.jpg)
Riverside considering 706(b) motion to convert to Chapter 11
Does UST pay the increased filing fee and fund chapter 11 attorney fees too?
Law Office of Eric Alan Mitnick
21515 Hawthorne Boulevard, Ste. 1080
Torrance, CA 90503
(310) 792-5864
Mitnicklaw@aol.com
Sent from my iPhone
> On Oct 18, 2015, at 12:46 PM, 'Mark J. Markus' bklawr@yahoo.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
> Steve,
>
> They've been threatening this for years, and I think in other parts of the country it has been attempted.
>
> It is unconstitutional.
>
> If they file the Motion, I would strongly urge you to get NACBA involved to assist in preparing oppositions (and make sure you make a proper record) and if somehow the court grants the motion, you need to get them involved in an appeal. This needs to be squashed, and squashed hard at the outset.
> --
>
> *************************
> 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.
>
>
>
>
>> On 10/16/2015 5:56 PM, 'Steven B. Lever' sblever@leverlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>> I thought this community of bankruptcy scholars may be interested in this possible scenario I could be dealing with.
>>
>>
>>
>> I filed a Chapter 7 in Riverside and its mostly all tax debt. So 11 U.S.C. 707(b) does not apply. Debtors earn $20,000 gross per year. They wouldnt pass the means test if they had to take it.
>>
>>
>>
>> UST asks why with the large income they dont convert to Chapter 13. I explain as per above they dont have to.
>>
>>
>>
>> They do discovery requests and I ask if they reject my 11 U.S.C. 707(b) analysis as this is not a consumer case which is a requirement under 11 U.S.C. 707(b) motion.
>>
>>
>>
>> Turns out they agree with my analysis under 707(b), but are considering an 11 U.S.C. 706(b) motion to convert to Chapter 11, which can be brought by any party in interest. That is opposed to an 11 U.S.C. 706(a) conversion to Chapter 13 which can only be brought by the Debtor.
>>
>>
>>
>> Frankly, I never thought of that or ever heard of that tactic.
>>
>>
>>
>> Im mostly mentioning this scenario because it expanded my horizons on the use of the Bankruptcy Code.
>>
>>
>>
>> It seems odd to me that Debtors who would qualify for Chapter 13 (they do) and could not be forced into a 13 could be forced into an 11. WJ is the judge so that is a consideration, but it seems like an end run around the abuse standards in the Code.
>>
>>
>>
>> If anyone wants to comment on or off list Id be interested in any comments, but this is really posted as something that may be of interest. I presume no one has actually litigated this, but if you have Id definitely like to hear from you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Thank you.
>>
>>
>>
>> Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Law Offices of Steven B. Lever
>>
>>
>>
>> Steven B. Lever
>>
>> ( Tel. (562) 436-5456 ext. 1
>>
>> ( Fax (562) 485-6886
>>
>> * sblever@leverlaw.com
>>
>> www.leverlaw.com
>>
>> ******************************************************
>>
>> This Internet e-mail contains confidential information
>>
>> which is intended only for the addressee and which may
>>
>> be privileged under applicable law. Do not read, copy
>>
>> or disseminate it if you are not the addressee. If you
>>
>> have received this message in error, please notify the
>>
>> sender immediately and delete it. Thank you.
>>
>> ******************************************************
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> *************************
> 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 thought this community of bankruptcy scholars may be interested in this possible scenario I could be dealing with.
I filed a Chapter 7 in Riverside and it's mostly all tax debt. So 11 U.S.C. 707(b) does not apply. Debtor's earn $20,000 gross per year. They wouldn't pass the means test if they had to take it.
UST asks why with the large income they don't convert to Chapter 13. I explain as per above they don't have to.
They do discovery requests and I ask if they reject my 11 U.S.C. 707(b) analysis as this is not a consumer case which is a requirement under 11 U.S.C. 707(b) motion.
Turns out they agree with my analysis under 707(b), but are considering an 11 U.S.C. 706(b) motion to convert to Chapter 11, which can be brought by any party in interest. That is opposed to an 11 U.S.C. 706(a) conversion to Chapter 13 which can only be brought by the Debtor.
Frankly, I never thought of that or ever heard of that tactic.
I'm mostly mentioning this scenario because it expanded my horizons on the use of the Bankruptcy Code.
It seems odd to me that Debtors who would qualify for Chapter 13 (they do) and could not be forced into a 13 could be forced into an 11. WJ is the judge so that is a consideration, but it seems like an end run around the abuse standards in the Code.
If anyone wants to comment on or off list I'd be interested in any comments, but this is really posted as something that may be of interest. I presume no one has actually litigated this, but if you have I'd definitely like to hear from you.
Thank you.
Steve
Law Offices of Steven B. Lever
Steven B. Lever
* Tel. (562) 436-5456 ext. 1
* Fax (562) 485-6886
* sblever@leverlaw.com
www.leverlaw.com
******************************************************
This Internet e-mail contains confidential information
which is intended only for the addressee and which may
be privileged under applicable law. Do not read, copy
or disseminate it if you are not the addressee. If you
have received this message in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete it. Thank you.
******************************************************
I thought this community of bankruptcy scholars may be interested in this possible scenario I could be dealing with.
I filed a Chapter 7 in Riverside and it’s mostly all tax debt. So 11 U.S.C. 707(b) does not apply. Debtor’s earn $20,000 gross per year. They wouldn’t pass the means
test if they had to take it.
UST asks why with the large income they don’t convert to Chapter 13. I explain as per above they don’t have to.
They do discovery requests and I ask if they reject my 11 U.S.C. 707(b) analysis as this is not a consumer case which is a requirement under 11 U.S.C. 707(b) motion.
Turns out they agree with my analysis under 707(b), but are considering an 11 U.S.C. 706(b) motion to convert to Chapter 11, which can be brought by any party in interest.
That is opposed to an 11 U.S.C. 706(a) conversion to Chapter 13 which can only be brought by the Debtor.
Frankly, I never thought of that or ever heard of that tactic.
I’m mostly mentioning this scenario because it expanded my horizons on the use of the Bankruptcy Code.
It seems odd to me that Debtors who would qualify for Chapter 13 (they do) and could not be forced into a 13 could be forced into an 11. WJ is the judge so that is a consideration,
but it seems like an end run around the abuse standards in the Code.
If anyone wants to comment on or off list I’d be interested in any comments, but this is really posted as something that may be of interest. I presume no one has actually
litigated this, but if you have I’d definitely like to hear from you.
Thank you.
Steve
Law Offices of Steven B. Lever
Steven B. Lever
(
Tel. (562) 436-5456 ext. 1
(
Fax (562) 485-6886
*
sblever@leverlaw.com
www.leverlaw.com
******************************************************
This Internet e-mail contains confidential information
which is intended only for the addressee and which may
be privileged under applicable law. Do not read, copy
or disseminate it if you are not the addressee. If you
have received this message in error, please notify the
sender immediately and delete it. Thank you.
******************************************************
The post was migrated from Yahoo.