Central District Consumer Bankruptcy Attorney's Association

Follow up: confirmed. Client agreed to take pro rata rather than fight to
have his claim treated differently than GUC. No time for briefing and
hearings on that issue. Had to get it confirmed today.
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 Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 4:35 AM Holly R. wrote:
> Also, because it is liquidating, no discharge. So, the general unsecured
> creditors could actually sue the debtor if they wanted to. Does this help
> get around APR and "fair and equitable?"
>
>
> 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 Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 4:10 AM Holly R. wrote:
>
>> This is a liquidating chapter 11, which will cram down the general
>> unsecured class who is estimated to be paid zero. The only thing left after
>> sale is a lawsuit which a principal of the Debtor will prosecute. It is
>> expected to bring in funds sufficient to pay priority taxes and a secured
>> creditor. To the extent it's not sufficient to pay those 2, the principal
>> will pay from his own funds. To the extent the lawsuit brings in more funds
>> than expected and there are funds remaining after payment of the taxes and
>> a secured creditor, we have proposed to pay THIS principal 100% on his
>> $300K general unsecured claim, prior to any other general unsecured
>> creditor ("GUC") getting paid.
>>
>> We tried to slip in a provision that so long as he contributes funds to
>> the plan (new value) he could get paid in full on his $300K claim prior to
>> any other general unsecureds.
>>
>> Justification: (1) he'll be prosecting the lawsuit
>> (2) he'll be contributing funds to the plan
>>
>> Of course the UST objected to this under the Absolute Priority Rule and
>> general fair and equitable grounds. The principal is not an equity holder
>> so strictly speaking his claim is not lower than the other GUC for purposes
>> of the APR, if that makes a difference. We are just proposing to pay him
>> 100% (if funds are available) before any other GUC.
>>
>> Is there any way I can defeat the UST's objection and pay this principal
>> of the Debtor 100% on his claim prior to any other general unsecured
>> creditors being paid?
>>
>> I've been looking for case law but nothing seems on point.
>>
>> Clock is ticking, so thanks.
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
Follow up: confirmed. Client agreed to take pro rata rather than fight to have his claim treated differently than GUC. No time for briefing and hearings on that issue. Had to get it confirmed today.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.

Also, because it is liquidating, no discharge. So, the general unsecured
creditors could actually sue the debtor if they wanted to. Does this help
get around APR and "fair and equitable?"
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 Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 4:10 AM Holly R. wrote:
> This is a liquidating chapter 11, which will cram down the general
> unsecured class who is estimated to be paid zero. The only thing left after
> sale is a lawsuit which a principal of the Debtor will prosecute. It is
> expected to bring in funds sufficient to pay priority taxes and a secured
> creditor. To the extent it's not sufficient to pay those 2, the principal
> will pay from his own funds. To the extent the lawsuit brings in more funds
> than expected and there are funds remaining after payment of the taxes and
> a secured creditor, we have proposed to pay THIS principal 100% on his
> $300K general unsecured claim, prior to any other general unsecured
> creditor ("GUC") getting paid.
>
> We tried to slip in a provision that so long as he contributes funds to
> the plan (new value) he could get paid in full on his $300K claim prior to
> any other general unsecureds.
>
> Justification: (1) he'll be prosecting the lawsuit
> (2) he'll be contributing funds to the plan
>
> Of course the UST objected to this under the Absolute Priority Rule and
> general fair and equitable grounds. The principal is not an equity holder
> so strictly speaking his claim is not lower than the other GUC for purposes
> of the APR, if that makes a difference. We are just proposing to pay him
> 100% (if funds are available) before any other GUC.
>
> Is there any way I can defeat the UST's objection and pay this principal
> of the Debtor 100% on his claim prior to any other general unsecured
> creditors being paid?
>
> I've been looking for case law but nothing seems on point.
>
> Clock is ticking, so thanks.
>
> 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
>
>
>
Also, because it is liquidating, no discharge. So, the general unsecured creditors could actually sue the debtor if they wanted to. Does this help get around APR and "fair and equitable?"Holly RoarkCertified Bankruptcy Specialist*
The post was migrated from Yahoo.

This is a liquidating chapter 11, which will cram down the general
unsecured class who is estimated to be paid zero. The only thing left after
sale is a lawsuit which a principal of the Debtor will prosecute. It is
expected to bring in funds sufficient to pay priority taxes and a secured
creditor. To the extent it's not sufficient to pay those 2, the principal
will pay from his own funds. To the extent the lawsuit brings in more funds
than expected and there are funds remaining after payment of the taxes and
a secured creditor, we have proposed to pay THIS principal 100% on his
$300K general unsecured claim, prior to any other general unsecured
creditor ("GUC") getting paid.
We tried to slip in a provision that so long as he contributes funds to the
plan (new value) he could get paid in full on his $300K claim prior to any
other general unsecureds.
Justification: (1) he'll be prosecting the lawsuit
(2) he'll be contributing funds to the plan
Of course the UST objected to this under the Absolute Priority Rule and
general fair and equitable grounds. The principal is not an equity holder
so strictly speaking his claim is not lower than the other GUC for purposes
of the APR, if that makes a difference. We are just proposing to pay him
100% (if funds are available) before any other GUC.
Is there any way I can defeat the UST's objection and pay this principal of
the Debtor 100% on his claim prior to any other general unsecured creditors
being paid?
I've been looking for case law but nothing seems on point.
Clock is ticking, so thanks.
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
This is a liquidating chapter 11, which will cram down the general unsecured class who is estimated to be paid zero. The only thing left after sale is a lawsuit which a principal of the Debtor will prosecute. It is expected to bring in funds sufficient to pay priority taxes and a secured creditor. To the extent it's not sufficient to pay those 2, the principal will pay from his own funds. To the extent the lawsuit brings in more funds than expected and there are funds remaining after payment of the taxes and a secured creditor, we have proposed to pay THIS principal 100% on his $300K general unsecured claim, prior to any other general unsecured creditor ("GUC") getting paid.We tried to slip in a provision that so long as he contributes funds to the plan (new value) he could get paid in full on his $300K claim prior to any other general unsecureds. Justification: (1) he'll be prosecting the lawsuit 9;ll be contributing funds to the planOf course the UST objected to this under the Absolute Priority Rule and general fair and equitable grounds. The principal is not an equity holder so strictly speaking his claim is not lower than the other GUC for purposes of the APR, if that makes a difference. We are just proposing to pay him 100% (if funds are available) before any other GUC.Is there any way I can defeat the UST's objection and pay this principal of the Debtor 100% on his claim prior to any other general unsecured creditors being paid?I've been looking for case law but nothing seems on point.Clock is ticking, so thanks.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.