Belton v. GE Capital Retail Bank, 961 F.3d 612

Debtors Belton and Bruce held credit cards with GE and Citi; the Banks charged off delinquent accounts and reported them as "charged off" to credit agencies.
Each Debtor obtained a Chapter 7 discharge; §524(a)(2) discharge orders enjoin collection of discharged debts.
After discharge, the credit reports still showed the charged-off debts without noting the bankruptcy, prompting the Debtors to reopen their bankruptcy cases and bring adversary proceedings seeking contempt and damages for violations of the discharge injunctions.
The Banks moved to compel arbitration under mandatory arbitration clauses in the card agreements; the bankruptcy and district courts denied those motions.
The Second Circuit affirmed, holding that disputes seeking contempt enforcement of a bankruptcy discharge are not arbitrable because the Bankruptcy Code is in inherent conflict with the Federal Arbitration Act in this context; the court found Anderson controlling and held Epic Systems did not overturn that rule.
The court declined to resolve whether nationwide class adjudication or bankruptcy-court jurisdiction to adjudicate nationwide contempt is permissible, expressing serious doubts about those issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Arbitrability of claims seeking enforcement/contempt for violation of a bankruptcy discharge	Such claims must be decided by the bankruptcy court; they are non‑arbitrable and implicate ongoing bankruptcy supervision and equitable powers	Arbitration clauses require enforcement; arbitrators/state courts can resolve scope of discharge	Not arbitrable; FAA displaced by Bankruptcy Code in this context (Anderson controls)
Impact of Epic Systems on McMahon/Anderson framework	Anderson remains binding; an "inherent conflict" can displace the FAA when the Code is ambiguous	Epic Systems requires a text‑first approach and makes statutory silence weigh against displacement of the FAA	Epic Systems refines McMahon but does not abrogate it; Anderson survives where the Code is ambiguous and an inherent conflict exists
Class adjudication and bankruptcy court authority to punish nationwide contempt	Nationwide class could aggregate many contempt claims	Bankruptcy court likely lacks authority to enforce contempt for another court's orders; nationwide class questionable	Not decided; court expresses serious doubt about nationwide class certification and bankruptcy court jurisdiction

In re Anderson, 884 F.3d 382 (2d Cir. 2018) (held discharge‑enforcement contempt claims non‑arbitrable; informs controlling precedent)
Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018) (clarified that statutory text is critical when asserting displacement of the FAA)
Shearson/Am. Express Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220 (1987) (established test for when a statute displaces the FAA: text, history, or inherent conflict)
Taggart v. Lorenzen, 139 S. Ct. 1795 (2019) (discussed enforcement and contempt in the bankruptcy context)
MBNA Am. Bank, N.A. v. Hill, 436 F.3d 104 (2d Cir. 2006) (cited on interaction of bankruptcy law and arbitration)
In re U.S. Lines, Inc., 197 F.3d 631 (2d Cir. 1999) (addressed statutory conflict and arbitration displacement)
In re Crocker, 941 F.3d 206 (5th Cir. 2019) (joined circuits holding bankruptcy court enforcement central; contempt not for arbiters)
Walls v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 276 F.3d 502 (9th Cir. 2002) (bankruptcy court enforcement of injunctions exclusive)
Alderwoods Grp., Inc. v. Garcia, 682 F.3d 958 (11th Cir. 2012) (same)
Bassette v. Avco Fin. Servs., Inc., 230 F.3d 439 (1st Cir. 2000) (recognized differing view on forum for discharge enforcement; district court limited nationwide relief on remand)