Blogs
By WINNIE HU
In Chicago, a 15-cent fee on Uber, Lyft and other ride-hailing services is helping to pay for track, signal and electrical upgrades to make the city’s trains run faster and smoother.
Ride-hailing trips in Philadelphia are expected to raise $2.6 million this year for the city’s public schools through a 1.4 percent tax that will also generate more than a million dollars for enforcement and regulation of the ride-hailing industry itself. In South Carolina, a 1 percent ride-hailing fee has yielded more than a million dollars for municipalities and counties to spend as they choose.
And Massachusetts began collecting 20 cents for every ride-hailing trip this month, earmarking the revenue to improve roads and bridges, fill a state transportation fund and even help a rival — the struggling taxi industry — adapt with new technologies and job training.
As ride-hailing services become a dominant force across the country, they have increased congestion, threatened taxi industries and posed political and legal challenges for cities and states struggling to regulate the high-tech newcomers. But they are also proving to be an unexpected boon for municipalities that are increasingly latching onto their success — and being rewarded with millions in revenue to pay not only for transportation and infrastructure needs, but also a host of programs and services that have nothing to do with the ride-hailing apps.
Now New York is seeking to join this growing wave with a new surcharge on ride-hailing and taxi trips that could become a central piece of an ambitious congestion pricing plan for Manhattan. A state task force has proposed fees of $2 to $5 per ride that would be among the highest in the nation — and could generate up to $605 million a year for the city’s failing subway system.
“We used to have yellow cabs, we now have yellow cabs and black cars and green cars and every color in the rainbow and they cruise downtown Manhattan to pick up fares,” Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo has said. “That is one of the first places I would look to reduce congestion and to raise money.”
Even as President Trump promotes a plan to rebuild the country’s tattered infrastructure, many local governments are not waiting to see what, if any, help Washington provides and are finding novel ways to pay for transportation and other public works projects.
Across the nation, more than a dozen states and municipalities have imposed fees or taxes on ride-hailing companies or their passengers, or sometimes both, and many more are considering such measures, according to transportation and tax experts. Advocates for the charges contend that the ride-hailing cars should pay for using public streets and resources, contributing to gridlock and pollution, and siphoning passengers and fares from public transit.
“If they want to share the pie, then they have to pay the price,” said Fayez Khozindar, the executive director of the United Taxidrivers Community Council, an advocacy group for taxi drivers in Chicago. “It’s fair because we know the city is short on funds and they want to fill the hole.”
But some drivers and passengers for the ride-hailing companies say they have been unfairly singled out — in many places the new fees do not apply to taxis.
“Uber and Lyft have always been an easy target for cities looking for new streams of revenue,” said Harry Campbell, a driver for Uber and Lyft in California who writes a popular blog, The Rideshare Guy.
In New York and Chicago, Uber and Lyft have said they see their services as complementing the public transit systems and providing another option for riders, especially in transit deserts with few bus routes and train lines. Uber supports a congestion plan for Manhattan — even running an ad campaign backing the idea —as long as it does not single out for-hire vehicles.
“A comprehensive congestion pricing plan that is applied to all vehicles in the central business district is the best way to fully fund mass transit, reduce congestion and improve transportation for outer borough New Yorkers,” an Uber spokeswoman, Alix Anfang, said. “A surcharge alone will not accomplish these goals.”
Last year, New York State approved a 4 percent assessment on ride-hailing trips that begin outside New York City (rides in the city are already subject to state and local taxes). It is expected to raise $24 million a year for the state’s general fund though one state legislator, Senator John E. Brooks, a Democrat from Long Island, has proposed legislation to direct that revenue to local bus and commuter rail services. “We need to think creatively and outside of the box in order to improve
funding for local transit,” he said.
The new fees and taxes are often part of broader regulatory measures as states and localities scramble to update tax codes and laws that have not kept up with the proliferation of app-based ride services. For instance, a Georgia state tax applies to rides in taxis but not ride-hailing cars even though they essentially do the same thing, said Carl Davis, research director for the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy in Washington.
“A lot of tax codes weren’t set up to take them into account,” Mr. Davis said.
“They’re so new they didn’t even exist a decade ago. It’s an emerging tax issue, and states and localities are playing catch up.”
