The answer differs depending on the nature of the debt and under which chapter the bankruptcy case was filed.
Section 523(a)(4) of the House amendment represents a compromise between the House bill and the Senate amendment. Section 523(a)(5) is a compromise between the House bill and the Senate amendment. The provision excepts from discharge a debt owed to a spouse, former spouse or child of the debtor, in connection with a separation agreement. https://bosssunrise.weebly.com/blog/remote-desktop-manager-enterprise-edition-54. The present section, 4:1-6, is one of three units within the letter (the other two are 2:12-14 and 2:15-17) that virtually all interpreters would regard as a self-contained unit.
I. The Key Exception To Discharge
Native instruments komplete kontrol s61. The key provision of the Bankruptcy Code that we use to answer the question is 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3), which states (with emphasis added):
A dischargeunder section 727, 1141, 1228 (a), 1228 (b), or 1328 (b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt— . . . neither listed nor scheduled under section 521 (a)(1) of this title, with the name, if known to the debtor, of the creditor to whom such debt is owed, in time to permit--
Papers 3.4.6 (523) 1
(A) if such debt is not of a kind specified in paragraph (2), (4), or (6) of this subsection, timely filing of a proof of claim, unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing; or
(B) if such debt is of a kind specified in paragraph (2), (4), or (6) of this subsection, timely filing of a proof of claim and timely request for a determination of dischargeability of such debt under one of such paragraphs, unless such creditor had notice or actual knowledge of the case in time for such timely filing and request;
If you’re not used to reading statutory language you may naturally ask: What does all of this mean? One thing is clear: this statutory provision concerns debts that were “neither listed nor scheduled” in the bankruptcy papers “in time to permit . . .” But to permit what? There are two things that the creditor would have been able to do in a timely fashion if the debt had been properly scheduled, but cannot because of the oversight.
II. Unscheduled Creditors Cannot File Proofs of Claim
First, the creditor is able to file a proof of claim in the case if it has been scheduled. So what is a proof of claim? It is an application, with supporting documentation, filed by a creditor as a way of participating in any payout that might occur in the case.
In a Chapter 11, 12, or 13 case the payout takes place on a monthly basis because those chapters typically involve multi-year partial debt repayment plans. Creditors who timely filed proofs of claim receive regular payments pursuant to the terms of the judge-confirmed repayment/reorganization plan.
In a Chapter 7 case there usually is no payout. However, if the debtor has nonexempt assets – i.e., possessions that cannot be exempted using the appropriate exemption table – then the Chapter 7 Trustee assigned to the case will liquidate those assets and distribute the proceeds to the creditors who have timely filed proofs of claim. The distribution is done on a pro rata basis according to certain priority rules found in 11 U.S.C. §§ 507(a) and 726.
Thus, in a Chapter 7, 12, or 13 case if a creditor fails to file a proof of claim within the time limits found in Rule 3002(c) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (FRBP) (the gist: government creditors have 180 days from the filing date, other creditors have 90 days from the first date set for the 341(a) meeting of creditors it receives no payout.
In a Chapter 11 case the proof of claim timetable is set by the Court pursuant to FRBP 3003(c)(3). However, the unscheduled creditor won’t know what the timetable is, so its proof of claim rights will also be prejudiced, and it will receive no payout either.
III. Unscheduled Creditors Cannot Challenge A Debt’s Discharge
Second, the scheduled creditor can challenge the discharge of a debt that could be characterized as falling within the exceptions of § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6). These exceptions cover debts incurred through fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, or willful and malicious harm to a person or property, respectively.
The challenge is accomplished through a special kind of lawsuit, called an adversary proceeding, filed in the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to § 523(c). However, according to FRBP 4007(c) such a lawsuit must be filed no later than sixty days after the first date set for the 341 meeting of creditors, and there is no wiggle room. Thus, if the creditor isn’t scheduled, it won’t receive notice in time to file the adversary complaint.
In sum, if the creditor isn’t scheduled it can’t timely file a proof of claim or timely challenge the dischargeability of the debt in question – at least under any of § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6). For that reason, Congress included § 523(a)(3) in the Code.
By the way, it is worth noting that the 60-day bar date of FRBP 4007(c) only applies to the § 523(a)(2), (4), or (6) exceptions to discharge. The other § 523(a) exceptions have no such time limitation and are governed by FRBP 4007(b), which provides: “A complaint other than under § 523(c) may be filed at any time.”
IV. The Chapter 7 No-Asset Exception
Based on the above discussion you might conclude that an unscheduled debt is never dischargeable in bankruptcy. However, there is an important holding of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that provides an exception to this rule in a “no-asset” Chapter 7 case, if the original debt was of the dischargeable variety – i.e., would have been discharged if scheduled. That case is In re Beezley, 994 F. 2d 1433 (9th Cir. 1993).
In Beezley the debtor, Gilbert Beezley, filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy papers. His was a no-asset case, and he was granted a Chapter 7 discharge. Subsequent to the Court closing his case, Mr. Beezley found out that he had omitted a creditor, and filed a motion to reopen the case so he could amend his Schedule F to include that creditor. The Bankruptcy Court denied his motion, so he appealed to the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, which affirmed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision. Therefore, he appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the rulings of the lower courts using reasoning that is worth reviewing.
A. No Proof Of Claim Prejudice
The Court reasoned that since the case was a no-asset Chapter 7, no creditor was prejudiced in its ability to file a proof of claim because there would have been no bankruptcy payout in which the creditor could have participated.
B. No Correcting The Adversary Proceeding Prejudice
The Court’s holding on the dischargeability question was extremely terse, so Judge O’Scannlain shed some light on it in a concurring opinion:
Similarly, even if an omitted debt falls under section 523(a)(3)(B), no purpose is served by reopening solely in order to amend the schedules; scheduling, per se, is irrelevant to dischargeability even under this subparagraph once a case is closed. As noted above, section 523(a)(3)(B) provides that, if the debt flows from an intentional tort of a kind specified in the relevant paragraphs, the debtor’s failure to schedule in time to provide notice to the creditor of the need to seek an adjudication of dischargeability is conclusive (at least in the absence of actual knowledge of the bankruptcy on the part of the creditor). Sketchup 2018. The debt is not discharged. Scheduling makes no difference to outcome. Reopening a case does not extend the time to file complaints to determine dischargeability. Either the creditor had actual, timely notice of the [case] or he didn’t. Amending the schedules will not change that.
In re Beezley, 994 F. 2d at 1437 (internal quotes omitted).
In other words, if Beezley had been able to reopen his case to add the creditor, the creditor still couldn’t have initiated the adversary proceeding because the 60-day bar date had long since passed. Therefore, there was no point in allowing him to reopen the case to amend. It wouldn’t have left the creditor any less prejudiced.
Moreover, if the debt was of the non-dischargeable variety, then it wasn’t discharged regardless of whether or not it was scheduled.
But . . . and this is an important but: If the debt would have been dischargeable if scheduled, then it was discharged even though it wasn’t scheduled. Axure rp pro 9.0.0.3647. Thus, an unscheduled credit card debt, or medical debt, that was old enough on the day of filing to avoid claims of fraud based on recentness, was discharged.
Of course, if you’re filing for bankruptcy protection it is safest to list everyone to whom you owe money on the day of filing, especially since you will be swearing under penalty of perjury – both in the papers, and at the 341 meeting of creditors – that you did list all of your creditors.
One way to reduce the likelihood of omitting a creditor is to order your credit reports as part of the process of preparing the papers. A good bankruptcy attorney will, as a matter of course, order the reports and use them in preparing the papers. However, since the credit reports are fallible – they are, after all, not delivered from Mt. Sinai – it is important to review your records to make sure that every creditor is listed.
V. The Right Of Unscheduled Creditors In Repayment/Reorganization Cases
A final note is in order. What rights does the creditor have who has not been included in a plan, such as in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy? Is it just left out in the cold?
As we have seen, the creditor cannot file an untimely proof of claim. However, the underlying debt is non-dischargeable (in a Chapter 7, 11, or 12 pursuant to § 523(a)(3), and in a Chapter 13 because of §§ 1328(a)(2) and (c)(2)).
Therefore, in Jones v. Arross, 9 F.3d 79, 81-82 (10th Cir. 1993) the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held:
The Bankruptcy Code, however, specifically provides a remedy for persons in Ms. Arross’ situation. Because she was not listed among Mr. Jones’ creditors, her claim is nondischargeable. See 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(3). She may now petition the bankruptcy court for relief from the stay and bring an action against Mr. Jones, or she may wait until the case ends and bring such an action.
Therefore, the unscheduled creditor can either seek relief from the automatic stay of § 362(a), and then sue in state court. Or it can wait until the end of the bankruptcy case and then sue in state court (though there may be statute of limitations considerations that militate against waiting).
HOME | COUNTRY WISE STATISTICS |
S.N. | Particular | Time of Information | Source | |
01 | Country | India | ||
02 | Population (Million) | 1324.0 | 2016 | http://en.wikipedia.org |
03 | Total Pulp/Paper/Paperboard Production (MT) | 14.961 | 2017 | FAO |
03.1 | Corrugated/Packaging | 7.603 | ||
03.2 | Newsprint | 1.380 | ||
03.3 | Graphic Paper (New Classification) | 6.180 | ||
03.4 | Others | 0 | ||
04 | Import | 3.523 | ||
05 | Export | 0.841 | ||
06 | Net Consumption | 17.643 | ||
07 | Per Capita Consumption (Kg) | 13.0 | ||
08.0 | Recovered Paper: Collection | 3.700 | ||
08.1 | Import | 3.285 | ||
08.2 | Export | 0.0 | ||
08.4 | Consumption/Usage | 6.985 | ||
09.0 | Wood Pulp: Production | 3.362 | ||
09.1 | Import | 1.565 | ||
09.2 | Export | 0.003 | ||
09.4 | Consumption/Usage | 4.924 | ||
10 | No. of Pulp/Paper Mills | >500 | 2016 | |
11 | Main Raw Materials | HW, Bamboo, Agricultural waste, Recycled Fiber | 2016 | |
12 | Major Companies | BiLT, JK, ITC |
All Production, Import, Export and Net Consumption numbers are in Million Metric Tons (1,000,000,000 Kg.)
