Keathley v. Buddy Ayers Construction, Inc. · ¶52

For similar reasons, a bankruptcy court is also well positioned to mitigate any harms to the “integrity of the bankruptcy system,” and the judicial system generally, caused by inconsistent positions. For instance, in response to deliberate nondisclosures, a bankruptcy court may, in certain circumstances, revoke an order of confirmation, e.g., §1330(a), decline to discharge the debtor, §§727(a)(2), (4), fine the debtor, 18 U. S. C. §401, or refer the debtor to the United States Attorney’s Office for potential perjury, §§152, 1621. It can also protect the broader judicial system’s interest in preventing “‘inconsistent court determinations,’” New Hampshire, 532 U. S., at 751, by simply modifying its earlier orders. Applying judicial estoppel to a case (and thereby dismissing it) arguably has the opposite effect. Although judicial estoppel might prevent inconsistent judgments in some…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.