Epstein owes Ponoroff money. On January 15, Ponoroff files a bankruptcy petition against Epstein. Epstein files a pro se answer. In his answer he states: "I don't belong here, and he can't put me here." Read section 303 and then answer the following questions. Answer questions A-F (seen in the 2 photographs).

CY CASE 99 don't teach Con Law, but we do seem to remember some amendment to the Constitution prohibiting involuntary servitude. Is that what the result of an involuntary Chapter 13 would be? Maybe and maybe not, but even putting that question aside, how successful do you think most involuntary Chapter 13 cases would be, given that we're sure that the debtor cannot be forced to continue working in her present job if she chooses not to do so? The reasons behind Congress's decision not to permit involuntary Chapter 13 cases apply with comparable logic to Chapter 12. Just as not all debtor relief chapters are available under section 303, likewise an involuntary case cannot be brought against certain debtors who would be eligible to bring a voluntary proceeding under a chapter that is available. Specifically, a farmer or family farmer is immune from a filing under section 303, and involuntary cases may not be initiated against not- for-profit corporations. PROBLEM 4-1: INVOLUNTARY PETITIONS LITIGABLE ISSUES Epstein owes Ponoroff money. On January 15, Ponoroff files a bankruptcy petition against Epstein. Epstein files a pro se answer. In his answer he states: "I don't belong here, and he can't put me here." Read section 303 and then answer the following questions. (a) Does Ponoroff have standing to try to force Epstein into bankruptcy? What do you need to know in order to answer that question? (b) If Ponoroff cannot alone force Epstein into bankruptcy, lo "what does he need to do? (c) Suppose Ponoroff can alone force Epstein into bankruptcy, but Epstein claims Ponoroff's debt arose out of a crooked card game. Does that change anything? See Credit Union Liquidity Servs., LLL v. Green Hill Dev. Co. (In re Green Hill Dev. Co.), 741 F.3d 651 (5th Cir. 2014). (d) Suppose Ponoroff's debt arose out of the sale of goods for $18,000, but as to which Epstein maintains a setoff of $6,000 based on a breach of warranty claim relating to the goods (and Epstein has only four other creditors)? Cf. Dept. of Revenue v. Blixseth, 942 F.3d If so, then there may be a question about an involuntary Chapter 11 case against an b ividual debtor since, as you may recall from Unit 3, since the 2005 Amendments property of the ate for an individual debtor includes post-petition income. See section 1115(a). See also rgaret Howard, Bankruptcy Bondage, 2009 U. ILL. L. REV. 191; Erwin Chemerinsky, stitutional Issues Posed in the Bankruptcy Abuse and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, 79 AM. KR, L.J. 571, 586-88 (2005).ISSUES THAT CAN (BUT GENERALLY DON'T) ARISE IN CASES UNDER ANY CHAPTER UNIT 4 100 1179 (9th Cir. 2019) (affirming a trenchant bankruptcy court decision). (e) Suppose Ponoroff can show Epstein really owes him the money and only one petitioning creditor is required to force Epstein into bankruptcy. If Ponoroff files an involuntary case, is he entitled to relief if he can prove Epstein is insolvent? [Hint: the answer to this question is "maybe." Do you know why?] Cf. section 101(32). What does Ponoroff have to prove in order to have an order for relief entered on his petition? See section 303(h). (f) Now, suppose Ponoroff knows there really aren't any grounds to put Epstein into bankruptcy, but Ponoroff files an involuntary petition against him anyway because he's angry about Epstein not pulling his weight on their last book and he figures this will embarrass him but good and maybe cause him to lose his job- that will serve the no-account slacker right. Does the Code provide Epstein with any recourse? See In re Forever Green Athletic Fields, Inc., 804 F.3d 328 (3d. Cir. 2015) PROBLEM 4-2: MAKING SENSE OF STATUTORY LANGUAGE When you read section 303 the first time-you did read it when we told you to do so, right-you noticed that subsection (b) requires that the petitioning creditors' claims be non-contingent. Assume Markell beats up Nickles, and Nickles sues Markell for battery to recover his medical expenses and lost wages. Is Nickles' claim "contingent" up to the point that final judgment is entered in his favor? See In re All Media Properties, Inc., 5 B.R. 126 (Bankr. .D. Tex. 1980), aff'd mem., 646 F.2d 193 (5th Cir. 1981). Is it unliquidated: What's the significance of each