Senator Richard Durbin Discusses the Student Loan Borrower Bill of Rights on Latest ABI Podcast

February 11, 2014

NEWS AND ANALYSIS

SENATOR RICHARD DURBIN DISCUSSES THE "STUDENT LOAN BORROWER BILL OF RIGHTS" ON LATEST ABI PODCAST

Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), the Assistant Majority Leader for the Senate and sponsor of S. 1803, the "Student Loan Borrower Bill of Rights," joined ABI Resident Scholar Prof. Charles Tabb for a discussion on key issues surrounding student debt. In addition to an overview and insight into his legislation, Durbin provides his thoughts on the risks to the U.S. if action is not taken to address the student debt crisis. Click here to listen to the podcast.

AMIDST CONTINUED CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY SLOWDOWN, EXPERTS WEIGH FUTURE TRENDS

Corporate bankruptcy activity has declined to an unprecedented and record-breaking low--despite pundit predictions, according to an analysis in Friday's ABL Advisor. BankruptcyData.com's research reveals that current corporate bankruptcy activity, or the unprecedented lack thereof, just up-ended historical chapter 11 benchmarks and pundit expectations as there were zero public filings in the entire month of January 2014. In fact, up until the chapter 11 filing on Feb. 2 of Tuscany International Drilling, the last public company to seek chapter 11 protection (OCZ Technology Group) was in early December -- making this 60-day stretch a quite a dry spell, according to bankruptcy experts. "We were expecting a lot of action on the restructuring and insolvency front, but what we got were fewer chapter 11 filings, especially among middle-market companies," says Jeffrey Testa, a partner at Newark, N.J.-based McCarter & English. Prof. Edward Altman of the NYU Stern School of Business adds, "Yes, it is unusual that chapter 11 public company filings are zero for a full month; usually the median month is about 4-5." Testa details how this unprecedented and unexpected decline came to be: "For every reason there should have been filings, there were factors that minimized them: Lenders have practiced forbearance rather than taking the collateral, and in their eyes, a marginally performing loan can be acceptable for the time being if revenues are covering operations. Filing for protection is seen as expensive, which eliminates the smaller filings and creates a trend toward out-of-court resolution. There's also a growing realization that not every restructuring results in the emergence of a successful, reorganized and ultimately profitable entity." Altman added that he expects "filings to pick up, however, in 2014, especially if liquidity dries up some" due to an escalation of problems in developing countries. Read more.

ANALYSIS: NEW REGULATIONS LEAVE BUYOUT BUSINESS OUT ON THEIR OWN

As banking rules are redrawn, the Volcker rule is forcing financial institutions to shed their buyout businesses, the Wall Street Journal reported yesterday. The rule -- part of the Dodd-Frank law --aims to limit the risks big banks can take with their own capital. Under the rule, approved by five federal financial-regulatory agencies last year, banks have to sharply reduce their stakes in their private-equity units, or shed them altogether, by 2015. Banks piled into the buyout business during the boom years leading up to the 2008 financial crisis, taking part in some of the era's biggest corporate takeovers. JPMorgan Chase & Co. is currently in the process of spinning off One Equity Partners, a private-equity arm. The bank had been the firm's only investor, but won't put money into a new fund that One Equity Partners is raising, and it is exploring a sale of its stake in the buyout shop's existing investments. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. plans to keep its private-equity businesses, but is reducing the amount of capital it holds in existing funds. To comply with a Volcker requirement that funds' names don't evoke those of their parent banks, it is replacing the moniker "GS Capital" with "Broad Street" on new funds. Read more. (Subscription required.)

COMMENTARY: GARLOCK CASE SENDS WARNING TO TORT BAR IN ASBESTOS BANKRUPTCIES

Garlock Sealing Technologies, which is trying to emerge from bankruptcy after a deluge of asbestos claims, took a courageous risk in taking on the tort bar in court, and it now plans to use the information it found in discovery as the basis for a racketeering, fraud and conspiracy suit against four national asbestos plaintiffs' firms, according to an editorial in Saturday's Wall Street Journal. Garlock, a gasket-maker, was forced into bankruptcy in 2010 by a flood of asbestos claims. Plaintiffs' lawyers were insisting that Garlock set aside $1.3 billion for victims of the deadly asbestos-related disease mesothelioma. Last month, Bankruptcy Judge George Hodges instead accepted Garlock's liability estimate of $125 million and roasted the plaintiffs' bar for its dishonesty. Most companies pushed into asbestos bankruptcies have set up trusts to pay claims. Garlock said that it had evidence that plaintiffs were filing claims with trusts in which they blamed non-Garlock products for their diseases, even as they accused Garlock in court. The judge allowed discovery in 15 cases Garlock had already settled, and as the judge wrote, "Garlock demonstrated that exposure evidence was withheld in each and every one of them." Read the full editorial. (Subscription required.)

ANALYSIS: ROLLING THE DICE ON MUNICIPAL BANKRUPTCIES

Moody's Investors Service said in a report last week that the amount of money that bond investors get back in municipal bankruptcies varies widely -- even among creditors who own debt with similar characteristics, the Wall Street Journal reported on Saturday. The report is timely given the situation in Puerto Rico, which has about $70 billion in outstanding debt that is widely owned among U.S. investors. The commonwealth has been downgraded to junk recently by two major rating firms: Moody's Investors Service on Friday and Standard & Poor's Ratings Services earlier last week. Puerto Rico, which has been faced with a struggling economy in recent years, is not eligible for chapter 9 municipal bankruptcy, but it is unclear how bond investors would fare if the island could not pay back its debt. Island officials say that they are working to improve the commonwealth's finances and have assured investors that they will get their money back. Moody's analysts noted that in the bankruptcy case of Jefferson County, Ala., which was weighed down by more than $3 billion in sewer debt, investors who owned sewer bonds got back 54.1 percent of their money. However, J.P. Morgan Chase ended up with a recovery closer to 30 percent. (Moody's did not include in its calculations a fine that J.P. Morgan paid related to a bribery investigation connected to the county's sewer bonds.) Other creditors got as much as 80 percent, Moody's said. Read more. (Subscription required.)

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD ENDS SATURDAY FOR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE FEDERAL RULES OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE

The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules has proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Official Forms, and requested that the proposals be circulated to the bench, bar, and public for comment. On August 15, 2013, the public comment period opened for the proposed amendments to Bankruptcy Rules 2002, 3002, 3007, 3012, 3015, 4003, 5005, 5009, 7001, 9006, and 9009 and Official Forms 17A, 17B, 17C, 22A-1, 22A-1Supp, 22A-2, 22B, 22C-1, 22C-2, 101, 101A, 101B, 104, 105, 106Sum, 106A/B, 106C, 106D, 106E/F, 106G, 106H, 106Dec, 107, 112, 113, 119, 121, 318, 423 and 427. The public comment period closes on February 15, 2014. For more information, please click here.

To access the online comment site for the proposed amendments, please click here.

DUBERSTEIN GALA AWARDS DINNER ON MARCH 3 TO PAY TRIBUTE TO BANKRUPTCY JUDGE BURTON LIFLAND AND CHIEF BANKRUPTCY CLERK JOSEPH HURLEY

The Gala Awards Dinner at this year's 22nd Annual Duberstein Bankruptcy Moot Court Competition on March 3 will feature a special tribute to Bankruptcy Judge Burton J. Lifland of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York and Joseph P. Hurley, Chief Bankruptcy Clerk (retired) of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York. To purchase tickets for the gala or to find out more information, please visit http://www.dubersteingala.com.

PURCHASE EITHER THE CONSUMER OR BUSINESS EDITION OF THE BEST OF ABI 2013 AND RECEIVE A FREE ADDITIONAL TITLE!

To make room for new books in 2014, ABI is having a special Bookstore clearance sale. Now, when you buy either Best of ABI 2013: The Year in Business Bankruptcy or The Year in Consumer Bankruptcy, you can choose a free book from a select list of ABI publications. You'll be able to make your selection when you click "Buy Now" on either edition of the Best of ABI 2013. To purchase the Best of ABI 2013: The Year in Business Bankruptcy, please click here.

Make your selection when you click "Buy Now" on either edition of the Best of ABI 2013. To purchase the Best of ABI 2013: The Year in Consumer Bankruptcy, please click here.

ABI'S SIXTH ANNUAL LAW STUDENT WRITING COMPETITION DEADLINE APPROACHING

Law school students are invited to submit a paper between now and March 4, 2014 for ABI's Sixth Annual Bankruptcy Law Student Writing Competition. ABI will extend a complimentary one-year membership to all students who participate in this year's competition. Eligible submissions should focus on current issues regarding bankruptcy jurisdiction, bankruptcy litigation, or evidence issues in bankruptcy cases or proceedings. The first-place winner, sponsored by Invotex Group, Inc., will receive a cash prize of $2,000 and publication of his or her paper in the ABI Journal. The second-place winner, sponsored by Jenner & Block LLP, will receive a cash prize of $1,250 and publication of his or her paper in an ABI committee newsletter. The third-place winner, sponsored by Thompson & Knight LLP, will receive a cash prize of $750 plus publication of his or her paper in an ABI committee newsletter. For competition participation and submission guidelines, please visit http://papers.abi.org.

