Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Student Loan Discharge Proceeding Not a 'Suit'
The Supreme Court, in its May 17, 2004 decision in Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation v. Hood, __ U.S. ___ (2004), declined to reach the issue of whether the Bankruptcy Clause in Article I of the Constitution grants authority to Congress to abrogate state sovereign immunity from private suits. Instead, in a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that a proceeding to determine whether an otherwise nondischargeable student loan can be discharged because of an undue hardship on the debtor is not a “suit” against the state for purposes of the Eleventh Amendment. The Court's decision, written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, turned on the in rem nature of the proceeding and reasoned that the bankruptcy court did not need jurisdiction over the state where it had jurisdiction over the debtor and her property.
The Decision
The Court observed that it was well established that states are bound by a bankruptcy court's discharge order no less than other creditors, citing cases in which the Court held that a state could be barred from sharing in the debtor's assets if it did not timely file a claim (New York v. Irving Trust Co., 288 U.S. 329 (1933)), and that a bankruptcy court could sell property free and clear of a state's tax lien (Van Huffel v. Harkelrode, 284 U.S. 225 (1931)). Rejecting the Tennessee Student Assistance Corporation's (“Tennessee”) argument that the use of an adversary proceeding against the state to obtain an “undue hardship” determination” violated the Eleventh Amendment, the Court stated that Tennessee misunderstood the “fundamental nature of the proceeding.” The Court reasoned that “the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction is premised on the res, not on the persona; that states were granted the presumptive benefit of nondischargeability does not alter the court's underlying authority.” Noting that in the bankruptcy and admiralty contexts the Court had previously held that individualized determinations of states' interests within the federal courts' in rem jurisdiction did not infringe state sovereignty, the Court similarly held that the bankruptcy court's in rem jurisdiction to discharge a student loan does not infringe state sovereignty.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?