“2 There is one inconsequential difference — § 1228(a) refers to debt ‘of a kind specified,’ while § 1192(2) refers to debt ‘of the kind specified.’” [Fn. 1]

This “inconsequential difference” quotation, from footnote 2 in the Fourth Circuit’s Cantwell v. Clearyopinion, is on the application of § 523 discharge exceptions to corporations and LLCs. The “inconsequential difference” quote, is both:

Justice Stephen G. Breyer is now retired from the U.S. Supreme Court, serving from August 3, 1994, to June 30, 2022.

One of his legacies—and an exceedingly important one—is this: he has worked, successfully, to erase “public rights” from the lexicon of controlling bankruptcy law.

What follows is a summary of how “public rights” came to be part of that lexicon, and how Justice Breyer works to get it erased.

“PUBLIC RIGHTS” BEGINNING—Northern Pipeline

The case before the U.S. Supreme Court is MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, Case No. 21-1270.

The bankruptcy question upon which the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari is this:

Both the Johnson & Johnson and InfoWars bankruptcies are filed to address tort lawsuits.

Johnson & Johnson’s bankruptcy survives a motions to dismiss.[Fn. 1] InfoWars’ bankruptcy doesn’t.[Fn. 2]

What follows is an effort to compare and contrast the two cases, revealing why one survives and the other doesn’t.

The Businesses

–Johnson & Johnson

Introduction

简介

最近在Re Hong Kong Bai Yuan International Business Co., Ltd [2022] HKCFI 960一案中，原讼法庭（「法院」）命令被告人（「该公司」）向呈请人（「呈请人」）偿还一项受仲裁协议涵盖的债务，否则将被颁令清盘。法院澄清，虽然法院在行使酌情权时会给予仲裁协议相当大的比重，但不一定将事情转交仲裁处理。

背景

呈请人于2021年6月10日提出呈请（「该呈请」），要求法院对该公司发出清盘令，理由是该公司未能遵守关于一项955,000欧元债务（「该债务」）的法定要求偿债书，因此根据香港法例第32章《公司（清盘及杂项条文）条例》（「该条例」）第178条被视为无力偿债。

簡介

最近在Re Hong Kong Bai Yuan International Business Co., Ltd [2022] HKCFI 960一案中，原訟法庭（「法院」）命令被告人（「該公司」）向呈請人（「呈請人」）償還一項受仲裁協議涵蓋的債務，否則將被頒令清盤。法院澄清，雖然法院在行使酌情權時會給予仲裁協議相當大的比重，但不一定將事情轉交仲裁處理。

背景

呈請人於2021年6月10日提出呈請（「該呈請」），要求法院對該公司發出清盤令，理由是該公司未能遵守關於一項955,000歐元債務（「該債務」）的法定要求償債書，因此根據香港法例第32章《公司（清盤及雜項條文）條例》（「該條例」）第178條被視為無力償債。

Is the § 363(m) limit on appeal of a sale order “subject to waiver”?

That’s the essential question before the U.S. Supreme Court in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC, Case No. 21-1270 (certiorari granted June 27, 2022).

A deep circuit split exists on whether the § 363(m) limitation is, (i) on an appellate court’s jurisdiction, or (ii) on remedies an appellate court can provide.[Fn. 1]

In large, complex bankruptcy cases:

• The mediator must have a plan;
• Otherwise, the mediator is going to get run over;
• These are tough cases with very experienced lawyers who often have significant resources to put into the fight; and
• The mediator has to be just as resourceful, just as strong, just as ready to engage as the lawyers.

That’s the view expressed by Judge Gerald Rosen (Chief Judicial Mediator in City of Detroit bankruptcy) [fn.1] in a May 2021 interview on the mediation process in the Detroit bankruptcy [fn. 2].

Congress and the President finally extend the $7.5 million debt limit for Subchapter V eligibility:

• by “unanimous consent” in the Senate;
• by a vote of 392 – 21 in the House; and

A legislative history of the new law is at this link.

The new law is bi-partisan and uncontroversial. But there are some bells and whistles, as discussed below.

“SUNSET” – Again!