Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
With the enactment of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 ('BAPCPA'), many creditors expected to have additional grounds to obtain dismissals of Chapter 7 petitions. BAPCPA incorporated an income/expense test ('Means Test') into '707(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, wherein a bankruptcy court can dismiss a Chapter 7 petition for 'abuse.' Under the Means Test laid out in '707(b), 'abuse' is presumed if the debtor's 'current monthly income,' after subtracting for certain specified monthly expenses and multiplying by 60, is either: 1) equal to or greater than 25% of the debtor's nonpriority unsecured claims in the case, or $6,000, whichever is greater; or 2) $10,000, unless special circumstances exist that rebut the presumption of abuse.
Among other provisions, '707(b) authorizes a bankruptcy court to dismiss a Chapter 7 petition filed by an individual debtor, whose debts are primarily consumer debts, for 'abuse,' while '707(a) allows bankruptcy courts to dismiss a Chapter 7 petition for 'cause' and provides three nonexclusive examples of 'cause' warranting dismissal.
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.