Type: Debtor
Date: March 30, 2009
Description: Whether a creditor holding a claim that includes the payoff of negative equity in a trade-in vehicle has a purchase money security interest entitled to protection of the hanging paragraph.
Result: Debtor won. 611 F.3d 1158 (9th Cir. 2010).
Burnett v. Stewart Title, Inc., No. 10-20250 (5th Cir. 2010)
Type: Amicus
Date: June 21, 2010
Description: Whether § 525(b) prohibits discrimination against prospective employees based on the employees’ status as bankruptcy debtors.
Result: Debtor lost. 635 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2011).
In re Schafer, No. 11-1340 (6th Cir.)
Type: Amicus
Date: June 28, 2011
Description: Whether Michigan’s exemptions, which are available only to bankruptcy debtors, violate the Bankruptcy Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Result: Affirmed Aug. 20, 2012
In re Scott, No. 10-33131 (Bankr. S.D. Ill.)
Type: Amicus
Date: May 6, 2011
Description: Whether debtors who make some payments on secured vehicles can deduct the full Ownership Cost set forth in the IRS Local Standards when calculating projected disposable income.
Result: Debtor won. 2011 WL 3501835 (Bankr. S.D. Ill. Aug. 9, 2011)
Scott Bankr SD Ill opinion
Scott NACBA Amicus Bankr SD Ill
NCBRC Files Amicus on Absolute Priority Rule in Chapter 11
NCBRC’s Tara Twomey has filed an amicus brief on behalf of NACBA in the case of In re Friedman, No. 11-1149 (9th Cir. BAP) arguing that the absolute priority rule in chapter 11 does not apply to individual debtors. NCBRC’s brief argues that when Congress enacted the 2005 amendments it made significant amendments to chapter 11 in order to steer debtors toward reorganization rather than liquidation. Application of the absolute priority rule would have the contrary effect. This case presents one of the first opportunities for an appellate court to address whether the 2005 amendments to the Code abrogate the absolute priority rule for individuals. Other cases addressing this issue that are currently in the courts include: In re Maharaj, No. 11-217 (4th Cir.); In re Kamell, No. 11-1246 (9th Cir. BAP); In re Stephens, No. 11-29 (10th Cir. BAP); and In re Cobb, No. 09-25620 (Bankr. C.D. Cal.). Click here for the brief.