Collier Bankruptcy Case Update December-10-01
- West's Bankruptcy Newsletter
A Weekly Update of Bankruptcy and Debtor/Creditor Matters
Collier Bankruptcy Case Updates
The following case summaries appear in the Collier Bankruptcy Case Update, which is published by Matthew Bender & Company Inc., one of the LEXIS Publishing Companies.
December 10, 2001
CASES IN THIS ISSUE
(scroll down to read the full summary)
- 1st Cir.
§ 106(b) Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of section 106(b)’s waiver of sovereign immunity.
Arecibo Cmty. Health Care, Inc. v. P.R. (1st Cir.)
2d Cir.
§ 522(b)(2)(A) Deferred compensation plan funds deemed exempt.
In re Maurer (Bankr. W.D.N.Y.)§ 523(a)(8) Tuition incentive program fell within the ambit of section 523(a)(8).
Mehlman v. N.Y. City Board of Educ. (In re Mehlman) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)28 U.S.C. § 157(b) Core proceeding was remanded for arbitration.
Cibro Petroleum Prods. v. City of Albany (In re Winimo Realty Corp.) (S.D.N.Y.)
3d Cir.
§ 366(a) Utility improperly refused to restore service.
One Stop Realtour Place, Inc. v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (In re One Stop Realtour Place, Inc.) (Bankr. E.D. Pa.)§ 503(b) Plaintiff’s motion for administrative expense priority granted, in part and denied, in part.
In re Grand Union Co. (Bankr. D.N.J.)
4th Cir.
§ 727(a)(4)(A) Denial of discharge was upheld on appeal because the debtor knowingly made a false oath in his chapter 7 case. Brown v. Presidential Fin. Corp. (In re Brown) (W.D. Va.)
5th Cir.
Rule 9006(b)(1) Creditors demonstrated excusable neglect in late filing of proofs of claim.
In re Babcock & Wilcox Co. (E.D. La.)
6th Cir.
§ 362(b)(4) Automatic stay was applicable to lawsuit.
Chao v. Hosp. Staffing Servs., Inc. (6th Cir.)§ 502 Government entitled to offset debtor’s postpetition claim for tax refund against IRS’s prepetition tax penalty claims.
Gordon Sel-Way, Inc. v. United States (In re Gordon Sel-Way, Inc.) (6th Cir.)§ 510(c) Court of Appeals refused to equitably subordinate participation interest claims.
Bayer Corp. v. Mascotech, Inc. (In re Autostyle Plastics, Inc.) (6th Cir.)
7th Cir.
§ 553(a) Bank was entitled to setoff against funds in joint account.
Mottaz v. Union Planters Bank, N.A. (In re Dame) (Bankr. S.D. Ill.)§ 1322(b)(1) Denial of plan confirmation was upheld on appeal.
Crawford v. Chatterton (In re Crawford) (W.D. Wis.)
8th Cir.
§ 507(a)(8) Debtor could not change status of tax claim from priority to general unsecured claim absent clear notice to the IRS.
De Jesus v. United States (In re De Jesus) (Bankr. D. Minn.)
9th Cir.
§ 1322(b)(1) District court vacated bankruptcy court order that confirmed debtor’s plan and excused her from proving that plan classification favoring her mother did not discriminate unfairly.
Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill) (B.A.P. 9th Cir.)
10th Cir.
§ 510(b) Application of section 510(b) subordination hinged on whether issuer of note was the debtor’s affiliate.
NationsBank, N.A. v. Commercial Fin. Servs. (In re Commercial Fin. Servs.) (Bankr. N.D. Okla.)Rule 9011(b) Sanctions warranted where debtors primary motive in filing multiple chapter 13 petitions was to stop the bank’s foreclosure sales rather than participate in debt adjustment.
In re Copeland (Bankr. D. Kan.)
11th Cir.
§ 362(d) Stay was lifted to permit regulatory proceedings to commence.
White v. Weatherford (In re Abrass) (Bankr. M.D. Fla.)§ 522(g) Debtors could not exempt assets that they failed to disclose in initial schedules.
Henkel v. Green (In re Green) (Bankr. M.D. Fla.)§ 523(a)(6) Attorney’s fees were recoverable in nondischargeability action based on willful and malicious injury.
USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Auffant (In re Auffant) (Bankr. M.D. Fla.)
Collier Bankruptcy Case Summaries
1st. Cir.
Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of section 106(b)’s waiver of sovereign immunity. 1st Cir. In 1984 the health department of the commonwealth (Puerto Rico) entered into a series of contracts with the debtor, a private entity, for the administration of a hospital. In 1991, the department filed suit against the debtor in superior court, alleging failure to render services pursuant to the contract. Shortly thereafter, the debtor filed its chapter 11 petition, which was later converted to chapter 7. The department filed a proof of claim in the approximate amount of $1.6 million. The trustee commenced an adversary proceeding against the department, based on various state law claims, and arising out of the same contract and operative facts as the superior court action. The department argued that the trustee’s claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The bankruptcy court held that sections 106(a) and (b) were invalid as to the department, reasoning that Congress could not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity by a conditional waiver, namely, by filing the proof of claim. On appeal, the district court affirmed the ruling as to the invalidity of section 106(a), but concluded that waiver of immunity was permissible because it was premised upon the affirmative undertaking of the state to participate in the bankruptcy process. The department asked the court to reconsider its ruling, and during the pendency of that request, the United States Supreme Court decided College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 144 L.E.2d 605, 119 S.C. 2219 (1999), which reasoned that a constructive waiver approach was incompatible with cases requiring the express waiver of sovereign immunity. The district court upheld the constitutionality of section 106(b), and an appeal followed. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed, holding that section 106(b) was constitutionally infirm. The debtor moved for a rehearing, which was granted. The department grounded its argument in the College Savings ruling, which stated that the voluntariness of a waiver was destroyed when it was presumptively triggered by 'otherwise lawful activity,' which, the department contended, was the nature of its claim filing. The debtor argued that section 106(b) was a permissible means of obtaining a waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to compulsory counterclaims arising from a proof of claim. The Court of Appeals vacated its prior decision and affirmed the ruling of the district court, holding that the College Savings decision recognized that a state relinquished its sovereign immunity when it voluntarily invoked federal court jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals concluded that the department waived its immunity when it availed itself of federal jurisdiction by filing the proof of claim. The Court of Appeals also held that the waiver was broad in scope, and not restricted to defensive counterclaims for recoupment, because nothing in College Savings purported to impose such restrictions once the waiver was triggered.Arecibo Cmty. Health Care, Inc. v. P.R., 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 23202, – F.3d. – (1st Cir. October 29, 2001) (Torruella, C.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 2:106.06
2d. Cir.
Deferred compensation plan funds deemed exempt. Bankr. W.D.N.Y. In connection with a request made by the court in an earlier decision regarding the debtor’s claimed exemption for certain deferred compensation plan funds, the debtor’s counsel provided the court with a copy of an IRS ruling concluding that, at least as of the end of 1999, the plan was 'qualified' under section 457 of the Internal Revenue Code. The court then held that a section 457-qualified plan is a plan 'on account of age'; thus, the deferred compensation plan funds in this case were deemed exempt. The court analyzed case law interpreting the phrase 'on account of age' and concluded that the phrase seems to require simply that rights and benefits be defined, by statute, by reference to age; it is not necessary that achieving a particular age be a precondition to receiving any rights or benefits.In re Maurer, 2001 Bankr. LEXIS 1330, 268 B.R. 339 (Bankr. W.D.N.Y. August 17, 2001) (Kaplan, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 5:522.10
Tuition incentive program fell within the ambit of section 523(a)(8). Bankr. S.D.N.Y. The creditor was a city (New York) board of education, which provided occupational and physical therapy services to special education students. The creditor created an incentive program providing training in such therapy, whereby a student enrolling in a training program could receive tuition benefits from the incentive program in exchange for accepting employment as directed by the creditor for a number of years commensurate with the years during which the student received tuition payments. The debtor was accepted into the incentive program in 1996. In 1998, the debtor failed two consecutive fieldwork projects and was removed from her occupational therapy program. In 2000, the debtor received a letter from the creditor requesting repayment of approximately $42,000 in scholarship monies. Shortly thereafter, the debtor filed a chapter 7 petition and commenced an adversary proceeding, seeking a declaration that her obligation to the creditor was dischargeable. The debtor argued that the incentive program was not an 'educational benefit program' or 'student loan' within the meaning of section 523(a)(8). The creditor argued that the tuition payments made on the debtor’s behalf were precisely the type of debt barred from discharge by section 523(a)(8). The bankruptcy court ruled for the creditor, holding that the funds paid by the creditor were based on a contract whereby the creditor delivered a sum of money to the debtor, who agreed to return at a future time the rendering of services equivalent to that which was borrowed, constituting a paradigm of a loan as encompassed by section 523(a)(8).Mehlman v. N.Y. City Board of Educ. (In re Mehlman), 2001 Bankr. LEXIS 1340, 268 B.R. 379 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. October 16, 2001) (Hardin, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 4:523.14
Core proceeding was remanded for arbitration. S.D.N.Y. The public lessor appealed the bankruptcy court’s order denying its motion to compel arbitration of disputes arising under prepetition contracts between the chapter 11 debtor and itself and for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration. Although the leases between the parties provided that any claim arising out of the leases was to be settled by arbitration, the debtor filed an adversary proceeding against the lessor seeking a declaratory judgment with respect to payments made in lieu of taxes. The bankruptcy court concluded that the matter was a core proceeding and refused to compel arbitration of the proceeding. The district court reversed, holding that although the proceeding was core, the bankruptcy court improperly determined that it had discretion to proceed to trial rather than compel arbitration. The bankruptcy court’s determination that the matter was a core proceeding was correct, because the lessor’s codefendant had filed proofs of claim against the estate, and the debtor’s interest in the leases was the single biggest asset of the estate that remained to be liquidated. Nevertheless, because there was no evidence that arbitration of the proceeding would have jeopardized an underlying policy of the Bankruptcy Code, the bankruptcy court lacked the discretion to proceed to trial.Cibro Petroleum Prods. v. City of Albany (In re Winimo Realty Corp.), 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17500, – B.R. – (S.D.N.Y. October 25, 2001) (Scheindlin, D.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 1:3.02
3d. Cir.
Utility improperly refused to restore service. Bankr. E.D. Pa. The debtor filed a complaint against the telephone service provider, arguing that the provider wrongly refused to restore telephone service upon the filing of the company’s chapter 11 petition as required by section 366. After the debtor filed its petition and its principal contacted the provider requesting that service be restored, the provider refused to restore service prior to receipt of a cash deposit. The provider subsequently restored service pending receipt of adequate assurances approximately one month later, in accordance with an agreement obtained by the debtor’s counsel. The bankruptcy court determined that the provider violated section 366, holding that the filing of the debtor’s petition required the service provider to restore telephone service prior to obtaining adequate assurance payment. Because the debtor could be entitled to compensatory damages, the court allowed the debtor an opportunity to present further evidence of damages suffered as a result of the violation (citing Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised).One Stop Realtour Place, Inc. v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (In re One Stop Realtour Place, Inc.), 2001 Bankr. LEXIS 1353, 268 B.R. 430 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. October 17, 2001) (Carey, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 3:366.02
Plaintiff’s motion for administrative expense priority granted, in part and denied, in part. Bankr. D.N.J. Pursuant to a prepetition contract, the plaintiff provided prepetition and postpetition warehousing, ice manufacturing, supply and transportation services to the chapter 11 debtor. After the debtor rejected the contract, the plaintiff moved to obtain administrative expense priority and payment for certain of its claims against the debtor. The debtor opposed this relief on the ground that all of the plaintiff’s claims constituted rejection damages pursuant to section 502(g) and, thus, were not entitled to priority under section 503(b). The bankruptcy court granted the plaintiff’s motion, in part, and denied the motion, in part. The court held that the plaintiff’s claim for excess inventory that had been delivered qualified as an administrative priority expense because it arose postpetition, and was incurred at the request of the debtor and for the benefit of the debtor’s estate. However, the court also held that claims that arose pursuant to 'shortfall' and 'repurchase' provisions contained in the parties’ agreement were not entitled to administrative priority status. The court concluded that the plaintiff’s right to payment under the 'shortfall' and 'repurchase' provisions were part of the plaintiff’s rejection damages and were only entitled to be treated as prepetition unsecured claims.In re Grand Union Co., 2001 Bankr. LEXIS 1326, 266 B.R. 621 (Bankr. D.N.J. August 30, 2001) (Winfield, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 4:503.06
4th. Cir.
Denial of discharge was upheld on appeal because the debtor knowingly made a false oath in his chapter 7 case. W.D. Va. The chapter 7 debtor appealed the bankruptcy court’s order denying his discharge pursuant to section 727(a)(4)(A). The debtor failed to disclose in his schedules and statement of affairs the sale of his residence eight days prior to his petition, the payment of creditors with a portion of the sale proceeds and the transfer of a substantial portion of the proceeds to his wife. The debtor also falsely testified at the meeting of creditors that he had paid a share of the proceeds to the IRS. The district court affirmed, holding that the record adequately supported the bankruptcy court’s finding that the debtor knowingly and fraudulently made a false oath in connection with the case. The omissions in the debtor’s schedules and statement were material because they related directly to the discovery of the debtor’s assets, and the false testimony was material because it falsely construed the disposition of the debtor’s property. Brown v. Presidential Fin. Corp. (In re Brown), 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17676, – B.R. – (W.D. Va. October 26, 2001) (Wilson, D.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 6:727.04
5th. Cir.
Creditors demonstrated excusable neglect in late filing of proofs of claim. E.D. La. The debtors filed petitions in February 2000. In April 2000, the district court withdrew the reference of these cases with respect to certain issues, including motions to set a bar date, setting procedure for notifying claimants, and prescribing the form of proofs of claim. On October 6, 2000, the bankruptcy court entered an order requiring persons with settled claims to submit proofs of claim by March 29, 2001. On October 30, 2000, the district court entered an order requiring all personal injury claimants to file proofs of claim by July 30, 2001. On August 20, 2001, the court granted the claimants’ motion for an enlargement of time to file a proof of claim under the 'excusable neglect' provision of Rule 9006(b)(1). The debtors then moved the court to reconsider that decision, arguing that the claimants failed to meet their burden of showing excusable neglect. The court rejected the debtors’ argument and denied the motion to reconsider, holding that the requirements for demonstrating excusable neglect had been met. Namely, (1) the debtors acted in good faith in seeking more time; (2) the claimants’ stated reasons for seeking the motion were sufficient, because the admitted clerical errors and oversight were understandable when their attorney filed nearly 7,000 proofs of claim; and (3) the length of delay was negligible, since the claims were filed only 10 days after the original deadline. In re Babcock & Wilcox Co., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16741, – B.R. – (E.D. La. October 11, 2001) (Vance, D.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 10:9006.06[3]
6th. Cir.
Automatic stay was applicable to lawsuit. 6th Cir. The chapter 7 trustee appealed the district court’s preliminary injunction ordering him to deposit sufficient funds with the clerk of district court. The United States Secretary of Labor filed a lawsuit postpetition in the district court to enforce certain provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act. The secretary contended that certain of the debtor’s records had been produced in violation of the Act’s wage provisions, because the debtor’s employees had not been paid their wages during the company’s last weeks of operation. The district court allowed the trustee to transfer the records, which were necessary to generate accounts receivable, only upon the payment of the employees’ wage claims. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that because the secretary’s lawsuit was not in furtherance of her statutory powers to regulate and enforce labor standards, but rather was designed to promote the private rights of the unpaid workers vis-a-vis other creditors of the estate, the suit did not fall within the police power exception to the automatic stay. Because the automatic stay was applicable, the district court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the secretary’s lawsuit.Chao v. Hosp. Staffing Servs., Inc., 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 23426, – F.3d – (6th Cir. October 31, 2001) (Boggs, C.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 3:362.05[5]
Government entitled to offset debtor’s postpetition claim for tax refund against IRS’s prepetition tax penalty claims. 6th Cir. The debtor filed a voluntary petition for relief under chapter 11. The debtor’s plan of reorganization and liquidation called for the debtor to sell all its assets and cease doing business. The IRS had filed claims for unpaid unemployment tax ('FUTA') penalties and, under the reorganization plan, these claims were treated as general unsecured claims. After the plan was confirmed, the debtor paid its unemployment taxes and became entitled to FUTA refunds. Although the IRS agreed that the debtor was entitled to the tax refund, it refused to pay the refund because it argued that the debtor was liable for past tax penalties. The debtor then filed an adversary complaint against the IRS to subordinate the IRS’s claim, and the bankruptcy court granted the debtor’s motion. The IRS appealed the bankruptcy court’s decision and, while this appeal was pending, the debtor liquidated all of its assets (except for the tax refunds) and disbursed the proceeds pursuant to the terms of the plan, except that the debtor did not make any disbursements to the IRS. The bankruptcy court ultimately reversed its ruling regarding subordination of the IRS’s claim but still ruled that the government was not entitled to setoff. The IRS appealed the setoff ruling. On appeal, the district court reversed the bankruptcy court’s ruling and the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. In this case, setoff was permissible because the debtor’s status as a debtor in possession had expired upon confirmation of the plan, and, thus, there was no mutuality problem. Further,because the IRS had not been paid its pro rata share of the monies that were distributed to all unsecured claims, allowing setoff was necessary in order to prevent a situation where the government would be treated worse than other creditors in the same class. Gordon Sel-Way, Inc. v. United States (In re Gordon Sel-Way, Inc.), 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 22938, – F.3 – (6th Cir. October 26, 2001) (Jones, C.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 4:502.03
Court of Appeals refused to equitably subordinate participation interest claims. 6th Cir. In 1982, the debtor entered into a long-term, revolving loan agreement with Creditor A, secured by a continuously perfected blanket lien on substantially all the debtor’s assets. Subsequently, Creditors B and C entered into subordinated participation agreements that provided for an extension of funds to allow Creditor A to fund additional borrowings by the debtor. In 1988, the debtor formally asked Creditor D to guarantee a proposed $4 million loan from a separate lender. That proposed loan was characterized as a bridge loan. Creditor D later stated that it was never informed by the debtor that the loans were secured by senior security interests in favor of Creditor A. Creditor B extended the loan, and the debtor granted a security interest in machinery and equipment, second in priority only to Creditor A’s lien. The participation interests of Creditors B and C were disclosed in general terms in the debtor’s audited financial statements. In 1996, the debtor filed a chapter 11 petition, which was later converted to chapter 7. In 1997, Creditor D filed a motion for adequate protection, asserting that it had a security interest in property of the debtor that was second in priority to Creditor A’s security interest, but ahead of the claims of Creditors B and C. The bankruptcy court treated the motion as an adversary proceeding, and the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment to Creditors B and C, rejecting Creditor D’s contention that the B and C claims must be equitably subordinated to Creditor D’s claim. Later, the court found that the participation agreements were valid. The district court affirmed, and this appeal followed. Creditor D argued that equitable subordination was mandated because (1) the subordination agreements were essentially 'secret liens' that were concealed from Creditor D; (2) Creditors B and C engaged in inequitable conduct by not putting Creditor D on notice of their claim to share Creditor A’s senior lien position; and (3) the debtor was undercapitalized at the time the subordination agreements were made. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that Creditor D had failed to meet the requirements of equitable subordination pursuant to section 510(c). Specifically, (1) the assertion regarding bridge loans was baseless, since there was no evidence that Creditors B and C used power to control in such a way that they engaged in inequitable conduct, particularly in that the subordination agreements were valid; (2) the notice argument was insufficient, since the loans were discussed in the financial statements within the context of Creditor A’s credit facility; and (3) undercapitalization alone was not adequate to justify subordination of insider claims, which required some additional showing of inequitable conduct.Bayer Corp. v. Mascotech, Inc. (In re Autostyle Plastics, Inc.), 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 22602, – F.3d. – (6th Cir. October 22, 2001) (Boggs, C.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 4:510.05[1][a]
7th. Cir.
Bank was entitled to setoff against funds in joint account. Bankr. S.D. Ill. The married debtors opened a deposit account in joint tenancy, with the right of survivorship, at the creditor bank. The debtor wife was the chief executive officer of a corporation, which executed a promissory note payable to the creditor in the principal sum of $120,000. The codebtor personally guaranteed payment of the note, which matured in 1999, and remained unpaid. In 2000, the debtors deposited the sum of $15,400 in the joint account and shortly thereafter, the creditor set off deposit account funds of $14,852.18 against the unpaid balance of the note. After the debtors filed their chapter 7 petition, the trustee commenced this adversary proceeding to recover the sum of $7,426.09, representing the debtor husband’s share of the funds. The trustee argued that the account documents did not contractually authorize the creditor to set off funds belonging to the debtor husband, and that state (Illinois) law created only a presumption that each of the owners of a joint account could be treated as the absolute owner of all funds, which presumption could be rebutted by proof that a portion of the funds was owned individually. The bankruptcy court examined the deposit agreement and determined that it unequivocally granted the creditor the right to set off the debtor wife’s obligation under the guaranty against any funds she had at the bank, including funds in a joint account. The court then held that extrinsic evidence of the debtor husband’s ownership of funds was of no bearing, because the creditor was contractually entitled to exercise its right to setoff. Mottaz v. Union Planters Bank, N.A. (In re Dame), 2001 Bankr. LEXIS 1347, 268 B.R. 529 (Bankr. S.D. Ill. October 12, 2001) (Meyers, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 5:553.03
Denial of plan confirmation was upheld on appeal. W.D. Wis. The chapter 13 debtor appealed the order of the bankruptcy court denying confirmation of his proposed plan and dismissing his petition. Under the debtor’s plan, his general unsecured nondischargeable claim for child support assigned to a governmental entity was to be paid before the other unsecured claims. The debtor argued that such discrimination between classes of claims was not unfair, but rather promoted the public policies of encouraging the payment of child support obligations and giving him a fresh start. The district court affirmed, holding that the bankruptcy court did not err when it concluded that the assigned child support obligation could not be classified more favorably than other general unsecured claims. The court noted a split of authority on the issue and followed the line of cases that focused on the disparate treatment received by unsecured claimants not in the favored class.Crawford v. Chatterton (In re Crawford), 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17473, 268 B.R. 832 (W.D. Wis. July 27, 2001) (Crabb, D.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 8:1322.05
8th. Cir.
Debtor could not change status of tax claim from priority to general unsecured claim absent clear notice to the IRS. Bankr. D. Minn. The debtor filed a chapter 13 petition, and the IRS was scheduled as a creditor in the case. In the debtor’s plan of debt adjustment, the debtor typed language stating, in part, that 'notwithstanding a creditor’s proof of claim... the classification of tax debts... [are classified] as unsecured... and confirmation of the plan will be considered a determination of proper classification.' The IRS filed several proofs of claim asserting priority status, but the IRS did not object to the debtor’s plan. The debtor’s plan was confirmed, and the debtor made payments as called for under the plan. After the end of the plan term, the trustee filed a motion to dismiss the debtor’s case without discharge because, while the debtor had paid the 'raw-dollar amount' contemplated by the debtor’s plan, the debtor had failed to pay the trustee an amount sufficient to satisfy all allowed priority claims in full, and the maximum term of the debtor’s plan had expired under statute. At the hearing on the trustee’s motion, the debtor indicated that he would file an adversary proceeding against the IRS, seeing declaratory relief regarding the IRS’s claim. The court noted that the debtor had submitted his plan on the standard form mandated by local bankruptcy rules, and the prefatory language on the form clearly preserved the process of formal allowance of claims as the means by which a priority creditor’s actual distribution rights are fixed. The court also found that the IRS’s right to the status of a priority claim and the total amount it was entitled to receive were established by that process. Further, the court found that, had the debtor desired to change the IRS’s claim from priority status to unsecured status, the simple requirements of due process required a clear notice to the IRS. The court then ruled that (1) the IRS’s claim was properly treated as a priority claim, (2) confirmation of the debtor’s plan did not result in the IRS’s claim being transformed to a general unsecured claim, and (3) the debtor was not entitled to discharge under chapter 13 until he paid the trustee sufficient funds to pay the allowed IRS claim in full.De Jesus v. United States (In re De Jesus), 2001 Bankr. LEXIS 1337, 268 B.R. 185 (Bankr. D. Minn. September 28, 2001) (Kishel, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 4:507.10
9th. Cir.
