Negotiating a plan of reorganization is the most consequential aspect of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy process for both debtors and creditors. The balance of power in that negotiation process is principally defined by the requirements for voting and plan approval which are laid out in section 1129(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. Courts are divided as to whether, in a case where a class of claims is proposed to be impaired under a joint, multidebtor plan, section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code re-quires acceptance from at least one impaired class of claims of any one debtor (the “per plan” approach) or, alternatively, acceptance from one impaired class of claims of each debtor (the “per debtor” approach). In this Contribution, Elaine Andersen (’21) argues that the “per plan” approach better comports with the text, context, and purpose of the section.
Observers generally agree that the assumption of executory contracts by debtors in possession in Chapter 11 proceedings promotes the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code and accords with Congress’ intent. Yet courts have been riven by the question of whether the plain text of section 365 allows the practice. This Contribution argues that courts forbidding assumption of executory contracts by debtors in possession have misdirected the focus of their textual analysis. Close examination of an overlooked phrase within section 365 and of the interactions between sections 365 and 1107 provides two independent textual bases for courts to read the Code in keeping with congressional intent.
May bankruptcy courts assume “related to” jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) over a post-confirmation successor liability suit when the estate’s assets have already been disbursed? Michael Murray (’17) examines this question, based on his experience at the 2016 Duberstein Moot Court Competition, sponsored by St. John’s University School of Law. His Contribution analyzes the legal landscape of “related to jurisdiction” in bankruptcy courts. Ultimately, the Contribution proposes that the Seventh Circuit has adopted the clearest interpretation of the statute and reasonably limits “related to” jurisdiction to disputes in which either the debtor is a party or the dispute affects the amount or distribution of the debtor’s estate.