Talk:Bankruptcy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Business / Accounting  (Rated Start-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Accounting task force.
 
WikiProject Finance (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Finance, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Finance on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Non-exempt[edit]

I think the term "non-exempt" should have a link to a list of the items or definitions that the law defines as non-exempt.

Done. Well, it's actually just a reference to types of exempt items; there isn't actually a list of all items -- the law varies by state, so this would be a pretty major effort by a future contributor.Tempshill 17:48, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'd appreciate contributions anyone might write about bankruptcy in countries other than the USA, and then some analysis of the comparison. Tempshill 17:48, 27 Oct 2003 (UTC) 115.42.65.227 (talk) 07:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I will try to post some information based on European practices.HoulihanLokey (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, but please try to do so without making reference to your company or its products. --CliffC (talk) 04:17, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
What is the best way to address the banner requests for citations and verifications without the reference? HoulihanLokey (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
In a nutshell, "the best way to address" such requests is to not address them at all, due to your conflict of interest. I've answered the question in more detail on your talk page, here. --CliffC (talk) 03:13, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
If you would like to expand the bankruptcy article as Tempshill does here, the book A Practitioner's Guide to Corporate Restructuring contains in-depth chapters on legal analysis of bankruptcy in England and Wales, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and Spain. But please give proper attribution to the expert information so that you do not violate the copyright. HoulihanLokey (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made some major mods to this page to (what I think will) enhance accuracy for USA filers.

I've also made what could be construed as two a controversial changes. Rdsmith4 previously excised two links to www.beko.biz which when I last checked, was a link farm registered in Ireland. While it might have had some useful information if one continued clicking through from the referenced page, it felt too much like a commercial link. What will make this even more controversial was that I added an arguably self-serving but information-only link to my own Florida-only Florida Bankruptcy FAQ site. I invite redaction/comment as WPedians feel appropriate. Flawiki 23:58, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

BARF act of 2005[edit]

I've broken this out into a separate section (q: should this be a subsection to BR in the US?) and tried to fill in some of the more egregious changes in the act. The changes go well beyond adding a means test. I'm very comfortable stating that by saying it's merely (or that the most important part of BARF is) a means test is tantamount to expressing a POV.

For all intents and purposes the US Trustee is already enforcing a means test on Chapter 7, and therefore the means test aspect is a mere distraction. The devil is in the details, and there's quite a bit of evil in these details. But I'm well into POV myself with this paragraph and I look forward to all of your NPOV edits to this article. Flawiki 03:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

my login had failed and I didn't notice - edits made this evening were by me. User:seglea 22:12, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

NPOV of United Kingdom[edit]

It remains to be seen whether the leash has been loosened too far and whether the legislation will need reviewing if the system becomes too overheated with debt-dumping debtors seems to be a very biased critique of the legal framework. I am proposing a rework of this situation as it also presents the situation in the UK as uniform - when it is not. Scotland has a seperate legal framework. Davidkinnen 13:58, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Northern Ireland also has a seperate legal framework - Cuddlyopedia 13:49 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Special cases[edit]

In the UK, have they made the Student loans company invulnerable to bankrupcy law (i.e. they, and nobody else, can demand full payment from a bankrupt person)? Ojw 18:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Not quite correct. A bankrupt is not released from his/her debt to the student loans company on discharge. They are also not released from fines, and from debts due in respect of damages for personal injury. - Cuddlyopedia 13:49 21 October 2005 (UTC)
That was exactly what I said, wasn't it? Ojw 18:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
It was the 'and nobody else' that wasn't correct - Cuddlyopedia 13:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

UK companies can't use Bankruptcy[edit]

Given the recent edits by Cuddlyopedia, stating that UK companies can go into administration but not bankruptcy, the caption I added for the illustration is presumably technically incorrect. -- Solipsist 12:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes. You also had the wrong company. I've corrected it, hopefully (I'm new) in an acceptable manner. I intend to go through all the insolvency related articles so far as they appertain to the UK, once I have access to legal resources at work. - Cuddlyopedia 13:49 21 October 2005.

Not strictly true. Check out the multimedia links regarding the matter.

Request[edit]

I looked up this entry in hopes of answering a question, and I thought I'd suggest that someone in the know add some info: I've heard of "Chapter 11" bankruptcy, and also of "Chapter 7." Where does this come from? There are, I assume, other chapters?

These refer to chapters of the relevant law in the United States Code. You can see the article Bankruptcy in the United States for more information. If that article doesn't explain it clearly, let me know and I'll try to improve it. Paul 03:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Canadian Bankruptcy[edit]

January 22, 2006. I am a Canadian trustee in bankruptcy and the original contributor who added the Canadian bankruptcy information. My objective was to write a concise overview to give people an idea of how Canadian bankruptcy works. I added three external links which I thought would add to the information while not cluttering up the page. The external links were on 1) Bankruptcy exemptions by province and territory 2) Canadian Bankruptcy FAQ 3) Details on Canadian Bankruptcy Reform.

Help me with the etiquette please. Someone removed the Canadian FAQ link (now restored by me). Someone also removed a "generic" description I made of proposals:

Personal proposals A debtor can make a "personal proposal" to his or her creditors, thus avoiding bankruptcy. Personal proposals are for those people who have funds available to make some payments to their creditors. Trustees have the duty to advise a debtor whom they think, has the ability to make a personal proposal. If the debtor does not file a proposal, the trustee will oppose his or her discharge, and recommend that the debtor remain in bankruptcy for a further year, and continue making payment during that time. Eligible debts are erased upon the satisfactory completion of the personal proposal.

A longer description of a consumer proposal (one of two types of proposal an individual can file) was substituted.

The help I need on etiquette is an explanation of what the rules on removing and substituting information are.

Trustee

External links[edit]

I would like to provide people with common and frequently asked questions with accurate and efficient answers. Those have been preserved in my website - http://www.nybankruptcyinfo.com/frequently-asked-questions.html, hope providing my website in external links will help people who are struggling with various bankruptcy scenarios. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nmgehi (talkcontribs) 09:23, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I think http://www.insolvency.gov.uk/ should go back in, as it's equilvalent to the US bankruptcy courts, from their info [1] it works under a statuarory framework, and is a sub department of the Department of Trade and Industry, so as a UK government body, think it's a very appropiate link. Another possibility would be to have no external links at all, and move all country specific ones under their sub article, but I think that would be too harsh MartinRe 15:51, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I probably shouldn't have deleted the non-profit link either. Sorry about the friendly fire. Monkeyman.pngMonkeyman 02:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem Monkeyman - I will cut down on the coffee too lol. Regads Sean

I attempted to add a reference to a flow chart showing the overview of US bankruptcy procedure but the link was removed as apparently not being in compliance in some way. The flowchart was created by a UCLA/Harvard law professor of bankruptcy law (Professor Lynn M. LoPucki). The page has only the flowchart and some navigation links at the top of the page. I believe the information is a valuable addition to the external link resources for this topic. --24.136.33.30 (talk) 01:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

That is a commercial site that is selling said chart. The credit card visuals in the upper-right that refuse to scroll out of view are a good clue that the site violates WP:EL. Is there some super-sauce there that cannot somehow be incorporated into Wikipedia itself rather than as a lame external link? The proper way to add value to the Wikipedia article is to take (in a non-infringing manner) whatever novel information you can glean from the link and incorporate it into the article itself, either as words or as an original graphic. Please read and grok the external links policy. Thanks for your desire to contribute; see the welcome page for more information on how to help. --Kbh3rdtalk 00:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
No to all, per WP:EL and WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The WP:EL does not appear to forbid all forms of commerce at external links. It specifically contemplates the amount of advertising at such sites, for instance. This site (bankruptcyvisuals.com) exists primarily as a means of providing Professor LoPucki's exceptional charts to all net users free of charge and with no registration or other 'hurdles'. It is true that the main site (not the chart page that was the target of 24.136.33.30's link) offers the charts for sale in printed form. That is mainly for the benefit of those that teach bankruptcy, practice bankruptcy law, or need to reference bk procedure in connection with some other business. Bankruptcyvisuals.com does not try to confuse or redirect users in any way. Sale of the printed charts is how bankruptcyvisuals pays for itself.
As for including the information from the chart in the article itself, how would you propose to do that? The entire point of the chart is to parse the thousands of pages of the code and rules and then distill it into a 'face' of the procedure - but one that continues to show what code and rules create each node in the graphic. I cannot think of any way of including that inside the article itself. Copying the chart image itself into the article is absolutely verboten under US Copyright law. I hope this helps answer some concerns. Drew LoPucki (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
specifically to Kbh3rd's suggestion of including an 'original' graphic that would capture the 'novel' 'super-sauce' from the graphic: that is very bad advice ( despite the modifying phrase "in a non-infringing way".) Such a graphic would be by definition a derivative work of Professor LoPucki's chart. As such, making and distributing such work would be an infringement of his copyright. The only thing you can copy from the chart are facts. The value (super-sauce) of the chart is how it displays the facts, not the facts themselves. Again I hope that this clarifies what bankruptcyvisuals offers the curious wrt bankruptcy law. Drew LoPucki (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Receivership[edit]

I notice that the topic 'Receivership' redirects directly to this page. I do not believe that is a correct redirection, since Receivership does not only apply to bankruptcy. For example, a person who owns a business that needs to be liquidated in order to satisfy a court judgement will find his business sent into receivership. Furthermore, the article doesn't refer to receivership at all. I believe there should be a new distinct topic for receivership that discusses its role in bankruptcies and also other proceedings. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slaggg (talkcontribs) 5 April 2006 05:36 (UTC).

It probably should be a new topic; please be bold, it's a great idea! You would have to click on the "Redirected from Receivership" link after finding yourself on Bankruptcy so as to bypass the redirection for editing the unredirected page. Drop me a line on my talk page if you'd like another pair of hands on it. --Flawiki 21:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

regarding the {{globalize}} -- Breaking jurisdiction-specific stuff out?[edit]

Subsequent to the creation of the Bankruptcy in the United States article and the factoring of stuff from here into there, a number of editors have contributed some excellent material back into this article. Which is not a problem except insofar as we're back where we were when the US-specific bits were broken out.

By {{globalize}} maint. tagging and writing here I wanted to gently broach the idea to you all to see what thoughts you might have on how to help reduce the regional bias in this article? I was thinking perhaps excising all of the region-specific material and merging into the existing Bankruptcy in Canada, Bankruptcy in the United Kingdom, and Bankruptcy in the United States articles, leaving behind only the common law common history and most general of concepts while strongly emphasizing with great bold pointers into the region articles for jurisdictional-specific stuff. Please comment! --Flawiki 00:54, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Relavent Information[edit]

I recently posted an article in the bankruptcy section called "Rebuilding Credit". I have worked closely with a bankruptcy attorney and know that this is a common concern for many people. I thought that this article would be useful, and relavent for this section of the site. I also placed a link to a website that I myself have gotten a lot of useful information from. Half an hour after I posted the article, it was completely deleted. I understand the concerns with my having placed a link to a website, but was there a need to delete the entire article? I was only trying to provide more detailed information from what I knew. —The preceding comment is by E.N.C. (talkcontribs) 19:47 25 May 2006: Please sign your posts!

Why not create a new article called "Rebuilding Credit?" I'm certain some of the information in the section is useful, but it seems to be geo limited...definitely doesn't work in the US for about half of it. Some of it is quite good through. In that it doesn't do what it says however I've rmd it, inserting the material here for discussion, and would encourage you to create a new article on Rebuilding Credit in (whatever_country_this_is_for). As far as the web site that was inserted that was probably removed as linkspam (see WP:EL) --Flawiki 21:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)



Material removed on 25 May @ 2123:

Rebuilding Credit[edit]

It is possible for debtors in Canada and America to rebuild credit following the completion of their bankruptcy, if they follow several simple steps.

1. Complete the bankruptcy as soon as possible. If the debtor has never filed for bankruptcy in the past, the debtor is eligible for a discharge through the bankruptcy process. If the debtor has filed before certain timing restrictions may apply to the current filing. In order to receive a discharge and exit the bankruptcy process, the debtor must complete all of the duties imposed by the process such as providing the trustee with accurate information, attending the meeting of creditors, obtaining credit counseling before filing and before the entry of the discharge, cooperating with the US Trustees office, and if the debtors is in a Chapter 13 repayment plan, making all necessary payments. The sooner the bankruptcy is completed, the sooner it will be eliminated from the credit reporting agencies' reports.

2. Begin saving money. It is a well known fact that banks loan money to those who do not need money, not to those who desperately require it. You will have to prove that you can handle money if you want to borrow again, and the best way of doing that is to show that you have some savings. Try putting a certain amount of money in a savings account each month. This will allow you to build up a security deposit to be used for future borrowing.

3. Acquire a copy of the credit report. You should contact a credit bureau in your area and get a copy of your credit report. It should then be reviewed for accuracy. If any mistakes are found, such as debts appearing that were included in the bankruptcy, the credit bureau should be informed right away.

4. Get a secured Credit Card. One of the best ways to rebuild credit is with a secured credit card. You can use your savings on one credit card, to get a credit card with a similar credit limit. It will show up on the credit report as a normal credit card, and you can now have a credit card for use when you need it.

5. Start an RRSP. Use your additional savings to put money in an RRSP with a bank or investment advisor. If you contribute $1,000 to an RRSP, the bank will likely lend you another $1,000 to invest in your RRSP. This $2,000 will generate a tax refund at tax time that will almost be enough to pay off your loan. Your credit report will then show a paid off loan, and that looks great on your credit report! You’ll also have $2,000 invested in the RRSP.

6. Continue Saving. Your savings can now be used for down payment on a car or possibly even a house.

Rebuilding credit may take a few years, but by saving money you will eventually have the ability to borrow again.


Needs references and citations. Looks like original research without them. --ElKevbo 21:58, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Info on U.S. Bankruptcy Reform?[edit]

Why is there so little information on the U.S. Bankrutpcy Reform legislation that was enacted on October 17, 2005 (Arguably the most important piece of bankruptcy legislation passed since 1978)? Have contributors found it too hard to generalize across state lines? Is U.S. banruptcy too geographically limited to merit a robust discussion? Is it too soon for people to fully grasp exactly what the law will mean? It seems like wiki should have some more information on this topic given the large impact it has had on bankruptcy in the United States. If lack of contribution is the problem, please let me know and I will be happy to help.

75.131.170.210 01:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)== The evilness of bankruptcy. ==

[The following comments were added by an anonymous user at IP195.70.32.136 on 29 July 2006]: Why there is no paragraph on the dubious philosophy and legality of the bankruptcy idea in the article. This is very basic stuff that must be addressed, since bankruptcy, at least for individual people, does not exist in many countries of the world, due to moral and principial objections.