District court vacated bankruptcy court order that confirmed debtor’s plan and excused her from proving that plan classification favoring her mother did not discriminate unfairly. B.A.P. 9th Cir. The chapter 13 trustee appealed a bankruptcy court order that confirmed the debtor’s plan and excused her from proving that a plan classification favoring her mother over other creditors did not discriminate unfairly. The debt arose, apparently, from the debtor’s use of her mother’s personal credit cards. The bankruptcy court held that because of the 'however' clause contained in section 1322(b)(1), which allows a debtor to treat claims for consumer debt with a coobligor differently than other unsecured claims, the ban on unfair discrimination contained in section 1322(b)(1) did not apply. The B.A.P. for the Ninth Circuit vacated the bankruptcy court’s decision and remanded the matter for further proceedings. The court held that the 'however' clause did not apply in this case, because there was no individual who was liable on the relevant debt with the debtor within the meaning of section 1322(b)(1); thus, the bankruptcy court incorrectly premised confirmation on a hypothetical question. The court explained that the 'liable with' requirement of section 1322(b)(1) means that both the debtor and the co-obligor must be liable to some other creditor. In this case, absent evidence that the credit card issuers were parties to any arrangement between the debtor and her mother regarding the use of the mother’s credit cards, the debtor’s mother did not qualify as an individual who was 'liable on the debt with the debtor' (citing Collier on Bankruptcy 15th Ed. Revised).Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill), 2001 Bankr. LEXIS 1323, 268 B.R. 548 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. September 28, 2001) (Klein, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 8:1322.05
10th. Cir.
Application of section 510(b) subordination hinged on whether issuer of note was the debtor’s affiliate. Bankr. N.D. Okla. The debtor was engaged in the business of purchasing defaulted consumer loans and receivables, and then attempting to collect them. In 1998, the debtor and creditor entered an agreement whereby the debtor would effectuate the transfer of loan packages to a master business trust, which would issue trust certificates. The creditor would receive a promissory note from one of the certificate holders, in consideration for extending a loan whose proceeds would be redirected to the debtor. The note was to be repaid with proceeds from collections by the debtor on the loans contained in the master trust. The creditor entered the note purchase agreement, after performing a due diligence investigation prior to committing to the proposed agreement, during which the debtor made a number of false or misleading statements to explain its financial status, principally by failing to disclose that it had been relying on bulk sales of loans to an affiliated company at inflated prices to meet its collection goals. Accordingly, the master trust issued trust certificates to a series trust, which in turn issued a series note to the creditor, who transferred $189 million to the debtor. After the debtor filed its chapter 11 petition, the creditor filed an adversary proceeding, arguing that certain funds held by the debtor had been impressed with a constructive or resulting trust in the creditor’s favor and that, consequently, such funds were not property of the estate and were, therefore, within the creditor’s reach. The debtor filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the creditor’s claim for a constructive trust was essentially a claim for the rescission of the sale of a security and therefore conflicted with section 510(b), which mandated that such rescission claims must be subordinated to other claims. The creditor countered with the assertion that the funds were not estate property because the note’s issuer, the series trust, was not an affiliate of the debtor. The bankruptcy court held that the series note was a security encompassed by the language of section 510(b), but declined to rule whether the creditor’s claim fell within the parameters of subordination as required by that provision. The court found that it could not yet determine as a matter of law whether the series note was a security of the debtor or a security of an affiliate of the debtor. The court concluded that, because the creditor could present a set of facts that would exclude it from the reach of section 510(b) if the issuer of the series note was not an affiliate of the debtor, the adversary complaint could not be dismissed (citing Collier on Bankruptcy 15th Ed. Revised). NationsBank, N.A. v. Commercial Fin. Servs. (In re Commercial Fin. Servs.), 2001 Bankr. LEXIS 1342, 268 B.R. 579 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. October 15, 2001) (Rasure, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 4:510.04
Sanctions warranted where debtors primary motive in filing multiple chapter 13 petitions was to stop the bank’s foreclosure sales rather than participate in debt adjustment. Bankr. D. Kan. On the day before the bank was to foreclose against the debtor’s residence, the debtor filed an individual chapter 13 petition, automatically staying the sale. When the debtor’s petition was dismissed, the debtor filed a second chapter 13 petition, stopping a second foreclosure sale. When that petition was dismissed, the debtor’s husband filed his individual petition, stopping a third sale. At a hearing on the bank’s motion for relief from the stay in the third case, the court sua sponte ordered the debtor, his wife and counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed pursuant to Rule 9011. At the show cause hearing, where the debtors and counsel did not appear, the court found that the debtors did not evidence an intent to comply with the rules and procedures of chapter 13 or to complete a plan of debt adjustment. The court also found that their primary motive from the outset was to stop the bank’s foreclosure sales by filing chapter 13 petitions. The court further found that counsel for the debtors failed to show cause why his conduct in filing and participating in the debtors’ multiple filings did not constitute an abuse of the bankruptcy process. After finding that the conduct of the debtors and their counsel constituted an abuse of the bankruptcy system, the court imposed sanctions against the debtors to reimburse the bank for its attorney’s fees, publication costs and other expenses. The court also imposed sanctions against the debtors’ counsel for its participation in the debtors’ abuses.In re Copeland, 2001 Bankr. LEXIS 1344, 268 B.R. 273 (Bankr. D. Kan. June 14, 2001) (Flannagan, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 10:9011.04[8], 06[2], 08
11th. Cir.
Stay was lifted to permit regulatory proceedings to commence. Bankr. M.D. Fla. After the bankruptcy court determined that the chapter 13 debtor had committed actual fraud against the creditor, the creditor moved for relief from the automatic stay to initiate a complaint with the state (Florida) real estate commission. The creditor intended to assert a claim against the debtor, stating that as his company’s real estate broker, she committed fraud resulting in a loss of funds. The creditor further sought to recover a portion of his monetary damages from the state real estate recovery fund, which had been established to reimburse parties defrauded by real estate brokers. The bankruptcy court granted the motion, holding that the creditor demonstrated sufficient cause to justify modification of the automatic stay to allow the filing of a claim before the state regulatory commission. The creditor was entitled to pursue recovery from the fund, and the public deserved protection from the commission’s oversight. The court further noted that in the event the commission revoked or suspended the debtor’s license, she would likely be unable to propose a feasible chapter 13 plan.White v. Weatherford (In re Abrass), 2001 Bankr. LEXIS 1361, 268 B.R. 665 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. September 28, 2001) (Jennemann, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 3:362.07
Debtors could not exempt assets that they failed to disclose in initial schedules. Bankr. M.D. Fla. In January 1999, the debtors, who were married, filed a chapter 7 petition, but failed to disclose various financial accounts whose value was approximately $800,000. In addition, the debtors listed their combined 1998 income as $45,840, but it developed that their income for the four years prepetition was over $2.6 million. It was not until September 2000 that the debtors filed amended schedules disclosing the financial accounts, all of which the debtors designated as exempt. The trustee objected to the claims of exemption, arguing that the debtors were not entitled to exempt the belatedly-scheduled accounts because they deliberately failed to disclose them until 18 months after the original schedules were filed. The trustee asserted that the exemptions were claimed in bad faith and that, pursuant to section 522(g), the debtors were not entitled to exempt recovered property. One debtor explained the omission by stating that the original schedules were signed in blank, with the required information to be entered by their attorneys afterward, and that access to necessary information was frustrated by the FBI’s investigation of one debtor’s medical practice. The trustee also sought denial of the debtors’ discharge pursuant to various subsections of section 727(a), and sought to recover the debtors’ $50,000 wedding gift to their daughter. The bankruptcy court, noting the omission of property in the original schedules and the failure to disclose transfers of estate property worth $300,000, termed the debtors’ pattern of behavior a 'textbook illustration' of when discharge should be denied. The court went on to examine the trustee’s section 522(g) arguments and held that the provision did not apply because the trustee did not actually bring any property into the estate that was not already in the debtors’ possession. But the court followed Eleventh Circuit precedent and determined that the debtors could not exempt property omitted from their initial schedules, because it was clear that the debtors intended to hide assets from the reach of creditors. The court concluded that if the only penalty imposed on the debtors was the requirement to amend schedules once the omissions were detected, dishonesty would be too attractive. The court also found that the trustee was entitled to recover the wedding gift as a fraudulent conveyance and that the debtors were entitled to retain an exempt annuity account because it was listed in the initial schedules.Henkel v. Green (In re Green), 2001 Bankr. LEXIS 1362, 268 B.R. 628 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. July 10, 2001) (Jennemann, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 4:522.12[1]
Attorney’s fees were recoverable in nondischargeability action based on willful and malicious injury. Bankr. M.D. Fla. The debtor commenced an action in state (Florida) court against the creditor, her insurance carrier, which had denied the debtor’s claim for a theft loss of a laptop computer. The basis for the denial was that the debtor had (1) intentionally concealed and misrepresented material facts in the investigation of the claim and (2) made false statements or engaged in fraudulent conduct during the investigation. The jury returned a verdict for the creditor, based on both of the creditor’s allegations. Specifically, the jury found that the debtor had made the claim in an inflated amount and that certain supporting documents were either fabricated or materially misleading. Thereafter, the creditor filed a motion for attorney’s fees and costs of approximately $57,000. After the debtor filed a chapter 7 petition, the creditor filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking a determination that the award of attorney’s fees and costs was nondischargeable pursuant to section 523(a)(6). Both parties stipulated that the state court judgment should be given collateral estoppel effect. The bankruptcy court held, as a threshold matter, that the debt resulted from the debtor’s intentional misrepresentation, which was intended to cause injury to the creditor by the prosecution of a false claim. The court went on to find that because the actions of the debtor were willful and malicious, the attorney’s fees and costs were nondischargeable. USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Auffant (In re Auffant), 2001 Bankr. LEXIS 1321, 268 B.R. 689 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. October 16, 2001) (Williamson, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 4:523.12
Annual Business and Non-business Filings by District (2001-2004)
Annual Business and Non-business Filings by District (2001-2004)
2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
District | Total Filings |
Business Filings | Non-Business Filings |
Percent Consumer |
Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer |
District of Alaska | 1,473 | 104 | 1,369 | 91.79% | 1,479 | 120 | 1,359 | 91.89% | 1,510 | 121 | 1,389 | 91.99% | 1,508 | 64 | 1,444 | 95.76% |
Middle District of Alabama | 8,236 | 135 | 8,101 | 98.36% | 9,842 | 128 | 9,714 | 98.70% | 8,824 | 73 | 8,751 | 99.17% | 8,634 | 90 | 8,544 | 98.96% |
Northern District of Alabama | 23,918 | 219 | 23,699 | 99.08% | 24,598 | 191 | 24,407 | 99.22% | 26,027 | 158 | 25,869 | 99.39% | 25,930 | 182 | 25,748 | 99.30% |
Southern District of Alabama | 6,695 | 74 | 6,621 | 98.89% | 7,419 | 62 | 7,357 | 99.16% | 7,570 | 56 | 7,514 | 99.26% | 7,408 | 53 | 7,355 | 99.28% |
Eastern District of Arkansas | 13,702 | 174 | 13,528 | 98.73% | 15,107 | 148 | 14,959 | 99.02% | 15,641 | 254 | 15,387 | 98.38% | 15,644 | 220 | 15,424 | 98.59% |
Western District of Arkansas | 7,782 | 116 | 7,666 | 98.51% | 8,439 | 134 | 8,305 | 98.41% | 8,666 | 175 | 8,491 | 97.98% | 8,619 | 156 | 8,463 | 98.20% |
District of Arizona | 25,489 | 753 | 24,736 | 97.05% | 29,716 | 756 | 28,960 | 97.46% | 31,811 | 701 | 31,110 | 97.80% | 31,387 | 480 | 30,907 | 98.47% |
Central District of California | 88,195 | 2,553 | 85,642 | 97.11% | 84,115 | 2,413 | 81,702 | 97.13% | 75,712 | 2,041 | 73,671 | 97.30% | 60,633 | 1,613 | 59,020 | 97.34% |
Eastern District of California | 32,259 | 1,273 | 30,986 | 96.05% | 31,497 | 1,232 | 30,265 | 96.29% | 31,166 | 1,111 | 30,055 | 96.44% | 28,985 | 964 | 28,021 | 96.67% |
Northern District of California | 19,838 | 1,220 | 18,618 | 93.85% | 21,405 | 1,266 | 20,139 | 94.09% | 22,948 | 1,079 | 21,869 | 95.30% | 21,819 | 972 | 20,847 | 95.55% |
Southern District of California | 13,367 | 192 | 13,175 | 98.56% | 12,890 | 230 | 12,660 | 98.22% | 11,833 | 270 | 11,563 | 97.72% | 11,259 | 199 | 11,060 | 98.23% |
District of Colorado | 18,800 | 467 | 18,333 | 97.52% | 21,359 | 590 | 20,769 | 97.24% | 25,956 | 552 | 25,404 | 97.87% | 28,169 | 786 | 27,383 | 97.20% |
District of Connecticut | 11,613 | 156 | 11,457 | 98.66% | 11,751 | 181 | 11,570 | 98.46% | 12,246 | 187 | 12,059 | 98.47% | 11,423 | 132 | 11,291 | 98.84% |
District of Columbia | 2,559 | 49 | 2,510 | 98.09% | 2,503 | 52 | 2,451 | 97.92% | 2,311 | 55 | 2,256 | 97.62% | 1,933 | 41 | 1,892 | 97.88% |
District of Delaware | 4,259 | 1,374 | 2,885 | 67.74% | 3,789 | 649 | 3,140 | 82.87% | 3,918 | 505 | 3,413 | 87.11% | 3,668 | 276 | 3,392 | 92.48% |
Middle District of Florida | 49,187 | 1,048 | 48,139 | 97.87% | 52,923 | 852 | 52,071 | 98.39% | 55,511 | 646 | 54,865 | 98.84% | 52,207 | 542 | 51,665 | 98.96% |
Northern District of Florida | 6,182 | 91 | 6,091 | 98.53% | 6,598 | 73 | 6,525 | 98.89% | 7,121 | 72 | 7,049 | 98.99% | 6,641 | 73 | 6,568 | 98.90% |
Southern District of Florida | 31,743 | 757 | 30,986 | 97.62% | 32,656 | 878 | 31,778 | 97.31% | 31,792 | 816 | 30,976 | 97.43% | 27,041 | 568 | 26,473 | 97.90% |
Middle District of Georgia | 17,132 | 140 | 16,992 | 99.18% | 17,932 | 165 | 17,767 | 99.08% | 18,142 | 193 | 17,949 | 98.94% | 17,654 | 124 | 17,530 | 99.30% |
Northern District of Georgia | 38,437 | 908 | 37,529 | 97.64% | 42,437 | 1,055 | 41,382 | 97.51% | 46,756 | 1,239 | 45,517 | 97.35% | 45,115 | 1,825 | 43,290 | 95.95% |
Southern District of Georgia | 14,526 | 114 | 14,412 | 99.22% | 15,344 | 139 | 15,205 | 99.09% | 16,307 | 153 | 16,154 | 99.06% | 15,191 | 141 | 15,050 | 99.07% |
District of Hawaii | 5,039 | 68 | 4,971 | 98.65% | 4,485 | 53 | 4,432 | 98.82% | 3,795 | 72 | 3,723 | 98.10% | 3,112 | 47 | 3,065 | 98.49% |
Northern District of Iowa | 4,377 | 185 | 4,192 | 95.77% | 4,646 | 207 | 4,439 | 95.54% | 4,940 | 211 | 4,729 | 95.73% | 5,070 | 234 | 4,836 | 95.38% |
Southern District of Iowa | 6,699 | 104 | 6,595 | 98.45% | 7,162 | 147 | 7,015 | 97.95% | 7,642 | 112 | 7,530 | 98.53% | 8,012 | 126 | 7,886 | 98.43% |
District of Idaho | 8,265 | 303 | 7,962 | 96.33% | 8,913 | 260 | 8,653 | 97.08% | 9,660 | 225 | 9,435 | 97.67% | 9,488 | 160 | 9,328 | 98.31% |
Central District of Illinois | 14,465 | 195 | 14,270 | 98.65% | 15,649 | 188 | 15,461 | 98.80% | 16,367 | 166 | 16,201 | 98.99% | 15,626 | 188 | 15,438 | 98.80% |
Northern District of Illinois | 51,348 | 770 | 50,578 | 98.50% | 57,598 | 875 | 56,723 | 98.48% | 59,068 | 681 | 58,387 | 98.85% | 54,857 | 603 | 54,254 | 98.90% |
Southern District of Illinois | 8,770 | 582 | 8,188 | 93.36% | 9,084 | 177 | 8,907 | 98.05% | 10,076 | 144 | 9,932 | 98.57% | 9,749 | 121 | 9,628 | 98.76% |
Northern District of Indiana | 18,890 | 189 | 18,701 | 99.00% | 20,864 | 202 | 20,662 | 99.03% | 21,155 | 203 | 20,952 | 99.04% | 20,695 | 148 | 20,547 | 99.28% |
Southern District of Indiana | 29,176 | 415 | 28,761 | 98.58% | 32,656 | 459 | 32,197 | 98.59% | 34,640 | 437 | 34,203 | 98.74% | 33,770 | 376 | 33,394 | 98.89% |
District of Kansas | 13,937 | 220 | 13,717 | 98.42% | 14,969 | 238 | 14,731 | 98.41% | 16,192 | 303 | 15,889 | 98.13% | 16,289 | 268 | 16,021 | 98.33% |
Eastern District of Kentucky | 11,550 | 299 | 11,251 | 97.41% | 12,208 | 321 | 11,887 | 97.37% | 13,388 | 158 | 13,320 | 99.49% | 12,949 | 144 | 12,805 | 98.89% |
Western District of Kentucky | 14,633 | 175 | 14,458 | 98.80% | 15,060 | 124 | 14,936 | 99.18% | 16,509 | 169 | 16,340 | 98.98% | 15,169 | 175 | 14,994 | 98.84% |
Eastern District of Louisiana | 10,236 | 169 | 10,067 | 98.35% | 9,750 | 165 | 9,585 | 98.31% | 10,135 | 124 | 10,011 | 98.78% | 9,845 | 129 | 9,716 | 98.69% |
Middle District of Louisiana | 3,343 | 33 | 3,310 | 99.01% | 3,692 | 68 | 3,624 | 98.16% | 4,047 | 30 | 4,017 | 99.26% | 4,261 | 42 | 4,219 | 99.01% |
Western District of Louisiana | 13,440 | 514 | 12,926 | 96.18% | 13,691 | 439 | 13,252 | 96.79% | 15,393 | 345 | 15,048 | 97.76% | 15,717 | 451 | 15,266 | 97.13% |
District of Massachusetts | 17,654 | 427 | 17,227 | 96.40% | 17,399 | 380 | 17,019 | 97.82% | 18,260 | 396 | 17,864 | 97.83% | 18,444 | 315 | 18,129 | 98.29% |
District of Maryland | 35,388 | 758 | 34,630 | 97.86% | 35,573 | 873 | 34,700 | 97.55% | 34,231 | 523 | 33,708 | 98.47% | 29,467 | 417 | 29,050 | 98.58% |
District of Maine | 4,548 | 151 | 4,397 | 96.68% | 4,422 | 101 | 4,321 | 97.72% | 4,660 | 105 | 4,555 | 97.75% | 4,508 | 138 | 4,370 | 96.94% |
Eastern District of Michigan | 32,785 | 401 | 32,384 | 98.78% | 39,968 | 481 | 39,487 | 98.78% | 45,755 | 390 | 45,365 | 99.15% | 47,038 | 446 | 46,592 | 99.05% |
Western District of Michigan | 14,041 | 287 | 13,754 | 97.96% | 15,639 | 321 | 15,318 | 97.95% | 16,999 | 294 | 16,705 | 98.27% | 17,174 | 235 | 16,939 | 98.63% |
District of Minnesota | 18,704 | 1,887 | 16,817 | 89.91% | 19,487 | 1,729 | 17,758 | 91.13% | 20,987 | 1,379 | 19,608 | 93.43% | 17,970 | 1,374 | 16,596 | 92.35% |
Eastern District of Missouri | 16,868 | 296 | 16,572 | 98.25% | 18,264 | 181 | 18,083 | 99.01% | 20,217 | 168 | 20,049 | 99.17% | 19,537 | 159 | 19,378 | 99.19% |
Western District of Missouri | 13,836 | 209 | 13,627 | 98.49% | 16,027 | 213 | 15,814 | 98.67% | 17,613 | 210 | 17,403 | 98.81% | 18,068 | 195 | 17,873 | 98.92% |
Northern District of Mississippi | 7,841 | 96 | 7,745 | 98.78% | 8,169 | 131 | 8,038 | 98.40% | 8,391 | 127 | 8,264 | 98.49% | 8,420 | 63 | 8,357 | 99.25% |
Southern District of Mississippi | 14,275 | 193 | 14,082 | 98.65% | 14,228 | 178 | 14,050 | 98.75% | 13,855 | 155 | 13,700 | 98.88% | 12,757 | 107 | 12,650 | 99.16% |
District of Montana | 4,002 | 149 | 3,853 | 96.28% | 4,062 | 120 | 3,942 | 97.05% | 4,385 | 98 | 4,287 | 97.77% | 4,332 | 1009 | 4,223 | 97.48% |
Eastern District of North Carolina | 13,917 | 231 | 13,686 | 98.34% | 15,072 | 225 | 14,847 | 98.51% | 15,875 | 209 | 15,666 | 98.68% | 14,707 | 163 | 14,544 | 98.90% |
Middle District of North Carolina | 10,908 | 257 | 10,651 | 97.64% | 11,822 | 247 | 11,575 | 97.91% | 12,681 | 182 | 12,499 | 98.56% | 11,775 | 236 | 11,539 | 97.99% |
Western District of North Carolina | 8,887 | 125 | 8,762 | 98.59% | 9,488 | 104 | 9,384 | 98.90% | 10,609 | 137 | 10,472 | 98.71% | 10,122 | 87 | 10,035 | 99.14% |
District of North Dakota | 2,232 | 115 | 2,117 | 94.85% | 2,074 | 116 | 1,958 | 94.41% | 2,293 | 105 | 2,188 | 95.42% | 2,288 | 85 | 2,203 | 96.28% |
District of Nebraska | 7,202 | 144 | 7,058 | 98.00% | 7,721 | 152 | 7,569 | 98.03% | 8,625 | 238 | 8,387 | 97.24% | 8,992 | 207 | 8,785 | 97.70% |
District of New Hampshire | 3,931 | 334 | 3,597 | 91.50% | 4,034 | 212 | 3,822 | 94.74% | 4,426 | 178 | 4,248 | 95.98% | 4,651 | 158 | 4,493 | 96.60% |
District of New Jersey | 41,484 | 730 | 40,754 | 98.24% | 40,999 | 689 | 40,310 | 98.32% | 42,377 | 734 | 41,643 | 98.27% | 41,280 | 684 | 40,596 | 98.34% |
District of New Mexico | 8,660 | 620 | 8,040 | 92.84% | 9,274 | 693 | 8,581 | 92.53% | 9,777 | 774 | 9,003 | 92.08% | 9,520 | 727 | 8,793 | 92.36% |
District of Nevada | 18,102 | 419 | 17,683 | 97.69% | 19,736 | 462 | 19,274 | 97.66% | 20,561 | 321 | 20,240 | 98.44% | 16,912 | 257 | 16,655 | 98.48% |
Eastern District of New York | 25,491 | 384 | 25,107 | 98.14% | 26,218 | 337 | 25,881 | 98.71% | 25,950 | 293 | 25,657 | 98.87% | 26,446 | 293 | 26,153 | 98.89% |
Northern District of New York | 15,760 | 425 | 15,335 | 97.30% | 16,310 | 346 | 15,964 | 97.88% | 17,403 | 333 | 17,070 | 98.09% | 17,505 | 285 | 17,220 | 98.37% |
Southern District of New York | 14,904 | 1,236 | 13,668 | 91.71% | 16,409 | 1,598 | 14,811 | 90.26% | 17,552 | 1,059 | 16,493 | 93.97% | 20,739 | 3,195 | 17,544 | 84.59% |
Western District of New York | 12,905 | 387 | 12,518 | 97.00% | 13,353 | 304 | 13,049 | 97.72% | 14,894 | 302 | 14,592 | 97.97% | 15,288 | 297 | 14,991 | 98.06% |
Northern District of Ohio | 37,012 | 1,218 | 35,794 | 96.71% | 41,983 | 971 | 41,012 | 97.69% | 48,456 | 878 | 47,578 | 98.19% | 47,519 | 861 | 46,658 | 98.19% |
Southern District of Ohio | 34,074 | 576 | 33,498 | 98.31% | 36,842 | 567 | 36,275 | 98.46% | 41,315 | 548 | 40,767 | 98.67% | 42,329 | 571 | 41,758 | 98.65% |
Eastern District of Oklahoma | 4,275 | 95 | 4,180 | 96.09% | 4,746 | 87 | 4,659 | 98.17% | 5,129 | 70 | 5,059 | 98.64% | 4,905 | 82 | 4,823 | 98.33% |
Northern District of Oklahoma | 5,896 | 503 | 5,393 | 91.47% | 6,680 | 264 | 6,416 | 96.05% | 7,710 | 280 | 7,430 | 96.37% | 7,572 | 235 | 7,337 | 96.90% |
Western District of Oklahoma | 13,333 | 343 | 12,990 | 97.43% | 13,071 | 256 | 12,815 | 98.04% | 14,363 | 262 | 14,101 | 98.18% | 14,175 | 342 | 13,833 | 97.59% |
District of Oregon | 23,038 | 1,389 | 21,649 | 93.97% | 24,649 | 1,606 | 23,043 | 93.48% | 25,370 | 1,591 | 23,779 | 93.73% | 24,455 | 852 | 23,603 | 96.51% |
Eastern District of Pennsylvania | 24,014 | 319 | 23,695 | 98.67% | 24,887 | 318 | 24,569 | 98.72% | 25,800 | 350 | 25,450 | 98.64% | 24,191 | 396 | 23,795 | 98.36% |
Middle District of Pennsylvania | 12,232 | 811 | 11,421 | 93.37% | 12,675 | 461 | 12,214 | 96.36% | 14,003 | 280 | 13,723 | 98.00% | 14,179 | 298 | 13,881 | 97.90% |
Western District of Pennsylvania | 15,692 | 411 | 15,281 | 97.38% | 17,239 | 484 | 16,755 | 97.19% | 19,620 | 563 | 19,057 | 97.13% | 20,932 | 444 | 20,488 | 97.88% |
District of Rhode Island | 4,883 | 64 | 4,819 | 98.69% | 4,907 | 65 | 4,842 | 98.68% | 4,557 | 48 | 4,509 | 98.95% | 4,142 | 74 | 4,068 | 98.21% |
