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
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:
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]
引言
近年来，伴随着经济形势与产业政策的变化，融资租赁成为了争议高发领域，并且日益呈现出争议案件数量多、标的金额大等特点。以上海地区为例，根据上海高级人民法院发布的《2020年度上海法院金融商事审判情况通报》，在2020年上海法院受理的一审金融商事案件中，融资租赁合同纠纷的案件数量位居第三，同比上升65.93%，争议标的金额则位居第二，仅次于金融借款合同纠纷。而在诸多争议之中，对于租赁物所有权的保护始终是多年以来困扰我国融资租赁从业者、司法裁判者甚至是立法者的一大难题。[1]
本篇中，我们将结合过往在融资租赁业务领域的执业经验，从程序及实体两个角度，分别梳理《中华人民共和国民法典》（以下简称“《民法典》”）生效前的存量项目中，出租人在租赁物被承租人擅自处分后可能面临的“困局”及“破局”进路。而在下篇中，我们将基于后《民法典》时代法律条文与配套制度的更迭，进一步对融资租赁行业实践的变化作出解读与研判。
一、 “困局”：租赁物被承租人擅自处分，出租人的物权保障岌岌可危
In large, complex bankruptcy cases:
- The mediator must have a plan;
- Otherwise, the mediator is going to get run over;
- These are tough cases with very experienced lawyers who often have significant resources to put into the fight; and
- The mediator has to be just as resourceful, just as strong, just as ready to engage as the lawyers.
That’s the view expressed by Judge Gerald Rosen (Chief Judicial Mediator in City of Detroit bankruptcy) [fn.1] in a May 2021 interview on the mediation process in the Detroit bankruptcy [fn. 2].