Solve this Brainteaser: How Can the Bankruptcy Code Best Be Amended to Forever Bury the Holding of Moore v. Bay?
The strong feedback to recent posts (here and here) (including by our friends at The Volkoh Conspiracy) regarding the unjust windfall to bankruptcy estates from Moore v. Bay, 284 U.S. 1 (1931), led us internally to discuss which would more likely occur first: hell freezing over or the US Supreme Court overturning Moore v. Bay?
The answer being painfully apparent, we searched for a better mousetrap, and seized upon Congressional action as the preferred solution to the problem of Moore v. Bay. Just as Congress in 1994 enacted the much-heralded "Deprezio Amendment" to address the inequities of a much reviled (though correctly decided) Seventh Circuit decision, Congress should enact a "Moore v. Bay Amendment" to bury this widely-criticized, but universally followed, opinion.
We at The Bankruptcy Litigation Blog, therefore, posit for your consideration the following brainteaser:
HOW CAN THE BANKRUPTCY CODE BEST BE AMENDED TO FOREVER BURY THE HOLDING OF MOORE v. BAY?
The NCBJ (National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges) begins tomorrow in San Antonio, Texas, and I hope to get some good ideas down there on how to best solve this brainteaser. Meanwhile, any suggested concepts to consider, pitfalls to avoid, or language to employ would be most appreciated and duly recognized.
Stay tuned. Much more to follow (no pun intended).
Finally, thanks to all 2,100 visitors to the site in the first three weeks of the blog's existence. Knowing you're out there spurs us on (no pun intended, San Antonio)! Hopefully, this blog will continue to exceed our wildest expectations, and yours.
Thanks again for your support!
© Steve Jakubowski 2005
There my be a way to lessen the impact by amending state law. With reference to fraudulent transfer actions asserted under Sec. 544b, the various states can amend their fraudulent transfer statutes to eliminate the "voidable" features and just provide for a recovery by and agrieved creditor of monetary damages. This apparoach was taken in 1989 when the Commissioners amended the uniform text of UCC's Art.6, Bulk Transfers, to either provide for its repeal (Alternative A) limit the remedy to monetary damages (Alternative B).