Please provide if you have the latest info. If you want to write a Blog please send me at [email protected] and I will review it and publish
Please provide if you have the latest info. If you want to write a Blog please send me at [email protected] and I will review it and publish
Growing consumption of pulp and paper in India has increased the demand for wood fiber for the domestic pulp industry in the country, reports the Wood Resource Quarterly. With the lack of domestic pulpwood plantations, pulp manufacturers have for the past few years increasingly been looking overseas to South Africa, Brazil, Australia and Southeast Asia for much needed hardwood chips.
Global Timber and Wood Products Market Update Aug. 25, 2015 - a news brief from Wood Resources International LLC Papers 3.4.6 (523) Free
Lack of domestic forest resources has forced the pulp industry in India to increasingly rely on hardwood chips from overseas for its wood fiber needs, report the Wood Resource Quarterly
Seattle, USA. India has limited domestic forest resources to supply its forest industry, and with growing domestic demand for forest products, the country's pulp mills and sawmills have found it necessary to increase importation of wood raw-material both in the form of wood chips and logs.
Over the next five years, demand for paper is expected to increase by between 2-12% annually, depending on paper grade. Over the past decade, the domestic pulp industry has steadily increased its usage of pulpwood because of higher pulp production, less usage of bamboo and because several pulp mills switched from recycled fiber to wood fiber.
The share of imported wood fiber for the pulp industry accounted for almost ten percent of total consumption of wood fiber in 2014, and this share is expected to increase in the coming years.
The shortage and high cost of local pulpwood in India has resulted in increased interest in sourcing wood chips from overseas despite logistical difficulties both at the ports and when transporting the chips from the ports to the pulp mills long.
The share of imported wood fiber for the pulp industry accounted for almost ten percent of total consumption of wood fiber in 2014, and this share is expected to increase in the coming years.
The shortage and high cost of local pulpwood in India has resulted in increased interest in sourcing wood chips from overseas despite logistical difficulties both at the ports and when transporting the chips from the ports to the pulp mills long.
Importation of chips is fairly new and Indian pulp mills did not import any wood chips until 2013 when the first shipments of hardwood chips from South Africa, Australia and Thailand arrived. The total imports reached just over 200,000 ODMT in 2013, then rose to approximately 370,000 ODMT in 2014, according to the Wood Resource Quarterly. South Africa has been the major supplier of chips, with shipped volumes accounting for about 70% of the total import volume in 2015.
During the first six months of 2015, India imported an estimated 180,000 m3, or about 30% more than in the same period in 2014. So far in 2015, three countries have exported wood chips to India, South Africa, Brazil and Vietnam. South Africa has been the dominant supplier to date, and is likely to continue to be the major supplier for the foreseeable future.
Global lumber, sawlog and pulpwood market reporting is included in the 52-page quarterly publication Wood Resource Quarterly (WRQ). The report, which was established in 1988 and has subscribers in over 30 countries, tracks sawlog, pulpwood, lumber and pellet prices, trade and market developments in most key regions around the world. To subscribe to the WRQ, please go to www.woodprices.comDuring the first six months of 2015, India imported an estimated 180,000 m3, or about 30% more than in the same period in 2014. So far in 2015, three countries have exported wood chips to India, South Africa, Brazil and Vietnam. South Africa has been the dominant supplier to date, and is likely to continue to be the major supplier for the foreseeable future.
Contact Information
Wood Resources International LLCHakan Ekstrom
Seattle, USA
[email protected]
www.woodprices.com
Top 5 Paper & Paperboard Producing Countries (Million Metric Ton in 2017)
Countries | Million MT | |||
Production | Imports | Exports | Net Consumption | |
World | 412.6 | 115.1 | 116.8 | 410.9 |
China | 111.3 | 4.6 | 6.0 | 109.9 |
USA | 71.8 | 9.2 | 11.6 | 69.3 |
Japan | 26.5 | 1.6 | 2.0 | 26.2 |
Germany | 22.9 | 11.8 | 14.4 | 20.3 |
India | 15.0 | 3.5 | 0.84 | 17.6 |
Top 5 Recovered Paper Importing Countries (Million Metric Ton in 2017)
Countries | Million MT | |||
Production | Imports | Exports | Net Consumption | |
World | 235.3 | 58.2 | 57.0 | 236.5 |
China | 52.9 | 25.7 | 0.0 | 78.6 |
Germany | 15.3 | 4.5 | 2.84 | 17.0 |
India | 3.7 | 3.3 | 0.0 | 7.0 |
Netherland | 2.5 | 2.90 | 2.7 | 2.63 |
Indonesia | 3.2 | 2.20 | 0.10 | 5.33 |