% check_user(Request.ServerVariables("URL")) %>
![]() Volume 2, Number 2 May 2004 |
|
Tennessee
Student Assistance Corp. v. Hood The underlying case involved an adversary proceeding by the debtor, Pamela Hood, seeking the discharge of her student loans as constituting an “undue hardship” under §523(a)(8). A proof of claim was originally filed by Sallie Mae and later assigned to the Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation (TSAC). Because this was a no-asset case, there was no active participation in the underlying bankruptcy case by TSAC, other than its acceptance of the assigned claim. Because the filing of a proof of claim has been held in previous cases to constitute submission to the bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction, the debtor never advanced the argument that TSAC, as an agency of the state, waived its sovereign immunity. The Supreme Court, therefore, declined to address this specific constitutional issue. To read full story, click here Till vs. SCS Credit Corporation Confronted by the difficult and arcane issue of what interest rate best satisfies the requirements of §1325(a)(5)(B)(ii) that the secured creditor receive “…the value, as of the effective date of the plan, of property to be distributed under the plan on account of such claim is not less that the allowed amount of such claim …”, a plurality of the Court held that the so-called formula approach (the prime rate plus a calculated risk factor) best meets the intent of Congress and the objectives of the Bankruptcy Code. To read full story, click here Supreme
Court Finds Rule 4004(a) Is Not Jurisdictional The Supreme Court has issued its unanimous opinion in Kontrick v. Ryan, ___ U.S.____, 124 S.Ct. 906, ____ L.Ed.2d ____ (2004), on certiorari from the Seventh Circuit, In re Kontrick, 295 F.3d 724 (7th Cir.) (Norton Bankr. L. & Practice 2d Section §47:68). A recent article in the Adviser by Venessa Lantin, "Are the Deadlines in Bankruptcy Rules 4003, 4004, and 4007 Jurisdictional or Subject to Equitable Defenses? The Sixth Circuit Sides with Equity," NORTON BANKRUPTCY LAW ADVISER 7 (2003), discussed the Circuit split on the issue of whether the Bankruptcy Rules limited the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over untimely discharge and dischargeability complaints. Has the Supreme Court answered all of the questions that might be raised about untimely complaints and the trial courts authority to hear them? No, but it has answered some critical questions, including that Rule 4004's time limitation is not subject-matter jurisdictional. [See Norton Bankr. L. & Prac. 2d §§139:5, 139:7, 139:8.] To read full story, click here ABI
to Host Chicago Consumer Bankruptcy Conference, July 24 Up to 6.5
hours of CLE credit can be earned at this unique and affordable opportunity for
participants to network with other practitioners, discuss
salient issues with bankruptcy judges and learn from experts who practice
in the area. In addition, registrants will receive written materials including
ABI’s new publication, Fundamentals of Chapter 7 & Chapter 13
of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, authored by Thomas J. Yerbich. The conference
will be held at the Chicago-Kent College of Law, conveniently located in
downtown Chicago. Founded in 1888, Chicago-Kent is a national leader in
continuing legal and professional education, recognized for the excellence
of its faculty and curricular innovation. Register online today! Committee
Focuses on Compensation for Debtor's Counsel at 2004 Annual Spring
Meeting To read full story, click here
|