Talk:Bankruptcy/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Info on U.S. Bankruptcy Reform?

Why is there so little information on the U.S. Bankrutpcy Reform legislation that was enacted on October 17, 2005 (Arguably the most important piece of bankruptcy legislation passed since 1978)? Have contributors found it too hard to generalize across state lines? Is U.S. banruptcy too geographically limited to merit a robust discussion? Is it too soon for people to fully grasp exactly what the law will mean? It seems like wiki should have some more information on this topic given the large impact it has had on bankruptcy in the United States. If lack of contribution is the problem, please let me know and I will be happy to help.

75.131.170.210 01:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)== The evilness of bankruptcy. ==

[The following comments were added by an anonymous user at IP195.70.32.136 on 29 July 2006]: Why there is no paragraph on the dubious philosophy and legality of the bankruptcy idea in the article. This is very basic stuff that must be addressed, since bankruptcy, at least for individual people, does not exist in many countries of the world, due to moral and principial objections.

It is obvious that the institution of bankruptcy violates the santity of private property. What the debitor owes me is mine and the gov't can't strip people of private property without due compensation, as clearly stated in the Constitution. The judge must pay me what I lose when he grants the bankruptcy.

Also, bankruptcy is contrary to natural law, in that it violates the basic scientific law of "conservation of energy and matter" (since creditors' money disappears in a bankruptcy proceedings, even though money can be converted to material goods without restriction.) You can buy gold for money and gold is an element which has indestructible energy inside based on E=mc2.

Therefore bankruptcy should not exist and if the debitor ever recovers, he/she/it should pay, if needed under duress, no matter how many years have passed. The creditor should have power under natural law to detain the debitor and force him to return the loss via labour. This was the law with the wise ancient greeks, the first democracy in history. If the father owed money and couldn't pay, the entire family was put to "debt slavery" work, until the loss was recouped.

[End of comments by anonymous user at IP195.70.32.136 on 29 July 2006]:

• Well, if you substitute "rationale" for "evilness" he has a point (albeit a badly made one). Books have been written on the rationale for bankruptcy process (instead of just letting individual creditor's duke it out in a race for the assets). That concept probably does deserve a sub-heading. Probably two actually - as the treatment and rationale for bankrtupcy for individuals (fresh start and clean slate) and companies (collective distribution of assets generally produces more than a break-up, and is fairer to the creditors as a whole) is different. Legis 13:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

________________________________________________

Though I disagree, I understand and respect that some people do not believe that bankruptcy is morally justifiable. However, I have three disagreements with the arguments set forth in the "evilness of bankruptcy" post, above.

1. The title is biased. Any consideration of the philosophical and ethical underpinnings of bankruptcy must start from a neutral stance. An argument can surely be made that bankruptcy is immoral. However, an argument (a better one) can be made that it is not immoral. The point is that, if this issue becomes a heading under this topic, it should be neutral and discuss the pros and cons.

2. The "scientific" argument is fallacious. First of all, it attempts to compare a natural and tangible phenomenon (the conservation of energy) to a conceptual and intangible societal system. Secondly, the economics is wrong: we no longer operate under a "gold standard". Thirdly, the conservation of energy argument fails on its face: money doesn't disappear when a debtor files a bankruptcy proceeding; rather, the money that was loaned has been dispersed throughout the economic system in which the Debtor lives. Just because it doesn't come back to the creditor that loaned the money doesn't mean that it disppeared from existence. The law of conservation of energy is not, of necessity, circular; it simply states that energy does not vanish from existence.

3. The idea that we should revert to involuntary servitude and/or enslave a debtor's family is morally repugnant. The fact that the contributor drapes the argument in the laguage of "democracy" is insulting to the ideals of democracy and free trade.

75.131.170.210 01:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

US Bankruptcy Reform and the Courts The above author is correct in demanding that Wikipedia cover the effect of US Bankruptcy Reform. Reference should be made to the case of 01-25-2006 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION IN RE:GUILLERMO ALFONSO SOSA MELBA NELLY SOSA, DEBTOR(S) CASE NO. 05-20097-FM in which US Bankruptcy Judge Frank R. Monroe wrote in a Memorandum Opinion as follows: QUOTE The Congress of the United States of America passed and the President of the United States of America signed into law the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (the "Act"). It became fully effective on October 17, 2005. Those responsible for the passing of the Act did all in their power to avoid the proffered input from sitting United States Bankruptcy Judges, various professors of bankruptcy law at distinguished universities, and many professional associations filled with the best of the bankruptcy lawyers in the country as to the perceived flaws in the Act. This is because the parties pushing the passage of the Act had their own agenda. It was apparently an agenda to make more money off the backs of the consumers in this country. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Act has been highly criticized across the country. In this writer's opinion, to call the Act a "consumer protection" Act is the grossest of misnomers.

One of the more absurd provisions of the new Act makes an individual ineligible for relief under the Bankruptcy Code unless such individual, "has, during the 180-day period preceding the date of filing of the petition by such individual, received from an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency described in §111(a) an individual or group briefing (including a briefing conducted by telephone or on the Internet) that outlined the opportunities for available credit counseling and assisted such individual in performing a related budget analysis." See 11 U.S.C. §109(h)(1). No doubt this is a truly exhaustive budget analysis.

An individual who does not receive such counseling can only receive an exemption from such requirement if such debtor "submits to the court a certification that – (i) describes exigent circumstances that merit a waiver of the requirements of paragraph (1); (ii) states that the debtor requested credit counseling services from an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency, but was unable to obtain the services referred to in paragraph (1) during the 5-day period beginning on the date on which the debtor made that request; and (iii) is satisfactory to the court." See 11 U.S.C. §109(h)(3)(A). In the event such waiver is granted, the debtor must complete such counseling within 30 days after the petition date. See 11 U.S.C. §109(h)(3)(B).

Simply stated, if a debtor does not request the required credit counseling services from an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling service before the petition is filed, that person is ineligible to be a debtor no matter how dire the circumstances the person finds themselves in at that moment.

This Court views this requirement as inane. However, it is a clear and unambiguous provision obviously designed by Congress to protect consumers.

Facts of this Case In this case the Debtors admit they did not seek or request the required credit counseling services from an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency before filing their case even though they talked to Mr. Chapman by telephone prior to filing and he rightfully advised them to do so. Instead they filed this Chapter 13 case on December 6, 2005, "as an emergency measure to stop foreclosure on their homestead." See Debtors' Response to Court's Order to Show Cause. The Debtors responded to the Court's question as to why they waited so long to file their case by stating that they had been working with the mortgage company to determine the exact amount that was owed but that the lien holder had refused to accept payment at the last moment and that was what necessitated the emergency filing of bankruptcy.

Mr. Sosa has now undergone his credit counseling on Friday, December 16, 2005 and filed a Certificate. No certificate has been filed by Mrs. Sosa.

Decision One Debtor has now substantially complied with the intent of the Act by undergoing the required credit counseling. One has not but still could within the time limit if a waiver could be granted. However, because the Debtors did not request such counseling before they filed their case, Congress says they are ineligible for relief under the Act. Can any rational human being make a cogent argument that this makes any sense at all?

But let's not stop there. If the Debtors' case is dismissed and they re-file a new case within the next year, it may be that some creditor will take the position that the new case should be presumed to be filed not in good faith. See 11 U.S.C. §362(c)(3)(C). Section 362 further states that if subsection (c)(3)(C) applies, then the stay in that second case will only be good for thirty days unless the debtor (i) files a motion, (ii) obtains a hearing and ruling by the Court within such thirty-day period and (iii) proves by clear and convincing evidence that the second case was filed in good faith. It should be obvious to the reader at this point how truly concerned Congress is for the individual consumers of this country. Apparently, it is not the individual consumers of this country that make the donations to the members of Congress that allow them to be elected and re-elected and re-elected and re-elected.

The Court's hands are tied. The statute is clear and unambiguous. The Debtors violated the provision of the statute outlined above and are ineligible to be Debtors in this case. It must, therefore, be dismissed.

An Order of even date will be entered herewith. Congress must surely be pleased.

SIGNED this 22 day of December, 2005. FRANK R. MONROE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

Wikipedia readers in the USA have a right to know about this decision so that they will not make the same mistake that the above pro se litigants made in failing to file a Certificate of Credit Counseling. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talk • contribs) 20:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

NPOV failure via incompleteness

The article fails to adhere to WP:NPOV by completely failing to address views on the morality and ethics of bankruptcy and religious views thereon. These are significant viewpoints which are being completely omitted. The article is too narrowly focused on law. See for example usury which does treat both legal and ethical issues (if anything not giving enough emphasis to the legal issues). GRBerry 13:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that would be good information for this article, or even for it's own article. But, it I'm not with you in respect to how this changes the neutrality of the article. -- Craigtalbert 15:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

An article that meets NPOV represents "fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." If we are missing coverage of a set of significant views that are published in reliable sources, the article is by definition failing to be in compliance with NPOV. So if you agree that the views are significant, and are willing to take me on faith that there are plenty of reliable published sources out there for this, then the NPOV failure follows via simple logic. GRBerry 18:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

