Four years after New York grocery chain Tops’ exit from Chapter 11, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain ruled that the Tops’ Chapter 11 trustee may proceed with litigation against certain private equity investors. The trustee alleged that the investors drove the company into bankruptcy by paying themselves more than $375 million in dividends while neglecting to address Tops’ unfunded pension liabilities.

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.”

There is seemingly, in the opinion of a great number of bankruptcy courts, a conflict between the United States Bankruptcy Code requirements that a debtor reorganize or liquidate “in good faith,” the federal Controlled Substances Act [21 USC § 841] (“CSA”) prohibiting, among other things, the distribution or sale of marijuana, and the laws of over half of the states in the country that authorize the sale of marijuana for medical and other purposes.

Valuation is a critical and indispensable part of the bankruptcy process. How collateral and other estate assets (and even creditor claims) are valued determines a wide range of issues, from a secured creditor's right to adequate protection, postpetition interest, or relief from the automatic stay to a proposed chapter 11 plan's satisfaction of the "best interests" test or whether a "cramdown" plan can be confirmed despite the objections of dissenting creditors.

Chapter 11 debtors commonly use plans of reorganization to decelerate defaulted loans and reinstate the obligations according to their original terms as a means of locking in favorable terms in an unfavorable market. In order to do so, the Bankruptcy Code requires that the trustee or chapter 11 debtor-in-possession ("DIP") "cure" any defaults under the loan agreement, other than defaults related to a debtor's financial condition ("ipso facto provisions") or penalties payable due to the debtor's breach of certain non-monetary obligations.

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

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

On December 27, 2022, the IRS issued two notices providing key initial guidance for the new excise tax on corporate stock buybacks and the new corporate alternative minimum tax (CAMT). Both the excise tax and the CAMT were enacted as part of the Inflation Reduction Act that Congress passed in August 2022.¹

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.