Great article from HuffingtonPost.com re student loan lender Navient Corp./Sallie Mae can be found here.
Over the last couple of years Sen. Elizabeth Warren (pioneer for bankruptcy!) has continually voiced criticism of Navient Corp./Sallie Mae for taking advantage of taxpayer-subsidized funds to reduce its costs without passing along those savings to student loan borrowers.
I have pulled some juicy tidbits from the article here: Read more…
The Force Awakens: Objections to Exemptions After Law v. Siegel
Thursday, February 18, 2016 Program 12:00 – 1:00 P.M.
Location Los Angeles County Bar Association 1055 W. 7th Street, Suite 2700 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Read more…
I’ve always been a fan of Justice Robert Jackson’s writing. Judge Posner, of the Seventh Circuit, reminds me of such entertaining writing. I hope he accepts the next invitation to join the supreme bench.
In response to debtor’s argument that 707(a)’s grounds for dismissal are exclusive, Judge Posner rebuts by saying:
The fact that the three grounds in §707(a) are introduced by “including” tugs against the argument that they are exclusive, or that they exhaust the statute. If you tell your maid to iron your clothes, including your Bond Street tuxedo and its cummerbund, there is no implication that she is not to iron your other clothes.
Judge Tighe did a great analysis on eligibility of trusts to file bankruptcy. Her tentative is below In re: The Shahla Dowlati 2005 Living Trust.
UST moves to dismiss this chapter 11 case because the Shahla Doowlati 2005 Living Trust (the “Trust“) was created for estate planning purposes, and thus is ineligible to be a debtor. Section 109(a) establishes that “only a person that resides or has a domicile, a place of business, or property in the United States, or a municipality, may be a debtor under this title.” Section 101(41) defines “person” to include any “individual, partnership, and corporation.” It does not include governmental units or trusts. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(41).
Be careful Banks – in California you get one bite at the apple in collecting a deficiency judgment against a homeowner (or possible debtor in bankruptcy).
For creditor attorneys – make sure you’ve complied with the ‘one action rule,’ or you waive your client’s right in a deficiency judgment against the former homeowner.
For debtor attorneys – if the creditor has violated the ‘one action rule,’ and are seeking to recoup against your debtor-client now, make sure to object to their proof of claim under §502(b)(1), such that the claim is unenforceable against the debtor under state law. Read more…
Starting December 1, we all have to use the new national forms. Although you can hypothetically e-file a case using the old forms and get a case number (and automatic stay…) you will immediately be hit with a case deficiency notice requiring the uploading of the correct/missing forms within seventy-two hours or the case will be dismissed.
The general vibe I get is that attorneys are not that worried about the new forms as the BK software “we” (all!?) use will just spit them out organized correctly, after “we” have input the info the way we always have. Read more…
I loved reading this case. Felt like a Grimms’ fairy tale.
Picture this — you earn a paycheck, right? Now put yourself in a position that when you receive your paycheck, an invisible hand (no not Uncle Sam) comes and takes a big chunk of that paycheck to pay your creditors, and you cannot do anything about it! Kind of like an involuntary wage garnishment. This is what a bankruptcy court was faced with in a Chapter 11 case in New Jersey.
The U.S. Trustee is hosting a unique Brownbag program on Thursday, October 29, 2015 from noon to 1:30 p.m. We will be discussing issues and concerns related to all matters 341(a)—particularly the rules and rationale behind the smooth and effective conduct of this essential piece of the bankruptcy process.
Proposed topics include: Read more…
ORANGE COUNTY BAR ASSOCIATION
COMMERCIAL LAW & BANKRUPTCY SECTION
September Meeting
Exemptions Case Law and Statutory Update
Learn about 2014-2015 developments regarding exemptions including recent case law imposing the burden of proof on the Debtor and allowed surcharges after Law v. Siegel;
Discover best practices for maximizing exemptions without risking denial of discharge; and
The panelists will also discuss proposed Senate Bill 308 increasing the homestead exemption to $300,000 across the board and eliminating the requirement to reinvest exemption proceeds.
D. Edward Hays, Esq., Partner, Marshack Hays LLP
Jeffrey I. Golden, Esq., Partner, Lobel Weiland Golden Friedman LLP Read more…
6:14-19644 Banning at 8th Street LLC Chapter 7
#19.00
Hrg. on Chapter 7 Trustees First Interim Fee Application filed 8/12/15 For The Period From July 29, 2014 To August 11, 201 for Todd A. Frealy, Trustee Chapter 7, Period: 7/29/2014 to 8/11/2015, Fees: $164,686.51
EH_____
Docket 235
Tentative for 9/2/2015:
The Chapter 7 Trustee has presented an interim fee application [Dk. 235] (“Interim Application”) to the Court, citing sections 326 and 330 of the Bankruptcy Court for support of his cause. Of course, the Trustee means section 331, which guides interim fee applications. This is anticipated to be a surplus estate. All creditor and administrative claims are anticipated to be paid in full. Equity will most likely be receiving a significant distribution. As described below, the Trustee is requesting an interim maximum commission in an amount of approximately $164,686.00 based on distributions already made. The carefully documented time and charge records of the Trustee indicate that his services to the estate as of this application can be calculated to be in the amount of approximately $75,000.00. Equity objects that the approximate $85,000.00 difference is a windfall that should not be permitted. The Chapter 7 Trustee has presented his reply. Read more…
