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。
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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信