ILNews

Bankruptcy filings ease slightly in Indiana

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Total bankruptcy filings in the Southern District of Indiana ticked down last year. Business bankruptcies in Indiana dropped 3.2 percent.

Bankruptcy filings in Indiana dipped slightly in 2010—the first decline in four years—and showed a late-year slowdown that may indicate consumers are starting to manage their finances better.

Filings in the Southern District of Indiana totaled 28,901 last year, a slight 0.2-percent decrease from 2009, according to statistics released earlier this month by the Alexandria, Va.-based American Bankruptcy Institute.

Total bankruptcy filings in the district fell last year for the first time since 2006, a year after bankruptcy reform became law.

Even so, Mark Zuckerberg said his local bankruptcy practice continues to thrive.

“It’s still a little harder to file,” he said, referring to 2005 reform that made it more difficult to wipe away debt. “But if they’ve lost their job or can’t pay their bills, they still have to do something.”

Statewide, total bankruptcies in 2010 dipped to 47,304, a 2-percent decline from 2009, according to ABI.

Indiana still ranked 10th in the nation last year in terms of total bankruptcy filings. California (260,210), Florida (113,066) and Illinois (82,669) topped the list.

Signs of a downward trend may have become more pronounced late last year. Filings in the fourth quarter of 2010 dropped to 6,164 in the district, a nearly 7-percent decline from the same quarter the previous year. Statewide, fourth-quarter filings fell from 11,081 to 9,941, a 10-percent drop.

Total bankruptcy filings in the United States increased to nearly 1.6 million in 2010, an 8-percent increase from the previous year, ABI said. But the growth rate of bankruptcy filings eased after three years of double-digit growth.

“The slowing of the growth rate of bankruptcies reflects a retrenchment in consumer spending associated with a down U.S. economy,” ABI Executive Director Samuel J. Gerdano said in a written statement.

Business bankruptcies nationwide decreased 7.5 percent in 2010, to 56,282. Chapter 11 filings dropped the most, falling 14 percent last year, to 11,774.

In Indiana, business bankruptcies totaled 918 in 2010, a 3.2-percent dip from the previous year.

The number of business bankruptcy filings by type—Chapter 7 liquidation and Chapter 11 reorganization—weren’t available for each state or district.

Jerry Ancel, co-chairman of Taft Stettinius & Holliste’s business restructuring group in Indianapolis, said he's seen Chapter 11 filings falling within his practice, but only because businesses often don’t have the means to restructure.

“There hasn’t been a lot of asset-based capital in the past couple of years,” he said. “[Chapter 11] just becomes less of a viable tool.”

Despite the poor economy, total bankruptcy filings in the Southern District still remain relatively low compared with the early years of last decade.

From 2002 to 2004, bankruptcies annually numbered 32,000 to 35,000 before surging to 47,710 in 2005, when bankruptcy reform became law that October.

This story originally ran in the Feb. 28 IBJ Daily.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT