Today, both houses of the Swiss Parliament finally adopted an agreed version of a long-debated law to bring personal insolvency in Switzerland into line with international norms. The new law is one of the last in Europe that finally offers a meaningful discharge to hopelessly overindebted individuals, consumers and entrepreneurs alike. On the long, tortured history of this topic in Switzerland, see here.
Author: Jason Kilborn
-
How Not To Do A Bankruptcy Literature Review
Posted by
I was excited to see a new article purporting to offer a “bibliometric analysis of research on personal insolvency.” My excitement soon turned to disappointment as I realized how fundamentally flawed the “analysis” was. To make lemonade out of lemons, I offer this cautionary tale for future analysts to avoid a research method gone horribly wrong. (more…)
-
Singapore’s “Debt Relief Agency” Proposal and Flashbacks to BAPCPA
Posted by
The Singapore Ministry of Law has launched a public consultation on some proposed personal insolvency amendments, and one in particular struck a nerve based on the disaster of BAPCPA: “MinLaw proposes to introduce a new criminal offence which criminalises the soliciting and canvassing, in the course of any business, of any person to make a bankruptcy application.” The proposed punishment is a S$10,000 fine, three years in jail, or both! The justification for this aggressive proposal is a supposed “increase in the number of debtor-initiated bankruptcy applications where debtors borrow irresponsibly to pay for … consultancy firms’ services in helping them apply for bankruptcy” with the supposed intent of “abusing the [debt repayment scheme] to obtain a discount off their debts.” Sound familiar? This is reminiscent of section 526(a)(4) of the US Bankruptcy Code, introduced in the 2005 disaster, that forbids “debt relief agencies” to “advise an assisted person … to incur more debt in contemplation of such person filing a case under this title or to pay an attorney or bankruptcy petition preparer” for preparing such a filing. (more…)
-
Revision of Chinese Enterprise Bankruptcy Law Leaves Natural Persons Waiting
Posted by
The Chinese National People’s Congress yesterday began reviewing a set of major revisions to the 2007 Enterprise Bankruptcy Law. Details on this first major reform effort in nearly 20 years are not publicly available (!), but Xinhua reports that it involves more than 160 new and revised provisions on such topics as post-filing property transfers, optimizing reorg provisions, “and enhancing judicial cooperation in cross-border insolvencies”. This all sounds promising. What’s not mentioned? A long-awaited and much-debated national rollout of personal bankruptcy. Pre-eminent bankruptcy scholar Li Shuguang has characterized the current enterprise-only approach as “only half of a bankruptcy law,” and he had earlier noted that “c]onditions for introducing a personal bankruptcy system are now largely in place, [including] improved institutional frameworks, shifting societal views, and local pilot programmes” in such places as Shenzhen and Wenzhou, among others. Nonetheless, despite a worrying rise in consumer debt and accompanying social tensions, national authorities continue to resist introducing proper treatment protocols for the personal (and small business) side of the bankruptcy hospital.
Another pre-eminent Chinese bankruptcy scholar years ago taught me a proverb that captures this situation perfectly (as 4-character chengyu distillations of Chinese wisdom so often do): 因噎废食 (yin ye fei shi), meaning “not eat for fear of choking.” This phrase encapsulates the danger of being overly conservative about engaging in beneficial behavior due to fear of some possible but unlikely bad outcome. Personal bankruptcy reformers around the world have faced these very fears over and over during the past 30 years (especially but not exclusively in Europe), and the bad outcomes have been muted if not entirely absent. It’s time for China to stop starving its increasingly consumer- and small-business-dependent economy due to fear of bad societal effects of treating natural persons’ insolvency. But for now, it seems China’s overindebted consumers and small entrepreneurs will have to continue to wait.
-
Bulgaria finally adopts personal insolvency law
Posted by
At long, long last, Bulgaria yesterday finally became the last EU Member State to adopt a personal insolvency law (Malta's law, effective late last year, seems to provide relief only for entrepreneurial debts, but it technically extends relief to individuals owing such debts, which is all the relevant EU Directive requires). To say the Bulgarian parliament adopted this law begrudgingly would be a significant overstatement of the enthusiasm for this new procedure–after many years of resistance, Bulgarian lawmakers seem to have relented under financial pressure from EU authorities. "Begrudgingly" also seems to be an apt characterization for how the new law offers debt relief to individuals, given its requirements and restrictions, but we'll have to see how the law is implemented. In any case, this is a watershed event worthy of note.
-
Man Bites Dog, or Debt Collector Restructures Its Distressed Debt
Posted by
I couldn't let this one pass without noting it. The largest debt collection company in Europe has found itself on the other end of the dunning letter. Swedish debt collection company Intrum has achieved majority (barely) support for a deal with bondholders to swap 10% of its $5.8 billion debt for equity and push out the maturity of remaining notes. Intrum found itself in this mess after "years of borrowing heavily in the low-interest era to buy portfolios"–that is, to buy bunches of distressed debt owed by strapped borrowers all over Europe, which Intrum would then squeeze for repayment at a higher rate than Intrum had paid. Or so Intrum hoped. Apparently this investment strategy went sour after "a slowdown in its business." Hmmm. What an interesting euphemism! Borrowers resisting collection pressure more resolutely now? I wonder if the growing wave of personal insolvency procedures across Europe has contributed to this "slowdown" for Intrum's debt collection efforts. Good news for borrowers is bad new for the debt collector!
-
Alex Jones, Chapter 7, and the Means Test
Posted by
I'm embarrassed to have fallen into an analytical trap that yet again reveals the absurdity of the means test. When I saw that Alex Jones was converting his personal Chapter 11 case to Chapter 7 liquidation, I wondered, "how in the world could Alex Jones pass the means test?!" Well, a quick look at section 707(b) reminded me that some pigs are more equal than others: the means test applies only to debtors "whose debts are primarily consumer debts." The $1.5 billion defamation debt obliterates the means test … because of course Alex Jones's personal bankruptcy case is not an abuse of the system (!). Further evidence in support of the thesis of Melissa's new book, it seems.
-
Long-run (positive) effects of personal debt relief
Posted by
Empirical papers on the long-run effects of a personal bankruptcy relief system (i.e., discharge) are rare, so this fascinating new paper caught my eye. The first personal insolvency discharge system in continental Europe appeared in Denmark in 1984, and this paper takes advantage of that long lifespan to mine some rather unique data. The results are unsurprising but very useful in the ongoing debate about the salutary effects of such procedures: "debt relief leads to a large increase in earned income, employment, assets, real estate, secured debt, home ownership, and wealth that persists for more than 25 years after a court ruling." So the benefits of debt relief are not only substantial but robust, as debtors learn their lesson (if there was one to learn) about managing their finances, and they capitalize (literally) on their fresh start. Perhaps most important, the cause of these effects seems to be largely the desired result of any personal discharge system–getting debtors out from under the debilitating thumb of hopelessly unserviceable creditor demands and reactivating them as engaged workers and taxpayers: "The net transition of workers into employment accounts for two thirds of the increase in earned income." Great contribution to the literature on personal insolvency and well worth a read.
-
Creative Destruction in Small Business Bankruptcy
Posted by
Two distantly related items caught my eye this morning, as both reinforce the need for "creative destruction" as a response to all-too-common small business failure.
The first was a NYT piece on the travails of a female entrepreneur in China. It tells a heart-wrenching story of a system in which the state brutally represses honest but unfortunate debtors, including via the infamous blacklist that prevents defaulters from using air and train travel (effectively curtailing re-entry into business, even if financial and economic factors might otherwise allow this). This is a story about what it looks like when there is no bankruptcy backstop, no reset button to start fresh and undertake a new venture with the hard lessons of failure firmly in mind.
The other item explores the transition from such an unforgiving system–in Spain–after the introduction of a discharge for (most) small business debt. The linked Bank of Spain working paper offers further evidence of the salutary effects of small business bankruptcy that discharges individual entrepreneurs and encourages them to restart. The reform fostered the "creative destruction" of these entrepreneurs' ventures, with the failed firms exiting the market (rather than lingering as productivity-depressing zombies), which "leads to technological change and higher productivity growth" as "the introduction of the fresh start policy promoted firm creation among Spanish micro-firms, especially in companies with a high share of intangible assets, which are likely to be involved in innovation activities, and in sectors with high productivity." Nicely linking the two contrasting accounts from China and Spain, the Bank of Spain paper concludes, "This finding also suggests that a starkly pro-creditor personal bankruptcy law with no real fresh start, like the Spanish one before 2015, may be an important barrier to entry for small businesses." Indeed.
It still surprises me that lawmakers around the world continue to resist this long-established truth for small business, powerfully undermining the most important driver of economic development worldwide. Worse yet, the mere introduction of a personal bankruptcy law with a debt discharge is not enough–the system actors have to actually support a fresh-start policy rather than actively undermining it, which turns out to have been the disappointing result of the first two years of such a system in Shenzhen, China. One hopes that national legislatures, like small entrepreneurs, can learn from failure and move forward with proper personal bankruptcy laws when given a fresh opportunity to do so.
-
Third-Party Releases Clearly Endorsed in the 2nd Circuit, At Long Last
Posted by
Yesterday's 2nd Circuit opinion reconfirming Purdue Pharma's settlement/restructuring plan is an enlightening read for those interested in third-party releases. In what seems to me (and the concurrence) a bit of a reach, the 2nd Circuit conceded that statutory authority more specific than section 105 was needed to support third-party releases, but the Court found such support in section 1123(b)(6): “a plan may . . . include any other appropriate provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title.” Hmmm. That's quite a slender reed on which to balance such a powerful action. More interesting, the Court set forth a series of seven tests to gauge whether any given third-party release is appropriate. One key test is rather vague (whether the plan provides for the fair payment of enjoined claims), but at least we now have a roadmap for getting to an effective third-party release. Or do we? The Court in a crucial passage emphasizes "to the extent that there is a fear that this opinion could be read as a blueprint for how individuals can obtain third-party releases in the face of a tsunami of litigation, we caution that the key fact regarding the indemnity agreements at issue is that they were entered into by the end of 2004—well before the contemplation of bankruptcy." So the type of pre-bankruptcy planning we've seen in other cases may be a bridge too far, at least in the 2nd Circuit. This latest opinion seems to add weight to recent arguments that bankruptcy court is, indeed, an appropriate and effective venue for resolving sticky mass-tort issues, though the policy debate will doubtless continue.