Waiting to hear from an attorney on this, because I know very little about bankruptcy, but the article says the filing includes:
#1. a list of nearly 100 names who could "potentially pursue claims"
It goes on to list:
#2. "possible financial claims" of Baez, along with the state and city debts assessed by the court in her trial.
My questions:
#1. I thought bankruptcy was to settle existing debt - not something that could exist in future. Why would, for instance ZFG need to prove whether or not a potential claim was dischargeable (although one section of the bankruptcy code does exempt "for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity").
#2 First, those agency debts listed are not "possible claims" they are actual owed debt, and except for Baez' per court decree. IIRC we were told the $ related to her trial and owed to those governmental agencies cannot be discharged via bankruptcy. Of those listed, wouldn't only what she owed to Baez be dischargeable?
