Document Type
Symposium
Publication Title
Oklahoma City University Law Review
Publication Date
2003
Volume
28
First Page
537
Abstract
(Excerpt)
Professor Harrell's article is an excellent addition to the discussion that I hoped to stimulate with my article on the bankruptcy implications of the Article 9 revision. I will not attempt here to respond to each specific point he has made, as I believe that my original article adequately sets forth my views.
I was, and I remain, convinced that the Article 9 revision project had as an agenda changing bankruptcy law and I believe that, as a result, the drafters exceeded the proper role of a non-governmental, state-based, supposedly neutral, law reform institution. My earlier anti-bankruptcy article was an attempt to prove that proposition. Researching and writing that article was much like using circumstantial evidence to solve a crime. And, like a detective attempting to reconstruct a crime scene, I probably misinterpreted some of the clues and missed others. Nonetheless, I think I established a compelling circumstantial case—a case made more compelling by the unexplained failure of the official comments to either acknowledge many of the significant bankruptcy implications or to acknowledge that those bankruptcy implications were intended outcomes.
In a nutshell, the difference between my views and those of Professor Harrell turn on our differing views of the utility of secured credit and the value of the bankruptcy reorganization process. I believe that the jury is still out on both issues.