Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Could a chapter 11 plan ever be confirmed anyway? Would you have the vote
from an impaired class? Would the Debtor be able to pay the taxes with
statutory interest within 60 months from the date of the filing of the
petition? I think you need someone like me to look at the facts and
explain how an 11 would be for naught. Of course, I've also made the
unconstitutionality argument before, but prevailed based on a different
section and on practical grounds.
On Sun, 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.
>
>
>
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.
Note: The information in this e-mail message is not intended to be legal
advice and should not be relied upon as legal advice unless counsel
expressly contracted in writing to provide such advice. Furthermore, the
information contained in this e-mail message is confidential information
intended only for the use of the individual or entity named. If the reader
of this message is not the intended recipient or an agent responsible for
delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any
dissemination, distribution or copy of this communication is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please
immediately notify us by telephone or e-mail and delete the original e-mail
Could a chapter 11 plan ever be confirmed anyway? Would you have the vote from an impaired class? Would the Debtor be able to pay the taxes with statutory interest within 60 months from the date of the filing of the petition? I think you need someone like me to look at the facts and explain how an 11 would be for naught. Of course, I've also made the unconstitutionality argument before, but prevailed based on a different section and on practical grounds.On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 12:46 PM,
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

This is a dream scenario for invalidating that code section as a violation
of the 13th amendment.
Sincerely,
*Michael Avanesian, Esq. *
Avanesian Law Firm
101 N. Brand Blvd. PH 1920
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 Fri, Oct 16, 2015 at 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.
>
> ******************************************************
>
>
>
>
>
This is a dream scenario for invalidating that code section as a violation of the 13th amendment.Sincerely,Michael Avanesian, Esq.Avanesian Law Firm101 N. Brand Blvd. PH 1920Glendale, CA 91203Tel: 818.276.2477 | Fax:818.208.4550
The post was migrated from Yahoo.