ILNews

Indiana bankruptcy filings decrease in 2011

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana saw fewer bankruptcies for the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2011, than it did the year before, with the state improving its national ranking based on case filings.

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts released bankruptcy filing statistics Monday, showing an 8 percent decrease in the number of bankruptcy filings throughout the country between Oct. 1, 2010, and Sept. 30, 2011.

Nationally, courts saw 1,467,221 cases this year compared to the 1,596,355 million filed the year before. Filings dropped during the judiciary’s fourth quarter with 15 percent fewer than in the same three-month period in 2010. Overall, Chapter 7 filings were down 10 percent, Chapter 13 filings dropped 4 percent, and Chapter 11 filings decreased by 16 percent nationwide.

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals that includes Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin saw a 10 percent drop in bankruptcy filings overall, the figures show. A total 161,182 were filed last year and 145,018 by the end of this year’s fiscal year.

In the Northern District of Indiana, figures show filings decreased 15.7 percent – 16,477 by Sept. 30, 2011, compared to 19,538 by that time in 2010. The Chapter 7 filings dropped by 16 percent while the Chapter 13 filings decreased by 13.4 percent.

In the Southern District of Indiana, overall filings decreased by 14.5 percent – 24,727 this year compared to 28,905 last year. The Chapter 7 filings decreased by 13.8 percent and the Chapter 13 filings dropped by 15.5 percent, statistics show.

Fewer filings improved Indiana’s national bankruptcy ranking. The state is ranked seventh this year in overall filings, compared to fourth last year. Indiana was third last year in Chapter 7 filings, and this year the state ranked sixth. Indiana dropped from 10th to 11th place in Chapter 13 filings.
 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT