Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court's Denial to Hear Student Debt Discharge Case Leaves Ambiguity
Dealing a blow to advocates of student loan discharges in bankruptcy, the U.S. Supreme Court recently denied certiorari in the case of McCoy v. United States, No. 20-886, cert. denied (June 21, 2021). With federal student loan forbearance set to expire at the end of September, many hoped the high court would provide, if not clarity, at least uniformity for the millions of Americans who currently are on the hook for student loans.
The case centers on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision in which a Texas woman was denied discharge of her student loans. The legal standard at issue is the same for all bankrupt student loan borrowers: whether denying discharge imposes "undue hardship" on debtors under 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(8). The meaning and definition of who meets this standard varies from court to court and is subject to restrictions that critics cite as oppressive to borrowers and beyond the intent of Congress. The case of McCoy, for example, turned on whether she had a "total incapacity" to repay her loans. This high bar is not the reality for all student loan debtors, however.
Consider: in the Eighth Circuit (covering Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota) and most of the First Circuit (covering Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Puerto Rico), the standard is the "totality of the circumstances." Here, courts ask whether the debtor's "reasonable future financial resources will sufficiently cover payment of the student loan debt while still allowing for a minimal standard of living" by looking at all of the facts and circumstances surrounding an individual debtor.
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.
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?