Introduction to the Articles Presented by Three Rising Stars in Bankruptcy Scholarship

Bankruptcy law is one of the fundamental legal structures necessary to the functioning of a market economy. In the common law tradition of the United States and England, bankruptcy law dates back to 1542. Bankruptcy law\u27s origins are even more ancient, with roots extending back to at least the Hammaurabi Code and the Law of Moses. In the transition to market economies and Western-style legal systems in Central and Eastern Europe, the development of a viable bankruptcy law is one of the first priorities. This, the United States bankruptcy law that forms the background for this symposium is central to the economy and commercial life in the United States. The Chapman Law Review\u27s Bankruptcy Symposium seeks to facilitate discussion among young bankruptcy scholars and between these scholars and the local bankruptcy community, students, faculty, and distinguished scholars. These scholars have engaged in research in important and exciting areas of bankruptcy law. In addition, the symposium provides a forum for these scholars to present papers which will make a substantial contribution to bankruptcy scholarship. In my judgment, these aspirations have been admirably met. Professor David Epstein and I spend an entire day with these young scholars discussing their work and insights with the Chapman community. The discussion highlighted several insights into bankruptcy law and policy which will animate further discussion on this subject. In the remainder of this introduction, I comment briefly on the distinctive contributions that each of these papers makes to bankruptcy scholarship and begin the further discussion of these issues

Global Venue Controls Are Coming: A Reply to Professor LoPucki

This Article details my disagreements with Professor Lynn LoPucki\u27s article Global and out of Control (79 Am. Bankr. L.J. 79). Part I discusses universalism and territorialism, especially the modified version of universalism that I support. Part II examines the international venue provisions of the Model Law and the EU Regulation. Part III introduces the relevant venue shopping cases. Only two groups of cases are relevant for the purpose of this paper: the French and German subsidiaries of Daisytek and Eurofood (a subsidiary of Parmalat SpA, the Italian conglomerate). None of the other cases that Professor LoPucki discusses was subject to the venue provisions of either the EU Regulation or the Model Law. Part IV explains the amendments that I believe are needed for the EU Regulation and the Model Law to deal more effectively with venue decisions and discusses how these changes would affect the venue decisions in Eurofood and the continental Daisytek subsidiaries. Finally, Part V contains concluding remarks

Center of Main Interests, International Insolvency Case Venue, and Equality of Arms: The Eurofood Decision of the European Court of Justice

The European Court of Justice ( E.C.J. ) issued a ruling on May 2, 2006 in the Eurofood case, finding that the commencement of an insolvency case for Eurofood in Ireland gave the Irish court priority under E.U. law over a similar insolvency case commenced shortly thereafter in Italy. The E.C.J.\u27s ruling responded to the Supreme Court of Ireland\u27s referral to the E.C.J. of five questions of E.U. law based on the E.U. Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings ( E.U. Regulation ). The Irish Supreme Court had referred these questions to the E.C.J. preliminary to deciding a pending appeal of the Dublin High Court\u27s decision to open a main insolvency proceeding for Eurofood IFSC, Ltd. ( Eurofood ) (a subsidiary of Parmalat SpA, one of the largest corporate groups in Italy, which went into insolvency proceedings in Italy on December 24, 2003) in competition with a parallel main insolvency case for the same entity in Parma, Italy. The two parallel main proceedings arose because courts in each country, based on different criteria, had decided that Eurofood\u27s center of main interests ( CoMI )6 was located in its own country

The Urban Environment and Childhood Asthma (URECA) birth cohort study: design, methods, and study population

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The incidence and morbidity of wheezing illnesses and childhood asthma is especially high in poor urban areas. This paper describes the study design, methods, and population of the Urban Environment and Childhood Asthma (URECA) study, which was established to investigate the immunologic causes of asthma among inner-city children.</p> <p>Methods and Results</p> <p>URECA is an observational prospective study that enrolled pregnant women in central urban areas of Baltimore, Boston, New York City, and St. Louis and is following their offspring from birth through age 7 years. The birth cohort consists of 560 inner-city children who have at least one parent with an allergic disease or asthma, and all families live in areas in which at least 20% of the population has incomes below the poverty line. In addition, 49 inner-city children with no parental history of allergies or asthma were enrolled. The primary hypothesis is that specific urban exposures in early life promote a unique pattern of immune development (impaired antiviral and increased Th2 responses) that increases the risk of recurrent wheezing and allergic sensitization in early childhood, and of asthma by age 7 years. To track immune development, cytokine responses of blood mononuclear cells stimulated <it>ex vivo </it>are measured at birth and then annually. Environmental assessments include allergen and endotoxin levels in house dust, pre- and postnatal maternal stress, and indoor air nicotine and nitrogen dioxide. Nasal mucous samples are collected from the children during respiratory illnesses and analyzed for respiratory viruses. The complex interactions between environmental exposures and immune development will be assessed with respect to recurrent wheeze at age 3 years and asthma at age 7 years.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The overall goal of the URECA study is to develop a better understanding of how specific urban exposures affect immune development to promote wheezing illnesses and asthma.</p

What is Right about Bankruptcy Law and Wrong about its Critics

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 economics approach to law

Introduction to the Articles Presented by Three Rising Stars in Bankruptcy Scholarship

Bankruptcy law is one of the fundamental legal structures necessary to the functioning of a market economy. In the common law tradition of the United States and England, bankruptcy law dates back to 1542. Bankruptcy law\u27s origins are even more ancient, with roots extending back to at least the Hammaurabi Code and the Law of Moses. In the transition to market economies and Western-style legal systems in Central and Eastern Europe, the development of a viable bankruptcy law is one of the first priorities. This, the United States bankruptcy law that forms the background for this symposium is central to the economy and commercial life in the United States. The Chapman Law Review\u27s Bankruptcy Symposium seeks to facilitate discussion among young bankruptcy scholars and between these scholars and the local bankruptcy community, students, faculty, and distinguished scholars. These scholars have engaged in research in important and exciting areas of bankruptcy law. In addition, the symposium provides a forum for these scholars to present papers which will make a substantial contribution to bankruptcy scholarship. In my judgment, these aspirations have been admirably met. Professor David Epstein and I spend an entire day with these young scholars discussing their work and insights with the Chapman community. The discussion highlighted several insights into bankruptcy law and policy which will animate further discussion on this subject. In the remainder of this introduction, I comment briefly on the distinctive contributions that each of these papers makes to bankruptcy scholarship and begin the further discussion of these issues

The Chapter 13 Alternative: a Legislative Solution to Undersecured Home Mortgages

This article discusses minor changes to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code that would make avoiding foreclosure possible for a homeowner who (a) is presently not able to make the mortgage service payments but (b) could make payments for a mortgage that is reduced to the market value of the property and to a fixed market mortgage rate. This article does not address the political issue of what protections Congress might decide to provide mortgage owners and servicers as a part of such legislation