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

The Department of Telecommunications is seeking to overhaul the law governing the provision of telecommunication services through the Draft Telecommunication Bill, 2022. The Bill also seeks to govern the provision of telecom services and, or, availability of network during insolvency proceedings in respect of a telecom licensee or assignee. While the DoT’s rationale for this is understandable, the proposed provisions may conflict with the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

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

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:

This article examines the NCLT and NCLAT’s power to exercise contempt jurisdiction under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and the inconsistent approach taken by different benches.

Although the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) was initially hailed as a welcome reform that would enable timebound and effective insolvency resolution, its tenure has been fraught with issues and uncertainty. One of the issues that remains open is the power to punish for contempt under the Code.

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

A bankruptcy discharge “does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt– . . . for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity.” 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

The effect of this “fiduciary capacity” statute is newly before the U.S. Supreme Court on a petition for certiorari in Spring Valley Produce, Inc. v. Forrest, Case No. 22-502.

The question presented in Spring Valley is this: