« The Melting Ice Cube Fallacy | Main | Second-Liens and the Leverage Option »

Deflate Gate and Bankruptcy Reform

posted by Michelle Harner

Shutterstock_246224011People (and institutions) like rules that give them a competitive edge. You need only to look at the recent headlines and the media coverage of “Deflate Gate” to understand this basic concept. Reportedly, Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, and other quarterbacks lobbied the NFL to allow each team to supply its own set of footballs for use by that team’s quarterback during games. Note—I am not suggesting ill motive on the part of either Brady or Manning (or the others).  Although I never played quarterback, I can understand a quarterback’s desire to select personally his own game-day equipment. 

How does any of this relate to chapter 11 reform? To answer that question, ask yourself a different one: Do you like how chapter 11 currently resolves your client’s key issues in most instances? If you answered “yes,” you likely see no reason for reform. If you answered “no,” you likely would favor reform, but perhaps only those aspects of reform beneficial to your client. Therein lies the ever-present dilemma for policymakers:  implementing the best policy for the overall federal bankruptcy system in the midst of so much noise.

Admittedly, the ABI Commissioners are practitioners, judges, and academics with personal perspectives and client (or issue) biases. Each Commissioner was asked at the outset, however, to check his or her advocacy hat at the door and to approach the reform study from an “integrity of the system” perspective. Having participated in almost every Commission telephone conference and meeting for almost three years, I firmly believe that the Commissioners upheld their end of the bargain. As I shared with one conference group recently, I frequently would have to look up at meetings to double-check the identity of the speaker because the statement was so “unlike” that person.  

So how did the Commission approach reform? It started with “first principles” of federal business bankruptcy law: rehabilitate companies when viable (thereby preserving jobs and value), mitigate value-destructive or value-depressing behaviors, respect parties’ nonbankruptcy rights to the greatest extent possible, and maximize creditor recoveries. (The nonbankruptcy rights factor required extensive analysis of the Supreme Court’s guidance in Butner, including the opening qualifier to the frequently cited quote: “Unless some federal interest requires a different result, there is no reason why such interests should be analyzed differently simply because an interested party is involved in a bankruptcy proceeding” (emphasis added).) The Commission filtered each issue and all of the related research, data, and proposals through these principles. 

As a result, I would not label the Commission’s Report pro-debtor or pro-creditor; rather, I would call it “pro-restructuring.” Having called out other people’s biases, I of course must recognize my own. I did devote three years of my life to working on this project, and I have come to know well not only the 22 Commissioners, but also most of the 150 individuals who served on the Commission’s advisory committees. I have tremendous resect for all of them. Despite these ties, I have tried to remain an objective academic throughout the process. I believe that I have succeeded and that my descriptions of the Report are fair and accurate, but you should read the Report yourself and make your own assessment.

*Note: The views expressed in this post are those of the author and are intended to spark a meaningful dialogue about chapter 11 reform. They are not attributable to the American Bankruptcy Institute or the ABI Commission to Study the Reform of Chapter 11.

Deflated football image from Shutterstock.


The comments to this entry are closed.


Current Guests

Follow Us On Twitter

Like Us on Facebook

  • Like Us on Facebook

    By "Liking" us on Facebook, you will receive excerpts of our posts in your Facebook news feed. (If you change your mind, you can undo it later.) Note that this is different than "Liking" our Facebook page, although a "Like" in either place will get you Credit Slips post on your Facebook news feed.



  • As a public service, the University of Illinois College of Law operates Bankr-L, an e-mail list on which bankruptcy professionals can exchange information. Bankr-L is administered by one of the Credit Slips bloggers, Professor Robert M. Lawless of the University of Illinois. Although Bankr-L is a free service, membership is limited only to persons with a professional connection to the bankruptcy field (e.g., lawyer, accountant, academic, judge). To request a subscription on Bankr-L, click here to visit the page for the list and then click on the link for "Subscribe." After completing the information there, please also send an e-mail to Professor Lawless ([email protected]) with a short description of your professional connection to bankruptcy. A link to a URL with a professional bio or other identifying information would be great.