LOOKING FOR A REPLAY OF THE "BACK TO BASICS" WEBINARS? CHECK OUT ABI'S CLE SITE!

The final installment of ABI's "Back to Basics" live webinar series, hosted by the Young and New Members Committee, was held last week, and you now have the opportunity to access the programs at your convenience! The three webinars in the series, an examination of financial statements and operating reports, using financial documents as evidence and issues surrounding bankruptcy and hedge funds, are now posted to ABI's e-Learning website. Let a trusted CLE provider help get your associates up to speed.

LOOKING TO SEE WHAT IS IN STORE FOR ABI'S 32ND ANNUAL SPRING MEETING? WATCH HERE!

ABI IN-DEPTH

NEW CASE SUMMARY ON VOLO: JONES V. MULLEN (IN RE JONES; 9TH CIR.)

Summarized by Kevin M. Baum of St. John's University School of Law

The Ninth Circuit BAP affirmed the bankruptcy court's order approving the chapter 7 trustee's sale of real property transferred to the debtor post-petition upon the death of the grantor under a beneficiary deed under Arizona Law, which had been executed and recorded pre-petition. Particularly, the BAP held that the debtor's contingent interest in the real property under the beneficiary deed was property of the estate under 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1).

There are more than 1,200 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: ATTACKING LBO PAYOUTS AS STATE LAW FRAUDULENT TRANSFERS

The Bankruptcy Blog Exchange is a free ABI service that tracks more than 80 bankruptcy-related blogs. A recent post examines the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York's recent decision in Weisfelner v. Fund 1 (In Re Lyondell Chemical Co.), 2014 WL 118036 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Jan. 14, 2014). The court held that the safe-harbor provision of 11 U.S.C. § 546(e) did not bar unsecured creditors from seeking, under state fraudulent-transfer law, to recover payouts made to former shareholders of a company acquired in a leveraged buyout.

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

The Bankruptcy Code permits a debtor to artificially impair a class for cramdown purposes.

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.

NEXT EVENT:

Hedge Fund Legend David Tepper to Keynote- Register Today!

COMING UP

Detroit Emergency Manager Kevyn Orr to Keynote- Register Today!

CALENDAR OF EVENTS

2014

February
- VALCON14
Feb. 26-28, 2014 | Las Vegas, Nev.

March
- Bankruptcy Battleground West
March 11, 2014 | Los Angeles, Calif.
- Alexander L. Paskay Memorial
Bankruptcy Seminar
March 13-15, 2014 | Tampa, Fla.

April
- Annual Spring Meeting
April 24-27, 2014 | Washington, D.C.

May
- Credit & Bankruptcy Symposium
    May 1-2, 2014 | Uncasville, Conn.
- New York City Bankruptcy Conference
    May 15, 2014 | New York, N.Y.
- Litigation Skills Symposium
    May 20-23, 2014 | Dallas, Texas

June
- Central States Bankruptcy Workshop
June 12-15, 2014 | Lake Geneva, Wis.

July
- Northeast Bankruptcy Conference
July 17-20, 2014 | Stowe, Vt.

Read more about Senator Richard Durbin Discusses the Student Loan Borrower Bill of Rights on Latest ABI Podcast

U.S. Trustee Felicia S. Turner Joins the American Bankruptcy Institute as Deputy Executive Director

Contacts: John Hartgen
703-739-0800
[email protected]

U.S. TRUSTEE FELICIA S. TURNER JOINS THE AMERICAN BANKRUPTCY INSTITUTE AS DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

July 11, 2007 Alexandria, Va. — The American Bankruptcy Institute is pleased to announce that U.S. Trustee Felicia S. Turner will join the American Bankruptcy Institute staff in September as Deputy Executive Director. Turner comes to ABI after serving as U.S. Trustee for Regions 20 and 21. She has been active member of ABI as a conference speaker and has participated on the advisory board of ABI’s Caribbean Insolvency Program.

'We are delighted that Felicia has agreed to join our staff,' said ABI Executive Director Sam Gerdano. “Her vast substantive knowledge and keen management skills will be a great help in taking ABI to the next level of service to the insolvency community.'

'The addition of Felicia Turner to ABI's management team will further enhance the organization's ability to meet the needs of our 11,500 members,” ABI President Reginald W. Jackson added. “As ABI embarks on its next 25 years, Felicia's experience, bankruptcy knowledge and energy offer an excellent complement to the outstanding abilities of Sam Gerdano, ABI's Executive Director.'

As U.S. Trustee for Regions 20 and 21, Turner managed 12 offices covering 13 federal judicial districts and four federal circuits in Georgia, Florida, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Oklahoma, Kansas and New Mexico. She oversaw the coordination of the U.S. Trustees Office’s participation in bankruptcy cases under all chapters to preserve the integrity of the judicial system, including the development and implementation of policy and ensuring regional and national consistency in and appropriateness of the federal government’s legal positions. Prior to her appointment as U.S. Trustee, Turner was a partner in the Atlanta-based law firm Troutman Sanders LLP, where she was a member of its Bankruptcy Practice Group and the Litigation Section. Before joining Troutman Sanders in 1999, she was a bankruptcy associate with the Owensboro, Ky., firm Sullivan, Mountjoy, Stainback & Miller PSC, where her work ranged from representing debtors and creditors in consumer cases to serving as counsel for large corporate debtors. A resident of Atlanta, Turner received her B.A. from Depauw University in 1991 and earned her J.D. at Duke University in 1994.

###

ABI is the largest multi-disciplinary, nonpartisan organization dedicated to research and education on matters related to insolvency. ABI was founded in 1982 to provide Congress and the public with unbiased analysis of bankruptcy issues. The ABI membership includes more than 11,500 attorneys, accountants, bankers, judges, professors, lenders, turnaround specialists and other bankruptcy professionals, providing a forum for the exchange of ideas and information. For additional information on ABI, visit www.abiworld.org. For additional conference information, visit http://www.abiworld.org/conferences.html.

Read more about U.S. Trustee Felicia S. Turner Joins the American Bankruptcy Institute as Deputy Executive Director

Quarterly Non-business Filings by District (2001-2005)