District of South Carolina | 14,149 | 147 | 14,002 | 98.96% | 15,753 | 178 | 15,575 | 98.87% | 16,212 | 142 | 16,070 | 99.12% | 15,455 | 175 | 15,280 | 98.97% |
District of South Dakota | 2,706 | 164 | 2,542 | 93.94% | 2,659 | 119 | 2,540 | 95.52% | 2,847 | 110 | 2,737 | 96.14% | 2,821 | 108 | 2,713 | 96.17% |
Eastern District of Tennessee | 19,272 | 379 | 18,893 | 98.03% | 19,524 | 277 | 19,247 | 98.58% | 20,495 | 247 | 20,248 | 98.79% | 19,537 | 249 | 19,288 | 98.73% |
Middle District of Tennessee | 14,599 | 237 | 14,362 | 98.38% | 15,477 | 251 | 15,226 | 98.38% | 16,498 | 201 | 16,297 | 98.78% | 15,618 | 167 | 15,451 | 98.93% |
Western District of Tennessee | 26,469 | 270 | 26,199 | 98.98% | 28,207 | 207 | 28,000 | 99.27% | 28,351 | 149 | 28,202 | 99.47% | 25,967 | 132 | 25,835 | 99.49% |
Eastern District of Texas | 11,504 | 427 | 11,077 | 96.29% | 12,175 | 341 | 11,834 | 97.20% | 13,264 | 326 | 12,938 | 97.54% | 12,958 | 343 | 12,615 | 97.35% |
Northern District of Texas | 27,146 | 1,099 | 26,047 | 99.18% | 28,084 | 1160 | 26,924 | 95.87% | 31,469 | 1,223 | 30,246 | 96.11% | 32,616 | 1,304 | 31,312 | 96.00% |
Southern District of Texas | 20,243 | 1,061 | 19,182 | 94.76% | 21,269 | 810 | 20,459 | 96.19% | 25,996 | 786 | 25,210 | 96.98% | 27,121 | 709 | 26,412 | 97.39% |
Western District of Texas | 18,128 | 568 | 17,560 | 96.87% | 18,522 | 683 | 17,839 | 96.31% | 21,111 | 818 | 20,293 | 96.13% | 21,050 | 738 | 20,312 | 96.49% |
District of Utah | 19,411 | 475 | 18,936 | 97.55% | 22,129 | 602 | 21,527 | 97.28% | 22,084 | 519 | 21,565 | 97.65% | 41,585 | 299 | 41,286 | 99.28% |
Eastern District of Virginia | 29,271 | 311 | 28,960 | 98.94% | 30,092 | 399 | 29,693 | 98.67% | 30,528 | 406 | 30,122 | 98.67% | 28,319 | 318 | 28,001 | 98.88% |
Western District of Virginia | 12,492 | 613 | 11,879 | 95.09% | 12,738 | 570 | 12,168 | 95.53% | 12,940 | 550 | 12,390 | 95.75% | 12,157 | 432 | 11,725 | 96.45% |
District of Vermont | 1,748 | 97 | 1,651 | 94.45% | 1,826 | 91 | 1,735 | 95.02% | 1,903 | 78 | 1,825 | 95.90% | 1,698 | 85 | 1,613 | 95.00% |
Eastern District of Washington | 10,149 | 332 | 9,817 | 96.73% | 10,213 | 252 | 9,961 | 97.53% | 10,480 | 260 | 10,220 | 97.52% | 9,453 | 230 | 9,223 | 97.57% |
Western District of Washington | 26,986 | 310 | 26,676 | 98.85% | 29,030 | 446 | 28,584 | 98.46% | 30,075 | 477 | 29,598 | 98.41% | 28,956 | 435 | 28,521 | 98.50% |
Eastern District of Wisconsin | 14,612 | 236 | 14,376 | 98.38% | 16,857 | 221 | 16,636 | 98.69% | 18,850 | 191 | 18,659 | 98.99% | 18,227 | 225 | 18,002 | 98.77% |
Western District of Wisconsin | 7,469 | 498 | 6,971 | 93.33% | 8,438 | 635 | 7,803 | 92.47% | 9,396 | 531 | 8,865 | 94.35% | 9,183 | 517 | 8,666 | 94.37% |
Northern District of West Virginia | 4,101 | 133 | 3,968 | 96.76% | 4,446 | 131 | 4,315 | 97.05% | 4,654 | 101 | 4,553 | 97.83% | 4,621 | 160 | 4,461 | 96.54% |
Southern District of West Virginia | 6,122 | 189 | 5,933 | 96.91% | 6,020 | 226 | 5,794 | 96.25% | 6,447 | 189 | 6,258 | 97.07% | 6,913 | 87 | 6,826 | 98.74% |
District of Wyoming | 2,493 | 45 | 2,448 | 98.19% | 2,264 | 47 | 2,217 | 97.92% | 2,460 | 44 | 2,416 | 98.21% | 2,482 | 65 | 2,417 | 97.38% |
District of Guam | 288 | 27 | 261 | 90.63% | 379 | 23 | 356 | 93.93% | 367 | 12 | 355 | 96.73% | 346 | 6 | 340 | 98.27% |
District of the Northern Mariana Islands | 26 | 8 | 18 | 69.23% | 25 | 3 | 22 | 88.00% | 19 | 3 | 16 | 84.21% | 23 | 1 | 22 | 95.65% |
District of Puerto Rico | 14,346 | 333 | 14,013 | 97.68% | 13,811 | 351 | 13,460 | 97.46% | 14,273 | 254 | 14,019 | 98.22% | 13,285 | 286 | 12,999 | 97.85% |
District of the Virgin Islands | 65 | 12 | 53 | 81.54% | 60 | 8 | 52 | 86.67% | 52 | 3 | 49 | 94.23% | 38 | 5 | 33 | 86.84% |
United States | 1,492,129 | 40,099 | 1,452,030 | 97.31% | 1,577,651 | 38,540 | 1,539,111 | 97.56% | 1,660,245 | 35,037 | 1,625,208 | 97.89% | 1,597,462 | 34,317 | 1,563,145 | 97.85% |
1st Circuit Annual Total Bankruptcy Filings for 1990-2011
1st Circuit Annual Total Bankruptcy Filings for 1990-2011 | |||||
District of Massachusetts | District of Maine | District of New Hampshire | District of Rhode Island | District of Puerto Rico | |
1990 |
10,169
|
1,808
|
2,566
|
2,345
|
7,081
|
1991 |
14,475
|
2,303
|
3,879
|
3,437
|
8,773
|
1992 |
17,173
|
2,224
|
3,839
|
3,711
|
7,785
|
1993 |
15,250
|
1,883
|
3,616
|
3,291
|
7,071
|
1994 |
14,192
|
1,751
|
3,054
|
2,997
|
7,033
|
1995 |
14,909
|
2,192
|
3,207
|
3,334
|
7,964
|
1996 |
17,744
|
3,073
|
3,692
|
4,328
|
10,808
|
1997 |
23,892
|
4,218
|
4,902
|
5,472
|
15,670
|
1998 |
22,325
|
4,515
|
4,994
|
5,480
|
17,447
|
1999 |
18,600
|
4177
|
4,104
|
5,060
|
17,909
|
2000 |
15,601
|
4,042
|
3,615
|
4,457
|
14,919
|
2001 |
17,654
|
4,548
|
3,931
|
4,883
|
14,346
|
2002 |
17,399
|
4,422
|
4,034
|
4,907
|
13,811
|
2003 |
18,260
|
4,660
|
4,426
|
4,557
|
14,273
|
2004 |
18,444
|
4,508
|
4,651
|
4,142
|
13,285
|
2005 |
26,714
|
6,614
|
6,097
|
5,839
|
13,176
|
2006 |
8,400
|
1,323
|
1,925
|
1,621
|
5,454
|
2007 |
13,705
|
2,304
|
2,983
|
2,817
|
7,786
|
2008 |
16,538
|
3,033
|
3,931
|
4,300
|
9,082
|
2009 |
20,966
|
3,871
|
5,233
|
5,096
|
11,342
|
2010 |
23,618
|
4,204
|
5,658
|
5,500
|
12,488
|
2011 |
20,122
|
3,612
|
4,940
|
4,931
|
11,460
|
Commentary Will Puerto Ricos New Bankruptcy Law Withstand Constitutional Challenge
|
Collier Bankruptcy Case Update March-17-03
- West's Bankruptcy Newsletter
- A Weekly Update of Bankruptcy and Debtor/Creditor Matters
Collier Bankruptcy Case Update
The following case summaries appear in the Collier Bankruptcy Case Update, which is published by Matthew Bender & Company Inc., one of the LEXIS Publishing Companies.
March 17, 2003
§ 362(a) Bankruptcy court properly held debt that creditor’s refusal to return seized property of debtor violated stay.
Reliable Equip. Corp. v. Turabo Motors Co. (In re Turabo Motors Co.) (B.A.P. 1st Cir.)
§ 523(a)(8) A consolidation note combining several student loans, guaranteed by a governmental unit and made pursuant to a non-profit foundation, was nondischargeable.
Sperl v. New Hampshire Higher Educ. Assistance Found. (In re Sperl) (Bankr. D.N.H.)
2d Cir.
§ 365(a) Bankruptcy court properly authorized retroactive rejection of executory contract.
BP Energy Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp. (S.D.N.Y.)
§ 707(b) Case ordered dismissed or converted to chapter 13 due to 40 year-old debtor’s lack of candor regarding prebankruptcy increase in retirement contributions.
In re Aiello (Bankr. E.D.N.Y.)
§ 1101 Creditor’s appeal of plan confirmation dismissed as moot due to substantial consummation of plan and creditor’s failure to seek stay pending appeal.
Six West Retail Acquisitions, Inc. v. Loews Cineplex Entm’t Corp. (S.D.N.Y.)
3rd Cir.
§ 544(a) Where mortgage was indexed under debtor’s married name and debtor filed under different name, trustee’s search under filing name was sufficiently reasonable to allow sale of property.
Pope v. Corbett (In re Corbett) (Bankr. W.D. Pa.)
4th Cir.§ 548 Debtor’s motion to recover payments to creditors for which it allegedly received less than reasonably equivalent value required evidentiary hearing.
Pathnet, Inc. v. Nortel Networks, Inc. (In re Pathnet, Inc.) (Bankr. E.D. Va.)
Rule 9011 Bankruptcy court erred in sanctioning attorney as failure to report relevant state court judgment was based on reasonable belief that judgment was not yet final.
Community Mgmt. Corp. v. Weitz (In re Community Mgmt. Corp.) (D. Md.)
6th Cir.
§ 330 Bankruptcy court properly awarded reduced fee to trustee based on hourly rate rather than percentage.
Schilling v. Moore (W.D. Ky.)
7th Cir.
§ 362(d) Stay lifted to allow IRS to apply debtors’ overpayment to debtors’ tax liabilities.
In re Bare (Bankr. N.D. Ill.)
8th Cir.
§ 503 On debtor’s objection, court determined that administrative fees for several financial advisors would be based on amount of recovery achieved by each for unsecured creditors.
In re Farmland Indus., Inc. (Bankr. W.D. Mo.)
§ 541 Property purchased by debtor’s former spouse with own funds and funds given to spouse by debtor was not property of the estate.
Helena Chem. Co. v. True (In re True) (Bankr. W.D. Mo.)
§ 541(a) Funds due debtor from another state’s unclaimed property office had previously been acknowledged as debtor’s by state agency and were property of the estate.
Kroh Operating Ltd. P’ship v. Great Payback Office (In re Kroh Bros. Dev. Co.) (Bankr. W.D. Mo.)
9th Cir.
§ 523(a) Dischargeability of debtor’s liability for conversion remanded absent evidence of willful or malicious intent although liability based on fraud was clearly nondischargeable.
Thiara v. Spycher Bros. (In re Thiara) (B.A.P. 9th Cir.)
§ 525(b) Termination of employee who informed employer of imminent bankruptcy filing was not discriminatory.
Majewski v. St. Rose Dominican Hosp. (In re Majewski) (9th Cir.)
10th Cir.
§ 362 Stay of personal injury action lifted where debtor was not a defendant and subject only to actual defendants’ indemnity claims.
Teufel v. Rosenberg (D. Kan.)
§ 507(a)(7) Debtor’s obligation to pay mortgage on marital home occupied by former spouse was entitled to priority as a maintenance and support payment.
Miller v. Miller (In re Miller) (B.A.P. 10th Cir.)
11th Cir.
§ 505 Debtor did not meet evidentiary burden for adjustment of equipment valuation from that listed on earlier tax returns.
Chipman-Union, Inc. v. Greene County (In re Chipman-Union, Inc.) (Bankr. M.D. Ga.)
§ 1324 Chapter 13 plan ordered modified for failure to account for court ordered attorneys’ fees and child support.
McKenna v. Dupree (In re Dupree) (Bankr. M.D. Ga.)
D.C. Cir.
28 U.S.C. § 1927 Defendant entitled to hearing to determine amount of attorney’s fees to be reimbursed due to plaintiff’s reckless filing of claim that properly belonged to trustee.
Healey v. Labgold (D.D.C.)
Rule 1014(b) Trustee’s motion to transfer spouse’s bankruptcy to same court as debtor’s bankruptcy denied as a spouse is not an “affiliate.”
In re Feltman (Bankr. D.D.C.)
Collier Bankruptcy Case Summaries
1st Cir.
Bankruptcy court properly held debt that creditor’s refusal to return seized property of debtor violated stay. B.A.P. 1st Cir. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant creditor challenged a decision from the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Puerto Rico relating to its postpetition retention of assets of appellee debtor seized prepetition pursuant to a judgment by the lower court. OVERVIEW: After filing chapter 11 bankruptcy, the debtor sent a letter to the creditor requesting the return of the seized property for use in its ongoing business. The creditor refused to return the seized assets unless the debtor recognized its secured status and provided adequate protection. The debtor refused the demand, and the creditor refused to return the property. The bankruptcy court found that the creditor’s action constituted an exercise of control over property of the estate in violation of 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3). It also denied the creditor’s request to disqualify a law firm. The reviewing court addressed the creditor’s appeal of its request to disqualify the law firm and found that the order denying the creditor’s request was not a final order, and that no exception to the final judgment rule conferred appellate jurisdiction on the reviewing court. In deciding whether the bankruptcy court erred in finding that the creditor violated the automatic stay, the reviewing court held that there was no exception to section 362(a)(3) that excused a creditor’s refusal to deliver possession of estate property based on the creditor’s subjective opinion of adequate protection. Reliable Equip. Corp. v. Turabo Motors Co. (In re Turabo Motors Co.), 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1278, — B.R. — (B.A.P. 1st Cir. October 21, 2002) (per curiam).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 3:362.03 [back to top]
ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.
A consolidation note combining several student loans, guaranteed by a governmental unit and made pursuant to a non-profit foundation, was nondischargeable. Bankr. D.N.H. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In bankruptcy proceedings, plaintiff debtor sued defendant state student-loan foundation, seeking to disallow the foundation’s claim for payment of student loans. OVERVIEW: Debtor claimed that the claim should be disallowed since, among other things, the claim imposed an undue hardship on debtor. As to the argument that the consolidation note, which combined numerous separate loans, did not qualify as an educational loan made, insured or guaranteed by a governmental unit, or made under any program funded in whole or in part by a governmental unit or nonprofit institution, the court held that debtor cited no authority to support her theory that the consolidation note did not qualify as an educational loan under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(8) because of the failure of the foundation to comply with certain governmental regulations. Proof of the guarantee was self-evident since the foundation assumed legal responsibility for the note after debtor defaulted. The note was an educational loan within the meaning of section 523(a)(8) because it was guaranteed by a governmental unit, and was made under a program funded in whole or in part by a non-profit institution. As to the undue hardship claim, the court held that the record did not support a finding that debtor was unable to maintain a minimal standard of living if forced to repay the consolidation note. Sperl v. New Hampshire Higher Educ. Assistance Found. (In re Sperl), 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1294, — B.R. — (Bankr. D.N.H. November 7, 2002) (Deasy, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 4:523.14 [back to top]
2d Cir. Bankruptcy court properly authorized retroactive rejection of executory contract. S.D.N.Y. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: A creditor natural gas supplier appealed an order of the bankruptcy court that authorized the debtors to reject executory contracts with the creditor retroactively under 11 U.S.C. § 365(a). The creditor argued that court approval was a condition precedent to rejection, and that retroactive rejection was inconsistent with a prior order which compelled the creditor’s continued performance. OVERVIEW: The bankruptcy court was not prohibited as a matter of law from assigning a retroactive rejection date under section 365(a), when the equities demanded it. The prior “utility order” entered under 11 U.S.C. § 366 did not preclude retroactive rejection; it did not preclude a termination of service upon the debtors’ request. The utility order was a protective order from the perspective of the debtors’ estate and provided adequate assurance of payment to the creditor, but was not intended in any way to interfere with the debtor’s right to rejection under 11 U.S.C. § 365(a). Since the utility order was not intended to prevent rejection, there was no evidence suggesting that the rejection motion was an attempt to work a fraud or injustice. And, the debtor filed the motion for rejection prior to instructing the creditor to cease providing gas. Thus, the debtor was not equitably estopped from retroactive rejection. Due to a drop in gas price, the debtor was paying $15,000 more per day under its contract with the creditor. Since the rejection motion was filed prior to the requested rejection date, the creditor was placed on advance notice of the proposed effective date. BP Energy Co. v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22052, — B.R. — (S.D.N.Y. November 14, 2002) (Buchwald, D.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 3:365.03 [back to top]
ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.
Case ordered dismissed or converted to chapter 13 due to 40 year-old debtor’s lack of candor regarding prebankruptcy increase in retirement contributions. Bankr. E.D.N.Y. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The United States trustee moved to dismiss the debtor’s chapter 7 case for substantial abuse under 11 U.S.C. § 707(b), arguing that the given that the debtor had the ability to repay a significant portion of his consumer prepetition debts out of his postpetition earnings under a chapter 13 plan and that the debtor quadrupled his voluntary contribution to his retirement plan on the eve of the bankruptcy and attempted to conceal that fact. OVERVIEW: The debtor’s monthly income was $2,209 and expenses were $2,170. He made retirement contributions of $576 per month, or about 27 percent of his gross income. The contributions should be reduced to, at most, $300 per month. The debtor was only 40 years old, had no dependents, and would not suffer any adverse employment conditions if the contributions were reduced. He had no obligation to buy back pension contributions if they were reduced. Before meeting with his bankruptcy attorneys, the debtor had been funding his pension plan at $140 per month, or 6 percent of his gross income. Under a chapter 13 plan, with disposable income of $315 per month, the debtor could repay over 40 percent of his unsecured debt in 36 months. Under a five-year plan, he could repay 67 percent. The debtor had quadrupled his voluntary contributions only one month before filing bankruptcy. Under the equitable “totality of circumstances” test of section 707(b), when he had contributed only one-fourth of that amount for one and one-half years before, the increase smacked of abuse. The debtor had exhibited a lack of candor when the trustee questioned him about it. There were no mitigating circumstances. In re Aiello, 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1274, 284 B.R. 756 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. November 4, 2002) (Craig, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 6:707.04 [back to top]
ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.
Creditor’s appeal of plan confirmation dismissed as moot due to substantial consummation of plan and creditor’s failure to seek stay pending appeal. S.D.N.Y. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: A bankruptcy judge issued an order confirming appellee debtors’ chapter 11 plan, including a settlement agreement involving unsecured claims. The bankruptcy judge refused appellant unsecured creditor’s request to appoint an independent examiner to investigate claims against shareholders and board members of the debtors. The creditor appealed the confirmation order and the denial of its motion for an examiner. OVERVIEW: The creditor had owned or leased movie theaters that were managed by the debtors. The creditor claimed that a prepetition transfer of $417 million dollars to a shareholder of the debtors should have been investigated. The creditor also challenged the settlement, which dealt with the creditors’ committee’s concerns over the release of potential causes of action. The court found that the appeal was moot because the plan had been substantially consummated and because the creditor never sought a stay. Following confirmation, liens had been granted on substantially all of the debtors’ assets, prepetition notes and preexisting securities had been cancelled, shareholder agreements had been terminated, and new common stock had been issued, among other things. The creditor’s failure to seek a stay made it inequitable to proceed with the appeal, and it was impossible to restore the pre-consummation status quo by excising the settlement provisions. Approval of the confirmation order was not an abuse of discretion. Also, the creditor asked for an examiner too late in the proceedings, and deposition testimony offered to show reason for an investigation was properly excluded as hearsay. Six West Retail Acquisitions, Inc. v. Loews Cineplex Entm’t Corp., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21927, 286 B.R. 239 (S.D.N.Y. November 13, 2002) (Berman, D.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 7:1101.01 [back to top]
ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.
3rd Cir.
Where mortgage was indexed under debtor’s married name and debtor filed under different name, trustee’s search under filing name was sufficiently reasonable to allow sale of property. Bankr. W.D. Pa. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Debtor owned a certain parcel of real estate. Movant chapter 7 trustee filed a motion to sell the property. Respondent bank, inter alia, objected to the sale claiming that it had a valid second mortgage on the property. The debtor gave this mortgage while she was married and used her married name on the mortgage documents. When she filed bankruptcy, she used a different name. At issue was whether a title search should have found the mortgage. OVERVIEW: The land records in the county in which the property was located were indexed by name. Thus, a hypothetical purchaser, which the chapter 7 trustee was deemed to have been, who had searched the alphabetical index in the county property record on the date of the bankruptcy filing would have had no notice of the mortgage because it was indexed under the debtor’s married name. The bank argued that the county maintained a separate index by tax identification number, and the trustee had a duty to search this index as well. However, the county never adopted an ordinance that required all transactions recorded in the recorder’s office to be indexed by tax identification number. The trustee, as a hypothetical bona fide purchaser, was required to undertake reasonable steps to inquire as to the presence of liens against the debtor’s property. A search of the alphabetical index was a reasonable and complete step. The additional step of checking the tax identification number index was a duplicative effort that was not required for a search to constitute reasonable inquiry. Pope v. Corbett (In re Corbett), 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1263, 284 B.R. 779 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. November 7, 2002) (Bentz, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 5:544.02 [back to top]
ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.
4th Cir
Debtor’s motion to recover payments to creditors for which it allegedly received less than reasonably equivalent value required evidentiary hearing. Bankr. E.D. Va. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff debtor filed a chapter 11 petition. Five related companies also filed chapter 11 petitions at the same time. The debtor commenced an adversary action against defendants, two companies, seeking recovery of alleged insufficient transfers. The companies filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief. OVERVIEW: The adversary action sought to recover millions of dollars which the debtor had allegedly spent for the benefit of the companies without receiving anything. The companies claimed in the motion that: (1) the debtor was judicially estopped from attacking payments which had been previously represented as made in the ordinary course of business; and (2) the companies were not to be treated as parties for whose benefit the payments were made. The court held that the prior pleadings filed by the debtor could be properly considered in determining whether the debtor was judicially estopped from claiming that payments it made under the agreement or on another entity’s behalf were avoidable as constructively fraudulent transfers. The debtor’s claims were based upon 11 U.S.C. § 548 and Va. Code § 55-81. The debtor’s position was that its failure to actually receive the payment that was contractually or otherwise due effectively caused the debtor to receive less than reasonably equivalent value or consideration valuable in law. The court not resolve the issue on a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Pathnet, Inc. v. Nortel Networks, Inc. (In re Pathnet, Inc.), 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1262, — B.R. — (Bankr. E.D. Va. August 14, 2002) (Mitchell, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 5:548.01 [back to top]
ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.
