Sorting Bugs and Features of Mass Tort Bankruptcy

I have posted a short draft article about mass tort bankruptcy. If you would like to send me comments on the draft, that would be lovely, but please keep two caveats in mind. First, I must submit the revisions by February 9. Second, the article must not exceed 10,000 words. For every addition, some other thing must be subtracted. The required brevity means the article does not and cannot canvas the large volume of scholarship about the topic, let alone the mini-explosion in recent years. 

For the Credit Slips audience I would like to particularly highlight Part I of the article, which contextualizes debates about current mass tort bankruptcy by reviewing two sets of sources from the 1990s and early 2000s. The first is the 1997 final report of the National Bankruptcy Review Commission. The second is scholarship, including two Federal Judicial Center books published in 2000 and 2005, of Professor Elizabeth Gibson, whose expertise lies at the intersection of civil procedure, federal courts, and bankruptcy.  If you are working on or talking a lot about mass bankruptcy but have not reviewed these materials in a while (or ever), then I hope you will be incentivized to check those out for yourselves. 

Unbundling Business Bankruptcy Law

A long-in-process draft article has just become available to be downloaded and read here. Comments remain welcome.  The Weinstein Company bankruptcy features prominently in this draft article. 

Every contract in America contains an invisible exception: different enforcement rules apply if a party files for bankruptcy. Overriding state contract law, chapter 11 of the federal Bankruptcy Code gives bankrupt companies enormous flexibility to decide what to do with its pending contracts. Congress provided this controversial tool to chapter 11 debtors to increase the odds that a company can reorganize. To promote this objective while also preventing abuse and protecting stakeholders, Congress embedded this tool and others in an integrated package deal, including creditor voting. The tool was not meant as a standalone benefit for solvent private parties to pluck from the process for their own benefit, like an apple from a tree.

In recent decades, the chapter 11 package deal has been unbundled in practice, typically on grounds of economic urgency. While scholars and policymakers have attended to the quick going-concern sales of companies featured in unbundled bankruptcies, they have not sufficiently explored the challenges associated with a contract-intensive business.

To help fill that gap, this draft article illustrates how the ad hoc procedures used to manage quick sales of contract-intensive businesses can undercut two major chapter 11 objectives: maximizing economic value and fair distribution. They amount to a wholesale delegation of a substantial federal bankruptcy entitlement to a solvent third party. In addition to the impact on economic value and distribution, this draft article also explores a Constitutional problem with this practice: it arguably exceeds the scope of the federal bankruptcy power.

 

Who extracts the benefits of big business bankruptcy?

The Deal has a new podcast called Fresh Start hosted by journalist Stephanie Gleason. Stephanie and I recently chatted about big bankruptcies with litigation management at their core and the stakes those cases raise. We covered a lot of ground along the way, including non-debtor releases and the SACKLER Act, notice and voting, forum shopping, equitable mootness, the homogeneity of the restructuring profession, bankruptcy administrators and the United States Trustee system, and the skinny clause of the Constitution at the heart of all of this. We begin by reminiscing about the mass tort and future claims discussion during the deliberations of the National Bankruptcy Review Commission, for which Elizabeth Warren was the reporter, and how much has changed. Check it out here.

Collins v. Yellen: the Most Important (and Overlooked) Implication

The Supreme Court's decision in Collins v. Yellen has garnered a fair amount of attention because it resulted in a change in the leadership at the Federal Housing Finance Agency and largely dashed the hopes of Fannie and Freddie preferred shareholders in terms of seeing a recovery of diverted dividends. But the commentary has missed the really critical implication of the decision:  the Biden administration can undertake a wholesale reform of Fannie and Freddie by itself without Congress.

Supreme Court Grants Cert To Decide Fate of Repossessed Cars in Bankruptcy

Yesterday, the SCOTUS granted certiorari in City of Chicago v. Fulton, 19-357, to resolve a circuit split about whether a creditor's inaction in not returning property repossessed pre-petition can violate the automatic stay. The split arises predominately from chapter 13 cases in which, pre-petition, creditors repossessed or cities impounded debtors' cars. As the petition for cert stated, this issue is of significant practical importance. As Slipster Bob Lawless, former Slipster Debb Thorne, and I set forth in our new paper based on Consumer Bankruptcy Project data, Driven to Bankruptcy (Wake Forest Law Review, forthcoming 2020), bankruptcy courts deal with more than a million cars in every year. Creditors will have repossessed, but not disposed of some of those cars, and cities (for instance, Chicago) and municipalities will have impounded some of those cars.

In our new paper, we note that bankruptcy seems to be an important tool for some people to keep their cars, including getting their cars back from creditors and impound yards. As will be decided by the Supreme Court in addressing the issues regarding the automatic stay raised by the circuit split, if debtors need to request that bankruptcy courts order creditors or cities to return their cars after they file bankruptcy, the usefulness of filing bankruptcy will decrease, potentially significantly. Stated differently, people need their cars now -- to get to work, to get food, to get their kids to daycare, to get to the doctor. For some households, one of the biggest benefits of filing bankruptcy seems to be that their creditors must turn over repossessed and impounded cars as soon as the debtor files . The question now is -- is that actually what the Code provides? 

PROMESA heads to the U.S. Supreme Court?

In February 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for First Circuit held that the selection process of the Oversight Board in PROMESA, the rather bipartisan Puerto Rico debt restructuring law (and more), is unconstitutional. The reason: its members were not selected with advice and consent of the Senate, in violation of the Appointments Clause. In other words, it held that the Appointments Clause applies even when Congress created the positions through plenary power over territories, and that Oversight Board members constitute "Officers of the United States." The First Circuit also used the de facto officer doctrine to avoid a complete do-over; it did not dismiss the Title III petition of Puerto Rico (parallel to the filing of a bankruptcy petition), it did not invalidate the already-taken acts of the Board, and the Board could continue to act, at least until the court's stay runs out (originally 90 days, then extended to July 15). 

Given that last remedial twist, even the prevailing parties found reasons to dislike the First Circuit's ruling. Like the Jevic case, the PROMESA dispute invites unlikely bedfellows. Joining Aurelius Capital Management in challenging the First Circuit's ruling on the remedy is the labor union UTIER. They likely have little in common other than wanting a new Oversight Board, or, even better, no Oversight Board. A full bouquet of certiorari petitions followed, including one by the United States/Solicitor General predicting dire consequences if the Appointment Clause ruling stands. On June 20, 2019, the Supreme Court consolidated and granted certiorari on the various petitions. Argument is to take place in October.

FDCPA Exclusion for Litigating Attorneys

On the heels of oral arguments in the latest Supreme Court case concerning application of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to lawyers, ABA President Bob Carlson has a comment in Bloomberg Law today {subscription maybe required} explaining succinctly why litigating lawyers should be excluded from the FDCPA. He carefully distinguishes lawyers collecting debts outside the litigation context (pre-filing)--whom the FDCPA might reasonably regulate--but he convincingly argues for exemption for those involved in active litigation (I would hope and presume this applies to both the pre-judgment and post-judgment stages, the latter being the subject of a little book on judgment enforcement I've just written, including a bit about the FDCPA). The courts provide adequate oversight and abuse prevention in this formal collection context, Carlson argues, and the "gotcha" pitfalls for otherwise innocuous behavior in the FDCPA (especially the required "mini-Miranda" and validation notices) are unjustifiable as applied to court-supervised litigating lawyers. We'll see how warm a reception HR 5082 receives in Congress. 

Procedural Justice and Corporate Reorganization

I just posted to the Social Science Research Network my response -- Jevic's Promise: Procedural Justice in Chapter 11 -- to Jonathan Lipson's recent article about Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp. and structured dismissals. In his article, The Secret Life of Priority: Corporate Reorganization After Jevic, Lipson frames Jevic as about process, as compared to its usual frame as about priority. Drawing from this frame, my response focuses on Jevic's implications for procedural justice and corporate reorganization.

The process values that Lipson identifies--particularly participation and procedural integrity--align with research about what people want from the justice system's procedures. This procedural justice research also teaches that the process of adjudication is as important as the final outcome. Combining Lipson's arguments with procedural justice research, I argue that corporate reorganization's process has been co-opted in the name of value preservation. I also rely on Slipster Melissa Jacoby's recent work conceptualizing corporate bankruptcy as a public-private partnership, which she's blogged about here and here, in arguing that Jevic's emphasis on process should embolden bankruptcy courts to more rigorously assess chapter 11's procedures. In the response, I provide two examples.

Expanding the Supreme Court to Depoliticize It

I've got an op-ed in The Hill that calls for an expansion of the Supreme Court as a way to depoliticize it.  And to be clear, I'm not calling for Court-packing by Dems.  That would only require adding a couple of seats.  I'm calling for a major structural change in the Court—an expansion plus a shift to sitting in panels.  And I'm perfectly fine if the majority of the initial picks went to President Trump, as I think that the structural change would be very healthy for the Court and the political process, and with a larger Court, there will be much more frequent turnover among Justices.  

I'm sure my proposal will be some skepticism (to say it lightly), whether because folks think this is a barely closeted Court-packing scheme (but why bother with this when there's a much simpler way to pack the Court), or because they somehow think that there's something sacred or efficient about 9 Justices (clearly those folks have never been to a SCOTUS oral argument, but I suspect those are also the same folks with the naive idea that judges ever merely apply the law as written).  

Yet, I think a SCOTUS expansion is coming in any future Democratic administration for a very simple reason:  Republicans overplayed their hand and upset the basic equilibrium of the Court.  Democrats were far from happy with the Court before Trump, but the Court was basically a wash:  it made both Dems and Reps unhappy on certain issues.  As long as no side overreached, the Court was able to maintain a level of legitimacy.  If the Court now veers right, that will be lost, and all bets are off about preserving its current form.  There are lots of ways the Court could be remade; I'm trying to find one that creates a healthier judicial system.  And note that it only takes 50 votes in the Senate, not a Constitutional amendment, to expand the Court, but that it can't be dialed back without vacancies or a Constitutional amendment.  

Tempnology and Janger Too!

The Supreme Court granted cert today in the bankruptcy case of Mission Product Holdings v. Tempnology, LLC. It sounds like another one of those cases only bankruptcy nerds can love, but it has potentially broad implications. On its face, it is about trademark licenses, but the Supreme Court could fix some case law about all contracts in bankruptcy. Several Credit Slips bloggers (including me) signed a "law professors" amicus brief in support of certiorari. 

I asked the inimitable Professor Ted Janger of Brooklyn Law School (and former Credit Slips guest blogger) to write with his thoughts on the case. Ted had a lot to do with the professors' brief. Here is what he wrote:

The split in the lower courts arose when the First Circuit inexplicably resuscitated the questionable proposition, first articulated in Lubrizol Enters., Inc. v. Richmond Metal Finishers, Inc., 756 F.2d 1043 (4th Cir. 1985), that rejection of an intellectual property license rescinds that license and terminates the licensee’s rights. Congress reversed Lubrizol for copyright and patent by enacting section 365(n), and in 2012, the Seventh Circuit rejected the reasoning of Lubrizol for trademarks, in Sunbeam Prods., Inc. v. Chi. Am. Mfg., LLC, 686 F.3d 372 (7th Cir. 2012). While there remained some question as to the continued vitality of Lubrizol outside the patent and copyright context, the holding was, at best moribund. At least, that is, until the First Circuit’s decision in Tempnology.

What Skews the Public-Private Balance in Corporate Bankruptcy Cases?

In a prior Credit Slips post, I shared a paper, Corporate Bankruptcy Hybridity, positing that bankruptcy should be conceptualized as a public-private partnership. The second section of Corporate Bankruptcy Hybridity identifies factors that have skewed the Bankruptcy Code's ideal balance between public and private interests and values. Preemptively I'll note it is not new to observe the increased privatization of bankruptcy and the qualitatively different nature of the oversight and ethics (see, e.g., Mechele Dickerson). More novel, I hope, is the articulation of a broader set of factors contributing to the skew. The list is illustrative, not exhaustive.

Available at finer booksellers everywhere (and Amazon too!)

My new book is out – the Law of Failure.

The sub-title is "A Tour Through the Wilds of American Business Insolvency Law," which pretty much tells the whole story. I try to cover all business insolvency law – not just the Bankruptcy Code. State laws, and federal laws like Dodd-Frank's OLA are covered too. All in a concise little volume.

In my research I discovered that many states have specialized receivership and other insolvency laws for specific types of businesses. And some states – I'm looking at you New Hampshire – still have corporate "bankruptcy" statutes on the books from the days when there was no federal bankruptcy law, or (as was the case with the early Bankruptcy Act) the law did not extend to all types of businesses. Can any of these laws really work? It is hard to say, since the Supreme Court has not dealt with a bankruptcy preemption issue in a very long time.

I welcome discussion on this question, or the book in general, from Slips readers, either below or via email.

Keeping up with the Contracts Clause: the Supreme Court's decision in Sveen v. Melin

In June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Sveen v. Melin, a case applying Contracts Clause* jurisprudence to a state revocation-on-divorce statute and preexisting insurance contract. It isn't like the Supreme Court hears a Contracts Clause case every week, every term, or even every decade. Given its relevance to many Credit Slips topics, such as a financially distressed government unit without bankruptcy access or mortgage/foreclosure crises, it seems worth fostering a conversation about the case here.  

