In legal parlance, the term “standing” embraces several discrete doctrines that govern the capacity of a party to sue and appear before a particular court. These concepts' fluidity should not obscure their importance: a party’s standing is a perpetual jurisdictional question, open to review throughout the lifespan of a particular case or matter and at every appellate level.

Types of Standing

Two Generally Applicable Forms

Galeria Karstadt Kaufhof GmbH ("GKK"), based in Essen, Germany, is the second largest department store chain in Europe with 131 stores and 18,000 employees. As some may recall, this is not the first time things have gone badly for the department store chain. Back in the 2000s, under CEO Thomas Middelhoff, who was sentenced to three years in prison in 2014 for 27 counts of embezzlement and tax evasion, the company's balance sheets were less than stellar.

Once asserted, may a party alter it? Once claimed, may a party contradict it?

A party’s ability to abandon a previously taken position and champion its converse in a later case or proceeding often depends on one of the law’s more esoteric prohibitions: that kaleidoscopic smorgasbord of precepts collectively known as “judicial estoppel.”

What Is “Judicial Estoppel,” Precisely?

WithinIn re LTL Management, LLC, No. 22-2003 (3d Cir. Jan. 30, 2023), the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit issued its decision on the J&J “Texas –Two Step” bankruptcy saga. The Court’s decision complimented the parties and the lower court for their thorough analysis of the issues, but refocused practitioners on a basic bankruptcy principle:

[A bankruptcy filing] gives to the honest but unfortunate debtor…a new opportunity in life and a clear field for future effort, unhampered by the pressure and discouragement of preexisting debt.

In a unanimous decision Bartenwerfer v Buckley, No. 21-908, 598 U.S. (2023), the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the breath of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code’s discharge provision – and exceptions thereto – and held that a debt resulting from fraud (even where the debtor was not directly involved) is, nevertheless, nondischargeable. While the Court’s principles provide a roadmap for analyzing potentially nondischargeable claims, it also expands what was originally thought to be a “narrow” exception to discharge.

One concept—“center of main interests,” or COMI for short, one of the more significant elements borrowed from international law and incorporated into Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code—sits at the heart of the latter, enacted in 2005 as the latest U.S. legislative attempt to handle cross-border insolvencies and international restructurings.

In spite of this notion’s importance, however, bankruptcy and appellate federal courts have long divided over a thresholder issue: as of which date should a foreign debtor’s COMI be determined?

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that bankruptcy filers cannot avoid debt incurred by another’s fraud.

The 9-0 ruling, written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, unanimously rejected Kate Bartenwerfer's bid to use U.S. bankruptcy code protection to eliminate debts on the grounds that she was unaware of fraudulent omissions made by her husband.

Introduction

Introduction

Introduction - はじめに

2016年破産倒産法は、清算時における債権者の債務弁済を実現する仕組みを提供します。また、有担保債権者は優先的な債権回収が可能です。しかしながら、State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Ltd.（Rainbow Papers Judgement）において、これを覆す判決が下されました。2003 年の Gujarat Value Added Tax Act（GVAT法）に基づいて発生する税金の請求について、政府に有利に設定された「担保権」により、税務当局は法の下の「有担保債権者」である、と判示したのです。再建計画が政府への法定納付金を除外している場合、法規定に準拠しているとは言えず、政府に対する拘束力は持たない、としました。

当該最高裁判所の判決は、破産倒産法の下の法定公課決済の優先順位という側面において、大きな懸念を抱かせるものとなりました。今回の記事では、当該判決が、破産倒産法の本来の目的およびその他の各種判例とどのように対照的であるかについて考察し、解説しています。

Brief facts - 概要