Professor Charles Jordan Tabb Reviews the Top Twenty Issues in the History of Consumer Bankruptcy
University of Illinois Law School Professor Charles Jordan Tabb has made available at the Social Science Research Network a working paper entitled The Top Twenty Issues in the History of Consumer Bankruptcy. The article's abstract on SSRN provides:
The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 dramatically altered the system of consumer bankruptcy in the United States. In the wake of that landmark legislation, this article seeks to provide an historical context and perspective. The article identifies and highlights the "top twenty" consumer bankruptcy issues in the development of the Anglo-American bankruptcy tradition. These issues are grouped into the following broad categories: (1) who is eligible for bankruptcy relief; (2) what assets does the debtor get to keep; (3) what future income is shielded; and (4) who decides and how. Finally, the paper looks briefly at the moral aspect of consumer bankruptcy, viewed through an historical lens.
This is a great article for those interested in the development of consumer bankruptcy law in America. The article also includes a four page bibliography with citations to many classics in legal scholarship on the history of bankruptcy law.
© Steve Jakubowski 2006| Posted By Steve Jakubowski In Bankruptcy History | 2 Comments | Permalink
On Being a Bankruptcy Lawyer in 1789
Historian Bruce Mann, author of Republic of Debtors: Bankruptcy in the Age of American Independence (2002), has submitted a sweeping 30 page review of bankruptcy law in the days of our founding fathers in an amicus curiae brief to the US Supreme Court in Central Virginia Comm. College v. Katz. "He files this brief," he writes, "because this case, which addresses an issue of vital importance to the bankruptcy system, turns in large part on eighteenth-century American history."
Professor Mann sides squarely with the bankruptcy trustee's position (as respondent) that individual states have no right of sovereign immunity in federal bankruptcy proceedings:
Contrary to the petitioners' argument, there is no evidence that at the time of the ratification of the Constitution the states reserved any right to assert sovereign immunity in any bankruptcy proceedings established pursuant to any Congressional exercise of the bankruptcy power conferred in art I, sect. 8, cl. 4. None of the known public or private discussions of bankruptcy - before, during or after the adoption and ratification of the Constitution - drew any distinction between public and private creditors. Any such distinction would have undermined the concept of a "fresh start," which was generally understood even then to be the fundamental purpose of the bankruptcy discharge. . . .
Both proponents and opponents of federal bankruptcy legislation recognized that the federal bankruptcy power necessarily entailed a concomitant abrogation of state sovereignty by binding states to discharges and by otherwise interfering with state sovereignty.
It will be interesting to see if the Petitioners from the State of Virginia find someone with an equally compelling opposing perspective. Stay tuned.
© Steve Jakubowski 2005| Posted By Steve Jakubowski In Bankruptcy History | 0 Comments | Permalink