He's still subject to dismissal under 707a and b3. Then also 727 denial of discharge And dismissal would still leave his assets being sold but no discharge of debts.

He's still subject to dismissal under 707a and b3. Then also 727 denial of discharge And dismissal would still leave his assets being sold but no discharge of debts.

You don't mention any consumer impacts, whether that consumer creditors most frequent try to get away murder through 105(a) or that Chapter 13 shows that Congress knows how to write a co-debtor stay, so the absence else would seem intentional.

From the perspective of the consumer debtor's bar, the overwhelming benefits that Chapter 11 debtors receive compared to Chapter 13 debtors. These include the "front-loaded" discharge at confirmation, the absence of a trustee, third-party releases (contrast the Sacklers and their modest contributions to the plan with the requirement in Chapter 13 that co-signed debts require payment in full to grant just a stay and not a discharge), longer periods over which to pay secured and priority debts, binding creditors with misleading voting, the broad deference given to "non-standard" plan provisions, etc. (Many of these Chapter11 benefits would be available to consumers through the Chapter 10 envisioned in Sen. Elizabeth Warren's Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act.) Since Congress will never make bankruptcy more fair by holding corporations to account in Ch. 11, instead giving consumers the same rights is certainly more likely, right?

Unfortunate but completely unsurprising (because Corporations>People) that 362(c)(3), which would have otherwise required LTL to file a Motion to Extend the Stay or the stay would have expired in 30 days, only applies to individuals.

Under the leadership of Tara Twomey, amicus briefs from NCBRC (and related NACBA briefs) were cited and relied upon by SCOTUS in bankruptcy cases more than any others except from the Solicitor General.

This is really helpful. I might suggest a version with endnotes rather than footnotes, so that the comparison between states is easier to read. Additionally useful would be an spreadsheet version, pared of all superscript numbers, so that a user could sort by columns and such.

Here's the link to the corporate filings with the NC Secretary of State: https://www.sosnc.gov/online_services/search/Business_Registration_Results

There's a lot of fun to be had with this as a hypothetical- imagine the artist files bankruptcy (and pretend that Danish bankruptcy is identical to the U.S.- apologies for being parochial). Would this debt be dischargeable? Was the intent fraudulent or artistic? Was the artist in some sort of position as a fiduciary, such that this would be defalcation? Even more, could the artist keep the pile of cash? His paints and brushes would be tools of the trade, which has a $2515 federal exemption, so why not this media? I might use this in a presentation this week at NCBJ on discharge actions.

1325(a)(5)(A) provides in bridged and abridged pertinent parts that "... the court shall confirm a plan if ... with respect to each allowed secured claim provided for by the plan ... the holder of such claim has accepted the plan." Mel Watt, when he was the head of the FHFA under Obama, was urged, unfortunately to no avail, by NACBA and others to do exactly that. The response wasn't that agreeing to judicial mortgage mods was prohibited, but that it wasn't the policy choice wanted (by Sec. Geithner) Also, to go back to the drum I keep banging in your ear elsewhere on Creditslips, while "accepted the plan" in Chapter 11s is usually interpreted as a lack of objections, in consumer cases the same bankruptcy courts often require affirmative acknowledgement (in open court, while standing on a stack of Bibles) by creditors that they're willing to accept a plan that the Code couldn't compel.

Just like with Ch. 13 debt limits being told to wait their turn for an increase and not ask to go along when they're raised in Ch. 12 or Subchapter V?

We can have all sorts of proximate arguments about the impact of corporate versus consumer bankruptcy beyond the immediate debtor, with an individual's bankruptcy affecting not only their financial situation, but also that of their household (2.53 people on average), their adjacent family, as well as their creditors (and employees and their households....) But a point, that also goes towards the concerns raised in your separate blog about venue and judge shopping, is that some of the problems in the bankruptcy system ferment in the consumer side but only get recognized when it impacts the TBLs and their Chapter 11 cases. The venue issue is one, where perhaps if districts required all bankruptcy judges to hear a random selection of all types of cases, they would neither have time to handle 39% or so of major corporate bankruptcies and wouldn't get bored with the grind of consumer cases. But also, to take your example of a lack of a written opinion about a "split-level three blocks from the interstate", part of the reason is that the judge knows that the consumer almost certainly can't afford to appeal and the trustee likely doesn't care enough. So haphazard and flawed valuation methods build up until some fool of a debtor's attorney does take the case up. Then decisions like Till v. SCS shock the Chapter 11 bar by being applicable to all bankruptcy cases. So too perhaps with the oral ruling trend- once something that starts in the consumer world wends its way into the "important" cases and pearls start being clutched. That's likely just a hyperbolic and bitter pessimism on my part that has given up on expecting bankruptcy courts to treat regular debtors as decently as corporate ones and instead hopes that they'll just be equally awful to everyone.

