The interface between federal bankruptcy law and similar state laws has a long history, going back to at least 1819, when the U.S. Supreme Court rules that a state insolvency law:

The interface between federal bankruptcy law and similar state laws has a long history, going back to at least 1819, when the U.S. Supreme Court rules that a state insolvency law:

Mediation-in-bankruptcy has been an effective tool for resolving mass tort cases.

That effectiveness has been for the benefit of all parties involved, such as:

“2 There is one inconsequential difference — § 1228(a) refers to debt ‘of a kind specified,’ while § 1192(2) refers to debt ‘of the kind specified.’” [Fn. 1]

This “inconsequential difference” quotation, from footnote 2 in the Fourth Circuit’s Cantwell v. Clearyopinion, is on the application of § 523 discharge exceptions to corporations and LLCs. The “inconsequential difference” quote, is both:

Justice Stephen G. Breyer is now retired from the U.S. Supreme Court, serving from August 3, 1994, to June 30, 2022.

One of his legacies—and an exceedingly important one—is this: he has worked, successfully, to erase “public rights” from the lexicon of controlling bankruptcy law.

What follows is a summary of how “public rights” came to be part of that lexicon, and how Justice Breyer works to get it erased.

“PUBLIC RIGHTS” BEGINNING—Northern Pipeline

On 26 June 2019, the Directive on restructuring and insolvency^[1] of the European Parliament and of the Council was published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

The case before the U.S. Supreme Court is MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, Case No. 21-1270.

The bankruptcy question upon which the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari is this:

The ‘roaring twenties’ of this century have left the business world in constant turmoil. After emerging from the pandemic, geopolitical tensions and the resulting economic uncertainty have pushed companies to rethink their organisational structures and rework their operating models and supply chains. Digitalisation and automation of the workforce is now at the forefront as businesses respond to rapidly changing customer needs. All of this requires companies to focus strategically on change management, as well as major workforce restructurings and reorganisations.

Both the Johnson & Johnson and InfoWars bankruptcies are filed to address tort lawsuits.

Johnson & Johnson’s bankruptcy survives a motions to dismiss.[Fn. 1] InfoWars’ bankruptcy doesn’t.[Fn. 2]

What follows is an effort to compare and contrast the two cases, revealing why one survives and the other doesn’t.

The Businesses

–Johnson & Johnson

Is the § 363(m) limit on appeal of a sale order “subject to waiver”?

That’s the essential question before the U.S. Supreme Court in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, Case No. 21-1270 (certiorari granted June 27, 2022).

A deep circuit split exists on whether the § 363(m) limitation is, (i) on an appellate court’s jurisdiction, or (ii) on remedies an appellate court can provide.[Fn. 1]