	2001				2002				2003				2004				2005
District	First Quarter	Second Quarter	Third Quarter	Fourth Quarter	First Quarter	Second Quarter	Third Quarter	Fourth Quarter	First Quarter	Second Quarter	Third Quarter	Fourth Quarter	First Quarter	Second Quarter	Third Quarter	Fourth Quarter	First Quarter	Second Quarter	Third Quarter	Fourth Quarter
Middle District of Alabama	2,031	1,938	2,053	2,070	2,087	2,102	2,383	2,199	2,191	2,210	2,281	2,061	2,073	2,028	2,303	2,139	2,095	2,195	2,587	2,689
Northern District of Alabama	5,923	6,052	5,757	5,948	5,997	6,138	6,231	6,037	6,518	6,531	6,572	6,238	6,575	6,700	6,106	6,366	6,891	6,870	8,154	8,315
Southern District of Alabama	1,634	1,664	1,673	1,643	1,787	1,900	1,858	1,807	1,904	1,754	2,004	1,835	1,915	1,849	1,898	1,687	1,885	1,804	1,874	2,122
District of Alaska	290	382	333	363	269	336	352	402	285	393	334	377	338	346	335	424	337	445	608	824
District of Arizona	5,497	6,613	6,233	6,394	6,291	7,603	7,680	7,297	7,143	8,824	7,956	7,188	7,550	8,577	7,895	6,891	7,288	9,833	11,064	11,505
Eastern District of Arkansas	3,463	3,425	3,324	3,318	3,616	3,581	3,900	3,859	3,833	3,839	3,853	3,858	3,973	3,577	4,006	3,869	4,188	4,183	5,274	5,230
Western District of Arkansas	2,069	1,967	1,775	1,853	2,044	2,011	2,129	2,119	2,086	2,277	2,051	2,076	2,278	2,123	2,102	1,960	2,323	2,475	2,966	3,500
Central District of California	21,267	23,965	19,748	20,615	20,703	20,889	20,142	19,915	19,457	19,870	17,852	16,443	16,428	15,820	14,117	12,633	14,485	17,656	21,280	28,838
Eastern District of California	8,008	8,473	7,059	7,446	7,455	7,780	7,513	7,521	7,723	8,045	7,370	6,920	7,163	7,481	7,009	6,175	6,687	7,747	9,200	12,855
Northern District of California	4,746	5,168	4,279	4,421	4,829	5,158	5,037	5,116	5,298	5,814	5,421	5,332	5,335	5,472	5,182	4,868	4,877	6,133	7,669	9,614
Southern District of California	3,254	3,715	3,131	3,070	3,199	3,286	3,068	3,107	3,004	3,113	2,791	2,654	2,953	2,850	2,729	2,525	2,707	3,285	4,293	5,160
District of Colorado	4,162	5,133	4,604	4,432	4,239	5,416	5,656	5459	5,550	7,049	6,655	6,149	6,332	7,515	7,106	6,430	6,786	9,174	11,502	14,711
District of Connecticut	3,034	3,293	2,599	2,529	2,795	3,099	2,853	2,820	3,006	3,318	2,937	2,797	2,880	3,075	2,743	2,585	2,889	3,449	3,750	5,026
District of Delaware	766	749	681	682	700	816	787	837	837	902	848	825	809	891	860	831	839	877	1,025	1,409
District of Columbia	684	680	560	558	661	602	639	549	628	616	528	485	525	496	433	434	481	498	495	912
Middle District of Florida	11,270	13,261	11,790	11,818	12,032	13,536	13,333	13,149	13,178	14,453	13,951	13,192	13,293	14,331	12,209	11,825	12,476	15,002	16,256	19,418
Northern District of Florida	1,537	1,669	1,477	1,404	1,635	1,616	1,663	1,611	1,783	1,818	1,778	1,669	1,711	1,744	1,614	1,495	1,528	1,680	1,876	2,118
Southern District of Florida	7,135	8,694	7,516	7,641	7,216	8,382	8,149	8,082	1,783	8,770	8,003	7,048	6,594	7,495	6,261	6,122	5,657	8,680	9,908	11,647
Middle District of Georgia	4,117	3,979	4,422	4,470	4,122	4,088	4,986	4,569	4,574	4,277	4,596	4,496	4,353	4,347	4,503	4,327	3,848	4,031	4,676	3,757
Northern District of Georgia	9,094	8,948	9,492	10,006	10,318	9,802	10,904	10,359	11,964	11,239	11,079	11,238	11,078	10,668	10,731	10,814	11,359	11,074	12,690	14,257
Southern District of Georgia	3,311	3,506	3,787	3,805	3,501	3,575	4,276	3,851	3,776	3,878	4,369	4,130	3,816	3,743	4,028	3,461	3,434	3,522	4,676	2,806
District of Hawaii	1,286	1,334	1,178	1,173	1,224	1,105	1,123	978	945	1,020	897	857	837	822	670	736	766	955	1,186	1,500
District of Idaho	1,852	2,285	1,980	1,840	2,000	2,366	2,195	2,093	2,142	2,660	2,488	2,144	2,285	2,533	2,321	2,189	2,244	2,787	3,101	3,690
Central District of Illinois	3,639	3,768	3,329	3,536	3,913	3,865	3,845	3,838	4,425	4,191	3,820	3,766	4,111	3,979	3,747	3,598	4,292	4,819	5,351	6,941
Northern District of Illinois	12,497	13,055	11,926	13,089	13,855	13,866	14,287	14,644	15,870	15,217	13,899	13,406	14,419	13,364	13,305	13,159	13,571	15,913	18,210	24,060
Southern District of Illinois	2,148	2,151	1,954	1,938	2,277	2,265	2,092	2,271	2,548	2,523	2,486	2,374	2,505	2,335	2,458	2,330	2,586	2,844	3,546	3,791
Northern District of Indiana	4,327	5,105	4,540	4,730	4,715	5,663	5,271	5,015	5,061	5,773	5,173	4,946	5,146	5,663	5,226	4,513	4,860	6,406	8,065	11,700
Southern District of Indiana	6,542	7,946	6,903	7,363	7,572	8,176	8,361	8,085	7,978	9,102	8,769	8,355	8,045	9,010	8,780	7,554	8,096	2,844	13,173	1,6040
Northern District of Iowa	996	1,276	958	960	949	1,207	1,138	1,145	1,122	1,325	1,203	1,079	1,180	1,311	1,236	1,105	1,373	1,669	1,915	2,175
Southern District of Iowa	1,461	1,866	1,709	1,558	1,623	1,893	1,804	1,690	1,733	2,061	1,973	1,756	1,934	2,178	1,945	1,823	2,173	2,614	3,029	3,302
District of Kansas	3,103	3,896	3,519	3,186	3,110	3,970	3,998	3,639	3,535	4,536	4,160	3,639	3,627	4,545	4,253	3,590	3,822	5,362	5,814	7,373
Eastern District of Kentucky	2,808	3,075	2,747	2,620	2,957	3,004	3,079	2,847	3,137	3,571	3,490	3,031	3,320	3,315	3,276	2,894	3,202	3,933	5,119	6,438
Western District of Kentucky	3,681	3,788	3,512	3,477	3,762	3,796	3,772	3,605	3,978	4,280	4,330	3,746	3,736	3,946	3,839	3,450	3,929	4,385	5,849	7,005
Eastern District of Louisiana	2,474	2,882	2,471	2,240	2,268	2,365	2,529	2,422	2,307	2,690	2,604	2,410	2,323	2,652	2,474	2,267	2,456	3,133	2,389	3,691
Middle District of Louisiana	725	853	916	816	822	971	1,001	830	939	1,032	1,094	952	1,064	1,089	1,093	973	1,014	1,218	1,292	1,861
Western District of Louisiana	3,055	3,411	3,380	3,080	3,119	3,329	3,585	3,218	3,405	3,934	4,147	3,535	3,634	4,098	4,070	3,471	3,912	4,344	4,970	5,746
District of Maine	983	1,317	1,000	1,097	1,019	1,112	1,126	1,052	1,057	1,266	1,118	1,114	1,081	1,184	1,114	991	1,033	1,466	1,850	2,121
District of Maryland	9,043	9,548	7,992	8,047	8,979	8,839	8,462	8,420	9,066	8,940	7,941	7,764	7,971	7,914	6,361	6,805	7,399	7,436	8,190	11,590
District of Massachusetts	4,638	4,885	3,985	3,721	4,155	4,581	4,176	4,103	4,349	4,958	4,357	4,195	4,393	4,844	4,269	4,585	4,484	5,928	6,572	9,311
Eastern District of Michigan	8,267	8,171	7,735	8,208	9,673	9,555	9,632	10,620	11,669	11,731	10,771	11,178	12,070	11,647	11,612	11,251	13,131	13,926	17,002	21,185
Western District of Michigan	3,648	3,544	3,186	3,376	3,783	3,920	3,611	4,004	4,438	4,333	3,970	3,963	4,395	4,339	4,020	4,183	4,605	5,011	5,787	7,739
District of Minnesota	4,258	4,326	4,110	4,135	4,391	4,658	4,665	4,044	5,187	5,158	4,709	4,525	4,171	4,260	4,123	4,044	4,502	5,289	7,210	7,661
Northern District of Mississippi	1,946	1,923	1,952	1,924	2,057	1,941	2,035	2,004	2,102	2,155	2,063	1,944	2,027	2,012	2,329	1,989	2,292	2,283	2,422	2,812
Southern District of Mississippi	3,619	3,511	3,539	3,413	3,538	3,324	3,569	3,617	3,764	3,419	3,431	3,087	3,232	3,191	3,338	2,882	3,072	3,450	3,269	3,877
Eastern District of Missouri	4,107	4,250	4,007	4,208	4,228	4,252	4,634	4,969	4,888	5,170	5,084	4,906	4,998	5,035	4,745	4,599	4,874	5,904	7,210	8,628
Western District of Missouri	3,031	3,730	3,522	3,343	3,429	4,073	4,198	4,113	4,201	4,707	4,464	4,031	4,300	4,789	4,492	4,289	4,549	5,354	6,814	8,690
District of Montana	957	1,113	892	890	926	1,206	958	848	1,046	1,295	1,049	897	1,072	1,318	967	849	1,067	1,414	1,482	1,807
District of Nebraska	1,764	1,926	1,676	1,692	1,790	1,994	1,835	1,949	2,191	2,078	2,094	2,023	2,217	2,278	2,197	2,093	2,358	2,732	3,061	3,664
District of Nevada	3,948	5,042	4,511	4,178	4,303	5,240	4,923	4,803	4,715	5,748	5,064	4,721	4,383	4,985	4,032	3,255	3,509	5,172	5,972	8,797
District of New Hampshire	947	1,090	769	793	952	978	949	946	1,031	1,200	1,021	996	1,152	1,163	1,100	1,077	1,159	1,243	1,422	1,685
District of New Jersey	10,649	11,535	9,484	9,071	10,175	10,719	9,707	9,682	10,609	11,253	10,648	8,947	11,028	10,981	9,578	8,991	10,132	11,335	11,671	15,673
District of New Mexico	2,124	2,129	1,950	1,831	2,094	2,131	2,247	2,102	2,457	2,412	2,167	1,948	2,222	2,312	2,172	2,070	1,351	2,694	3,016	3,525
Eastern District of New York	6,520	7,500	5,575	5,509	5,980	7,053	6,239	6,607	6,085	6,945	5,982	6,651	6,613	7,319	6,154	6,067	6,735	8,325	9,062	12,130
Northern District of New York	3,802	4,508	3,450	3,574	3,979	4,171	3,859	3,954	4,189	4,767	4,138	3,972	4,248	5,044	3,894	4,030	4,436	5,559	6,233	7,600
Southern District of New York	3,333	3,986	3,090	3,256	3,462	3,815	3,745	3,790	4,010	4,461	3,963	4,117	4,425	4,780	4,343	3,991	4,642	5,886	6,483	8,827
Western District of New York	2,966	3,554	2,960	3,033	2,978	3,550	3,203	3,312	3,414	4,150	3,534	3,494	3,592	4,155	3,932	3,310	3,894	5,051	5,341	7,262
Eastern District of North Carolina	3,373	3,370	3,371	3,573	3,742	3,562	3,708	3,831	3,950	4,141	3,768	3,800	3,813	3,663	3,587	3,478	3,795	3,937	4,506	4,533
Middle District of North Carolina	2,526	2,677	2,637	2,819	2,720	2,771	3,089	2,995	3,144	3,099	3,099	3,156	2,908	2,928	2,961	2,778	2,941	2,900	3,606	3,401
Western District of North Carolina	2,100	2,184	2,218	2,259	2,218	2,402	2,450	2,312	2,606	2,770	2,561	2,533	2,523	2,462	2,554	2,496	2,656	2,926	3,321	3,894
District of North Dakota	561	585	515	456	463	492	504	493	529	599	541	519	565	591	524	522	629	706	944	1,168
Northern District of Ohio	8,006	10,192	8,649	8,934	9,166	10,444	10,757	10,636	10,784	12,868	12,115	11,808	11,034	12,981	11,745	10,866	12,203	15,361	19,476	26,450
Southern District of Ohio	7,818	9,208	8,497	7,974	8,534	9,343	9,370	9,027	9,311	11,168	10,464	9,803	9,933	11,359	10,461	9,989	10,413	13,088	16,211	20,320
Eastern District of Oklahoma	1,080	1,110	1,001	989	1,003	1,176	1,253	1,227	1,191	1,355	1,278	1,236	1,175	1,286	1,321	1,040	1,211	1,534	1,630	2,614
Northern District of Oklahoma	1,348	1,420	1,316	1,308	1,456	1,539	1,697	1,672	1,620	1,953	2,035	1,823	1,863	1,818	1,947	1,702	1,803	2,297	2,744	3,743
Western District of Oklahoma	3,111	3,496	3,308	3,075	2,947	3,446	3,234	3,182	3,404	3,599	3,568	3,507	3,437	3,601	3,618	3,152	3,483	4,324	5,470	7,633
District of Oregon	4,798	6,205	5,370	5,265	5,142	6,194	5,911	5,794	5,560	6,613	6,038	5,563	5,357	6,766	5,934	5,524	5,643	7,300	8,444	10,114
Eastern District of Pennsylvania	6,195	6,309	5,795	5,394	6,274	6,222	6,194	5,876	6,592	6,915	6,028	5,911	6,112	6,261	5,959	5,438	6,115	6,628	7,007	9,045
Middle District of Pennsylvania	2,975	3,273	2,606	2,589	2,900	3,202	3,193	2,916	3,424	3,607	3,428	3,266	3,488	3,712	3,505	3,167	3,570	4,374	4,861	6,123
Western District of Pennsylvania	3,940	4,215	3,607	3,510	4,216	4,190	4,230	4,112	4,641	5,002	4,767	4,637	3,592	5,283	5,253	4,926	5,626	6,529	7,623	10,086
District of Rhode Island	1,286	1,374	1,077	1,082	1,212	1,298	1,178	1,162	1,160	1,254	1,093	1,002	1,056	1,079	998	917	1,062	1,388	1,399	1,855
District of South Carolina	3,376	3,394	3,417	3,816	4,028	3,708	3,796	4,041	3,899	4,039	4,214	3,908	3,751	3,885	3,904	3,739	3,730	3,686	3,893	4,042
District of South Dakota	572	693	635	640	604	650	646	639	649	744	712	632	754	725	654	581	693	838	1,259	1,184
Eastern District of Tennessee	4,801	4,691	4,674	4,728	4,815	4,706	4,898	4,828	5,211	5,153	5,040	4,845	5,055	4,856	4,907	4,470	5,043	5,081	5,951	6,211
Middle District of Tennessee	3,698	3,624	3,379	3,656	3,901	3,629	3,895	3,800	4,362	4,205	3,910	3,810	4,014	3,926	4,132	3,379	3,877	3,943	4,436	3,806
Western District of Tennessee	6,129	6,476	6,679	6,916	6,947	6,651	7,238	7,162	7,044	7,373	7,256	6,525	6,489	6,653	6,697	5,991	6,324	6,450	7,593	6,639
Eastern District of Texas	2,558	2,726	2,778	3,014	2,722	2,907	3,241	2,963	3,233	3,306	3,116	3,284	3,228	3,099	3,231	3,057	3,224	3,717	4,482	5,115
Northern District of Texas	6,278	6,440	6,313	7,008	6,422	6,428	7,200	6,876	7,712	7,421	7,518	7,592	7,945	7,785	7,976	7,612	7,897	8,747	10,434	12,535
Southern District of Texas	4,674	4,919	4,662	4,918	4,488	4,986	5,592	5,384	6,547	6,321	6,122	6,212	6,397	6,367	6,949	6,696	6,785	7,898	8,663	12,258
Western District of Texas	4,490	4,401	4,223	4,443	4,324	4,295	4,760	4,470	5,232	5,036	5,017	5,006	5,179	5,088	5,220	4,820	4,893	5,813	6,859	8,275
District of Utah	4,399	4,856	4,891	4,788	5,083	5,389	5,592	5,462	5,458	5,734	5,294	5,079	5,060	5,414	5,280	4,611	4,808	5,391	5,335	5,894
District of Vermont	422	483	389	357	419	441	455	420	452	498	465	410	441	443	391	337	425	528	595	996
Eastern District of Virginia	7,515	7,352	6,813	7,265	7,286	7,825	7,369	7,212	8,046	7,990	7,200	6,886	7,660	7,347	6,693	6,304	6,772	6,950	7,725	9,747
Western District of Virginia	3,030	3,329	2,779	2,741	3,116	3,112	2,973	2,964	3,138	3,402	2,933	2,915	3,261	2,960	2,754	2,751	2,970	3,068	3,626	3,768
Eastern District of Washington	2,642	2,631	2,280	2,264	2,550	2,460	2,489	2,461	2,725	2,729						2,076	2,569	2,627	2,828	3,273
Western District of Washington																6,354	7,004	7,516	8,853	11,474
Northern District of West Virginia																1,075	1,359	1,441	1,791	2,111
Southern District of West Virginia																1,586	1,868	2,201	2,926	3,776
Eastern District of Wisconsin																3,935	4,496	6,437	6,907	7,388
Western District of Wisconsin																2,010	2,207	2,702	3,211	4,069
District of Wyoming																532	557	769	808	1,049
District of Puerto Rico																3,007	2,758	3,088	3,582	3,258
District of Virgin Islands																8	13	10	10	24
District of Guam																68	81	89	82	123
District of Northern Mariana Islands																12	3	7	10	11
United States																363,890	393,086	458,597	532,526	654,615

Read more about Quarterly Non-business Filings by District (2001-2005)

Total Bankruptcies Eclipse the 2 Million Mark in 2005 as Consumers File in Record Numbers Prior to Implementation of New Bankruptcy Law

Contact: John Hartgen

Phone: 703-739-0800

Email: [email protected]

Total Bankruptcies Eclipse the 2 Million Mark in 2005 as Consumers File in Record Numbers Prior to Implementation of New Bankruptcy Law

March 24, 2006 Alexandria, Va. — Bankruptcy filings eclipsed the two million mark for the first time in the United States as 2,078,415 filings were reported in calendar year 2005, according to data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. The total in this 12-month period ending December 31, 2005, represents a record 30 percent increase compared with the 1,597,462 total filings for the same period in 2004.

Driven largely in response to the passage of the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act (BAPCPA), consumers provided 98 percent of the overall total filings, the highest concentration of consumer filings on record, as nonbusiness filings during the 12-month period ending December 31, 2005, increased to a record 2,039,214, which was a 31 percent increase from the total of 1,563,145 of the same period in 2004. Business filings also increased to 39,201 for the 12-month period ending December 31, 2005, representing a 14 percent increase from the total of 34,317 from same period in 2004. This is the highest total of business bankruptcies in a calendar year since 2001’s total of 40,099.

“It is ironic that, at least in the short term, a law Congress hoped would reduce bankruptcies instead caused the largest upward spike in history,” said Samuel J. Gerdano, ABI Executive Director. “Bankruptcies have in fact fallen dramatically so far in 2006 under the new, more-restrictive law,” he added.

The record high of 667,431 bankruptcies recorded during the 4th calendar quarter of 2005 (October 1-December 31, 2005), is representative of the many debtors who rushed to file prior to the Oct. 17 implementation date of BAPCPA. October 2005 filings alone totaled 630,497, representing 95 percent of the filings for the three-month period and 30 percent of the 12-month period ending December 31, 2005. Nonbusiness filings in October 2005 reached 619,588, which represented 30 percent of the nonbusiness filings for the 12- month period ending December 31, 2005, and 95 percent of the 654,633 total nonbusiness filings for the 4^th quarter of 2005. The 10,909 October business filings were representative of 28 percent of the 12-month period ending December 31, 2005 business filings and 85 percent of the 12,798 business filings for the 4^th quarter 2005.

Largely as a result of the BAPCPA, dramatic decreases in filings were seen during the months of November and December 2005 as the combined filings of 36,934 for those two months represented just 1.78 percent of the total 12-month period ending December 31, and 6 percent for the 4^th quarter 2005. November’s total filings dropped to 14,324, which represented less than one percent (0.69%) of the total for the 12-month period ending December 2005 and 2 percent of the 4^th quarter total. The total of 13,643 nonbusiness filings in November was representative of less than one percent of the total nonconsumer filings (0.67%) for the 12-month period ending December 31, 2005 and just 2 percent of the 4^th calendar quarter nonbusiness filings. Business filings experienced a similar decline as the 681 filings in November represented less than 2 percent (1.74%) for CY2005 and 5 percent of the 2005 4^th quarter’s total of 12,798. By comparison, 2004 totals for the month of November were 122,796 total filings, 2,643 business filings and 120,153 nonbusiness filings, each representative of nearly 8 percent of the 12-month total for their respective categories.

Total filings increased in December 2005 to 22,610, which represented a 63 percent increase over November total filings, but just over 1 percent of the 12-month period ending December 31, 2005 total (1.09%) and just over 3 percent (3.39%).for the 4^th quarter 2005. December nonbusiness filings reached 21,402, representing just over one percent (1.05%) of the total nonbusiness filings for the 12-month period ending December 31, 2005, and only 3 percent of the 4^th quarter 2005 nonbusiness filings. December business filings increased as well to 1,208, but only comprised 3 percent of the total business filings for the 12-month period and represented just over 9 percent of the 4^th quarter total business filings. By comparison, 2004 totals for the month of December were 118,193 total filings, 2,493 business filings and 115,700 nonbusiness filings. Each was representative of just over seven percent of the 12-month total for their respective categories.

However, the 667,431 filings in the 4^th quarter of 2005 (October 1-December 31, 2005) represent an 80 percent increase in comparison to the 371,668 filings for the same quarter of 2004 (October 1-December 31, 2004) and a 23 percent increase from the previous record total 542,002 from the 3^rd quarter of 2005 (July 1- September 30, 2005).

Of the total number of bankruptcy filings in the 12-month period ending December 31, 2005, there were 1,659,017 chapter 7 filings, a 46 percent increase over the 1,137,958 chapter 7 filings for the same period in 2004. Chapter 7 filings also increased 33 percent from the 2005 third quarter from 429,299 to 570,355 in the 2005 fourth quarter.

The next-largest group of filings in the 12-month period ending December 31, 2005, was chapter 13 at 412,130, a 9 percent decrease from the 449,129 filings in the 12-month period ending December 31, 2004. CY2005 chapter 12 filings totaled 380, a 252 percent increase from the 108 filings in the 12-month period ending December 31, 2004. Reflecting the strong economy and low interest rates, chapter 11 filings fell from 10,132 in CY2004 to 6,800 in the 12-month period ending December 31, 2005, a 33 percent decrease.

BUSINESS FILINGS for the 3-month period ending December 31, 2005, totaled 12,798, a 64.54 percent increase from the 7,778 bankruptcy business cases filed in the same period in 2004. NONBUSINESS FILINGS for the 3-month period ending September 30, 2005, totaled 654,633, an 80 percent increase from the 363,890 total in the same quarter in 2004.

The chapter* breakdown of BUSINESS filings for the 3-month period ending December 31, 2005, is: 9,701 chapter 7s, 1,692 chapter 11s, 87 chapter 12s and 1,308 chapter 13s.

The chapter breakdown of NONBUSINESS filings for the 3-month period ending December 31, 2005, is 560,654 chapter 7s, 263 chapter 11s and 93,714 chapter 13s.

Districts with the Highest Percentage INCREASE in Total Filings for the 12-month period ending December 31, 2005 (compared to the identical period in 2004):

District of Virgin Islands: 68.42%
Northern District of Ohio: 57.47%
Southern District of West Virginia: 57.02%
District of North Dakota: 54.68%
District of Vermont: 54.42%

Districts with the Highest Percentage DECREASE in Total Filings for the 12-month period ending December 31, 2005 (compared to the identical period in 2004):

Southern District of Georgia: 9.79%
Middle District of Georgia: 6.67%
District of Puerto Rico: 0.82%
District of South Carolina: 0.47% (Increase)
Middle District of Tennessee: 4.19% (Increase)

More information will be available at ABI’s Statistics Page,http://www.abiworld.org/statistics.

###

ABI is the largest multi-disciplinary, nonpartisan organization dedicated to research and education on matters related to insolvency. ABI was founded in 1982 to provide Congress and the public with unbiased analysis of bankruptcy issues. The ABI membership includes more than 11,000 attorneys, accountants, bankers, judges, professors, lenders, turnaround specialists and other bankruptcy professionals providing a forum for the exchange of ideas and information. For additional information on ABI, visit www.abiworld.org. For additional conference information, visit http://www.abiworld.org/conferences.html.

*Definitions from Bankruptcy Overview: Issues, Law and Policy, by the American Bankruptcy Institute

Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code is available to both individual and business debtors. Its purpose is to achieve a fair distribution to creditors of the debtor’s available non-exempt property. Unsecured debts not reaffirmed are discharged, providing a fresh financial start.

Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is available for both business and consumer debtors. Its purpose is to rehabilitate a business as a going concern or reorganize an individual’s finances through a court-approved reorganization plan.

Chapter 12 of the Bankruptcy Code is designed to give special debt relief to a family farmer with regular income from farming.

Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code is available for an individual with regular income whose debts do not exceed specific amounts; it is typically used to budget some of the debtor’s future earnings under a plan through which unsecured creditors are paid in whole or in part.

Read more about Total Bankruptcies Eclipse the 2 Million Mark in 2005 as Consumers File in Record Numbers Prior to Implementation of New Bankruptcy Law

Secured Transactions in the Caribbean Proposed National Ch. 13 Plan and More Addressed at 10th Caribbean Insolvency Symposium

Alexandria, Va. — Cross-border and Caribbean bankruptcy practitioners will not want to miss ABI’s 10th Annual Caribbean Insolvency Symposium, Feb. 6-8, 2014, at the El San Juan Resort & Casino in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The educational program has been developed to provide attendees with an interactive learning experience led by a faculty of prominent national and regional bankruptcy judges as well as experienced practitioners. In addition to concurrent sessions, the Symposium will also feature session tracks tailored specifically for business and consumer practitioners. Attendees have the opportunity to earn up to 9.0/10.0 hours of CLE/CPE credit, including 1 hour of ethics! Concurrent sessions include: - Ethics: The New World Order — A Comparison of Ethical Issues with Respect to Retention and Compensation of Restructuring Professionals in the U.S./Caribbean - Breakfast with the Judges - Distribution Issues and Other Tensions in Ponzi Scheme Cases - Valuation: Bankruptcy Lawyers Are Litigators, Too! Business track sessions include: - Treasure, or Fool’s Gold? Secured Transactions in the Caribbean and Revised Article 9 - Chapter 15 Update - Anything but Absolute: The Evolution of the Absolute Priority Rule in Individual and Corporate Cases - The Outer Limits (of U.S. Bankruptcy Court Jurisdiction) Consumer track sessions include: - Proposed National Chapter 13 Plan, Proof-of-Claim Issues and FRBP 3002.1 - Domestic-Support Obligations; Applications to Retain Professionals and for Reimbursement of Fees - Discovery and Evidence Issues; Post-Judgment Motions; Appeals and Motions to Stay Pending Appeal; New Local Bankruptcy Rules and Updates - Chapter 13: Updates and Developments If you are a member of the press and would like to attend the Caribbean Insolvency Symposium, please contact ABI Public Affairs Manager John Hartgen at 703-894-5935 or [email protected]. Full information on ABI’s 10th Annual Caribbean Insolvency Symposium, including sponsors, optional events and rates, can be found at http://www.abiworld.org/CIS14/. ### ABI is the largest multi-disciplinary, nonpartisan organization dedicated to research and education on matters related to insolvency. ABI was founded in 1982 to provide Congress and the public with unbiased analysis of bankruptcy issues. The ABI membership includes over 13,000 attorneys, accountants, bankers, judges, professors, lenders, turnaround specialists and other bankruptcy professionals, providing a forum for the exchange of ideas and information. For additional information on ABI, visit www.abiworld.org. For additional conference information, visit http://www.abiworld.org/conferences.html.

Read more about Secured Transactions in the Caribbean Proposed National Ch. 13 Plan and More Addressed at 10th Caribbean Insolvency Symposium

Annual Business and Non-business Filings by District (1995-1999)

ABI World

	1995				1996				1997				1998				1999
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	946	159	787	83.19%	1226	183	1043	85.07%	1373	147	1,226	89.29%	1,479	127	1,352	91.41%	1,492	115	1377	92.29%
Middle District of Alabama	5265	208	5057	96.05%	6072	221	5851	96.36%	6,670	284	6,386	95.74%	6,753	159	6,594	97.65%	6,500	146	6354	97.75%
Northern District of Alabama	17701	452	17249	97.45%	20631	405	20226	98.04%	22,732	442	22,290	98.06%	20,912	380	20,532	98.18%	19,385	254	19,131	98.68%
Southern District of Alabama	3702	42	3660	98.87%	4969	146	4823	97.06%	4,774	150	4,624	96.86%	4,803	64	4,739	98.67%	4,679	34	4,645	99.27%
Eastern District of Arkansas	6082	241	5841	96.04%	8661	269	8392	96.89%	9,942	283	9,659	97.15%	10,789	215	10,574	98.01%	10,252	148	10,104	98.55%
Western District of Arkansas	3296	181	3115	94.51%	4533	217	4316	95.21%	5,701	256	5,445	95.51%	6,263	193	6,070	96.92%	6,218	147	6,134	98.64%
District of Arizona	16012	1045	14967	93.47%	20284	861	19403	95.66%	25,069	846	24,223	96.63%	24,191	762	23,429	96.85%	22,609	781	21,828	96.54%
Central District of California	82314	6883	75431	91.64%	102645	6544	96101	93.62%	118,335	6,184	112,151	94.77%	120,981	4,787	116,194	96.04%	102,422	2,387	100,035	97.66%
Eastern District of California	24119	2450	21669	89.84%	31211	2538	28673	91.87%	36,976	2,624	34,352	92.90%	39,345	2,012	37,333	94.89%	34,750	1,144	33,606	96.70%
Northern District of California	26096	2445	23651	90.63%	31798	2403	29395	92.44%	34,781	2,116	32,515	95.40%	34,082	1,567	32,665	93.92%	26,564	1,308	25,256	95.07%
Southern District of California	14473	319	14154	97.80%	17976	262	17714	98.54%	19,407	213	19,194	98.40%	18,805	180	18,625	99.04%	15,292	175	15,117	98.85%
District of Colorado	13705	610	13095	95.55%	16403	778	15624	95.25%	19,146	518	18,628	97.29%	18,262	402	17,860	97.80%	1,6165	347	15818	97.85%
District of Connecticut	9147	205	8942	97.76%	11307	230	11077	97.97%	13,499	205	13,294	98.48%	13,962	164	13,798	98.83%	11868	142	11726	98.80%
District of Columbia	1502	100	1402	93.34%	1950	119	1831	93.90%	2,530	100	2,430	96.05%	2,885	88	2,797	96.95%	2718	81	2637	97.01%
District of Delaware	1679	277	1402	83.50%	2044	239	1805	88.31%	2,646	214	2,432	91.91%	2,871	372	2,499	87.04%	4,526	21,115	2,411	53.26%
Middle District of Florida	27332	1192	26140	95.64%	35109	1183	33926	96.63%	42,388	1,217	41,171	97.13%	45,472	1,090	44,382	97.60%	41,855	1,008	40,847	97.59%
Northern District of Florida	2583	94	2489	96.36%	3688	97	3591	97.37%	4,787	442	22,290	98.06%	5,344	91	5,253	98.30%	5,002	74	4,928	98.52%
Southern District of Florida	15984	757	15227	95.26%	20557	746	19811	96.37%	26,308	816	25,492	96.90%	29,373	686	28,687	97.66%	28,500	641	27,859	97.75%
Middle District of Georgia	10539	117	10422	98.89%	13350	160	13190	98.80%	15,136	202	14,934	98.67%	14,921	161	14,760	98.92%	14,161	160	14,001	98.87%
Northern District of Georgia	27035	1199	25836	95.57%	31109	1188	29921	96.18%	34,946	1,130	33,816	98.03%	33,763	834	32,929	97.53%	31,871	650	31,221	97.96%
Southern District of Georgia	8489	379	8110	95.54%	10880	453	10427	95.84%	12,707	310	12,397	97.56%	12,441	202	12,239	98.38%	11,741	123	11,618	98.95%
District of Hawaii	2036	159	1877	92.19%	3092	187	2905	93.95%	4,463	187	4,276	95.81%	5,829	114	5,715	98.04%	5426	87	5339	98.39%
Northern District of Iowa	2593	262	2331	89.90%	3430	239	3191	93.03%	3,996	235	3,761	94.12%	3,880	180	3,700	95.36%	3,444	115	3,329	96.66%
Southern District of Iowa	4001	294	3707	92.65%	5285	335	4950	93.66%	5,847	270	5,577	95.38%	5,638	103	5,535	98.17%	5,008	81	33,606	96.70%
District of Idaho	4121	391	3730	90.51%	5426	460	4966	91.52%	6,973	532	6,441	92.37%	7,612	435	7,177	94.29%	7,285	340	6945	95.33%
Central District of Illinois	7477	382	7095	94.89%	9987	406	9581	95.93%	12,854	295	12,559	97.70%	12,685	114	12,571	99.10%	11,765	167	11,598	98.58%
Northern District of Illinois	30941	859	30082	97.22%	38618	871	37747	97.74%	44,087	854	43,233	98.06%	46,503	646	45,857	98.61%	44,790	553	44,237	98.769%
Southern District of Illinois	4353	383	3970	91.20%	5893	529	5364	91.02%	7,013	639	6,374	90.89%	7,499	714	6,785	90.48%	7,406	1,965	6,732	90.89%
Northern District of Indiana	8738	344	8394	96.06%	10816	289	10527	97.33%	13,658	213	13,445	98.44%	14,550	190	14,360	98.69%	14,288	148	14,140	98.96%
Southern District of Indiana	14785	498	14287	96.63%	19075	467	18608	97.55%	23,150	470	22,680	97.97%	24,711	423	24,288	98.29%	23,954	353	23,601	98.52%
District of Kansas	9151	419	8732	95.42%	11312	421	10891	96.28%	13,131	412	12,719	96.86%	13,208	264	12,944	98.00%	11538	172	11366	98.50%
Eastern District of Kentucky	6285	260	6025	95.86%	8284	231	8053	97.21%	9,558	1273	9,285	97.14%	9,594	182	9,412	98.10%	8,996	143	8,853	98.41%
Western District of Kentucky	8103	213	7890	97.37%	10510	200	10310	98.10%	12,129	176	11,953	98.55%	12,592	174	12,418	98.62%	11,825	138	11,687	98.83%
Eastern District of Louisiana	5005	102	4903	97.96%	6444	98	6346	98.48%	7,365	141	7,224	98.21%	7,119	120	6,999	98.31%	7,657	131	7,526	98.28%
Middle District of Louisiana	1712	52	1660	96.96%	2574	62	2512	97.59%	2,805	52	2,753	98.15%	2,940	41	2,899	98.61%	2680	29	2,651	98.91%
Western District of Louisiana	8021	408	7613	94.91%	11419	461	10958	95.96%	12,988	481	12,507	96.30%	12,887	439	12,448	96.59%	12,293	429	11,864	96.51%
District of Massachusetts	14912	1116	13796	92.52%	17744	1041	16703	94.13%	23,894	965	22,927	95.96%	22,325	739	21,586	96.69%	18,660	566	18,034	96.95%
District of Maryland	17925	1493	16432	91.67%	24347	1469	22878	93.97%	31,991	1,678	30,313	94.75%	35,430	1,231	34,199	96.53%	32,273	795	31,478	97.53%
District of Maine	2192	274	1918	87.50%	3073	267	2806	91.31%	4,218	310	3,908	92.65%	4,515	244	4,271	94.60%	4,177	197	3,980	95.28%
Eastern District of Michigan	17290	545	16745	96.85%	21871	591	21280	97.30%	27,348	595	26,753	97.82%	28,198	373	27,825	98.68%	25,824	359	25,465	98.60%
Western District of Michigan	7338	527	6811	92.82%	9928	481	9447	95.16%	12,261	511	11,750	95.83%	12,546	348	12,198	97.23%	11,428	275	11,153	97.59%
District of Minnesota	14835	1901	12934	87.19%	18236	2251	15985	87.66%	20,225	2,478	17,747	87.75%	18,866	1,975	16,891	89.53%	15,853	1,584	14,269	90.00%
Eastern District of Missouri	9656	230	9426	97.62%	12703	290	12413	97.72%	14,897	300	14,597	97.99%	16,423	255	16,168	98.45%	15,888	203	15,685	98.72%
Western District of Missouri	7101	291	5810	81.82%	9400	373	9027	96.03%	11,218	433	10,785	96.14%	11,842	169	11,673	98.57%	11,141	155	10,986	98.60%
Northern District of Mississippi	4002	131	3871	96.73%	5426	136	5290	97.49%	6,602	153	6,449	97.68%	6,226	135	6,091	97.83%	5,917	133	5,784	97.75%
Southern District of Mississippi	7822	152	7670	98.06%	10317	145	10172	98.59%	12,667	146	12,521	98.85%	12,474	109	12,365	99.13%	11,833	68	11,765	99.42%