It is obvious that the institution of bankruptcy violates the santity of private property. What the debitor owes me is mine and the gov't can't strip people of private property without due compensation, as clearly stated in the Constitution. The judge must pay me what I lose when he grants the bankruptcy.

Also, bankruptcy is contrary to natural law, in that it violates the basic scientific law of "conservation of energy and matter" (since creditors' money disappears in a bankruptcy proceedings, even though money can be converted to material goods without restriction.) You can buy gold for money and gold is an element which has indestructible energy inside based on E=mc2.

Therefore bankruptcy should not exist and if the debitor ever recovers, he/she/it should pay, if needed under duress, no matter how many years have passed. The creditor should have power under natural law to detain the debitor and force him to return the loss via labour. This was the law with the wise ancient greeks, the first democracy in history. If the father owed money and couldn't pay, the entire family was put to "debt slavery" work, until the loss was recouped.

[End of comments by anonymous user at IP195.70.32.136 on 29 July 2006]:


  • Well, if you substitute "rationale" for "evilness" he has a point (albeit a badly made one). Books have been written on the rationale for bankruptcy process (instead of just letting individual creditor's duke it out in a race for the assets). That concept probably does deserve a sub-heading. Probably two actually - as the treatment and rationale for bankrtupcy for individuals (fresh start and clean slate) and companies (collective distribution of assets generally produces more than a break-up, and is fairer to the creditors as a whole) is different. Legis 13:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

________________________________________________

Though I disagree, I understand and respect that some people do not believe that bankruptcy is morally justifiable. However, I have three disagreements with the arguments set forth in the "evilness of bankruptcy" post, above.

1. The title is biased. Any consideration of the philosophical and ethical underpinnings of bankruptcy must start from a neutral stance. An argument can surely be made that bankruptcy is immoral. However, an argument (a better one) can be made that it is not immoral. The point is that, if this issue becomes a heading under this topic, it should be neutral and discuss the pros and cons.

2. The "scientific" argument is fallacious. First of all, it attempts to compare a natural and tangible phenomenon (the conservation of energy) to a conceptual and intangible societal system. Secondly, the economics is wrong: we no longer operate under a "gold standard". Thirdly, the conservation of energy argument fails on its face: money doesn't disappear when a debtor files a bankruptcy proceeding; rather, the money that was loaned has been dispersed throughout the economic system in which the Debtor lives. Just because it doesn't come back to the creditor that loaned the money doesn't mean that it disppeared from existence. The law of conservation of energy is not, of necessity, circular; it simply states that energy does not vanish from existence.

3. The idea that we should revert to involuntary servitude and/or enslave a debtor's family is morally repugnant. The fact that the contributor drapes the argument in the laguage of "democracy" is insulting to the ideals of democracy and free trade.

75.131.170.210 01:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

US Bankruptcy Reform and the Courts The above author is correct in demanding that Wikipedia cover the effect of US Bankruptcy Reform. Reference should be made to the case of 01-25-2006 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION IN RE:GUILLERMO ALFONSO SOSA MELBA NELLY SOSA, DEBTOR(S) CASE NO. 05-20097-FM in which US Bankruptcy Judge Frank R. Monroe wrote in a Memorandum Opinion as follows: QUOTE The Congress of the United States of America passed and the President of the United States of America signed into law the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005 (the "Act"). It became fully effective on October 17, 2005. Those responsible for the passing of the Act did all in their power to avoid the proffered input from sitting United States Bankruptcy Judges, various professors of bankruptcy law at distinguished universities, and many professional associations filled with the best of the bankruptcy lawyers in the country as to the perceived flaws in the Act. This is because the parties pushing the passage of the Act had their own agenda. It was apparently an agenda to make more money off the backs of the consumers in this country. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Act has been highly criticized across the country. In this writer's opinion, to call the Act a "consumer protection" Act is the grossest of misnomers.

One of the more absurd provisions of the new Act makes an individual ineligible for relief under the Bankruptcy Code unless such individual, "has, during the 180-day period preceding the date of filing of the petition by such individual, received from an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency described in §111(a) an individual or group briefing (including a briefing conducted by telephone or on the Internet) that outlined the opportunities for available credit counseling and assisted such individual in performing a related budget analysis." See 11 U.S.C. §109(h)(1). No doubt this is a truly exhaustive budget analysis.

An individual who does not receive such counseling can only receive an exemption from such requirement if such debtor "submits to the court a certification that – (i) describes exigent circumstances that merit a waiver of the requirements of paragraph (1); (ii) states that the debtor requested credit counseling services from an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency, but was unable to obtain the services referred to in paragraph (1) during the 5-day period beginning on the date on which the debtor made that request; and (iii) is satisfactory to the court." See 11 U.S.C. §109(h)(3)(A). In the event such waiver is granted, the debtor must complete such counseling within 30 days after the petition date. See 11 U.S.C. §109(h)(3)(B).

Simply stated, if a debtor does not request the required credit counseling services from an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling service before the petition is filed, that person is ineligible to be a debtor no matter how dire the circumstances the person finds themselves in at that moment.

This Court views this requirement as inane. However, it is a clear and unambiguous provision obviously designed by Congress to protect consumers.

Facts of this Case In this case the Debtors admit they did not seek or request the required credit counseling services from an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency before filing their case even though they talked to Mr. Chapman by telephone prior to filing and he rightfully advised them to do so. Instead they filed this Chapter 13 case on December 6, 2005, "as an emergency measure to stop foreclosure on their homestead." See Debtors' Response to Court's Order to Show Cause. The Debtors responded to the Court's question as to why they waited so long to file their case by stating that they had been working with the mortgage company to determine the exact amount that was owed but that the lien holder had refused to accept payment at the last moment and that was what necessitated the emergency filing of bankruptcy.

Mr. Sosa has now undergone his credit counseling on Friday, December 16, 2005 and filed a Certificate. No certificate has been filed by Mrs. Sosa.

Decision One Debtor has now substantially complied with the intent of the Act by undergoing the required credit counseling. One has not but still could within the time limit if a waiver could be granted. However, because the Debtors did not request such counseling before they filed their case, Congress says they are ineligible for relief under the Act. Can any rational human being make a cogent argument that this makes any sense at all?

But let's not stop there. If the Debtors' case is dismissed and they re-file a new case within the next year, it may be that some creditor will take the position that the new case should be presumed to be filed not in good faith. See 11 U.S.C. §362(c)(3)(C). Section 362 further states that if subsection (c)(3)(C) applies, then the stay in that second case will only be good for thirty days unless the debtor (i) files a motion, (ii) obtains a hearing and ruling by the Court within such thirty-day period and (iii) proves by clear and convincing evidence that the second case was filed in good faith. It should be obvious to the reader at this point how truly concerned Congress is for the individual consumers of this country. Apparently, it is not the individual consumers of this country that make the donations to the members of Congress that allow them to be elected and re-elected and re-elected and re-elected.

The Court's hands are tied. The statute is clear and unambiguous. The Debtors violated the provision of the statute outlined above and are ineligible to be Debtors in this case. It must, therefore, be dismissed.

An Order of even date will be entered herewith. Congress must surely be pleased.

SIGNED this 22 day of December, 2005. FRANK R. MONROE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE

Wikipedia readers in the USA have a right to know about this decision so that they will not make the same mistake that the above pro se litigants made in failing to file a Certificate of Credit Counseling. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talkcontribs) 20:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Foreclosure vs. Liquidation[edit]

Hi - I was wondering what the main differences are between foreclosure and liquidation, which are two insolvency procedures (among others). Can someone explain the main differences and advantages of each? I am having trouble finding a cogent and succint explanation.

Foreclosure is a legal process by which a bank/secured creditor can realise on the real property pledged to it by a debtor when there has been a default on the mortgage over the property; you do not need to be insolvent for a foreclosure to occur. Liquidation is an insolvency process (in some countries) whereby the assets of a debtor are redistributed. Liquidation can also refer to a sale of assets (generally discounted) outside of insolvency. This is not legal advice, and any further discussion depends on the specifics (and probably doesn't belong here anyway!) Mochajava97 20:27, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

A simple definition[edit]

I think that his article would benefit from the addition of this simple definition of bankcruptcy at the beginning as taken from the BBC website:

   "In most countries there are two tests for bankruptcy: 
      •A Company that cannot pay its debts because there is not enough money in the bank. 
      •A company with liabilities (or what it owes) that exceed its assets 
      (such as property,inventory or what it is owed)."

