Automatic Stays Under the New Bankruptcy Law

In Mueller v. Nugent, decided shortly after the enactment of the Bankruptcy Act of 1898, the United States Supreme Court declared that a petition in bankruptcy is a caveat to all the world, and in effect an attachment and injunction. This judicial gloss, much quoted and applied since, was an early recognition that a stay of creditors from collecting their claims against the debtor and his property from and after the filing of a petition under the Bankruptcy Act is indispensable to bankruptcy administration. Unless the creditors are stayed, the debtor\u27s estate will be dismembered and the objective of equality of distribution defeated. The fresh start sought by the bankrupt in invoking the bankruptcy laws is likely to be compromised by permitting the continuation of actions against him. All the property of the bankrupt in his possession is brought into the custody of the bankruptcy court by the filing of the petition, and no interference with that custody can be countenanced without the court\u27s permission. The bankruptcy court\u27s control has been buttressed with statutory power and inherent power as a court of equity to enjoin litigation and acts of creditors and others insofar as necessary to effectuate bankruptcy objectives

The Discharge of Partnerships and Partners Under the Bankruptcy Code

The provisions of the Bankruptcy Act applicable to partnerships, partners, and their creditors were cryptic. Significant changes in these provisions made by the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 have not appreciably diminished the difficulties of administering the estates of partnerships and partners in cases under Title 11 of the United States Code. The rules governing discharge of partnerships and partners and the dischargeability of their debts have given rise to a number of special problems under both the Bankruptcy Act and the Bankruptcy Reform Act. This Article undertakes to identify and analyze these problems and to suggest solutions

Bankruptcy Study

Excerpts from talk before section of corporation, banking, and business law of the Philadelphia Bar Association, December 16, 1966 ... During World War II a relative of mine who lived in Knoxville, Tenn., told of a tremendous project near his town. It seemed not to be a military project because there were no uniforms in evidence, but the influx of people and materials and the pace of activity suggested that there must be some connection with the great national effort we were engaged in. But there were no signs, no newspaper publicity, and indeed no kind of report to appease the curiosity of the residents of the area. The mystery was much heightened by the fact that while much was shipped into this center of great activity, nothing was being shipped out. The speculation was ended on August 6, 1945, the day the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. The place in Tennessee was the Clinton Engineer Works, Oak Ridge, where the bomb had been manufactured in large part. There may be some superficial similarity in the operations of the Manhattan Project and of the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules. We - the Committee and I as its reporter - have been working for several years now with a considerable input but no comparable output. And our operations, while not classified, have not been reported on generally

Tribute to Lehan Kent Tunks

I first heard the name of Lehan Kent Tunks from Myres McDougal, who was then Yale University Law School\u27s shepherd of its students who were candidates for law teaching positions. I hadlearned that Mason Ladd, Dean of the University of Iowa College of Law, was scheduled to make an early visit to the Yale campus to interview prospects for an appointment to the Iowa faculty for the academic year 1940-41, and I sought advice from Professor McDougal with respect to the opportunity to teach at Iowa. He responded by observing that Lehan Tunks, the best teaching prospect at Yale the previous year, had been invited by Dean Ladd to come to Iowa, and Lehan had accepted. Professor McDougal spoke glowingly of a tour de force struck off by Lee Tunks in his year of law study, the writing and publication of the seminal article, Categorization and Federalism: Substance and Procedure after Erie Railroad v. Tompkins. When I later informed Professor McDougal of an offer of an appointment from Iowa, he recommended that I accept promptly and embrace the opportunity to serve on the same faculty with so able and stimulating a young colleague as Lee Tunks. I took the advice and was the grateful beneficiary of that wise counsel

The Trustee in Bankruptcy as a Secured Creditor Under the Uniform Commercial Code

The thesis of this article is that a trustee cannot exploit the advantage of the lien or security of any creditor unless he can avoid it and displace a creditor. Moreover, when he can and does avoid a lien and displace a creditor, he can enforce the rights of that creditor as against any lien or interest otherwise indefeasible in bankruptcy only to the extent of the lien or security of the creditor he displaces

The Report of the Bankruptcy Commission: The First Five Chapters of the Proposed New Bankruptcy Act

This article is a revision of a paper presented at the Creditors\u27 and Debtors\u27 Rights Section program of the meeting of the Association of American Law Schools held in New Orleans, La., December 29, 1973