Consumer Bankruptcy

Featuring Students from the Memphis University Duberstein Moot Court Team

This panel will address various ethical and substantive issues that can arise when representing consumer debtors.

This year’s hot topics will include two cases currently pending before the U.S. Supreme Court: the Caulkett decision concerning lien-stripping on primary residences in chapter 7 cases, and the Harris case regarding distribution of funds held by a chapter 13 trustee upon conversion to chapter 7. The panel will discuss a new Ninth Circuit BAP decision, one of only two in the country, concerning the dischargeability of certain student debts to for-profit institutions, as well as an emerging trend of using the Eleventh Circuit Crawford decision and the FDCPA to challenge “stale” proofs of claim for student debt. The presentation will address lenders refusing to retake abandoned collateral, as well as conflicting results from disposable-income tests, and other issues that will be of interest to those representing parties in consumer cases.

John W. Lucas, Moderator Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP; San Francisco Judicial Debate Resolved: The “disinterestedness” requirement should be strictly enforced under § 327 (no waivers or ethical walls). Pro: Hon. Randall L. Dunn U.S. Bankruptcy Court (D. Or.); Portland Con: Hon. Madeleine C. Wanslee U.S. Bankruptcy Court (D. Ariz.); Phoenix Business Debate Resolved: Acceleration of a debt obligation under a credit agreement should act to prevent the lender from enforcing a prepayment premium Pro: Lori Sinanyan Jones Day; Los Angeles Con: Michael H. Strub, Jr. Irell & Manella LLP; Newport Beach, Calif. Consumer Debate Resolved: Attorneys should be permitted to unbundle services under an engagement agreement with a consumer debtor. Pro: Samuel A. Schwartz The Schwartz Law Firm, Inc.; Las Vegas Con: John R. Bollinger Boleman Law Firm, P.C.; Hampton, Va.

May a trustee make a distribution to a secured creditor that has not filed a proof of claim? Should trustees or debtors file surrogate claims if secured creditors have not? Does a debtor’s failure to make post‐petition payments to a creditor defeat the debtor’s eligibility for a discharge? This panel will address the emerging case law on whether direct post‐petition payments as required by the plan are considered “payments under the plan” as contemplated by § 1328(a), the growing complications that may arise from a secured creditor’s not filing proofs of claim, and the impact of proposed rule changes on these hot issues.

This panel will explore the question of whether exemptions may be denied for bad faith and whether debtors may amend their claimed exemptions to assert a different statutory basis after an exemption has been denied, including the impact of potential res judicata and collateral estoppel claims. Case law developments since Law v. Siegel will be reviewed, as well as important strategic considerations for debtors, trustees and creditors.

Disclosing assets and verifying a debtor’s information is the calling card of any conscientious debtor’s counsel. But how do the rules governing professional responsibility interplay with debtor’s counsel’s obligations under the Code? A real housewife in New Jersey recently blamed her attorney for her prison sentence following her guilty plea for bankruptcy fraud. Did her attorney commit an ethical violation? This panel will examine the record behind this headline-making case, as well as other recent bankruptcy court decisions that examine the ethical conduct and obligations of debtor’s counsel.