U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Hawaii

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Hawaii is not a separate branch of the judiciary. It is a unit of the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, created by statute and staffed by judges who decide a defined set of questions about debt, property, and the relief a filer can obtain. Congress built this arrangement in 28 U.S.C. § 151, which makes the bankruptcy judges of a district a unit of the district court, and that unit is the bankruptcy court. The district court holds original jurisdiction over all cases under title 11 through 28 U.S.C. § 1334. By a standing order of reference, the district court hands those cases to the bankruptcy court for daily handling. One courthouse, two levels of authority working in tandem.

Judges here do not hold Article III commissions. Under 28 U.S.C. § 152, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals appoints each bankruptcy judge to a fourteen year term, and the same court can reappoint them. A judge sitting on this bankruptcy court in Honolulu hears the full run of consumer and business filings that arise across the islands, from a single homeowner behind on a mortgage to a hotel operator restructuring millions in debt. The source of the judge's power is the referral from the district court, not lifetime tenure. That single fact shapes what the judge may finally decide, and it explains why litigants care so much about how a matter gets classified early in the case.

The classification that governs is core versus non-core, drawn from 28 U.S.C. § 157. Core proceedings arise under title 11 or arise in a case under title 11. They include allowance and disallowance of claims, objections to discharge, confirmation of plans, turnover of estate property, and actions to recover preferences. On a core matter the bankruptcy court enters final judgments and orders, and a losing party appeals from there. Non-core proceedings are merely related to the case. A state law breach of contract claim the debtor could have filed in state court is the standard example. On those, unless the parties consent, the judge issues proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law, and the district court enters the final order after its own review.

Two Supreme Court decisions frame that dividing line. In Stern v. Marshall, 564 U.S. 462 (2011), the Court held that a bankruptcy judge could not enter final judgment on a debtor's state law counterclaim, even though the statute labeled it core, because resolving the counterclaim was not necessary to ruling on the creditor's proof of claim. The decision produced a category lawyers now call Stern claims, matters that are statutorily core but constitutionally reserved for an Article III court. Four years later, Wellness International Network, Ltd. v. Sharif, 575 U.S. 665 (2015), held that a party may consent, expressly or through litigation conduct, to final adjudication by the bankruptcy court. Consent is a real strategic choice in Hawaii cases, and careful litigants state their position on it in their first substantive filings.

Appeals from the bankruptcy court follow two roads, and the choice belongs to the parties within limits set by statute. Under 28 U.S.C. § 158, a litigant may appeal to the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, or to the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. The panel is made up of bankruptcy judges from within the circuit who hear appeals by consent; if a party timely elects the district court, the appeal proceeds there instead. From either the district court or the panel, the next stop is the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and after that the Supreme Court by certiorari. Only five circuits run appellate panels at all, the First, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth, and those panels together received 329 filings in the twelve months ending March 31, 2025.

The mechanics of the referral matter in daily practice. When a debtor files a petition, the clerk opens the case in the bankruptcy court and assigns it to a judge under the court's internal procedures. Most disputes never leave that forum, because the district court's reference stays in place unless someone moves to withdraw it. A party can ask the district court to withdraw the reference under 28 U.S.C. § 157(d), either because the matter requires substantial consideration of non-bankruptcy federal law or because the party wants an Article III judge and a jury. Withdrawal is the exception. The ordinary state of affairs is a single bankruptcy court that manages the case from petition through final decree.

Understanding this structure helps a litigant read the docket. Filings sit under one district, the same small set of judges see them, and a creditor holding claims against a debtor who also faces a related state lawsuit needs to know which forum controls which question. The answer usually turns on the core versus non-core divide and on whether consent has been given. Practitioners in Honolulu treat that analysis as the first move, because it determines whether a ruling will be final on entry or subject to district court review. Once you know the court and how its authority runs, the next question is practical. Which chapter of the Bankruptcy Code is the case running under, because the chapter dictates the shape of everything that follows.

Every case in the bankruptcy court runs under a chapter of the Bankruptcy Code, and the chapter decides who controls the assets, how long the case lasts, and what the debtor keeps at the end. Chapter 7 is liquidation. A trustee gathers the debtor's non-exempt property, sells it, and pays creditors by statutory priority, while the debtor sheds most remaining personal liability through the discharge in 11 U.S.C. § 727. The bulk of consumer filings in the bankruptcy court are chapter 7 cases, because the timeline is short and, in the common no-asset case, there is nothing to sell and the creditors receive nothing. A typical individual case closes within a few months of the petition.

Not everyone qualifies for that path. The means test in 11 U.S.C. § 707(b) compares a debtor's income to the Hawaii median and can push a higher earning filer out of chapter 7. A debtor whose income clears the median may still overcome the presumption of abuse by documenting allowed expenses, but the bankruptcy court can dismiss the case or convert it to chapter 13 when the numbers do not work. Business debtors filing under chapter 7 face a different reality. The trustee often shuts the operation down, so owners who want to keep a going concern alive look to the reorganization chapters instead.

Chapter 13 is the repayment chapter for individuals with regular income. The debtor proposes a plan lasting three to five years under 11 U.S.C. § 1322, and the bankruptcy court confirms it if the plan meets the standards in 11 U.S.C. § 1325. Secured creditors get paid their collateral value, priority claims like recent taxes and support obligations get paid in full, and general unsecured creditors receive whatever the plan and the debtor's disposable income allow. The draw is control. A homeowner behind on a mortgage can cure the arrears over the life of the plan and keep the house, something chapter 7 does not offer. The standing chapter 13 trustee collects payments and distributes them.

Chapter 11 is reorganization, used by businesses and by individuals whose debts exceed the chapter 13 limits. The debtor usually stays in control as a debtor in possession under 11 U.S.C. § 1107, running the enterprise while it negotiates with creditors. The case moves toward a disclosure statement and a plan under sections 1121 through 1129, and the bankruptcy court can confirm a plan over a dissenting class through the cramdown provisions if the statutory tests are met. Subchapter V, added by the Small Business Reorganization Act and codified at 11 U.S.C. § 1181 and following, gives smaller business debtors a faster, cheaper track with a trustee who helps broker a consensual plan. For a Hawaii restaurant group or a small construction firm, subchapter V has become the practical route into the bankruptcy court.

Chapter 12 is narrow but real. It serves family farmers and family fishermen with regular annual income, and it works much like chapter 13 with debt limits and plan features written for agricultural and fishing operations, as set out in 11 U.S.C. § 1201 and following. Hawaii's farms, ranches, and aquaculture businesses give the chapter a place in this district even though the filing numbers are small. A grower whose income swings with the harvest can shape plan payments around that cycle, and the bankruptcy court judges the plan against the specialized standards Congress wrote for these debtors rather than the general consumer rules.

The volume tells you why the system stays busy. Bankruptcy petitions filed nationwide reached 529,080 in the twelve months ending March 31, 2025, an increase of 13 percent, and 86 of the 90 bankruptcy courts reported higher filings than the year before. Those figures cover every chapter and every district, so the Hawaii court sits inside a rising national trend rather than an isolated one. When filings climb, the mix usually shifts toward chapter 7 and chapter 13 consumer cases, while the harder reorganizations under chapter 11 move at their own slower pace regardless of the headline count.

Choosing the chapter is the debtor's first strategic decision, and it is rarely free. Income, asset values, the nature of the debt, and the goal of keeping or surrendering property all feed the choice. A wage earner with a house to save leans toward chapter 13. A person with unmanageable medical bills and few assets often files chapter 7. An operating company with viable revenue and too much debt heads to chapter 11 or subchapter V. Creditors watch the chapter selection closely, because their leverage and their likely recovery change with it, and a creditor who thinks a debtor filed the wrong chapter to gain an edge can raise that objection in the bankruptcy court.

Conversion and dismissal keep the choice from being permanent. A chapter 13 debtor who cannot keep up with plan payments may convert to chapter 7 under 11 U.S.C. § 1307, and a chapter 11 case that stalls can be converted or dismissed for cause. The bankruptcy court weighs those motions against the interests of creditors and the estate, and it can order relief that neither side asked for when the record supports it. Whatever chapter frames the case, the disputes that arise inside it follow their own procedural tracks. Those tracks, the adversary proceeding and the contested matter, are where the real litigation happens.

A bankruptcy case is a container, and litigation lives inside it in two forms. The first is the adversary proceeding, a lawsuit filed within the case and governed by Part VII of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, beginning with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7001. It has a complaint, a summons, an answer, discovery, and a trial, and it carries its own docket number under the main case. The second is the contested matter under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014, which is started by motion and resolved on a faster schedule. Knowing which track a dispute belongs on is the first thing a litigant sorts out before filing anything in the bankruptcy court.

Rule 7001 lists the disputes that require an adversary proceeding. Recovering money or property, determining the validity or priority of a lien, objecting to or revoking a discharge, and determining that a particular debt survives the discharge all belong on that track. A creditor who claims a debt was incurred by fraud files an adversary complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 523 to have the debt declared nondischargeable. A trustee who wants to unwind a transfer files an adversary complaint too. The bankruptcy court treats these as full lawsuits, and the party who ignores the form and tries to shortcut a section 7001 dispute by motion usually gets sent back to start over.

The automatic stay is the feature that makes bankruptcy work, and it is the source of constant motion practice. Under 11 U.S.C. § 362, the filing of a petition halts almost every collection effort at once, including lawsuits, foreclosures, repossessions, and collection calls. The stay gives the debtor breathing room and gives the bankruptcy court time to sort out competing claims in an orderly way. A creditor who wants to proceed anyway, say a lender seeking to foreclose on a property the debtor cannot afford, files a motion for relief from stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d). That motion is a contested matter, heard quickly, and the bankruptcy court decides whether cause exists or whether the debtor lacks equity in property that is not needed for a reorganization.

Violating the stay carries teeth. A creditor who keeps collecting after the petition can be liable for actual damages, and for punitive damages in the case of a willful violation against an individual debtor. Because the consequences are real, sophisticated creditors calendar the petition date, freeze collection, and bring their arguments to the bankruptcy court rather than acting on their own. A debtor who believes the stay was violated files a motion, and the court can award relief without a full adversary proceeding when the facts are clear.

Avoidance actions are where the trustee goes on offense. A preference under 11 U.S.C. § 547 is a payment to a creditor on an old debt, made within ninety days before the petition, or within a year for an insider, that let that creditor receive more than it would have in a chapter 7 liquidation. The trustee sues to claw the payment back so it can be shared among all creditors. Defenses exist, including the ordinary course of business defense and the contemporaneous exchange for new value, and the party sued raises them as affirmative defenses in the adversary proceeding. The bankruptcy court decides whether the transfer fits the statute and whether a defense applies.

Fraudulent transfers reach further back. Under 11 U.S.C. § 548, the trustee can undo a transfer made within two years before the petition if the debtor acted with intent to hinder creditors, or if the debtor received less than reasonably equivalent value while insolvent. State fraudulent transfer law, borrowed through 11 U.S.C. § 544, often extends the reach to four years or more. These cases turn on valuation and solvency, and they usually require expert testimony about what a business was worth on a given date. A creditor who received a suspicious transfer before the filing should expect the trustee to examine it and, if the numbers support a claim, to file suit in the bankruptcy court.

Claims litigation is the everyday work that touches almost every case. A creditor asserts its right to payment by filing a proof of claim, and the debtor or trustee can object under 11 U.S.C. § 502. The objection is a contested matter, and if it raises issues that belong in an adversary proceeding, such as the validity of a lien, the dispute converts into one. The bankruptcy court rules on the amount and the priority of each claim, and those rulings determine who gets paid and in what order when the estate distributes money. A creditor that misses the claims bar date can lose its distribution entirely, so deadlines drive strategy as much as the merits do.

Discovery and evidence in these disputes follow the civil rules through the Part VII and Rule 9014 cross references, so depositions, document requests, and summary judgment all apply. Debtors move the court through their own tools, including motions to value collateral, to avoid judicial liens that impair exemptions under 11 U.S.C. § 522(f), and to assume or reject contracts and leases under 11 U.S.C. § 365. Creditors move through relief from stay, claim objections, and, in the harder cases, complaints objecting to discharge under 11 U.S.C. § 727. Each side is asking the same forum for a different result, and the outcome depends on matching the right procedural vehicle to the right statute. A litigant who brings a preference claim as a motion, or a stay dispute as a full adversary complaint, wastes time the case rarely has to spare.

The order the bankruptcy court signs is not always the last word. A party who loses a final ruling has fourteen days to file a notice of appeal, a deadline set by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8002 and enforced strictly. Miss it, and the right evaporates. The first decision an appellant makes is forum, because a bankruptcy court in this circuit sits under two possible reviewers.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a), an appeal from the bankruptcy court in Hawaii travels to the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii by default. The appellant may instead elect the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel, a three-judge body of sitting bankruptcy judges drawn from across the circuit. Either side can pull the case back to the district court by objecting to the panel in time, so the BAP hears an appeal only when every party is content to keep it there. Five circuits run such panels, the Ninth among them, and the verified count shows 329 bankruptcy appellate panel filings nationwide in the year ending March 31, 2025.

The two forums differ in ways that matter. A district judge is an Article III generalist who may see few bankruptcy appeals in a year; the panel hears them constantly and knows the code cold. Some litigants prefer the district court because its rulings bind no other bankruptcy court and travel only on the strength of their reasoning, while a panel decision carries persuasive weight across the circuit's bankruptcy courts. Speed and the reviewer's familiarity with the code both weigh on the choice, along with the odds of a published opinion.

Whichever reviewer hears it, the standard is the same. The bankruptcy court's findings of fact survive unless clearly erroneous, and its legal conclusions get fresh review. Discretionary calls, like whether to grant relief from stay or approve a settlement, draw abuse-of-discretion review. This division explains why appeals over valuation or a debtor's good faith rarely succeed. The trial judge in the bankruptcy court watched the witnesses, and the appellate forum did not.

Not every order can be appealed at once. Final orders go up as of right, but interlocutory rulings need the bankruptcy court's leave under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(3). Finality in bankruptcy is measured differently than in ordinary civil litigation, because a single case contains many discrete disputes. An order resolving one adversary proceeding or one contested matter can be final while the larger case grinds on. Litigants who guess wrong about finality lose months.

From the district court or the panel, the road runs to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and from there, by certiorari, to the Supreme Court. The circuit reviews the bankruptcy court's work under the same clearly erroneous and de novo standards, giving no special deference to the intermediate reviewer. Two layers of appeal still apply the same lens; neither offers a fresh trial of the facts the bankruptcy court found.

The mechanics reward attention. After the notice, the appellant must designate the record and state the issues under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009, and an order left unstayed stays enforceable while the appeal runs. A debtor who appeals a stay-relief order without seeking a stay pending appeal under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8007 may find the collateral foreclosed before the reviewer rules, mooting the fight. Ask this court for that stay first; the appellate forum expects it.

Bankruptcy rarely arrives in a vacuum. Most debtors reach the court with lawsuits, foreclosures, or collection actions already pending in Hawaii's state courts. The automatic stay of 11 U.S.C. § 362 freezes those proceedings the moment the petition is filed, and it reaches wide. State-court trials, garnishments, foreclosure sales, and eviction actions all halt until the bankruptcy bench lifts the stay or the case closes. A creditor who wants to finish a state suit must ask this court for relief under section 362(d).

A party may also move a pending state-court claim into the federal system. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1452, a claim related to the bankruptcy can be removed, after which the court decides whether to keep it or send it back. The mirror doctrine is abstention. 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c) lets the bankruptcy bench decline state-law questions better left to Hawaii's courts, and in some cases requires it. A wrongful-foreclosure claim rooted entirely in state law may return to the state judge even while the debtor sits in bankruptcy.

Two limits deserve attention. This court cannot revisit a final state-court judgment; the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars that, so a debtor who lost in state court cannot relitigate the same loss here. A state-court judgment already entered can also carry preclusive effect, meaning the court may treat issues actually decided there as settled. Preclusion can decide a dischargeability fight before the bankruptcy bench hears any evidence. A litigant who ignored a state case, assuming bankruptcy would erase it, often finds the opposite.

The practical lesson is coordination. Counsel who tracks the state docket and the bankruptcy docket together can decide when to seek stay relief, when to remove, and when to let a state judge finish. Timing is the whole game when two courts hold pieces of one dispute. This court will not manage that timing for the parties.

Because appellate work in the court demands a different skill set than trial practice, litigants sometimes change counsel between stages. This directory lets a client compare firms by verified practice area, and it marks how listings are ordered, including any plan-tier placement, so the ranking stays visible rather than hidden.

Section one described the bankruptcy court as a unit of the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, an arm of the Article III court that refers bankruptcy matters to it. That relationship shapes the choice of counsel. A lawyer who practices in this bankruptcy court has to know both the code and the referral structure that lets the district court withdraw a case or hear an appeal. The right fit depends first on which side of the caption you occupy.

Debtor practice and creditor practice pull in different directions. A debtor's lawyer files the petition, prepares schedules, shepherds the plan, and defends the discharge, working to keep the client's fresh start intact while the bankruptcy court weighs objections. A creditor's lawyer does the opposite work: filing proofs of claim, moving for stay relief, objecting to confirmation, and, in the sharper cases, bringing complaints to except a debt from discharge. Some firms handle both across different cases, and a smaller number represent trustees. Ask any candidate which role they carry most often in the bankruptcy court, because the daily reflexes differ.

Trustees sit at the center of most cases, and counsel who appear before the bankruptcy bench regularly will have a working history with them. In Chapter 7, a panel trustee gathers and liquidates non-exempt assets. In Chapter 13, a standing trustee reviews plans and distributes payments. The U.S. Trustee, a Justice Department office, oversees both and polices abuse. A lawyer who knows how a given trustee reads a valuation or scrutinizes expenses can steer a case away from disputes this court would otherwise resolve. That familiarity is simply knowing the audience.

Bankruptcy is one of the few fields where a statute governs what the lawyer earns. Under 11 U.S.C. § 329, a debtor's attorney must disclose every fee paid or promised, and the bankruptcy court can order excessive fees returned. Professionals a trustee or the estate hires need approval to be employed under 11 U.S.C. § 327 and to be paid under 11 U.S.C. § 330, with the bankruptcy bench reviewing the reasonableness of each request. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2016 sets the disclosure form. Expect a debtor's lawyer to explain fees plainly, because this court may look at them.

Chapter choice changes the money too. Many Chapter 13 lawyers work under a presumptively reasonable fee the court will approve without a detailed application, paid partly through the plan over time. Chapter 7 counsel usually collect before filing, since fees owed for prepetition work can be discharged. A business Chapter 11 runs on court-approved employment and periodic fee applications the bankruptcy bench scrutinizes line by line. Knowing which model applies tells you what to budget and when.

Conflicts deserve an early conversation. A firm that regularly represents lenders may be unable to take a debtor whose largest creditor is a client, and this court expects professionals to disclose their connections before employment. Under 11 U.S.C. § 327, estate counsel must be disinterested, and a hidden conflict can undo an appointment and the fees that followed it. Ask a prospective firm whether it has represented any party in your case, then let the answer guide you.

Vetting a firm for this the court means checking more than a website. Where a firm has earned verification, this directory records dated, editor-reviewed checks, so you can see when its credentials were last confirmed rather than trusting a static claim. The checks look at licensure, good standing, the right to appear before the court, and the practice areas a firm actually handles. Because listings can be ordered by plan tier, the directory marks that ordering openly, letting you tell paid placement from a match on the merits.

Use the verification the way you would use a trustee's scrutiny. Confirm that the lawyer is admitted and in good standing, that they appear in this the bankruptcy bench rather than only in state collection work, and that the date on the check is recent. A firm that litigates preference actions all week is a different animal from one that files uncontested consumer petitions, though both may call themselves bankruptcy lawyers. The dated record lets you match the firm to the fight.

Two questions cut through most sales talk. First, ask how often the lawyer has argued a contested matter or an adversary proceeding in this this court, beyond filing cases that settled. Second, ask who will actually stand at the podium, since intake partners and hearing counsel are sometimes different people. A candidate who answers both directly, and who can describe how the district court's referral and appeal structure affects strategy, understands the forum you are entering.

Local knowledge carries real weight. The court in Hawaii serves an island economy where real property, small business, tourism-linked debt, and leasehold interests recur, and a lawyer who has seen those patterns will anticipate how a trustee values a leasehold or a struggling restaurant. Counsel from the mainland can appear, though someone grounded here reads the room faster. Weigh that against cost and the size of the dispute.

Match the lawyer to the task and the stage. A consumer debtor seeking a clean discharge needs steady filing work and a fair fee. A creditor chasing a fraudulent transfer needs a litigator who tries adversary proceedings before the bankruptcy bench. A company reorganizing needs someone fluent in plan negotiation and the fee rules this court enforces. The directory's dated checks narrow the field, and the questions above finish the job.