Tripling Down on Plain Meaning: Bankruptcy and the Kavanaugh Appointment

It seems fairly clear that, if Trump's latest nominee to the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh, is sworn in, the Court's trend of resolving virtually all statutory disputes on the basis of "plain meaning" will be cemented in place. An analysis of Kavanaugh's bankruptcy-specific jurisprudence seems unnecessary in light of his fairly clear comments, nicely summarized by Anthony Gaughan over at the Faculty Lounge blog. His rejection of legislative history and search for intent/purpose does not bode well for bankruptcy and consumer-protection disputes, such as Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP, the FDCPA case on the Court's docket for next year. Perhaps the words in these statutes are less clear and meaningful than those in the Constitution, but it seems likely that a Justice Kavanaugh would retreat to the comfortable confines of statutory language as frequently as possible to maintain his vision of a passive and unthreatening judiciary. Dust off your Webster's and probably also your Garner!

Epic Systems and the Atomization of Employment Disputes

Millions of American workers are parties to arbitration agreements that require them to bring claims against their employers in individualized arbitration proceedings (rather than as part of a class or collective action, as authorized by some federal and state laws regulating the workplace). In Epic Systems v. Lewis, a 5:4 majority of the Supreme Court held today that these agreements must be enforced even though the federal National Labor Relations Act declares it an unfair labor practice for an employer to interfere with the ability of employees to engage in “concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection.” The decision is not unexpected, but it is consequential given the number of affected employees.

The case—really, several consolidated cases—was weird for a number of reasons. The NLRB had concluded that employers who insisted on individualized arbitration were engaged in unfair labor practices. Then, in September 2017, the Board fell under Republican control, and many wondered whether it would continue to defend that position. It did, but the administration worked hard to undermine it. In fact, the Solicitor General, which had previously supported the Board in seeking Supreme Court review, later filed a brief disagreeing with it on the merits.

Seventh Circuit Victorious Again in Merit Mgmt

If you're challenging a Seventh Circuit ruling in a bankruptcy case on appeal to the Supreme Court, especially if (retired) Judge Posner was in the majority, you've got a challenge ahead. The Court's announcement this morning of its judgment in Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting demonstrates this yet again. Long story short: paying for stock via a bank transfer (rather than a bag of money) is still a transfer from the buyer to the seller, not the buyer's and seller's banks, and therefore not "by or to ... a financial institution." That is, such transfers are not protected by the securities safe harbor provision in section 546(e) and are subject to avoidance as constructive fraudulent conveyances and/or preferences. The seeming silver-bullet arguments to the contrary in this battle of "plain meanings" apparently remained unarticulated and unavailing (see footnote 2 in the Court's opinion, suggesting someone up there might be reading CreditSlips!). Other big winners in addition to the Illinois-based Seventh Circuit are University of Illinois College of Law professors Charles Tabb and Ralph Brubaker, both of whom are cited prominently and approvingly in the opinion. Congratulations, Illinois!

Jayfest and Bankruptcy Cases in the Supreme Court

Most of us Credit Slipsters enjoyed an absolutely fabulous symposium over the weekend celebrating the illustrious career of one of our own, Jay Westbrook. The Texas Law Review will publish a selection of several of the papers presented at the symposium (and TLR editors pulled off an amazing feat of organization in coordinating the travel and other logistics for this major event--kudos to them). All of the presentations were cutting-edge and extremely impressive, and many are available on the SSRN profiles of the authors listed in the symposium program. I want to highlight just one that I thought would be of particularly broad interest to Credit Slips readers.

The always impressive Ronald Mann described his recently released book, Bankruptcy and the U.S. Supreme Court. In his characteristically insightful and probing way, Mann looks into the private papers of the Justices for evidence of how and why they decide bankruptcy cases as they do. In his fascinating presentation at the symposium, he challenged conventional explanations of why the Court has construed the law to provide generally narrow relief (not only because of their boredom with the subject matter and/or a supposed adherence to narrow construction of statutory language) and offered provocative explanations based on, among other things, the presence (or absence) of a federal agency to advance a case for broader relief. The introduction of this new book immediately brought to my mind another recent and impressive analysis of Supreme Court bankruptcy jurisprudence, Ken Klee's Bankruptcy and the Supreme Court: 1801-2014. But Mann's latest contribution really seems to add something valuable, illuminating, and entertaining. Readers of this great new book will not find themselves, as Mann described one Justice's reaction to an oral argument, "in sleepy distress." Check it out, and watch for what will be a value-packed Texas Law Review symposium issue.

Merit v. FTI and the Missing Silver Bullet Argument?

On November 6, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case only a lawyer--and probably only a commercial or bankruptcy lawyer--could love, Merit Management Group v. FTI Consulting. Simplifying quite a bit, the issue is whether a payment by wire transfer (or presumably a check) is "made by" the bank who implements the funds transfer, or the customer who initiates the transfer. The issue arises from the safe harbor for securities contract-related settlement payments, insulating such transfers from avoidance (clawback) by a bankruptcy trustee, and the question whether a money transfer made by wire from the buyer of stock to the purchaser(s) was "made by or to ... a financial institution." 11 USC § 546(e). Several circuit courts have held the safe harbor applies even if the bank-transferor is a simple conduit, performing nothing more than the ministerial task of moving the money (so to speak) from buyer's account to seller's bank. The 7th Circuit held to the contrary in this case, noting that a letter might be said to be "sent by" either the sender or the Postal Service, but the former interpretation is more sensible and consonant with likely congressional intent in this context (again, vastly simplifying to prevent boring readers to death). 

Ordinarily I would leave it to those smarter than I to blog about these kinds of big-money cases, but after I was asked to write a little squib for the ABA about it, the extremely perceptive Henry Kevane of the famous insolvency firm Pachulski Stang in San Francisco saw my little piece and called me to ask about an argument relevant to the case. Did anyone point out, Henry asked me, that the definition of "financial institution" in section 101(22)(A) includes the bank's customer within the ambit of "financial institution" in cases where the bank is "acting as agent or custodian for a customer ... in connection with a securities contract"? Well, no, no one appears to have made this seemingly dispositive observation! A transferor bank implementing a wire transfer would certainly be acting as the customer's (account holder's) agent, and the whole point of the case is that the payment was made "in connection with a securities contract" (the same language in section 546(e)). If the Bankruptcy Code oddly defines the customer and the bank as both being a "financial institution" in this context, then regardless of who made the payment, it was made "by" and "to" a financial institution, since the same logic would apply on the recipient side, too. Hmmmmmmmm.

