Ever since Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code in 1984 to remedy the U.S. Supreme Court's 1982 ruling declaring the jurisdictional groundwork of title 11 unconstitutional, there have been lingering questions regarding the scope of a bankruptcy court's jurisdiction to rule on the many matters and proceedings that must typically be resolved in a bankruptcy case. One of those questions—namely, whether the bankruptcy court retains jurisdiction over claims and assets with respect to which the court has granted relief from the Bankruptcy Code's "automatic stay"—was addressed by the U.S.

As the enactment of chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code approaches its 20-year anniversary, U.S. bankruptcy courts are still grappling with some unresolved issues concerning how its provisions should be applied to best harmonize cross-border bankruptcy cases. One of those issues was the subject of a bench ruling handed down by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware.

Confirmation of a chapter 11 plan providing for the reorganization or liquidation of a debtor is the culmination of the chapter 11 process. To promote the fundamental policy of finality in that process, the general rule is that a final confirmation order is inviolable. The absence of certainty that the transactions effectuated under a plan are valid and permanent would undermine chapter 11's fundamental purpose as a vehicle for rehabilitating ailing enterprises and providing debtors with a fresh start.

Disagreement regarding the interpretation of section 365(c) of the Bankruptcy Code has led to divergent rulings among the bankruptcy and federal circuit courts regarding whether a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11 debtor can assume an executory contract or unexpired lease that is unassignable under applicable non-bankruptcy law without the counterparty's consent—even where the debtor has no intention of assigning the agreement to a third party.

Question: What happens when a Chapter 7 debtor:

• fails to disclose the existence of claims against third parties;
• receives a Chapter 7 discharge and a closing of the Chapter 7 case;
• then, pursues the undisclosed claims by filing a lawsuit against the third parties; and
• the defendants in that lawsuit move to dismiss debtor’s claim for non-disclosure in the Chapter 7 bankruptcy?

That actually happened—and a U.S. District Court refused to dismiss the debtor’s lawsuit on summary judgment:

On September 12, 2024, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed a trial court decision that had rejected a bank’s assertion of the in pari delicto defense to aiding and abetting claims brought by the bankruptcy trustee for a debtor that had allegedly perpetrated a Ponzi scheme. Kelley v. BMO Harris Bank Nat’l Ass’n, 2024 WL 4158179 (8th Cir. Sept. 12, 2024).

Did you know that bankruptcy trustees are now liable for capital gains tax (CGT) on the sale of real property? Section 254 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) imposes specific obligations on trustees and agents, covering income, profits, and gains of a capital nature in their representative capacity. This has recently taken on new importance for bankruptcy trustees.

What has changed?

I’m serving on a Drafting Committee of the Uniform Law Commission for a uniform law on assignment for benefit of creditors (“ABC”). A draft of such a uniform law is coming together, with lots of input from many people and organizations. And we are always looking for more input!

“A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1192 [Subchapter V], 1228(a), 1228(b), or 1328(b) of this title does not dischargean individual debtor from any debt— . . .”

11 U.S.C. § 523(a) (emphasis added).

Bankruptcy courts applying the foregoing language in the early days of Subchapter V found such language to be clear and unambiguous: that only “an individual debtor” is affected.

A new, bipartisan bankruptcy bill in the U.S. Senate purports, according to an official document, to: