.jpg)
Ch 11 - UST filed feasibility objection to confirmation - need some help
If your debtor makes the plan payments it's feasible.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 29, 2017, at 4:40 PM, Holly Roark hollyroark22@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> I just received an objection from the UST for infeasibility. My debtors are making all adequate protection payments timely but they are running a little bit negative on average (10 months average negative cash flow $2,900). In their trucking business some months are great, but some are tough because of repairs, etc. Confirmation Hearing is 9/7 and I need to address this in writing Thursday 8/31.
>
>
>
> I am looking for ideas to overcome this objection. Debtors can adjust budget. Plan payments to secured creditors will be roughly the same, + some to unsecureds, + atty fees, but once case is closed, no more UST fees. We can lower insider comp a little bit. Trying to think of other things to present to court as to how this will work.
>
>
>
> This is a small business case and judge extended time to file and confirm plan 300/45. See 1121(e)(3), and judge indicated at last hearing that if need be at confirmation on 9/7 will extend again, so this is not an issue.
>
>
>
> Everything else is great. All votes yes except one small no. No other objections to confirmation.
>
>
>
> Thanks for any guidance you can provide.
>
>
>
> Holly Roark
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
> and Sports Lawyer
> holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
> www.roarklawoffices.com
> Central District of California & District of Idaho - Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
> 1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067
> T (310) 553-2600; F (310) 553-2601
> *By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
>
>
The post was migrated from Yahoo.
I just received an objection from the UST for infeasibility. My debtors are
making all adequate protection payments timely but they are running a
little bit negative on average (10 months average negative cash flow
$2,900). In their trucking business some months are great, but some are
tough because of repairs, etc. Confirmation Hearing is 9/7 and I need to
address this in writing Thursday 8/31.
I am looking for ideas to overcome this objection. Debtors can adjust
budget. Plan payments to secured creditors will be roughly the same, + some
to unsecureds, + atty fees, but once case is closed, no more UST fees. We
can lower insider comp a little bit. Trying to think of other things to
present to court as to how this will work.
This is a small business case and judge extended time to file and confirm
plan 300/45. See 1121(e)(3), and judge indicated at last hearing that if
need be at confirmation on 9/7 will extend again, so this is not an issue.
Everything else is great. All votes yes except one small no. No other
objections to confirmation.
Thanks for any guidance you can provide.
Holly Roark
Certified Bankruptcy Specialist*
*and Sports Lawyer*
holly@roarklawoffices.com **primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
*Central District of California & District of Idaho* - Consumer Bankruptcy
Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067
T (310) 553-2600; F (310) 553-2601
*By State Bar of California Board of Legal Specialization
I just received an
objection from the UST for infeasibility. My debtors are making all adequate
protection payments timely but they are running a little bit negative on average (10
months average negative cash flow $2,900). In their trucking business some months are
great, but some are tough because of repairs, etc. Confirmation Hearing
is 9/7 and I need to address this in writing Thursday 8/31.
I am looking for ideas to overcome this objection. Debtors can adjust budget. Plan payments to secured creditors will be roughly the same, + some to unsecureds, + atty fees, but once case is closed, no more UST fees. We can lower insider comp a little bit. Trying to think of other things to present to court as to how this will work. This is a small business case and judge extended time to file and confirm plan 300/45. See 1121(e)(3), and judge indicated at last hearing that if need be at confirmation on 9/7 will extend again, so this is not an issue.Everything else is great. All votes yes except one small no. No other objections to confirmation.
Thanks
for any guidance you can provide.Holly RoarkCertified Bankruptcy Specialist*and Sports Lawyer
holly@roarklawoffices.com**primary email address**
www.roarklawoffices.com
Central District of California & District of Idaho - Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney
1875 Century Park East, Suite 600 Los Angeles, CA 90067T (310) 553-2600; F (310) 553-2601
The post was migrated from Yahoo.