U.S. Code » Title 11 » Chapter CHAPTER 1— GENERAL PROVISIONS

11 U.S.C. § 105

Power of court

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 11 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title. No provision of this title providing for the raising of an issue by a party in interest shall be construed to preclude the court from, sua sponte, taking any action or making any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process.(b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this section, a court may not appoint a receiver in a case under this title.(c) The ability of any district judge or other officer or employee of a district court to exercise any of the authority or responsibilities conferred upon the court under this title shall be determined by reference to the provisions relating to such judge, officer, or employee set forth in title 28. This subsection shall not be interpreted to exclude bankruptcy judges and other officers or employees appointed pursuant to chapter 6 of title 28 from its operation.(d) The court, on its own motion or on the request of a party in interest—(1) shall hold such status conferences as are necessary to further the expeditious and economical resolution of the case; and(2) unless inconsistent with another provision of this title or with applicable Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, may issue an order at any such conference prescribing such limitations and conditions as the court deems appropriate to ensure that the case is handled expeditiously and economically, including an order that—(A) sets the date by which the trustee must assume or reject an executory contract or unexpired lease; or(B) in a case under chapter 11 of this title—(i) sets a date by which the debtor, or trustee if one has been appointed, shall file a disclosure statement and plan;(ii) sets a date by which the debtor, or trustee if one has been appointed, shall solicit acceptances of a plan;(iii) sets the date by which a party in interest other than a debtor may file a plan;(iv) sets a date by which a proponent of a plan, other than the debtor, shall solicit acceptances of such plan;(v) fixes the scope and format of the notice to be provided regarding the hearing on approval of the disclosure statement; or(vi) provides that the hearing on approval of the disclosure statement may be combined with the hearing on confirmation of the plan.(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2555; Pub. L. 98–353, title I, § 118, July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 344; Pub. L. 99–554, title II, § 203, Oct. 27, 1986, 100 Stat. 3097; Pub. L. 103–394, title I, § 104(a), Oct. 22, 1994, 108 Stat. 4108; Pub. L. 109–8, title IV, § 440, Apr. 20, 2005, 119 Stat. 114; Pub. L. 111–327, § 2(a)(3), Dec. 22, 2010, 124 Stat. 3557.)Historical and Revision Notessenate report no. 95–989

Section 105 is derived from section 2a (15) of present law [section 11(a)(15) of former title 11], with two changes. First, the limitation on the power of a bankruptcy judge (the power to enjoin a court being reserved to the district judge) is removed as inconsistent with the increased powers and jurisdiction of the new bankruptcy court. Second, the bankruptcy judge is prohibited from appointing a receiver in a case under title 11 under any circumstances. The bankruptcy code has ample provision for the appointment of a trustee when needed. Appointment of a receiver would simply circumvent the established procedures.

This section is also an authorization, as required under 28 U.S.C. 2283, for a court of the United States to stay the action of a State court. As such, Toucey v. New York Life Insurance Company, 314 U.S. 118 (1941), is overruled.

Editorial NotesReferences in Text

The Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, referred to in subsec. (d)(2), are set out in the Appendix to this title.

Amendments

2010—Subsec. (d)(2). Pub. L. 111–327 inserted “may” after “Procedure,” in introductory provisions.

2005—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 109–8, § 440(1), struck out “, may” after “party in interest” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 109–8, § 440(2), added par. (1) and struck out former par. (1) which read as follows: “hold a status conference regarding any case or proceeding under this title after notice to the parties in interest; and”.

1994—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 103–394 added subsec. (d).

1986—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 99–554 inserted at end “No provision of this title providing for the raising of an issue by a party in interest shall be construed to preclude the court from, sua sponte, taking any action or making any determination necessary or appropriate to enforce or implement court orders or rules, or to prevent an abuse of process.”

1984—Subsecs. (a), (b). Pub. L. 98–353, § 118(1), struck out “bankruptcy” before “court”.

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 98–353, § 118(2), added subsec. (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2005 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 109–8 effective 180 days after Apr. 20, 2005, and not applicable with respect to cases commenced under this title before such effective date, except as otherwise provided, see section 1501 of Pub. L. 109–8, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.

Effective Date of 1994 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 103–394 effective Oct. 22, 1994, and not applicable with respect to cases commenced under this title before Oct. 22, 1994, see section 702 of Pub. L. 103–394, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.

