法庭之友摘要:解除诉讼的可仲裁性(Anderson诉Credit One Bank)

R. Brubaker, Robert M. Lawless, Bruce A. Markell
{"title":"法庭之友摘要:解除诉讼的可仲裁性(Anderson诉Credit One Bank)","authors":"R. Brubaker, Robert M. Lawless, Bruce A. Markell","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2925494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":286992,"journal":{"name":"University of Illinois College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","volume":"49 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Amicus Brief on Arbitrability of the Discharge (Anderson v. Credit One Bank)\",\"authors\":\"R. Brubaker, Robert M. Lawless, Bruce A. Markell\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2925494\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":286992,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"University of Illinois College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-02-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"University of Illinois College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2925494\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Illinois College of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Series","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2925494","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本法庭之友简报在安德森诉第一信贷银行案(第16-2496号)中提交。Cir)。摘要解释了为什么债务人违反破产解除禁令的请求不受争议前仲裁协议的约束。摘要提出了三个论点:(1)破产解除的历史表明,国会有意选择禁令救济来执行破产解除;(二)破产解除和破产强制令不是仲裁协议可以适用的“债权”;(3)解除禁令是《破产法》的核心条款,与《联邦仲裁法》存在内在冲突。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Amicus Brief on Arbitrability of the Discharge (Anderson v. Credit One Bank)
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Financing Affordable Housing Through Opportunity Funds Subsidizing Gentrification: A Spatial Analysis of Place-Based Tax Incentives Reconsidering Creditor Governance in a Time of Financial Alchemy: Appendix How Place-Based Tax Incentives Can Reduce Geographic Inequality Amicus Brief on Arbitrability of the Discharge (Anderson v. Credit One Bank)
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1