By virtue of his failure to appear and testify at a deposition conducted by the Chapter 7 trustee, the husband of a corporate debtor’s chief executive officer was in civil contempt of court. The husband did not appear despite having multiple opportunities to comply with the trustee’s subpoena, and despite the court’s efforts to accommodate his medical conditions. The bankruptcy court therefore ordered the rescheduling of the husband’s deposition under detailed terms, and warned that it would exercise its power to impose sanctions if the husband again failed to attend and testify.

The Chapter 13 plans of two debtors in separate cases were not proposed in good faith and thus could not be confirmed. Although the court did not doubt the “real world bona fides” of the debtor, they were seeking another round of debt forgiveness despite being ineligible for Chapter 7 relief, due to past filings. Moreover, the debtors were not adjusting their debts through their proposed plans, consistent with the purpose of Chapter 13, but instead sought to cancel and eliminate creditor claims via plans with durations tied only to the payment of the debtors’ attorney fees. In addition, allowing the cases, which were basically Chapter 7 cases hidden within Chapter 13 petitions, to go forward would effectively invalidate the statutory eight-year hiatus between Chapter 7 discharges and replace it with another, shorter statutory period applicable to Chapter 13 cases.

Observing that the case law surrounding the issue was “scarce,” a Pennsylvania bankruptcy court has held that the section of the Bankruptcy Code which tolls statutes of limitation upon the filing of bankruptcy petitions, 11 U.S.C.A. 108(a), may be invoked by Chapter 13 debtors-in-possession prosecuting actions that constitute estate property. Although the issue was less clear than in the Chapter 11 context, the court found no reason why 108 should not also apply to Chapter 13 debtors-in-possession, as the debtor is the representative of the estate in prosecuting the action. The debtor in a Chapter 13 case has the ability to sue on behalf of the estate, and essentially “steps into the role of the trustee” when doing so, the court reasoned. Hence, the debtor is eligible for the same provisions of the Code affecting the trustee’s power to sue, including the extension of time provisions in 108. A split of authority was noted