What Should Judges Do in Chapter 11
This piece contends that doctrinal corporate bankruptcy reforms, however wise, will be incomplete without deeper consideration of the role of various institutional actors, particularly judges and courts. The bankruptcy system sends mixed messages to judges. Drafters of the 1978 Bankruptcy Code exhorted judges to be no more or less than umpires of discrete disputes raised by the parties. Today's bankruptcy system, however, imposes greater, and conflicting, expectations: to promote quick resolution of disputes through encouraging party settlement, but also to exercise independent oversight even if no party in interest objects - sometimes without a clear sense of how the court should gather the information to make such a judgment. These tensions are not unique to bankruptcy; they also arise in civil actions, both simple and complex, in federal district courts. Managing them, however, is essential to changing the dynamics of modern corporate bankruptcy and, therefore, to the project of reform.
The Characterization of Pre-insolvency Proceedings in Private International Law
The decade since the financial crisis has witnessed a proliferation of various ‘light touch’ financial restructuring techniques in the form of so-called pre-insolvency proceedings. These proceedings inhabit a space on the spectrum of insolvency and restructuring law, somewhere between a pure contractual workout, the domain of contract law, and a formal insolvency or rehabilitation proceeding, the domain of insolvency law. While, to date, international insolvency instruments have tended to define insolvency proceedings quite expansively, discussion of the cross-border implications of pre-insolvency proceedings has barely begun. The question is whether pre-insolvency proceedings should qualify as proceedings related to insolvency for the purpose of private international law characterization. The risk is over-inclusivity of cross-border insolvency law, which, where it is based on universality and unity, might defeat contractual expectations. This article argues, however, that we should be slow to exclude pre-insolvency proceedings from cross-border insolvency law: these proceedings are initiated in the zone of insolvency, their effectiveness depends on a statutory mandate and not purely on private ordering, they interact and intersect with formal proceedings, and can benefit from the unique system developed by cross-border insolvency law. We suggest, though, that modified universalism (the leading norm of cross-border insolvency) and international insolvency instruments, should, and are able to, adjust to the peculiarities of pre-insolvency proceedings to address concerns about inclusivity and accommodate pre-insolvency proceedings adequately.
La inseguridad jurídica en normas de contratación estatal
It is established by different studies that the issue of government procurement has been marred by several factors, the test objective to publicize these factors, we take as starting point the constant conflict between the branches of government to try and organize this subject; will collect and analyze diverse regulatory and case material in order to achieve evidence and demonstrate the different concepts of constant change that produces excessive regulation of the subject procurement and is in turn causing rapid changes that result in legal uncertainty for our law on the Contract Status.