Bankruptcy court erred in sanctioning attorney as failure to report relevant state court judgment was based on reasonable belief that judgment was not yet final. D. Md. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland sanctioned debtor’s attorney in the amount of $33,249, which represented 50 percent of the attorney’s fees in an adversary action, under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011, and dismissed debtor’s complaint. The attorney appealed on the basis that any award of sanctions against him was unjustified. Creditor cross-appealed on the grounds that the award was not substantial enough. OVERVIEW: On appeal, the attorney argued that the bankruptcy court erred when it awarded sanctions against him because it was objectively reasonable for him to believe that a relevant prior state court judgment was not final when he filed the adversary proceeding. First, the state court judgment was against fewer than all parties; thus, under Md. R. 2-602(a)(1) it was not a final judgment. Second, even if debtor was somehow in privity with other parties as to the state court judgment, the attorney could have objectively reasonably believed that the fact that the judgment against the other parties was on appeal militated against the judgment for purposes of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Because the state court never entered an order under Md. R. 2-602(b), which was required under the circumstances, the attorney was correct as to the non-finality of the state court’s judgment. The same was true with regard to the appeal taken by the parties with whom debtor was supposed to be in privity. Accordingly, the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in sanctioning the attorney under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9011. His actions under the circumstances were sufficiently reasonable to avoid that result. Community Mgmt. Corp. v. Weitz (In re Community Mgmt. Corp.), 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21951, 288 B.R. 104 (D. Md. October 10, 2002) (Messitte, D.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 10:9011.01 [back to top]
ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.
Bankruptcy court properly awarded reduced fee to trustee based on hourly rate rather than percentage. W.D. Ky. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Before the court was an appeal from a decision of the bankruptcy court awarding appellant bankruptcy trustee a fee of $450 and expenses of $7.00 for work he did as chapter 7 trustee that brought certain assets to the estate. The assets were collected and distributed after the case was converted to chapter 13. OVERVIEW: The bankruptcy court was within its discretion when it based its award on an hourly rate fee rather than a percentage fee. Even if the trustee normally charged percentage based fees, he could not receive anything under 11 U.S.C. § 326 unless it met the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 330. Also, it was not an abuse of discretion for the bankruptcy court to reduce the trustee’s hourly rate to $150 per hour. The court took judicial notice of the fact that within the local legal community, hourly rates of counsel seeking compensation in routine chapter 7 proceedings ranged from $75 to $150. The court’s determination that the trustee failed to justify an hourly rate in excess of $150 per hour was reasonable based on the record. Additionally, the bankruptcy court’s determination that the trustee had already been paid a statutory fee for attending the 11 U.S.C. § 341 meeting, and thus, was not entitled to be compensated for that time under a quantum meruit award, was not clearly erroneous. Finally, the bankruptcy court’s determination that the time the trustee spent litigating his fee award was not reasonable was not an abuse of discretion. Schilling v. Moore, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22367, 286 B.R. 846 (W.D. Ky. November 13, 2002) (Simpson, D.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 3:330.01 [back to top]
ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.
7th Cir.
Stay lifted to allow IRS to apply debtors’ overpayment to debtors’ tax liabilities. Bankr. N.D. Ill. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Married debtors filed a chapter 13 petition and the court later confirmed the debtors’ chapter 13 plan. The federal government, on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service, filed a motion to lift the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) to allow it to apply the debtors’ overpayment to the debtors’ tax liabilities. The debtors objected to the motion. OVERVIEW: The debtors’ objection to the motion claimed that the right to setoff was lost by the IRS because it waited until after confirmation. The IRS asserted that: (1) the application of a tax overpayment to reduce prebankruptcy petition debts to the IRS was not a setoff within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code, but instead a netting, permitted under I.R.C. § 6402; (2) the IRS’ setoff rights were preserved by 11 U.S.C. § 553; and (3) IRS setoffs were protected by sovereign immunity and other special government rights. The court agreed with the IRS where the confirmed chapter 13 plan’s terms only referenced the debtors’ estimate of the allowed property claims. The debtors did not schedule the overpayment as an asset and secured claimants were not subject to the time limits imposed upon unsecured creditors under Fed. R. Bank. P. 3002(c)(1). In re Bare, 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1267, 284 B.R. 870 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. November 12, 2003) (Squires, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 3:362.07 [back to top]
ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.
8th Cir.
On debtor’s objection, court determined that administrative fees for several financial advisors would be based on amount of recovery achieved by each for unsecured creditors. Bankr. W.D. Mo. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: A debtor and various subsidiaries filed chapter 11 petitions, which were jointly administered. The committee of unsecured creditors moved to employ financial advisors, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1103(a). The debtors objected to a proposed fee as an administrative expense under 11 U.S.C. § 503. The court allowed the retention of the advisors, but the parties were unable to agree on the payment source. OVERVIEW: All of the parties agreed that the financial advisors’ transaction fee was an administrative expense, but disagreed where the expense should be allocated. The committee argued that fee should be treated as a general administrative expense because the clear and unambiguous language of 11 U.S.C. § 1103 authorized it and allowed the committee to employ one or more attorneys, accountants, or other agents, to represent or perform services for such committee. The debtors disagreed and claimed that two separate committees had hired financial advisors and made different agreements concerning the fees. The court viewed the fee as a contingent fee that would be based on the amount of any recovery the advisors obtained for the unsecured creditors. The court believed that the fee should be paid out of the distributions made to the general unsecured creditors because the advisors were working specifically for the benefit of those creditors, and not for the benefit of all creditors or the overall benefit of the bankruptcy estate. In re Farmland Indus., Inc., 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1632, 286 B.R. 895 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. November 27, 2002) (Venters, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 4:503.01 [back to top]
ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.
Property purchased by debtor’s former spouse with own funds and funds given to spouse by debtor was not property of the estate. Bankr. W.D. Mo. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff creditor asserted that debtor should be denied discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727(a)(2), (a)(4). In a second proceeding against the debtor’s spouse, defendant there, the chapter 7 trustee sought a declaratory judgment that the debtor held an interest in farm property, and sought to sell that interest. OVERVIEW: The controversy revolved around the debtor’s alleged ownership interest in a 200-acre farm property and whether he should be denied a discharge for failing to disclose that alleged ownership interest in his bankruptcy filings. The trustee claimed that the debtor acquired an ownership interest in the property because he provided part of the money required for the farm purchase when he was married to his spouse. Accordingly, the trustee asserted that his interest in the property was property of the bankruptcy estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541. However, the court found that the spouse acquired the farm property with her separate funds and with money given to her by the debtor as a gift, and that under state law, it was her separate property and not property of the bankruptcy estate. Next, addressing the creditor’s claim that the debtor concealed assets, given the court’s finding that the farm was not property of the estate, it followed that his nondisclosure of the transfer on his bankruptcy schedules was not violative of 11 U.S.C. § 727. Further, it could not have been a violation of the statute for the debtor not to list an interest in the property on his schedules. Helena Chem. Co. v. True (In re True), 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1276, 285 B.R. 405 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. November 4, 2002) (Venters, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 5:541.01 [back to top]
ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.
Funds due debtor from another state’s unclaimed property office had previously been acknowledged as debtor’s by state agency and were property of the estate. Bankr. W.D. Mo. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff, a limited partnership established to liquidate the assets of a bankruptcy estate, brought an adversary proceeding against defendants, the Unclaimed Property Division of the Colorado Department of the Treasury and two potential claimants of funds held by the Division. The limited partnership sought to recover $626,855.87 from the Division. OVERVIEW: The funds at issue resulted from a claim by the bankruptcy debtor filed with the Iowa Commissioner of Insurance as liquidator of an insurance company. The liquidator found the claim to be valid and obtained an Iowa state court’s approval to pay the debtor. However, a check mailed to the debtor at a Colorado address was returned to the liquidator, as the Colorado office was closed. The funds were turned over to the Division, which claimed that the limited partnership had not proved its ownership interest in the funds. The bankruptcy court concluded that the funds were part of the bankruptcy estate because the liquidator and the Iowa court, following Iowa law, had determined that the debtor was entitled to the funds. It was the bankruptcy court’s duty to give full faith and credit to the Iowa court’s order, and the Division was not entitled to relitigate the issue. Although the Division argued that it appeared that the check was sent to one of the potential claimants in care of the debtor, both of the potential claimants disclaimed any interest in the funds. Colorado law did not allow the limited partnership to collect interest on the funds, however. Kroh Operating Ltd. P’ship v. Great Payback Office (In re Kroh Bros. Dev. Co.), 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1268, 284 B.R. 264 (Bankr. W.D. Mo. September 23, 2002) (Venters, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 5:541.01 [back to top]
ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.
9th Cir.
Dischargeability of debtor’s liability for conversion remanded absent evidence of willful or malicious intent although liability based on fraud was clearly nondischargeable. B.A.P. 9th Cir. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Chapter 11 debtor/farmer appealed from a judgment of the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of California which found that the farmer’s liability for conversion concerning certain crop insurance proceeds was nondischargeable, 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6), and that his fraud-based debt was similarly nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A). OVERVIEW: The farmer filed a voluntary chapter 11 petition on May 9, 2000, and plaintiff, general partnership filed a timely complaint to determine nondischargeability, alleging, inter alia, that the farmer obtained crop financing under a false pretense and misrepresentation and had improperly converted insurance proceeds. The bankruptcy court held that when the farmer received the insurance check, he knew that he owed $321,111 to the partnership from the prior crop year, that he had executed documents granting the partnership a security interest, and that although he had agreed to repay the debt formally, he had every intention of not repaying it. The bankruptcy appellate panel noted that the evidence was clear that the farmer did not tell the partnership about the insurance settlement or money, but applied the money to his own use, knowing that the partnership would not be paid the full amount of its debt. However, the panel held that the bankruptcy court did not make the necessary finding regarding the farmer’s subjective intent to injure the partnership, in order to determine conclusively that the conversion was “willful and malicious” for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6). Thiara v. Spycher Bros. (In re Thiara), 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1289, 285 B.R. 420 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. November 1, 2002) (Marlar, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 4:523.01 [back to top]
ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.
Termination of employee who informed employer of imminent bankruptcy filing was not discriminatory. 9th Cir. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff trustee filed suit against defendant employer under 11 U.S.C. § 525(b), alleging that the employer discriminated against the debtor by firing him after he indicated his intent to file bankruptcy. The bankruptcy court dismissed the case, and the District Court for the District of Nevada affirmed. The trustee appealed. OVERVIEW: The debtor incurred large medical expenses at the hospital where he was employed, and he did not pay them. After repayment negotiations failed, he told the employer he intended to file for bankruptcy, and the employer fired him before he did so. The trustee claimed that the firing violated section 525(b), which barred termination of an individual who “is or has been” a bankruptcy debtor solely because the individual was or had been a debtor in bankruptcy. The appeals court held that section 525(b) only applied to individuals who had already filed bankruptcy at the time of the alleged discriminatory action. This was because the reporting of statutory violations was to be encouraged, but the filing of bankruptcy was not something that should be encouraged. Section 525(b), by its plain language referred only to a debtor who “is or has been” in bankruptcy, not to someone who “has been or will be” a debtor. Since at the time of the termination, the debtor had not been fired, that section was not applicable. Majewski v. St. Rose Dominican Hosp. (In re Majewski), 2002 U.S. App. LEXIS 23426, 310 F.3d 653 (9th Cir. November 13, 2002) (Schroeder, C.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 4:525.04 [back to top]
ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.
Stay of personal injury action lifted where debtor was not a defendant and subject only to actual defendants’ indemnity claims. D. Kan. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff instituted a negligence action involving a motor vehicle accident against defendant. The defendant was driving a car that his employer (also a defendant) leased from a car rental company. The rental company was obligated to provide a defense and to indemnify the defendants. The plaintiff did not sue the rental company. The company filed for bankruptcy and the action was stayed. The plaintiff moved to set aside the automatic stay. OVERVIEW: The district court agreed with the plaintiff that the automatic stay provision of 11 U.S.C. § 362 did not apply to this case because that provision only stayed actions against the “debtor.” The only debtor in the instant case was the car rental company which was not a defendant in the case. The fact that the plaintiff did not initially oppose the imposition of the stay was irrelevant because the automatic stay was imposed as a matter of statute, and the statute either applied or it did not. Although the defendants may have had a right to be defended by the car rental company and a right to be indemnified for any judgment, those rights did not provide a legal basis under the Bankruptcy Code for the court to stay the action. The defendants argued that Kan. Stat. §§ 40-3619 and 40-3627 provided a stay under state law. These were insurance statutes and the rental company was not an insurer. Even if the car rental company were an “insurer,” there was nothing in the record to have indicated that a “rehabilitation order” or “liquidation order” had been entered against the car rental company. Teufel v. Rosenberg, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21940, — B.R. — (D. Kan. November 8, 2002) (Waxse, M.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 3:362.01 [back to top]
ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion
Debtor’s obligation to pay mortgage on marital home occupied by former spouse was entitled to priority as a maintenance and support payment. B.A.P. 10th Cir. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In his appeal, the debtor argued that the Bankruptcy Court for the District of Utah erred in finding that the creditor ex-wife’s state court divorce judgment was entitled to priority status under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7). The state court’s order was based on the debtor’s having failed to pay the mortgages on the marital home, as previously ordered, as a combination of spousal and child support. OVERVIEW: The divorce decree’s language established the intent of the state court that the house payments were to be in the nature of support. When the state court entered its order, the parties had three minor children; the ex-wife had primary custody. In determining the amount of alimony to be paid directly to the ex-wife, only $43 per month, the state court considered the fact that it had ordered the debtor to make the house payments. The evidence justified the characterization of the mortgage payments as maintenance and support entitled to priority under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(7). The bankruptcy court did not commit clear error. When the state court learned that the debtor had failed to make the mortgage payments, it ordered him to make those payments directly to the ex-wife. It was that latter obligation which she sought to enforce. The bankruptcy court order did not change the state court’s order in any way, shape, or form. The argument that any payments to the ex-wife would be a windfall was specious. The mere fact that the ex-wife and children managed to survive notwithstanding the debtor’s failure to pay support did not justify the elimination of all past due support obligations. Miller v. Miller (In re Miller), 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1242, 284 B.R. 734 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. November 4, 2002) (Michael, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 4:507.09 [back to top]
ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion
11th Cir.
Debtor did not meet evidentiary burden for adjustment of equipment valuation from that listed on earlier tax returns. Bankr. M.D. Ga. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In bankruptcy proceedings, movant debtor sued respondent county, seeking a determination of tax liability under 11 U.S.C. § 505. OVERVIEW: The debtor claimed that the fair market value of its equipment was $1,296,000 for purposes of ad valorem taxation. However, the debtor’s prior tax returns listed a much higher value. The court held that the ad valorem tax returns required the debtor to determine the basic cost approach value of its equipment. That required the debtor to determine the original cost and the economic life of the equipment. The debtor then multiplied the cost times a depreciation factor. The result was the basic cost value. Should the debtor have believed that the basic cost value did not reflect fair market value, then debtor needed to list its estimate of value under a column titled “taxpayer returned value.” From the evidence presented, the court was not persuaded that the debtor carried its evidentiary burden for the court to adjust the valuation that debtor reported in its 2001 and 2002 ad valorem tax returns. Specifically, the court was not persuaded by the testimony of the debtor’s witness regarding the $1,296,000 valuation. Thus, the debtor’s tax returns with their declarations of value contained the appropriate value for purposes of taxation. Chipman-Union, Inc. v. Greene County (In re Chipman-Union, Inc.), 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1261, 285 B.R. 752 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. November 1, 2002) (Hershner, C.B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 4:505.01 [back to top]
ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion
Chapter 13 plan ordered modified for failure to account for court ordered attorneys’ fees and child support. Bankr. M.D. Ga. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Two creditors objected to debtor’s chapter 13 plan. OVERVIEW: One creditor contented that she had a $250 nondischargeable priority claim for attorney’s fees pursuant to a contempt order in state court. The other creditor contended that she had a $2,900 nondischargeable priority claim for back child support, not subject to a $1,500 off-set as proposed by debtor’s plan. Debtor could not prove that the state court lacked jurisdiction to render the contempt order; therefore, the one creditor’s claim for $250 was valid and nondischargeable. It had to be treated as such in the chapter 13 plan. Further, as to the other creditor, there was no agreement reached between her and debtor to reduce the child support arrearage. In any event, debtor did not meet his burden of proving that the court had power to modify a claim for child support arrearage. Thus, the second creditor’s objection was sustained. McKenna v. Dupree (In re Dupree), 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1258, 285 B.R. 759 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. November 7, 2002) (Laney, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 8:1324.01 [back to top]
ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion
D.C. Cir
Defendant entitled to hearing to determine amount of attorney’s fees to be reimbursed due to plaintiff’s reckless filing of claim that properly belonged to trustee. D.D.C. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Plaintiff attorney sued defendant attorney, alleging claims relating to bankruptcy. Defendant moved for reimbursement of attorney’s fees. The matter was before a magistrate judge (“M.J.”) for a report and recommendation. OVERVIEW: Defendant alleged that plaintiff should never have filed the lawsuit in the instant court, because plaintiff included as the first five counts of his complaint the same five counts that another district court said he could not press because those claims belonged to plaintiff’s bankrupt estate and could be pressed only by the trustee in bankruptcy. The instant court found that plaintiff had taken the kind of purposeful, intentional action that rose above negligence to the level of recklessness, required to establish a violation of 28 U.S.C. § 1927. It was silly for a man who made a handsome living as a trial lawyer in patent cases in federal courts and tribunals to pretend that he was merely negligent in filing a lawsuit that contained five counts that another court had previously concluded did not belong to him. The court also noted a mean-spirited e-mail that plaintiff sent to the firm that defendant had joined. That action spoke volumes about plaintiff’s true intentions and made his claim of filing this lawsuit to preserve his original claims from a statute of limitations ring hollow. Healey v. Labgold, 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21776, 231 F. Supp.2d 64 (D.D.C. October 17, 2002) (Facciola, M.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 1:8.07 [back to top]
ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion
Trustee’s motion to transfer spouse’s bankruptcy to same court as debtor’s bankruptcy denied as a spouse is not an “affiliate.” Bankr. D.D.C. PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In debtor husband’s bankruptcy, the trustee moved for transfer of debtor’s wife’s bankruptcy case, filed in Maryland, to the instant court pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1014(b). OVERVIEW: The spousal relationship between the debtor and his wife was the only basis the trustee asserted for invoking the court’s authority to oversee the wife’s bankruptcy pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1014(b). However, that relationship, alone, was not a basis for invoking Rule 1014(b), which identified specific categories of cases to which it applied. Based on the history of the rule and the definitions in related statutory provisions — 11 U.S.C. § 101(2), 28 U.S.C. § 1408, and former 28 U.S.C. § 1472 — the term “affiliate” in Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1014(b) restricted the rules application to the particular categories described in the rule, which did not include a category for “spouses” or “husband and wife.” In re Feltman, 2002 Bankr. LEXIS 1266, 285 B.R. 82 (Bankr. D.D.C. November 12, 2002) (Teel, B.J.).
Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 9:1014.04 [back to top]
ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion
Annual Business and Non-business Filings by District (1990-1994)
Annual Business and Non-business Filings by District (1990-1994)
1990 | 1991 | 1992 | 1993 | 1994 | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
District | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer |
District of Alaska | 1153 | 164 | 989 | 85.78% | 1064 | 170 | 894 | 84.02% | 1039 | 196 | 843 | 81.14% | 928 | 172 | 756 | 81.47% | 892 | 162 | 730 | 81.84% |
Middle District of Alabama | 5119 | 254 | 4865 | 95.04% | 5832 | 322 | 5510 | 94.48% | 5044 | 321 | 4723 | 93.64% | 4793 | 285 | 4508 | 94.05% | 4778 | 235 | 4543 | 95.08% |
Northern District of Alabama | 18061 | 1033 | 17028 | 94.28% | 20048 | 1020 | 19028 | 94.91% | 19229 | 917 | 18312 | 95.23% | 17282 | 651 | 16631 | 96.23% | 15992 | 444 | 15548 | 97.22% |
Southern District of Alabama | 2673 | 69 | 2604 | 97.42% | 2731 | 89 | 2642 | 96.74% | 2592 | 80 | 2512 | 96.91% | 2185 | 41 | 2144 | 98.12% | 2781 | 38 | 2743 | 98.63% |
Eastern District of Arkansas | 4549 | 288 | 4261 | 93.67% | 5195 | 291 | 4904 | 94.40% | 5018 | 341 | 4677 | 93.20% | 4235 | 274 | 3961 | 93.53% | 4177 | 254 | 3923 | 93.92% |
Western District of Arkansas | 2513 | 179 | 2334 | 92.88% | 3120 | 206 | 2914 | 93.40% | 3235 | 236 | 2999 | 92.70% | 2765 | 170 | 2595 | 93.85% | 2663 | 119 | 2544 | 95.53% |
District of Arizona | 18385 | 2377 | 16008 | 87.07% | 19988 | 2194 | 17794 | 89.02% | 20234 | 2050 | 18184 | 89.87% | 17630 | 1642 | 15988 | 90.69% | 15357 | 965 | 14392 | 93.72% |
Central District of California | 59645 | 3125 | 56520 | 94.76% | 78668 | 7003 | 71665 | 91.10% | 94579 | 6314 | 88265 | 93.32% | 92396 | 6935 | 85461 | 92.49% | 82616 | 6457 | 76159 | 92.18% |
Eastern District of California | 18231 | 1614 | 16617 | 91.15% | 21559 | 2026 | 19533 | 90.60% | 24045 | 2668 | 21377 | 88.90% | 23213 | 2549 | 20664 | 89.02% | 21692 | 2395 | 19297 | 88.96% |
Northern District of California | 19192 | 2052 | 17140 | 89.31% | 24346 | 2577 | 21769 | 89.42% | 27872 | 2718 | 25154 | 90.25% | 26353 | 3006 | 23347 | 88.59% | 25041 | 2716 | 22325 | 89.15% |
Southern District of California | 11539 | 800 | 10739 | 93.07% | 14799 | 689 | 14110 | 95.34% | 15362 | 515 | 14847 | 96.65% | 14440 | 453 | 13987 | 96.86% | 13637 | 370 | 13267 | 97.29% |
District of Colorado | 16671 | 1088 | 15583 | 93.47% | 17071 | 611 | 16460 | 96.42% | 16079 | 1143 | 14936 | 92.89% | 13881 | 1118 | 12763 | 91.95% | 12878 | 670 | 12208 | 94.80% |
District of Connecticut | 5608 | 445 | 5163 | 92.06% | 7907 | 380 | 7527 | 95.19% | 9472 | 379 | 9093 | 96.00% | 9071 | 310 | 8761 | 96.58% | 8413 | 206 | 8207 | 97.55% |
District of Columbia | 1087 | 129 | 958 | 88.13% | 1368 | 181 | 1187 | 86.77% | 1445 | 134 | 1311 | 90.73% | 1284 | 119 | 1165 | 90.73% | 1390 | 118 | 1272 | 91.51% |
District of Delaware | 1068 | 114 | 954 | 89.33% | 1218 | 126 | 1092 | 89.66% | 1606 | 243 | 1363 | 84.87% | 1492 | 163 | 1329 | 89.08% | 1235 | 120 | 1115 | 90.28% |
Middle District of Florida | 24154 | 1756 | 22398 | 92.73% | 30638 | 1863 | 28775 | 93.92% | 31546 | 1700 | 29846 | 94.61% | 25715 | 1375 | 24340 | 94.65% | 25180 | 1225 | 23955 | 95.14% |
Northern District of Florida | 2488 | 238 | 2250 | 90.43% | 3050 | 185 | 2865 | 93.93% | 2922 | 148 | 2774 | 94.93% | 2475 | 150 | 2325 | 93.94% | 2276 | 116 | 2160 | 94.90% |
Southern District of Florida | 9910 | 846 | 9064 | 91.46% | 15439 | 983 | 14456 | 93.63% | 17535 | 1138 | 16397 | 93.51% | 14521 | 1074 | 13447 | 92.60% | 15019 | 877 | 14142 | 94.16% |
Middle District of Georgia | 8813 | 229 | 8584 | 97.40% | 10478 | 192 | 10286 | 98.17% | 9558 | 177 | 9381 | 98.15% | 8515 | 145 | 8370 | 98.30% | 8578 | 102 | 8476 | 98.81% |
Northern District of Georgia | 26171 | 1974 | 24197 | 92.46% | 32714 | 2417 | 30297 | 92.61% | 28708 | 1691 | 27017 | 94.11% | 25530 | 1359 | 24171 | 94.68% | 25560 | 1246 | 24314 | 95.13% |
Southern District of Georgia | 7423 | 164 | 7259 | 97.79% | 8255 | 332 | 7923 | 95.98% | 7623 | 607 | 7016 | 92.04% | 6827 | 419 | 6408 | 93.86% | 7019 | 361 | 6658 | 94.86% |
District of Hawaii | 882 | 74 | 808 | 91.61% | 1101 | 77 | 1024 | 93.01% | 1431 | 163 | 1268 | 88.61% | 1497 | 190 | 1307 | 87.31% | 1600 | 157 | 1443 | 90.19% |
Northern District of Iowa | 2321 | 618 | 1703 | 73.37% | 2372 | 524 | 1848 | 77.91% | 2376 | 408 | 1968 | 82.83% | 2141 | 253 | 1888 | 88.18% | 2158 | 217 | 1941 | 89.94% |
Southern District of Iowa | 3340 | 283 | 3057 | 91.53% | 3835 | 224 | 3611 | 94.16% | 3879 | 252 | 3627 | 93.50% | 3270 | 236 | 3034 | 92.78% | 3319 | 266 | 3053 | 91.99% |
District of Idaho | 4100 | 365 | 3735 | 91.10% | 4173 | 225 | 3948 | 94.61% | 4105 | 515 | 3590 | 87.45% | 3667 | 414 | 3253 | 88.71% | 3378 | 351 | 3027 | 89.61% |
Central District of Illinois | 7218 | 214 | 7004 | 97.04% | 7631 | 286 | 7345 | 96.25% | 7441 | 516 | 6925 | 93.07% | 6511 | 456 | 6055 | 93.00% | 6417 | 388 | 6029 | 93.95% |
Northern District of Illinois | 26801 | 1152 | 25649 | 95.70% | 30665 | 1480 | 29185 | 95.17% | 31601 | 1608 | 29993 | 94.91% | 29854 | 1353 | 28501 | 95.47% | 28091 | 1000 | 27091 | 96.44% |
Southern District of Illinois | 3813 | 675 | 3138 | 82.30% | 4414 | 588 | 3826 | 86.68% | 3956 | 462 | 3494 | 88.32% | 3355 | 380 | 2975 | 88.67% | 3413 | 363 | 3050 | 89.36% |
Northern District of Indiana | 8479 | 598 | 7881 | 92.95% | 9573 | 519 | 9054 | 94.58% | 9767 | 518 | 9249 | 94.70% | 8470 | 464 | 8006 | 94.52% | 7907 | 367 | 7540 | 95.36% |
Southern District of Indiana | 15630 | 495 | 15135 | 96.83% | 18441 | 564 | 17877 | 96.94% | 17546 | 745 | 16801 | 95.75% | 14644 | 592 | 14052 | 95.96% | 13831 | 519 | 13312 | 96.25% |
District of Kansas | 8811/TD> | 560 | 8251 | 93.64% | 9708 | 527 | 9181 | 94.57% | 9064 | 600 | 8464 | 93.38% | 7976 | 591 | 7385 | 92.59% | 7905 | 372 | 7533 | 95.29% |
Eastern District of Kentucky | 6953 | 832 | 6121 | 88.03% | 7155 | 665 | 6490 | 90.71% | 6713 | 351 | 6362 | 94.77% | 5415 | 227 | 5188 | 95.81% | 5443 | 217 | 5226 | 96.01% |
Western District of Kentucky | 7765 | 492 | 7273 | 93.66% | 8390 | 351 | 8039 | 95.82% | 7765 | 341 | 7424 | 95.61% | 6663 | 213 | 6450 | 96.80% | 6552 | 205 | 6347 | 96.87% |
Eastern District of Louisiana | 5061 | 248 | 4813 | 95.10% | 5570 | 247 | 5323 | 95.57% | 5486 | 158 | 5328 | 97.12% | 4779 | 136 | 4643 | 97.15% | 4501 | 111 | 4390 | 97.53% |
Middle District of Louisiana | 1627 | 119 | 1508 | 92.69% | 1575 | 77 | 1498 | 95.11% | 1397 | 65 | 1332 | 95.35% | 1391 | 52 | 1339 | 96.26% | 1506 | 47 | 1459 | 96.88% |
Western District of Louisiana | 6230 | 971 | 5259 | 84.41% | 6633 | 765 | 5868 | 88.47% | 7218 | 642 | 6576 | 91.11% | 6396 | 555 | 5841 | 91.32% | 6522 | 412 | 6110 | 93.68% |
District of Massachusetts | 10154 | 1838 | 8316 | 81.90% | 14476 | 2078 | 12398 | 85.65% | 17172 | 2420 | 14752 | 85.91% | 15252 | 1899 | 13353 | 87.55% | 14192 | 1300 | 12892 | 90.84% |
District of Maryland | 10311 | 1356 | 8955 | 86.85% | 14707 | 1633 | 13074 | 88.90% | 16790 | 1642 | 15148 | 90.22% | 15790 | 1575 | 14215 | 90.03% | 15343 | 1243 | 14100 | 91.90% |
District of Maine | 1809 | 316 | 1493 | 82.53% | 2305 | 353 | 1952 | 84.69% | 2225 | 398 | 1827 | 82.11% | 1883 | 321 | 1562 | 82.95% | 1752 | 296 | 1456 | 83.11% |
Eastern District of Michigan | 14272 | 830 | 13442 | 94.18% | 18041 | 944 | 17097 | 94.77% | 19481 | 1128 | 18353 | 94.21% | 17021 | 767 | 16254 | 95.49% | 15707 | 823 | 15084 | 96.03% |
Western District of Michigan | 6252 | 803 | 5449 | 87.16% | 7382 | 627 | 6755 | 91.51% | 7518 | 665 | 6853 | 91.15% | 6683 | 572 | 6111 | 91.44% | 8347 | 475 | 5872 | 70.35% |
District of Minnesota | 15100 | 1771 | 13329 | 88.27% | 17580 | 1797 | 15783 | 89.78% | 16775 | 1494 | 15281 | 91.09% | 14729 | 2057 | 12672 | 86.03% | 13704 | 1962 | 11742 | 85.68% |
Eastern District of Missouri | 8030 | 435 | 7595 | 94.58% | 10391 | 541 | 9850 | 94.79% | 10228 | 377 | 9851 | 96.31% | 7916 | 323 | 7593 | 95.92% | 8053 | 254 | 7799 | 96.85% |
Western District of Missouri | 6817 | 884 | 5933 | 87.03% | 8344 | 675 | 7669 | 91.91% | 8304 | 657 | 7647 | 92.09% | 7158 | 464 | 6694 | 93.52% | 6667 | 399 | 6268 | 94.02% |
Northern District of Mississippi | 3824 | 185 | 3639 | 95.16% | 4299 | 223 | 4076 | 94.81% | 4015 | 180 | 3835 | 95.52% | 3603 | 161 | 3442 | 95.53% | 3355 | 113 | 3242 | 96.63% |
Southern District of Mississippi | 7404 | 103 | 7301 | 98.61% | 8484 | 188 | 8296 | 97.78% | 8122 | 301 | 7821 | 96.29% | 6742 | 185 | 6557 | 97.26% | 6539 | 105 | 6434 | 98.39% |
District of Montana | 1951 | 223 | 1728 | 88.57% | 2117 | 207 | 1910 | 90.22% | 2026 | 240 | 1786 | 88.15% | 1879 | 195 | 1684 | 89.62% | 1892 | 162 | 1730 | 91.44% |
Eastern District of North Carolina | 4480 | 560 | 3920 | 87.50% | 5710 | 656 | 5054 | 88.51% | 5557 | 585 | 4972 | 89.47% | 5391 | 521 | 4870 | 90.34% | 5652 | 474 | 5178 | 91.61% |
Middle District of North Carolina | 4327 | 460 | 3867 | 89.37% | 5942 | 525 | 5417 | 91.16% | 4960 | 415 | 4545 | 91.63% | 4157 | 325 | 3832 | 92.18% | 4388 | 222 | 4166 | 94.94% |
Western District of North Carolina | 3852 | 260 | 3592 | 93.25% | 5285 | 209 | 5076 | 96.05% | 4501 | 179 | 4322 | 96.02% | 3500 | 100 | 3400 | 97.14% | 3338 | 86 | 3252 | 97.42% |
District of North Dakota | 1082 | 209 | 873 | 80.68% | 1248 | 191 | 1057 | 84.70% | 1258 | 180 | 1078 | 85.69% | 1100 | 164 | 936 | 85.09% | 1176 | 120 | 1056 | 89.80% |
District of Nebraska | 4058 | 425 | 3633 | 89.53% | 4551 | 384 | 4167 | 91.56% | 4229 | 350 | 3879 | 91.72% | 3703 | 243 | 3460 | 93.44% | 3475 | 190 | 3285 | 94.53% |
District of New Hampshire | 2568 | 490 | 2078 | 80.92% | 3879 | 598 | 3281 | 84.58% | 3840 | 164 | 3676 | 95.73% | 3622 | 153 | 3469 | 95.78% | 3054 | 111 | 2943 | 96.37% |
District of New Jersey | 15405 | 1128 | 14277 | 92.68% | 22338 | 1303 | 21035 | 94.17% | 25343 | 1561 | 23782 | 93.84% | 24295 | 1870 | 22425 | 92.30% | 23688 | 1354 | 22334 | 94.28% |
District of New Mexico | 4200 | 348 | 3852 | 91.71% | 4450 | 333 | 4117 | 92.52% | 4544 | 476 | 4068 | 89.52% | 3851 | 388 | 3463 | 89.92% | 3514 | 287 | 3227 | 91.83% |
District of Nevada | 6468 | 354 | 6114 | 94.53% | 7268 | 480 | 6788 | 93.40% | 8047 | 540 | 7507 | 93.29% | 7921 | 494 | 7427 | 93.76% | 7170 | 391 | 6779 | 94.55% |
Easter District of New York | 11981 | 632 | 11349 | 94.72% | 17557 | 905 | 16652 | 94.85% | 22031 | 1050 | 20981 | 95.23% | 22283 | 962 | 21321 | 95.68% | 21359 | 811 | 20548 | 96.20% |
Northern District of New York | 6992 | 622 | 6370 | 91.10% | 8889 | 792 | 8097 | 91.09% | 9350 | 925 | 8425 | 90.11% | 8729 | 823 | 7906 | 90.57% | 8336 | 711 | 7625 | 91.47% |
Southern District of New York | 7312 | 1132 | 6180 | 84.52% | 11096 | 1528 | 9568 | 86.23% | 12851 | 1682 | 11169 | 86.91% | 11932 | 1227 | 10705 | 89.72% | 10851 | 1025 | 9826 | 90.55% |
Western District of New York | 6963 | 220 | 6743 | 96.84% | 8144 | 805 | 7339 | 90.12% | 7863 | 985 | 6878 | 87.47% | 6799 | 892 | 5907 | 86.88% | 6662 | 864 | 5798 | 87.03% |
Northern District of Ohio | 18380 | 841 | 17539 | 95.42% | 20968 | 815 | 20153 | 96.11% | 20124 | 950 | 19174 | 95.28% | 16862 | 759 | 16103 | 95.50% | 15244 | 644 | 14600 | 95.78% |
Southern District of Ohio | 21309 | 937 | 20372 | 95.60% | 23736 | 587 | 23149 | 97.53% | 21424 | 912 | 20512 | 95.74% | 17947 | 787 | 17160 | 95.61% | 16614 | 728 | 15886 | 95.62% |
Eastern District of Oklahoma | 1612 | 201 | 1411 | 87.53% | 1739 | 127 | 1612 | 92.70% | 1595 | 137 | 1458 | 91.41% | 1578 | 115 | 1463 | 92.71% | 1660 | 94 | 1566 | 94.34% |
Northern District of Oklahoma | 4267 | 608 | 3659 | 85.75% | 4781 | 691 | 4090 | 85.55% | 4496 | 523 | 3973 | 88.37% | 4198 | 507 | 3691 | 87.92% | 3913 | 426 | 3487 | 89.11% |
Western District of Oklahoma | 9354 | 807 | 8547 | 91.37% | 9059 | 440 | 8619 | 95.14% | 8479 | 436 | 8043 | 94.86% | 7668 | 397 | 7271 | 94.82% | 7379 | 354 | 7025 | 95.20% |
District of Oregon | 12091 | 1061 | 11030 | 91.22% | 14203 | 1177 | 13026 | 91.71% | 13962 | 1105 | 12857 | 92.09% | 12892 | 905 | 11987 | 92.98% | 12674 | 844 | 11830 | 93.34% |
Eastern District of Pennsylvania | 8821 | 663 | 8158 | 92.48% | 11716 | 939 | 10777 | 91.99% | 12877 | 1128 | 11749 | 91.24% | 11286 | 976 | 10310 | 91.35% | 10894 | 849 | 10045 | 92.21% |
Middle District of Pennsylvania | 3801 | 526 | 3275 | 86.16% | 5012 | 807 | 4205 | 83.90% | 5196 | 746 | 4450 | 85.64% | 4436 | 741 | 3695 | 83.30% | 3985 | 578 | 3407 | 85.50% |
Western District of Pennsylvania | 5249 | 562 | 4687 | 89.29% | 5978 | 427 | 5551 | 92.86% | 6766 | 574 | 6192 | 91.52% | 5664 | 555 | 5109 | 90.20% | 5451 | 498 | 4953 | 90.86% |
District of Rhode Island | 2345 | 327 | 2018 | 86.06% | 3436 | 333 | 3103 | 90.31% | 3711 | 364 | 3347 | 90.19% | 3294 | 266 | 3028 | 91.92% | 2997 | 177 | 2820 | 94.09% |
District of South Carolina | 5527 | 404 | 5123 | 92.69% | 7484 | 479 | 7005 | 93.60% | 7325 | 234 | 7091 | 96.81% | 6484 | 186 | 6298 | 97.13% | 6520 | 221 | 6299 | 96.61% |
District of South Dakota | 1492 | 388 | 1104 | 73.99% | 1539 | 356 | 1183 | 76.87% | 1464 | 284 | 1180 | 80.60% | 1403 | 200 | 1203 | 85.74% | 1216 | 164 | 1052 | 86.51% |
Eastern District of Tennessee | 10396 | 260 | 10136 | 97.50% | 12559 | 325 | 12234 | 97.41% | 11591 | 595 | 10996 | 94.87% | 10026 | 416 | 9610 | 95.85% | 9813 | 343 | 9470 | 96.50% |
Middle District of Tennessee | 11633 | 887 | 10746 | 92.38% | 12282 | 1095 | 11187 | 91.08% | 10943 | 891 | 10052 | 91.86% | 10016 | 541 | 9475 | 94.60% | 8937 | 387 | 8550 | 95.67% |
Western District of Tennessee | 14689 | 207 | 14482 | 98.59% | 17892 | 300 | 17592 | 98.32% | 17226 | 380 | 16846 | 97.79% | 16938 | 306 | 16632 | 98.19% | 16269 | 244 | 16025 | 98.50% |
Eastern District of Texas | 3100 | 596 | 2504 | 80.77% | 3647 | 505 | 3142 | 86.15% | 4008 | 536 | 3472 | 86.63% | 4279 | 486 | 3793 | 88.64% | 4780 | 465 | 4315 | 90.27% |
Northern District of Texas | 16100 | 2571 | 13529 | 84.03% | 17999 | 2200 | 15799 | 87.78% | 20127 | 1996 | 18131 | 90.08% | 16190 | 1694 | 14496 | 89.54% | 15004 | 1607 | 13397 | 89.29% |
Southern District of Texas | 12092 | 1290 | 10802 | 89.33% | 13054 | 959 | 12095 | 92.65% | 13913 | 1561 | 12352 | 88.78% | 12590 | 757 | 11833 | 93.99% | 11916 | 615 | 11301 | 94.84% |
Western District of Texas | 11987 | 857 | 11130 | 92.85% | 12865 | 748 | 12117 | 94.19% | 12439 | 720 | 11719 | 94.21% | 10781 | 605 | 10176 | 94.39% | 9945 | 571 | 9374 | 94.26% |
District of Utah | 7894 | 895 | 6999 | 88.66% | 8259 | 830 | 7429 | 89.95% | 8197 | 551 | 7646 | 93.28% | 6866 | 319 | 6547 | 95.35% | 6591 | 222 | 6369 | 96.63% |
Eastern District of Virginia | 16219 | 2332 | 13887 | 85.62% | 21319 | 2508 | 18811 | 88.24% | 22062 | 1442 | 20620 | 93.46% | 19936 | 1322 | 18614 | 93.37% | 18130 | 818 | 17312 | 95.49% |
Western District of Virginia | 5371 | 626 | 4745 | 88.34% | 6844 | 801 | 6043 | 88.30% | 6402 | 521 | 5881 | 91.86% | 5504 | 649 | 4855 | 88.21% | 5853 | 578 | 5275 | 90.12% |
District of Vermont | 701 | 179 | 522 | 74.47% | 955 | 208 | 747 | 78.22% | 999 | 218 | 781 | 78.18% | 841 | 154 | 687 | 81.69% | 828 | 134 | 694 | 83.82% |
Eastern District of Washington | 3840 | 522 | 3318 | 86.41% | 3991 | 574 | 3417 | 85.62% | 3807 | 459 | 3348 | 87.94% | 3466 | 348 | 3118 | 89.96% | 3333 | 334 | 2999 | 89.98% |
Western District of Washington | 12585 | 1455 | 11130 | 88.44% | 14219 | 1610 | 12609 | 88.68% | 15091 | 1163 | 13928 | 92.29% | 13860 | 1058 | 12802 | 92.37% | 14203 | 767 | 13436 | 94.60% |
Eastern District of Wisconsin | 7081 | 530 | 6551 | 92.52% | 8359 | 469 | 7890 | 94.39% | 7987 | 383 | 7604 | 95.20% | 7128 | 380 | 6748 | 94.67% | 7156 | 404 | 6752 | 94.35% |
Western District of Wisconsin | 3685 | 836 | 2849 | 77.31% | 4245 | 802 | 3443 | 81.11% | 4054 | 778 | 3276 | 80.81% | 3568 | 605 | 2963 | 83.04% | 3579 | 591 | 2988 | 83.49% |
Northern District of West Virginia | 1183 | 141 | 1042 | 88.08% | 1398 | 186 | 1212 | 86.70% | 1509 | 190 | 1319 | 87.41% | 1358 | 133 | 1225 | 90.21% | 1305 | 139 | 1166 | 89.35% |
Southern District of West Virginia | 2487 | 240 | 2247 | 90.35% | 2862 | 251 | 2611 | 91.23% | 2998 | 278 | 2720 | 90.73% | 2263 | 171 | 2092 | 92.44% | 2368 | 171 | 2197 | 92.78% |
District of Wyoming | 1424 | 136 | 1288 | 90.45% | 1535 | 118 | 1417 | 92.31% | 1339 | 139 | 1200 | 89.62% | 1202 | 108 | 1094 | 91.01% | 1178 | 102 | 1076 | 91.34% |
District of Guam | 39 | 7 | 32 | 82.05% | 23 | 8 | 15 | 65.22% | 27 | 11 | 16 | 59.26% | 39 | 14 | 25 | 64.10% | 54 | 13 | 41 | 75.93% |
District of the Northern Mariana Islands | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0.00% | 5 | 4 | 1 | 20.00% | 5 | 2 | 3 | 60.00% | 8 | 7 | 1 | 12.50% | 5 | 3 | 2 | 40.00% |
District of Puerto Rico | 7082 | 729 | 6353 | 89.71% | 8773 | 897 | 7876 | 89.78% | 7785 | 754 | 7031 | 90.31% | 7071 | 607 | 6464 | 91.42% | 7036 | 493 | 6543 | 92.99% |
District of the Virgin Islands | 27 | 13 | 14 | 51.85% | 44 | 22 | 22 | 50.00% | 71 | 28 | 43 | 60.56% | 61 | 27 | 34 | 55.74% | 66 | 30 | 38 | 57.58% |
United States | 782960 | 64853 | 718107 | 91.72% | 943987 | 71549 | 872438 | 92.42% | 971517 | 70643 | 900874 | 92.73% | 875202 | 62304 | 812898 | 92.88% | 832829 | 52374 | 780455 | 93.71% |
Annual Business and Non-business Filings by District (1980-1984)
Annual Business and Non-business Filings by District (1980-1984)
1980 | 1981 | 1982 | 1983 | 1984 | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
District | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer |
District of Alaska | 488 | 276 | 212 | 43.44% | 414 | 219 | 195 | 47.10% | 367 | 213 | 154 | 41.96% | 327 | 152 | 175 | 53.52% | 433 | 220 | 213 | 49.19% |
Middle District of Alabama | 2163 | 257 | 1906 | 88.12% | 2170 | 345 | 1825 | 84.10% | 2121 | 399 | 1722 | 81.19% | 1662 | 290 | 1372 | 82.55% | 1717 | 264 | 1453 | 84.62% |
Northern District of Alabama | 7057 | 631 | 6426 | 91.06% | 7807 | 628 | 7179 | 91.96% | 7858 | 698 | 7160 | 91.12% | 7031 | 457 | 6574 | 93.50% | 6996 | 512 | 6484 | 92.68% |
Southern District of Alabama | 1121 | 168 | 953 | 85.01% | 1269 | 181 | 1088 | 85.74% | 1377 | 175 | 1202 | 87.29% | 1297 | 144 | 1153 | 88.90% | 1237 | 198 | 1039 | 83.99% |
Eastern District of Arkansas | 1844 | 161 | 1683 | 91.27% | 1974 | 189 | 1785 | 90.43% | 2072 | 320 | 1752 | 84.56% | 2035 | 259 | 1776 | 87.27% | 2731 | 483 | 2248 | 82.31% |
Western District of Arkansas | 681 | 103 | 578 | 84.88% | 762 | 106 | 656 | 86.09% | 836 | 177 | 659 | 78.83% | 779 | 154 | 625 | 80.23% | 989 | 260 | 729 | 73.71% |
District of Arizona | 4063 | 842 | 3221 | 79.28% | 4384 | 992 | 3392 | 77.37% | 5095 | 1312 | 3783 | 74.25% | 4970 | 1468 | 3502 | 70.46% | 4839 | 1392 | 3447 | 71.23% |
Central District of California | 20207 | 2262 | 17945 | 88.81% | 25643 | 3207 | 22436 | 87.49% | 33575 | 5028 | 28547 | 85.02% | 35066 | 5097 | 29969 | 85.46% | 34721 | 4029 | 30692 | 88.40% |
Eastern District of California | 8457 | 1432 | 7025 | 83.07% | 10031 | 1980 | 8051 | 80.26% | 10717 | 2764 | 7953 | 74.21% | 10373 | 2424 | 7949 | 76.63% | 9690 | 2528 | 7162 | 73.91% |
Northern District of California | 12871 | 1624 | 11247 | 87.38% | 13208 | 2254 | 10954 | 82.93% | 14699 | 3465 | 11234 | 76.43% | 13184 | 3222 | 9962 | 75.56% | 11883 | 2591 | 9292 | 78.20% |
Southern District of California | 3787 | 552 | 3235 | 85.42% | 4325 | 726 | 3599 | 83.21% | 5799 | 905 | 4894 | 84.39% | 6013 | 771 | 5242 | 87.18% | 5588 | 861 | 4727 | 84.59% |
District of Colorado | 5970 | 1105 | 4865 | 81.49% | 6115 | 1602 | 4513 | 73.80% | 6092 | 1746 | 4346 | 71.34% | 5882 | 1517 | 4365 | 74.21% | 6475 | 1995 | 4480 | 69.19% |
District of Connecticut | 2265 | 435 | 1830 | 80.79% | 2732 | 412 | 2320 | 84.92% | 2727 | 473 | 2254 | 82.65% | 2079 | 437 | 1642 | 78.98% | 1852 | 339 | 1513 | 81.70% |
District of Columbia | 598 | 42 | 556 | 92.98% | 721 | 62 | 659 | 91.40% | 764 | 83 | 681 | 89.14% | 719 | 93 | 626 | 87.07% | 636 | 103 | 533 | 83.81% |
District of Delaware | 495 | 55 | 440 | 88.89% | 590 | 43 | 547 | 92.71% | 507 | 72 | 435 | 85.80% | 446 | 70 | 376 | 84.30% | 442 | 52 | 390 | 88.24% |
Middle District of Florida | 3806 | 655 | 3151 | 82.79% | 4601 | 762 | 3839 | 83.44% | 5113 | 1050 | 4063 | 79.46% | 4613 | 892 | 3721 | 80.66% | 5145 | 1263 | 3882 | 75.45% |
Northern District of Florida | 488 | 110 | 378 | 77.46% | 583 | 166 | 417 | 71.53% | 602 | 235 | 367 | 60.96% | 512 | 149 | 363 | 70.90% | 607 | 248 | 359 | 59.14% |
Southern District of Florida | 1718 | 278 | 1440 | 83.82% | 2189 | 405 | 1784 | 81.50% | 2543 | 599 | 1944 | 76.45% | 2395 | 566 | 1829 | 76.37% | 2478 | 583 | 1895 | 76.47% |
Middle District of Georgia | 3061 | 255 | 2806 | 91.67% | 3083 | 287 | 2796 | 90.69% | 3304 | 391 | 2913 | 88.17% | 3094 | 330 | 2764 | 89.33% | 3151 | 308 | 2843 | 90.23% |
Northern District of Georgia | 6013 | 580 | 5433 | 90.35% | 7062 | 744 | 6318 | 89.46% | 8063 | 1254 | 6809 | 84.45% | 7571 | 1067 | 6504 | 85.91% | 7764 | 1101 | 6663 | 85.82% |
Southern District of Georgia | 1794 | 272 | 1522 | 84.84% | 1985 | 271 | 1714 | 86.35% | 2128 | 271 | 1857 | 87.27% | 2120 | 239 | 1881 | 88.73% | 2175 | 180 | 1995 | 91.72% |
District of Hawaii | 794 | 224 | 570 | 71.79% | 767 | 251 | 516 | 67.28% | 743 | 254 | 489 | 65.81% | 645 | 275 | 370 | 57.36% | 614 | 225 | 389 | 63.36% |
Northern District of Iowa | 1605 | 591 | 1014 | 63.18% | 1758 | 536 | 1222 | 69.51% | 1758 | 816 | 942 | 53.58% | 1574 | 781 | 793 | 50.38% | 1888 | 971 | 917 | 48.57% |
Southern District of Iowa | 2165 | 337 | 1828 | 84.43% | 2397 | 432 | 1965 | 81.98% | 1912 | 605 | 1307 | 68.36% | 1824 | 591 | 1233 | 67.60% | 2025 | 663 | 1362 | 67.26% |
District of Idaho | 2158 | 467 | 1691 | 78.36% | 2287 | 375 | 1912 | 83.60% | 2482 | 420 | 2062 | 83.08% | 2099 | 615 | 1484 | 70.70% | 2233 | 667 | 1566 | 70.13% |
Central District of Illinois | 5991 | 797 | 5194 | 86.70% | 4509 | 471 | 4038 | 89.55% | 4962 | 999 | 3963 | 79.87% | 4941 | 1065 | 3876 | 78.45% | 5253 | 1099 | 4154 | 79.08% |
Northern District of Illinois | 19889 | 1963 | 17926 | 90.13% | 17357 | 1188 | 16169 | 93.16% | 18796 | 2252 | 16544 | 88.02% | 17475 | 2105 | 15370 | 87.95% | 18007 | 2011 | 15996 | 88.83% |
Southern District of Illinois | 1632 | 335 | 1297 | 79.47% | 1463 | 204 | 1259 | 86.06% | 1750 | 402 | 1348 | 77.03% | 1655 | 460 | 1195 | 72.21% | 1728 | 534 | 1194 | 69.10% |
Northern District of Indiana | 4996 | 357 | 4639 | 92.85% | 5443 | 378 | 5065 | 93.06% | 5489 | 669 | 4820 | 87.81% | 5184 | 648 | 4536 | 87.50% | 4883 | 576 | 4307 | 88.20% |
Southern District of Indiana | 7836 | 485 | 7351 | 93.81% | 7763 | 414 | 7349 | 94.67% | 7491 | 914 | 6577 | 87.80% | 7082 | 637 | 6445 | 91.01% | 7067 | 713 | 6354 | 89.91% |
District of Kansas | 4450 | 737 | 3713 | 83.44% | 4291 | 653 | 3638 | 84.78% | 4425 | 685 | 3740 | 84.52% | 4122 | 542 | 3580 | 86.85% | 4417 | 944 | 3473 | 78.63% |
Eastern District of Kentucky | 2507 | 366 | 2141 | 85.40% | 2875 | 438 | 2437 | 84.77% | 2812 | 612 | 2200 | 78.24% | 2404 | 305 | 2099 | 87.31% | 2379 | 489 | 1890 | 79.45% |
Western District of Kentucky | 5199 | 178 | 5021 | 96.58% | 4620 | 339 | 4281 | 92.66% | 4411 | 487 | 3924 | 88.96% | 4096 | 439 | 3657 | 89.28% | 4281 | 442 | 3839 | 89.68% |
Eastern District of Louisiana | 2098 | 261 | 1837 | 87.56% | 2404 | 297 | 2107 | 87.65% | 2897 | 469 | 2428 | 83.81% | 2716 | 463 | 2253 | 82.95% | 2769 | 479 | 2290 | 82.70% |
Middle District of Louisiana | 564 | 106 | 458 | 81.21% | 630 | 108 | 522 | 82.86% | 768 | 214 | 554 | 72.14% | 891 | 100 | 791 | 88.78% | 1031 | 125 | 906 | 87.88% |
Western District of Louisiana | 2307 | 324 | 1983 | 85.96% | 2257 | 386 | 1871 | 82.90% | 2739 | 611 | 2128 | 77.69% | 3081 | 734 | 2347 | 76.18% | 3127 | 688 | 2439 | 78.00% |
District of Massachusetts | 3122 | 479 | 2643 | 84.66% | 3393 | 404 | 2989 | 88.09% | 3299 | 619 | 2680 | 81.24% | 2552 | 523 | 2029 | 79.51% | 2251 | 485 | 1766 | 78.45% |
District of Maryland | 3991 | 425 | 3566 | 89.35% | 4945 | 357 | 4588 | 92.78% | 4398 | 432 | 3966 | 90.18% | 3928 | 466 | 3462 | 88.14% | 3783 | 438 | 3345 | 88.42% |
District of Maine | 1039 | 293 | 746 | 71.80% | 974 | 249 | 725 | 74.44% | 855 | 296 | 559 | 65.38% | 663 | 196 | 467 | 70.44% | 599 | 178 | 421 | 70.28% |
Eastern District of Michigan | 9649 | 602 | 9047 | 93.76% | 9683 | 733 | 8950 | 92.43% | 9660 | 1018 | 8642 | 89.46% | 7271 | 921 | 6350 | 87.33% | 5788 | 768 | 5020 | 86.73% |
Western District of Michigan | 4413 | 790 | 3623 | 82.10% | 5182 | 933 | 4249 | 82.00% | 4311 | 851 | 3460 | 80.26% | 3515 | 703 | 2812 | 80.00% | 3151 | 713 | 2438 | 77.37% |
District of Minnesota | 4765 | 858 | 3907 | 81.99% | 5543 | 972 | 4571 | 82.46% | 5255 | 1392 | 3863 | 73.51% | 4620 | 1358 | 3262 | 70.61% | 5076 | 1368 | 3708 | 73.05% |
Eastern District of Missouri | 3351 | 460 | 2891 | 86.27% | 3609 | 354 | 3255 | 90.19% | 3723 | 741 | 2982 | 80.10% | 2824 | 438 | 2386 | 84.49% | 2897 | 450 | 2447 | 84.47% |
Western District of Missouri | 4256 | 707 | 3549 | 83.39% | 3991 | 573 | 3418 | 85.64% | 4058 | 1120 | 2938 | 72.40% | 3482 | 646 | 2836 | 81.45% | 4087 | 1220 | 2867 | 70.15% |
Northern District of Mississippi | 1087 | 102 | 985 | 90.62% | 1271 | 206 | 1065 | 83.79% | 1322 | 246 | 1076 | 81.39% | 1165 | 155 | 1010 | 86.70% | 1240 | 148 | 1092 | 88.06% |
Southern District of Mississippi | 3520 | 76 | 3444 | 97.84% | 3901 | 115 | 3786 | 97.05% | 4052 | 229 | 3823 | 94.35% | 3629 | 199 | 3430 | 94.52% | 3387 | 186 | 3201 | 94.51% |
District of Montana | 1036 | 190 | 846 | 81.66% | 1180 | 225 | 955 | 80.93% | 990 | 192 | 798 | 80.61% | 993 | 271 | 722 | 72.71% | 948 | 216 | 732 | 77.22% |
Eastern District of North Carolina | 2975 | 303 | 2672 | 89.82% | 3114 | 358 | 2756 | 88.50% | 2590 | 428 | 2162 | 83.47% | 2111 | 406 | 1705 | 80.77% | 1950 | 292 | 1658 | 85.03% |
Middle District of North Carolina | 2929 | 274 | 2655 | 90.65% | 2816 | 285 | 2531 | 89.88% | 2342 | 346 | 1996 | 85.23% | 1675 | 317 | 1358 | 81.07% | 1523 | 233 | 1290 | 84.70% |
Western District of North Carolina | 1661 | 185 | 1476 | 88.86% | 2122 | 164 | 1958 | 92.27% | 1882 | 246 | 1636 | 86.93% | 1300 | 200 | 1100 | 84.62% | 1398 | 308 | 1090 | 77.97% |
District of North Dakota | 551 | 188 | 363 | 65.88% | 576 | 188 | 388 | 67.36% | 715 | 321 | 394 | 55.10% | 653 | 362 | 291 | 44.56% | 654 | 317 | 337 | 51.53% |
District of Nebraska | 2834 | 477 | 2357 | 83.17% | 2546 | 377 | 2169 | 85.19% | 2289 | 614 | 1675 | 73.18% | 2215 | 530 | 1685 | 76.07% | 2565 | 613 | 1952 | 76.10% |
District of New Hampshire | 727 | 159 | 568 | 78.13% | 806 | 137 | 669 | 83.00% | 715 | 213 | 502 | 70.21% | 553 | 175 | 378 | 68.35% | 497 | 115 | 382 | 76.86% |
District of New Jersey | 5623 | 988 | 4635 | 82.43% | 7808 | 1039 | 6769 | 86.69% | 8991 | 1568 | 7423 | 82.56% | 7334 | 706 | 6628 | 90.37% | 6744 | 1253 | 5491 | 81.42% |
District of New Mexico | 1450 | 164 | 1286 | 88.69% | 1398 | 153 | 1245 | 89.06% | 1432 | 213 | 1219 | 85.13% | 1498 | 191 | 1307 | 87.25% | 1585 | 275 | 1310 | 82.65% |
District of Nevada | 2223 | 359 | 1864 | 83.85% | 2620 | 486 | 2134 | 81.45% | 2829 | 631 | 2198 | 77.70% | 2858 | 583 | 2275 | 79.60% | 2776 | 521 | 2255 | 81.23% |
Easter District of New York | 8049 | 1146 | 6903 | 85.76% | 8036 | 877 | 7159 | 89.09% | 6426 | 911 | 5515 | 85.82% | 4932 | 669 | 4263 | 86.44% | 4547 | 527 | 4020 | 88.41% |
Northern District of New York | 4939 | 774 | 4165 | 84.33% | 4945 | 540 | 4405 | 89.08% | 4587 | 899 | 3688 | 80.40% | 3231 | 765 | 2466 | 76.32% | 2667 | 576 | 2091 | 78.40% |
Southern District of New York | 3483 | 518 | 2965 | 85.13% | 4021 | 516 | 3505 | 87.17% | 4009 | 828 | 3181 | 79.35% | 3000 | 676 | 2324 | 77.47% | 2841 | 625 | 2216 | 78.00% |
Western District of New York | 5596 | 762 | 4834 | 86.38% | 5847 | 668 | 5179 | 88.58% | 5206 | 892 | 4314 | 82.87% | 4154 | 883 | 3271 | 78.74% | 3847 | 883 | 2964 | 77.05% |
Northern District of Ohio | 13256 | 646 | 12610 | 95.13% | 14513 | 946 | 13567 | 93.48% | 13363 | 1110 | 12253 | 91.69% | 10416 | 1034 | 9382 | 90.07% | 9565 | 981 | 8584 | 89.74% |
Southern District of Ohio | 12129 | 796 | 11333 | 93.44% | 12604 | 1144 | 11460 | 90.92% | 12145 | 1668 | 10477 | 86.27% | 10453 | 1425 | 9028 | 86.37% | 10139 | 1401 | 8738 | 86.18% |
Eastern District of Oklahoma | 475 | 118 | 357 | 75.16% | 465 | 125 | 340 | 73.12% | 572 | 179 | 393 | 68.71% | 632 | 195 | 437 | 69.15% | 659 | 190 | 469 | 71.17% |
Northern District of Oklahoma | 1657 | 266 | 1391 | 83.95% | 1436 | 234 | 1202 | 83.70% | 1707 | 399 | 1308 | 76.63% | 1948 | 377 | 1571 | 80.65% | 2011 | 487 | 1524 | 75.78% |
Western District of Oklahoma | 2657 | 203 | 2454 | 92.36% | 2262 | 123 | 2139 | 94.56% | 2601 | 421 | 2180 | 83.81% | 3587 | 491 | 3096 | 86.31% | 3898 | 421 | 3477 | 89.20% |
District of Oregon | 4914 | 801 | 4113 | 83.70% | 6115 | 1295 | 4820 | 78.82% | 5650 | 1535 | 4115 | 72.83% | 5867 | 1333 | 4534 | 77.28% | 6149 | 1530 | 4619 | 75.12% |
Eastern District of Pennsylvania | 3451 | 380 | 3071 | 88.99% | 5385 | 471 | 4914 | 91.25% | 6246 | 595 | 5651 | 90.47% | 5009 | 537 | 4472 | 89.28% | 4482 | 545 | 3937 | 87.84% |
Middle District of Pennsylvania | 1557 | 295 | 1262 | 81.05% | 2238 | 406 | 1832 | 81.86% | 2163 | 601 | 1562 | 72.21% | 1694 | 453 | 1241 | 73.26% | 1532 | 426 | 1106 | 72.19% |
Western District of Pennsylvania | 2730 | 616 | 2114 | 77.44% | 4394 | 630 | 3764 | 85.66% | 4838 | 923 | 3915 | 80.92% | 3332 | 632 | 2700 | 81.03% | 3166 | 554 | 2612 | 82.50% |
District of Rhode Island | 974 | 185 | 789 | 81.01% | 1038 | 161 | 877 | 84.49% | 1115 | 260 | 855 | 76.68% | 896 | 166 | 730 | 81.47% | 713 | 130 | 583 | 81.77% |
District of South Carolina | 1187 | 219 | 968 | 81.55% | 1997 | 223 | 1774 | 88.83% | 2203 | 319 | 1884 | 85.52% | 1941 | 282 | 1659 | 85.47% | 2033 | 229 | 1804 | 88.74% |
District of South Dakota | 667 | 270 | 397 | 59.52% | 703 | 289 | 414 | 58.89% | 782 | 438 | 344 | 43.99% | 773 | 435 | 338 | 43.73% | 867 | 354 | 513 | 59.17% |
Eastern District of Tennessee | 4205 | 459 | 3746 | 89.08% | 4591 | 578 | 4013 | 87.41% | 4683 | 842 | 3841 | 82.02% | 4358 | 868 | 3490 | 80.08% | 4351 | 795 | 3556 | 81.73% |
Middle District of Tennessee | 3923 | 490 | 3433 | 87.51% | 4093 | 617 | 3476 | 84.93% | 4335 | 904 | 3431 | 79.15% | 3545 | 656 | 2889 | 81.50% | 3346 | 489 | 2857 | 85.39% |
Western District of Tennessee | 4935 | 161 | 4774 | 96.74% | 6224 | 251 | 5973 | 95.97% | 6388 | 288 | 6100 | 95.49% | 5864 | 214 | 5650 | 96.35% | 6321 | 186 | 6135 | 97.06% |
Eastern District of Texas | 367 | 118 | 249 | 67.85% | 593 | 172 | 421 | 70.99% | 747 | 287 | 460 | 61.58% | 807 | 336 | 471 | 58.36% | 887 | 355 | 532 | 59.98% |
Northern District of Texas | 2229 | 683 | 1546 | 69.36% | 3245 | 1051 | 2194 | 67.61% | 3762 | 1622 | 2140 | 56.88% | 3789 | 1578 | 2211 | 58.35% | 4362 | 2033 | 2329 | 53.39% |
Southern District of Texas | 2509 | 647 | 1862 | 74.21% | 3871 | 637 | 3234 | 83.54% | 4254 | 1002 | 3252 | 76.45% | 5628 | 1754 | 3874 | 68.83% | 6397 | 1951 | 4446 | 69.50% |
Western District of Texas | 2918 | 373 | 2545 | 87.22% | 2627 | 442 | 2185 | 83.17% | 2719 | 534 | 2185 | 80.36% | 2887 | 601 | 2286 | 79.18% | 2951 | 582 | 2369 | 80.28% |
District of Utah | 2739 | 727 | 2012 | 73.46% | 3824 | 942 | 2882 | 75.37% | 3402 | 1041 | 2361 | 69.40% | 3440 | 941 | 2499 | 72.65% | 3583 | 1042 | 2541 | 70.92% |
Eastern District of Virginia | 6149 | 691 | 5458 | 88.76% | 6299 | 551 | 5748 | 91.25% | 6105 | 926 | 5179 | 84.83% | 5735 | 718 | 5017 | 87.48% | 5855 | 703 | 5152 | 87.99% |
Western District of Virginia | 3077 | 603 | 2474 | 80.40% | 3386 | 518 | 2868 | 84.70% | 3347 | 814 | 2533 | 75.68% | 2907 | 703 | 2204 | 75.82% | 2676 | 626 | 2050 | 76.61% |
District of Vermont | 275 | 100 | 175 | 63.64% | 277 | 80 | 197 | 71.12% | 289 | 139 | 150 | 51.90% | 255 | 106 | 149 | 58.43% | 213 | 99 | 114 | 53.52% |
Eastern District of Washington | 2206 | 519 | 1687 | 76.47% | 2398 | 608 | 1790 | 74.65% | 2382 | 695 | 1687 | 70.82% | 2333 | 443 | 1890 | 81.01% | 2789 | 614 | 2175 | 77.98% |
Western District of Washington | 5452 | 815 | 4637 | 85.05% | 6295 | 962 | 5333 | 84.72% | 6717 | 1218 | 5499 | 81.87% | 6697 | 1087 | 5610 | 83.77% | 7491 | 1057 | 6434 | 85.89% |
Eastern District of Wisconsin | 3200 | 547 | 2653 | 82.91% | 4035 | 531 | 3504 | 86.84% | 4737 | 977 | 3760 | 79.38% | 4991 | 911 | 4080 | 81.75% | 5202 | 899 | 4303 | 82.72% |
Western District of Wisconsin | 1999 | 319 | 1680 | 84.04% | 2245 | 410 | 1835 | 81.74% | 2336 | 865 | 1471 | 62.97% | 2149 | 815 | 1334 | 62.08% | 2450 | 1052 | 1398 | 57.06% |
Northern District of West Virginia | 725 | 147 | 578 | 79.72% | 1003 | 162 | 841 | 83.85% | 956 | 266 | 690 | 72.18% | 655 | 212 | 443 | 67.63% | 566 | 174 | 392 | 69.26% |
Southern District of West Virginia | 1032 | 167 | 865 | 83.82% | 1311 | 74 | 1237 | 94.36% | 1255 | 174 | 1081 | 86.14% | 1345 | 211 | 1134 | 84.31% | 1296 | 259 | 1037 | 80.02% |
District of Wyoming | 510 | 115 | 395 | 77.45% | 549 | 139 | 410 | 74.68% | 662 | 243 | 419 | 63.29% | 837 | 368 | 469 | 56.03% | 979 | 447 | 532 | 54.34% |
District of Guam | 30 | 4 | 26 | 86.67% | 33 | 8 | 25 | 75.76% | 30 | 8 | 22 | 73.33% | 33 | 9 | 24 | 72.73% | 47 | 21 | 26 | 55.32% |
District of the Northern Mariana Islands | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 0 | 1 | 100.00% | 3 | 2 | 1 | 33.33% |
District of Puerto Rico | 707 | 302 | 405 | 57.28% | 1070 | 370 | 700 | 65.42% | 2016 | 717 | 1299 | 64.43% | 1929 | 626 | 1303 | 67.55% | 1466 | 512 | 954 | 65.08% |
United States | 331264 | 43694 | 287570 | 86.81% | 363943 | 48125 | 315818 | 86.78% | 380251 | 69300 | 310951 | 81.78% | 348880 | 62436 | 286444 | 82.10% | 348521 | 64004 | 284517 | 81.64% |
Annual Business and Non-business Filings by District (1997-2000)
Annual Business and Non-business Filings by District (1997-2000)
1997 | 1998 | 1999 | 2000 | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
District | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer |
District of Alaska | 1373 | 147 | 1,226 | 89.29% | 1,479 | 127 | 1,352 | 91.41% | 1,492 | 115 | 1377 | 92.29% | 1,419 | 118 | 1,301 | 91.68% |
Middle District of Alabama | 6,670 | 284 | 6,386 | 95.74% | 6,753 | 159 | 6,594 | 97.65% | 6,500 | 146 | 6354 | 97.75% | 7,284 | 137 | 7,147 | 98.11% |
Northern District of Alabama | 22,732 | 442 | 22,290 | 98.06% | 20,912 | 380 | 20,532 | 98.18% | 19,385 | 254 | 19,131 | 98.68% | 20,348 | 275 | 20,073 | 98.64% |
Southern District of Alabama | 4,774 | 150 | 4,624 | 96.86% | 4,803 | 64 | 4,739 | 98.67% | 4,679 | 34 | 4,645 | 99.27% | 5,356 | 33 | 5,323 | 99.38% |
Eastern District of Arkansas | 9,942 | 283 | 9,659 | 97.15% | 10,789 | 215 | 10,574 | 98.01% | 10,252 | 148 | 10,104 | 98.55% | 10,566 | 151 | 10,415 | 98.57% |
Western District of Arkansas | 5,701 | 256 | 5,445 | 95.51% | 6,263 | 193 | 6,070 | 96.92% | 6,218 | 147 | 6,134 | 98.64% | 6,218 | 110 | 6,108 | 98.23% |
District of Arizona | 25,069 | 846 | 24,223 | 96.63% | 24,191 | 762 | 23,429 | 96.85% | 22,609 | 781 | 21,828 | 96.54% | 20,955 | 765 | 20,190 | 96.34% |
