Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Even without a written lease between the Debtor and the principals, would
this be considered a leasehold of the estate such that Bank 1 can't repo
without relief from stay? (Debtor has always made loan payments but the
principal is the borrower on the loan; Debtor has the unsecured guaranty,
but Debtor is essentially leasing equipment from principals.)
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
On Tue, Oct 25, 2016 at 10:20 AM, Holly Roark
wrote:
> I filed a corporate CH 11. The principals have personal guarantees, except
> in 2 unfortunate cases where the debtor is the unsecured guarantor and the
> principal is the main borrower on the secured equipment loan. Bank 1 and
> Bank 2.
>
> Bank 1 wants their low value Trucking equipment back (value $14k, loans
> $100k), and is trying to repo. We spoke yesterday and (I thought) had a
> short term deal for principal to begin ongoing monthly payments. We'll be
> proposing a plan in the corporate case in the next 90 days. Now Bank 1
> emails me and says they want immediate catch up payments as well, or their
> stuff back. Debtor needs the equipment for Debtor's business. There are
> multiple problems with principal filing either individual 11 or 7. Mainly,
> they need access to credit. Judge in corporate case just allowed Debtor to
> use principals' credit as short term postpetition financing.
>
> I am in the process of filing an AP and TRO to see if I can get a stay to
> keep lenders from going after principals but I may not be able to get this.
>
> Other than principals filing BK, do I have any other leverage? It makes no
> sense to me that a company would want to repo in this situation. There is a
> potential to be paid in full but we need time. Do they get a greater
> benefit from a tax writeoff for the loss than if they got paid in full
> under the loan?
>
> Also, they want to inspect equipment (which is their right). After deal
> was made yesterday, I asked them for a gentleman's agreement not to repo at
> any inspection. Their room went silent. Then they refused to agree. I said
> I thought we had a deal. They said "yeah, yeah, well that's if he can't
> make the next payment." I don't trust these people. Their stuff is on the
> road though so an immediate inspection is not possible; neither is an
> immediate repo.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
>
> --
> 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
>
>
>
>
Even without a written lease between the Debtor and the principals, would this be considered a leasehold of the estate such that Bank 1 can't repo without relief from stay? (Debtor has always made loan payments but the principal is the borrower on the loan; Debtor has the unsecured guaranty, but Debtor is essentially leasing equipment from principals.)"gmail_signature" data-smartmail"gmail_signature">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.

I filed a corporate CH 11. The principals have personal guarantees, except
in 2 unfortunate cases where the debtor is the unsecured guarantor and the
principal is the main borrower on the secured equipment loan. Bank 1 and
Bank 2.
Bank 1 wants their low value Trucking equipment back (value $14k, loans
$100k), and is trying to repo. We spoke yesterday and (I thought) had a
short term deal for principal to begin ongoing monthly payments. We'll be
proposing a plan in the corporate case in the next 90 days. Now Bank 1
emails me and says they want immediate catch up payments as well, or their
stuff back. Debtor needs the equipment for Debtor's business. There are
multiple problems with principal filing either individual 11 or 7. Mainly,
they need access to credit. Judge in corporate case just allowed Debtor to
use principals' credit as short term postpetition financing.
I am in the process of filing an AP and TRO to see if I can get a stay to
keep lenders from going after principals but I may not be able to get this.
Other than principals filing BK, do I have any other leverage? It makes no
sense to me that a company would want to repo in this situation. There is a
potential to be paid in full but we need time. Do they get a greater
benefit from a tax writeoff for the loss than if they got paid in full
under the loan?
Also, they want to inspect equipment (which is their right). After deal was
made yesterday, I asked them for a gentleman's agreement not to repo at
any inspection. Their room went silent. Then they refused to agree. I said
I thought we had a deal. They said "yeah, yeah, well that's if he can't
make the next payment." I don't trust these people. Their stuff is on the
road though so an immediate inspection is not possible; neither is an
immediate repo.
Any suggestions?
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 filed a corporate CH 11. The principals have personal guarantees, except in 2 unfortunate cases wherethe debtor is the unsecuredguarantor and the principal is the main borrower on thesecured equipment to repo. We spoke yesterday and (I thought) had a short termdeal for principal to begin ongoing monthly payments. We'll be proposing a plan in the corporate case in the next 90 days. Now Bank 1 emails me and says they want immediate catch up payments as well, or their stuff back. Debtor needs the equipmentfor Debtor's business. There are multiple problems with principal filing either individual 11 or 7. Mainly, they need access to credit. Judge in corporate case just allowed Debtor to use principals' credit as short term postpetition financing.I am in the process of filing an AP and TRO to see if I can get a stay to keep lenders from going after principals but I may not be able to get this.Other than principals filing BK, do I have any other leverage? It makes no sense to me that a company would want to repo in this situation. There is a potential to be paid in full but we need time.Do they get a greater benefit from a tax writeoff for the loss than if they got paid in full under the loan?Also, they want to inspect equipment (which is their right). After deal was made yesterday, I asked them for a gentleman's agreement not to repo at anyinspection. Their room went silent. Then they refused to agree. I said I thought we had a deal. They said "yeah, yeah,
The post was migrated from Yahoo.