.jpg)
Ch. 20 (or 18) lien strips and paying discharged
It's this kind of learned discourse that keeps me opening the emails from this listserve as eagerly as Mark opens his Snickers bars.
On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 5:24 PM, "'Mark J. Markus' bklawr@yahoo.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
"Nugatory. Futile; ineffectual; invalid; destitute of constraining force or vitality." Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed. 1983. "Nugget. a lump of gold, platinum, etc. as found in the earth." Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 9th Ed. 1995. "Nougat. Peanuts, Corn Syrup, Sugar, Palm Oil, Skim Milk, Lactose, Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Salt, Egg Whites, Artificial Flavor." Outside of my Snickers wrapper, 2016. Nouggatory- A lump of ineffectual sugary substances and nuts.
Just sayin...
On 10/26/2016 5:03 PM, David Tilem DavidTilem@TilemLaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
Its not nugatory, its a nullity. of David A. Tilem 206 N. Jackson St., #201 Glendale, CA 91206 Tel: 818-507-6000 * Fax: 818-507-6800 Toll Free: 888-BK PRO 4U (888-257-7648) www.TilemLaw.com |
| | | | | | David Tilem, Partner |
The pages comprising this transmission may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION from Law Offices of David A. Tilem. This information is intended solely for use by the individual or entity named as the recipient hereof. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone immediately so we may arrange and correct this transmission. Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2016 4:58 PM
To: cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [cdcbaa] Ch. 20 (or 18) lien strips and paying discharged unsecured claims Thanks. Interesting idea, but not the facts of my case. My client seeks to avoid a portion of the 1st TD on a rental property (the portion that is not secured). To not allow 1111(b) to apply to that would completely subvert the purpose of 1111(b) and render it nugatory (I've always wanted to use that word). I know APR is not a death knell. It just puts the secured creditor (in my case) in complete control of the case. I do have somewhat of a new value argument to make if it comes to that. Thanks everyone for your input. On 10/26/2016 4:48 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
Until recently, the nonbinding circuits agreed that the wholly undersecured"secured" creditor was entitled to a recourse claim. The 9th Circuit BAP, agreeing with them, said that 1111(b) did not apply to Mastan's lien because the property was foreclosed on. Mastan argued that his claim was secured on the petition date, but the Court did not use the petition date as the operative date for determination that Mastan had a lien against property of the Estate. It appearsthat, per the bap, 1111(b) is continuously applied and if the lien is not secured by property of the Estate, even if it was secured by property of the Estate in the past, or during the case, then 1111(b) no longer applies. If we assume this is true, then what happens when a Court grants a lien avoidance motion? The creditor no longer has a lien, and, If creditor does not have a lien, then 1111(b) does not apply. I think the appropriate conclusion is that you may be able to convince some bankruptcy judges that what I said makes sense. However, if we go up to the circuit level, this result is so one-sided that the 9th circuit will follow the other two circuits in holding that the wholly unsecured creditor is allowed to have a claim. ide note, the absolute priority rule is not a death knell. It is a simple balancing of the equities. You can no longer confirm plans which pay .001% to creditors. Make some deals and pay creditors a fair amount. They will vote for the plan.
Sincerely, Michael Avanesian 801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130
Glendale, CA 91203 Tel: (818) 276-2477 | Fax: (818) 208-4550 Confidentiality:This electronic transmission and its contents are legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to us immediately and delete this message from your directory. ts imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, 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. On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Giovanni Orantes go@gobklaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
I'm sure that is still not what you wanted to hear since the plan will have to provide for the unsecured portion unless it's inconsequential under the balance of 1111(b)(1). -- WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL UNLESS WE HAVE AGREED TO ACCEPT IT IN WRITING. Giovanni Orantes, Esq.* Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com *Certified Bankruptcy Specialist, State Bar of California, Board of Legal Specialization *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification Commercial Litigation Estate Planning Outside General Counsel WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
--
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
Mailing Address Only:
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written 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 in this communication. --
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
Mailing Address Only:
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or written 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 in this communication. #yiv4226023959
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
"*Nugatory*. Futile; ineffectual; invalid; destitute of
constraining force or vitality." /Black's Law Dictionary, 5th ed. 1983/.
"*Nugget*. a lump of gold, platinum, etc. as found in the earth."
/Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, 9th Ed. 1995/.
"*Nougat*. Peanuts, Corn Syrup, Sugar, Palm Oil, Skim Milk,
Lactose, Partially Hydrogenated Soybean Oil, Salt, Egg Whites,
Artificial Flavor." /Outside of my Snickers wrapper, 2016./
*Nouggatory- *A lump of ineffectual sugary substances and nuts.
Just sayin...
On 10/26/2016 5:03 PM, David Tilem DavidTilem@TilemLaw.com [cdcbaa]
wrote:
>
>
> It’s not nugatory, it’s “a nullity”.
>
> *David A. Tilem*
>
> *Certified Bankruptcy Specialist Since 1997*
>
> Law Offices of David A. Tilem
>
> 206 N. Jackson St., #201
>
> Glendale, CA 91206
>
> Tel: 818-507-6000 * Fax: 818-507-6800
>
> Toll Free: 888-BK PRO 4U (888-257-7648)
>
> www.TilemLaw.com
>
> square-facebook-24
> square-twitter-24
> square-linkedin-24
> square-google-plus-24
>
>
> cid:image005.png@01D0C939.A54B78D0
> cid:image006.png@01D0C939.A54B78D0 SL
> AVVO
> av
>
>
> Affiliated with:
>
> UpRight Law
>
>
>
> **
>
>
>
> **
>
>
>
> **
>
>
>
> **
>
>
>
> **
>
>
>
> *David Tilem, Partner*
>
> The pages comprising this transmission may contain CONFIDENTIAL
> INFORMATION from Law Offices of David A. Tilem. This information
> is intended solely for use by the individual or entity named as
> the recipient hereof. If you are not the intended recipient, be
> aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the
> contents of this transmission is prohibited. If you have received
> this transmission in error, please notify us by telephone
> immediately so we may arrange and correct this transmission.
>
> *From:*cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, October 26, 2016 4:58 PM
> *To:* cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] Ch. 20 (or 18) lien strips and paying
> discharged unsecured claims
>
> Thanks. Interesting idea, but not the facts of my case. My client
> seeks to avoid a portion of the 1st TD on a rental property (the
> portion that is not secured). To not allow 1111(b) to apply to
> that would completely subvert the purpose of 1111(b) and render it
> nugatory (I've always wanted to use that word).
>
> I know APR is not a death knell. It just puts the secured
> creditor (in my case) in complete control of the case. I do have
> somewhat of a new value argument to make if it comes to that.
>
> Thanks everyone for your input.
>
> On 10/26/2016 4:48 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com
> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> Until recently, the nonbinding circuits agreed that the wholly
> undersecured "secured" creditor was entitled to a recourse
> claim. The 9th Circuit BAP, agreeing with them, said that
> 1111(b) did not apply to Mastan's lien because the property
> was foreclosed on. Mastan argued that his claim was secured on
> the petition date, but the Court did not use the petition date
> as the operative date for determination that Mastan had a lien
> against property of the Estate. It /appears/ that, per the
> bap, 1111(b) is continuously applied and if the lien is not
> secured by property of the Estate, even if it was secured by
> property of the Estate in the past, or during the case, then
> 1111(b) no longer applies.
>
> If we assume this is true, then what happens when a Court
> grants a lien avoidance motion? The creditor no longer has a
> lien, and, If creditor does not have a lien, then 1111(b) does
> not apply.
>
> I think the appropriate conclusion is that you may be able to
> convince some bankruptcy judges that what I said makes sense.
> However, if we go up to the circuit level, this result is so
> one-sided that the 9th circuit will follow the other two
> circuits in holding that the wholly unsecured creditor is
> allowed to have a claim.
>
> Mastan's case is In re Salamon, 528 BR 171
>
> As a side note, the absolute priority rule is not a death
> knell. It is a simple balancing of the equities. You can no
> longer confirm plans which pay .001% to creditors. Make some
> deals and pay creditors a fair amount. They will vote for the
> plan.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> *Michael Avanesian *
>
> *avanesian-law-logo-modern*
>
> 801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130
> Glendale, CA 91203
>
> Tel: (818) 276-2477 | Fax: (818) 208-4550
>
> *_Confidentiality_**: *This electronic transmission and its
> contents are legally privileged and confidential information
> and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the
> reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are
> hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying
> or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error,
> please reply to us immediately and delete this message from
> your directory.
>
> *_IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:_* To ensure compliance with
> requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any
> U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication
> (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be
> used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, 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.
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Giovanni Orantes
> go@gobklaw.com [cdcbaa]
> wrote:
>
> I'm sure that is still not what you wanted to hear since
> the plan will have to provide for the unsecured portion
> unless it's inconsequential under the balance of 1111(b)(1).
>
> --
>
> WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL UNLESS WE HAVE AGREED TO
> ACCEPT IT IN WRITING.
>
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
>
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> /*Certified Bankruptcy Specialist, State Bar of
> California, Board of Legal Specialization/
>
> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American
> Board of Certification
>
> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American
> Board of Certification
>
> Commercial Litigation
>
> Estate Planning
>
> Outside General Counsel
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY,
> RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD
> FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
>
> --
>
> *************************
> Mark J. Markus
> Law Office of Mark J. Markus
> *_Mailing Address Only:_*
> 11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
> Studio City, CA 91604-2652
> (818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
> web: http://www.bklaw.com/
> Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California
> Board of Legal Specialization
> This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
> ________________________________________________
> NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
> office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information
> is intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
> addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
> the contents of this message is prohibited.
> IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
> imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice
> contained in this communication (or in any attachment) is not
> intended or written 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 in this communication.
>
>
>
>
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
_*Mailing Address Only:*_
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California
Board of Legal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained
in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or
written 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 in this communication.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Thanks. Interesting idea, but not the facts of my case. My client
seeks to avoid a portion of the 1st TD on a rental property (the
portion that is not secured). To not allow 1111(b) to apply to that
would completely subvert the purpose of 1111(b) and render it
nugatory (I've always wanted to use that word).
I know APR is not a death knell. It just puts the secured creditor
(in my case) in complete control of the case. I do have somewhat of
a new value argument to make if it comes to that.
Thanks everyone for your input.
On 10/26/2016 4:48 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Until recently, the nonbinding circuits agreed that the wholly
> undersecured "secured" creditor was entitled to a recourse claim.
> The 9th Circuit BAP, agreeing with them, said that 1111(b) did not
> apply to Mastan's lien because the property was foreclosed on.
> Mastan argued that his claim was secured on the petition date, but
> the Court did not use the petition date as the operative date for
> determination that Mastan had a lien against property of the
> Estate. It /appears/ that, per the bap, 1111(b) is continuously
> applied and if the lien is not secured by property of the Estate,
> even if it was secured by property of the Estate in the past, or
> during the case, then 1111(b) no longer applies.
>
> If we assume this is true, then what happens when a Court grants a
> lien avoidance motion? The creditor no longer has a lien, and, If
> creditor does not have a lien, then 1111(b) does not apply.
>
> I think the appropriate conclusion is that you may be able to
> convince some bankruptcy judges that what I said makes sense.
> However, if we go up to the circuit level, this result is so
> one-sided that the 9th circuit will follow the other two circuits
> in holding that the wholly unsecured creditor is allowed to have a
> claim.
>
> Mastan's case is In re Salamon, 528 BR 171
>
> As a side note, the absolute priority rule is not a death knell.
> It is a simple balancing of the equities. You can no longer
> confirm plans which pay .001% to creditors. Make some deals and
> pay creditors a fair amount. They will vote for the plan.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> *Michael Avanesian *
> *
> *
> *avanesian-law-logo-modern*
>
> 801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130
> Glendale, CA 91203
>
> Tel: (818) 276-2477 | Fax: (818) 208-4550
>
>
> *_Confidentiality_**: *This electronic transmission and its
> contents are legally privileged and confidential information and
> intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of
> this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other
> use of this message and its contents is strictly prohibited. If
> you have received this transmission in error, please reply to us
> immediately and delete this message from your directory.
>
> *_
> _*
>
> *_IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:_* To ensure compliance with
> requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S.
> federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any
> attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon,
> and cannot be used or relied upon, 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.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Giovanni Orantes go@gobklaw.com
> [cdcbaa] > wrote:
>
>
> I'm sure that is still not what you wanted to hear since the
> plan will have to provide for the unsecured portion unless
> it's inconsequential under the balance of 1111(b)(1).
>
> --
> WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL UNLESS WE HAVE AGREED TO
> ACCEPT IT IN WRITING.
>
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> /*Certified Bankruptcy Specialist, State Bar of California,
> Board of Legal Specialization/
> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
> Commercial Litigation
> Estate Planning
> Outside General Counsel
>
>
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE,
> SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11
> AND 15 CASES.
>
>
>
>
>
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
_*Mailing Address Only:*_
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California
Board of Legal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained
in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or
written 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 in this communication.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Until recently, the nonbinding circuits agreed that the wholly
undersecured "secured" creditor was entitled to a recourse claim. The 9th
Circuit BAP, agreeing with them, said that 1111(b) did not apply to
Mastan's lien because the property was foreclosed on. Mastan argued that
his claim was secured on the petition date, but the Court did not use the
petition date as the operative date for determination that Mastan had a
lien against property of the Estate. It *appears* that, per the bap,
1111(b) is continuously applied and if the lien is not secured by property
of the Estate, even if it was secured by property of the Estate in the
past, or during the case, then 1111(b) no longer applies.
If we assume this is true, then what happens when a Court grants a lien
avoidance motion? The creditor no longer has a lien, and, If creditor does
not have a lien, then 1111(b) does not apply.
I think the appropriate conclusion is that you may be able to convince some
bankruptcy judges that what I said makes sense. However, if we go up to the
circuit level, this result is so one-sided that the 9th circuit will follow
the other two circuits in holding that the wholly unsecured creditor is
allowed to have a claim.
Mastan's case is In re Salamon, 528 BR 171
As a side note, the absolute priority rule is not a death knell. It is a
simple balancing of the equities. You can no longer confirm plans which pay
.001% to creditors. Make some deals and pay creditors a fair amount. They
will vote for the plan.
Sincerely,
*Michael Avanesian *
*[image: avanesian-law-logo-modern]*
801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130
Glendale, CA 91203
Tel: (818) 276-2477 | Fax: (818) 208-4550
*Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
*IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
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.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 1:36 PM, Giovanni Orantes go@gobklaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm sure that is still not what you wanted to hear since the plan will
> have to provide for the unsecured portion unless it's inconsequential under
> the balance of 1111(b)(1).
>
> --
> WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL UNLESS WE HAVE AGREED TO ACCEPT IT IN
> WRITING.
>
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> **Certified Bankruptcy Specialist, State Bar of California, Board of Legal
> Specialization*
> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
> Commercial Litigation
> Estate Planning
> Outside General Counsel
>
>
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
> AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
>
>
>
Until recently, the nonbinding circuits agreed that the wholly undersecured"secured" creditor was entitled to a recourse claim. The 9th Circuit BAP, agreeing with them, said that 1111(b) did not apply to Mastan's lien because the property was foreclosed on. Mastan argued that his claim was secured on the petition date, but the Court did not use the petition date as the operative date for determination that Mastan had a lien against property of the Estate. It appearsthat, per the bap, 1111(b) is continuously applied and if the lien is not secured by property of the Estate, even if it was secured by property of the Estate in the past, or during the case, then 1111(b) no longer applies.hen a Court grants a lien avoidance motion? The creditor no longer has a lien, and, If creditor does not have a lien, then 1111(b) does not apply. may be able to convince some bankruptcy judges that what I said makes sense. However, if we go up to the circuit level, this result is so one-sided that the 9th circuit will follow the other two circuits in holding that the wholly unsecured creditor is allowed to have a claim.Mastan's case isIn re Salamon, 528 BR 171As a side note, the absolute priority rule is not a death knell. It is a simple balancing of the equities. You can no longer confirm plans which pay .001% to creditors. Make some deals and pay creditors a fair amount. They will vote for the plan.Sincerely,Michael Avanesian801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130Glendale, CA 91203Tel: (818) 276-2477 | Fax: (818) 208-4550
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I'm sure that is still not what you wanted to hear since the plan will have
to provide for the unsecured portion unless it's inconsequential under the
balance of 1111(b)(1).
WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL UNLESS WE HAVE AGREED TO ACCEPT IT IN
WRITING.
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
**Certified Bankruptcy Specialist, State Bar of California, Board of Legal
Specialization*
*Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
*Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
Commercial Litigation
Estate Planning
Outside General Counsel
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
I'm sure that is still not what you wanted to hear since the plan will have to provide for the unsecured portion unless it's inconsequential under the balance of 1111(b)(1).--
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Nope. Read that closely. Section 1111 is not just about the election.
