In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issues its unanimous Siegel v. Fitzgerald opinion. The question in that opinion is:

Here’s my biggest bankruptcy shocker from 2023:

• the Third Circuit’s rationale for dismissing Johnson & Johnson’s bankruptcy.

I’ll try to explain.

Appalled

I’m still appalled by the lack of concern, from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in its dismissal opinion, over these disparities it describes in results for similarly situated claimants:

“Bankruptcy provides a valuable and desirable venue for the resolution of [mass tort] disputes” by:

There are many reasons to mandate mediation in certain circumstances.

• One is to improve the quality of justice.
• Another is to manage an expanding docket and burgeoning caseload.
• A third is to create a mediation culture where none currently exists.

There are two ways to mandate mediation:

The history of bankruptcy in these United States teaches this:

• bankruptcy laws can provide an efficient and effective solution for a great variety of financial problems.

But bankruptcy laws, in these United States, face significant problems, and their effectiveness is being diminished.

First Problem

Bankruptcy has a fundamental problem: nobody likes it.

Everyone recognizes that bankruptcy laws are a necessity in our market economy. And bankruptcy laws are even founded upon a provision of the U.S. Constitution:

Every now and then, a bankruptcy ruling elicits an “Oh, no!” response from just about everyone.

And then, subsequent case law starts rejecting and/or chipping-away at that “On, no!” ruling.

We have such an “Oh, no!” situation going on right now on a Subchapter V debt-limit issue.

New Rejecting/Chipping-Away Opinion

I’m reading a U.S. circuit court’s recent bankruptcy opinion that cites Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011). I’m startled by that and blurt out (to myself), “Who cites Stern anymore?!” and “Is Stern still a thing?!” and “I thought Stern has been narrowed to nearly nothing?!”

The Consumer Duty is one of the most significant pieces of regulation to land in the financial services industry for some time and represents a major shift in how firms will need to view customer outcomes and proactively address harm in the retail market. For Insolvency Practitioners (IPs) appointed over a regulated firm that has products within the scope of the duty, this will form part of the regulatory obligations with which the firm (and the IP) will need to ensure compliance.

The recently reported decision of ICC Judge Greenwood in Grove Independent School Ltd, Re [2023] EWHC 2546 (Ch) (Grove) provides some clarity on the test to be applied by the court in deciding whether to exercise discretion to grant an order for a Part A1 moratorium. In this case, the company in question was also faced with a winding-up petition, presented by His Majesty's Revenue & Customs (HMRC).

What creditor would ever want to be an involuntary bankruptcy petitioner under these statements of facts and law: