In the intricate tapestry of corporate insolvency, the year 2023 unfurled a saga of legal intricacies that left an indelible mark on the evolving insolvency landscape in India. This blog, the first of a five-part series, will be exploring the cases that not only shaped the insolvency regime but also defined pivotal aspects of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC). From the sectors affected to the geographical intricacies, we'll dissect the diverse facets that contributed to the evolution of insolvency laws. Additionally, we'll analyze two significant cases – RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v.
In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issues its unanimous Siegel v. Fitzgerald opinion. The question in that opinion is:
Here’s my biggest bankruptcy shocker from 2023:
- the Third Circuit’s rationale for dismissing Johnson & Johnson’s bankruptcy.
I’ll try to explain.
Appalled
I’m still appalled by the lack of concern, from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in its dismissal opinion, over these disparities it describes in results for similarly situated claimants:
“Bankruptcy provides a valuable and desirable venue for the resolution of [mass tort] disputes” by:
There are many reasons to mandate mediation in certain circumstances.
- One is to improve the quality of justice.
- Another is to manage an expanding docket and burgeoning caseload.
- A third is to create a mediation culture where none currently exists.
There are two ways to mandate mediation:
The history of bankruptcy in these United States teaches this:
- bankruptcy laws can provide an efficient and effective solution for a great variety of financial problems.
But bankruptcy laws, in these United States, face significant problems, and their effectiveness is being diminished.
First Problem
Bankruptcy has a fundamental problem: nobody likes it.
Everyone recognizes that bankruptcy laws are a necessity in our market economy. And bankruptcy laws are even founded upon a provision of the U.S. Constitution:
Every now and then, a bankruptcy ruling elicits an “Oh, no!” response from just about everyone.
And then, subsequent case law starts rejecting and/or chipping-away at that “On, no!” ruling.
We have such an “Oh, no!” situation going on right now on a Subchapter V debt-limit issue.
New Rejecting/Chipping-Away Opinion
I’m reading a U.S. circuit court’s recent bankruptcy opinion that cites Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011). I’m startled by that and blurt out (to myself), “Who cites Stern anymore?!” and “Is Stern still a thing?!” and “I thought Stern has been narrowed to nearly nothing?!”
What creditor would ever want to be an involuntary bankruptcy petitioner under these statements of facts and law:
Oral arguments at the U.S. Supreme Court in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P. happened on December 4, 2023. Here is a link to the official transcript of such arguments.
My Impression
I’ve read that transcript—and still don’t know what the Court is going to do.
But based on the comments/questions of the justices (which are summarized and compiled below), I do have one impression: