MENU

Bankruptcy 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.

Single Point of Entry – A Response to Paul Kupiec and Peter Wallison - Podcast

Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group Podcast
Randall Guynn, David Skeel, James Wigand February 18, 2015

In December 2013, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) released a proposal on the “Single Point of Entry” (SPOE) strategy as a means of resolving large failing banks without financial-market disruption. Paul Kupiec and Peter Wallison wrote a paper strongly critiquing the strategy, and presented it to Federalist Society members on a January 22 Teleforum conference call. A recording of their presentation is available here. Randall Guynn, Prof. David Skeel, and James Wigand offered their defense of SPOE and their response to Mr. Kupiec and Mr. Wallison on a Teleforum conference call.

  • Randall Guynn, Partner, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP
  • Prof. David Skeel, S. Samuel Arsht Professor of Corporate Law, University of Pennsylvania Law School
  • James Wigand, Partner, Millstein & Co.

Credit to Cronies: Government’s Heavy—IF Hidden—Hand - Event Video

2014 National Lawyers Convention
Edward J. DeMarco, Bert Ely, Paul H. Kupiec, Paul S. Atkins, Wayne A. Abernathy November 17, 2014

Key to a vibrant and increasingly productive economy is an efficient credit allocation process -- the mechanism by which all forms of credit, and not just bank loans, flow to those who can make the best use of that credit.  Do  government regulations influence and therefore distort – intentionally or not – the allocation of credit within the U.S. economy?

Bank capital and liquidity standards, consumer lending requirements, lending rules enforced by the Consumer Bureau, the Community Reinvestment Act, and government-sponsored enterprises (notably Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Farm Credit System) among other federal programs steer credit to favorites based on government priorities.  Designating large financial firms as “systemically important financial institutions” might diminish their role as independent credit providers and subject them to further government direction.   Some argue that Federal Reserve monetary policy, which greatly influences all interest rates, has consequent credit-allocation effects.  Where did this all come from, where is it going, and what it means for the future of the economy will be questions for the panel.

The Federalist Society's Corporations, Securities & Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group presented this panel on "Credit to Cronies: Government’s Heavy—IF Hidden—Hand" on Friday, November 14, during the 2014 National Lawyers Convention.

Featuring:

  • Mr. Edward J. DeMarco, Senior Fellow-in-Residence, Milken Institute
  • Mr. Bert Ely, Principal, Ely & Company, Inc.
  • Dr. Paul H. Kupiec, Resident Scholar, American Enterprise Institute
  • Moderator: Hon. Paul S. Atkins, Patomak Global Partners LLC; former Commissioner, U.S Securities & Exchange
  • Introduction: Hon. Wayne A. Abernathy, Executive VP for Financial Institutions Policy and Regulatory Affairs, American Bankers Association; and Chairman, Financial Services & E-Commerce Practice Group

Mayflower Hotel
Washington, DC

Clark v. Rameker - Post-Decision SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast 7-18-14 featuring Jennifer Spreng
Jennifer Spreng July 18, 2014

On June 12, 2014, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Clark v. Rameker. The question in this case is whether an individual retirement account that a debtor has inherited is exempt from the debtor's bankruptcy estate under Section 522 of the Bankruptcy Code, which exempts "retirement funds to the extent that those funds are in a fund or account that is exempt from taxation" under certain provisions of the Internal Revenue Code.

Justice Sotomayor delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, which held that funds contained in an inherited IRA do not qualify as "retirement funds" within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code exemption. The judgment of the Seventh Circuit was affirmed.

To discuss the case, we have Jennifer Spreng, an associate professor of law at the Arizona Summit Law School.