Consumer debtors file bankruptcy for many of reasons, but all ultimately want the same thing: a discharge of their debts. Stated very generally, a bankruptcy discharge operates to remove the personal liability of a consumer debtor from his or her pre-petition debts. Depending on whether a debtor files Chapter 7 or Chapter 13 bankruptcy, they can obtain a discharge within a few months after filing bankruptcy or following the completion of a five year plan of reorganization. During bankruptcy, a debtor is protected by the automatic stay.

Earlier this week, the Third Circuit affirmed a federal bankruptcy court’s dismissal of a mesothelioma claim against a bankrupt oil company that arose as an adversary proceeding fifteen years after the bankruptcy plan was confirmed and discharged all outstanding claims.  The Circuit held that because the parties conceded the claim arose at the time of the victim’s asbestos exposure, which pre-dated the defendant’s bankruptcy, a

The OCC has issued guidance to clarify supervisory expectations for national banks and federal savings associations in situations where secured consumer debt is discharged under Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceedings. The guidance issued on February 14 in OCC Bulletin 2014-4 describes the analysis necessary to “clearly demonstrate and document that repayment is likely to occur” to avoid the charge-off that would otherwise be required by the OCC’s Uniform Retail Credit Classification and Account Management Policy.

Last week, the 8th Circuit B.A.P. affirmed, first noting that criminal judgments, including restitution awards and liens, are afforded special protection from bankruptcy discharge.

Chapter 11 has long been used by companies to obtain relief from legacy tort liabilities. There has been a lingering question, however, as to whether chapter 11 can bar claims by tort litigants who were exposed to a hazardous material or defective product before bankruptcy but do not develop injuries until after the case is over. Some debtors have set up trusts and appointed representatives for so-called “future claimants”: this approach can be effective, but may add months or years to a bankruptcy case along with significant cost, business disruption and litigation.

In a decision that comes as welcome news to some employers, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that an employer that incurred withdrawal liability to a multiemployer pension plan had not become a plan fiduciary by failing to pay the withdrawal liability, and could discharge that liability in bankruptcy.

The Ninth Circuit recently held that an employer who failed to pay $170,045 in withdrawal liability could discharge the liability in bankruptcy. Carpenters Pension Trust Fund v. Moxley, No. 11-16133 (9th Cir. August 20, 2013). In so ruling, the Court rejected the Fund’s argument that unpaid withdrawal liability constituted a plan asset.

Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bullock v. BankChampaign, N.A., which addressed the circumstances in which a breach of fiduciary duty judgment can be discharged in bankruptcy proceedings.

In a corporate system based in part on the separation of ownership and control, the relationship between principals and agents is riddled with agency problems: Among them are potential conflicts of interest where agents may abuse their fiduciary position for their own benefit as opposed to the benefit of the principals to whom they are obligated. Delineating the agents' fiduciary duties is thus a central focus of corporate law, and the dereliction of those duties often comes under scrutiny in the bankruptcy context.

A recent decision by the Second Circuit underscores the importance to debt collectors of accurately describing the options available to a student loan borrower in bankruptcy, even a borrower who previously filed but did not seek the determination of undue hardship that would have been a necessary predicate to any discharge.