The opinion is Bruce v. Citigroup Inc., Case No. 22-1000, decided August 2, 2023, by the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
The opinion addresses this question:
You don’t see this very often: a dispute over the confidentiality of mediation communications.
But such a dispute recently happened in In re Barretts Minerals, Inc., Case No. 23-90794, Southern Texas Bankruptcy Court. And the result is this: mediation confidentiality remains alive and well.
In re Barretts Minerals is a mass-tort asbestos case. And Debtor is pursuing confirmation of a bankruptcy plan under § 524(6). Mediation efforts are in progress.
The existence of a bankruptcy option is a good thing for any debtor-creditor situation that is highly stressed—whether the bankruptcy option is used or not.
This is especially true in mass-tort cases where a potential exists for (i) hugely-disparate results for similarly situated plaintiffs, and (ii) debilitating delays in the progress of litigation.
Over the years, I’ve heard lots of people say, “Bankruptcy abuse is a huge problem,” as a self-evident and undeniable proposition.
But here’s the thing. Debtors who try to abuse the bankruptcy system rarely get away with it. That’s because there are too many gatekeepers—and no debtor can fool them all!
The gatekeepers are debtor’s counsel, creditors and their attorneys, U.S. Trustees, bankruptcy courts, and appellate courts.
Over the years, I’ve heard lots of people say, “Bankruptcy abuse is a huge problem,” as a self-evident and undeniable proposition.
But here’s the thing. Debtors who try to abuse the bankruptcy system rarely get away with it. That’s because there are too many gatekeepers—and no debtor can fool them all!
The gatekeepers are debtor’s counsel, creditors and their attorneys, U.S. Trustees, bankruptcy courts, and appellate courts.
Over the years, I’ve heard lots of people say, “Bankruptcy abuse is a huge problem,” as a self-evident and undeniable proposition.
But here’s the thing. Debtors who try to abuse the bankruptcy system rarely get away with it. That’s because there are too many gatekeepers—and no debtor can fool them all!
The gatekeepers are debtor’s counsel, creditors and their attorneys, U.S. Trustees, bankruptcy courts, and appellate courts.
This is the third of a multi-part series of articles on how gatekeepers prevent abuse. This article focuses on U.S. Trustees.
Over the years, I’ve heard lots of people say, “Bankruptcy abuse is a huge problem,” as a self-evident and undeniable proposition.
But here’s the thing. Debtors who try to abuse the bankruptcy system rarely get away with it. That’s because there are too many gatekeepers—and no debtor can fool them all!
The gatekeepers are debtor’s counsel, creditors and their attorneys, U.S. Trustees, bankruptcy courts, and appellate courts.
This is the second of a multi-part series of articles on how gatekeepers prevent abuse. This article focuses on creditors and their attorneys.
Over the years, I’ve heard lots of people say, “Bankruptcy abuse is a huge problem,” as a self-evident and undeniable proposition.
But here’s the thing. Debtors who try to abuse the bankruptcy system rarely get away with it. That’s because there are too many gatekeepers—and no debtor can fool them all!
The gatekeepers are debtor’s counsel, creditors and their attorneys, U.S. Trustees, bankruptcy courts, and appellate courts.
This is the first of a multi-part series of articles on how the gatekeepers prevent abuse. This article focuses on debtor’s attorney.
I recently heard politicians on all sides of the political divide agree on one thing as self-evident:
- that bankruptcy abuse by “fabulously wealthy corporations” is rampant; and
- Johnson & Johnson is a prime example of that abuse.
Those partisans also agree on this point (again, as self-evident): that every mass tort victim is entitled to his/her:
- day in court; and
- before a jury of peers.
That’s the Civics 101 ideal, right?
Widely Disparate Results
The American Bankruptcy Institute’s Subchapter V Task Force has issued its “Preliminary Report” on “Maintaining the $7,500,000 Debt Cap for Subchapter V Eligibility.” This article quotes from and summarizes the Report.
Recommendation
The Task Force recommends making permanent the $7,500,000 debt cap for Subchapter V eligibility, which is set to expire and revert to $3,024,725 on June 21, 2024.
Supporting Factors