Plain Meaning Rolls On in Gorsuch's First [Credit Related] Opinion

It was not at all surprising that, for his first (traditionally unanimous) opinion, in Henson v. Santander, the new Justice Gorsuch took on the relatively simple and low-key issue of the definition of "debt collector" in the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. It was also not surprising that he hewed quite closely to the approach of his predecessor in basing his decision on the "plain meaning" of the words in the statute, complete with grammatical analysis of past participles and participial adjectives (the example adduced, "burnt toast," might describe how the consumer protection industry will view this latest ruling). The FDCPA is as simple as it appears, the Court confirmed:  if you're collecting a (consumer) debt owed to someone else, then you're a debt collector; if you're collecting on a debt owed to you, for your own account, you're not a debt collector, even if, as in Santander's case, you bought the debt from the original creditor with the intention of collecting it for an arbitrage profit later. The notion that Congress did not foresee the debt buying industry and its explosive growth when it wrote the FDCPA in the 1960s, and it certainly would have wanted to constrain abusive collections practices by debt buyers as much as by debt collectors was ... wait for it ... a matter for the present Congress to clarify. You can almost see Scalia whispering in Gorsuch's (or his clerk's) ear as the opinion is drafted. Well, at least there's something to be said for predictability.

The Chimerical Medicare Bar on Bankruptcy Jurisdiction

Statutory interpretation enthusiasts: prepare to nerd out on an issue on which the Court has a cert petition pending.  The question involves the federal jurisdictional bar to Medicare challenges.  Let’s start with the text:

 “No action against the United States, the [Secretary of Health and Human Services, see 42 U.S.C. § 1395ii], or any officer or employee thereof shall be brought under section 1331 or 1346 of title 28 to recover on any claim arising under [the Medicare Act, see § 1395ii].”

Bankruptcy types—and quite frankly, all lucid readers of English—might well think that this jurisdictional bar does not apply to bankruptcy jurisdiction under section 1334.  Not so, say a surprising number of courts.

What could possibly justify reading what’s clearly only a bar of federal question jurisdiction (1331) and federal officer jurisdiction (1346) as a bar to bankruptcy jurisdiction (1334) as well?  In In re Bayou Shores, the subject of the pending cert petition, the Eleventh Circuit offered an argument based on congressional intent.  Until 1984, the precursor to the above-quoted statute did bar bankruptcy jurisdiction.  But it did so obliquely, by way of a statutory cross-reference to a subsequently dismantled omnibus jurisdictional grant in the Judicial Code.  So for a few decades after the dismantlement, the Medicare bar was a cross-reference to a no-longer-existing passage of the Judicial Code that formerly encompassed virtually all grants of jurisdiction to the district courts, including bankruptcy.

When Congress finally got around to updating the bar in the 1980s, it enacted the text above.  Without more, that would just be Congress changing the law from a broad bar cross-referencing all jurisdictional grants to a specific bar covering only two grants.  But there was more: Congress did so as part of a package of self-styled “technical corrections.”  And of these corrections, Congress wrote a proviso that “none . . . shall be construed as changing or affecting any right, liability, status or interpretation which existed (under the provisions of law involved) before [their effective] date.”  To read the amended bar as written would appear to violate this admonition.  The Eleventh Circuit (and others) thus read the proviso to justify junking the statute’s text in favor of the perceived congressional intent not to change anything.

Midland Got It Right (Sort Of)

The Supreme Court got it right in Midland Funding LLC v. Johnson, which holds that it is not a violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act to file a proof of claim in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy based on a debt whose statute of limitations has expired.  

I suspect that I might be the only bankruptcy professor whose name doesn't start with the last two letters of the alphabet who isn't outraged by Midland (which gives a nice shout out to our former co-blogger Katie Porter's scholarship!), and I'm going to catch hell for writing this, but one of the great things about tenure is that I can say things like this.  So here goes.  I don't think Midland is a very persuasive opinion; it's not the reasoning I would adopt, but I think it gets the right answer, even if it is uncomfortable as a policy result (it's hard to defend an industry whose economics are dependent upon careless trustees and debtors). 

Supreme Court Strikes Down State No-Surcharge Law

The Supreme Court ruled today in Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman.  The Court unanimously ruled for the merchant plaintiff that was challenging New York State's no-surcharge law on the basis that a law criminalizing credit surcharges (but not cash discounts) was impermissibly vague.  The Court declined to rule on the plaintiff's First Amendment challenge because the Second Circuit Court of Appeals had held that New York law regulated conduct, not speech, so the Court of Appeals had never considered whether there was a First Amendment violation if the pricing was a form of speech.  The Supreme Court determined that the law regulates speech and remanded the First Amendment issue to the Court of Appeals.  

Five Justices were on the majority opinion with a pair of concurrences driven by procedural concerns (Alito + Sotomayor) or a fear that the case will be used as a precedent for attacking economic regulation via the First Amendment (Breyer).  

Technically the opinion is narrow, as it addressed only an as-applied challenge based on a pricing regime in which two prices are simultaneously listed, with neither labeled a surcharge or discount, but I suspect that the effect of the opinion will be much broader.  If, on remand, the plaintiff's First Amendment argument is accepted (and I suspect it will be), the opinion will be pretty important in terms of development of payment systems.  Prior to today there were two obstacles to effective price discipline on consumer payment choice:  state no-surcharge laws and credit card networks' merchant rules.  The state no-surcharge laws are gone now, leaving only the card networks' merchant rules.  MasterCard and Visa had previously agreed to substantially rollback their rules on surcharging in an overturned class action settlement.  It's going to be hard for them to argue against making that concession now, unless they are willing to admit that it wasn't previously made in good faith because they knew that surcharging wouldn't be used on any scale in the presence of state no-surcharge laws.  

Congratulations to Deepak Gupta, who quarterbacked this litigation!  

Jevic Commentary

Just a cross-posting note: Jonathan Lipson and I comment on the U.S. Supreme Court's Jevic decision at the Harvard Law School Corporate Bankruptcy Roundtable.

Chapter 9's Cabinet of Constitutional Curiosities: Ongoing Constitutional Violations

Just a handful of modern big-city bankruptcies have revealed foundational questions about chapter 9's fit within federal courts and constitutional jurisprudence. Given that chapter 9 no longer is simply an adjustment of bond debt, bankrupt cities restructure a wide range of claims in their plans, including those arising from long-lingering disputes; to this point, a Ninth Circuit panel just heard oral argument on a dispute from Stockton's exercise of its eminent domain power twelve years before Stockton filed its chapter 9 petition, only to put the case on hold pending rehearing en banc of a chapter 11 equitable mootness dispute. But my commentary today focuses on the impact of events and decisions during a bankruptcy case. If cases no longer must be prepackaged, a city's decisionmakers have a longer period of automatic stay protection during which to act in ways that might generate controversy, causes of action, or both.

