Blogs

When it comes down to consumer bankruptcy, the official forms do a pretty good job of setting forth the facts of the case, the assets involved in the case, the liabilities in the case, and the debtor’s statement of financial affairs. However, there is a very important document that is missing from the official forms,+ Read More
The post Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Forms: Do You Know What Is Missing? appeared first on David M. Siegel.

Last week, the United States Supreme Court granted the writ of certiori in the case of Bullard v. Hyde
Park Savings Bank, which involves the issue of whether an order denying confirmation of a chapter 13 plan of reorganization is a "final judgment" and therefor appealable.  
Case Below - BAP and First Circuit 

In the case below, the chapter 13 debtor appealed the bankruptcy court's order first to the First Circuit's Bankruptcy Appellate Panel (BAP) under both 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) [for a "final order"] and (a)(3) [with leave of court for an interlocutory order].  The BAP agreed to hear it as an interlocutory appeal and upheld the Bankruptcy Court's order denying confirmation of the chapte 13 plan. 
The debtor next filed a notice of appeal to the First Circuit and also requested that the BAP certify the matter for a direct appeal to the First Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2).  The BAP denied the motion for a direct appeal and the First Circuit issued an order to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed on the basis the BAP's order affirming the Bankruptcy Court's order was not a final order as required by 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1). The Court noted that it had previously held that a BAP's order could not be a final order unless the underlying bankruptcy court order was a final order. 

The First Circuit, dismissed the appeal for lack of statutory jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(1) based on its holding that an order denying confirmation of a chapter 13 plan is not a final order. The First Circuit explained that the issue presented was an issue of statutory jurisdiction and not an Article III Constitutional issue. 

Circuit SplitIn its decision, the First Circuit noted that the Sixth, Second, Eighth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits previously that an order denying confirmation is not final if the bankruptcy case has not been dismissed and the debtor remains free to propose another plan.  On the other hand, it noted that the Fourth, Third, and Fifth Circuit held otherwise - that such an order can be final even if the underlying bankruptcy case has not been dismissed.
."  
ReferencesA Primer on the Jurisdiction of the U.S. Courts of Appeals - Federal Judicial Center 2009
Final Analysis: Determining Appealability of a Judgment or Order

Jordan E. Bublick - Miami Bankruptcy Lawyer - Kendall & Aventura Offices - (305) 891-4055 - www.bublicklaw.com

Often Oregon debtors in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy will hit a rough spot during their case and  request a hardship discharge rather than seek conversion to Chapter 7.  Conversion and hardship discharge are not one in the same. There are specific requirements that must be met before you can even be considered for a hardship discharge. The standards for conversion are often much easier to meet.
In order to obtain a hardship discharge, your Oregon bankruptcy attorney must first file a motion requesting the hardship discharge and outlining specifically as to why you would qualify.  The first step in the analysis is whether or not your Plan has been confirmed. If it has not been confirmed by the Oregon Bankruptcy Court, you are not eligible for hardship discharge.
The Oregon Bankruptcy Court will allow a hardship discharge only if three elements are present:

• You failed to complete your plan payments due to circumstances for which you are not to blame. It is not enough to have simply lost your job, you must show that the job is lost and that it is unlikely that you will be employed again. An injury will probably not compel the Court to grant your Motion unless the resulting disability is near permanent. In conversion, it is usually enough that you have been laid off or that an injury is now preventing you from working.
• Based on what you have already paid into the plan, your unsecured creditors have received at least what they would have received if you had filed for Chapter 7.  For example, if one of your vehicles would have been unprotected in a Chapter 7, you must show that the value of that vehicle has already been paid back to your unsecured creditors. In conversion, you could still convert and simply pay the unpaid equity to the Chapter 7 Trustee.
• Modification of your plan is not practical. Meeting this requirement may be difficult to meet if you are currently paying off secured loans through your Chapter 13 case.  When you are seeking a hardship discharge, it is fair for the Court to ask whether you could make even a small payment per month if you surrendered one of your vehicles. This would never come up in conversion.

Ultimately, it may be a great deal easier to convert your case rather than seek a hardship discharge. While conversion means one more 341 hearing and additional fees to your bankruptcy attorney, you can take comfort in knowing that your time and effort devoted to conversion will actually result in discharge.

The original post is titled Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Hardship Discharge in Oregon , and it came from Portland Bankruptcy Attorney | Northwest Debt Relief .

A Florida based flea market has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy due to a three-year lawsuit with Coach over alleged sales of counterfeit items.
Visitors Flea Market filed for bankruptcy protection in part to protect an awaiting sale of the entire business for $5.1 million to Treasure Island Real Estate Partners. After the death of founder and owner Delroy Josephs in November 2013, family members have disagreed over the sale of the business.
Federal agents raided the flea market in December of 2011, as per documents filed in the Coach lawsuit. Coach claimed over 500 counterfeit purses and other items were being sold at stands throughout the market.
Coach is seeking maximum damages for alleged willful violation of trademark laws: each violation could potentially cost up to $2 million a piece.
Investigators for the leather goods company toured the Visitors Flea Market months before the raid; they handed out letters ordering vendors to stop selling the alleged counterfeit merchandise.
Coach accused Josephs of knowing about the knockoffs being sold, but he denied the allegations. According to bankruptcy documents, a settlement agreement was signed by an attorney for Josephs’ estate six months after his passing. The settlement amount was not revealed.
Julio Batista, one of the market’s vendors, signed an affidavit in 2011 that he witnessed a salesman distributing counterfeit Coach purses; the man was identified as the “Chinese Man.” Batista claimed he did not know the items were knockoffs.
“The items displayed at my booth were sold to me through a Chinese Man that comes weekly to the flea market and sells these items in cash,” according to Batista’s affidavit. “This is a very common type of business for a small flea market business.”
Two companies related with the market specifically filed for bankruptcy: the owner and operator, Visitors Flea Market Inc., and a separate leasing company that rented out over 250 vendor booths.
Visitors Flea Market provided a general range of its debt in filing documents—between $1 million and $10 million.
The post Coach Lawsuit Leads to FL Flea Market Bankruptcy appeared first on The Bankruptcy Blog.