Bankruptcy Law

Explaining the Next Crisis - Event Audio/Video

2015 National Lawyers Convention
Phil Gramm, Frank Medina, Karen Shaw Petrou, J.W. Verret, Edith H. Jones November 18, 2015

Many observers of the U.S. financial system increasingly believe that the United States will soon experience another financial crisis – the only questions are when and how bad will it be? With that expectation in mind, the panel could address the following issues: What are the likely early indicators that another crisis is in the offing? What economic conditions are the likely causes of that crisis (rising housing prices, the reemgence of shadow banking, other consequences of Dodd-Frank, crises emanating from other countries, etc.)? What might ignite that crisis? Who will likely be blamed for causing the next crisis and who or what should be blamed? What might be the political/legislative response(s) to the next crisis? What, if anything, can be done to mitigate the consequences of the next financial crisis and possibly even steer the U.S. economy away from future financial crises?

Financial Services: Explaining the Next Crisis
12:00 noon – 2:15 p.m.
Chinese Room

  • Hon. Phil Gramm, Senior Advisor, US Policy Metrics and Former United States Senator
  • Mr. Frank Medina, Senior Counsel & Director of Research, Better Markets
  • Ms. Karen Shaw Petrou, Managing Partner, Federal Financial Analytics, Inc.
  • Prof. J.W. Verret, Assistant Professor of Law, George Mason University School of Law
  • Moderator: Hon. Edith H. Jones, U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

The Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Supreme Court Bankruptcy Round Up - October Term 2014 - Podcast

Corporations, Securities & Antitrust Practice Group Podcast
Thomas Plank, Zvi Rosen, David Skeel July 28, 2015

The Supreme Court issued a number of notable opinions in the area of bankruptcy law during the recently concluded term. Our experts offered their analysis on recent developments in the field and took questions from a call-in audience.

  • Prof. Thomas Plank, Joel A. Katz Distinguished Professor of Law, University of Tennessee College of Law
  • Prof. Zvi Rosen Visiting Assistant Professor of Law, Hofstra University Maurice A. Deane School of Law
  • Prof. David Skeel, S. Samuel Arsht Professor of Corporate Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School

Wellness International Network v. Sharif - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 6-22-15 featuring Thomas Plank.
Thomas Plank June 22, 2015

On May 26, 2015, the Supreme Court delivered its opinion in Wellness International Network, Limited v. Sharif.  This case relates to the Court’s 2011 decision in Stern v. Marshall, in which the Court held that Congress violated Article III by authorizing bankruptcy judges to decide certain claims for which litigants are constitutionally entitled to an Article III adjudication. Here the question is whether Article III allows bankruptcy judges to adjudicate such claims with the parties’ consent. 

In an opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor, the Court held by a vote of 6-3 that Article III permits bankruptcy judges to adjudicate Stern claims with the parties’ knowing and voluntary consent. The judgment of the Seventh Circuit was reversed and the case was remanded. 

Justice Sotomayor’s opinion was joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, and by Justice Alito in part.  Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. The Chief Justice filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Scalia and by Justice Thomas as to Part I.  Justice Thomas also filed a dissenting opinion. 

To discuss the case, we have Thomas Plank, who is the Joel A. Katz Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee College of Law.

Harris v. Viegelahn and Bullard v. Hyde Park Savings Bank - 6-2-15

Post-Decision SCOTUScast featuring Zvi Rosen
Zvi Rosen June 02, 2015

The Supreme Court recently issued two unanimous decisions in bankruptcy cases, Harris v. Viegelahn and Bullard v. Hyde Park Savings Bank

Harris v. Viegelahn, decided on May 18, involved the conversion of a Chapter 13 bankruptcy case into a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. In Chapter 13 bankruptcy, the debtor is permitted to keep his assets but his postpetition wages are property of the bankruptcy estate and may be distributed to creditors. In Chapter 7 bankruptcy, the debtor’s assets are immediately liquidated and made available to creditors--but postpetition wages remain the debtor’s. The question in this case was whether, upon conversion from Chapter 13 to Chapter 7, postpetition wages still in the hands of the Chapter 13 trustee remain available to creditors, or must instead be returned to the debtor. In an opinion delivered delivered by Justice Ginsburg, the Court held unanimously that the debtor was entitled to the return of any postpetition wages not yet distributed by the Chapter 13 trustee.  The contrary judgment of the Fifth Circuit was reversed and the case remanded.

Bullard v. Hyde Park Savings Bank, decided on May 4, concerned whether a debtor could appeal a bankruptcy court's order denying confirmation of the debtor's proposed repayment plan. In an opinion delivered by Chief Justice Roberts, the Court held unanimously that the order denying confirmation was not a final order subject to immediate appeal.  The judgment of the First Circuit, which had dismissed the debtor’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, was affirmed.

To discuss these cases, we have Zvi Rosen, who is a Visiting Assistant Professor of Law at the Hofstra University Maurice A. Deane School of Law.

Wellness Int'l Network, Ltd. v. Sharif - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 3-4-15 featuring Thomas Plank
Thomas Plank March 04, 2015

On January 14, 2015, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Wellness Int’l Network, Limited v. Sharif, which presents two questions. The first is whether a bankruptcy court has power under Article I of the Constitution to determine, where an issue of state property law is involved, that property in the debtor’s possession belongs to the bankruptcy estate.  The second question is whether, notwithstanding the limits of Article I authority, the consent of litigants can permit a bankruptcy court to exercise Article III judicial power--and if so, whether a litigant's continued participation in litigation can constitute implied consent.

To discuss the case, we have Thomas Plank, who is the Joel A. Katz Distinguished Professor of Law at the University of Tennessee College of Law.