Hard Money Loans in Chapter 11 – CLA Program

By | October 1, 2019 | Chapter 11, Programs | No comments

California Lawyers Association

Insolvency Law Committee
Hard Money Lending Issues in Bankruptcy
Presented by the Business Law Section Insolvency Law Standing Committee

Tuesday, October 29, 2019

Earn 1 Hour of MCLE Credit. Includes legal specialization, Bankruptcy Law

Alston & Bird
333 S. Hope Street, 16th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Parking will be validated for cars arriving after 5:30 p.m.

Panelists:

Kit Gardner, Law Offices of Kit J. Gardner
Steven Kurtz, Levinson Arshonsky & Kurtz, LLP
Eve Karasik, Levene, Neale, Bender, Yoo & Brill LLP
Honorable Scott H. Yun, United States Bankruptcy Court

Frequently, a business debtor will resort to private, unregulated lenders to finance its operations. The resulting credit facilities are usually easier to obtain than a traditional bank loan, but come with more strings attached. Moreover, the lender is usually far more active in monitoring and protecting its interest in these risky loans. Therefore, when a business files bankruptcy, the debtor is immediately confronted with a host of unique issues that may determine its future survival, and the lender is confronted with the possibility that it will not receive the full benefit of its bargain.

On Independent Contractors and Employees in California

By | September 27, 2019 | Legislation | No comments

The California Legislature has passed AB5 which seeks to clarify the difference between independent contractors and employees.  The key feature (edited a little for brevity) is:

Section 2750.3 is added to the Labor Code, to read:

2750.3. (a) (1) … a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied:

(A) The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.

(B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.

(C) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any exceptions to the terms “employee,” “employer,” “employ,” or “independent contractor,” and any extensions of employer status or liability, that are expressly made by a provision of this code, …, including, but not limited to, the definition of “employee” in subdivision 2(E) of Wage Order No. 2, shall remain in effect for the purposes set forth therein.

(3) If a court of law rules that the three-part test in paragraph (1) cannot be applied to a particular context based on grounds other than an express exception to employment status as provided under paragraph (2), then the determination of employee or independent contractor status in that context shall instead be governed by the California Supreme Court’s decision in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341 (Borello).

If you need Statewide Criminal Searches look at central state and police checks repositories for felony and misdemeanors records. Information in these repositories comes from law enforcement agencies, courts and corrections agencies throughout the state.

Image result for national police history checks

LACBA and CLA Insolvency Law Committee Joint Program September 26, 2019

By | September 25, 2019 | Programs | No comments

Meet with a Bankruptcy Judge and the Insolvency Experts to Discuss Bankruptcy, ABC’s, and Receiverships – September 26, 2019

Sign up here.

September 26, 2019

PROGRAM DESCRIPTION |
The joint MCLE program with the Insolvency Law Standing Committee from CLA will examine bankruptcy and alternatives to bankruptcy. Topics will include bankruptcy, receivership sales, ABC’s, the pros and cons of bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy options, and an examination of when bankruptcy cannot be avoided. Read more…

Supreme Court Stat Pack available at Scotusblog

By | September 24, 2019 | Bankruptcy Data, Supreme Court | No comments

If you are a numbers nerd, be prepared to blow an hour just scrolling through the 46 pages of numbers.  You can get the final package for the last term here.

One statistic I found intriguing is the makeup of the 5-4 decisions.  Last term 20 cases were decided 5-4.  That is out of 66 cases in total – so 28% of the total.  You would think that the 5-4 decisions were all the five “conservatives” v. the four “liberals.”  But that was the lineup on only seven of the 20.  Justice Gorsuch voted with the four liberals in four cases to make the 5-4 majority.  Justice Roberts voted with the four liberals in two cases.  Justice Thomas and Justice Ginsburg were on the same side in three of the 5-4 cases!  Thomas and Sotomayor were on the same side in two of the 5-4 cases.

Another stat that jumps out at me is that Justice Kavenaugh voted with the majority 89% of the time.   He and Roberts voted together 92% of the time.

I better get to work.  Have fun.

When the IRS violates the automatic stay

By | September 18, 2019 | Automatic Stay, Taxes | No comments

Email from Renay Rodriguez:

Taxpayers in bankruptcy cases who believe the IRS has violated the bankruptcy automatic stay or discharge injunction may file claims with the IRS for relief from the violations and for damages. The filing of a claim with the Service is a prerequisite for seeking damages and attorney fees under the Internal Revenue Code for violations of the automatic stay or discharge injunction. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 7430(a) and (b)(1), 7433(d)(1) and (e). Regulations provide that such claims should be sent in writing to the Chief, Local Insolvency Unit, for the judicial district in which the taxpayer filed the underlying bankruptcy case giving rise to the alleged violation. See 26 CFR § 301.7433-2(e). These bankruptcy related claims can be mailed to:

Internal Revenue Service
Chief, Local Insolvency Unit
Centralized Insolvency Operation
P.O. Box 7346
Philadelphia, PA 19101-7346

For further details regarding the procedures and requirements applicable to the filing of these types of bankruptcy related administrative claims for relief see 26 CFR § 301.7433-2 (Civil cause of action for violation of section 362 or 524 of the Bankruptcy Code), 26 CFR § 301.7430-1 (Exhaustion of administrative remedies), and 26 CFR § 301.7430–8 (Administrative costs incurred in damage actions for violations of section 362 or 524 of the Bankruptcy Code).

May the Light shine our way on.
R. Grace Rodriguez, Esq.

San Fernando Valley Bar Association, Bankruptcy Section Program, Friday September 13, 2019, 12 noon: Woodland Hills Tentative Opinions

By | September 10, 2019 | Programs | No comments

Email from Steve Fox:

Dear All:

Welcome back to the SFVBA Bankruptcy Section programs!  We are starting this season (through June) with a perennial and a real popular program – Fascinating tentative opinions from the judges sitting at the Woodland Hills Bankruptcy Court.  There is a lot of good material this year and attending attorneys will learn a lot. The panel includes Yi Sun Kim and Jeremy Rothstein (both of Greenberg and Bass) and Andrew Goodman.  They are well experienced and will have a lot of good insights.

This is the one program to which we do not invite the Woodland Hills judges.  Sorry judges.  Law clerks may attend.

Here are the particulars for the program: Read more…

Update on In re Brace – pending at the California Supreme Court

By | September 9, 2019 | Chapter 7, Supreme Court | No comments

This is the case where the California Supremes will decide whether property held by husband and wife as joint tenants is owned 50-50 by each or is owned as community property.   California law presumes both.  The BAP agreed with Judge Scott Yun and ruled that the “record title presumption of Cal. Evid. Code § 662” does not trump “the community property presumption of Cal. Fam. Code § 760” citing Valli v. Valli (In re Marriage of Valli), 58 Cal. 4th 1396 (2014).

The 9th Circuit punted the issue over to the California Supreme Court.  They are still doing briefing so we are probably a ways from a result.  The Supremes must rule within 90 days after oral argument but there is no deadline re when oral argument must be set.

 IN RE CLIFFORD ALLEN BRACE, JR. 
Case Number S252473 (See docket below) Read more…

Bankruptcy filings in Central District – August 2019

By | September 9, 2019 | Bankruptcy Data | No comments
2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014
Jan 2,745 2,741 2,839 2,872 3,364 4,704
Feb 2,754 2,708 2,795 3,299 3,829 4,574
March 3,481 3,363 3,782 3,923 4,496 5,430
April 3,631 3,277 3,209 3,584 4,486 5,364
May 3,347 3,226 3,384 3,484 3,971 5,500
June 2,967 2,981 3,252 3,545 3,966 4,386
July 3,270 3,057 2,953 3,239 3,731 4,701
Aug 3,274 3,337 3,387 3,543 3,544 4,540
Sept 2,772 3,071 3,168 3,493 4,317
Oct 3,259 3,170 3,235 3,751 4,554
Nov 2,821 3,004 3,025 3,531 3,642
Dec 2,419 2,416 2,902 2,718 3,733
Total 25,469 35,961 37,262 39,819 44,880 55,445

Filings by chapter so far this year.

Non-Comm’l Commercial Chapter 7 Chapter 13 Chapter 11
23,195 2,085 19,831 5,200 249
91% 8% 78% 20% 1%

Ransom – My ABA summary of the Supreme Court case

By | September 4, 2019 | Chapter 13, Supreme Court | No comments

I forgot about this summary I wrote for the ABA on the Ransom case at the Supreme Court.  http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/ABA-Preview.Ransom.pdf

 

From Kathy Dockery Staff Atty Aki re Chapter 13 payments

By | September 4, 2019 | Chapter 13 | No comments

*****IMPORTANT*****

Best Practice Advice

If your client is making a plan payment within 5 days of a confirmation hearing date, please have them purchase a cashier’s check or money order instead of making the payment electronically via TFS. The TFS payments take about 3-5 days to process and the delay is causing an increase in conditionally continued or confirmed matters and even causing dismissal of cases.

An alternate strategy for making sure your client’s plan payments are made timely is to set up your client in TFS with a plan payment due date that is 7 days prior to the legal due date. This way, the posting delay will not be an issue.

For electronic payment evidence to be sufficient with this office, the payment must be in the status row which is titled “Processing Transactions”. An electronic payment which is in the status row for “Upcoming Transactions” is not sufficient.

Thank you.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →