Despite that, I have confirmed an individual plan recently with Judge
Russell and said in my confirmation memo that it did not apply -- however,
nobody objected to confirmation in that case.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Dennis wrote:
> **
>
>
> Judge Russell is another who insists apr still applies.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Dec 7, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Nicholas Gebelt
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Dear Steve,****
>
> ** **
>
> I can't speak about Zurzolo, but in Alan M. Ahart, *The Absolute
> Abolition Of The Absolute Priority Rule In Individual Chapter 11 Cases*,
> 31 Cal. Bankr. J. 731, 751 (2011) Judge Ahart argues that ". . . Congress
> intended to make Chapter 11 for individual debtors conform to Chapter 13,
> at least with respect to these matters." ****
>
> ** **
>
> If Judge Zurzolo hasn't yet made up his mind on the subject - admittedly,
> a bit unlikely - perhaps you can use the content of Judge Ahart's article
> in a P&A to sway him away from Judge Albert's (and Judge Saltzman's)
> position.****
>
> ** **
>
> Good luck,****
>
> ** **
>
> Nick****
>
> ** **
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.****
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt****
>
> 15150 Hornell Street****
>
> Whittier, CA 90604****
>
> Phone: 562.777.9159****
>
> FAX: 562.946.1365****
>
> Email:
ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com;
ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com****
>
> Web:
www.goodbye2debt.com****
>
> Blog:
www.southerncaliforniabankruptcylawblog.com/ ****
>
> ** **
>
> *We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief
> under the Bankruptcy Code.***
>
> ** **
>
> Confidentiality Note: This e-mail is intended only for the person or
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
> privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure.
> Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information
> herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
> responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
> immediately at 562.777.9159 or e-mail
info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the
> original message and all copies.****
>
> ** **
>
> Representation Note: If you have not signed a contract of representation,
> the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you, and this email
> does not contain any legal advice for you.****
>
> ** **
>
> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with the requirements
> imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
> intended 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 herein.*
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:*
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf
> Of *stephen burton
> *Sent:* Wednesday, December 07, 2011 11:10 AM
> *To:*
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] absolute priority rule in ch 11 cases****
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
> Does anyone know how the judges in downtown los angeles view this issue at
> present? Particularly, Judge Zurzolo?****
>
> ****
>
> Steve Burton****
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Dennis McGoldrick
> *To:* "
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com"
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 24, 2011 9:50 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] absolute priority rule in ch 11 cases****
>
> ****
>
> The problem is with the interpretation of the word, "included"
> 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii) says the debtor gets to keep property "included" in the
> estate under section 1115. Included is defined in Section 102(3), as not
> limiting. The judges, like Albert, who are finding the absolute priority
> rule applicable in individual chapter 11's, are not reading 103. Including
> is not limiting. That is, you cannot just limit the amount included to
> postpetition property. Not limiting means 1115 is inclulsive, adding 541
> to 1115. Debtor, under this standard use of the English language, gets to
> keep everything. ****
>
> ** **
>
> Also realize, all of the 1115 is completely spurious under any other
> construction. 1129(a)(15) is completely spurious under any other
> construction. ****
>
> ** **
>
> dennis mcgoldrick****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> *From:* Kirk Brennan
> *To:*
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 24, 2011 9:34 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] absolute priority rule in ch 11 cases [1
> Attachment]****
>
> ****
>
> That appears to be J. Albert's position. See attached.****
>
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2011 at 7:37 PM, Nicholas Gebelt
> wrote:****
>
> ****
>
> At a recent MCLE in Santa Ana I heard Judge Albert state that in his
> opinion the absolute priority rule DOES apply in individual Chapter 11s. *
> ***
>
> ****
>
> Nicholas Gebelt, Ph.D., J.D.****
>
> Certified Bankruptcy Specialist****
>
> ****
>
> *Error! Filename not specified.*****
>
> ****
>
> Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt****
>
> 15150 Hornell Street****
>
> Whittier, CA 90604****
>
> Phone: 562.777.9159****
>
> FAX: 562.946.1365****
>
> Email:
ngebelt@goodbye2debt.com;
ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com****
>
> Web:
www.goodbye2debt.com****
>
> Blog:
www.bankruptcylawyerwhittier.blogspot.com/ ****
>
> ****
>
> *We are a debt relief agency. We help people file for bankruptcy relief
> under the Bankruptcy Code.*****
>
> ****
>
> Confidentiality Note: This e-mail is intended only for the person or
> entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is
> privileged, confidential, or otherwise protected from disclosure.
> Dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail or the information
> herein by anyone other than the intended recipient, or an employee or agent
> responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, is
> prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us
> immediately at 562.777.9159 or e-mail
info@gebeltlaw.com and destroy the
> original message and all copies.****
>
> ****
>
> Representation Note: If you have not signed a contract of representation,
> the Law Offices of Nicholas Gebelt do not represent you, and this email
> does not contain any legal advice for you.****
>
> ****
>
> *IRS Circular 230 Disclosure: In order to comply with the requirements
> imposed by the Internal Revenue Service, we inform you that any U.S. tax
> advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not
> intended 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 herein.*
> ****
>
> ****
>
> *From:*
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com [mailto:
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com] *On Behalf
> Of *P L
> *Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2011 7:29 PM
> *To:*
cdcbaa@yahoogroups.com
> *Subject:* Re: [cdcbaa] absolute priority rule in ch 11 cases****
>
> ****
>
> ****
>
> I haven't faced it headon yet. ****
>
> ****
>
> However, I recall from a fairly recent judge's night MCLE program
> poll that all CDCA judges except DS indicated no APR in individual cases.*
> ***
>
> ****
>
> Peter M. Lively, JD, MBA****
>
> *The Personal Financial Law Center * *Culver City & Costa Mesa *
> 800-307-DEBT****
>
> ****
>
> *From:* Kirk Brennan
> *To:* Cdcbaa Yahoo Listserv
> *Sent:* Monday, August 22, 2011 7:22 PM
> *Subject:* [cdcbaa] absolute priority rule in ch 11 cases****
>
> ****
>
> Have any of you faced an objection to ch 11 plan confirmation (individual
> debtor) based on the absolute priority rule?
> If so, how did you respond?
> Do you know how CDCA judges are ruling on the issue?
>
>
>
> --
> 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. ****
>
> ****
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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. ****
>
> ** **
>
> ** **
>
> ****
>
>
>
Giovanni Orantes, Esq.
Orantes Law Firm, P.C.
3435 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1980
Los Angeles, CA 90010
Tel: (213) 389-4362
Fax: (877) 789-5776
e-mail:
go@gobklaw.com
website:
www.gobklaw.com
Despite that, I have confirmed an individual plan recently with Judge Russell and said in my confirmation memo that it did not apply -- however, nobody objected to confirmation in that case.
On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Dennis <
easky1@yahoo.com> wrote:
Judge Russell is another who insists apr still applies.Sent from my iPhoneOn Dec 7, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Nicholas Gebelt <
ngebelt@gebeltlaw.com> wrote:
Dear Steve,
I can't speak about Zurzolo, but in Alan M. Ahart, The
Absolute Abolition Of The Absolute Priority Rule In Individual Chapter 11 Cases,
31 Cal. Bankr. J. 731, 751 (2011) Judge Ahart argues that ". . . Congress
intended to make Chapter 11 for individual debtors conform to Chapter 13, at
least with respect to these matters."
If Judge Zurzolo hasn't yet made up his mind on the subject - admittedly,
a bit unlikely - perhaps you can use the content of Judge Ahart's article in a P&A
The post was migrated from Yahoo.