“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] 

Re Touradji Private Equity Master Fund Ltd において、ケイマン諸島大法廷は、任意清算中の3つのファンドについて、被害を受けた一部の投資家と共同任意清算人による申請に基づき、投資マネージャーの異議を棄却して、監督命令を下しました。

この決定は、裁判所が当該申請について適用する審査基準の指針を示し、会社法（Companies Act）第131条(b)に基づいて任意清算を公的清算に転換することが効果的、経済的、迅速的であると裁判所が考える各種の事例を示しています。

監督命令に適用される審査基準

監督命令とは、裁判所が、任意清算中の会社について、破産管理人としての資格を保有している複数名の者を公的清算人として選任することを含む命令をいいます[1]。この命令は、会社が裁判所によって清算されたかのような効果を有します[2]。すなわち、監督命令が下されると、清算人の権限が拡大され、任意清算中に行使できていた会社株主の残存権限は排斥されます[3]。

会社法においては、裁判所が任意清算について監督命令を下す条件がいくつが規定されており、これには以下の各場合が含まれます。

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:

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.

Under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), an individual debtor may be denied a discharge, in its entirely, for making a transfer “with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud” a creditor or the trustee.

On April 17, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court for Eastern Michigan ruled:

A “silent” creditor in Subchapter V is one who does not vote on the debtor’s plan and does not object to that plan. The “silent” creditor is a problem for Subchapter V cases.

The Problem

Here’s the problem:

Here are a couple discharge-related bankruptcy questions I’ve heard of late, along with an answer.

Question 1. Why are individuals, but not corporations, eligible for a Chapter 7 discharge?

• §727(a)(1) says, “the court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless—(1) the debtor is not an individual” (emphasis added).

Question 2. Why are individuals, but not corporations, subject to § 523(a) discharge exceptions in Chapter 11?