Talk:United States Trustee Program

Merger discussion
Before we go in this direction, it occurs to me that other countries may have trustees in bankruptcy, or the equivalent, in which case Trustee in bankruptcy could not properly be merged in here. Any thoughts? bd2412 T 03:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ...here's an example of use in the UK. bd2412  T 03:48, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Maybe the "trustee in bankruptcy" article should be kept separate from "United States Trustee Program" article for a couple of reasons.


 * First, at least in the United States the former article (trustee in bankruptcy) deals or should be dealing with people who are essentially private individuals (whether Chapter 7 "panel trustees," chapter 11 trustees, chapter 12 "standing trustees," or chapter 13 "standing trustees") who are subject to oversight by (but are not employees of) the United States Trustee Program.


 * By contrast, the "United States Trustee" is a government officer of the United States, an employee of the U.S. Department of Justice, and the United States Trustee Program is part of the Department of Justice.


 * Second, at some point the "trustee in bankruptcy" article might be expanded to discuss trustees in other countries, which discussion would not really "go" well in the article on "United States Trustee Program."


 * I would think maybe just leave the articles separate? Any thoughts? Famspear 20:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Strong vote against merging. Totally distinct concepts, different official goals, duties, etc. --Knowsetfree (talk) 18:29, 10 November 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a stale discussion at this point, but to make it clear, a merge would be a complete mistake. They are totally distinct concepts with similar sounding names. A trustee in bankruptcy is completely distinct from the U.S. Trustee. A bankruptcy trustee is apportioned by the court and often a private attorney; U.S. Trustee is a government position run by the DOJ. The person who nominated this merge isn't apparently aware of this distinction. LH (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that a merge would be a mistake. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:42, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

New Trustee obligations under BAPCPA
Should we include a section regarding the additional obligations added to the Trustee under BAPCPA that I discussed here? --David Tornheim (talk) 20:44, 12 February 2016 (UTC)