
Joel R. Glucksman
Partner
201-896-7095 jglucksman@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Joel R. Glucksman
Date: December 9, 2014

Partner
201-896-7095 jglucksman@sh-law.comGoing through bankruptcy as an individual is designed to be unpleasant. A personal bankruptcy generally has a dramatic negative impact on a credit report and can put some loans out of grasp for up to a decade. The financial tool is designed this way to ensure that it is only used as a last-ditch resort by those who are so far in debt that a fresh start is the only option.
According to a new report from The New York Times’ Dealbook, however, some banks are using credit reporting procedures that, at best, cause significant accidental harm to already vulnerable bankruptcy filers. At worst, these procedures represent a cynical attempt to force these people to pay off debts that they no longer legally owe.
Trapped in debt
What is occurring, the news source reported, is this: Despite a legal obligation to update borrowers’ credit reports to reflect the discharge of debts after a bankruptcy filing, banks like JPMorgan routinely fail to do so. Borrowers interviewed by the Times said that the banks would refuse to fix the “mistakes” unless they paid the balances of the discharged debts. Because of what depends on maintaining a good credit score – homeownership, the ability to obtain loans, consideration for jobs and more – many of these former borrowers do pay.
Unfortunately, despite this practice being illegal, those who have recently filed for protection under Chapter 7 of the bankruptcy law do not tend to be aware of this fact. Even those who might be aware of such a practice’s illegality are not likely to be in a financial position to mount a serious legal challenge.
Dealbook reported that several current and former bankruptcy judges suspect that these “errors” in the banks’ reporting are not clerical mistakes at all, but debt-collection tactics. The banks in question have moved to throw out a recent class action lawsuit on behalf of these borrowers, arguing in part that they have no interest in recouping payments on these debts because they typically sell them off to third-party collectors anyway. However, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Robert Drain, who is presiding over the case, pointed out that the banks’ ability to sell these stale or discharged debts is dependent upon their willingness to ignore their discharge under bankruptcy law.
Using this logic, Drain denied the motion to dismiss, according to court documents.
“I believe the complaint sets forth a cause of action that Chase is using the inaccuracy of its credit reporting on a systematic basis to further its business of selling debt and its buyer’s collection of such debt,” Drain wrote in his opinion
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) remain a critical tool for protecting sensitive business information. However, New York NDA requirements have evolved, and businesses must ensure these agreements are carefully drafted to remain enforceable. In a competitive market like New York City, NDAs are commonly used to protect proprietary information, client relationships, and strategic plans. At the same […]
Author: Dan Brecher

How Courts Evaluate Testamentary Capacity and Undue Influence Will contests in New Jersey are difficult to win, given the strong presumption that a properly executed will reflects the testator’s intent. However, challenges based on lack of testamentary capacity and undue influence remain common, particularly where there are concerns about mental capacity or the involvement of […]
Author: Marc J. Comer

Bringing on outside investors can provide the capital and strategic support a business needs to grow. However, raising capital also introduces important legal, financial, and operational considerations. Before bringing on investors, businesses should address key legal issues to reduce risk, streamline investor due diligence, and position the company for long-term success. Early preparation signals that […]
Author: Dan Brecher

How the Updated Law Shapes Retirement and Estate Planning The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 materially reshapes the required minimum distribution (RMD) landscape, extending tax deferral opportunities while accelerating distribution requirements for many beneficiaries. For high-net-worth individuals and families, these changes are not merely technical. They require a reassessment of retirement income strategies, beneficiary planning, […]
Author: Marc J. Comer

Small businesses considering buying commercial property in New Jersey must evaluate a range of legal, financial, and operational factors. While ownership can offer long-term value and control, it also introduces significant risks if not properly structured. This guide outlines key considerations to help New Jersey business owners make informed decisions, minimize legal exposure, and successfully […]
Author: Robert L. Baker, Jr.

On January 28, 2026, staff of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s Divisions of Corporation Finance, Investment Management, and Trading and Markets issued a joint statement clarifying how existing federal securities laws apply to tokenized securities. The SEC’s “Statement on Tokenized Securities” does not establish new law, but it does provide greater clarity on the […]
Author: Dan Brecher
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!