This would be advantageous for people just looking for a quick reference. It will also help to point out that there are subtle distinctions that exist with regards to the maening of the term: "bankruptcy" as bankcruptcy law is different in different countries e.t.c. --BusinessMan1 21:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear readers: I can speak only about the United States. The two definitions provided by user BusinessMan1 are, in the United States, essentially the two definitions for insolvency.
The first definition -- roughly the inability to pay one's debts as they become due -- is sometimes called equitable insolvency or "cash flow" insolvency in the U.S.
The second definition for "insolvent" -- roughly a financial position such that the amount of debts exceeds the value of assets, as adjusted for certain transfers -- is statutory insolvency, sometimes called "balance sheet" insolvency. (Note: Although the insolvency test for assets is usually based on fair market value of assets, most balance sheets under U.S. accounting standards value assets based on historical cost rather than at fair market value). Note: The actual statutory definition is longer and more complicated than the summarized version I provided, and is found at 11 U.S.C. § 101(32).
Theoretically, a company or individual could be "equitably insolvent" but not be "statutorily insolvent," or could be statutorily insolvent and yet not be equitably insolvent.
In the U.S. at least, the term "bankruptcy" is sometimes used to refer not to the "insolvency" itself, but rather to the state of actually being in a legal proceeding called bankruptcy. Of course, the term is sometimes used just to mean "insolvent" as well.
Stay tuned, I'll check for general definitions in Black's Law Dictionary later. Yours, Famspear 22:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Dear readers: Black's Law Dictionary gives many definitions of "insolvency," and here are some examples: "[s]uch a relative condition of a man's assets and liabilities that the former, if all made immediately available, would not be sufficient to discharge the latter" [sounds like statutory insolvency]; or "the condition of a person who is unable to pay his debts as they fall due" [sounds like equitable insolvency]. The dictionary also notes that for purposes of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) (in the U.S.), "a person is insolvent who either has ceased to pay his debts in the ordinary course of business or cannot pay his debts as they fall due or is insolvent within the meaning of the Federal Bankruptcy Law" (citing UCC section 1-201(23)). Black's Law Dictionary, p. 716 (5th ed. 1979). Yours, Famspear 01:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Regardless the precise definition used, bankruptcy in the U.S. does not require insolvency. It would be a mistake to mistake the definition as concomitant with insolvency.LH 22:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear fellow editors: I believe editor L33th4x0rguy (LH) is correct on that point. In the United States, there is no statutory requirement that you actually be insolvent in order to maintain your bankruptcy case. "Bankruptcy" and "insolvency," in this particular sense, are not exactly the same thing. Yours, Famspear 01:19, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

The detailed provisions on each country's particular laws should be removed from this overview article, and replaced with a link to the specific country's section. Right now there's too much overlap and clutter, not to mention factually dubious information. It would be much easier to maintain if it was in one location.LH 06:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

External links comment[edit]

I was wandering how an informative resource link was made down. "Common Questions on Bankruptcy Law", link i have contributed has more useful information. (http://www.nybankruptcyinfo.com/frequently-asked-questions.html)

I've just added a hidden comment in the External links section of the article. Maybe telling spammers that their links are removed quickly will discourage some of them from wasting history entries. Then again, maybe not. Seems like that space is about the only thing (if anything) the spammers bother to look at on Wikipedia. --Closeapple 04:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


The picture at the top of the article is completely non-relevant.

Also, it is under the CC licence, but contains many company trademarks and logos, I don't know if this matters, but should be thought about by someone who knows. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.9.161.209 (talkcontribs). on 2 January 2007.

As a "spammer" I thought it would be useful to add a search directory of people and institutions involved in Bankruptcy related issues. The link was taken down - any thoughts? (here's the link - http://www.spock.com/directory/American_Bankruptcy_Institute --SpockTeam2008 02 July 2008 (UTC)

Facially inappropriate because it contains links to people who practice bankruptcy law.EECavazos (talk) 18:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If the Spock link is facially inappropriate than why is the link to the "National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys" allowed. Also the link to the "Website of the Insolvency Service in the UK" is a service you have to pay for. The Spock directory (which is free)contains relevant links to people connected with bankruptcy (this includes lawyers, professors, authors, etc). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SpockTeam2008 (talkcontribs) 20:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming no matter what I argue the link will be taken down - however I think the self-interest clause in the contribution guidelines is flawed. I feel if my contribution is relevant that should overshadow any self interest I may have-which in this case would be a link to a directory of people related to the bankruptcy industry --SpockTeam2008 02 July 2008 (UTC)

Noted. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Student Loans in Canada[edit]

I noticed someone removed the paragraph - which I thought provided some good information. Should the section be deleted or restored?

- Former student —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.141.118.94 (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

The whole Student loans in bankruptcy looks like it was deleted. The hearing is smaller than the entries under it. It doesn't really even seem to be about student load and rather general bankruptcy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.97.20.102 (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC).

Re: History of Bankruptcy[edit]

Hi, I am new to editing on wikipedia. I was wondering if an article by Voltaire could be added to the Bankruptcy's history section. The specific section is on gutenberg here: http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18569/18569-h/18569-h.htm#Bankruptcy

"The bankruptcies came to us from Italy, bancorotto, bancarotta, gambarotta e la giustizia non impicar. Every merchant had his bench (banco) in the place of exchange; and when he had conducted his business badly, declared himself fallito, and abandoned his property to his creditors with the proviso that he retain a good part of it for himself, be free and reputed a very upright man. There was nothing to be said to him, his bench was broken, banco rotto, banca rotta; he could even, in certain towns, keep all his property and baulk his creditors, provided he seated himself bare-bottomed on a stone in the presence of all the merchants. This was a mild derivation of the old Roman proverb—solvere aut in aere aut in cute, to pay either with one's money or one's skin. But this custom no longer exists; creditors have preferred their money to a bankrupt's hinder parts."

Part of the above para is already in the main article, but I am unsure on whether quotes would be allowed. Would it be part of a Trivia section?

