Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The bankruptcy court adopted the "known or should have known" test arising out of Walker v. Citizens Bank, 726 F.2d 452 (8th Cir. 1984). Under that test, a court should permit the discharge of debt unless the debtor knew or should have known that the debt was incurred through fraud. [2]
In a Chapter 7 case, the debtor has no absolute right to discharge. A creditor or trustee may file an objection to the discharge of the debt. To object to a discharge, a creditor must file a complaint before the deadline outlined in the notice sent by the bankruptcy court. More than 90% of Chapter 7 debtors receive a discharge of debts. [12]
On July 13, 2015, DonJon filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Connecticut with a debt of $32,509,549.91. Modern bankruptcy law often distinguishes reorganization , in which only some of the bankrupt's assets are taken, a repayment plan is devised and part of the debt is discharged , from ...
The bankruptcy code does not authorize a release and injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seek to discharge claims against a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants. Ohio v. EPA: 23A349: June 27, 2024
The bankruptcy court still has various sanctions available to enforce its judgments: [5. outlines circumstances where the court can deny a discharge from bankruptcy; Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure §9011 authorizes the court to impose sanctions for bad-faith litigation conduct; it may also possess further sanctioning authority under ...
Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., 603 U.S. 204 (2024), is a United States Supreme Court case regarding Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. [1] The case addressed the 2022-2023 Purdue Pharma bankruptcy settlement and whether, under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release extinguishing claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants’ consent could move forward.
Get AOL Mail for FREE! Manage your email like never before with travel, photo & document views. Personalize your inbox with themes & tabs. You've Got Mail!
Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a bankruptcy court, as a non-Article III court (i.e. courts without full judicial independence) lacked constitutional authority under Article III of the United States Constitution to enter a final judgment on a state law counterclaim that is not resolved in the process of ruling on a ...