Consumer Bankruptcy

Supreme Court will decide whether potential motive for nondisclosure invokes judicial estoppel, or whether there must be subjective intent by the debtor to conceal.

Honest, but Still Unfortunate?Ninth Circuit Defines Authority of Social Security Administration to Recoup Overpayments Following Chapter 7 Discharge By Mark A. Fink and Richard E. Willi III As the U.S. Supreme Court has stated, the Bankruptcy Code’s principal purpose is

Dischargeability depends on the elements of the tort, not whether there was a judgment before bankruptcy.

Bankruptcy Judge Hagan halted the practice of a chapter 13 debtor’s counsel who always filed plans with 0% interest for secured creditors.

Because dismissal under Section 521(i)(1) is automatic and does not result from an order, there’s no rule to vacate dismissal for excusable neglect.

The Ninth Circuit hasn’t decided whether bankruptcy courts are ‘courts of the U.S.’ authorized to exercise powers under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a).

Bankruptcy Judge Hagan explains why Till doesn’t necessarily require starting with the prime rate in cramming down a secured creditor in chapter 13.

Failure to include forgiveness of indebtedness income in schedules didn’t result in denial of confirmation of a chapter 13 plan.

Although it makes sense and would require fewer judicial resources, the governing statute does not permit withdrawing a lawsuit directly to the bankruptcy court in another district or another state, as explained by Bankruptcy Judge Elisabetta G.M. Gasparini of Columbia, S.C.

The corporate debtor filed a voluntary chapter 7 petition in South Carolina. Two days later, someone (whom we shall refer to as the plaintiff) filed a lawsuit in federal district court in Georgia against several of the debtor’s insiders and a nondebtor corporate affiliate of the debtor. The debtor was not named as a defendant in the Georgia action.

The debtor and the nondebtor defendants in Georgia filed a notice of removal. As Judge Gasparini said in her December 16 opinion, they “purportedly remov[ed] the matter from the Georgia District Court to this Court [i.e., the bankruptcy court in the District of South Carolina].”

Although a suit for punitive damages resembles a claim for which there would be a jury under common law, Pennsylvania’s Judge Mayer decided that the enactment of Section 362(k) gave rise to the public rights exception allowing bankruptcy courts to award damages without a jury.