Emory Law Scholarly Commons
Not a member yet
2100 research outputs found
Sort by
Undue Hardship and Uninsured Americans: How Access to Healthcare Should Impact Student-Loan Discharge in Bankruptcy
Get PDFStudent-loan debt has grown to unprecedented heights. Contributing to the severe burden imposed by these debts is the Bankruptcy Code’s unique presumption that they are not dischargeable. To overcome that presumption, a debtor must establish that repayment of her loans would constitute an “undue hardship.” This Essay examines the disagreement among bankruptcy courts that have interpreted the “undue hardship” standard in situations where a debtor is unable to afford health insurance—a common occurrence among the economically disadvantaged. After examining recent healthcare reforms, I argue that Congress has expressed a judgment that all Americans should obtain minimum essential healthcare. Though this goal remains unrealized, it should inform courts’ “undue hardship” analysis, and debtors who cannot obtain healthcare while repaying loans should be entitled to a bankruptcy discharge. This reform has been made even more urgent by the economic disruptions and increased healthcare costs imposed by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic
Towards Transformative Solidarity: Reflections from Amnesty International\u27s Global Transition Programme
Get PDFThis Article looks at how this process metamorphosed Amnesty’s model of international solidarity. It looks at what it would take for Amnesty’s solidarity—and by extension that of other historically Northern-based international human rights groups—to become even more transformative. It is unique in two ways. First, it develops a new concept of the solidarity spectrum building on the emerging concept of transformative solidarity. This can be used to map collaborations between partners with different kinds of power—not only within the human rights movement, but also more broadly in civic, political and social organizing. Second, it is the first external study on the GTP from an Amnesty International Secretariat employee
Jay Alix, McKinsey, and a Lack of Clarity
Get PDFJay Alix v. McKinsey & Co. is the product of a gaping hole in the U.S. Bankruptcy Code: its extensive definition section does not adequately define various key words, including “professional persons” and “disinterested persons.” McKinsey & Co., one of the world’s largest and wealthiest consulting firms, stands accused of violating the disinterested standard set out in 11 U.S.C. § 327(a) and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure Rule 2014(a). McKinsey, however, maintains that it fully complied with the Bankruptcy Code requirements, and it may well be right; depending on the jurisdiction, and even on the individual judge, the disinterested and disclosure requirements to be employed under the Bankruptcy Code may vary. Previous bankruptcy courts have not applied a clear, consistent standard regarding which entities are subject to the Bankruptcy Code requirements by virtue of being a professional person under 11 U.S.C. § 327(a), what constitutes a disinterested person under 11 U.S.C. § 327(a), or what exactly an entity must disclose under Bankruptcy Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 2014(a) prior to bankruptcy employment. However, the court has just such an opportunity in Jay Alix v. McKinsey & Co. Neglecting to use this opportunity to clarify the Bankruptcy Code could lead to further lawsuits between bankruptcy practitioners, as well as forum shopping by bankruptcy participants, all in an effort to hide potentially significant connections. This Comment proposes that the court should adopt firm standards for both definitional issues, as well as the disclosure requirement, to ensure a fair, transparent bankruptcy process that is in accordance with the original goals of the Code and the bankruptcy system as a whole
Introduction: A Tribute to Jay Alix
Get PDFOn March 3, 2020, Volume 36 of the Emory Bankruptcy Developments Journal presented Mr. Jay Alix with the Twenty-Second Annual Distinguished Service Award for Lifetime Achievement. Mr. Alix is a philanthropist and is the founder of AlixPartners, a management consulting firm that specializes in complex restructurings, turnarounds, and performance improvement programs. Though Mr. Alix no longer practices with the firm, he still serves on the board of AlixPartners and now focuses on pro bono and creative activities, including advising the Mayo Clinic and producing plays and documentaries
Detroit\u27s Bankruptcy and Market Reentry
Get PDFIn 2018, four years after the Motor City went bankrupt, Detroit reentered the municipal securities market and issued new debt. The bond offer is both indicative of the city’s financial turnaround and is counter to the theory that bankrupted municipalities will be punished by markets with prohibitively expensive interest rates post-bankruptcy. This Article examines chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code, and the ramifications for bankrupted municipalities as they reenter the municipal securities market
Critical Vendors in the Retail Apocalypse: How the Economic Crunch Exacerbates the Need for Critical Vendor Codification
Get PDFThere is little hope for a retailer’s successful chapter 11 reorganization without a supply of inventory from vendors. Without a codified legal test for critical vendor payments, vendors may be fearful to continue supplying inventory to a retailer’s bankruptcy estate. This Comment demonstrates that not only are vendors fearful to engage with the retailer’s bankruptcy estate, but their fear also undermines reorganization efforts. These effects are amplified in the current retail climate, which has been plagued by an onslaught of chapter 11 bankruptcies. Vendor fear in the current retail climate is a catalyst for a critical vendor codification solution. Critical vendor payments are a widely adopted practice in the bankruptcy system but completely lack codification within the Bankruptcy Code. Though existing common law tests provide some guidance, the lack of uniformity across judges and jurisdictions has cultivated the current chaotic critical vendor standard. This Comment surveys the application of and discrepancies between existing critical vendor tests by judges in prominent jurisdictions including Illinois, Texas, Virginia, Delaware, and New York. This Comment proposes a test for codified clarity of critical vendor payments hoping to alleviate vendor fear and bolster the chances of a retailer’s successful reorganization
Panel II: Voters\u27 Rights: Voter Access and Requirements
No full textPANEL II : VOTERS\u27 RIGHTS: VOTER ACCESS AND REQUIREMENTS
Alexander Volokh, Associate Professor of Law, Emory University School of Law (Moderator)
Michael S. Kang, William G. and Virginia K. Karnes Research Professor of Law, Northwestern Pritzker School of Law
Gary Simson, Macon Chair in Law, Mercer University School of Law
Andrea Young, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union of Georgi
Panel II: Regulation of Fintech
No full textPanel II: Regulation of Fintech
(Moderator) Nicole Morris, Director of TI:GER and Professor in Practice, Emory University School of La
Opening Remarks: Presentation of Lifetime Achievement Award
Get PDFJoel Sprayregen’s remarks highlight the success of his son in the bankruptcy world and the honor of presenting the Lifetime Achievement Award
Volatile Windfalls: Effects of Tax Cuts and Jobs Act for S-Corp Shareholders Warrant Strong Arm Power Limitation in Bankruptcy
Get PDFThe 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act changed the landscape for the approximately 4 million S corporations in the United States. This Comment addresses how the TCJA has highlighted an existing tension between the Bankruptcy and Tax Codes concerning whether S corporation shareholder termination rights granted under § 1362 of the Tax Code should constitute avoidable fraudulent transfers under § 548 of the Bankruptcy Code. Traditionally, courts have permitted bankruptcy trustees to unilaterally shift capital gains liabilities incurred from asset liquidation sales of insolvent S corporations to the businesses’ shareholders and characterize such terminations as fraudulent transfers. However, recent decisions in the Third and Fourth Circuits have restricted the trustee’s “Strong Arm” power to avoid S election terminations. The author considers this tension between the two codes as well as the TCJA’s implications on S corporation shareholders. It then finally makes a suggestion for creating an exception to the fraudulent transfer conveyance doctrine for S corporations