Restructuring and Finance Litigation partner Steven B. Smith recently met with Phil Neuffer, the Managing Editor of ABF Journal, to discuss the recent United States Supreme Court decision Siegel v. Fitzgerald, No. 21-441, in which the Court unanimously held that a significant quarterly  fee increase applicable to debtors in the United States Trustee judicial districts and not to debtors in the Bankruptcy Administrator judicial districts located in North Carolina and Alabama violated the uniformity requirement of the Constitution’s Bankruptcy Clause. The ABF Journal interview will be featured in a series of podcast episodes and will focus on the history of the dual United States Trustee and Bankruptcy Administrator programs which led to North Carolina’s and Alabama’s different, non-uniform, treatment, enactment of the Bankruptcy Judgeship Act of 2017 and the Bankruptcy Administration Improvement Act of 2020, and various court decisions over the years addressing the constitutionality of having two different funding sources to operate the program. Steven also discusses the parties’ arguments to the Supreme Court and their differing interpretations of the Bankruptcy Clause’s grant of power to Congress to establish “uniform laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.”

The first (episode 66) and second (episode 67) of the three-part series can be found here:  The ABF Journal Podcast.

Email this postTweet this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Steven Smith

Steven B. Smith focuses his practice on complex corporate restructuring, liquidations and bankruptcy litigation, including in-court Chapter 11 and Chapter 15 cases and out-of-court workouts. He has extensive experience representing distressed debt investors, bondholders, official and ad-hoc creditor committees, administrative and collateral agents,

Steven B. Smith focuses his practice on complex corporate restructuring, liquidations and bankruptcy litigation, including in-court Chapter 11 and Chapter 15 cases and out-of-court workouts. He has extensive experience representing distressed debt investors, bondholders, official and ad-hoc creditor committees, administrative and collateral agents, indenture trustees, stalking horse and other asset purchasers, trade and tort claimants, and other significant parties-in-interest in a variety of jurisdictions across the United States.

Steve is also experienced in the analysis of true sale, non-consolidation, and bankruptcy remoteness principles in opinion and related contexts and has lectured on the topic on numerous occasions.

Steve played an active role in the following reported decisions:

  • Bricklayers and Trowel Trades International Pension Fund v. Wasco, Inc., 2015 WL 9459945 (M.D. Tenn. 2015)
  • In re TS Employment, Inc., 2015 WL 4940348 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015)
  • In re Intermet Corp., 2009 WL 2868749 (Bankr. D.Del. 2009)
  • In re XO Communications, Inc., 2008 WL 4587118 (C.A.2 (N.Y.) 2008)
  • In re Whitehall Jewelers Holdings, Inc., 2008 WL 2951974 (Bankr. D.Del. 2008)
  • Houlihan Lokey Howard & Zukin v. High River Limited Partnership, 369 B.R. 111 (S.D.N.Y. 2007)
  • In re Muscletech Research and Development, Inc., (2006), 19 C.B.R. (5TH) 57 (Canada)
  • In re Ad Hoc Committee of Tort Victims, 327 B.R. 138 (S.D.N.Y. 2005)
  • In re XO Communications, Inc., 323 B.R. 330 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005)
  • In re XO Communications, Inc., 330 B.R. 394 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2005)
  • In re Exide Technologies, Inc., 299 B.R. 732 (Bankr. D. Del. 2003)

While in law school, Steve served as a judicial intern to Chief Judge William H. Gindin of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey.