claim deadline
Posted: Mon Mar 16, 2015 11:57 am
That would be my argument too. Anyone litigated the issue before?
On Mar 16, 2015 11:47 AM, "Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com
[cdcbaa]" wrote:
>
>
> If someone wants to make a fuss, which they usually don't, the Court would
> have to interpret the Plan.
>
> Based strictly on what you've said, I would argue that X dollars is all
> that has to be paid. This is a pot provision and the creditors all get to
> eat from whatever is in the pot. The estimated 5% is for information
> purposes only.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
> *Michael Avanesian, Esq. *AVANESIAN LAW FIRM
> 101 N. Brand Blvd., PH 1920
> Glendale, California 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 Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:36 AM, Kirk Brennan kirkinhermosa@gmail.com
> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Stated differently, the confirmed plan calls for quarterly payments of X
>> dollars, estimated to payout 5% to unsecured creditors. Is the X dollars
>> per quarter provision what dominates? Or is it the percentage payout?
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Kirk Brennan
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Assuming it must be paid and the payout to general unsecureds is 5%,
>>> would that just reduce the amount going to other unsecured creditors? Or
>>> would the dollar amount have to go up to keep the payout at 5%
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:01 AM, Michael Avanesian
>>> michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, if you scheduled it as a valid claim, you must pay it. The late
>>>> filed POC would only invalidate the POC, it would not change the fact that
>>>> you scheduled it to begin with.
>>>>
>>>> If it's imperative that the claim not be paid, you may be able to argue
>>>> that the POC supersedes the scheduled claim and since it was late and not
>>>> allowed, the whole claim is not allowed. I didn't articulate it very well
>>>> but there is some argument there. I don't think it's a good argument but
>>>> you never know what wins the day.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Michael Avanesian, Esq. *AVANESIAN LAW FIRM
>>>> 101 N. Brand Blvd., PH 1920
>>>> Glendale, California 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 Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:42 AM, Kirk Brennan kirkinhermosa@gmail.com
>>>> [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Even if the claim was filed late per the Notice of Deadlines?
>>>>> On Mar 15, 2015 11:18 PM, "Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com
>>>>> [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All scheduled claims that are not marked as disputed, contingent or
>>>>>> unliquidated must be provided for in the Plan as if they filed a POC. This
>>>>>> is different from Chapter 13s where I believe the opposite is true. See
>>>>>> FRBP 3003(b)(1):
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (1) Schedule of Liabilities. The schedule of liabilities filed
>>>>>> pursuant to 521(l) of the Code shall constitute prima facie evidence of
>>>>>> the validity and amount of the claims of creditors, unless they are
>>>>>> scheduled as disputed, contingent, or unliquidated. It shall not be
>>>>>> necessary for a creditor or equity security holder to file a proof of claim
>>>>>> or interest...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you made a pot plan like 5% to unsecured creditors then it's not
>>>>>> difficult to fix the problem. Make a larger payout to the creditor to catch
>>>>>> them up. I suggest that you comb through the schedules to determine whether
>>>>>> any other creditors were missed.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> *Michael Avanesian, Esq. *AVANESIAN LAW FIRM
>>>>>> 101 N. Brand Blvd., PH 1920
>>>>>> Glendale, California 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 Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Kirk Brennan
>>>>>> kirkinhermosa@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The creditor was not listed as disputed etc.
>>>>>>> On Mar 15, 2015 12:00 PM, "Michael Avanesian
>>>>>>> michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa]" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am assuming the creditor was scheduled as contingent,
>>>>>>>> unliquidated or disputed. If so, they aren't entitled to a distribution.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> *Michael Avanesian, Esq. *AVANESIAN LAW FIRM
>>>>>>>> 101 N. Brand Blvd., PH 1920
>>>>>>>> Glendale, California 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 Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Kirk Brennan
>>>>>>>> kirkinhermosa@gmail.com [cdcbaa] wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Chapter 11 case. Court clerk files Notice of case, meeting of
>>>>>>>>> creditors and deadlines shortly after the case is filed. The notice
>>>>>>>>> includes a "Deadline to File a Proof of Claim."
>>>>>>>>> General unsecured creditor files proof of claim after deadline has
>>>>>>>>> passed.
>>>>>>>>> No motion to set bar date filed.
>>>>>>>>> Plan is confirmed. Plan is silent on the issue.
>>>>>>>>> Must payments be made under the plan to the late filing unsecured
>>>>>>>>> creditor?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> Kirk Brennan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Kirk Brennan
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kirk Brennan
>>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
>
That would be my argument too. Anyone litigated the issue before?
On Mar 16, 2015 11:47 AM, "Michael Avanesian michael@avanesianlaw.com [cdcbaa]" <cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
If someone wants to make a fuss, which they usually don't, the Court would have to interpret the Plan.Based strictly on what you've said, I would argue that X dollars is all that has to be paid. This is a pot provision and the creditors all get to eat from whatever is in the pot. The estimated 5% is for information purposes only.
The post was migrated from Yahoo.