Recall, for example, Detroit's headline-making residential water shutoff policies and practices. The bankruptcy court used informal control to coax the city into increasing protections for low-income residents. In response to an adversary proceeding requesting more formal intervention, the bankruptcy court held it did not have the power to enter an order enjoining the policy or directing changes. But Judge Rhodes' analysis included a significant caveat: in a follow-up written ruling, Judge Rhodes held that section 904 of the Bankruptcy Code does not shield a municipal debtor from injunctions of ongoing constitutional violations:

The Court concludes that § 904 does not protect the City from the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' constitutional claims because the City does not have the "governmental power" to violate the due process and equal protection mandates of the Constitution [citations omitted]. The City must comply with those constitutional mandates [citation omitted]. Accordingly, the Court concludes that those claims, unlike the plaintiffs' other claims, do survive the City's § 904 challenge.

Lyda v. City of Detroit, 2014 WL 6474081 at *5 (Bankr. E.D. Mich., Nov. 19, 2014). That holding did not get the Lyda plaintiffs far because, according to the court, the allegations failed to state a constitutional claim on which relief could be granted. The adversary proceeding was dismissed. Judge Rhodes' decision rightly signaled, though, that a municipal bankruptcy petition is not a license to engage in constitutional violations without consequence. The district court had affirmed the ruling. Lyda v. City of Detroit, 2015 WL 5461463 (E.D. Mich. Sept. 16, 2015).

Last week, the Sixth Circuit reversed the portion of the bankruptcy court's decision on the relationship between section 904 and alleged ongoing constitutional harms. The reversal did not change the outcome for the parties, but generates a troubling question: can municipal bankruptcy allow a city to continue to violate constitutional rights with no redress? Surely the answer must be "no"?

Join us for the "The NCBJ at 90"

Will you be in San Francisco for the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges annual meeting and related events? Please mark your calendars now for Thursday October 27, 3:oo pm Pacific Time: a special educational session honoring the 90th anniversary of the NCBJ.^* We (Profs. Gebbia, Simkovic, Pottow, and me, with great guidance and input from Judge Colleen Brown and Judge Mel Hoffman) will be discussing original historical research on bankruptcy courts and bankruptcy law conducted for this occasion. Early abstracts can be found on the NCBJ blog. In the meantime, Prof. Gebbia has been posting quizzes; I suspect some Credit Slips readers would ace these tests, but you won't know until you try!

So please do join us on October 27 to be part of this commemoration and conversation.

* The mission of the NCBJ, according to its website, is:

The National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges is an association of the Bankruptcy Judges of the United States which has several purposes: to provide continuing legal education to judges, lawyers and other involved professionals, to promote cooperation among the Bankruptcy Judges, to secure a greater degree of quality and uniformity in the administration of the Bankruptcy system and to improve the practice of law in the Bankruptcy Courts of the United States.

 

Essential Resources on Burdens of Proof in Bankruptcy Litigation: Property Exemptions and Beyond

Deliberations of the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules have generated great materials relevant to burdens of proof in bankruptcy litigation that judges and lawyers should read and keep on their shelves, whether physical or virtual. Judge Christopher Klein's Suggestion 15-BK-E, submitted in July of 2015, posited that Rule 4003(c) (which gives the objecting party the burden of proof in property exemption disputes) exceeds the authority of the Rules Enabling Act "with respect to claims of exemption that are made under state law that does not allocate the burden of proof to the objector." The document includes a detailed court decision, In re Tallerico, setting forth the reasoning. In a memorandum starting on page 67 of the agenda book downloadable here,  Assistant Reporter/Professor/prior Credit Slips guest Michelle Harner takes a deep dive into the intersection of burdens of proof and the Rules Enabling Act. The Harner memo considers two key Supreme Court decisions that present different standards. The first is Raleigh v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 530 U.S. 15 (2000), which played a central role in Judge Klein's submission and court decision. The second is Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U.S. 460 (1965). Harner concludes that Hanna is more on point in the event of a conflict between a federal bankruptcy rule and state law. And, as Harner explains, the Supreme Court in Hanna "rejected the argument that a rule is either substantive or procedural for all purposes" (p78), walks through the questions to be considered, and seeks to apply them to the exemption issue at hand. It looks like the Bankruptcy Rules Committee will not be proposing changes to Rule 4003(c) at this time, but this memo should live on, alongside the case law, as an essential resource for judges and lawyers who encounter disputes over the propriety of burdens of proof in federal rules. 

Bookshelf image courtesy of Shutterstock.com

 

Puerto Rico: PROMESA and Presiding Judges

H.R. 5278, containing debt restructuring authority and an oversight board for Puerto Rico, inched closer to passage after yesterday's approval by the House Natural Resources Committee. A combination of Rs and Ds rejected amendments that would have unraveled the compromise (scroll here for the amendments and their fates). They indicated an appreciation for the automatic stay, for the downsides of exempting classes of debt from impairment, and even for the assumption of risk taken by recent bond purchasers (bond disclosures quoted!). The discussion reflected the creditor-versus-creditor elements of the problem and the need for a legal mechanism to discourage holdouts and encourage compromise. Even though they have been asked not to call it "bankruptcy" (or to say "control board"), it was clear they know the restructuring provisions come from Title 11 of the U.S. Code.   

Given that derivation, many judges on the merit-selected bankruptcy bench could admirably handle the first-ever PROMESAnkruptcy, drawing on their directly-relevant experiences with large chapter 11s, if not chapter 9s.  

But section 308 of H.R. 5278 prevents that, and the Natural Resources Committee, in light of its jurisdiction, may not have been in the best position to appreciate the resulting risks. 

Puerto Rico: Debt Restructuring and Takings Law

Per the last words of my PROMESA post, click here for an interview with Professor Charles Tabb, who discusses the (limited) impact of the Takings Clause on debt restructuring and moratorium legislation. 

Constitution image courtesy of Shutterstock.com

Puerto Rico: The Recovery Act's Potential Second Wind

 

This post continues the long-running Credit Slips discussion of Puerto Rico's Recovery Act, now the subject of U.S. Supreme Court review in Puerto Rico v. Franklin California Tax-Free Trust, 15-233, as indicated in Lubben's recent post and in last week's preview. In the video above, posted with permission of the American Bankruptcy Institute, I interview Bill Rochelle, who was at the Supreme Court for oral argument and makes some intriguing predictions on the vote, timing of issuing the opinion, judicial selection, and other matters. A few more reflections below the break.

Does the White House Stand for Consumer Protection or for Predatory Lending?

Does the Obama White House truly stand for consumer financial protection, or will it support Wall Street when it thinks no one is looking?  That's the question that the Supreme Court served up today.  The Supreme Court is considering whether to hear an appeal in a critical consumer protection case called Midland Funding v. Madden. This is one of the most important consumer financial protection case the Supreme Court has considered in years. (See here for my previous post about it.)

The Court will only take the appeal if at least four Justices are in favor of hearing it.  Today the Supreme Court requested the opinion of the Solicitor General about whether to take the case.  That's a good indication that there's currently no more than three Justices who want to hear the appeal and another one or more who are unsure (it will take five to overturn the lower court decision in the case).  If four Justices wanted to hear the case, there'd be no reason to ping the Solicitor General. 

