Congress must be allowed“to fashion a modern bankruptcy system which places the basic rudiments of the bankruptcy process in the hands of an expert equitable tribunal.”
—from Granfinanciera, S.A. v. Nordberg, 492 U.S. 33, 94 (1989) (Blackmun dissent, emphasis added).
Justice Blackmun had a point—back in 1989—that remains true today:
As has been widely reported, Congress recently reauthorized the $7.5 million debt threshold for subchapter V small business debtors, making subchapter V available to a significantly larger number of struggling businesses. With this change, the other requirements for a debtor to be eligible to elect subchapter V, takes on new importance.
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.
Portfolio Media. Inc. | 111 West 19th Street, 5th Floor | New York, NY 10011 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected]
Asbestos Trusts May Leave Insurers Out In Cold
By Shane Dilworth
The major cryptocurrencies have experienced significant declines in 2022; with the crypto market shedding $2 trillion of its peak $3 trillion market capitalization in November 2021. Amid this “crypto winter,” Terra Luna and its algorithmic stablecoin collapsed, triggering a domino effect of losses and illiquidity throughout the crypto industry. The hedge fund Three Arrows Capital was the first big domino to fall, defaulting on $1 billion in loans including $650 million owed to Voyager Digital (“Voyager”).
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.
We have previously written about Siegel v. Fitzgerald, No. 21-441, the Supreme Court case considering the question of whether the 2018 difference in fees between Bankruptcy Administrator judicial districts and U.S. Trustee judicial districts was consistent with the Constitution’s uniformity requirement for bankruptcy laws.