The U.S. Bankruptcy Code’s safe harbor provisions provide comfort to financial institutions that transfers made under protected financial contracts will generally not be subject to avoidance or “clawback” if the transferor subsequently files for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

When parties contract for arbitration of their disputes:

On June 6, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court released its decision in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, No. 21-441. At issue in the case was whether a temporary fee increase for funding of the U.S. Trustee (UST) program was constitutional. These fees were paid by debtors in chapter 11 cases pending or filed between 2018 to 2021. The Court ruled that the fee increase was not constitutional because the increase did not apply uniformly to all cases, thereby violating the uniformity requirement of the Bankruptcy Clause of the Constitution. According to the Executive Office of the U.S.

The Bankruptcy Protector

On June 6, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous ruling in Siegel v. Fitzgerald, 142 S. Ct. 1770 (U.S. June 6, 2022) that the increase in fees payable to the U.S. Trustee system in 2018 violated the uniformity aspect of the Bankruptcy Clause of the Constitution because it was not immediately applicable in the two states with Bankruptcy Administrators rather than U.S. Trustees.

In In re Rehabilitation of Scottish Re (U.S.), Inc., C.A. No. 2019-0175-JTL (Del. Ch. Apr.18, 2022), the Delaware Court of Chancery ruled, as a matter of first impression, that in a delinquency proceeding for an insurance company under Delaware law, there is no per se requirement that a rehabilitation plan meet a “liquidation standard” to obtain court approval. Under the “liquidation standard,” a rehabilitation plan must provide claimants at least “liquidation value,” or the value they would have received in a liquidation proceeding.

I’m on a curiosity-quest to find the first-ever U.S. Supreme Court opinion on the subject of bankruptcy.

Excitement arises, for a moment, upon discovering Gibbs v. Gibbs, 1 U.S. 371 (1788). After all, Gibbs v. Gibbs:

Every now and then we get a glimpse into the past . . . that casts light on issues and events of today.

One such glimpse is a Harvard Law Review article from 1909: “The Effect of a National Bankruptcy Law upon State Laws.”[Fn. 1]. It’s by Samuel Williston—the same Samuel Williston who authored “Williston on Contracts” and who served as professor of law at Harvard Law School from 1895 to 1938. 

Bankruptcy v. State Laws—in 1909

Retired U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber once observed that “issues as to the interplay between environmental law and bankruptcy are among the thorniest on the litigation map.” Difficulties navigating this interplay largely stem from the inherent conflict between the goals of bankruptcy and environmental laws, with the former aimed at providing debtors with a fresh start, while the latter cast a broad net to hold parties (even some innocent parties) responsible for past harm to the environment.

BUSINESS RESTRUCTURING REVIEW VOL. 21 • NO. 4 JULY–AUGUST 2022 1 IN THIS ISSUE 1 U.S.

On June 27, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari inMOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC (21-1270) to resolve a Circuit split over whether section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code limits appellate jurisdiction over bankruptcy sale orders or simply limits the appellant’s remedies on such appeals. Given the now decades-long trend toward resolving Chapter 11 cases through asset sales, including assignments of leases and contracts, the Supreme Court’s decision may provide clarity to a vitally important part of modern Chapter 11 practice.