We are very much in the early innings on issues involving 910 claims under the hanging paragraph of 11 U.S.C. §1325(a)(9). Until the relief of appellate decisions enters the game, there may not be a lot of uniformity of this bankruptcy law.
The frequency with which small businesses fail gives rise to a common scenario: Former small-business owners finding themselves burdened with not only personally guaranteed trade payables, but also with significant amounts of business-related tax obligations, commonly in the form of tax penalties assessed personally against the business’ principals under 26 U.S.C. §6672.
It’s not what a man doesn’t know that makes him a fool, it’s what he does know that ain't so.
-Josh Billings
Occasionally, a debtor may place a provision in a chapter 13 plan that is contrary to the Bankruptcy Code and the plan is confirmed without objection. It has been a long-held belief that a creditor’s failure to object to the confirmation of a chapter 13 plan waives any objection to the plan once the plan is confirmed. This position is supported by the legal concept of res judicata (i.e., the binding effect of a court order), and the following language in §1327:
Disparate Effects of a Single Word
Recent events have made me wonder, what exactly can I do for a previously filed client (previous filer) who walks into the door and wants to file a new bankruptcy case? Now, under the new law, I must initially ask: When did you previously file, when was your discharge, or did you pay 100 Percent in your prior case?
Courts have recently been wrestling with, and finding creative ways of interpreting, the un-numbered “hanging paragraph” at the end of 11 U.S.C. §1325(a) in the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA). This is the provision that makes 11 U.S.C.
A most frustrating baseball statistic is the “LOB,” runners left on base, representing missed opportunities to score runs. Creditors relying on BAPCPA’s anti-cramdown provision to make life simpler and richer by precluding cramdown of purchase-money interests will, from time to time, have to leave a few runners and claims stranded on base.
If the trustee or an unsecured creditor objects to the debtor’s plan, the court may not approve it unless it provides that all of the debtor’s projected disposable income for either a three-or five-year period, depending on the debtor’s income level, is applied to pay unsecured creditors. (11 U.S.C. §1325(b)(1)(B)).
The recent amendments to the Bankruptcy Code via the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (BAPCPA) have provided a number of significant changes to the Code. This article will examine how the courts have been implementing the changes in the law.