U.S. Code
»
Title 11
» Chapter CHAPTER 9— ADJUSTMENT OF DEBTS OF A MUNICIPALITY › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— ADMINISTRATION
11 U.S.C. § 930
Dismissal
(a) After notice and a hearing, the court may dismiss a case under this chapter for cause, including—(1) want of prosecution;(2) unreasonable delay by the debtor that is prejudicial to creditors;(3) failure to propose a plan within the time fixed under section 941 of this title;(4) if a plan is not accepted within any time fixed by the court;(5) denial of confirmation of a plan under section 943(b) of this title and denial of additional time for filing another plan or a modification of a plan; or(6) if the court has retained jurisdiction after confirmation of a plan—(A) material default by the debtor with respect to a term of such plan; or(B) termination of such plan by reason of the occurrence of a condition specified in such plan.(b) The court shall dismiss a case under this chapter if confirmation of a plan under this chapter is refused.(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2623, § 927; Pub. L. 98–353, title III, § 496, July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 384; renumbered § 930, Pub. L. 100–597, § 7(1), Nov. 3, 1988, 102 Stat. 3029.)Historical and Revision Noteslegislative statementsSection 927(b) of the House amendment is derived from section 927(b) of the Senate bill. The provision requires mandatory dismissal if confirmation of a plan is refused.
The House amendment deletes section 929 of the Senate amendment as unnecessary since the bankruptcy court has original exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under chapter 9.
The House amendment deletes section 930 of the Senate amendment and incorporates section 507(a)(1) by reference.
senate report no. 95–989Section 927 conforms to section 98 of current law [section 418 of former title 11]. The Section permits dismissal by the court for unreasonable delay by the debtor, failure to propose a plan, failure of acceptance of a plan, or default by the debtor under a conformed plan. Mandatory dismissal is required if confirmation is refused.
house report no. 95–595Section 926 [enacted as section 927] generally conforms to section 98(a) [section 418(a) of former title 11] of current law. Stylistic changes have been made to conform the language with that used in chapter 11, section 1112. The section permits dismissal by the court for unreasonable delay by the debtor that is prejudicial to creditors, failure to propose a plan, failure of confirmation of a plan, or material default by the debtor under a confirmed plan. The only significant change from current law lies in the second ground. Currently, section 98(a)(2) provides for dismissal if a proposed plan is not accepted, and section 98(b) requires dismissal if an accepted plan is not confirmed. In order to provide greater flexibility to the court, the debtor, and creditors, the bill allows the court to permit the debtor to propose another plan if the first plan is not confirmed. In that event the debtor need not, as under current law, commence the case all over again. This could provide savings in time and administrative expenses if a plan is denied confirmation.
Editorial NotesAmendments1984—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–353 substituted “confirmation of a plan under this chapter” for “confirmation”.
Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1984 AmendmentAmendment by Pub. L. 98–353 effective with respect to cases filed 90 days after July 10, 1984, see section 552(a) of Pub. L. 98–353, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case:
Graber v. Fuqua, 279 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. 2009).
Graber v. Fuqua, 279 S.W.3d 608 (Tex. 2009).
· cites it 4× “See 11 U.S.C. § 930 . Bankruptcy Code section 1112 governs dismissal of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, as well as conversion of a Chapter 11 case to another type of bankruptcy case.”
In Re New York City Off-Track Betting Corp., 434 B.R. 131 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010).
“” 11 U.S.C. § 930 (a)(2). The record clearly establishes that many of OTB’s creditors are being substantially harmed by OTB’s failure to complete a plan for the adjustment of its debts, and to pay undisputed amounts due to creditors during the administration of this case.”
Choy v. Redland Ins., 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11155 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002).
“( 11 U.S.C. §§ 930 , 1112; see also Rosh v.”
MSR Expl., Ltd. v. Meridian Oil, Inc., 74 F.3d 910 (9th Cir. 1996).
“§ 105 (a) (authority to prevent abuse of process); 11 U.S.C. § 303 (i)(2) (bad faith filing of involuntary petitions); 11 U.”
Mullin v. Orthwein, 772 So. 2d 30 (Fla. 4th DCA 2000).
“§ 707 (b) (dismissal for substantial abuse); 11 U.S.C. § 930 (dismissal under Chapter 9); 11 U.”
Metcalf v. Fitzgerald, 333 Conn. 1 (Conn. 2019).
“5 The question before this court is whether the Bankruptcy Code preempts vexatious litigation and CUTPA actions brought in state court that provide for penalties and sanctions, as well as damages for abuse of process.”
United States Dep't of the Interior v. Elliott, 40 B.R. 985 (W.D. Va. 1984).
“The ap-pellee objected to this claim on October 11, 1983, arguing that these civil penalties were not recoverable from the estate under Section 57(j) of the Bankruptcy Act, former 11 U.S.C. § 930 ) (1962). (Record at 20-21).”
LLC 1 07ch12487 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2019).
“§ 1307 (chapter 13 conversion or dismissal); see a/so 11 U.S.C. § 930 (chapter 9 dismissal), 11 U.”
In re: Juan M. Cazares Dominguez (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2026).
“See 11 U.S.C. § 930 (a) (stating that “[a]fter notice and a hearing, the court may dismiss a case under this chapter for cause”); 11 U.”
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.