Bankruptcy Law Commons^™

Continuity Of Business Requirements For N.O.L.S. In Bankruptcy: The Economic Effects Of 1.269-3(D), Terrence R. Chorvat

Cleveland State Law Review

This paper focuses on the use of carryforwards in a bankruptcy situation. In particular it examines the economic implications of Treasury Regulation § 1.269-3(d), which was finalized on January 6, 1992. This regulation creates a presumption that if the acquirer of a loss corporation does not continue the corporation's business, the transaction was consummated for tax avoidance purposes. Therefore under § 269, which limits use of NOLs after an acquisition, the loss corporation's NOLs cannot be used by the acquirer. This presumption, however, can be overcome by strong evidence that other motives controlled the decision.

The Unsecured Creditor's Bargain: An Essay In Reply, Reprisal, Or Support?, F. Stephen Knippenberg

Faculty Articles

No abstract provided.

Bankruptcy In The Seventh Circuit: 1993, Douglass Boshkoff

Articles by Maurer Faculty

No abstract provided.

Should We Abolish Chapter 11? The Evidence From Japan, Theodore Eisenberg, Shoichi Tagashira

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Optimizing reorganization proceedings for small and midsized businesses is an important issue in every industrial country. But little information exists about the actual operation of such proceedings. Recent U.S. bankruptcy studies focus either on consumer bankruptcies or on large Chapter 11 cases involving publicly listed firms. This article presents the results of a comprehensive empirical study of Japan's most frequently used business bankruptcy reorganization provision. Small and midsized reorganizations have become important for several reasons. First, unlike large firms, the vast majority of small businesses fail to obtain confirmation of a Chapter 11 plan and end up in liquidation, thus …

The Rehnquist Court, Strict Statutory Construction And The Bankruptcy Code, Carlos J. Cuevas

Cleveland State Law Review

This article analyzes the Rehnquist Court's use of strict statutory construction. It will argue that strict statutory construction can be justified under public choice and agency theories of statutory interpretation, and that strict construction promotes the implementation of bankruptcy policy. Strict statutory construction, moreover, is beneficial because it produces reliability and predictability, which is essential to our dynamic economy. The use of strict statutory construction precludes a court from relying on legislative history to manufacture the result that the court thinks is the best solution to the problem. Another justification for strict statutory construction is that it prevents bankruptcy judges …

Bankruptcy—Chapter 13—Bifurcation Of Undersecured Claims Secured Only By Residential Real Estate Mortgages Is Not Allowed. Nobelman V. American Savings Bank (In Re Nobelman), 113 S. Ct. 2106 (1993)., Steven O. Vondran

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Bankruptcy—Property Of The Estate—The Property Of The Estate Continues To Exist After Confirmation Of The Chapter 13 Plan. Security Bank Of Marshalltown V. Neiman, 1 F.3d 687 (8th Cir. 1993)., Alexandra A. Ifrah

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Epa Runs Cerclas Around Bankruptcy Law: In Re Cmc Heartland Partners, Catherine A. Barth

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

What Is Right About Bankruptcy Law And Wrong About Its Critics, Samuel Bufford

Faculty Scholarship

My comments in this paper focus on the papers in thus Symposium by Professors Barry Adler, James Bowers, and Philippe Aghion, Oliver Hart, and John Moore. I argue that the central points of these papers are gravely mistaken because they completely misunderstand the character of the bankruptcy caseload and procedures, they ignore some important purposes of bankruptcy reorganization, and they misstate the success rate for reorganizations. I have chosen these papers for comment for two reasons: they recommend radical changes in bankruptcy law, and they are based on the thinnest knowledge of bankruptcy practice. Incidentally, they also all take an …

Joint Tax Return Liability And Bankruptcy, Ann F. Thomas

Other Publications

No abstract provided.

Artificial Impairment And The Single Asset Chapter 11 Case, David G. Carlson

Articles

The article critiques the use of Chapter 11 bankruptcy for single asset real estate cases, arguing that the doctrine of artificial impairment undermines the purpose of Chapter 11 by allowing creditors to bypass valuation and unfairly dismiss cases without merit. It contends that the repeal of section 1124(3) in 1994 has created uncertainty about the viability of artificial impairment as a tactic, while courts and creditors continue to grapple with the classification and treatment of claims in these cases.

Lien Stripping After Nobelman, Jane K. Winn

Articles

This Article first examines the Supreme Court's holding in Nobelman. Part II reviews the various statutory interpretations and bankruptcy policy arguments marshaled by both debtors and creditors regarding the permissibility of stripping home mortgages under the Bankruptcy Code. Part III discusses the issue of lien stripping as addressed in the bankruptcy reform legislation introduced in Congress in 1992 and 1993. Part IV of this Article reviews other similar forms of debtor relief in order to evaluate creditors' claims that lien stripping would disrupt credit markets and impair the free flow of credit to borrowers. The forms of debtor relief …

Hail Britannia?: Institutional Investor Behavior Under Limited Regulation, John C. Coffee Jr., Bernard S. Black

Faculty Scholarship

A central puzzle in understanding the governance of large American public firms is why most institutional shareholders are passive. Why would they rather sell than fight? Until recently, the Berle-Means paradigm – the belief that separation of ownership and control naturally characterizes the modern corporation – reigned supreme. Shareholder passivity was seen as an inevitable result of the scale of modern industrial enterprise and of the collective action problems that face shareholders, each of whom owns only a small fraction of a large firm's shares.

A paradigm shift may be in the making, however. Rival hypotheses have recently been offered …