Puerto Rico

Collier Bankruptcy Case Update December-10-01

 

 


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

 

 

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

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

 

 

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

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

 

 

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

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

 

 

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

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

 

 

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

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

 

 

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

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

 

 

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

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]

 

 

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

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]

 

 

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

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

 

 

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

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]

 

 

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

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

 

 

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

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

 

 

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

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

 

 

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

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

 

 

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

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

 

 

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

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

 

 

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

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

 

 

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

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]

 

 

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

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

 

 

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

Annual Business and Non-business Filings by District (2001-2004)

 

Annual Business and Non-business Filings by District (2001-2004)


ABI World

  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

 
  

September 16, 2014

 
home  |  newsroom  |  chart of the day  |  blogs  |  bankruptcy code and rules  |  statistics  |  legislative news  |  volo
  NEWS AND ANALYSIS   

COMMENTARY: WILL PUERTO RICO'S NEW BANKRUPTCY LAW WITHSTAND CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE?

Despite claiming to be modeled on the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, the Puerto Rico Corporations Debt Enforcement & Recovery Act (the Act) lacks some of the key protections that creditors have come to expect when dealing with the U.S. system, according to a New York Law Journal commentary yesterday. On June 28, 2014, Puerto Rico's Gov. Alejandro Garcia Padilla signed the Act into law. It permits certain public corporations in Puerto Rico to restructure their debt obligations. Within 24 hours, mutual funds investing in Puerto Rico's Power Revenue bonds issued by the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA) challenged the constitutionality of the Act, while rating agencies downgraded PREPA Bonds, sparking numerous reports of PREPA's imminent filing. It is uncertain whether the Act will survive the constitutional challenge or how soon the Act will be invoked by Puerto Rico's public corporations. Puerto Rico has been experiencing a financial crisis for at least the last six years. With its population shrinking, unemployment increasing and economy contracting, Puerto Rico has increasingly relied on the municipal bond market to fund its budget deficits. Puerto Rico's outstanding debt, including the debt of its public corporations, totals approximately $71 billion. As a result of this steady decline, rating agencies downgraded Puerto Rico bonds to non-investment grade in February 2014. Many of Puerto Rico's public services are provided by government-owned public corporations. Like Puerto Rico itself, these public corporations have increasingly relied on the bond market to cover their recurring budget deficits, but unlike the Commonwealth, the commentary said that PREPA and the other public corporations have issued bonds that are secured by the revenues they generate. Before the Act, Puerto Rico and its subdivisions, agencies and instrumentalities had no statutory authority, under any body of law, to seek relief from their creditors and/or restructure their debts. Click here to read the full commentary. (Subscription required.)

For further analysis of the Puerto Rico Corporations Debt Enforcement & Recovery Act and PREPA's situation, be sure to listen to this ABI Podcast.

MILLIONS OF AMERICANS' WAGES SEIZED OVER CREDIT CARD AND MEDICAL DEBT

One in 10 working Americans between the ages of 35 and 44 have their wages garnished, often over an old credit card debt, medical bill or student loan, NPR reported today. At the request of left-leaning investigative news operation ProPublica, ADP, the nation's largest payroll services provider, conducted a study of payroll records for 13 million employees. ADP's report, released Monday, shows that among employees in the prime working ages of 35 to 44 who had their wages garnished in 2013, roughly half owed child support. But a sizable number had their earnings docked for consumer debts, such as credit cards, medical bills and student loans. For workers earning $25,000 to $40,000 a year, more people were garnished for consumer debt than for child support. This marks a dramatic change. In the past, the vast majority of wage garnishments went to secure child support payments or to collect on unpaid taxes. In recent years, though, debt collectors have been filing millions of lawsuits against people for basic consumer debt: medical bills, student loans and credit card debt. Read more.

ANALYSIS: THE NEW RULES OF BORROWING MEAN LENDERS COMPETE FOR BEST CUSTOMERS

Rates on many consumer loans have come down this year as more lenders compete to win over borrowers, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday. Large mortgages, known as jumbos, have carried lower average fixed interest rates than smaller home loans for five consecutive weeks through Sept. 5 — an anomaly and the longest such stretch for 30-year mortgages since at least 1986, according to mortgage-info data from website HSH.com. A new group of online lenders has entered the car-loan business, many offering zero to 2 percent fixed-interest rates on car loans. And for the first time ever, fixed-rate private student loans can be much cheaper than some popular federal student loans. The terms of most of these loans require consumers to have top credit scores. "If you have very good credit and you're able to [take] on debt, this is the time to borrow," says Joseph Pucella, a vice president and senior credit officer at Moody's Investors Service, a credit-ratings firm based in New York. "Rates are very low still and the banks are competing for that type of customer, so you've got more options." The deals are being offered as banks, hungry for revenue, try to drum up business. The loans are mostly targeted at borrowers with high credit scores, in most cases at least a 720 FICO score on a scale that runs from 300 to 850. Applicants often need to clear several additional hurdles, such as providing income documentation and maintaining a low overall debt load. Borrowers are jumping at the opportunity. Excluding home loans, $390.9 billion in consumer loans — including student loans, car loans and personal loans — was originated in the first five months of 2014, according to the latest data from credit-reporting firm Equifax. That is up 11 percent from the first five months of the year before and the highest for that period since 2007, when lending standards were looser. Read more. (Subscription required.)

COMMENTARY: STUDENT LOANS, MORAL HAZARD AND A LAW SCHOOL MESS

The current system of financing legal education creates moral hazard that has produced — and will continue to produce — law school misbehavior at great expense, according to a commentary by Prof. Steven J. Harper in Friday's American Lawyer. For the class of 2013, 33 of 201 ABA-accredited schools placed fewer than 40 percent of their graduates in long-term full-time J.D.-required employment (excluding law school-funded jobs). Thanks to the moral hazard that the federally backed loan program creates, some schools with the worst employment records for recent graduates have students with the highest levels of law school loan debt. For the class of 2013, three of the top 10 schools with the highest average student loan debt at graduation placed less than one-third of their graduates in full-time, long-term J.D.-required jobs (excluding law school-funded positions). Read the full commentary. (Subscription required.)

For more on student loans and bankruptcy, be sure to pick up a copy of Graduating with Debt: Student Loans under the Bankruptcy Code, available now in the ABI Bookstore.

FALL LINE-UP OF ABI COMMITTEE TELECONFERENCES ALLOW MEMBERS TO DISCUSS TOP ISSUES

Members are encouraged to dial-in and listen or participate on upcoming ABI Committee conference calls. While committee membership is encouraged, it is not required to join the free teleconferences. Upcoming Committee teleconferences include:

  • Business Reorganization Committee: Tuesday, September 23; 4 pm ET.
    Topic: "We're Not in Kansas Anymore: Looking at International Insolvency/Restructurings through the Bankruptcy Code and Beyond"
    Speakers: Patrick Mohan (Moderator) of Reorg Research (Columbia, S.C.), Rachel Ehrlich Albanese of Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP (New York), G. Eric Brunstad, Jr. of Dechert LLP (Hartford, Conn.), Nava Hazan of Squire Patton Boggs (New York), Mark Kronfeld of BlueMountain Capital Management, LLC (New York) and Stephen Lerner of Squire Patton Boggs (Cincinnati).
    Members outside the U.S. can listen to the conversation online at: http://www.abiworld.org/webinars/2014/INSOL_RESTRUCTURINGS/live.html
     
  • Asset Sales Committee: Thursday, Oct. 2; 4 pm ET
    Topic: Call to cover "the progeny of Fisker," as well as the practical implications of the decisions.
    Speakers: Oscar Pinkas of Dentons (New York) and Justin Paget of Hunton & Williams LLP (Richmond, Va.)
     
  • Unsecured Trade Creditors Committee: Wednesday, Oct. 1; 4 pm ET
    Topic: "Tricks of the Trade: New Issues and Strategies in Preference Cases"
    Speakers: Mark Felger of Cozen O'Connor (Wilmington, Del.) and Travis Powers of Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC (Buffalo, N.Y.)

All committee teleconferences will utilize the same dial-in information:
Call in: (712) 432-1500
Participant code: 692933

NEW CASE SUMMARY ON VOLO: RUPANJALI V. CHECK INTO CASH OF WASHINGTON INC. (9TH CIR.)

Summarized by David Hercher of Miller Nash LLP

The Ninth Circuit ruled that for an automatic stay violation the chapter 7 debtor was entitled to receive emotional distress damages, punitive damages, and attorney fees incurred to end the violation, but not fees incurred to recover damages.

There are nearly 1,500 appellate opinions summarized on Volo, and summaries typically appear within 24 hours of the ruling. Click here regularly to view the latest case summaries on ABI's Volo website.

NEW ON ABI'S BANKRUPTCY BLOG EXCHANGE: SIXTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE BANKRUPTCY FILING OF LEHMAN BROTHERS

A recent post takes a look back at the bankruptcy filing by Lehman Brothers on Sept. 15, 2008, the largest chapter 11 filing in U.S. history.

Be sure to check the site several times each day; any time a contributing blog posts a new story, a link to the story will appear on the top. If you have a blog that deals with bankruptcy, or know of a good blog that should be part of the Bankruptcy Exchange, please contact the ABI Web team.

ABI Quick Poll

SARE cases should not be allowed in chapter 11.

Click here to vote on this week's Quick Poll. Click here to view the results of previous Quick Polls.

INSOL INTERNATIONAL

INSOL International is a worldwide federation of national associations for accountants and lawyers who specialize in turnaround and insolvency. There are currently 43 member associations worldwide with more than 9,000 professionals participating as members of INSOL International. As a member association of INSOL, ABI's members receive a discounted subscription rate. See ABI's enrollment page for details.

Have a Twitter, Facebook or LinkedIn Account?

Join our networks to expand yours.

  

 

TOMORROW


Register Today!


COMING UP

SW14
Register Today!

SW14
Register Today!

GT14
Register Today!

CT14
Register Today!

IIS14
Register Today!

CFRP14
Register Today!

CRC14
Register Today!

CHICAGO14
Register Today!

DETROIT14
Register Today!

PDP14
Register Today!

WLC14
Register Today!

MT14
Register Today!

 
   
  CALENDAR OF EVENTS
 

2014

September
- Lawrence P. King and Charles Seligson Workshop on Bankruptcy & Business Reorganization
    Sept. 17-18, 2014 | New York, N.Y.

October
- abiWorkshop: Government Contracting and Bankruptcy
    Oct. 6, 2014 | Alexandria, Va.
- Midwestern Bankruptcy Institute
    Oct. 16-17, 2014 | Kansas City, Mo.
- Views from the Bench
    Oct. 24, 2014 | Washington, D.C.
- Claims-Trading Program
    Oct. 30, 2014 | New York, N.Y.
- International Insolvency & Restructuring Symposium
    Oct. 30-31, 2014 | London
 

  

 


November
- Complex Financial Restructuring Program
    Nov. 6, 2014 | Philadelphia
- Corporate Restructuring Competition
    Nov. 6-7, 2014 | Philadelphia
- Chicago Consumer Bankruptcy Conference
    Nov. 11, 2014 | Chicago, Ill.
- Detroit Consumer Bankruptcy Conference
    Nov. 11, 2014 | Troy, Mich.
- Mid-Level Professional Development Program
    Nov. 12, 2014 | Chicago

December
- Winter Leadership Conference
    Dec. 4-6, 2014 | Palm Springs, Calif.
- 40-Hour Mediation Training Program
   Dec. 7-11, 2014 | New York, N.Y.

 

 
 
ABI BookstoreABI Endowment Fund ABI Endowment Fund
 

Collier Bankruptcy Case Update March-17-03

 


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

CASES IN THIS ISSUE
(scroll down to read the full summary)

 

1st Cir.

§ 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]

ABI Members, click here to get the full opinion.

 
 
 

 

 

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.


6th Cir

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.


10th Cir.

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)


ABI World

  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)


ABI World

  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)


ABI World

  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)


ABI World

  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%