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

Congress, the federal appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court all need to recognize this historical reality:

• bankruptcy is an efficient and effective tool for resolving mass tort cases, as demonstrated by cases with huge-majority approval votes from tort victims.

And all those institutions need to prevent anti-bankruptcy biases, legal technicalities, and hold-out groups from torpedoing the huge-majority votes.

Supreme Court moving in the right direction?

This is the fourth in a series of four articles on why Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9031, titled “Masters Not Authorized,” needs to be amended to authorize the utilization of special masters in complex bankruptcy cases.

The focus of this fourth article is on how federal courts have inherent authority to appoint special masters—and why that inherent authority should not be denied in bankruptcy cases.[Fn. 1]

Inherent Authority of Courts of Equity

This is the third in a series of four articles on why Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9031, titled “Masters Not Authorized,” needs to be amended to authorize the utilization of special masters in complex bankruptcy cases.

The focus of this third article is on how the evolution of the old bankruptcy referees into today’s bankruptcy courts shows why special masters are needed in complex bankruptcy cases—and should not have been prohibited.[Fn. 1]

The Evolution of Bankruptcy

This is the second in a series of four articles on why Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9031, titled “Masters Not Authorized,” needs to be amended to authorize the utilization of special masters in complex bankruptcy cases.

The focus of this second article is on how the exclusion of special masters from bankruptcy cases: (i) is without a sound reason, and (ii) is based on a history of haste and uncertainty.[Fn. 1]

Bankruptcy Rule 9031—The Prohibition

This is the first in a series of four articles on why Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9031, titled “Masters Not Authorized,” needs to be amended to authorize the utilization of special masters in complex bankruptcy cases.

The focus of this first article is on how special masters are already utilized, effectively, by federal district courts under Fed.R.Civ.P. 53 (titled, “Masters”).[Fn. 1]

Special Masters in Federal Courts

–A Brief History

Can the contempt remedy for a creditor’s violations of the discharge injunction in multiple bankruptcy cases throughout the land be imposed in a class action lawsuit?

This ideal is floating around:

• upon removal of a Subchapter V debtor from possession, for fraud or other cause,
• the Subchapter V trustee has no expanded right, power, function or duty beyond operating debtor’s business (the “Ideal”).

This Ideal is both:

• contrary to unambiguous language of the Bankruptcy Code, as a matter of law; and
• in Never-Never Land, as a matter of practice.

I’ll try to explain.

This is a truism:

A study on using round-number offers and precise-number offers in negotiations reaches these two conclusions: