Please let us know J. Riblet's position. I have a case before her as well.
What is your case number?
On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:36 PM, John D. Faucher
wrote:
> **
>
>
> I'll find out Riblet's position on February 8.
>
> John D. Faucher
> Hurlbett & Faucher, LLP
> 5743 Corsa Ave., Suite 208
> Westlake Village, CA 91362
> (818) 889-8080
> Fax: (805) 367-4154
>
http://www.hurlbettfaucher.com/
>
> 3324 State Street, Suite O
> Santa Barbara, CA 93105
> (805) 963-9111
>
> *This electronic mail message and any attached files are confidential,
> contain information intended for the exclusive use of the individual or
> entity to whom it is addressed, and may be legally privileged. If you are
> not the intended recipient, please immediately reply to John Faucher (at
> 818/889-8080 or
john@hf-bklaw.com) indicating that you received this
> message and then delete the message without delay. Thank you for your
> cooperation.
>
> Disclosure Under U.S. IRS Circular 230: The recipient may not use any tax
> advice contained in this communication, including any attachments, for the
> purpose of avoiding federal tax related penalties or promoting, marketing
> or recommending to another party any particular transaction or matter.
> *
>
> On 1/18/12 4:47 PM, "Catherine Christiansen"
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Saltzman has said she believes there is an APR in Ch 11.
>
>
> Law Office of Catherine Christiansen****
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* jonhayes6666
> *To:*
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:45 PM
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] Absolute Priority Rule in Individual Chapter 11s
>
>
> I would like to create a comprehensive list of judges who believe that
> there is no more APR in chapter 11 cases. If you know a judge who has
> stated CLEARLY one way or the other, please post here. Ahart of course
> wrote his article saying the absolute prioority rule is absolutely gone. I
> know Tighe agrees and I know Albert disagrees. Who else?
>
> While we're at it, it would be good to know who says a discharge is
> required for a LAM motion and who says it is not required. Tighe says its
> required and Sandy Klein told me she agrees.
>
> I guess finally is the Reswick issue of the stay in the second case. I
> know VZ and Clarkson says it applies only to the debtor. Sandy Klein and
> Neil Bason - and obviously Deborah Saltzman disagree. Who else?
>
> Please do not guess. It must be clear one way or the other. Jon
>
>
>
>
>
Kirk Brennan, esq.
California Law Office, P.C.
calibankrutpcysite.com
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the
exclusive and confidential use of the intended recipient. If you are not
the intended recipient, please do not read, distribute or take action in
reliance on this message. If you have received this message in error,
please notify us immediately by return e-mail and promptly delete this
message and its attachments from your computer system. We do not waive
attorney-client or work product privilege by the transmission of this
message.
TAX ADVICE NOTICE: Tax advice, if any, contained in this e-mail does not
constitute a "reliance opinion" as defined in IRS Circular 230 and may not
be used to establish reasonable reliance on the opinion of counsel for the
purpose of avoiding the penalty imposed by Section 6662A of the Internal
Revenue Code. The firm provides reliance opinions only in formal opinion
letters containing the signature of a director.
Please let us know J. Riblet's position. I have a case before her as well.What is your case number?On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 5:36 PM, John D. Faucher < wrote:
The post was migrated from Yahoo.