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:

簡介

英國和香港的法例均規定，債權人只可以就其應獲支付的算定金額提出破產呈請，但相關法例條文並無界定何謂「算定金額」（liquidated sum）。在Re Dusoruth (a bankrupt) Dusoruth v Orca Finance UK Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] EWHC 2346 (Ch) 一案中，英格蘭及威爾斯商業及財產法庭（「法院」）澄清，復還不當得利的申索不論如何確切，仍不能被視為算定金額，因此不能成為破產呈請的依據。

背景

申請人是一名商人，亦是在英國、英屬維爾京群島及馬爾他等多個司法管轄區註冊的多間公司的最終擁有人。他以其中一家公司進行欺詐，遊說富戶投資，然後透過無抵押貸款將資金轉移到他控制的其他公司。申請人被他其中一間正在清盤的公司（「答辯人」）基於以下債務提出破產呈請（「該破產呈請」），並於2020年11月被判定破產：

1.從答辯人的銀行帳戶支付，用於清償申請人的個人信用卡帳單的361,899.73歐元；及

Introduction

简介

英国和香港的法例均规定，债权人只可以就其应获支付的算定金额提出破产呈请，但相关法例条文并无界定何谓「算定金额」（liquidated sum）。在Re Dusoruth (a bankrupt) Dusoruth v Orca Finance UK Ltd (in liquidation) [2022] EWHC 2346 (Ch) 一案中，英格兰及威尔斯商业及财产法庭（「法院」）澄清，复还不当得利的申索不论如何确切，仍不能被视为算定金额，因此不能成为破产呈请的依据。

背景

申请人是一名商人，亦是在英国、英属维尔京群岛及马尔他等多个司法管辖区注册的多间公司的最终拥有人。他以其中一家公司进行欺诈，游说富户投资，然后透过无抵押贷款将资金转移到他控制的其他公司。申请人被他其中一间正在清盘的公司（「答辩人」）基于以下债务提出破产呈请（「该破产呈请」），并于2020年11月被判定破产：

1.从答辩人的银行帐户支付，用于清偿申请人的个人信用卡帐单的361,899.73欧元；及

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.”

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.