The morality issue may suggest that bankruptcy should be done away an no longer allowed to exist. Meanwhile the article itself with the focus on the legal existence of bankruptcy is a tacit assertion that bankruptcy should exist. These are two opposing points of view. GRBerry should spend more time with a substantive explanation rather than a procedural one. Faith is not adequate except in religion.EECavazos 18:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, apparently there is a morality issue. I googled "morality of bankruptcy" and came up with a search list of websites that discuss the morality of bankruptcy. Sure, most of them were religious but I can imagine that there is also some philosophical debate on the morality of bankruptcy because you end up paying your creditors less than what you promised. A possible approach to a morality section may be how the debtor is the immoral actor unlike usury where the creditor is the immoral actor. Of course, the creditors are usually not affected by an individual debtor unless it's obligations between individuals, but still it has the moral issue of a broken promise. Fraudulent bankruptcy is already touched upon, so maybe that can be drawn into the morality subheading. EECavazos 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree in part. Bankruptcy is primarily a legal and economic concept, and it sometimes has a moral dimension as well. I would argue that merely discussing the legal and economic aspects of bankruptcy in the article without addressing its moral dimensions does not, in and of itself, constitute the rendering of a "tacit assertion" that bankruptcy "should" exist (whatever that means). Further, omitting a section on the morality of bankruptcy (or, more specifically, the morality of having the government grant a person a discharge) might or might not constitute a lack of neutral point of view.

An article on bankruptcy arguably should include a mention of critiques from reliable, previously published third party sources on the morality of bankruptcy. This should be done not for the purpose of avoiding some theoretical "tacit assertion" about morality, but rather for the purpose of treating the topic comprehensively, and providing a more useful article for readers.

What some people refer to as "bankruptcy" actually refers to only a part of bankruptcy -- for example, the failure to pay one's debts in full or, alternatively, the granting of a discharge to the debtor (which of course generally results in the debtor not paying the debts in full, since that's why the debtor asked for the discharge in the first place). In some but not all bankruptcy proceedings, the debtor is granted a legal discharge from certain debts (which in most cases, obviously, end up not being fully paid) and the debtor is granted what is called a "fresh start."

That is only a part of the overall concept of bankruptcy. For example, there are always examples of people in bankruptcy who eventually do pay all their debts. (Rare, yes, but it does happen.)

In short, I agree with the idea of adding a mention of critiques on the morality of certain aspects of bankruptcy -- but for different reasons that those cited by my fellow editors. Famspear 20:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I wholly agree with Famspear. This is primarily a legal issue, however the morality discussion belongs in this article--the generic Bankruptcy article--as opposed to in a specific legal article (Bankruptcy law in the United States).

That said, this discussion has been here for a few months now and I don't see any contributions to the morality of bankruptcy. Someone [who believes this issue is important here] needs to begin this section. This NPOV tag cannot sit at the top forever.LH (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

After a month of no activity since the last request, an much longer since any activity advocating a change, I've removed the NPOV. If someone wants to add a morality/ethics section to this article that should be done. But a NPOV banner shouldn't sit at the top of the page, particularly when there's nothing objectionable; merely there's some suggestion that a section isn't fully fleshed out.LH (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

External links comment

I was wandering how an informative resource link was made down. "Common Questions on Bankruptcy Law", link i have contributed has more useful information. (http://www.nybankruptcyinfo.com/frequently-asked-questions.html)

I've just added a hidden comment in the External links section of the article. Maybe telling spammers that their links are removed quickly will discourage some of them from wasting history entries. Then again, maybe not. Seems like that space is about the only thing (if anything) the spammers bother to look at on Wikipedia. --Closeapple 04:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The picture at the top of the article is completely non-relevant.

Also, it is under the CC licence, but contains many company trademarks and logos, I don't know if this matters, but should be thought about by someone who knows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.161.209 (talk • contribs). on 2 January 2007.

As a "spammer" I thought it would be useful to add a search directory of people and institutions involved in Bankruptcy related issues. The link was taken down - any thoughts? (here's the link - http://www.spock.com/directory/American_Bankruptcy_Institute --SpockTeam2008 02 July 2008 (UTC)

Facially inappropriate because it contains links to people who practice bankruptcy law.EECavazos (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If the Spock link is facially inappropriate than why is the link to the "National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys" allowed. Also the link to the "Website of the Insolvency Service in the UK" is a service you have to pay for. The Spock directory (which is free)contains relevant links to people connected with bankruptcy (this includes lawyers, professors, authors, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpockTeam2008 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming no matter what I argue the link will be taken down - however I think the self-interest clause in the contribution guidelines is flawed. I feel if my contribution is relevant that should overshadow any self interest I may have-which in this case would be a link to a directory of people related to the bankruptcy industry --SpockTeam2008 02 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)