The phrase “projected disposable income” is a plan confirmation standard in all reorganization chapters of the Bankruptcy Code for individuals and businesses:
Bankruptcy benefits for individual debtors are a tough sell—always have been. That’s because no one likes bankruptcy—unless they need it.
But relieving people from debts in unfortunate circumstances is essential to our collective way of life in these United States. That’s always been true.
What follows is the third of three installments on some history of bankruptcy laws through the ages, beginning with ancient times—and to the present in these United States.
Bankruptcy Code
Remember the old saying, “Grab what you can get, when you can get it”?
Well . . . that old saying is now the federal law of the land, applying exclusively to bankruptcy laws in Alabama and North Carolina.
Here’s how. Congress imposed bankruptcy fee increases on Chapter 11 debtors in every state and territory of these United States, other than Alabama and North Carolina. As to similar fees in Alabama and North Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court recently observed:
Bankruptcy benefits for individual debtors are a tough sell—always have been. That’s because no one likes bankruptcy—unless they need it.
But relieving people from debts in unfortunate circumstances is essential to our collective way of life in these United States. That’s always been true.
What follows is the second of three installments on some history of bankruptcy laws through the ages, beginning with ancient times—and to the present in these United States.
Federal Bankruptcy Act of 1841
Bankruptcy benefits for individual debtors are a tough sell—always have been. That’s because no one likes bankruptcy—unless they need it.
But relieving people from debts in unfortunate circumstances is essential to our collective way of life in these United States. That’s always been true.
What follows is the first of three installments on some history of bankruptcy laws through the ages, beginning with ancient times—and to the present in these United States.
Ancient Days
Jabaluka Pty Ltd (Jabaluka) was the Trustee of the Morgan Unit Trust, which operated an IGA Supermarket (the Supermarket) from 22 September 2010 to 13 March 2020. This case concerned an application by the Liquidator of Jabaluka (the Liquidator) under s 57 of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) for an order that the Liquidator be appointed without security as receiver and manager of the assets and undertaking of the Morgan Unit Trust.
In BTI 2014 LLC v Sequana SA and Others, the United Kingdom Supreme Court considered a case on appeal which asked the Court to expand the common law duty of directors in a significant way. The Appellant sought to argue that common law director duties should require directors to have regard to the interests of creditors even in circumstances where their company is solvent.
Background
Preference avoidance provisions are a crucial part of the Bankruptcy Code—contained, primarily, in § 547 & § 550.
States also have a preference avoidance statute—for insiders. It’s in the Uniform Voidable Transactions Act (“UVTA)” or in its predecessor, the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act (“UFTA)).
The insider preference statute appears to be rarely-used and, apparently, little-known. It reads like this:
2022 has been a bad year for the Carolina Panthers of the National Football League:
“The [Subchapter V] Trustee shall— . . . facilitate the development of a consensual plan of reorganization.” 11 U.S.C. § 1183(b)(7).
That’s what we Subchapter V trustees are supposed to do.
Ok, fine. But how are we supposed to do that?
A facilitation tool that many Subchapter V trustees are using is this: Zoom facilitation meetings.
What follows is an explanation of how such meetings can work.
Initial Meeting