It could consent to judicial mortgage modification in bankruptcy, rectifying one of the great failures of the Obama/Biden administration-the failure which clearly lead to some of despairing disgust upon which first the Tea Party and then Trump rose

This reform should also either restrict the UST from objecting to improper venue in consumer cases, leaving that for creditors only, or specifically make video or telephonic hearings the default presumption for Meetings of Creditors in consumer cases, as regular people often end up with absurdly long and expensive travel times to distant court locations due to the quirks and foibles of district borders

Would it be correct to understand your statement the you've "been reading a lot of bankruptcy court transcripts" to mostly mean in corporate cases and not the real bankruptcies of consumers? (I'm not being being coy about my bankruptcy prejudice and probably a bit too snide.) In real bankruptcy cases the judges usually rule orally on important issues about whether someone keeps their home, has their r case dismissed or loses a lien and expect the parties or trustee, none of whom are generally going to get paid anything extra, let alone anything like corporate bankruptcy attorneys, to write it up.

From the consumer side of the bankruptcy world, it seems that the anonymous O's perspective is completely wrong in two ways- most bankruptcy judges do not come from a consumer practice, but are well-connected Chapter 11 attorneys, and the "hard truth" is that most of those erstwhile Tall Building Lawyer judges aren't competent to understand the lives of the consumers appearing before them, getting completely overwhelmed by the grind and the frustrations/heartaches of ruling on those cases.

It is also worth noting that, as I understand this settlement, the law firms are reducing their fees by $1 million not paying $1 million into the bankruptcy estate. Law firms routinely reduce fees to make clients or courts happy, so often that the cynic might suspect that the discount is cooked into the initial bill. There is also the psychological and optical value of having malfeasors have to write a check. Query- do shouldn't appropriate state bars also investigate this for disciplinary action for lack of candor before a tribunal?

This relates also to Chapter 13 bankruptcy, as payments made by debtors during the course of their plan are usually unreported by creditors (including their ongoing mortgage payments). While many folks can get new mortgages and refinancing during bankruptcy at surprisingly low rates, that credit reporting purgatory leaves the same people stuck with subprime car loans for 5 years. Trustees could be authorized to report payments, which would help tremendously. A smaller lift would be to allow debtor's attorneys to report the repayment of their fees to the credit reporting agencies but lawyers are prohibited by the CRAs from furnishing information.

In consumer cases, bankruptcy courts routinely hold that a general financial power of attorney that authorizes any and all actions is insufficient to allow a bankruptcy filing unless that is explicitly allowed

Perhaps what the OCC, as well as other problem agencies like the United States Trustee Program, need an few other academics to roll up their sleeves and follow the lead of fellow Credit Slipsters Elizabeth Warren and Katie Porter by putting themselves forward to bring a more pro-consumer thrust to these government entities?

Can you comment on the similarities and differences between a public credit registry and the Bankruptcy Lien Registry proposed in the Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act ("Cobra") that was recently introduced by Sen. Warren? There would seem to be the risk that the creation of the latter would spur the same for the former or even that the Cobra Bankruptcy Lien Registry would be co-opted by the financial services industry and morph into a more general debt registry.

President Biden could also immediately issue an executive order directing the Department of Education not to oppose undue hardship petitions in bankruptcy, either universally or by stating defined safe harbors, including for the disabled, those with limited retirement income, people caring for ill relatives, or those with below median income. NACBA and NCCL have previously recommended this approach (and I can provide that letter if helpful.) This provides broader relief for those that desperately need it, while sorting out those that have the ability to repay.

Beyond the HEROES Act, there are also proposals, including from Rep. Mary Gar Scanlon and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, to restore the discharge for student loans for people with COVID related loss of income or medical expenses.

Too bad they don't support venue reform to relax unnecessarily restrictions on consumers filing in the most convenient forum.

When it comes to venue and bankruptcy, it shouldn't be a surprise that such is apied inequitable against consumers compared with corporations, nonprofits or regular. The EOUST will object to a consumer filing in the "wrong" jurisdiction in every case, even if there is not substantive difference in the outcome, without concern for the convenience of the consumer debtor. (That the Bankruptcy Administrators in North Carolina and Alabama take a more laissez faire approach only exacerbates the absurdity of the UST position.) Rasonable venue reform would tighten application for corporations and relax such for individuals.