11 U.S.C. § 1191(c)(2) provides (emphasis added):

• “(c) . . . the condition that a plan be fair and equitable . . . includes . . . (2) . . . all of the projected disposable income of the debtor to be received in the 3-year period, or such longer period not to exceed 5 years as the court may fix, . . . will be applied to make payments under the plan.”

There is little-to-no guidance in the Bankruptcy Code on what “as the court may fix” might mean. So, that meaning is left to the courts to decide.

Under 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), an individual debtor may be denied a discharge, in its entirely, for making a transfer “with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud” a creditor or the trustee.

On April 17, 2023, the Bankruptcy Court for Eastern Michigan ruled:

重组上市交易（或称借壳上市）通常指收购方（或称借壳方）在取得上市公司控制权的同时或一定期间内，实施重大资产重组将外部资产注入上市公司，以使得上市公司主营业务、资产或收入发生根本变化，实现上市公司业务发展方向的转变，实现借壳方资产证券化的一种交易形式。上市公司作为交易主体参与此类交易，且该类交易的实施流程及审核流程与其他类型的上市公司控制权交易差别较大，本篇作为上市公司控制权收购专题系列文章的最后一篇，拟专题介绍A股重组上市的市场情况、交易架构，并进一步分析此类交易中的重点关注问题。

一、重组上市市场动态

经统计2011年至2024年6月30日期间成功完成的重组上市项目，各年度项目数量变化趋势、各板块占比及民营企业与国资企业占比情况如下：

A “silent” creditor in Subchapter V is one who does not vote on the debtor’s plan and does not object to that plan. The “silent” creditor is a problem for Subchapter V cases.

The Problem

Here’s the problem:

Here are a couple discharge-related bankruptcy questions I’ve heard of late, along with an answer.

Question 1. Why are individuals, but not corporations, eligible for a Chapter 7 discharge?

• §727(a)(1) says, “the court shall grant the debtor a discharge, unless—(1) the debtor is not an individual” (emphasis added).

Question 2. Why are individuals, but not corporations, subject to § 523(a) discharge exceptions in Chapter 11?

Can non-compete and confidentiality protections in a rejected franchise agreement be discharged in bankruptcy?

The answer is, “No,” according to In re Empower Central Michigan, Inc.[Fn. 1]

Facts

Debtor is an automotive repair shop.

Debtor operates under a Franchise Agreement with Autolab Franchising, LLC. The Franchise Agreement has a non-compete provision, and there is a separate-but-related confidentiality agreement.

The continuing effort in Congress to extend Subchapter V’s $7.5 million debt limit recently hit a snag. The result: the $7.5 million debt limit for Subchapter V eligibility expired on June 21, 2024, and the Subchapter V debt limit is now reduced to an inflation-adjusted $3,024,725.[i]

The phrase “Texas Two-Step,” as used in bankruptcy, is a legal expletive. Regardless of what the details of a Texas Two-Step might be, the phrase has become synonymous with:

• abusive behavior;
• bad faith conduct;
• a means for swindling creditors;
• the antithesis of “doing what’s right”;
• a tool for avoiding liability;
• etc., etc.

Describing a legal tactic as a “Texas Two-Step” is like calling that tactic a “#$&*#%R&” or “#*$&.” It’s a legal expletive that means “really, really bad.”

引言

在新《公司法》实施的第一天，即2024年7月1日，北京市西城区人民法院微信公众号发布了其审结的首例适用新《公司法》第54条规定的加速到期规则的案件。

在该案中，经债权人申请，西城法院在执行程序中追加案涉公司的股东张某为被执行人。进而，西城法院根据新《公司法》第54条，对案涉公司股东张某适用加速到期规则，判决其履行提前缴纳出资的债务，在其未出资的范围内向债权人承担补充赔偿责任。

一、西城法院案例简析[1]

（一）案情概要

李某系案涉公司的前员工。因该公司拖欠工资，李某提起劳动仲裁。经仲裁委调解，双方达成调解协议，约定：公司应于2023年4月底前支付拖欠李某的工资70,000余元。随后，仲裁委据此出具了《调解书》。

因该公司未履行《调解书》项下的付款义务，李某以该公司为被执行人向西城法院提出强制执行申请。由于该公司名下没有可供执行的财产，西城法院裁定终结本次执行程序。

Here’s a dilemma:

• Should bankruptcy be available as a tool for resolving mass tort cases of all types (like it already is in asbestos contexts)?

Here’s an illustration of the dilemma:

• many tort claimants in the Johnson & Johnson case DO NOT want bankruptcy involved; but
• many tort claimants in the Purdue Pharma case were BEGGING the courts to approve the bankruptcy plan.

How do we solve this dilemma?