Thank you :) Mightybeancounter 01:22, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

NPOV failure via incompleteness[edit]

The article fails to adhere to WP:NPOV by completely failing to address views on the morality and ethics of bankruptcy and religious views thereon. These are significant viewpoints which are being completely omitted. The article is too narrowly focused on law. See for example usury which does treat both legal and ethical issues (if anything not giving enough emphasis to the legal issues). GRBerry 13:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that would be good information for this article, or even for it's own article. But, it I'm not with you in respect to how this changes the neutrality of the article. -- Craigtalbert 15:53, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
An article that meets NPOV represents "fairly and without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources)." If we are missing coverage of a set of significant views that are published in reliable sources, the article is by definition failing to be in compliance with NPOV. So if you agree that the views are significant, and are willing to take me on faith that there are plenty of reliable published sources out there for this, then the NPOV failure follows via simple logic. GRBerry 18:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
The morality issue may suggest that bankruptcy should be done away an no longer allowed to exist. Meanwhile the article itself with the focus on the legal existence of bankruptcy is a tacit assertion that bankruptcy should exist. These are two opposing points of view. GRBerry should spend more time with a substantive explanation rather than a procedural one. Faith is not adequate except in religion.EECavazos 18:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, apparently there is a morality issue. I googled "morality of bankruptcy" and came up with a search list of websites that discuss the morality of bankruptcy. Sure, most of them were religious but I can imagine that there is also some philosophical debate on the morality of bankruptcy because you end up paying your creditors less than what you promised. A possible approach to a morality section may be how the debtor is the immoral actor unlike usury where the creditor is the immoral actor. Of course, the creditors are usually not affected by an individual debtor unless it's obligations between individuals, but still it has the moral issue of a broken promise. Fraudulent bankruptcy is already touched upon, so maybe that can be drawn into the morality subheading. EECavazos 18:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree in part. Bankruptcy is primarily a legal and economic concept, and it sometimes has a moral dimension as well. I would argue that merely discussing the legal and economic aspects of bankruptcy in the article without addressing its moral dimensions does not, in and of itself, constitute the rendering of a "tacit assertion" that bankruptcy "should" exist (whatever that means). Further, omitting a section on the morality of bankruptcy (or, more specifically, the morality of having the government grant a person a discharge) might or might not constitute a lack of neutral point of view.
An article on bankruptcy arguably should include a mention of critiques from reliable, previously published third party sources on the morality of bankruptcy. This should be done not for the purpose of avoiding some theoretical "tacit assertion" about morality, but rather for the purpose of treating the topic comprehensively, and providing a more useful article for readers.
What some people refer to as "bankruptcy" actually refers to only a part of bankruptcy -- for example, the failure to pay one's debts in full or, alternatively, the granting of a discharge to the debtor (which of course generally results in the debtor not paying the debts in full, since that's why the debtor asked for the discharge in the first place). In some but not all bankruptcy proceedings, the debtor is granted a legal discharge from certain debts (which in most cases, obviously, end up not being fully paid) and the debtor is granted what is called a "fresh start."
That is only a part of the overall concept of bankruptcy. For example, there are always examples of people in bankruptcy who eventually do pay all their debts. (Rare, yes, but it does happen.)
In short, I agree with the idea of adding a mention of critiques on the morality of certain aspects of bankruptcy -- but for different reasons that those cited by my fellow editors. Famspear 20:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I wholly agree with Famspear. This is primarily a legal issue, however the morality discussion belongs in this article--the generic Bankruptcy article--as opposed to in a specific legal article (Bankruptcy law in the United States).
That said, this discussion has been here for a few months now and I don't see any contributions to the morality of bankruptcy. Someone [who believes this issue is important here] needs to begin this section. This NPOV tag cannot sit at the top forever.LH (talk) 15:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
After a month of no activity since the last request, an much longer since any activity advocating a change, I've removed the NPOV. If someone wants to add a morality/ethics section to this article that should be done. But a NPOV banner shouldn't sit at the top of the page, particularly when there's nothing objectionable; merely there's some suggestion that a section isn't fully fleshed out.LH (talk) 21:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

How can anyone say this article is more about the US than the rest of the world?[edit]

I mean, it covers most of the developed world, US, Canada and Europe, all that's really missing is Asia & Australia, so I think the neutrality dispute needs to come down pronto. Adg2k7 21:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S.--I also added a link to the ITSA website for bankruptcy laws that pertain to Australia, under the new heading “Bankruptcy in Australia”, in the article. I hope my contribution will prove useful.Adg2k7 21:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

P.P.S.--I put up an article called Restructuring in Asia, as a very small start to the section Bankruptcy in Asia, and have added notices that the short section requires more info and the "Help Improve" marker in that section as well so that we may finally start to balance out the article and make it have a neutral P.O.V., per Wikipedia guidelines. Oh and you're welcome, everyone...Adg2k7 22:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the prior section of the talk page. Neutrality is a problem because it fails to cover all significant points of view. Geographic coverage issues are a different issue. Making progress on the geographic issues is indeed progress, but a different type of progress. For neutrality, we need to cover the unaddressed view that bankruptcy is inherently unethical.
There is progress being made in geography, but there is a lot more to go. Where is coverage of the Islamic version, if any? Bankruptcy in the third world? The Communist world (if relevant)? The world is not just the English speaking developed countries. GRBerry 22:07, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I read through this article to evaluate it on its coverage of 'Bankruptcy' generally (as opposed to any specific system) and I find it badly organized, especially with respect to country. The first section is only about Bankruptcy development in the US and spends way too many words on esoteric squabbling over creation of the 'Bankruptcy Courts' and their expansive power to hear all related controversies or not. Either that section should be wholesale cut and merged into the US specific article or it needs significant trimming down to get it out of the way of non-US readers. Also there should be some explanation of how the US development of bankruptcy affects or affected Bankruptcy more generally (again assuming this remains in this article at all.) Drew LoPucki (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no mention of nor link to Credit Counseling http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_counseling despite the fact that a consumer in the USA cannot file for bankruptcy without first consulting a Credit Counselor and paying to take their class in how to handle credit. The lack of this destroys the value of the article on bankruptcy in the USA. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rumjal (talkcontribs) 19:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Citation Source Question[edit]

I added to the US/Chapters section a while back the following: "(As much as 65% of all U.S. consumer bankruptcy filings are of the Chapter 7 variety.)" The citation link was recently removed; "removed commercial external link not meeting WP:RS as a source". So here's the question: if the citation was untrusted, then why was the fact retained? Alternately, if the fact was good, why was the citation of that fact removed? Just trying to understand how things work around here, thanks. —Preceding comment added by Yankeerudy (talkcontribs) 13:13, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Biblical References in the "History" Section[edit]

I made corrections in the first paragraph of "The West" subsection under the "History" section to reflect the following points as discretely as possible.

  1. The Jewish Year of Jubilee (Vayikra/Leviticus 25:10) applies to all the inhabitants of the land, both Jewish and otherwise, while the seven-year debt forgiveness (Devarim/Deuteronomy 15:3) applies only to Jews, purposefully overlooking the non-Jewish inhabitants of the land.
  2. Neither reference to the Jewish Torah or the Christian Old Testament mention that they are essentially the same source and that both sources can be applied to both statements.
  3. Neither reference indicates that these two instructions coexist in the same cyclic, Hebrew calender.

Southtown (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Moral bankruptcy[edit]

Where does the expression "moral bankruptcy" come from, and could it be included in a part of this article ? ADM (talk) 03:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Deliberate serial bankruptcy?[edit]

Is there an expression in English for someone who makes a living out of being listed as CEO or chairman of companies that are involved in a murky finance scam or are getting their funds siphoned off? Typically, the kind of guy ýou hire is a down-and-out, a boozer and/or petty criminal, who has next to no chance of landing an honest job again or even a sick pension and who can feign that he has nothing of value, so that any judicial attempt to make him responsible for foul play or force him to personal bankruptcy will be a waste of time. And often the person will have a dozen such rogue VIP-ships at the same time. I'm sure the phenomemon exists in Britain and the US too; in Sweden those figures are called "goalkeepers". I'd like to know both judicial and colloquial words, and please indicate if it's British or U.S expressions. Thanks! /Strausszek (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Possible copyright infringement?[edit]

The entire section "History and development of bankruptcy" reads like it was copy-and-pasted from a book. Even the last sentence states "The changes effected by this act are discussed in the chapters that follow." Further, there are a number of in-line citations to statutes, but everything else asserted is unsupported. Without references, you can't tell if this section was lifted from a book en toto or if it's a legitimate, non-copyrighted consolidation of facts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.200.38.244 (talk) 17:10, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

The best case scenario is that it's a badly-written, poorly referenced section that needs rewriting anyway, so we should do that at the least. A copyvio would be hard to prove, as Googling various phrases gives only Wiki mirrors and no book results. Can we afford to take the risk? It might be better just to remove the section and start over. Alzarian16 (talk) 19:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Cartoosh's View[edit]

So...is that cartoon near the see also relevant? 174.30.64.102 (talk) 21:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, why I created next thread. BTW it's more like 20 trillion now. 108.183.102.223 (talk) 10:23, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

States and[edit]

Most/all nation states are massively insolvent. Recent events and completeness call for explicit statement of the inapplicability at the macro/systemic level if that is the case. It is certainly not the case that it is only applicable to natural accumulators. Lycurgus (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Unjustified statement - citation link does not support statement[edit]

Statement : hiring a petition preparer (which have a track record of shoddy work and unsuccessful cases),[25]
Citation number implies that this statement is supported by a news article.

Actual article does not use the phrase "shoddy" or "substandard" or "unsuccessful".
The cited article covers "misleading customers into believing they were receiving legal advice" and "motions seeking to stop bankruptcy petition preparers or to reduce their fees." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.66.64.244 (talk) 17:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed the unsourced material. Famspear (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bankruptcy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Bankruptcy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)