The request for the Solicitor General to weigh in on the case puts the White House in the position of having to decide whether it wants to stand up for consumer financial protection or to fight for Wall Street.

Puerto Rico: Help Still Wanted

For the past two weeks, Credit Slips posts have considered the role of the Executive Branch in facilitating a Puerto Rico debt restructuring in the absence of Congressional action. That constraint is hereby relaxed, and thus future posts may well include the role of Congress and the judiciary in various combinations. For example, whatever one's view of the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies, they show that the administration can shape a restructuring by working within the framework of formal bankruptcy law. Imagine, for example, that Congress adopts the most modest of the proposals, H.R. 870, which merely fixes the unfortunate exclusion of Puerto Rico municipalities from ordinary chapter 9. The administration could put together post-filing financing packages with the stream of loan proceeds conditioned on the inclusion of various covenants, including those imposing fiscal reforms.  

Meanwhile, March 22 is drawing near. On that date, the United States Supreme Court will review a legal challenge to the Puerto Rico Public Corporation Debt Enforcement and Recovery Act. Below the jump are reminders and new points about the role of this court fight in Puerto Rico's debt crisis and why Congress and the Executive Branch are not off the hook. 

Puerto Rico: The Multiple Issuer Problem

One problem complicating any resolution of Puerto Rico's financial distress is that there are a multiplicity of issuers. There are separate claims on separate issuers, and it won't work to resolve just some of them, as they are all ultimately drawing on the same set of economic resources.  While there are claims on different assets, they value of those assets derive from Puerto Rico's overall economic production.  This multiple debtor problem makes Puerto Rico materially different from, say Detroit, where there was one primary debtor (the City of Detroit). (I don't know the legal status of Detroit Public Schools--is it separate from the City, the way the Chicago Public Schools are?) As far as I'm aware, Chapter 9 filings have almost always been single entity filings, rather than filings of multiple associated cases, as occurs with Chapter 11. 

So what can be done to deal with the multiple issuer problem? Even if Puerto Rico were allowed to file for bankruptcy (or its various sub-territorial entities were allowed to file), it doesn't solve the problem. While there can be multiple bankruptcy filings and the different cases can be administratively consolidated, that is a very different thing that actual consolidation of debtors, and the inability to resolve claims on one debtor can hold the other cases hostage.  It doesn't do any good to resolve the general obligation debt if creditors can force the electric utility to raise prices through the roof.  With this sort of multiple entity case, the hostage value held by creditors increases significantly.

Puerto Rico's division of governmental authority into various government units is a form of asset partitioning.  This asset partitioning might have helped Puerto Rico get more credit than it should have on cheaper terms ex ante (for a model, see here), but ex post this sort of asset partitioning can blow up in a debtor's face if there is no way to reconsolidate in order to restructure. (Consider, for example, the value of the LA Dodgers without their stadium and without the parking lots by the stadium.) Partitioning via devolution of authority to multiple local government units and authorities is a more permanently binding form of asset partitioning than corporate subsidiaries or even than some securitization arrangements.

Below I present three ideas for how to resolve the multiple issuer problem: consolidation via exchange offer; consolidation via merger; and consolidation via the creation of a common co-issuer entity that is bankruptcy eligible.  

Credit Slips Presents: A Virtual Symposium on Puerto Rico

Puerto Rico debt restructuring legislation is flying fast and furious around Congress. But the air contains more than a whiff of defeatism regarding the prospects of passage. Bills vary greatly in substance and scope, and yet apparently the response of powerful creditors is consistent: they want to retain the right to be holdouts and are making that position perfectly clear to our elected representatives.

Credit Slips contributors are no strangers to anti-restructuring advocacy, whether framed as moral hazard or otherwise. To that end, we embark on a virtual symposium inspired by the following question: What could the Executive Branch do to facilitate the restructuring of government debt in Puerto Rico absent Congressional action? 

On tap to brainstorm around this theme in the next two weeks are (in alphabetical order): Anna Gelpern, Melissa Jacoby, Bob Lawless, Adam Levitin, Stephen Lubben, Katherine Porter, John Pottow, Mark Weidemaier, and Jay Westbrook.

Fifth Circuit Runs Completely Off the Rails in Husky Int’l v. Ritz?

The question presented to the Supreme Court in Husky Int’l v. Ritz is so bizarre, I just had to dig deeper. The question is whether the exception to discharge in section 523(a)(2)(A) for debts arising from “actual fraud” requires a showing that the debtor’s fraud involved a false representation. Note immediately that section 523(a)(2)(A) excepts from discharge debts arising from “false pretenses, a false representation, OR actual fraud” (emphasis added). This seems like such a simple statutory interpretation exercise (do you see the “OR” sitting there?!), I figured I must be missing something in thinking that the whole dispute is one step shy of contrived. After looking more closely, I still think the Fifth Circuit has run completely off the rails with this one … unless I’m totally missing something here. I’d be grateful if anyone can disabuse me of my ignorance; otherwise, it seems the Supreme Court must have granted certiorari simply to fix an obvious and egregious error that no one but the Supreme Court can fix.

DIRECTV v. Imburgia

Yesterday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in yet another arbitration case, DIRECTV v. Imburgia. Here's the transcript. The issue is esoteric even by the standards of the Supreme Court's arbitration docket, but it has a certain practical significance. In a series of recent cases, the Court has mandated the enforcement of arbitration clauses that require claimants to proceed on an individual basis rather than as part of a class action. Many of these cases involve small-dollar consumer claims, so the likely effect is to eliminate, or at least substantially reduce, the potential liability of the business. The opinions can be baffling to read. Even when I agree with the results, it can be hard to accept the Court's application of seemingly-settled arbitration law. The common theme, though, is fairly clear: A small majority of justices view arbitration clauses as a permissible means to avoid class action liability.

Below the jump, more discussion of the specific issue in Imburgia.

Puerto Rico Seeks Help From the Supreme Court

Puerto Rico is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the First Circuit decision that Puerto Rico's Recovery Act is preempted and thus unconstitutional. Here's the petition. In addition to parsing the legal issues, the petition is framed around Puerto Rico's financial emergency, the need for the Supreme Court to step in notwithstanding the lack of circuit split (or even a dissent to the First Circuit ruling). It makes sense that Puerto Rico would challenge a ruling making it harder for the Commonwealth, in a nebulous legal zone, to write laws to solve its problems. The difficulty with the financial crisis framing is that even if (1) the Supreme Court agreed to hear the matter, (2) heard the matter quickly, (3) decided the matter quickly, and (4) actually reversed the First Circuit - a chain of tough "even ifs"  - public corporations in Puerto Rico will not be able to start using the law because another formidable constitutional challenge is still alive: whether the Recovery Act can survive scrutiny under the Contracts Clause. That hotly contested fight would be fact intensive in a way that the preemption dispute was not. A fix from the federal government must come from one of the other two branches. Speaking of which, the persuasive argument against H.R. 870/S.1774 continue to be underwhelming. For example, the fact that chapter 9 would not be a complete solution for, say, PREPA, is really beside the point.

