The American Bankruptcy Law Journal (“ABLJ”) is proud to be celebrating its 100th anniversary (together with the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges (“NCBJ”)) throughout 2026. For the past 100 years, the ABLJ has published scholarly articles addressing cutting edge and timely issues in the bankruptcy and commercial law fields. The ABLJ continues this tradition with the release of Issue 100:2, which features five impressive articles that every bankruptcy professional must read.

The Issue opens with the second of a two-part series by Professor Bruce Grohsgal that explores the history of the ABLJ and the NCBJ. Professor Grohsgal’s work is not just a historical piece but a reminder of bankruptcy’s past and how that might inform its future. Our focus on history continues in the second and third articles, with Judge Rebecca Connelly exploring the history and role of voluntary bankruptcy for individual debtors, and bankruptcy historian Josiah Daniel doing a deep dive into the history of chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code. The fourth article, by Professor Chrys Ondersma, examines merchant cash advance agreements and their characterization under the law.

The final article in Issue 100:2 offers a response by Professor Anthony Casey to two articles previously published in the journal: one by Professor Stephen Lubben in Issue 99:2, A New Deal for Corporate Bankruptcy: Bring Back Chapter X, and one by Professor Laura Coordes in Issue 99:3, Bankruptcy’s Guardian Gaps. All three articles consider the current state of chapter 11 practice and whether changes are necessary or appropriate.

Finally, the ABLJ is excited to launch a new feature that we are calling the “ABLJ Postscript.” The Postscript will offer short essays written by current or former ABLJ Fellows to update our readers on articles previously published in the ABLJ. For example, our first Postscript is by Madelyn Demchick, a former ABLJ Fellow, and her essay explores changes in the law since Professor Jonathan Lipson’s 2023 article on Purdue Pharma, The Rule of the Deal: Bankruptcy Bargains and Other Misnomers.

We hope you enjoy each of these articles and come away with at least one new or different perspective on current bankruptcy practice. The ABLJstrives to inform, inspire, and enhance the work of those in the bankruptcy and commercial law fields.

Michelle M. Harner
Editor in Chief

IN THIS ISSUE

Bankruptcy judges were mere “referees” under the 1898 Bankruptcy Act, with none of the protections, judicial authority, or compensation of Article III judges. Bankruptcy law little resembled what it has become. The formation of the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges (NCBJ) 100 years ago this year was a turning point — the referees organized themselves into a formidable judicial organization and political force.  Part II of Prof. Grohsgal’s history of the NCBJ, Working to Make Bankruptcy, picks up where Part I left off, with the NCBJ’s not inconsiderable role in the enactment of the Bankruptcy Code which gave the judges 14-year terms and proper judicial authority.  It then turns to Chief Justice Burger’s unsuccessful effort in 1984 to strip the bankruptcy judges of their judgeships, and the NCBJ’s success later that decade in achieving stable and reasonable (if unequal) compensation for bankruptcy judges.  Part II concludes with considering how and why the NCBJ’s role has changed somewhat since then, and some of the challenges that it now faces and likely will face in the future.

Read it, here.

Video Preview

Coming Soon!

More than 200,000 Americans filed chapter 13 cases in 2025 under a bankruptcy system that permits debtors with regular income to repay creditors over time. A recent Fourth Circuit dissent suggests those filings may exceed CongressÕs constitutional authority. InÊVoluntary Bankruptcy for the Solvent Debtor: A Constitutional Defense, Judge Rebecca B. Connelly challenges that claim through a sweeping examination of the Bankruptcy ClauseÕs text, drafting history, early federal bankruptcy statutes, and Supreme Court precedent. Recovering the constitutional foundations of voluntary bankruptcy, the article argues that Congress has long possessed the power to extend bankruptcy relief to solvent debtors. The result is both a defense of modern chapter 13 and a timely contribution to ongoing debates over the constitutional limits of the federal bankruptcy power.

Read it, here.

Video Preview

Coming Soon!

Did you ever wonder how a particular law developed? With some laws, the legislative history is straightforward, and the law’s implementation uneventful. That was not the case with the creation of municipal bankruptcy, now known as chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code. There appear to have been many twists and turns along the way. Bankruptcy historian Josiah Daniel does a deep dive into the history of chapter 9—reviewing archival evidence and piecing together an intricate and interesting historical puzzle.

Read it, here.

Video Preview

Coming Soon!

Maybe you can sell shares of the Statue of Liberty after all? Merchant cash advances (MCAs) are frequently structured as present sales of receivables that do not yet exist and are not identified as specific accounts. Like the fanciful sale of an iconic landmark, these transactions raise a threshold property-law question: can a party effect a present sale of an interest that cannot yet be conveyed? Courts have typically answered disputes over MCAs by focusing on contractual provisions governing reconciliation, repayment structure, and risk allocation. In doing so, however, they have often overlooked the more fundamental issue of whether such a property interest is legally capable of being sold in the first place. Professor Chrys Ondersma confronts that question directly in Merchant Cash Advances Are Not Sales.

Read it here.

Video Preview

Coming Soon!

Scholars have described corporate bankruptcy as a system in crisis, plagued by aggressive restructuring tactics and overseen by judges too overwhelmed to effectively police the rules. In Chapter 11’s Quiet Competence: A Response to Coordes and Lubben, Professor Anthony J. Casey pushes back. Casey reframes chapter 11 as a structured renegotiation framework whose quiet competence has made it the global gold standard for reorganizing large firms. Professors Coordes and Lubben, he argues, have identified real stresses but prescribed the wrong cure: forcing new actors into a costly process would add expense, delay, and complexity without a clear account of what those actors would accomplish. Drawing on comparative evidence, including the European Union’s wariness of mandatory restructuring practitioners to the foreign debtors who race to file in U.S. courts, Casey makes the case for targeted, case-specific fixes over sweeping mandates, and for trusting the tools chapter 11 already provides.

Read it here.

Subscribe to updates

By subscribing, I grant the NCBJ and the affiliate organizations permission to use my personal registration information for all article updates, event-related and subscription purposes.  Signing up constitutes an opt-in to receive future messages regarding ABLJ and NCBJ produced programs.