.jpg)
Absolute Priority Rule in Individual Chapter 11s
HI JON,
Thank you and Judge KLEIN for an
outstanding Program today.
Sal Sciortino
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:45 PM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Absolute Priority Rule in Individual Chapter 11s
I would like to create a comprehensive list of judges who believe that there is no more APR in chapter 11 cases. If you know a judge who has stated CLEARLY one way or the other, please post here. Ahart of course wrote his article saying the absolute prioority rule is absolutely gone. I know Tighe agrees and I know Albert disagrees. Who else?
While we're at it, it would be good to know who says a discharge is required for a LAM motion and who says it is not required. Tighe says its required and Sandy Klein told me she agrees.
I guess finally is the Reswick issue of the stay in the second case. I know VZ and Clarkson says it applies only to the debtor. Sandy Klein and Neil Bason - and obviously Deborah Saltzman disagree. Who else?
Please do not guess. It must be clear one way or the other. Jon
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I got one past Judge Neiter recently and I know Lou Esbin did too since he was right before me on the calendar. He ask us both to argue the issue despite that no interested party had raised same. I don't think he has made up his mind for sure, he just let our clients' plans get confirmed based upon the fact that no creditors raised the issue.
Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA
The Personal Financial Law Center
A-Bankruptcy-Attorney.com
Culver City (310) 391-2400
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:45 PM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Absolute Priority Rule in Individual Chapter 11s
I would like to create a comprehensive list of judges who believe that there is no more APR in chapter 11 cases. If you know a judge who has stated CLEARLY one way or the other, please post here. Ahart of course wrote his article saying the absolute prioority rule is absolutely gone. I know Tighe agrees and I know Albert disagrees. Who else?
While we're at it, it would be good to know who says a discharge is required for a LAM motion and who says it is not required. Tighe says its required and Sandy Klein told me she agrees.
I guess finally is the Reswick issue of the stay in the second case. I know VZ and Clarkson says it applies only to the debtor. Sandy Klein and Neil Bason - and obviously Deborah Saltzman disagree. Who else?
Please do not guess. It must be clear one way or the other. Jon
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
The people who argued apr before the bap, yesterday, think they won. i.e. No apr.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 19, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Dennis wrote:
> Tighe, Mund, Ahart, Zurzolo, Bluebond no apr
> All no apr.
> E Carroll and Russell have ruled in my cases apr applies.
> Tighe and Zurzolo have confirmed cases for my debtors. I was in court and heard Mund rule. Bluebond posted a tentative saying no apr.
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jan 18, 2012, at 3:45 PM, "jonhayes6666" wrote:
>
>>
>> I would like to create a comprehensive list of judges who believe that there is no more APR in chapter 11 cases. If you know a judge who has stated CLEARLY one way or the other, please post here. Ahart of course wrote his article saying the absolute prioority rule is absolutely gone. I know Tighe agrees and I know Albert disagrees. Who else?
>>
>> While we're at it, it would be good to know who says a discharge is required for a LAM motion and who says it is not required. Tighe says its required and Sandy Klein told me she agrees.
>>
>> I guess finally is the Reswick issue of the stay in the second case. I know VZ and Clarkson says it applies only to the debtor. Sandy Klein and Neil Bason - and obviously Deborah Saltzman disagree. Who else?
>>
>> Please do not guess. It must be clear one way or the other. Jon
>>
>
>
The people who argued apr before the bap, yesterday, think they won. i.e. No apr. Sent from my iPhoneOn Jan 19, 2012, at 10:45 AM, Dennis <easky1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Tighe, Mund, Ahart, Zurzolo, Bluebond no aprAll no apr. E Carroll and Russell have ruled in my cases apr applies. Tighe and Zurzolo have confirmed cases for my debtors. I was in court and heard Mund rule. Bluebond posted a tentative saying no apr. Sent from my iPhoneOn Jan 18, 2012, at 3:45 PM, "jonhayes6666" <
I would like to create a comprehensive list of judges who believe that there is no more APR in chapter 11 cases. If you know a judge who has stated CLEARLY one way or the other, please post here. Ahart of course wrote his article saying the absolute prioority rule is absolutely gone. I know Tighe agrees and I know Albert disagrees. Who else?
While we're at it, it would be good to know who says a discharge is required for a LAM motion and who says it is not required. Tighe says its required and Sandy Klein told me she agrees.
I guess finally is the Reswick issue of the stay in the second case. I know VZ and Clarkson says it applies only to the debtor. Sandy Klein and Neil Bason - and obviously Deborah Saltzman disagree. Who else?
Please do not guess. It must be clear one way or the other. Jon
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Tighe, Mund, Ahart, Zurzolo, Bluebond no apr
All no apr.
E Carroll and Russell have ruled in my cases apr applies.
Tighe and Zurzolo have confirmed cases for my debtors. I was in court and heard Mund rule. Bluebond posted a tentative saying no apr.
Sent from my iPhone
On Jan 18, 2012, at 3:45 PM, "jonhayes6666" wrote:
> I would like to create a comprehensive list of judges who believe that there is no more APR in chapter 11 cases. If you know a judge who has stated CLEARLY one way or the other, please post here. Ahart of course wrote his article saying the absolute prioority rule is absolutely gone. I know Tighe agrees and I know Albert disagrees. Who else?
>
> While we're at it, it would be good to know who says a discharge is required for a LAM motion and who says it is not required. Tighe says its required and Sandy Klein told me she agrees.
>
> I guess finally is the Reswick issue of the stay in the second case. I know VZ and Clarkson says it applies only to the debtor. Sandy Klein and Neil Bason - and obviously Deborah Saltzman disagree. Who else?
>
> Please do not guess. It must be clear one way or the other. Jon
>
>
Tighe, Mund, Ahart, Zurzolo, Bluebond no aprAll no apr. E Carroll and Russell have ruled in my cases apr applies. Tighe and Zurzolo have confirmed cases for my debtors. I was in court and heard Mund rule. Bluebond posted a tentative saying no apr. Sent from my iPhoneOn Jan 18, 2012, at 3:45 PM, "jonhayes6666" <Jhayes@polarisnet.net> wrote:
I would like to create a comprehensive list of judges who believe that there is no more APR in chapter 11 cases. If you know a judge who has stated CLEARLY one way or the other, please post here. Ahart of course wrote his article saying the absolute prioority rule is absolutely gone. I know Tighe agrees and I know Albert disagrees. Who else?
While we're at it, it would be good to know who says a discharge is required for a LAM motion and who says it is not required. Tighe says its required and Sandy Klein told me she agrees.
I guess finally is the Reswick issue of the stay in the second case. I know VZ and Clarkson says it applies only to the debtor. Sandy Klein and Neil Bason - and obviously Deborah Saltzman disagree. Who else?
Please do not guess. It must be clear one way or the other. Jon
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charset="ISO-8859-1"
9:11-11059
John D. Faucher
Hurlbett & Faucher, LLP
On 1/18/12 6:13 PM, "Kirk Brennan" wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Please let us know J. Riblet's position. I have a case before her as well.
> What is your case number?
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:36 PM, John D. Faucher
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I'll find out Riblet's position on February 8.
>>
>> John D. Faucher
>> Hurlbett & Faucher, LLP
>> 5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 208
>> Westlake Village, CA 91362
>> (818) 889-8080
>> Fax: (805) 367-4154
>> http://www.hurlbettfaucher.com/
>>
>> 3324 State Street, Suite O
>> Santa Barbara, CA 93105
>> (805) 963-9111
>>
>> This electronic mail message and any attached files are confidential, contain
>> information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to
>> whom it is addressed, and may be legally privileged. If you are not the
>> intended recipient, please immediately reply to John Faucher (at 818/889-8080
>> or john@hf-bklaw.com) indicating that you received this
>> message and then delete the message without delay. Thank you for your
>> cooperation.
>>
>> Disclosure Under U.S. IRS Circular 230: The recipient may not use any tax
>> advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, for the
>> purpose of avoiding federal tax related penalties or promoting, marketing or
>> recommending to another party any particular transaction or matter.
>>
>> On 1/18/12 4:47 PM, "Catherine Christiansen"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Saltzman has said she believes there is an APR in Ch 11.
>>>
>>>
>>> Law Office of Catherine Christiansen
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:45 PM
>>> Subject: [cdcbaa] Absolute Priority Rule in Individual Chapter 11s
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I would like to create a comprehensive list of judges who believe that there
>>> is no more APR in chapter 11 cases. If you know a judge who has stated
>>> CLEARLY one way or the other, please post here. Ahart of course wrote his
>>> article saying the absolute prioority rule is absolutely gone. I know Tighe
>>> agrees and I know Albert disagrees. Who else?
>>>
>>> While we're at it, it would be good to know who says a discharge is required
>>> for a LAM motion and who says it is not required. Tighe says its required
>>> and Sandy Klein told me she agrees.
>>>
>>> I guess finally is the Reswick issue of the stay in the second case. I know
>>> VZ and Clarkson says it applies only to the debtor. Sandy Klein and Neil
>>> Bason - and obviously Deborah Saltzman disagree. Who else?
>>>
>>> Please do not guess. It must be clear one way or the other. Jon
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kirk Brennan, esq.
> California Law Office, P.C.
> calibankrutpcysite.com
>
> CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the exclusive
> and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in reliance on this
> message. If you have received this message in error, please notify us
> immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this message and its
> attachments from your computer system. We do not waive attorney-client or work
> product privilege by the transmission of this message.
> TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
> constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not be
> used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
> purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
> Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
> letters containing the signature of a director.
>
>
>
>
>
>
charset="ISO-8859-1"
9:11-11059John D. FaucherHurlbett & Faucher, LLP
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Judge Rimel in the EDCA ruled that APR applies to individuals in a case of
mine.
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Giovanni Orantes wrote:
> **
>
>
> Please let us know what you learn. I wonder if anybody on the listserv
> might know already and could chime in. Jon? Dennis? David?
>
>
> --
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
> AND SANTA BARBARA.
>
> Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential
> information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If
> the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
> responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
> please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original
> e-mail at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
>
> IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed
> by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
> contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
> to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties
> under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or
> recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
>
>
>
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
calibankrutpcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
Judge Rimel in the EDCA ruled that APR applies to individuals in a case of mine.On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Giovanni Orantes <go@gobklaw.com> wrote:
Please let us know what you learn. I wonder if anybody on the listserv might know already and could chime in. Jon? Dennis? David?-- Giovanni Orantes, Esq. Orantes Law Firm, P.C.3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010Tel: (213) 389-4362Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.comwebsite: www.gobklaw.com
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA.Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail at
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Please let us know J. Riblet's position. I have a case before her as well.
What is your case number?
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:36 PM, John D. Faucher
wrote:
> **
>
>
> I'll find out Riblet's position on February 8.
>
> John D. Faucher
> Hurlbett & Faucher, LLP
> 5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 208
> Westlake Village, CA 91362
> (818) 889-8080
> Fax: (805) 367-4154
> http://www.hurlbettfaucher.com/
>
> 3324 State Street, Suite O
> Santa Barbara, CA 93105
> (805) 963-9111
>
> *This electronic mail message and any attached files are confidential,
> contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or
> entity to whom it is addressed, and may be legally privileged. If you are
> not the intended recipient, please immediately reply to John Faucher (at
> 818/889-8080 or john@hf-bklaw.com) indicating that you received this
> message and then delete the message without delay. Thank you for your
> cooperation.
>
> Disclosure Under U.S. IRS Circular 230: The recipient may not use any tax
> advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, for the
> purpose of avoiding federal tax related penalties or promoting, marketing
> or recommending to another party any particular transaction or matter.
> *
>
> On 1/18/12 4:47 PM, "Catherine Christiansen"
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Saltzman has said she believes there is an APR in Ch 11.
>
>
> Law Office of Catherine Christiansen****
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* jonhayes6666
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:45 PM
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Absolute Priority Rule in Individual Chapter 11s
>
>
> I would like to create a comprehensive list of judges who believe that
> there is no more APR in chapter 11 cases. If you know a judge who has
> stated CLEARLY one way or the other, please post here. Ahart of course
> wrote his article saying the absolute prioority rule is absolutely gone. I
> know Tighe agrees and I know Albert disagrees. Who else?
>
> While we're at it, it would be good to know who says a discharge is
> required for a LAM motion and who says it is not required. Tighe says its
> required and Sandy Klein told me she agrees.
>
> I guess finally is the Reswick issue of the stay in the second case. I
> know VZ and Clarkson says it applies only to the debtor. Sandy Klein and
> Neil Bason - and obviously Deborah Saltzman disagree. Who else?
>
> Please do not guess. It must be clear one way or the other. Jon
>
>
>
>
>
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
calibankrutpcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
Please let us know J. Riblet's position. I have a case before her as well.What is your case number?On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:36 PM, John D. Faucher < wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Please let us know what you learn. I wonder if anybody on the listserv
might know already and could chime in. Jon? Dennis? David?
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
AND SANTA BARBARA.
Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential
information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent
responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby
notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original
e-mail at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed
by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties
under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or
recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Please let us know what you learn. I wonder if anybody on the listserv might know already and could chime in. Jon? Dennis? David?lvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010Tel: (213) 389-4362Fax: (877) 789-5776e-mail: go@gobklaw.comwebsite: www.gobklaw.com
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA.Note: The information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail at (213) 389-4362 or (888) 619-8222.
IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with requirements imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing, or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
charset="ISO-8859-1"
I'll find out Riblet's position on February 8.
John D. Faucher
Hurlbett & Faucher, LLP
5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 208
Westlake Village, CA 91362
(818) 889-8080
Fax: (805) 367-4154
http://www.hurlbettfaucher.com/
3324 State Street, Suite O
Santa Barbara, CA 93105
(805) 963-9111
This electronic mail message and any attached files are confidential,
contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or
entity to whom it is addressed, and may be legally privileged. If you are
not the intended recipient, please immediately reply to John Faucher (at
818/889-8080 or john@hf-bklaw.com )
indicating that you received this message and then delete the message
without delay. Thank you for your cooperation.
Disclosure Under U.S. IRS Circular 230: The recipient may not use any tax
advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, for the
purpose of avoiding federal tax related penalties or promoting, marketing or
recommending to another party any particular transaction or matter.
On 1/18/12 4:47 PM, "Catherine Christiansen"
wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Saltzman has said she believes there is an APR in Ch 11.
>
>
> Law Office of Catherine Christiansen
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:45 PM
> Subject: [cdcbaa] Absolute Priority Rule in Individual Chapter 11s
>
>
>
>
> I would like to create a comprehensive list of judges who believe that there
> is no more APR in chapter 11 cases. If you know a judge who has stated
> CLEARLY one way or the other, please post here. Ahart of course wrote his
> article saying the absolute prioority rule is absolutely gone. I know Tighe
> agrees and I know Albert disagrees. Who else?
>
> While we're at it, it would be good to know who says a discharge is required
> for a LAM motion and who says it is not required. Tighe says its required and
> Sandy Klein told me she agrees.
>
> I guess finally is the Reswick issue of the stay in the second case. I know
> VZ and Clarkson says it applies only to the debtor. Sandy Klein and Neil
> Bason - and obviously Deborah Saltzman disagree. Who else?
>
> Please do not guess. It must be clear one way or the other. Jon
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
charset="ISO-8859-1"
I'll find out Riblet's position on February 8. John D. FaucherHurlbett & Faucher, LLP5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 208Westlake Village, CA 91362(818) 889-8080Fax: (805) 367-4154http://www.hurlbettfaucher.com/3324 State Street, Suite OSanta Barbara, CA 93105(805) 963-9111This electronic mail message and any attached files are confidential, contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed, and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please immediately reply to John Faucher (at 818/889-8080 or john@hf-bklaw.com) indicating that you received this message and then delete the message without delay. Thank you for your cooperation. Disclosure Under U.S. IRS Circular 230: The recipient may not use any tax advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, for the purpose of avoiding federal tax related penalties or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any particular transaction or matter.On 1/18/12 4:47 PM, "Catherine Christiansen" <christiansenlaw@yahoo.com> wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Saltzman has said she believes there is an APR in Ch 11.
Law Office of Catherine Christiansen
________________________________
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:45 PM
Subject: [cdcbaa] Absolute Priority Rule in Individual Chapter 11s
I would like to create a comprehensive list of judges who believe that there is no more APR in chapter 11 cases. If you know a judge who has stated CLEARLY one way or the other, please post here. Ahart of course wrote his article saying the absolute prioority rule is absolutely gone. I know Tighe agrees and I know Albert disagrees. Who else?
While we're at it, it would be good to know who says a discharge is required for a LAM motion and who says it is not required. Tighe says its required and Sandy Klein told me she agrees.
I guess finally is the Reswick issue of the stay in the second case. I know VZ and Clarkson says it applies only to the debtor. Sandy Klein and Neil Bason - and obviously Deborah Saltzman disagree. Who else?
Please do not guess. It must be clear one way or the other. Jon
The post was migrated from Yahoo.