Central District of California | 118,335 | 6,184 | 112,151 | 94.77% | 120,981 | 4,787 | 116,194 | 96.04% | 102,422 | 2,387 | 100,035 | 97.66% | 80,782 | 2,232 | 78,550 | 97.23% |
Eastern District of California | 36,976 | 2,624 | 34,352 | 92.90% | 39,345 | 2,012 | 37,333 | 94.89% | 34,750 | 1,144 | 33,606 | 96.70% | 29,756 | 1,139 | 28,617 | 96.29% |
Northern District of California | 34,781 | 2,116 | 32,515 | 95.40% | 34,082 | 1,567 | 32,665 | 93.92% | 26,564 | 1,308 | 25,256 | 95.07% | 19,562 | 1,063 | 18,499 | 94.56% |
Southern District of California | 19,407 | 213 | 19,194 | 98.40% | 18,805 | 180 | 18,625 | 99.04% | 15,292 | 175 | 15,117 | 98.85% | 12,619 | 161 | 12,458 | 98.72% |
District of Colorado | 19,146 | 518 | 18,628 | 97.29% | 18,262 | 402 | 17,860 | 97.80% | 1,6165 | 347 | 15818 | 97.85% | 15,558 | 373 | 15,185 | 97.60% |
District of Connecticut | 13,499 | 205 | 13,294 | 98.48% | 13,962 | 164 | 13,798 | 98.83% | 11868 | 142 | 11726 | 98.80% | 10,643 | 139 | 10,504 | 98.69% |
District of Columbia | 2,530 | 100 | 2,430 | 96.05% | 2,885 | 88 | 2,797 | 96.95% | 2718 | 81 | 2637 | 97.01% | 2,346 | 58 | 2,288 | 97.52% |
District of Delaware | 2,646 | 214 | 2,432 | 91.91% | 2,871 | 372 | 2,499 | 87.04% | 4,526 | 21,115 | 2,411 | 53.26% | 4,695 | 2,320 | 2,375 | 50.60% |
Middle District of Florida | 42,388 | 1,217 | 41,171 | 97.13% | 45,472 | 1,090 | 44,382 | 97.60% | 41,855 | 1,008 | 40,847 | 97.59% | 40,551 | 777 | 39,774 | 98.72% |
Northern District of Florida | 4,787 | 442 | 22,290 | 98.06% | 5,344 | 91 | 5,253 | 98.30% | 5,002 | 74 | 4,928 | 98.52% | 5,148 | 66 | 5,082 | 98.71% |
Southern District of Florida | 26,308 | 816 | 25,492 | 96.90% | 29,373 | 686 | 28,687 | 97.66% | 28,500 | 641 | 27,859 | 97.75% | 27,032 | 604 | 26,428 | 97.76% |
Middle District of Georgia | 15,136 | 202 | 14,934 | 98.67% | 14,921 | 161 | 14,760 | 98.92% | 14,161 | 160 | 14,001 | 98.87% | 14,833 | 113 | 14,720 | 99.23% |
Northern District of Georgia | 34,946 | 1,130 | 33,816 | 98.03% | 33,763 | 834 | 32,929 | 97.53% | 31,871 | 650 | 31,221 | 97.96% | 32,242 | 727 | 31,515 | 97.74% |
Southern District of Georgia | 12,707 | 310 | 12,397 | 97.56% | 12,441 | 202 | 12,239 | 98.38% | 11,741 | 123 | 11,618 | 98.95% | 12,852 | 172 | 12,680 | 98.66% |
District of Hawaii | 4,463 | 187 | 4,276 | 95.81% | 5,829 | 114 | 5,715 | 98.04% | 5426 | 87 | 5339 | 98.39% | 4,549 | 63 | 4,486 | 98.61% |
Northern District of Iowa | 3,996 | 235 | 3,761 | 94.12% | 3,880 | 180 | 3,700 | 95.36% | 3,444 | 115 | 3,329 | 96.66% | 3,399 | 163 | 3,236 | 95.99% |
Southern District of Iowa | 5,847 | 270 | 5,577 | 95.38% | 5,638 | 103 | 5,535 | 98.17% | 5,008 | 81 | 33,606 | 96.70% | 4,894 | 51 | 4,843 | 98.95% |
District of Idaho | 6,973 | 532 | 6,441 | 92.37% | 7,612 | 435 | 7,177 | 94.29% | 7,285 | 340 | 6945 | 95.33% | 7,119 | 269 | 6,850 | 96.22% |
Central District of Illinois | 12,854 | 295 | 12,559 | 97.70% | 12,685 | 114 | 12,571 | 99.10% | 11,765 | 167 | 11,598 | 98.58% | 11,406 | 134 | 11,272 | 98.82% |
Northern District of Illinois | 44,087 | 854 | 43,233 | 98.06% | 46,503 | 646 | 45,857 | 98.61% | 44,790 | 553 | 44,237 | 98.769% | 42,340 | 548 | 41,792 | 98.70% |
Southern District of Illinois | 7,013 | 639 | 6,374 | 90.89% | 7,499 | 714 | 6,785 | 90.48% | 7,406 | 1,965 | 6,732 | 90.89% | 7,416 | 588 | 6,828 | 92.07% |
Northern District of Indiana | 13,658 | 213 | 13,445 | 98.44% | 14,550 | 190 | 14,360 | 98.69% | 14,288 | 148 | 14,140 | 98.96% | 42,340 | 548 | 41,792 | 98.70% |
Southern District of Indiana | 23,150 | 470 | 22,680 | 97.97% | 24,711 | 423 | 24,288 | 98.29% | 23,954 | 353 | 23,601 | 98.52% | 23,422 | 272 | 23,150 | 98.83% |
District of Kansas | 13,131 | 412 | 12,719 | 96.86% | 13,208 | 264 | 12,944 | 98.00% | 11538 | 172 | 11366 | 98.50% | 11,315 | 169 | 11,146 | 98.50% |
Eastern District of Kentucky | 9,558 | 1273 | 9,285 | 97.14% | 9,594 | 182 | 9,412 | 98.10% | 8,996 | 143 | 8,853 | 98.41% | 9,050 | 213 | 8,837 | 97.64% |
Western District of Kentucky | 12,129 | 176 | 11,953 | 98.55% | 12,592 | 174 | 12,418 | 98.62% | 11,825 | 138 | 11,687 | 98.83% | 11,968 | 142 | 11,826 | 98.81% |
Eastern District of Louisiana | 7,365 | 141 | 7,224 | 98.21% | 7,119 | 120 | 6,999 | 98.31% | 7,657 | 131 | 7,526 | 98.28% | 8,265 | 122 | 8,143 | 98.52% |
Middle District of Louisiana | 2,805 | 52 | 2,753 | 98.15% | 2,940 | 41 | 2,899 | 98.61% | 2680 | 29 | 2,651 | 98.91% | 2,831 | 36 | 2,795 | 98.72% |
Western District of Louisiana | 12,988 | 481 | 12,507 | 96.30% | 12,887 | 439 | 12,448 | 96.59% | 12,293 | 429 | 11,864 | 96.51% | 12,039 | 461 | 11,578 | 96.17% |
District of Massachusetts | 23,894 | 965 | 22,927 | 95.96% | 22,325 | 739 | 21,586 | 96.69% | 18,660 | 566 | 18,034 | 96.95% | 15,601 | 393 | 15,208 | 97.48% |
District of Maryland | 31,991 | 1,678 | 30,313 | 94.75% | 35,430 | 1,231 | 34,199 | 96.53% | 32,273 | 795 | 31,478 | 97.53% | 30,355 | 677 | 29,658 | 97.70% |
District of Maine | 4,218 | 310 | 3,908 | 92.65% | 4,515 | 244 | 4,271 | 94.60% | 4,177 | 197 | 3,980 | 95.28% | 4,042 | 162 | 3,880 | 95.99% |
Eastern District of Michigan | 27,348 | 595 | 26,753 | 97.82% | 28,198 | 373 | 27,825 | 98.68% | 25,824 | 359 | 25,465 | 98.60% | 25,122 | 333 | 24,789 | 98.67% |
Western District of Michigan | 12,261 | 511 | 11,750 | 95.83% | 12,546 | 348 | 12,198 | 97.23% | 11,428 | 275 | 11,153 | 97.59% | 11,290 | 244 | 11,046 | 97.83% |
District of Minnesota | 20,225 | 2,478 | 17,747 | 87.75% | 18,866 | 1,975 | 16,891 | 89.53% | 15,853 | 1,584 | 14,269 | 90.00% | 15,314 | 566 | 18,034 | 96.95% |
Eastern District of Missouri | 14,897 | 300 | 14,597 | 97.99% | 16,423 | 255 | 16,168 | 98.45% | 15,888 | 203 | 15,685 | 98.72% | 15,118 | 184 | 14,934 | 98.78% |
Western District of Missouri | 11,218 | 433 | 10,785 | 96.14% | 11,842 | 169 | 11,673 | 98.57% | 11,141 | 155 | 10,986 | 98.60% | 10,902 | 185 | 10,717 | 98.30% |
Northern District of Mississippi | 6,602 | 153 | 6,449 | 97.68% | 6,226 | 135 | 6,091 | 97.83% | 5,917 | 133 | 5,784 | 97.75% | 6,314 | 99 | 6,215 | 98.43% |
Southern District of Mississippi | 12,667 | 146 | 12,521 | 98.85% | 12,474 | 109 | 12,365 | 99.13% | 11,833 | 68 | 11,765 | 99.42% | 12,144 | 104 | 12,040 | 99.14% |
District of Montana | 3,572 | 278 | 3,294 | 92.22% | 3,717 | 145 | 3,572 | 96.10% | 3,386 | 121 | 3,265 | 96.42% | 3,336 | 141 | 3,195 | 95.77% |
Eastern District of North Carolina | 9,788 | 426 | 9,362 | 95.65% | 10,914 | 321 | 10,593 | 97.06% | 10,325 | 263 | 10,062 | 97.45% | 10,832 | 257 | 10,575 | 97.62% |
Middle District of North Carolina | 9,289 | 212 | 9,077 | 97.72% | 9,014 | 144 | 8,870 | 98.40% | 8,543 | 113 | 8,430 | 95.32% | 9,398 | 115 | 9,283 | 98.77% |
Western District of North Carolina | 7,126 | 82 | 7,044 | 98.85% | 7,056 | 69 | 6,987 | 99.02% | 6,966 | 66 | 6,930 | 99.05% | 6,861 | 73 | 6,788 | 98.93% |
District of North Dakota | 1,961 | 155 | 1,806 | 92.10% | 2,192 | 87 | 2,105 | 96.03% | 2,146 | 100 | 2,046 | 95.34% | 1,933 | 92 | 1,841 | 95.24% |
District of Nebraska | 5,949 | 281 | 5,668 | 95.28% | 6,116 | 129 | 5,987 | 97.89% | 5,500 | 158 | 5,342 | 97.12% | 5,629 | 115 | 5,514 | 97.95% |
District of New Hampshire | 4,902 | 187 | 4,715 | 96.19% | 4,994 | 417 | 4,577 | 91.65% | 4,104 | 348 | 3,756 | 91.52% | 3,615 | 302 | 3,018 | 83.48% |
District of New Jersey | 42,434 | 1,112 | 41,322 | 97.38% | 45,880 | 876 | 45,004 | 98.09% | 40,814 | 877 | 39,937 | 97.85% | 37,305 | 660 | 36,645 | 98.23% |
District of New Mexico | 7,560 | 384 | 7,176 | 94.92% | 7,915 | 338 | 7,577 | 95.73% | 7,336 | 554 | 6,782 | 92.44% | 7,032 | 513 | 6,519 | 92.70% |
District of Nevada | 13,427 | 399 | 13,028 | 97.03% | 15,708 | 428 | 15,280 | 97.28% | 1,479 | 127 | 1,352 | 91.41% | 14,010 | 332 | 13,678 | 97.63% |
Eastern District of New York | 29,459 | 566 | 28,893 | 98.08% | 31,494 | 461 | 31,033 | 98.54% | 26,449 | 378 | 26,071 | 98.57% | 22,503 | 338 | 22,165 | 98.49% |
Northern District of New York | 16,173 | 777 | 15,396 | 95.20% | 16,703 | 505 | 16,198 | 96.98% | 14,466 | 394 | 14,072 | 97.27% | 13,507 | 407 | 13,100 | 96.98% |
Southern District of New York | 15,972 | 846 | 15,126 | 94.70% | 17,047 | 586 | 16,461 | 96.56% | 14,798 | 565 | 14,233 | 96.18% | 12,524 | 788 | 11,736 | 93.70% |
Western District of New York | 13,114 | 964 | 12,150 | 92.65% | 13,398 | 727 | 12,671 | 94.57% | 11,360 | 535 | 10,825 | 95.29% | 10,636 | 427 | 10,209 | 98.72% |
Northern District of Ohio | 26,200 | 480 | 25,720 | 98.17% | 28,353 | 649 | 27,704 | 97.71% | 27,716 | 789 | 26,927 | 97.15% | 28,016 | 1,001 | 27,015 | 96.42% |
Southern District of Ohio | 27,570 | 526 | 27,044 | 98.10% | 28,351 | 512 | 27,839 | 98.19% | 26,071 | 406 | 25,665 | 99.86% | 26,168 | 470 | 25,698 | 98.20% |
Eastern District of Oklahoma | 3,462 | 176 | 3,286 | 94.92% | 3,812 | 120 | 3,692 | 96.85% | 3,550 | 104 | 3,446 | 97.07% | 3,651 | 81 | 3,570 | 97.78% |
Northern District of Oklahoma | 6,007 | 648 | 5,359 | 89.21% | 5,372 | 459 | 4,913 | 91.46% | 5,042 | 328 | 4,714 | 93.45% | ||||
Western District of Oklahoma | 13,100 | 545 | 12,555 | 95.84% | 12,756 | 254 | 12,502 | 98.01% | 11,436 | 296 | 11,140 | 97.41% | 10,619 | 351 | 10,268 | 96.69% |
District of Oregon | 18,197 | 1,434 | 16,763 | 92.12% | 18,103 | 2,660 | 15,443 | 85.31% | 18,168 | 2,939 | 15,229 | 83.82% | 18,227 | 1,453 | 16,774 | 92.02% |
Eastern District of Pennsylvania | 21,773 | 561 | 21,212 | 97.42% | 23,187 | 392 | 22,795 | 98.31% | 21,752 | 328 | 21,424 | 98.49% | 21,099 | 328 | 20,771 | 98.44% |
Middle District of Pennsylvania | 9,593 | 852 | 8,741 | 91.12% | 10,693 | 837 | 9,856 | 92.17% | 10,212 | 706 | 9,506 | 93.08% | 10,370 | 745 | 9,625 | 92.81% |
Western District of Pennsylvania | 11,601 | 472 | 11,129 | 95.93% | 12,772 | 456 | 12,316 | 96.43% | 11,950 | 363 | 11,587 | 96.96% | 12,501 | 382 | 12,119 | 96.94% |
District of Rhode Island | 5,472 | 180 | 5,292 | 96.71% | 5,480 | 130 | 5,350 | 97.63% | 5060 | 116 | 4944 | 97.70% | 4,457 | 74 | 4,383 | 98.33% |
District of South Carolina | 11,232 | 346 | 10,886 | 96.92% | 11,672 | 254 | 11,373 | 97.82% | 11,442 | 191 | 11,251 | 98.33% | 11,958 | 138 | 11,820 | 98.84% |
District of South Dakota | 2,366 | 221 | 2,145 | 90.66% | 2,299 | 186 | 2,113 | 91.91% | 2,223 | 152 | 2,071 | 93.16% | 2,105 | 133 | 1,972 | 93.68% |
Eastern District of Tennessee | 16,254 | 422 | 15,832 | 97.40% | 15,984 | 336 | 15,648 | 97.90% | 14,944 | 236 | 14,708 | 98.42% | 15,703 | 239 | 15,464 | 98.47% |
Middle District of Tennessee | 12,478 | 457 | 12,021 | 96.34% | 12,131 | 292 | 11,839 | 97.59% | 10,968 | 251 | 10,717 | 97.71% | 11,739 | 254 | 11,485 | 97.83% |
Western District of Tennessee | 24,052 | 187 | 23,865 | 99.22% | 23,081 | 241 | 22,840 | 98.96% | 20,613 | 315 | 20,298 | 98.47% | 21,794 | 148 | 21,646 | 99.32% |
Eastern District of Texas | 9,734 | 522 | 9,212 | 94.64% | 9,817 | 360 | 9,457 | 96.33% | 9,272 | 303 | 8,969 | 96.73% | 8,962 | 387 | 8,575 | 95.68% |
Northern District of Texas | 25,373 | 1,546 | 23,827 | 93.91% | 24,934 | 1,191 | 23,743 | 95.22% | 21,447 | 921 | 20,526 | 95.70% | 20,674 | 937 | 19,737 | 95.46% |
Southern District of Texas | 19,508 | 754 | 18,754 | 96.13% | 19,352 | 657 | 18,695 | 96.61% | 17,506 | 614 | 16,892 | 96.49% | 17,157 | 823 | 16,334 | 95.20% |
Western District of Texas | 18,114 | 644 | 17,470 | 96.44% | 17,696 | 488 | 17,208 | 97.24% | 16,488 | 464 | 16,024 | 97.18% | 15,328 | 445 | 14,883 | 97.09% |
District of Utah | 12,147 | 434 | 11,713 | 96.43% | 13,996 | 460 | 13,536 | 96.71% | 14,108 | 464 | 13,644 | 96.71% | 15,192 | 451 | 14,741 | 97.03% |
Eastern District of Virginia | 31,921 | 767 | 31,154 | 97.60% | 32,398 | 545 | 31,853 | 98.32% | 28,262 | 369 | 27,893 | 98.69% | 26,131 | 296 | 25,835 | 98.86% |
Western District of Virginia | 11,198 | 589 | 10,609 | 94.74% | 11,041 | 593 | 10,448 | 94.63% | 10,182 | 472 | 9,710 | 95.36% | 10,060 | 519 | 9,541 | 94.84% |
District of Vermont | 1,911 | 164 | 1,747 | 91.42% | 1,965 | 88 | 1,877 | 95.52% | 1,757 | 83 | 1,674 | 95.27% | 1,492 | 71 | 1,421 | 95.24% |
Eastern District of Washington | 7,052 | 448 | 6,604 | 93.65% | 7,838 | 442 | 7,396 | 94.36% | 7,823 | 297 | 7,526 | 96.20% | 8,376 | 382 | 7,994 | 95.43% |
Western District of Washington | 26,285 | 926 | 25,359 | 96.48% | 25,565 | 554 | 25,011 | 97.83% | 23,818 | 335 | 23,483 | 98.59% | 22,755 | 335 | 22,420 | 98.52% |
Eastern District of Wisconsin | 12,940 | 348 | 12,592 | 97.31% | 12,962 | 267 | 12,695 | 97.94% | 12,615 | 213 | 12,402 | 98.31% | 12,075 | 172 | 11,903 | 98.57% |
Western District of Wisconsin | 6,257 | 865 | 5,392 | 86.18% | 6,452 | 870 | 5,582 | 86.52% | 5,874 | 606 | 5,268 | 89.68% | 5,774 | 513 | 5,261 | 91.11% |
Northern District of West Virginia | 3,475 | 179 | 3,296 | 94.85% | 3,550 | 179 | 3,371 | 94.96% | 3,339 | 115 | 3,224 | 96.55% | 3,404 | 121 | 3,283 | 96.44% |
Southern District of West Virginia | 5,067 | 188 | 4,879 | 96.29% | 5,141 | 150 | 4,991 | 97.08% | 4,812 | 138 | 4,674 | 97.13% | 5,242 | 156 | 5,086 | 97.02% |
District of Wyoming | 2,031 | 91 | 1,940 | 95.52% | 2,257 | 89 | 2,168 | 96.06% | 2009 | 69 | 1940 | 96.56% | 2,078 | 47 | 2,031 | 97.73% |
District of Guam | 114 | 21 | 93 | 81.58% | 109 | 25 | 84 | 77.06% | 131 | 21 | 110 | 83.96% | 155 | 31 | 124 | 80.00% |
District of the Northern Mariana Islands | 2 | 1 | 1 | 50% | 18 | 8 | 10 | 55.56% | 12 | 6 | 6 | 50.00% | 15 | 6 | 9 | 60.00% |
District of Puerto Rico | 15,670 | 162 | 15,508 | 98.97% | 17,447 | 126 | 17,321 | 99.28% | 17,909 | 206 | 17,703 | 98.84% | 14,919 | 209 | 14,710 | 98.59% |
District of the Virgin Islands | 74 | 17 | 57 | 77.03% | 73 | 11 | 62 | 84.93% | 66 | 12 | 54 | 81.81% | 56 | 7 | 49 | 87.50% |
United States | 1,404,145 | 54,027 | 1,350,118 | 96.15% | 1,442,549 | 44,367 | 1,398,182 | 96.92% | 1,319,465 | 37,884 | 1,281,581 | 97.12% | 1,253,444 | 35,472 | 1,217,972 | 97.17% |
Annual Business Filings by District (2007-08)
Annual Business Filings by District (2007-08) | ||||||||
ABI World | ||||||||
District | 2007 | 2008 | ||||||
District of Alaska | 70 | 81 | ||||||
Middle District of Alabama | 85 | 150 | ||||||
Northern District of Alabama | 170 | 314 | ||||||
Southern District of Alabama | 51 | 72 | ||||||
Eastern District of Arkansas | 190 | 262 | ||||||
Western District of Arkansas | 207 | 235 | ||||||
District of Arizona | 479 | 1,069 | ||||||
Central District of California | 1,780 | 3,511 | ||||||
Eastern District of California | 786 | 1,208 | ||||||
Northern District of California | 634 | 1,117 | ||||||
Southern District of California | 305 | 568 | ||||||
District of Colorado | 645 | 965 | ||||||
District of Connecticut | 264 | 392 | ||||||
District of Columbia | 36 | 47 | ||||||
District of Delaware | 306 | 1,198 | ||||||
Middle District of Florida | 1,109 | 2,230 | ||||||
Northern District of Florida | 121 | 239 | ||||||
Southern District of Florida | 799 | 1,454 | ||||||
Middle District of Georgia | 161 | 313 | ||||||
Northern District of Georgia | 1,154 | 1,748 | ||||||
Southern District of Georgia | 141 | 176 | ||||||
District of Hawaii | 56 | 86 | ||||||
Northern District of Iowa | 113 | 150 | ||||||
Southern District of Iowa | 130 | 192 | ||||||
District of Idaho | 116 | 215 | ||||||
Central District of Illinois | 181 | 191 | ||||||
Northern District of Illinois | 731 | 1,209 | ||||||
Southern District of Illinois | 128 | 157 | ||||||
Northern District of Indiana | 227 | 297 | ||||||
Southern District of Indiana | 381 | 538 | ||||||
District of Kansas | 223 | 252 | ||||||
Eastern District of Kentucky | 168 | 288 | ||||||
Western District of Kentucky | 143 | 233 | ||||||
Eastern District of Louisiana | 127 | 180 | ||||||
Middle District of Louisiana | 41 | 62 | ||||||
Western District of Louisiana | 342 | 365 | ||||||
District of Massachusetts | 333 | 440 | ||||||
District of Maryland | 380 | 628 | ||||||
District of Maine | 152 | 180 | ||||||
Eastern District of Michigan | 790 | 1,166 | ||||||
Western District of Michigan | 404 | 518 | ||||||
District of Minnesota | 520 | 863 | ||||||
Eastern District of Missouri | 176 | 334 | ||||||
Western District of Missouri | 208 | 342 | ||||||
Northern District of Mississippi | 132 | 179 | ||||||
Southern District of Mississippi | 130 | 178 | ||||||
District of Montana | 55 | 88 | ||||||
Eastern District of North Carolina | 223 | 366 | ||||||
Middle District of North Carolina | 187 | 306 | ||||||
Western District of North Carolina | 187 | 259 | ||||||
District of North Dakota | 59 | 66 | ||||||
District of Nebraska | 208 | 259 | ||||||
District of New Hampshire | 327 | 393 | ||||||
District of New Jersey | 864 | 1,067 | ||||||
District of New Mexico | 142 | 202 | ||||||
District of Nevada | 321 | 505 | ||||||
Eastern District of New York | 380 | 449 | ||||||
Northern District of New York | 297 | 263 | ||||||
Southern District of New York | 467 | 871 | ||||||
Western District of New York | 231 | 266 | ||||||
Northern District of Ohio | 689 | 787 | ||||||
Southern District of Ohio | 663 | 800 | ||||||
Eastern District of Oklahoma | 51 | 62 | ||||||
Northern District of Oklahoma | 129 | 142 | ||||||
Western District of Oklahoma | 173 | 256 | ||||||
District of Oregon | 265 | 429 | ||||||
Eastern District of Pennsylvania | 297 | 407 | ||||||
Middle District of Pennsylvania | 211 | 264 | ||||||
Western District of Pennsylvania | 509 | 522 | ||||||
District of Rhode Island | 105 | 144 | ||||||
District of South Carolina | 144 | 268 | ||||||
District of South Dakota | 90 | 96 | ||||||
Eastern District of Tennessee | 200 | 302 | ||||||
Middle District of Tennessee | 180 | 394 | ||||||
Western District of Tennessee | 157 | 192 | ||||||
Eastern District of Texas | 383 | 531 | ||||||
Northern District of Texas | 899 | 1,171 | ||||||
Southern District of Texas | 668 | 831 | ||||||
Western District of Texas | 530 | 591 | ||||||
District of Utah | 183 | 419 | ||||||
Eastern District of Virginia | 416 | 783 | ||||||
Western District of Virginia | 178 | 190 | ||||||
District of Vermont | 65 | 49 | ||||||
Eastern District of Washington | 155 | 186 | ||||||
Western District of Washington | 322 | 528 | ||||||
Eastern District of Wisconsin | 219 | 397 | ||||||
Western District of Wisconsin | 193 | 255 | ||||||
Northern District of West Virginia | 84 | 93 | ||||||
Southern District of West Virginia | 66 | 85 | ||||||
District of Wyoming | 36 | 63 | ||||||
District of Guam | 3 | 4 | ||||||
District of the Northern Mariana Islands | 2 | 0 | ||||||
District of Puerto Rico | 276 | 349 | ||||||
Virgin Islands | 8 | 4 | ||||||
United States | 28,322 | 43,546 | ||||||
Annual Business and Non-business Filings by District (1980-1984)
Annual Business and Non-business Filings by District (1980-1984)
1980 | 1981 | 1982 | 1983 | 1984 | ||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
District | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer | Total Filings | Business Filings | Non-Business Filings | Percent Consumer |
District of Alaska | 488 | 276 | 212 | 43.44% | 414 | 219 | 195 | 47.10% | 367 | 213 | 154 | 41.96% | 327 | 152 | 175 | 53.52% | 433 | 220 | 213 | 49.19% |
Middle District of Alabama | 2163 | 257 | 1906 | 88.12% | 2170 | 345 | 1825 | 84.10% | 2121 | 399 | 1722 | 81.19% | 1662 | 290 | 1372 | 82.55% | 1717 | 264 | 1453 | 84.62% |
Northern District of Alabama | 7057 | 631 | 6426 | 91.06% | 7807 | 628 | 7179 | 91.96% | 7858 | 698 | 7160 | 91.12% | 7031 | 457 | 6574 | 93.50% | 6996 | 512 | 6484 | 92.68% |
Southern District of Alabama | 1121 | 168 | 953 | 85.01% | 1269 | 181 | 1088 | 85.74% | 1377 | 175 | 1202 | 87.29% | 1297 | 144 | 1153 | 88.90% | 1237 | 198 | 1039 | 83.99% |
Eastern District of Arkansas | 1844 | 161 | 1683 | 91.27% | 1974 | 189 | 1785 | 90.43% | 2072 | 320 | 1752 | 84.56% | 2035 | 259 | 1776 | 87.27% | 2731 | 483 | 2248 | 82.31% |
Western District of Arkansas | 681 | 103 | 578 | 84.88% | 762 | 106 | 656 | 86.09% | 836 | 177 | 659 | 78.83% | 779 | 154 | 625 | 80.23% | 989 | 260 | 729 | 73.71% |
District of Arizona | 4063 | 842 | 3221 | 79.28% | 4384 | 992 | 3392 | 77.37% | 5095 | 1312 | 3783 | 74.25% | 4970 | 1468 | 3502 | 70.46% | 4839 | 1392 | 3447 | 71.23% |
Central District of California | 20207 | 2262 | 17945 | 88.81% | 25643 | 3207 | 22436 | 87.49% | 33575 | 5028 | 28547 | 85.02% | 35066 | 5097 | 29969 | 85.46% | 34721 | 4029 | 30692 | 88.40% |
Eastern District of California | 8457 | 1432 | 7025 | 83.07% | 10031 | 1980 | 8051 | 80.26% | 10717 | 2764 | 7953 | 74.21% | 10373 | 2424 | 7949 | 76.63% | 9690 | 2528 | 7162 | 73.91% |
Northern District of California | 12871 | 1624 | 11247 | 87.38% | 13208 | 2254 | 10954 | 82.93% | 14699 | 3465 | 11234 | 76.43% | 13184 | 3222 | 9962 | 75.56% | 11883 | 2591 | 9292 | 78.20% |
Southern District of California | 3787 | 552 | 3235 | 85.42% | 4325 | 726 | 3599 | 83.21% | 5799 | 905 | 4894 | 84.39% | 6013 | 771 | 5242 | 87.18% | 5588 | 861 | 4727 | 84.59% |
District of Colorado | 5970 | 1105 | 4865 | 81.49% | 6115 | 1602 | 4513 | 73.80% | 6092 | 1746 | 4346 | 71.34% | 5882 | 1517 | 4365 | 74.21% | 6475 | 1995 | 4480 | 69.19% |
District of Connecticut | 2265 | 435 | 1830 | 80.79% | 2732 | 412 | 2320 | 84.92% | 2727 | 473 | 2254 | 82.65% | 2079 | 437 | 1642 | 78.98% | 1852 | 339 | 1513 | 81.70% |
District of Columbia | 598 | 42 | 556 | 92.98% | 721 | 62 | 659 | 91.40% | 764 | 83 | 681 | 89.14% | 719 | 93 | 626 | 87.07% | 636 | 103 | 533 | 83.81% |
District of Delaware | 495 | 55 | 440 | 88.89% | 590 | 43 | 547 | 92.71% | 507 | 72 | 435 | 85.80% | 446 | 70 | 376 | 84.30% | 442 | 52 | 390 | 88.24% |
Middle District of Florida | 3806 | 655 | 3151 | 82.79% | 4601 | 762 | 3839 | 83.44% | 5113 | 1050 | 4063 | 79.46% | 4613 | 892 | 3721 | 80.66% | 5145 | 1263 | 3882 | 75.45% |
Northern District of Florida | 488 | 110 | 378 | 77.46% | 583 | 166 | 417 | 71.53% | 602 | 235 | 367 | 60.96% | 512 | 149 | 363 | 70.90% | 607 | 248 | 359 | 59.14% |
Southern District of Florida | 1718 | 278 | 1440 | 83.82% | 2189 | 405 | 1784 | 81.50% | 2543 | 599 | 1944 | 76.45% | 2395 | 566 | 1829 | 76.37% | 2478 | 583 | 1895 | 76.47% |
Middle District of Georgia | 3061 | 255 | 2806 | 91.67% | 3083 | 287 | 2796 | 90.69% | 3304 | 391 | 2913 | 88.17% | 3094 | 330 | 2764 | 89.33% | 3151 | 308 | 2843 | 90.23% |
Northern District of Georgia | 6013 | 580 | 5433 | 90.35% | 7062 | 744 | 6318 | 89.46% | 8063 | 1254 | 6809 | 84.45% | 7571 | 1067 | 6504 | 85.91% | 7764 | 1101 | 6663 | 85.82% |
Southern District of Georgia | 1794 | 272 | 1522 | 84.84% | 1985 | 271 | 1714 | 86.35% | 2128 | 271 | 1857 | 87.27% | 2120 | 239 | 1881 | 88.73% | 2175 | 180 | 1995 | 91.72% |
District of Hawaii | 794 | 224 | 570 | 71.79% | 767 | 251 | 516 | 67.28% | 743 | 254 | 489 | 65.81% | 645 | 275 | 370 | 57.36% | 614 | 225 | 389 | 63.36% |
Northern District of Iowa | 1605 | 591 | 1014 | 63.18% | 1758 | 536 | 1222 | 69.51% | 1758 | 816 | 942 | 53.58% | 1574 | 781 | 793 | 50.38% | 1888 | 971 | 917 | 48.57% |
Southern District of Iowa | 2165 | 337 | 1828 | 84.43% | 2397 | 432 | 1965 | 81.98% | 1912 | 605 | 1307 | 68.36% | 1824 | 591 | 1233 | 67.60% | 2025 | 663 | 1362 | 67.26% |
District of Idaho | 2158 | 467 | 1691 | 78.36% | 2287 | 375 | 1912 | 83.60% | 2482 | 420 | 2062 | 83.08% | 2099 | 615 | 1484 | 70.70% | 2233 | 667 | 1566 | 70.13% |
Central District of Illinois | 5991 | 797 | 5194 | 86.70% | 4509 | 471 | 4038 | 89.55% | 4962 | 999 | 3963 | 79.87% | 4941 | 1065 | 3876 | 78.45% | 5253 | 1099 | 4154 | 79.08% |
Northern District of Illinois | 19889 | 1963 | 17926 | 90.13% | 17357 | 1188 | 16169 | 93.16% | 18796 | 2252 | 16544 | 88.02% | 17475 | 2105 | 15370 | 87.95% | 18007 | 2011 | 15996 | 88.83% |
Southern District of Illinois | 1632 | 335 | 1297 | 79.47% | 1463 | 204 | 1259 | 86.06% | 1750 | 402 | 1348 | 77.03% | 1655 | 460 | 1195 | 72.21% | 1728 | 534 | 1194 | 69.10% |
Northern District of Indiana | 4996 | 357 | 4639 | 92.85% | 5443 | 378 | 5065 | 93.06% | 5489 | 669 | 4820 | 87.81% | 5184 | 648 | 4536 | 87.50% | 4883 | 576 | 4307 | 88.20% |
Southern District of Indiana | 7836 | 485 | 7351 | 93.81% | 7763 | 414 | 7349 | 94.67% | 7491 | 914 | 6577 | 87.80% | 7082 | 637 | 6445 | 91.01% | 7067 | 713 | 6354 | 89.91% |
District of Kansas | 4450 | 737 | 3713 | 83.44% | 4291 | 653 | 3638 | 84.78% | 4425 | 685 | 3740 | 84.52% | 4122 | 542 | 3580 | 86.85% | 4417 | 944 | 3473 | 78.63% |
Eastern District of Kentucky | 2507 | 366 | 2141 | 85.40% | 2875 | 438 | 2437 | 84.77% | 2812 | 612 | 2200 | 78.24% | 2404 | 305 | 2099 | 87.31% | 2379 | 489 | 1890 | 79.45% |
Western District of Kentucky | 5199 | 178 | 5021 | 96.58% | 4620 | 339 | 4281 | 92.66% | 4411 | 487 | 3924 | 88.96% | 4096 | 439 | 3657 | 89.28% | 4281 | 442 | 3839 | 89.68% |
Eastern District of Louisiana | 2098 | 261 | 1837 | 87.56% | 2404 | 297 | 2107 | 87.65% | 2897 | 469 | 2428 | 83.81% | 2716 | 463 | 2253 | 82.95% | 2769 | 479 | 2290 | 82.70% |
Middle District of Louisiana | 564 | 106 | 458 | 81.21% | 630 | 108 | 522 | 82.86% | 768 | 214 | 554 | 72.14% | 891 | 100 | 791 | 88.78% | 1031 | 125 | 906 | 87.88% |
Western District of Louisiana | 2307 | 324 | 1983 | 85.96% | 2257 | 386 | 1871 | 82.90% | 2739 | 611 | 2128 | 77.69% | 3081 | 734 | 2347 | 76.18% | 3127 | 688 | 2439 | 78.00% |
District of Massachusetts | 3122 | 479 | 2643 | 84.66% | 3393 | 404 | 2989 | 88.09% | 3299 | 619 | 2680 | 81.24% | 2552 | 523 | 2029 | 79.51% | 2251 | 485 | 1766 | 78.45% |
District of Maryland | 3991 | 425 | 3566 | 89.35% | 4945 | 357 | 4588 | 92.78% | 4398 | 432 | 3966 | 90.18% | 3928 | 466 | 3462 | 88.14% | 3783 | 438 | 3345 | 88.42% |
District of Maine | 1039 | 293 | 746 | 71.80% | 974 | 249 | 725 | 74.44% | 855 | 296 | 559 | 65.38% | 663 | 196 | 467 | 70.44% | 599 | 178 | 421 | 70.28% |
Eastern District of Michigan | 9649 | 602 | 9047 | 93.76% | 9683 | 733 | 8950 | 92.43% | 9660 | 1018 | 8642 | 89.46% | 7271 | 921 | 6350 | 87.33% | 5788 | 768 | 5020 | 86.73% |
Western District of Michigan | 4413 | 790 | 3623 | 82.10% | 5182 | 933 | 4249 | 82.00% | 4311 | 851 | 3460 | 80.26% | 3515 | 703 | 2812 | 80.00% | 3151 | 713 | 2438 | 77.37% |
District of Minnesota | 4765 | 858 | 3907 | 81.99% | 5543 | 972 | 4571 | 82.46% | 5255 | 1392 | 3863 | 73.51% | 4620 | 1358 | 3262 | 70.61% | 5076 | 1368 | 3708 | 73.05% |
Eastern District of Missouri | 3351 | 460 | 2891 | 86.27% | 3609 | 354 | 3255 | 90.19% | 3723 | 741 | 2982 | 80.10% | 2824 | 438 | 2386 | 84.49% | 2897 | 450 | 2447 | 84.47% |
Western District of Missouri | 4256 | 707 | 3549 | 83.39% | 3991 | 573 | 3418 | 85.64% | 4058 | 1120 | 2938 | 72.40% | 3482 | 646 | 2836 | 81.45% | 4087 | 1220 | 2867 | 70.15% |
Northern District of Mississippi | 1087 | 102 | 985 | 90.62% | 1271 | 206 | 1065 | 83.79% | 1322 | 246 | 1076 | 81.39% | 1165 | 155 | 1010 | 86.70% | 1240 | 148 | 1092 | 88.06% |
Southern District of Mississippi | 3520 | 76 | 3444 | 97.84% | 3901 | 115 | 3786 | 97.05% | 4052 | 229 | 3823 | 94.35% | 3629 | 199 | 3430 | 94.52% | 3387 | 186 | 3201 | 94.51% |
District of Montana | 1036 | 190 | 846 | 81.66% | 1180 | 225 | 955 | 80.93% | 990 | 192 | 798 | 80.61% | 993 | 271 | 722 | 72.71% | 948 | 216 | 732 | 77.22% |
Eastern District of North Carolina | 2975 | 303 | 2672 | 89.82% | 3114 | 358 | 2756 | 88.50% | 2590 | 428 | 2162 | 83.47% | 2111 | 406 | 1705 | 80.77% | 1950 | 292 | 1658 | 85.03% |
Middle District of North Carolina | 2929 | 274 | 2655 | 90.65% | 2816 | 285 | 2531 | 89.88% | 2342 | 346 | 1996 | 85.23% | 1675 | 317 | 1358 | 81.07% | 1523 | 233 | 1290 | 84.70% |
Western District of North Carolina | 1661 | 185 | 1476 | 88.86% | 2122 | 164 | 1958 | 92.27% | 1882 | 246 | 1636 | 86.93% | 1300 | 200 | 1100 | 84.62% | 1398 | 308 | 1090 | 77.97% |
District of North Dakota | 551 | 188 | 363 | 65.88% | 576 | 188 | 388 | 67.36% | 715 | 321 | 394 | 55.10% | 653 | 362 | 291 | 44.56% | 654 | 317 | 337 | 51.53% |
District of Nebraska | 2834 | 477 | 2357 | 83.17% | 2546 | 377 | 2169 | 85.19% | 2289 | 614 | 1675 | 73.18% | 2215 | 530 | 1685 | 76.07% | 2565 | 613 | 1952 | 76.10% |
District of New Hampshire | 727 | 159 | 568 | 78.13% | 806 | 137 | 669 | 83.00% | 715 | 213 | 502 | 70.21% | 553 | 175 | 378 | 68.35% | 497 | 115 | 382 | 76.86% |
District of New Jersey | 5623 | 988 | 4635 | 82.43% | 7808 | 1039 | 6769 | 86.69% | 8991 | 1568 | 7423 | 82.56% | 7334 | 706 | 6628 | 90.37% | 6744 | 1253 | 5491 | 81.42% |
District of New Mexico | 1450 | 164 | 1286 | 88.69% | 1398 | 153 | 1245 | 89.06% | 1432 | 213 | 1219 | 85.13% | 1498 | 191 | 1307 | 87.25% | 1585 | 275 | 1310 | 82.65% |
District of Nevada | 2223 | 359 | 1864 | 83.85% | 2620 | 486 | 2134 | 81.45% | 2829 | 631 | 2198 | 77.70% | 2858 | 583 | 2275 | 79.60% | 2776 | 521 | 2255 | 81.23% |
Easter District of New York | 8049 | 1146 | 6903 | 85.76% | 8036 | 877 | 7159 | 89.09% | 6426 | 911 | 5515 | 85.82% | 4932 | 669 | 4263 | 86.44% | 4547 | 527 | 4020 | 88.41% |
Northern District of New York | 4939 | 774 | 4165 | 84.33% | 4945 | 540 | 4405 | 89.08% | 4587 | 899 | 3688 | 80.40% | 3231 | 765 | 2466 | 76.32% | 2667 | 576 | 2091 | 78.40% |
Southern District of New York | 3483 | 518 | 2965 | 85.13% | 4021 | 516 | 3505 | 87.17% | 4009 | 828 | 3181 | 79.35% | 3000 | 676 | 2324 | 77.47% | 2841 | 625 | 2216 | 78.00% |
Western District of New York | 5596 | 762 | 4834 | 86.38% | 5847 | 668 | 5179 | 88.58% | 5206 | 892 | 4314 | 82.87% | 4154 | 883 | 3271 | 78.74% | 3847 | 883 | 2964 | 77.05% |
Northern District of Ohio | 13256 | 646 | 12610 | 95.13% | 14513 | 946 | 13567 | 93.48% | 13363 | 1110 | 12253 | 91.69% | 10416 | 1034 | 9382 | 90.07% | 9565 | 981 | 8584 | 89.74% |
Southern District of Ohio | 12129 | 796 | 11333 | 93.44% | 12604 | 1144 | 11460 | 90.92% | 12145 | 1668 | 10477 | 86.27% | 10453 | 1425 | 9028 | 86.37% | 10139 | 1401 | 8738 | 86.18% |
Eastern District of Oklahoma | 475 | 118 | 357 | 75.16% | 465 | 125 | 340 | 73.12% | 572 | 179 | 393 | 68.71% | 632 | 195 | 437 | 69.15% | 659 | 190 | 469 | 71.17% |
Northern District of Oklahoma | 1657 | 266 | 1391 | 83.95% | 1436 | 234 | 1202 | 83.70% | 1707 | 399 | 1308 | 76.63% | 1948 | 377 | 1571 | 80.65% | 2011 | 487 | 1524 | 75.78% |
Western District of Oklahoma | 2657 | 203 | 2454 | 92.36% | 2262 | 123 | 2139 | 94.56% | 2601 | 421 | 2180 | 83.81% | 3587 | 491 | 3096 | 86.31% | 3898 | 421 | 3477 | 89.20% |
District of Oregon | 4914 | 801 | 4113 | 83.70% | 6115 | 1295 | 4820 | 78.82% | 5650 | 1535 | 4115 | 72.83% | 5867 | 1333 | 4534 | 77.28% | 6149 | 1530 | 4619 | 75.12% |
Eastern District of Pennsylvania | 3451 | 380 | 3071 | 88.99% | 5385 | 471 | 4914 | 91.25% | 6246 | 595 | 5651 | 90.47% | 5009 | 537 | 4472 | 89.28% | 4482 | 545 | 3937 | 87.84% |
Middle District of Pennsylvania | 1557 | 295 | 1262 | 81.05% | 2238 | 406 | 1832 | 81.86% | 2163 | 601 | 1562 | 72.21% | 1694 | 453 | 1241 | 73.26% | 1532 | 426 | 1106 | 72.19% |
Western District of Pennsylvania | 2730 | 616 | 2114 | 77.44% | 4394 | 630 | 3764 | 85.66% | 4838 | 923 | 3915 | 80.92% | 3332 | 632 | 2700 | 81.03% | 3166 | 554 | 2612 | 82.50% |
District of Rhode Island | 974 | 185 | 789 | 81.01% | 1038 | 161 | 877 | 84.49% | 1115 | 260 | 855 | 76.68% | 896 | 166 | 730 | 81.47% | 713 | 130 | 583 | 81.77% |
District of South Carolina | 1187 | 219 | 968 | 81.55% | 1997 | 223 | 1774 | 88.83% | 2203 | 319 | 1884 | 85.52% | 1941 | 282 | 1659 | 85.47% | 2033 | 229 | 1804 | 88.74% |
District of South Dakota | 667 | 270 | 397 | 59.52% | 703 | 289 | 414 | 58.89% | 782 | 438 | 344 | 43.99% | 773 | 435 | 338 | 43.73% | 867 | 354 | 513 | 59.17% |
Eastern District of Tennessee | 4205 | 459 | 3746 | 89.08% | 4591 | 578 | 4013 | 87.41% | 4683 | 842 | 3841 | 82.02% | 4358 | 868 | 3490 | 80.08% | 4351 | 795 | 3556 | 81.73% |
Middle District of Tennessee | 3923 | 490 | 3433 | 87.51% | 4093 | 617 | 3476 | 84.93% | 4335 | 904 | 3431 | 79.15% | 3545 | 656 | 2889 | 81.50% | 3346 | 489 | 2857 | 85.39% |
Western District of Tennessee | 4935 | 161 | 4774 | 96.74% | 6224 | 251 | 5973 | 95.97% | 6388 | 288 | 6100 | 95.49% | 5864 | 214 | 5650 | 96.35% | 6321 | 186 | 6135 | 97.06% |
Eastern District of Texas | 367 | 118 | 249 | 67.85% | 593 | 172 | 421 | 70.99% | 747 | 287 | 460 | 61.58% | 807 | 336 | 471 | 58.36% | 887 | 355 | 532 | 59.98% |
Northern District of Texas | 2229 | 683 | 1546 | 69.36% | 3245 | 1051 | 2194 | 67.61% | 3762 | 1622 | 2140 | 56.88% | 3789 | 1578 | 2211 | 58.35% | 4362 | 2033 | 2329 | 53.39% |
Southern District of Texas | 2509 | 647 | 1862 | 74.21% | 3871 | 637 | 3234 | 83.54% | 4254 | 1002 | 3252 | 76.45% | 5628 | 1754 | 3874 | 68.83% | 6397 | 1951 | 4446 | 69.50% |
Western District of Texas | 2918 | 373 | 2545 | 87.22% | 2627 | 442 | 2185 | 83.17% | 2719 | 534 | 2185 | 80.36% | 2887 | 601 | 2286 | 79.18% | 2951 | 582 | 2369 | 80.28% |
District of Utah | 2739 | 727 | 2012 | 73.46% | 3824 | 942 | 2882 | 75.37% | 3402 | 1041 | 2361 | 69.40% | 3440 | 941 | 2499 | 72.65% | 3583 | 1042 | 2541 | 70.92% |
Eastern District of Virginia | 6149 | 691 | 5458 | 88.76% | 6299 | 551 | 5748 | 91.25% | 6105 | 926 | 5179 | 84.83% | 5735 | 718 | 5017 | 87.48% | 5855 | 703 | 5152 | 87.99% |
Western District of Virginia | 3077 | 603 | 2474 | 80.40% | 3386 | 518 | 2868 | 84.70% | 3347 | 814 | 2533 | 75.68% | 2907 | 703 | 2204 | 75.82% | 2676 | 626 | 2050 | 76.61% |
District of Vermont | 275 | 100 | 175 | 63.64% | 277 | 80 | 197 | 71.12% | 289 | 139 | 150 | 51.90% | 255 | 106 | 149 | 58.43% | 213 | 99 | 114 | 53.52% |
Eastern District of Washington | 2206 | 519 | 1687 | 76.47% | 2398 | 608 | 1790 | 74.65% | 2382 | 695 | 1687 | 70.82% | 2333 | 443 | 1890 | 81.01% | 2789 | 614 | 2175 | 77.98% |
Western District of Washington | 5452 | 815 | 4637 | 85.05% | 6295 | 962 | 5333 | 84.72% | 6717 | 1218 | 5499 | 81.87% | 6697 | 1087 | 5610 | 83.77% | 7491 | 1057 | 6434 | 85.89% |
Eastern District of Wisconsin | 3200 | 547 | 2653 | 82.91% | 4035 | 531 | 3504 | 86.84% | 4737 | 977 | 3760 | 79.38% | 4991 | 911 | 4080 | 81.75% | 5202 | 899 | 4303 | 82.72% |
Western District of Wisconsin | 1999 | 319 | 1680 | 84.04% | 2245 | 410 | 1835 | 81.74% | 2336 | 865 | 1471 | 62.97% | 2149 | 815 | 1334 | 62.08% | 2450 | 1052 | 1398 | 57.06% |
Northern District of West Virginia | 725 | 147 | 578 | 79.72% | 1003 | 162 | 841 | 83.85% | 956 | 266 | 690 | 72.18% | 655 | 212 | 443 | 67.63% | 566 | 174 | 392 | 69.26% |
Southern District of West Virginia | 1032 | 167 | 865 | 83.82% | 1311 | 74 | 1237 | 94.36% | 1255 | 174 | 1081 | 86.14% | 1345 | 211 | 1134 | 84.31% | 1296 | 259 | 1037 | 80.02% |
District of Wyoming | 510 | 115 | 395 | 77.45% | 549 | 139 | 410 | 74.68% | 662 | 243 | 419 | 63.29% | 837 | 368 | 469 | 56.03% | 979 | 447 | 532 | 54.34% |
District of Guam | 30 | 4 | 26 | 86.67% | 33 | 8 | 25 | 75.76% | 30 | 8 | 22 | 73.33% | 33 | 9 | 24 | 72.73% | 47 | 21 | 26 | 55.32% |
District of the Northern Mariana Islands | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.00% | 1 | 0 | 1 | 100.00% | 3 | 2 | 1 | 33.33% |
District of Puerto Rico | 707 | 302 | 405 | 57.28% | 1070 | 370 | 700 | 65.42% | 2016 | 717 | 1299 | 64.43% | 1929 | 626 | 1303 | 67.55% | 1466 | 512 | 954 | 65.08% |
United States | 331264 | 43694 | 287570 | 86.81% | 363943 | 48125 | 315818 | 86.78% | 380251 | 69300 | 310951 | 81.78% | 348880 | 62436 | 286444 | 82.10% | 348521 | 64004 | 284517 | 81.64% |