Bankruptcy courts conceive of their mission differently than other courts do. For the Supreme Court, bankruptcy cases are ordinary statutory cases to be resolved “clearly and predictably using well established principles of statutory interpretation.” Many bankruptcy judges, though, believe that bankruptcy courts serve a distinctive mission for which ordinary adjudicative methods do not suffice. Often, that mission is characterized using the language of equity. Judges and commentators alike have observed that among the most spoken words in the bankruptcy courts are: “the bankruptcy court is a court of equity.” Others have contended that bankruptcy necessitates “creativity and flexibility,” pursuant to which bankruptcy courts have broad authority to formulate orders that promote the ends of bankruptcy. Within the world of bankruptcy, in other words, it is commonly understood that bankruptcy is a special field that requires an exceptional approach—one rooted in the norms, commitments, and assumptions that underlie the values of the bankruptcy community. 

I examine this disjunction and consider whether there is any principled justification for bankruptcy exceptionalism. I explain the sources of the disjunction and show how the bankruptcy courts’ exceptional approach has driven outcomes in the ongoing Purdue Pharma opioid crisis bankruptcy saga and other hotly contested and socially consequential cases. I conclude that there are many singular aspects of bankruptcy but none that justify treating it specially. Bankruptcy is distinctive, but it is not exceptional.

破产法庭对其使命的理解与其他法庭不同。对于最高法院而言，破产案件是普通的法定案件，需要“使用完善的法定解释原则明确且可预见地”解决。然而，许多破产法官认为，破产法庭的独特使命是普通的裁决方法无法胜任的。通常，该任务的特点是使用公平的语言。法官和评论员都注意到，在破产法庭中最常说的一句话是：“破产法庭是衡平法庭。” 其他人则认为，破产需要“创造力和灵活性”，据此，破产法院拥有广泛的权力来制定促进破产终结的命令。换句话说，在破产的世界里， 

我研究了这种分离，并考虑是否有任何原则上的理由支持破产例外论。我解释了分离的来源，并展示了破产法院的特殊方法如何推动正在进行的 Purdue Pharma 阿片类药物危机破产传奇和其他竞争激烈且具有社会影响的案件的结果。我的结论是，破产有许多独特的方面，但没有一个值得特别对待。破产是独特的，但并非例外。