The following oral arguments have been scheduled in the United States Supreme Court:
 
United Student Aid  Funds v. Espinosa (08-1134):
Issue: Whether student loan  creditor can conduct post-discharge collection where loan was discharged  without Adversary Proceeding.
NACBA member Geoff Walsh is  currently preparing an Amicus Brief for NACBA which will be filed in  mid-October. 
  Argument date: Dec.  1

Schwab v. Reilly (08-538):
Issue: Whether trustee who fails  to object to exemption may later sell the property upon learning its value  exceeds the claimed exemption amount
NACBA filed an amicus brief in  this case.
  Argument date:  Nov. 3

United States v. Milavetz (08-1225):
Issue: constitutionality of  526(a)(4), and whether bankruptcy attorneys are “debt relief agencies.”
  NACBA filed an  Amicus brief in this case.
  Argument date:  Dec. 1

In other news from  the Amicus Project:

The case of Morantz v. Torjesen, (No 08-1266), was argued before the Ninth Circuit  BAP, on September 25th.  That case  involves a challenge to the constitutionality of California’s bankruptcy-only  exemptions.  The same issue has also been  submitted to the Ninth Circuit BAP on briefs in the case of Sticka v. Applebaum, (No. 09-1134).

NACBA and the Center for  Responsible Lending, through NACBA member Christopher Burke, have filed an  Amicus brief in the case of MERS v.  Chong, No. 09-661 (D. Nev.) which addresses the issue of whether MERS has  standing to seek relief from stay.  The  Trustee recently moved the court to dismiss all but two of the seventeen  consolidated cases because "MERS failed to identify in its Certificate as  to Interested Parties, the current beneficial owners of the notes and deeds of  trust which are the subject of each of the appeals."

The Amicus Project also assisted  the debtor’s counsel in Americredit  Financial v. Penrod, (No. 08-60037) a negative equity case before the Ninth  Circuit.  The Debtor argued, among other  things, that funds advanced to pay off negative equity for a trade-in vehicle  do not constitute a purchase money obligation under the California Commercial  Code.  That case is calendared for oral  argument on November 5.