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.
The phrase “projected disposable income” is a plan confirmation standard in all reorganization chapters of the Bankruptcy Code for individuals and businesses:
中伦观点
引言
在执行案件中，多个债权人争夺同一被执行人财产的情形并不罕见。在“僧多粥少”的情况下，债权人能否分配到财产以及能分配到多少财产往往取决于债权人是否采取了恰当的措施。由于执行相关法律法规较为繁杂，为了更好地阐述法律观点，本文我们将通过一个真实案件改编的模拟案例对执行程序中财产分配涉及实务问题逐一展开分析。
模拟案例引入
2018年，甲公司向乙公司出借2亿元用于经营，双方签订《抵押合同》约定乙公司将其名下A和B两处不动产抵押给甲公司，抵押范围包括乙公司欠甲公司的借款本金、利息及实现债权的费用。双方办理了抵押登记。因种种原因，两处不动产的登记簿登记显示抵押的债权数额分别为1000万元。后因乙公司无法到期偿还借款，甲公司向Y市法院起诉要求乙公司返回借款本金、利息及实现债权的费用并同时申请查分了乙公司名下C、D和E三处不动产。Y市法院判决乙公司偿还上述所有款项。
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