If the Supreme Court agreed to review the First Circuit's decision, then fellow Slipster Stephen Lubben's work on Puerto Rico and the Bankruptcy Clause would become even more important than it is already. While I am not on board with Stephen's conclusions regarding preemption, his research and arguments are central to this debate. So check out his article if you haven't already.

Catching Up

So I've been off the grid for a few weeks, and of course after months of little to talk about, the world gave us a bounty of stories about financial distress, and related topics, each of which would merit its own post. But I'm going to hit them quickly to get caught up again this holiday weekend:

• I've always enjoyed reading Hamilton's Report on Public Credit, which has something of a reorganization plan about it, as well as a good discussion of distressed debt trading. Thus, I'm largely in agreement with those that say that Jackson and not Hamilton should go to free up space on one of our bills. But what about having two types of bill in each denomination? Harriet Tubman on some dollar bills, with Washington on the others, seems about right. 
• I joined an amicus brief for the loosing side in in Baker Botts, L.L.P. v. ASARCO, L.L.C., the most important case of the term.  (Or maybe not.)  Thus, it will be no surprise that I think the dissent has the better argument. The majority seems to be totally out of touch with the reality of bankruptcy practice, and its opinion seems to be an open invitation for bomb throwers who stop just short of Rule 11.
• Greece in undoubtedly between a rock and a hard place. Its economy is likely to be devastated if it leaves the Euro, at least in the short term, and it certainly will be further devastated by more austerity. Does it really matter which way they vote? The larger EU has to think about precisely what it is trying to achieve here. Yes the current Greek government is a bit buffoonish, but who helped to elect them?
• Puerto Rico is obviously in quite a similar situation. The most realistic outcome seems to me to be (a) an exchange offer of the Commonwealth debt tied to realistic (non-punitive) reforms and (b) chapter 9 for the utilities. Part "a" of course risks holdout problems – can exit consents do the trick?

That might generate some comments this weekend.

Caulkett: SCOTUS Hands BoA a Victory

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Bank of America in Caulkett v. Bank of America. Basically the Court found itself bound by its previous decision in Dewsnup and didn't think that any of the distinctions presented (by yours truly among others) between Dewsnup and Caulkett were compelling. I continue to disagree, not least because the Court never explains why the distinctions weren't compelling, or even state what those distinctions were.  Given the lengthy opinions that the Court usually issues, I'd like to think that it could have taken the time to explain itself in this regard, if only to help guide future litigants. 

What all this means is that that I owe Bob Lawless a dinner:  I had been much more optimistic about the outcome of the case following oral argument.

Credit Slips Bloggers' Amicus Briefs in Caulkett

With my attention drawn to other matters, my personal blogging has been light for the past month. One of the things that had my attention was the Caulkett case currently pending before the Supreme Court. The issue in Caulkett is whether a wholly underwater second mortgage can be avoided in a chapter 7 bankruptcy. Without any value to reach, a wholly underwater second would not seem to be an allowed secured claim within the meaning of section 506.

Along with fellow Credit Slips blogger, John Pottow, and Professor Bruce Markell, I filed an amicus brief in Caulkett supporting the debtor.  One of our points is that Long v. Bullard, which supposedly stands for the proposition that "liens ride through bankruptcy," involved other issues entirely. I'll try to expand on that point in another blog post. But, we were not alone in representing Credit Slips in the case. Blogger Adam Levitin filed his own superb amicus brief supporting the debtor that provides an in-depth look at the facts, evidence, and policy around second mortgages. All of the briefs in the case can be found at SCOTUSBlog.

Waiting for Wellness

To get ready for the January 14, 2015 Supreme Court oral argument on Wellness International Ltd. v. Sharif, read this National Bankruptcy Conference report.

Probably No Strip-Offs After Supremes Rule

The headline for this post will be mysterious and perhaps slightly salacious in a general newsfeed, but bankruptcy experts will know it means the time is nigh in the 11th Circuit for lien strip-offs. The Supreme Court agreed to hear Bank of America v. Caulkett and Bank of America v. Toledo-Cardona, where the 11th Circuit allowed lien strip-offs of wholly underwater junior  mortgages in a chapter 7. The Supreme Court case of Dewsnup v. Timm would seem to hold otherwise, but the 11th Circuit ruled Dewsnup applied only to partially underwater mortgages. Hence, the 11th Circuit believe it was bound by its own pre-Dewsnup precedent allowing strip-offs for wholly underwater junior mortgages.

I like the 11th Circuit rule as a matter of policy, but I have to believe that as a matter of precedent, the Supreme Court is almost certain to reverse. I have to get back to work on some other things, but perhaps other Credit Slips bloggers might have more to say. Until then, SCOTUSBlog also has a summary.

Stern II, now time for Stern III

Thanks to Stephen for posting the Bellingham/Arkison/Executive Benefits opinion, which I will for simplicity think of as Stern II, as it's the second installment of what will necessarily be a trilogy of Supreme Court cases on the question.  True, the bankruptcy courts live to breathe another day, but the consent question remains unanswered.  (Actually, that's not really true: the consent question was answered already in the magistrate context; the question is really whether "narrow" Stern has changed the answer.)

When will that next case come?  Could be as early as Monday when the orders from this Thursday's conference are announced, inlcuding the Wellness petition pending from CA7.  It could be a GVR "in light of" Stern II, in which case the split remains, or it could be Stern III.  Watch this space!

Did Law v. Siegel Sound the Death Knell for the Equity Powers of the Bankruptcy Court?

Did Law v. Siegel Sound the Death Knell for the Equity Powers of the Bankruptcy Court?  Mark Berman thinks so.  I'm skeptical (fuller version of my argument here).  But it depends what we mean when we refer to "equity", which is often used as a rubric for an array of different non-Code practices.  More complete coverage at the Harvard Law School Bankruptcy Roundtable.

Book Review: Jennifer Taub's Other People's Houses (Highly Recommended)

I just read Jennifer Taub's outstanding book Other People's Houses, which is a history of mortgage deregulation and the financial crisis. The book makes a nice compliment to Kathleen Engel and Patricia McCoy's fantasticThe Subprime Virus. Both books tell the story of deregulation of the mortgage (and banking) market and the results, but in very different styles. What particularly amazed me about Taub's book was that she structured it around the story of the Nobelmans and American Savings Bank.

The Nobelmans?  American Savings Bank? Who on earth are they? They're the named parties in the 1993 Supreme Court case of Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, which is the decision that prohibited cramdown in Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Taub uses the Nobelmans and American Savings Banks' stories to structure a history of financial deregulation in the 1980s and how it produced (or really deepened) the S&L crisis and laid the groundwork for the housing bubble in the 2000s.