That's why I learned of the election as the "1111(b)(2) election."
1111(b)(1) turns non-recourse debt into recourse debt - the In re Rosa
case explains this briefly. I availed myself of that provision in
confirming two plans with two different judges in the last year -- i.e.,
the judges wanted to dismiss the cases because there were no unsecured
creditors.
WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL UNLESS WE HAVE AGREED TO ACCEPT IT IN
WRITING.
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
**Certified Bankruptcy Specialist, State Bar of California, Board of Legal
Specialization*
*Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
*Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
Commercial Litigation
Estate Planning
Outside General Counsel
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
Nope. Read that closely. Section 1111 is not just about the election. That's why I learned of the election as the "1111(b)(2) election." 1111(b)(1) turns non-recourse debt into recourse debt - the In re Rosa case explains this briefly. I availed myself of that provision in confirming two plans with two different judges in the last year -- i.e., the judges wanted to dismiss the cases because there were no unsecured creditors.--
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
Maybe a 13 would suffice since the debt limits don't apply to discharged
debt in a 13 per the same case or another note in Judge Bason's procedures.
WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL UNLESS WE HAVE AGREED TO ACCEPT IT IN
WRITING.
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
**Certified Bankruptcy Specialist, State Bar of California, Board of Legal
Specialization*
*Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
*Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
Commercial Litigation
Estate Planning
Outside General Counsel
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
Maybe a 13 would suffice since the debt limits don't apply to discharged debt in a 13 per the same case or another note in Judge Bason's procedures.-- WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL UNLESS WE HAVE AGREED TO ACCEPT IT IN WRITING.Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*Orantes Law Firm, P.C.3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920Los Angeles, CA 90010Tel: (213) 389-4362Fax: (877) 789-5776e-mail: go@gobklaw.comwebsite: www.gobklaw.com
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
So it seems like there is zero benefit to filing a Chapter 11 to
strip liens because the absolute priority rule will require 100%
payment of the unsecured portion of the claim.
Seems like this used to work....
On 10/26/2016 12:40 PM, Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com
[cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> I agree with the implication but I think this is an open issue in
> the 9th Circuit and I cannot recall a case in any other circuit
> addressing this issue.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> *Michael Avanesian *
> *
> *
> *avanesian-law-logo-modern*
>
> 801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130
> Glendale, CA 91203
>
> Tel: (818) 276-2477 | Fax: (818) 208-4550
>
>
> *_Confidentiality_**: *This electronic transmission and its
> contents are legally privileged and confidential information and
> intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of
> this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby
> notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other
> use of this message and its contents is strictly prohibited. If
> you have received this transmission in error, please reply to us
> immediately and delete this message from your directory.
>
> *_
> _*
>
> *_IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:_* To ensure compliance with
> requirements imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S.
> federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any
> attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon,
> and cannot be used or relied upon, 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.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Giovanni Orantes go@gobklaw.com
> [cdcbaa] > wrote:
>
> Q. Chapter "20" (ch.7 case followed by ch.13). Judge Bason has
> held that a creditor holding a stripped down or stripped off
> claim is not entitled to share in distributions to unsecured
> creditors when the in personam liability has been discharged
> in a prior chapter 7 case. See In re Rosa, 521 B.R. 337
> (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2014).
>
> Note that the case itself explains that you likely would have
> to pay in an 11 while you would not have to pay in a 13.
>
> --
> WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL UNLESS WE HAVE AGREED TO
> ACCEPT IT IN WRITING.
>
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> /*Certified Bankruptcy Specialist, State Bar of California,
> Board of Legal Specialization/
> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
> Commercial Litigation
> Estate Planning
> Outside General Counsel
>
>
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE,
> SAN BERNARDINO AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11
> AND 15 CASES.
>
>
>
>
>
*************************
Mark J. Markus
Law Office of Mark J. Markus
_*Mailing Address Only:*_
11684 Ventura Blvd. PMB #403
Studio City, CA 91604-2652
(818)509-1173 (818)332-1180 (fax)
web: http://www.bklaw.com/
Certified Bankruptcy Law Specialist--The State Bar of California
Board of Legal Specialization
This Firm is a Qualified Federal Debt Relief Agency
________________________________________________
NOTICE: This Electronic Message contains information from the law
office of Mark J. Markus that may be privileged. The information is
intended for the use of the addressee only. If you are not the
addressee, note that any disclosure, copy, distribution or use of
the contents of this message is prohibited.
IRS CIRCULAR 230 NOTICE: To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. tax advice contained
in this communication (or in any attachment) is not intended or
written 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 in this communication.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I agree with the implication but I think this is an open issue in the 9th
Circuit and I cannot recall a case in any other circuit addressing this
issue.
Sincerely,
*Michael Avanesian *
*[image: avanesian-law-logo-modern]*
801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130
Glendale, CA 91203
Tel: (818) 276-2477 | Fax: (818) 208-4550
*Confidentiality**: *This electronic transmission and its contents are
legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the
use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended
recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution,
copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply
to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.
*IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:* To ensure compliance with requirements
imposed by the IRS, please be advised that any U.S. federal tax advice
contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended
or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon,
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.
On Wed, Oct 26, 2016 at 12:19 PM, Giovanni Orantes go@gobklaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>
> Q. Chapter "20" (ch.7 case followed by ch.13). Judge Bason has held that a
> creditor holding a stripped down or stripped off claim is not entitled to
> share in distributions to unsecured creditors when the in personam
> liability has been discharged in a prior chapter 7 case. See In re Rosa,
> 521 B.R. 337 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2014).
>
> Note that the case itself explains that you likely would have to pay in an
> 11 while you would not have to pay in a 13.
>
> --
> WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL UNLESS WE HAVE AGREED TO ACCEPT IT IN
> WRITING.
>
> Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
> Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
> 3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
> Los Angeles, CA 90010
> Tel: (213) 389-4362
> Fax: (877) 789-5776
> e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
> website: www.gobklaw.com
>
> **Certified Bankruptcy Specialist, State Bar of California, Board of Legal
> Specialization*
> *Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
> *Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of
> Certification
> Commercial Litigation
> Estate Planning
> Outside General Counsel
>
>
>
> WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
>
> SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
> AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
>
>
>
I agree with the implication but I think this is an open issue in the 9th Circuit and I cannot recall a case in any other circuit addressing this issue.Sincerely,Michael Avanesian801 N. Brand Blvd., Suite #1130Glendale, CA 91203Tel: (818) 276-2477 | Fax: (818) 208-4550ConfidentialityThis electronic transmission and its contents are legally privileged and confidential information and intended solely for the use of the addressee. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this message and its contents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please reply to us immediately and delete this message from your directory.IRS Circular 230 Disclosure:advised that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used or relied upon, and cannot be used or relied upon, 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.
Q. Chapter "20" (ch.7 case followed by ch.13). Judge Bason has held that a
creditor holding a stripped down or stripped off claim is not entitled to
share in distributions to unsecured creditors when the in personam
liability has been discharged in a prior chapter 7 case. See In re Rosa,
521 B.R. 337 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2014).
Note that the case itself explains that you likely would have to pay in an
11 while you would not have to pay in a 13.
WE DO NOT ACCEPT SERVICE BY EMAIL UNLESS WE HAVE AGREED TO ACCEPT IT IN
WRITING.
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.*
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 2920
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail: go@gobklaw.com
website: www.gobklaw.com
**Certified Bankruptcy Specialist, State Bar of California, Board of Legal
Specialization*
*Board Certified - Business Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
*Board Certified - Consumer Bankruptcy Law - American Board of Certification
Commercial Litigation
Estate Planning
Outside General Counsel
WE ARE A "DEBT RELIEF AGENCY" AS DEFINED BY FEDERAL LAW.
SERVING BAKERSFIELD, LOS ANGELES, ORANGE COUNTY, RIVERSIDE, SAN BERNARDINO
AND SANTA BARBARA AND THE WORLD FOR CHAPTER 11 AND 15 CASES.
Q. Chapter "20" (ch.7 case followed by ch.13). Judge Bason has held that a
creditor holding a stripped down or stripped off claim is not entitled to
share in distributions to unsecured creditors when the in personam liability
has been discharged in a prior chapter 7 case. See In re Rosa, 521 B.R. 337
(Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2014).
The post was migrated from Yahoo.