Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Aug. 24, 2022, President Joe Biden announced the plan to forgive up to $10,000 in federal student debt for qualifying borrowers. This relief, however, was challenged in the courts and is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the interim, Biden's administration has sought to address student loan debt relief through another forum: the bankruptcy court. On Nov. 17, Biden's administration published instructive guidance to the Department of Education and the Department of Justice on how to treat student loan debt relief in bankruptcy court by standardizing the burden of "undue hardship" under Section 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Generally, student loans may be discharged in bankruptcy only if the student loan imposes an "undue hardship" on the petitioning debtor. The "undue hardship" burden is not only undefined by Congress; it is a standard that has generally been granted only in exceptional circumstances. In interpreting whether a debtor's student loans pose an undue hardship on the debtor, courts either apply the Brunner test (Brunner v. New York State Higher Education Services, 831 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. 1987)), or the "totality of the circumstances" test. Under the totality of the circumstances test, a bankruptcy court considers: the debtor's past, present, and reasonably estimated future financial resources; the debtor's — and any dependent's — reasonably necessary living expenses; and other relevant facts or circumstances that are unique to the case that might prevent the debtor from paying the student loans in question while still allowing the debtor to maintain a minimal standard of living, even when aided by a discharge of other prepetition debts.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.