that courts are sharply split on whether the exception for statements respecting the debtor’s financial condition should be interpreted broadly or narrowly. Id. at 112-13 (collecting cases). “A broad interpretation would include any statement that reflects the financial condition of the debtor. On the other hand, a narrow interpretation would find that a statement relates to financial condition only when it provides information ‘as to [a debtor’s] overall financial health.’ ” Id. at 112 (internal citations omitted). 56. Several courts have addressed whether certain statements speak to the overall financial health of the debtor sufficient to satisfy the narrow interpretation of the exception. See id. at 113 (citing Weiss v. Alicea (In re Alicea), 230 B.R. 492, 504 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1999) (<HOLDING>); In re Sansoucy, 136 B.R. 20, 23
holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen holding that a hearsay statement can itself be considered in first determining if a conspiracy existed when the statement was made holding that defendant who introduced hearsay statement waived objection to admission of another part of same statement holding that in employees age discrimination suit against former employer supervisors statement to employee was not hearsay even though the statement was offered for its truth because the statement was an admission by a party opponent holding that statement about debtor lacking present ability to pay was essentially statement of insolvency