Question: What happens when a Chapter 7 debtor:

• fails to disclose the existence of claims against third parties;
• receives a Chapter 7 discharge and a closing of the Chapter 7 case;
• then, pursues the undisclosed claims by filing a lawsuit against the third parties; and
• the defendants in that lawsuit move to dismiss debtor’s claim for non-disclosure in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy?

That actually happened—and a U.S. District Court refused to dismiss the debtor’s lawsuit on summary judgment:

I’m serving on a Drafting Committee of the Uniform Law Commission for a uniform law on assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”). A draft of such a uniform law is coming together, with lots of input from many people and organizations. But we are always looking for more input. So, if you’d like to participate in the drafting process, let me know.

I’m serving on a Drafting Committee of the Uniform Law Commission for a uniform law on assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”). A draft of such a uniform law is coming together, with lots of input from many people and organizations. And we are always looking for more input!

“A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1192 [Subchapter V], 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not dischargean individual debtor from any debt— . . .”

11 U.S.C. § 523(a) (emphasis added).

Bankruptcy courts applying the foregoing language in the early days of Subchapter V found such language to be clear and unambiguous: that only “an individual debtor” is affected.

A new, bipartisan bankruptcy bill in the U.S. Senate purports, according to an official document, to:

Question: Can a retirement fund organized under Canadian law qualify for a state law exemption requiring that it “qualify as a retirement plan” under the Internal Revenue Code?

This question gets all the way to the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of appeals, which issues a “No” answer, in Green v. Leibowitz, Case No. 23-2841 (decided 7/16/2024).

The general rule is that claims of the bankruptcy estate against third parties (e.g., preference claims and tort claims) can be sold to third parties in a § 363 sale.[Fn. 1]

However, a recent opinion from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals discusses whether a state’s champerty law impairs a § 363 sale.[Fn. 2] 

Four U.S. Supreme Court justices (Kagan, Kavanaugh, Roberts and Sotomayor) provide the following summary of their Purdue Pharmadissent in the Purdue Pharma case.

Wrong & Devastating

Today’s five-justice majority opinion is wrong on the law and devastating for more than 100,000 opioid victims and their families:

2022年8月31日、ケイマン諸島のリストラクチャリング・オフィサー制度が施行されました[1]。この制度は、ケイマン諸島における支払不能状態会社の再建に関して、更に柔軟な再建方法を導入するものです。これは、リストラクチャリング請願の提出日から自動支払猶予期間が開始するというという特色もあります。

リストラクチャリング・オフィサー制度導入前において[2]、法定支払猶予の効果を有する再建方法は、ケイマン諸島における裁判所監督形式である再建手続において「ライトタッチ」（訳注：一時的な関与のみの想定）ベースの暫定清算人が選任される場合に限定されていました[3]。リストラクチャリング・オフィサー制度は、その手続面を見直し、さらにその利用に際して障害となるものを取り除いています。これには、(a)暫定清算人選任前に会社清算請願を提出しなければならない点（これは社会的信用を毀損する結果もたらします。）[4]、および、(b)暫定清算人が選任されるまでの間は支払猶予が認められない点[5]が含まれます。

2022年8月31日より前、ケイマン裁判所は、会社法（Companies Act）第104条(3)に基づく会社清算請願が提出された場合、以下の両要件を満たすときに、ライトタッチの暫定清算人を選任することができました。

11 U.S.C. § 1191(c)(2) provides (emphasis added):

• “(c) . . . the condition that a plan be fair and equitable . . . includes . . . (2) . . . all of the projected disposable income of the debtor to be received in the 3-year period, or such longer period not to exceed 5 years as the court may fix, . . . will be applied to make payments under the plan.”

There is little-to-no guidance in the Bankruptcy Code on what “as the court may fix” might mean. So, that meaning is left to the courts to decide.