Fulltext Search
State Court Default Judgment Estops Debtor from Contesting Former In-laws’ Action to Deny Discharge in Later Bankruptcy (with bonus practice pointers!)

Just last month, the Bankruptcy Cave reported upon a Southern District of Texas case in which a debtor was denied discharge of a debt owed to an old (and likely former!?!) friend from church who had been required to pay off a student loan made to the debtor which the friend had guaranteed. Today we report another case involving friends and family and non-dischargeable student debt from the U.S.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (Bryan Cave), Bankruptcy
Awkward: Old Friend From Church Blocks Discharge of Student Loan Debt

Providing an exception to the axiom that no good deed goes unpunished, a Texas bankruptcy court recently declared nondischargeable a debt owed to a guarantor who had been forced to pay the debtor’s defaulted student loan.

USA, Texas, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner (Bryan Cave), Title 11 of the US Code, Third Circuit, US District Court for Southern District of Texas
Ninth Circuit Finally Abandons Entz-White: Default-Rate Interest Required to Cure and Reinstate Secured Debt Under Chapter 11 Plan

In 1994, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to add section 1123(d), which provides that, if a chapter 11 plan proposes to "cure" a default under a contract, the cure amount must be determined in accordance with the underlying agreement and applicable nonbankruptcy law. Since then, a substantial majority of courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, have held that such a cure amount must include any default-rate interest required under either the contract or applicable nonbankruptcy law.

USA, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Jones Day, Default (finance), Ninth Circuit, Eleventh Circuit
Ninth Circuit Abandons Entz-White: Default-Rate Interest Required to Cure and Reinstate Secured Debt Under Chapter 11 Plan

In 1994, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to add section 1123(d), which provides that, if a chapter 11 plan proposes to "cure" a default under a contract, the cure amount must be determined in accordance with the underlying agreement and applicable nonbankruptcy law. Since then, a substantial majority of courts, including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, have held that such a cure amount must include any default-rate interest required under either the contract or applicable nonbankruptcy law. See, e.g., JPMCC 2006-LDP7 Miami Beach Lodging, LLC v.

USA, Banking, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Jones Day, Ninth Circuit
Eleventh Circuit weighs in on section 1123(d): reinstatement of defaulted loan agreement under chapter 11 plan requires payment of default-rate interest

In 1994, Congress amended the Bankruptcy Code to, among other things, add section 1123(d), which provides that, if a chapter 11 plan proposes to “cure” a default under a contract, the cure amount must be determined in accordance with the underlying agreement and applicable nonbankruptcy law. Since then, a majority of courts have held that such a cure amount must include any default-rate interest required under either the contract or applicable nonbankruptcy law. A ruling recently handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit endorses this view.

USA, Insolvency & Restructuring, Litigation, Jones Day, Interest, Default (finance), Eleventh Circuit