•  
  •  

Home > Journals > Michigan Law Review > MLR > Volume 96 > Issue 1 (1997)

 

Abstract

These are the goals of this article. In particular, this article analyzes the legislative history of the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 19783 and related materials, in the hope of describing the influence of interest groups on the final statute. It has, of course, long been assumed that certain narrow provisions of the 1978 Act reflect the influence of interest groups - for example, the section that gives special protection to security and lease interests in aircraft. This article goes farther and argues that fundamental elements of the 1978 Act reflect political compromises among competing interest groups. In particular, I claim (1) that the allocation of powers to bankruptcy judges and trustees resulted from efforts by Congress to increase its patronage opportunities, (2) that the provisions on exemptions resulted from a conflict between federal and state officials over the power to make transfers to local interest groups, and (3) that the provisions on business reorganization resulted from efforts by managers' lawyers and large creditors to maximize their influence on the reorganization of distressed firms, at the expense of other interests, such as equity and small debt. I make similar claims about the provisions on reaffirmation, student loans, and the fraud exception to the right to discharge. These conclusions grow from the application of ideas from public choice theory to the legislative history of the Bankruptcy Code. The use of this methodology represents a departure from most bankruptcy scholarship, which is normative, doctrinal, or empirical. This article, in contrast, analyzes the political determinants of bankruptcy law: its contribution is its description of the ways in which the political process resulted in a particular kind of bankruptcy system.

Download

Share

COinS