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.
Can a corporate debtor be denied a Subchapter V discharge under § 523(a), despite this § 523(a) language (emphasis added):
- “A discharge under section . . . 1192 [Subchapter V] . . . does not discharge an individual debtor from . . . ”?
A recent Bankruptcy Court opinion (in Avion Funding) says, essentially, this: “No! You can’t paint over explicit statutory language.”[Fn. 1]
Such recent opinion:
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.
The U.S. Supreme Court issues its first-ever opinion—of any type—on August 3, 1791. [Fn. 1] But it does not address a bankruptcy question for quite some time thereafter. In fact, the first U.S. law on the subject of bankruptcy did not exist until the Bankruptcy Act of 1800.
First Bankruptcy Opinion
Here’s a hard-knocks rule:
- When you can’t or won’t explain the true reason for taking a position in negotiations or litigation, distrust and suspicion of the worst-possible motives will follow.
An Exhibit A for this rule is an opinion issued February 9, 2023, in In re Heaven’s Landing, LLC, Case No. 20-21350, Northern Georgia Bankruptcy Court (Doc. 145).
Here are illustrative statements from that opinion:
“Consistently, the highest percentage of filings in the federal docket is bankruptcy cases, which can be up to 75% of filings.”
That’s a conclusion by the authors of a 2014 study.[Fn. 1]
Bankruptcy-Specific
Here are bankruptcy-specific details and explanations from that same study:
On January 13, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court grants the Petition for a writ of certiorari in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin, Supreme Court Case No. 22-227, and on January 31, 2023, the Supreme Court enters this order therein: “Set for Argument on Monday, April 24, 2023.”
Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) has, for a very long time, produced and sold a baby powder product containing talc—a mineral milled into fine powder that includes traces of asbestos.
In recent years, that baby powder product has spawned a torrent of lawsuits alleging that it causes ovarian cancer and mesothelioma.
Currently, over 38,000 ovarian cancer actions and over 400 mesothelioma actions are pending against J&J. Expectations are for thousands more to be filed in decades to come.
The phrase “projected disposable income” is a plan confirmation standard in all reorganization chapters of the Bankruptcy Code for individuals and businesses: