Talk:Bankruptcy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Law Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field.
???	This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

	Business and Economics Portal This article is within the scope of Business and Economics WikiProject.
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
Top	rated as top-importance on the assessment scale

I think the term "non-exempt" should have a link to a list of the items or definitions that the law defines as non-exempt.

Done. Well, it's actually just a reference to types of exempt items; there isn't actually a list of all items -- the law varies by state, so this would be a pretty major effort by a future contributor.Tempshill 17:48, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

I'd appreciate contributions anyone might write about bankruptcy in countries other than the USA, and then some analysis of the comparison. Tempshill 17:48, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

I've made some major mods to this page to (what I think will) enhance accuracy for USA filers.

I've also made what could be construed as two a controversial changes. Rdsmith4 previously excised two links to www.beko.biz which when I last checked, was a link farm registered in Ireland. While it might have had some useful information if one continued clicking through from the referenced page, it felt too much like a commercial link. What will make this even more controversial was that I added an arguably self-serving but information-only link to my own Florida-only Florida Bankruptcy FAQ site. I invite redaction/comment as WPedians feel appropriate. Flawiki 23:58, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 BARF act of 2005 2 Recent edits 3 Prison population affected by new bankruptcy law: possibly biased? 4 NPOV of United Kingdom 5 Special cases 6 UK companies can't use Bankruptcy 7 Request 8 Canadian Bankruptcy 9 External links 10 Receivership 11 regarding the {{globalize}} -- Breaking jurisdiction-specific stuff out? 12 Relavent Information 13 Rebuilding Credit 14 Info on U.S. Bankruptcy Reform? 15 The evilness of bankruptcy. 16 Foreclosure vs. Liquidation 17 A simple definition 18 Cleanup 19 External links comment 20 Student Loans in Canada

[edit] BARF act of 2005

I've broken this out into a separate section (q: should this be a subsection to BR in the US?) and tried to fill in some of the more egregious changes in the act. The changes go well beyond adding a means test. I'm very comfortable stating that by saying it's merely (or that the most important part of BARF is) a means test is tantamount to expressing a POV.

For all intents and purposes the US Trustee is already enforcing a means test on Chapter 7, and therefore the means test aspect is a mere distraction. The devil is in the details, and there's quite a bit of evil in these details. But I'm well into POV myself with this paragraph and I look forward to all of your NPOV edits to this article. Flawiki 03:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits

my login had failed and I didn't notice - edits made this evening were by me. User:seglea 22:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Prison population affected by new bankruptcy law: possibly biased?

This section looks a bit opinionated to me. Hydroksyde 04:09, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

- Yes, it definitely seems like some sort of rambling half-formed opinion. I personally suggest deleting the thing. - 70.188.133.225

That section was also added (and rmd) from a couple of other BR related pages. I've rmd it here. Flawiki 20:56, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

bankruptcy fraud, is a federal crime that can lead to criminal prosecution under the charge of theft of the goods or services for some people this is can be a third strike they can be put in jail for life. Political hack 23:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Bankruptcy Fraud is not only a federal crime, it's a federal felony. The problem is that the deplorable, and IMO purchased-with-creditor-$$$$ BARF act doesn't change anything in Title 28(why is this a redlink? Someone else can/should play with it (hint), but Bankruptcy doesn't appear to be the appropriate place), and Title 28, dealing with crimes, is where you want to be. Flawiki 00:01, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

In response to Flawiki's hint, an article was created at Title 28. The title contains such a broad range of provisions that it's not suitable to a separate article. I've listed it for deletion. Anyone researching U.S. bankruptcy law will find most of the relevant provisions in Title 11. JamesMLane 10:59, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

And making matters worse, my butterfingers hinted the POV editor off to 28 instead of 18 USC. Your VfD encouraged another editor to take up a re-write on the Title 28 article, I hope you'll agree it turned out well. Flawiki 12:34, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

What is this (IMO purchased-with-creditor-$$$$ BARF act ) (posted by Political hack)

In My Opinion, the BARF act was purchased with massive quantities of dollars. Flawiki 23:30, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

The new bankruptcy law was purchased-with-creditor money, with massive quantities of dollars.

• Millions of lobbying dollars paid cbsnews.com Political hack 15:54, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV of United Kingdom

It remains to be seen whether the leash has been loosened too far and whether the legislation will need reviewing if the system becomes too overheated with debt-dumping debtors seems to be a very biased critique of the legal framework. I am proposing a rework of this situation as it also presents the situation in the UK as uniform - when it is not. Scotland has a seperate legal framework. Davidkinnen 13:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Northern Ireland also has a seperate legal framework - Cuddlyopedia 13:49 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Special cases

In the UK, have they made the Student loans company invulnerable to bankrupcy law (i.e. they, and nobody else, can demand full payment from a bankrupt person)? Ojw 18:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Not quite correct. A bankrupt is not released from his/her debt to the student loans company on discharge. They are also not released from fines, and from debts due in respect of damages for personal injury. - Cuddlyopedia 13:49 21 October 2005 (UTC)

That was exactly what I said, wasn't it? Ojw 18:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

It was the 'and nobody else' that wasn't correct - Cuddlyopedia 13:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] UK companies can't use Bankruptcy

Given the recent edits by Cuddlyopedia, stating that UK companies can go into administration but not bankruptcy, the caption I added for the illustration is presumably technically incorrect. -- Solipsist 12:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. You also had the wrong company. I've corrected it, hopefully (I'm new) in an acceptable manner. I intend to go through all the insolvency related articles so far as they appertain to the UK, once I have access to legal resources at work. - Cuddlyopedia 13:49 21 October 2005.

Not strictly true. Check out the multimedia links regarding the matter.

• UK Bankruptcy Multimedia Video Resorce

• In the UK, only individuals can go into bankruptcy. An insolvent company, if it does not go into administration (which is a rehabilition regime, the equivalent of the US Chapter 11) would go into insolvent liquidation. Also not to be confused with the foregoing is administrative receivership, which is a creditor controlled process. Legis 13:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

I looked up this entry in hopes of answering a question, and I thought I'd suggest that someone in the know add some info: I've heard of "Chapter 11" bankruptcy, and also of "Chapter 7." Where does this come from? There are, I assume, other chapters?

These refer to chapters of the relevant law in the United States Code. You can see the article Bankruptcy in the United States for more information. If that article doesn't explain it clearly, let me know and I'll try to improve it. Paul 03:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Bankruptcy

January 22, 2006. I am a Canadian trustee in bankruptcy and the original contributor who added the Canadian bankruptcy information. My objective was to write a concise overview to give people an idea of how Canadian bankruptcy works. I added three external links which I thought would add to the information while not cluttering up the page. The external links were on 1) Bankruptcy exemptions by province and territory 2) Canadian Bankruptcy FAQ 3) Details on Canadian Bankruptcy Reform.

Help me with the etiquette please. Someone removed the Canadian FAQ link (now restored by me). Someone also removed a "generic" description I made of proposals:

Personal proposals A debtor can make a "personal proposal" to his or her creditors, thus avoiding bankruptcy. Personal proposals are for those people who have funds available to make some payments to their creditors. Trustees have the duty to advise a debtor whom they think, has the ability to make a personal proposal. If the debtor does not file a proposal, the trustee will oppose his or her discharge, and recommend that the debtor remain in bankruptcy for a further year, and continue making payment during that time. Eligible debts are erased upon the satisfactory completion of the personal proposal.

A longer description of a consumer proposal (one of two types of proposal an individual can file) was substituted.

The help I need on etiquette is an explanation of what the rules on removing and substituting information are.

Trustee

[edit] External links

I think http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/ should go back in, as it's equilvalent to the US bankruptcy courts, from their info [1] it works under a statuarory framework, and is a sub department of the Department of Trade and Industry, so as a UK government body, think it's a very appropiate link. Another possibility would be to have no external links at all, and move all country specific ones under their sub article, but I think that would be too harsh MartinRe 15:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I probably shouldn't have deleted the non-profit link either. Sorry about the friendly fire. Monkeyman 02:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem Monkeyman - I will cut down on the coffee too lol. Regads Sean

[edit] Receivership

I notice that the topic 'Receivership' redirects directly to this page. I do not believe that is a correct redirection, since Receivership does not only apply to bankruptcy. For example, a person who owns a business that needs to be liquidated in order to satisfy a court judgement will find his business sent into receivership. Furthermore, the article doesn't refer to receivership at all. I believe there should be a new distinct topic for receivership that discusses its role in bankruptcies and also other proceedings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slaggg (talk • contribs) 5 April 2006 05:36 (UTC).

It probably should be a new topic; please be bold, it's a great idea! You would have to click on the "Redirected from Receivership" link after finding yourself on Bankruptcy so as to bypass the redirection for editing the unredirected page. Drop me a line on my talk page if you'd like another pair of hands on it. --Flawiki 21:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] regarding the {{globalize}} -- Breaking jurisdiction-specific stuff out?

Subsequent to the creation of the Bankruptcy in the United States article and the factoring of stuff from here into there, a number of editors have contributed some excellent material back into this article. Which is not a problem except insofar as we're back where we were when the US-specific bits were broken out.

By {{globalize}} maint. tagging and writing here I wanted to gently broach the idea to you all to see what thoughts you might have on how to help reduce the regional bias in this article? I was thinking perhaps excising all of the region-specific material and merging into the existing Bankruptcy in Canada, Bankruptcy in the United Kingdom, and Bankruptcy in the United States articles, leaving behind only the common law common history and most general of concepts while strongly emphasizing with great bold pointers into the region articles for jurisdictional-specific stuff. Please comment! --Flawiki 00:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relavent Information

I recently posted an article in the bankruptcy section called "Rebuilding Credit". I have worked closely with a bankruptcy attorney and know that this is a common concern for many people. I thought that this article would be useful, and relavent for this section of the site. I also placed a link to a website that I myself have gotten a lot of useful information from. Half an hour after I posted the article, it was completely deleted. I understand the concerns with my having placed a link to a website, but was there a need to delete the entire article? I was only trying to provide more detailed information from what I knew. —The preceding comment is by E.N.C. (talk • contribs) 19:47 25 May 2006: Please sign your posts!

Why not create a new article called "Rebuilding Credit?" I'm certain some of the information in the section is useful, but it seems to be geo limited...definitely doesn't work in the US for about half of it. Some of it is quite good through. In that it doesn't do what it says however I've rmd it, inserting the material here for discussion, and would encourage you to create a new article on Rebuilding Credit in (whatever_country_this_is_for). As far as the web site that was inserted that was probably removed as linkspam (see WP:EL) --Flawiki 21:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

---

Material removed on 25 May @ 2123:

[edit] Rebuilding Credit

It is possible for debtors in Canada and America to rebuild credit following the completion of their bankruptcy, if they follow several simple steps.

1. Complete the bankruptcy as soon as possible. If you have never filed for bankruptcy in the past, you are eligible for automatic discharge from bankruptcy in nine months. However, you must complete all of your duties, including monthly reports to the trustee, attending credit counseling sessions, and making all necessary payments. The sooner the bankruptcy is completed, the sooner it will be erased from the credit report.

2. Begin saving money. It is a well known fact that banks loan money to those who do not need money, not to those who desperately require it. You will have to prove that you can handle money if you want to borrow again, and the best way of doing that is to show that you have some savings. Try putting a certain amount of money in a savings account each month. This will allow you to build up a security deposit to be used for future borrowing.

3. Acquire a copy of the credit report. You should contact a credit bureau in your area and get a copy of your credit report. It should then be reviewed for accuracy. If any mistakes are found, such as debts appearing that were included in the bankruptcy, the credit bureau should be informed right away.

4. Get a secured Credit Card. One of the best ways to rebuild credit is with a secured credit card. You can use your savings on one credit card, to get a credit card with a similar credit limit. It will show up on the credit report as a normal credit card, and you can now have a credit card for use when you need it.

5. Start an RRSP. Use your additional savings to put money in an RRSP with a bank or investment advisor. If you contribute $1,000 to an RRSP, the bank will likely lend you another $1,000 to invest in your RRSP. This $2,000 will generate a tax refund at tax time that will almost be enough to pay off your loan. Your credit report will then show a paid off loan, and that looks great on your credit report! You’ll also have $2,000 invested in the RRSP.

6. Continue Saving. Your savings can now be used for down payment on a car or possibly even a house.

Rebuilding credit may take a few years, but by saving money you will eventually have the ability to borrow again.