Effective Date of 1986 Amendment

Effective date and applicability of amendment by Pub. L. 99–554 dependent upon the judicial district involved, see section 302(d), (e) of Pub. L. 99–554, set out as a note under section 581 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Effective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–353 effective July 10, 1984, see section 122(a) of Pub. L. 98–353, set out as an Effective Date note under section 151 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5,463 cases (777 in the last 5 years), 1933–2026 · leading case: Celotex Corp. v. Edwards
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Celotex Corp. v. Edwards (1995) scotus · cites it 14× “*303 On October 17, 1990, the Bankruptcy Court exercised its equitable powers under 11 U. S. C. § 105 (a) and issued an injunction (hereinafter Section 105 Injunction) to augment the protection afforded Celotex by the automatic stay.”
In Re John H. Gledhill and Gloria K. Gledhill, Debtors, State Bank of Southern Utah v. John H. Gledhill and Gloria K. Gl (1996) ca10 · cites it 22× “60(b) for rehef from the order granting State Bank rehef from the automatic stay (“Rule 60(b) motion”), and (2) to reimpose the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 105 (a) (“§ 105(a) motion”).”
Jove Engineering, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service (1996) ca11 · cites it 13× “§ 362 (h), 1 and limiting Jove’s relief under 11 U.S.C. § 105 . The district court limited Jove’s relief to the amount of $500 as attorney fees, to be offset against any bankruptcy liability to IRS, for the violation by IRS of 11 U.”
Padilla v. GMAC Mortgage Corp. (In Re Padilla) (2008) paeb · cites it 15× “enforcement of § 1327(a) through 11 U.S.C. § 105 (a) ...............”
McGowan v. Ries (In Re McGowan) (1998) bap8 · cites it 24× “McGowan appeals, asserting that the Trustee's objection was untimely under Minnesota Local Bankruptcy Rule 2003-1 and that the bankruptcy court improperly used its equitable powers under 11 U.S.C. § 105 (a) to consider the untimely objection.”
In re Tabor (2018) ilnb · cites it 7× “%20%C2%A7%20105"> 11 U.S.C. § 105 (a) ; see also Zerand-Bernal Grp.”
Mitan v. Duval (2009) ca6 · cites it 12× “The bankruptcy court found that its order did not violate our mandate and held that it had the authority to enter a nunc pro tunc conversion order, citing 11 U.S.C. § 105 , Bankruptcy Procedure Rule 1001, and the bankruptcy court's "inherent authority.”
Kovacs v. United States (2010) ca7 · cites it 9× “The IRS moved to dismiss Ko-vacs’ claim on jurisdictional grounds, but the bankruptcy court denied the motion on the basis that it had jurisdiction to grant relief to Kovacs pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105 (a) and 106 and 26 U.”
In re Royal Manor Management, Inc. (2015) bap6 · cites it 13× “§' 1927 and the court’s inherent authority under 11 U.S.C. § 105 , representing the attorney fees expended by counsel for the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the “Committee”)- and, post-confirmation, the Liquidation Trustee and his counsel (“Trustee” or “Liquidation…”
Graber v. Fuqua (2009) tex · cites it 10× “See 11 U.S.C. § 105 (a). Section 105(a) is another example of where, instead of custom-building a bankruptcy rule, Congress imported general federal law that does not preempt, and said nothing to change that result.”
In Re Varona (2008) vaeb · cites it 12× “The Varonas argue that Claim Number 1 and Claim Number 9 are fraudulent and subject to sanction by this Court pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105 . 4 The Varo-nas allege that an attempt to collect a debt which is time-barred has been found to be a violation of the Fair Debt Collection…”
Barry v. Sommers (In Re Cochener) (2007) txsd · cites it 22× “11 and 11 U.S.C. § 105 against Barry for causing unnecessary delay and expense to the debtor’s bankruptcy estate arguing the motion to dismiss that Barry filed on the debtor’s behalf in June of 2001 was frivolous, and that Barry’s failure either to appear with the debtor or to…”
Show all 5,463 citing cases →
— 11 U.S.C. § 105(a) — 51 cases
Computer Task Group, Inc. v. Brotby (In Re Brotby) (2003) bap9
Behrmann v. National Heritage Foundation, Inc. (2011) ca4
Picard v. J. Ezra Merkin, Gabriel Capital, L.P. (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC) (2014) nysb
In re Mullinix (2018) flnb
In re Plummer (2014) flmb
— 11 U.S.C. § 105(b) — 1 case
Bavelis v. Doukas (In Re Bavelis) (2011) ohsb
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.