.jpg)
Absolute Priority Rule and Riblet
charset="US-ASCII"
I presented a disclosure statement to Judge Riblet yesterday. One of the
big issues raised by the major unsecured creditor was the absolute priority
rule.
Judge Riblet disapproved the disclosure statement on other grounds, told me
to try it again. I asked whether she could give any indication whether she
believed the absolute priority rule applied in this individual case. "Why
ever wouldn't it?", she asked. I bit my tongue from saying "because of all
the reasons in the 12-page brief I sent you on this issue," but merely
mumbled something about BAPCPA and its amendments.
She then said that if I wanted to present her with a trial brief at
confirmation, she'd consider it then. Until then, she said, try to settle
with the unsecured class who is now getting nothing.
So for those keeping score: Riblet leans toward the absolute priority rule
for individuals, but hasn't ruled on it yet.
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.
charset="US-ASCII"
I presented a disclosure statement to Judge Riblet yesterday. One of the big issues raised by the major unsecured creditor was the absolute priority rule. Judge Riblet disapproved the disclosure statement on other grounds, told me to try it again. I asked whether she could give any indication whether she believed the absolute priority rule applied in this individual case. "Why ever wouldn't it?", she asked. I bit my tongue from saying "because of all the reasons in the 12-page brief I sent you on this issue," but merely mumbled something about BAPCPA and its amendments. She then said that if I wanted to present her with a trial brief at confirmation, she'd consider it then. Until then, she said, try to settle with the unsecured class who is now getting nothing. So for those keeping score: Riblet leans toward the absolute priority rule for individuals, but hasn't ruled on it yet. John D. Faucher
The post was migrated from Yahoo.