Amicus Brief in Support of Appellee, Credit One Bank v. Anderson

Research output: Other contribution

Abstract

This amicus brief was filed in Anderson v. Credit One Bank, No. 16-2496 (2d. Cir.). The brief explains why a debtor's claim for violation of the bankruptcy discharge injunction is not subject to a predispute arbitration agreement. The brief makes three arguments: (1) the history of the bankruptcy discharge shows Congress intentionally chose injunctive relief to enforce the bankruptcy discharge; (2) the bankruptcy discharge and discharge injunction are not "claims" against which an arbitration agreement can operate; and (3) the discharge injunction is a central piece of the Bankruptcy Code that inherently conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act.
Original languageEnglish (US)
TypeAmicus Brief
Number of pages31
StatePublished - 2017

Fingerprint

bankruptcy
credit
bank
arbitration
history

Cite this

@misc{264ad3bfa01d4d239a192471be042317,
title = "Amicus Brief in Support of Appellee, Credit One Bank v. Anderson",
abstract = "This amicus brief was filed in Anderson v. Credit One Bank, No. 16-2496 (2d. Cir.). The brief explains why a debtor's claim for violation of the bankruptcy discharge injunction is not subject to a predispute arbitration agreement. The brief makes three arguments: (1) the history of the bankruptcy discharge shows Congress intentionally chose injunctive relief to enforce the bankruptcy discharge; (2) the bankruptcy discharge and discharge injunction are not {"}claims{"} against which an arbitration agreement can operate; and (3) the discharge injunction is a central piece of the Bankruptcy Code that inherently conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act.",
author = "Lawless, {Robert M} and Brubaker, {Ralph Edwin}",
year = "2017",
language = "English (US)",
type = "Other",

}

TY - GEN

T1 - Amicus Brief in Support of Appellee, Credit One Bank v. Anderson

AU - Lawless, Robert M

AU - Brubaker, Ralph Edwin

PY - 2017

Y1 - 2017

N2 - This amicus brief was filed in Anderson v. Credit One Bank, No. 16-2496 (2d. Cir.). The brief explains why a debtor's claim for violation of the bankruptcy discharge injunction is not subject to a predispute arbitration agreement. The brief makes three arguments: (1) the history of the bankruptcy discharge shows Congress intentionally chose injunctive relief to enforce the bankruptcy discharge; (2) the bankruptcy discharge and discharge injunction are not "claims" against which an arbitration agreement can operate; and (3) the discharge injunction is a central piece of the Bankruptcy Code that inherently conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act.

AB - This amicus brief was filed in Anderson v. Credit One Bank, No. 16-2496 (2d. Cir.). The brief explains why a debtor's claim for violation of the bankruptcy discharge injunction is not subject to a predispute arbitration agreement. The brief makes three arguments: (1) the history of the bankruptcy discharge shows Congress intentionally chose injunctive relief to enforce the bankruptcy discharge; (2) the bankruptcy discharge and discharge injunction are not "claims" against which an arbitration agreement can operate; and (3) the discharge injunction is a central piece of the Bankruptcy Code that inherently conflicts with the Federal Arbitration Act.

M3 - Other contribution

ER -