---

Needs references and citations. Looks like original research without them. --ElKevbo 21:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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]:

this writer of the above statement seems pretty damn stupid. [This comment was added by an anonymous user at IP198.107.240.50 on 31 August 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 our 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)

[edit] Foreclosure vs. Liquidation

Hi - I was wondering what the main differences are between foreclosure and liquidation, which are two insolvency procedures (among others). Can someone explain the main differences and advantages of each? I am having trouble finding a cogent and succint explanation.

Foreclosure is a legal process by which a bank/secured creditor can realise on the real property pledged to it by a debtor when there has been a default on the mortgage over the property; you do not need to be insolvent for a foreclosure to occur. Liquidation is an insolvency process (in some countries) whereby the assets of a debtor are redistributed. Liquidation can also refer to a sale of assets (generally discounted) outside of insolvency. This is not legal advice, and any further discussion depends on the specifics (and probably doesn't belong here anyway!) Mochajava97 20:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A simple definition

I think that his article would benefit from the addition of this simple definition of bankcruptcy at the beginning as taken from the BBC website:

   "In most countries there are two tests for bankruptcy: 
      •A Company that cannot pay its debts because there is not enough money in the bank. 
      •A company with liabilities (or what it owes) that exceed its assets 
      (such as property,inventory or what it is owed)."

This would be advantageous for people just looking for a quick reference. It will also help to point out that there are subtle distinctions that exist with regards to the maening of the term: "bankruptcy" as bankcruptcy law is different in different countries e.t.c. --BusinessMan1 21:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear readers: I can speak only about the United States. The two definitions provided by user BusinessMan1 are, in the United States, essentially the two definitions for insolvency.

The first definition -- roughly the inability to pay one's debts as they become due -- is sometimes called equitable insolvency or "cash flow" insolvency in the U.S.

The second definition for "insolvent" -- roughly a financial position such that the amount of debts exceeds the value of assets, as adjusted for certain transfers -- is statutory insolvency, sometimes called "balance sheet" insolvency. (Note: Although the insolvency test for assets is usually based on fair market value of assets, most balance sheets under U.S. accounting standards value assets based on historical cost rather than at fair market value). Note: The actual statutory definition is longer and more complicated than the summarized version I provided, and is found at 11 U.S.C. § 101(32).

Theoretically, a company or individual could be "equitably insolvent" but not be "statutorily insolvent," or could be statutorily insolvent and yet not be equitably insolvent.

In the U.S. at least, the term "bankruptcy" is sometimes used to refer not to the "insolvency" itself, but rather to the state of actually being in a legal proceeding called bankruptcy. Of course, the term is sometimes used just to mean "insolvent" as well.

Stay tuned, I'll check for general definitions in Black's Law Dictionary later. Yours, Famspear 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear readers: Black's Law Dictionary gives many definitions of "insolvency," and here are some examples: "[s]uch a relative condition of a man's assets and liabilities that the former, if all made immediately available, would not be sufficient to discharge the latter" [sounds like statutory insolvency]; or "the condition of a person who is unable to pay his debts as they fall due" [sounds like equitable insolvency]. The dictionary also notes that for purposes of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (in the U.S.), "a person is insolvent who either has ceased to pay his debts in the ordinary course of business or cannot pay his debts as they fall due or is insolvent within the meaning of the Federal Bankruptcy Law" (citing UCC section 1-201(23)). Black's Law Dictionary, p. 716 (5th ed. 1979). Yours, Famspear 01:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Regardless the precise definition used, bankruptcy in the U.S. does not require insolvency. It would be a mistake to mistake the definition as concomitant with insolvency.LH 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I believe editor L33th4x0rguy (LH) is correct on that point. In the United States, there is no statutory requirement that you actually be insolvent in order to maintain your bankruptcy case. "Bankruptcy" and "insolvency," in this particular sense, are not exactly the same thing. Yours, Famspear 01:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

The detailed provisions on each country's particular laws should be removed from this overview article, and replaced with a link to the specific country's section. Right now there's too much overlap and clutter, not to mention factually dubious information. It would be much easier to maintain if it was in one location.LH 06:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] External links comment

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.

[edit] Student Loans in Canada

I noticed someone removed the paragraph - which I thought provided some good information. Should the section be deleted or restored?

- Former student —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.141.118.94 (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC).