This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This is chapter 11 and I see articles for 7 and 13, but why is there no chapter 9?? Georgia guy 17:42, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
If you've got an idea for an article on Chapter 9 then by all means, please create one! (This coming from a practitioner that has never seen a real live one but would like to) Flawiki 01:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
Request: I'd love for a knowledgeable person to compare and contrast Chapter 11 with the bankruptcy practices in Europe. I believe I've heard that there have been protests to the WTO that the US is sheltering its businesses from fair competition because Chapter 11 is allegedly excessively lenient compared to European bankruptcy law. Tempshill 20:57, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
"All airline analysts agree that the United States airline industry's unprofitability (as a whole) is due to excess seat capacity, and that the solution is for at least two major airlines to be allowed to perish. However, the rules for a Chapter 11 bankruptcy make this an unlikely outcome."
I have decided to delete these sentences. Saying that all airline analysts agree on this is simply untrue. Many analysts says that it is some legacy airline's high costs compared with newer Low Coast Airlines that contribute to the industry's profit problems.
I agree with the above striking of that all industry analysist agree about excess seating capacity. Loss-leader pricing is what's causing the implosion of the airlines. And loss-leader pricing is king in the airline industry because ticket prices have to keep coming down in accordance with middle-class income. So really, as usual, the airlines are proving to be the usual "economic indicators" they've been historically and a testament to the health of our people.
Moving on; I deleted the section on how important 11 is for airlines in-that it helps them defer airplane lease payments. Payments on their equipment pails in comparison to the fear in airline managements eyes when they see they actually have to live up to the terms of a labor contract they signed last year. Then comes fuel. Equipment leasing is not of such high importance that it deserves comment in this article.--XB70Valyrie (talk) 06:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
Bankruptcy Wide Wikipedia Reorganization Suggestion
Because there is substantial overlap between all of the bankruptcy chapters, perhaps we could place the relevant parts of the general provisions (essentially everything in chapters 1, 2, 3, and 5) into the main U.S. Bankruptcy article, and put the specific provisions about each chapter (11, 13, 15, and 9) into their own respective sections. Is there support for this? LH 05:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
I checked the wikipedia style manual and I'm still uncertain. In legal writing the word "chapter" is not capitalized in reference to bankruptcies. It's "the company is restructuring under chapter 11" not "the company is restructuring under Chapter 11." However, in some business writing the C is capitalized. That said, can someone point me, or others, to a style reference. If one doesn't exist, perhaps one should be created.LH 02:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
The statistics for Business chapter 13 filings are misleading
I briefly scanned the source that was cited for the bankruptcy filing statistics in 2003 and 2004. Although the source does use the term Business filing and lists the quoted numbers for Chapter 13 business debtors, the fact is that businesses are not eligible to file for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 13. Chapter 13 is solely for individuals. I couldn't figure out what Business filings meant in the context of the source document, but I think that the Chapter 13 statistics to business filings should be removed as they incorrectly imply that a business debtor can file for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 13. Please clarify the statistics for me or correct me if I'm wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 02:25, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that one section of Chapter 11 needs its own article, so therefore I propose that the Section 1110 page be merged here. Any thoughts? --Eastlaw (talk) 10:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree completely.LH (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I am removing the seven month old merger tags as stale. As the merger is clearly not controversial, I'd suggest that anyone who is willing to put a little bit of effort in should simply go ahead and do it. Debate木 15:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, the other article is so small I'll be bold and do it myself... Debate木 15:20, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
I can see why the link is there, since I wasn't sure what a first day motion was either and would have found it useful if the link was active. Poking around the net, I found a source that says a first-day motion is
A request to a US bankruptcy court made on the first day following a borrower's filing for chapter 11 bankruptcy. First-day motions typically deal with matters that will allow the company entering bankrutpcy to continue to operate by providing court consent to matters such as payment of suppliers.
This article seems like the most likely home for this information.
What I'd like to do is create the redirect first-day motion pointing to someplace in this article (and of course correct the punctuation in the original article), but I don't consider myself a SME on Chapter 11 bankruptcy, nor am I sure the above source is considered sufficiently reliable. Would anyone like to assist or even "just do it" ? Thanks, NapoliRoma (talk) 22:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Need to add Bildisco decision and the legislation passed to reverse that decision
That decision voided a CBA but Congress slammed the court by reversing that decision by added!Lingust (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2011 (UTC)e