Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On Aug. 24, 2022, President Joe Biden announced the plan to forgive up to $10,000 in federal student debt for qualifying borrowers. This relief, however, was challenged in the courts and is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court.
In the interim, Biden's administration has sought to address student loan debt relief through another forum: the bankruptcy court. On Nov. 17, Biden's administration published instructive guidance to the Department of Education and the Department of Justice on how to treat student loan debt relief in bankruptcy court by standardizing the burden of "undue hardship" under Section 523(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code.
|Generally, student loans may be discharged in bankruptcy only if the student loan imposes an "undue hardship" on the petitioning debtor. The "undue hardship" burden is not only undefined by Congress; it is a standard that has generally been granted only in exceptional circumstances. In interpreting whether a debtor's student loans pose an undue hardship on the debtor, courts either apply the Brunner test (Brunner v. New York State Higher Education Services, 831 F.2d 395 (2d Cir. 1987)), or the "totality of the circumstances" test. Under the totality of the circumstances test, a bankruptcy court considers: the debtor's past, present, and reasonably estimated future financial resources; the debtor's — and any dependent's — reasonably necessary living expenses; and other relevant facts or circumstances that are unique to the case that might prevent the debtor from paying the student loans in question while still allowing the debtor to maintain a minimal standard of living, even when aided by a discharge of other prepetition debts.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.
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.