The U.S. Supreme Court does not like bankruptcy benefits for individual debtors. It really doesn’t.

An example from a couple years ago is Fulton v. City of Chicago, where the U.S. Supreme Court finds a way to declare:

Can a corporate debtor be denied a Subchapter V discharge under § 523(a), despite this § 523(a) language (emphasis added):

• “A discharge under section . . . 1192 [Subchapter V] . . . does not discharge an individual debtor from . . . ”?

A recent Bankruptcy Court opinion (in Avion Funding) says, essentially, this: “No! You can’t paint over explicit statutory language.”[Fn. 1]

Such recent opinion:

Introducción

Este mes las resoluciones reseñadas son menos y de menor relevancia que el mes pasado. Destacamos en todo caso el auto de homologación de uno de los primeros planes de restructuración aprobados tras la entrada en vigor de la nueva ley 16/2022 con una peculiar formación de clases donde muchas de ellas son clases unipersonales.

También destacamos un auto del Juzgado de lo Mercantil número 3 de Gijón que niega el embargo preventivo de los bienes de los administradores de la concursada por no apreciarse que vaya a existir un déficit concursal.

The U.S. Supreme Court issues its first-ever opinion—of any type—on August 3, 1791. [Fn. 1] But it does not address a bankruptcy question for quite some time thereafter. In fact, the first U.S. law on the subject of bankruptcy did not exist until the Bankruptcy Act of 1800.

First Bankruptcy Opinion

Here’s a hard-knocks rule:

• When you can’t or won’t explain the true reason for taking a position in negotiations or litigation, distrust and suspicion of the worst-possible motives will follow.

An Exhibit A for this rule is an opinion issued February 9, 2023, in In re Heaven’s Landing, LLC, Case No. 20-21350, Northern Georgia Bankruptcy Court (Doc. 145).

Here are illustrative statements from that opinion:

“Consistently, the highest percentage of filings in the federal docket is bankruptcy cases, which can be up to 75% of filings.”

That’s a conclusion by the authors of a 2014 study.[Fn. 1]

Bankruptcy-Specific

Here are bankruptcy-specific details and explanations from that same study:

On January 13, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court grants the Petition for a writ of certiorari in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin, Supreme Court Case No. 22-227, and on January 31, 2023, the Supreme Court enters this order therein: “Set for Argument on Monday, April 24, 2023.”

An administration is intended to achieve one of two objectives: 1. to rescue the company as a going concern; or 2. to achieve a better result for the company's creditors as a whole than would be likely if the company was placed into liquidation

Johnson & Johnson (“J&J”) has, for a very long time, produced and sold a baby powder product containing talc—a mineral milled into fine powder that includes traces of asbestos.

In recent years, that baby powder product has spawned a torrent of lawsuits alleging that it causes ovarian cancer and mesothelioma.

Currently, over 38,000 ovarian cancer actions and over 400 mesothelioma actions are pending against J&J. Expectations are for thousands more to be filed in decades to come.

The phrase “projected disposable income” is a plan confirmation standard in all reorganization chapters of the Bankruptcy Code for individuals and businesses: