Management, L.P. v. NexPoint Advisors, L.P., Case No. 24A1154 at U.S. Supreme Court.  That’s the second denial by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Highland Capital bankruptcy.  The... Continue Reading →

U.S. Department of Justice & Bankruptcy: A Massive and Irreconcilable Conflict Of Interest

Conflicting roles? (Photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson Recent political flaps within the Department of Justice highlight a more-basic bankruptcy concern that is neither partisan nor political.  The more-basic concern is this: the Department of Justice has, for its multiple roles in bankruptcy laws and practice, a massive and irreconcilable conflict of interest.  ... Continue Reading →

Can “Void” Judgment Become Valid By Passage Of Time? (Certiorari Granted on 6/6/2025)

Coming out of the void? (Photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson Can a judgment that’s “void” for lack of jurisdiction become valid by the passage of time? That’s the question on which the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari (on June 6, 2025—in Case No. 24-808, Coney Island Auto Parts Unlimited, Inc. v. Burton, Chapter... Continue Reading →

Nobody Likes Bankruptcy: That’s A Problem Among Generalist Appellate Jurists

Old overruling new? (Photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson “[T]he Supreme Court’s decisions evince a general skepticism about broad application of the Bankruptcy Code, which often has led to surprisingly narrow interpretations of relatively clear language,” which “challenges the common understanding of bankruptcy law as a domain of the Court’s plain-language interpretative practice.” [Fn.... Continue Reading →

Here We Go Again: U.S. Supreme Court Invites Solicitor General’s Views On A Bankruptcy Case In Which U.S. Is Not A Party (Hertz v. Wells Fargo)

By: Donald L Swanson “Jun 02 2025    The Solicitor General is invited to file a brief in this case expressing the views of the United States.” That’s the latest entry by the U.S. Supreme Court on its electronic docket for Case No. 24-1062, The Hertz Corporation, et al v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Indenture Trustee.... Continue Reading →

Congress Codified The Ninth Circuit’s New Value Exception/Corollary To The Absolute Priority Rule For Individual Debtors: In BAPCPA?

BAPCPA By Donald L. Swanson The text of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”) is linked here. Title III of BAPCPA is named “Discouraging Bankruptcy Abuse,” and § 321 (from said Title III) is named “Chapter 11 Cases Filed by Individuals.”  Such § 321 makes the following changes to the Bankruptcy... Continue Reading →

An Unholy Alliance: Between U.S. Supreme Court & Solicitor General In Bankruptcy Cases (U.S. v. Miller & A Study)

An unholy alliance? (Photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson I’m reading the U.S. Supreme Court’s latest opinion on a bankruptcy subject: U.S. v. Miller (decided March 26, 2025). And I’m looking for something in the opinion that’s interesting . . . anything!  The opinion is about whether sovereign immunity has been waived for transfer... Continue Reading →

Nonconsensual Third-Party Releases Can Be Approved In A Bankruptcy Plan Under Chapter 15 (In re Real)

Empowered (photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson “chapter 15 authorizes this Court to enforce nonconsensual third-party releases ordered by foreign courts.” That’s the conclusion of the Delaware Bankruptcy Court in In re Real, Case No. 25-10208, Doc. 65 at 19 (decided April 1, 2025). The Facts Here is a quick summary of the In... Continue Reading →

Business Risks Are Real And Ever-Expanding (TikTok v. Garland): That’s Why We Need Effective Bankruptcy Laws

Tick tock (photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson Being in business is risky.  And the risks are ever-expanding.  The latest illustration of a new risk is the case of TikTok, Inc. v. Garland.  The new risk is for businesses using the TikTok social media platform: i.e., the U.S. Government can shut that social media... Continue Reading →

Is “Projected Disposable Income” An “Absurd” Standard For Plan Confirmation? (Hamilton v. Lanning & Rowley v. Yarnall)

Is this “absurd”? No. (Photo by Marilyn Swanson) By: Donald L Swanson What does “projected disposable income” mean as a statutory standard for plan confirmation? U.S. Supreme Court—It means what it says In Hamilton v. Lanning, 560 U.S. 505 (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court applies the term, “projected disposable income,” in a Chapter 13 plan confirmation... Continue Reading →

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