District of Montana	2296	171	2125	92.55%	2805	219	2586	92.19%	3,572	278	3,294	92.22%	3,717	145	3,572	96.10%	3,386	121	3,265	96.42%
Eastern District of North Carolina	6837	457	6180	90.39%	8801	446	8355	94.93%	9,788	426	9,362	95.65%	10,914	321	10,593	97.06%	10,325	263	10,062	97.45%
Middle District of North Carolina	5109	184	4925	96.40%	7459	167	7292	97.76%	9,289	212	9,077	97.72%	9,014	144	8,870	98.40%	8,543	113	8,430	95.32%
Western District of North Carolina	4188	85	4103	97.97%	5936	90	5846	98.48%	7,126	82	7,044	98.85%	7,056	69	6,987	99.02%	6,966	66	6,930	99.05%
District of North Dakota	1311	118	1193	91.00%	1688	152	1536	91.00%	1,961	155	1,806	92.10%	2,192	87	2,105	96.03%	2,146	100	2,046	95.34%
District of Nebraska	3789	212	3577	94.40%	5304	276	5028	94.80%	5,949	281	5,668	95.28%	6,116	129	5,987	97.89%	5,500	158	5,342	97.12%
District of New Hampshire	3207	92	3115	97.13%	3692	92	3600	97.51%	4,902	187	4,715	96.19%	4,994	417	4,577	91.65%	4,104	348	3,756	91.52%
District of New Jersey	27788	1195	26593	95.70%	34091	1068	33023	96.87%	42,434	1,112	41,322	97.38%	45,880	876	45,004	98.09%	40,814	877	39,937	97.85%
District of New Mexico	4334	322	4012	92.57%	5870	391	5479	93.34%	7,560	384	7,176	94.92%	7,915	338	7,577	95.73%	7,336	554	6,782	92.44%
District of Nevada	7912	390	7522	95.07%	10531	429	10102	95.93%	13,427	399	13,028	97.03%	15,708	428	15,280	97.28%	1,479	127	1,352	91.41%
Eastern District of New York	22295	727	21568	96.74%	25264	620	24644	97.55%	29,459	566	28,893	98.08%	31,494	461	31,033	98.54%	26,449	378	26,071	98.57%
Northern District of New York	9779	696	9083	92.88%	13289	839	12450	93.69%	16,173	777	15,396	95.20%	16,703	505	16,198	96.98%	14,466	394	14,072	97.27%
Southern District of New York	11519	1150	10369	90.02%	13452	950	12502	92.94%	15,972	846	15,126	94.70%	17,047	586	16,461	96.56%	14,798	565	14,233	96.18%
Western District of New York	7757	801	6956	89.67%	10173	854	9319	91.61%	13,114	964	12,150	92.65%	13,398	727	12,671	94.57%	11,360	535	10,825	95.29%
Northern District of Ohio	16508	539	15969	96.73%	21522	553	20969	97.43%	26,200	480	25,720	98.17%	28,353	649	27,704	97.71%	27,716	789	26,927	97.15%
Southern District of Ohio	17920	513	17407	97.14%	22972	512	22460	97.77%	27,570	526	27,044	98.10%	28,351	512	27,839	98.19%	26,071	406	25,665	99.86%
Eastern District of Oklahoma	1903	116	1787	93.90%	2704	139	2565	94.86%	3,462	176	3,286	94.92%	3,812	120	3,692	96.85%	3,550	104	3,446	97.07%
Northern District of Oklahoma	4132	428	3704	89.64%	5317	585	4732	89.00%	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	7995	400	7595	95.00%	10430	664	9766	93.63%	13,100	545	12,555	95.84%	12,756	254	12,502	98.01%	11,436	296	11,140	97.41%
District of Oregon	14098	781	13317	94.46%	16709	751	15956	95.49%	18,197	1,434	16,763	92.12%	18,103	2,660	15,443	85.31%	18,168	2,939	15,229	83.82%
Eastern District of Pennsylvania	12990	598	12394	95.41%	17020	605	16415	96.45%	21,773	561	21,212	97.42%	23,187	392	22,795	98.31%	21,752	328	21,424	98.49%
Middle District of Pennsylvania	4973	661	4312	86.71%	6833	758	6075	88.91%	9,593	852	8,741	91.12%	10,693	837	9,856	92.17%	10,212	706	9,506	93.08%
Western District of Pennsylvania	6476	513	5963	92.08%	8649	507	8142	94.14%	11,601	472	11,129	95.93%	12,772	456	12,316	96.43%	11,950	363	11,587	96.96%
District of Rhode Island	3335	162	3173	95.14%	4328	181	4147	95.82%	5,472	180	5,292	96.71%	5,480	130	5,350	97.63%	5060	116	4944	97.70%
District of South Carolina	7457	337	7120	95.48%	9778	259	9519	97.35%	11,232	346	10,886	96.92%	11,672	254	11,373	97.82%	11,442	191	11,251	98.33%
District of South Dakota	1451	172	1279	88.15%	1912	216	1896	99.16%	2,366	221	2,145	90.66%	2,299	186	2,113	91.91%	2,223	152	2,071	93.16%
Eastern District of Tennessee	11199	343	10856	96.94%	14798	384	14414	97.41%	16,254	422	15,832	97.40%	15,984	336	15,648	97.90%	14,944	236	14,708	98.42%
Middle District of Tennessee	9565	370	9195	96.13%	11869	478	11391	95.97%	12,478	457	12,021	96.34%	12,131	292	11,839	97.59%	10,968	251	10,717	97.71%
Western District of Tennessee	17965	236	17729	98.69%	22081	223	21858	98.99%	24,052	187	23,865	99.22%	23,081	241	22,840	98.96%	20,613	315	20,298	98.47%
Eastern District of Texas	6091	522	5569	91.43%	8392	565	7827	93.27%	9,734	522	9,212	94.64%	9,817	360	9,457	96.33%	9,272	303	8,969	96.73%
Northern District of Texas	16454	1644	14810	90.01%	20677	1620	19057	92.17%	25,373	1,546	23,827	93.91%	24,934	1,191	23,743	95.22%	21,447	921	20,526	95.70%
Southern District of Texas	14044	672	13372	95.22%	17409	695	16733	96.12%	19,508	754	18,754	96.13%	19,352	657	18,695	96.61%	17,506	614	16,892	96.49%
Western District of Texas	11710	572	11138	95.12%	15037	607	14430	95.96%	18,114	644	17,470	96.44%	17,696	488	17,208	97.24%	16,488	464	16,024	97.18%
District of Utah	7325	242	7083	96.70%	9299	294	9005	96.84%	12,147	434	11,713	96.43%	13,996	460	13,536	96.71%	14,108	464	13,644	96.71%
Eastern District of Virginia	21120	792	20328	96.25%	26306	785	25521	97.02%	31,921	767	31,154	97.60%	32,398	545	31,853	98.32%	28,262	369	27,893	98.69%
Western District of Virginia	7155	469	6686	93.45%	9649	557	9092	94.23%	11,198	589	10,609	94.74%	11,041	593	10,448	94.63%	10,182	472	9,710	95.36%
District of Vermont	1056	167	889	84.19%	1368	142	1225	89.55%	1,911	164	1,747	91.42%	1,965	88	1,877	95.52%	1,757	83	1,674	95.27%
Eastern District of Washington	4239	405	3834	90.45%	5752	507	5245	91.19%	7,052	448	6,604	93.65%	7,838	442	7,396	94.36%	7,823	297	7,526	96.20%
Western District of Washington	16905	930	15975	94.50%	22878	912	21966	96.01%	26,285	926	25,359	96.48%	25,565	554	25,011	97.83%	23,818	335	23,483	98.59%
Eastern District of Wisconsin	8384	372	8012	95.56%	10717	388	10329	96.38%	12,940	348	12,592	97.31%	12,962	267	12,695	97.94%	12,615	213	12,402	98.31%
Western District of Wisconsin	4311	695	3616	83.88%	5420	762	4658	85.94%	6,257	865	5,392	86.18%	6,452	870	5,582	86.52%	5,874	606	5,268	89.68%
Northern District of West Virginia	1597	146	1451	90.86%	2381	158	2223	93.36%	3,475	179	3,296	94.85%	3,550	179	3,371	94.96%	3,339	115	3,224	96.55%
Southern District of West Virginia	2605	168	2437	93.55%	3632	167	3465	95.40%	5,067	188	4,879	96.29%	5,141	150	4,991	97.08%	4,812	138	4,674	97.13%
District of Wyoming	1236	109	1127	91.18%	1783	103	1680	94.22%	2,031	91	1,940	95.52%	2,257	89	2,168	96.06%	2009	69	1940	96.56%
District of Guam	48	12	36	75.00%	77	15	62	80.52%	114	21	93	81.58%	109	25	84	77.06%	131	21	110	83.96%
District of the Northern Mariana Islands	16	10	6	37.50%	12	8	4	33.33%	2	1	1	50%	18	8	10	55.56%	12	6	6	50.00%
District of Puerto Rico	7964	206	7758	97.41%	10808	284	10524	97.37%	15,670	162	15,508	98.97%	17,447	126	17,321	99.28%	17,909	206	17,703	98.84%
District of the Virgin Islands	57	18	39	68.42%	68	28	40	58.82%	74	17	57	77.03%	73	11	62	84.93%	66	12	54	81.81%
United States	926601	51959	874642	94.39%	1178555	53549	1125006	95.46%	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%

Read more about Annual Business and Non-business Filings by District (1995-1999)

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%

Read more about Annual Business and Non-business Filings by District (1980-1984)

Collier Bankruptcy Case Update December-10-01

West's Bankruptcy Newsletter
A Weekly Update of Bankruptcy and Debtor/Creditor Matters

Collier Bankruptcy Case Updates

The following case summaries appear in the Collier Bankruptcy Case Update, which is published by Matthew Bender & Company Inc., one of the LEXIS Publishing Companies.

December 10, 2001

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

1st Cir.
§ 106(b) Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of section 106(b)’s waiver of sovereign immunity.
Arecibo Cmty. Health Care, Inc. v. P.R. (1st Cir.)

2d Cir.

§ 522(b)(2)(A) Deferred compensation plan funds deemed exempt.
In re Maurer (Bankr. W.D.N.Y.)

§ 523(a)(8) Tuition incentive program fell within the ambit of section 523(a)(8).
Mehlman v. N.Y. City Board of Educ. (In re Mehlman) (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.)

28 U.S.C. § 157(b) Core proceeding was remanded for arbitration.
Cibro Petroleum Prods. v. City of Albany (In re Winimo Realty Corp.) (S.D.N.Y.)

3d Cir.

§ 366(a) Utility improperly refused to restore service.
One Stop Realtour Place, Inc. v. Allegiance Telecom, Inc. (In re One Stop Realtour Place, Inc.) (Bankr. E.D. Pa.)

§ 503(b) Plaintiff’s motion for administrative expense priority granted, in part and denied, in part.
In re Grand Union Co. (Bankr. D.N.J.)

4th Cir.

§ 727(a)(4)(A) Denial of discharge was upheld on appeal because the debtor knowingly made a false oath in his chapter 7 case. Brown v. Presidential Fin. Corp. (In re Brown) (W.D. Va.)

5th Cir.

Rule 9006(b)(1) Creditors demonstrated excusable neglect in late filing of proofs of claim.
In re Babcock & Wilcox Co. (E.D. La.)

6th Cir.

§ 362(b)(4) Automatic stay was applicable to lawsuit.
Chao v. Hosp. Staffing Servs., Inc. (6th Cir.)

§ 502 Government entitled to offset debtor’s postpetition claim for tax refund against IRS’s prepetition tax penalty claims.
Gordon Sel-Way, Inc. v. United States (In re Gordon Sel-Way, Inc.) (6th Cir.)

§ 510(c) Court of Appeals refused to equitably subordinate participation interest claims.
Bayer Corp. v. Mascotech, Inc. (In re Autostyle Plastics, Inc.) (6th Cir.)

7th Cir.

§ 553(a) Bank was entitled to setoff against funds in joint account.
Mottaz v. Union Planters Bank, N.A. (In re Dame) (Bankr. S.D. Ill.)

§ 1322(b)(1) Denial of plan confirmation was upheld on appeal.
Crawford v. Chatterton (In re Crawford) (W.D. Wis.)

8th Cir.

§ 507(a)(8) Debtor could not change status of tax claim from priority to general unsecured claim absent clear notice to the IRS.
De Jesus v. United States (In re De Jesus) (Bankr. D. Minn.)

9th Cir.

§ 1322(b)(1) District court vacated bankruptcy court order that confirmed debtor’s plan and excused her from proving that plan classification favoring her mother did not discriminate unfairly.
Meyer v. Hill (In re Hill) (B.A.P. 9th Cir.)

10th Cir.

§ 510(b) Application of section 510(b) subordination hinged on whether issuer of note was the debtor’s affiliate.
NationsBank, N.A. v. Commercial Fin. Servs. (In re Commercial Fin. Servs.) (Bankr. N.D. Okla.)

Rule 9011(b) Sanctions warranted where debtors primary motive in filing multiple chapter 13 petitions was to stop the bank’s foreclosure sales rather than participate in debt adjustment.
In re Copeland (Bankr. D. Kan.)

11th Cir.

§ 362(d) Stay was lifted to permit regulatory proceedings to commence.
White v. Weatherford (In re Abrass) (Bankr. M.D. Fla.)

§ 522(g) Debtors could not exempt assets that they failed to disclose in initial schedules.
Henkel v. Green (In re Green) (Bankr. M.D. Fla.)

§ 523(a)(6) Attorney’s fees were recoverable in nondischargeability action based on willful and malicious injury.
USAA Cas. Ins. Co. v. Auffant (In re Auffant) (Bankr. M.D. Fla.)

Collier Bankruptcy Case Summaries

1st. Cir.

Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of section 106(b)’s waiver of sovereign immunity. 1st Cir. In 1984 the health department of the commonwealth (Puerto Rico) entered into a series of contracts with the debtor, a private entity, for the administration of a hospital. In 1991, the department filed suit against the debtor in superior court, alleging failure to render services pursuant to the contract. Shortly thereafter, the debtor filed its chapter 11 petition, which was later converted to chapter 7. The department filed a proof of claim in the approximate amount of $1.6 million. The trustee commenced an adversary proceeding against the department, based on various state law claims, and arising out of the same contract and operative facts as the superior court action. The department argued that the trustee’s claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment. The bankruptcy court held that sections 106(a) and (b) were invalid as to the department, reasoning that Congress could not abrogate states’ Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity by a conditional waiver, namely, by filing the proof of claim. On appeal, the district court affirmed the ruling as to the invalidity of section 106(a), but concluded that waiver of immunity was permissible because it was premised upon the affirmative undertaking of the state to participate in the bankruptcy process. The department asked the court to reconsider its ruling, and during the pendency of that request, the United States Supreme Court decided College Sav. Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Educ. Expense Bd., 527 U.S. 666, 144 L.E.2d 605, 119 S.C. 2219 (1999), which reasoned that a constructive waiver approach was incompatible with cases requiring the express waiver of sovereign immunity. The district court upheld the constitutionality of section 106(b), and an appeal followed. The Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed, holding that section 106(b) was constitutionally infirm. The debtor moved for a rehearing, which was granted. The department grounded its argument in the College Savings ruling, which stated that the voluntariness of a waiver was destroyed when it was presumptively triggered by 'otherwise lawful activity,' which, the department contended, was the nature of its claim filing. The debtor argued that section 106(b) was a permissible means of obtaining a waiver of sovereign immunity with respect to compulsory counterclaims arising from a proof of claim. The Court of Appeals vacated its prior decision and affirmed the ruling of the district court, holding that the College Savings decision recognized that a state relinquished its sovereign immunity when it voluntarily invoked federal court jurisdiction. The Court of Appeals concluded that the department waived its immunity when it availed itself of federal jurisdiction by filing the proof of claim. The Court of Appeals also held that the waiver was broad in scope, and not restricted to defensive counterclaims for recoupment, because nothing in College Savings purported to impose such restrictions once the waiver was triggered.Arecibo Cmty. Health Care, Inc. v. P.R., 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 23202, – F.3d. – (1st Cir. October 29, 2001) (Torruella, C.J.).

Collier on Bankruptcy, 15th Ed. Revised 2:106.06

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.

Read more about Collier Bankruptcy Case Update December-10-01

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%

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

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

Read more about 1st Circuit Annual Total Bankruptcy Filings for 1990-2011

Puerto Rico

Quarterly Non-business Filings by District (2001-2005)

Districts with the Highest Percentage INCREASE in Total Filings for the 12-month period ending December 31, 2005 (compared to the identical period in 2004):

Districts with the Highest Percentage DECREASE in Total Filings for the 12-month period ending December 31, 2005 (compared to the identical period in 2004):

Annual Business and Non-business Filings by District (1995-1999)

Annual Business and Non-business Filings by District (1980-1984)

Collier Bankruptcy Case Updates

December 10, 2001

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

Pages