Discharge/Dischargeability

The panel will address dischargeability litigation from both the debtor and creditor (and bench) perspective.

A history of credit, including terminology, methodology, with stats on use (and misuse), growing market sectors, including a discussion on credit reporting, and impact on credit scores.

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide three bankruptcy cases this term: (1) Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison, which addresses the constitutionality of the district court referral system for bankruptcy cases and consent to jurisdiction where separation of powers is at issue; (2) Clark v. Rameker, which involves the availability of exemptions for inherited IRAs; and (3) Law v. Siegel, which deals with a bankruptcy court’s authority under § 105 to surcharge exemptions. In each of these cases, either the parties are represented by First Circuit practitioners and law firms, or the underlying circuit splits involve precedents from the First Circuit. This panel will offer an insider’s view of the issues and outcomes.

How can you best advise a client who is unsure whether the stay or the discharge applies? How can you protect a debtor’s benefits offered by the automatic stay and the discharge? Stay violation litigation and discharge analysis are just two of the topics that this expert panel will examine.

With the Supreme Court due to hear oral argument on a critical bankruptcy case on January 14, ABI has released the following free video preview of the upcoming High Court bankruptcy cases. This 75 minute program features ABI Resident Scholar Kara Bruce talking with noted appellate advocate and law professor Eric Brunstad (Dechert LLP; Hartford, Conn.). Eric has argued many cases before the Court and is an expert in bankruptcy appellate practice. He discusses in depth Law v. Siegel, which questions whether the court may use its general equitable authority under §105 of the Bankruptcy Code to surcharge a debtor's exempt assets, and Executive Benefits Insurance Agency v. Arkison (In re Bellingham), which will address the bankruptcy court's authority to adjudicate Article III matters. The latter case will be argued in January and represents another opportunity for the Court to clarify (or reverse) its holding in Stern v. Marshall. He also provides a candid view of what it is like to argue a case before the Court.

David Bergeron Center for American Progress; Washington, D.C.