Supreme Court denies certiorari in Sinkfield (chapter 7 lien strip-off case)

The U.S. Supreme Court has denied a petition for writ of certiorari in Bank of America v. Sinkfield, an 11th Circuit case raising the issue whether a junior lien wholly unsupported by collateral value can be stripped off in chapter 7. 

The high court's denial of certiorari yesterday (March 31) is a victory not only for the debtor who prevailed in the case below but also for the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys, represented by the National Consumer Bankruptcy Rights Center, which argued in an amicus brief against Supreme Court review on the ground that the case had not been fully litigated below and thus was a poor one for the Supreme Court to take up.   

The creditor in Sinkfield stipulated to the result that strip off was permitted in the case, based on an Eleventh Circuit opinion so holding in another case,  In re McNeal, 735 F.3d 1263 (11th Cir. 2012), one in which en banc rehearing has been sought.

The Supreme Court's decision not to review Sinkfield avoids for now the possibility of disturbing the solid precedent for lien strip off in chapter 13.  McNeal is the first circuit court case to allow lien strip off in chapter 7; two other circuits have extended Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U.S. 410 (1992), to come to the opposite conclusion.  See here for background.  Lien strip off in chapter 13 has been one of the few ways for debtors in bankruptcy to hold on to homes on which they are underwater while making them more affordable by removing junior liens unsupported by collateral value.  Extending that sort of relief to chapter 7 cases would be helpful, but Supreme Court review also poses a serious downside risk of making bankruptcy less promising for consumer debtors. 

Isn't Consent for Suckers?

As I wrestle with the EBIA v. Arkison case and the great paper pointed out by Melissa last week, I can't get past a nagging feeling that the argument about party consent to bankruptcy courts' issuing final orders on "core but unconstitutional" matters is more theoretical than practical. Why would any well-represented defendant in a fraudulent conveyance case consent to making the case against them smoother and more efficient for the trustee?! It seems to me (and this was the case in my practice days long ago) that defendants who know what they're doing will throw up any possible roadblock in the way of such a case in the hopes of wearing down the trustee and making settlement more likely and/or cheaper. For example, as EBIA did, fraudulent conveyance defendants for years now, since Granfinanciera, have been demanding jury trials and insisting that such trials proceed before the district court. What makes anyone think defendants will consent to bankruptcy courts' entering final (e.g., summary judgment) orders, even if this is allowed?

In other words, why all the fuss? What am I missing? Even if the Supreme Court holds that individual defendants can waive the Article III concerns at issue in Arkison, will this really change anything meaningfully? It seems to me that the much more important issue in Arkison is the second, about allowing bankruptcy courts to make proposed rulings in such "core but unconstitutional" cases despite the supposed "gap" in 28 USC § 157(b)(1)--a "no" answer on that question would bring the system to a screeching halt. But isn't consent for suckers--and how many suckers do we expect are out there in such cases?

Terrific New Paper on Arkison & Authority of Bankruptcy Court

The paper was just posted here. Its authors are Elizabeth Gibson and Jonathan Landers, and it was written for the National Bankruptcy Conference. A key sentence from the abstract: "The paper contends that the Court’s analysis in [Commodity Futures Trading Commission v.] Schor supports the constitutionality of bankruptcy court adjudication of private rights with the parties’ consent, notwithstanding the decision of three federal circuits to the contrary." The paper also discusses consequences for the bankruptcy system, magistrate system, and the workload of district courts in the event that the Supreme Court rejects the consent route. All in an efficient seventeen-page package.

Paper image courtesy of Shutterstock.

Supreme Court Discrimination Case Settles

Banks and insurance companies are apparently gnashing their teeth at the news that the Mt. Holly case pending before the Supreme Court has been settled.  The case itself does not involve financial services; it arose from a Fair Housing Act claim that a neighborhood redevelopment plan would  have a discriminatory impact on black residents.  The legal issue is whether the Fair Housing Act permits discrimination claims based on disparate impact.  This issue has been resolved unanimously by 11 Circuit Courts of Appeal.   HUD, the agency charged with enforcing the FHA, recently issued regulations confirming its long-standing interpretation that disparate impact claims are permitted. The Supreme Court's grant of review in the case is a clear signal that at least 4 activist Justices were prepared to overrule all 11 Courts of Appeal and HUD, and insist on proof of discriminatory intent in fair housing suits. 

The 1968 Fair Housing Act is not new, nor is disparate impact analysis, i.e. establishing race discrimination without showing intent to discriminate. What has prompted an all-out assault by banks and their lawyers is the decision by the Justice Department under Attorney General Holder and by other federal agencies to use disparate impact analysis against mortgage lenders, and not just against realtors and landlords.  Banks and their allies in the business press are hysterical about disparate impact analysis because it forces financial institutions to be mindful of the impact their credit policies have on the huge and recently expanded racial wealth gap in this country, and to adjust lending policies to mitigate the racial divide.  Between 2005 and 2009, white Americans lost 16% of their net worth; black Americans lost 53% of their net worth.  Access to mortgage credit, and the interest rates paid for that credit, have a major impact on family wealth.

If realtors and landlords must avoid discriminatory policies to further the goal of equal housing opportunity, it seems only fair that banks, beneficiaries of continuing taxpayer subsidies and safety nets, should have some duty to advance the same public goal.

You Say "EBIA," I Say "Bellingham," We All Say "Pottow"

Credit Slips contributor John Pottow will be arguing the upcoming EBIA v. Arkison (née Bellingham) case in the U.S. Supreme Court. As briefly summarized in an earlier post, the question in the case has to do with federal bankruptcy court jurisdiction over a lawsuit within a bankruptcy case, namely a fraudulent transfer action.

We have a broad audience so I'll leave the description at that one sentence. If you are bankruptcy expert you should already know the case. If you are not, it would take about 70 pages of explication about the historical development of the bankruptcy system to understand the convoluted jurisdictional framework both Congress and the Supreme Court have bestowed on the bankruptcy courts. Fortunately, the 70-page brief for the respondent, written by Pottow with attorneys G. Eric Brunstad, Jr., and Kate M. O'Keeffe, is exactly such a tour de force explication. Indeed, even if you are a bankruptcy expert, the brief will be a great resource for you on the issues the case raises.

And, although it pains me ever to write such a phrase . . . Pottow is right.

Doesn't Anyone Want to Talk About Jurisdiction This Week?

With the Second Circuit's ruling in the Argentina/NML case and the now-urgent need to get secured transactions and bankruptcy into the 1L curriculum, Credit Slips has yet to give attention to Wellness International Network, Limited,  issued on Aug 21 by the Seventh Circuit. Luckily, on this issue, I don't mind getting the ball rolling, and then stepping out of the way.