South Carolina added a 1 percent fee to ride-hailing trips in 2015, in part to establish a single regulatory framework and block local efforts to charge prohibitively high fees to keep them out, state officials said. Now that fee has become a source of extra cash. The city of North Charleston, for instance, receives more than $30,000 annually and uses it for municipal operations.
In Oregon, Portland officials initially barred Uber but eventually agreed to allow it and Lyft to operate through pilot programs. In 2016, the city sought to create a single standard for taxis and ride-hailing cars and assessed a 50-cent ride fee on both of them, which is paid by passengers.
The 50-cent fee has added up to more than $8 million to help pay for city enforcement efforts, including spot inspections of cars and incentives to companies and drivers to choose wheelchair accessible cars. The fee “hasn’t been a barrier to the riders at all as the ride-hailing services have continued to expand,’’ said Dave Benson, a senior manager for the Portland Bureau of Transportation. “We haven’t seen the top yet.’’
Still, many Portland taxi owners and drivers say the fee has hurt them more than their rivals. Noah Ernst, a superintendent for Radio Cab, said many taxi drivers feel the 50-cent fee means a smaller tip because passengers lump everything together when they pay. Taxi companies also face the headache of trying to collect the fee from drivers.
He added that taxis continued to face more stringent safety, equipment and insurance requirements, and were targeted more often for inspections because their cars were easily identified by company colors and logos.
“It’s not an equal playing field at all and we were trying to tell them this the entire time they were rewriting the code,” he said.
As a result, he said, taxi companies are struggling and at least two have gone out of business. His company, Radio Cab, has lost more than a third of its business since 2015.
Chicago officials have calculated that ride-hailing companies have cost the city about $40 million a year in lost revenue from transit fares, parking fees, licenses and permits. In 2014, the city imposed a 20-cent fee on ride-hailing trips in response to concerns that taxis were being undercut. Two years later, that fee went up to 50 cents, with an additional two-cent fee paid by the ride-hailing companies themselves. And now, the new 15-cent fee for the transit system brings the total to 65 cents for passengers.
The city also assessed a separate $5 fee on passengers who were picked up or dropped off by ride-hailing cars at the major airports, the convention center and the Navy Pier, a popular tourist destination.
The ride-hailing fees produced nearly $39 million for the city’s general fund in 2016, up from about $100,000 in 2014, according to city estimates. Last year’s revenue, which is still being collected, is expected to reach $72 million.
“It’s a fairly new industry and once they actually got settled in the city we saw a lot of growth,” the Chicago budget director, Samantha Fields, said.
Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago, who has made modernizing the L a priority, said the new 15-cent fee was the first of its kind to raise money solely for public transit from those who might not even use it because they could afford the ridehailing cars. “I think it’s a progressive transportation tax,” Mr. Emanuel said. “It will make public transportation competitive with the rideshare industry.”
In effect, Mr. Emanuel said, it will serve as a “backdoor approach” to fighting congestion created by the ride-hailing cars by helping shift more people — by their own choice — to the transit system. “There’s a congestion fee and I would just say the rideshare fee is kind of parallel parking into the same position,” he said.
The 15-cent fee is projected to bring in $16 million this year, which will be turned over to the Chicago Transit Authority. The money will be used to secure additional funding through bond sales to pay for a total of $179 million in capital improvements, according to city officials.
Kyle Whitehead, the government relations director for Active Transportation Alliance, a Chicago advocacy group for biking, walking and transit, said that the transit system contributes to the health of the city by getting more people out of cars, increasing exercise levels and reducing pollution — and it is now in dire need of money.
“The public transit system benefits everyone who lives and works in the city, he said, “regardless of whether they’re using it.”
Copyright 2018 The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.
California tax and bankruptcy expert Morgan King writes in his latest newsletter:
“The IRS has begun certifying federal tax debts of more than $50,000 to the State Department, which poses problems for travelers. Why? Because the State Department generally won’t issue passports to taxpayers who have been flagged for delinquencies.
Internal Revenue Code 7345 allows this. Once the State Department is notified, it can either deny a passport application and/or revoke a current passport. If it happens while a taxpayer is out of the country, the State Department may issue what’s called a limited validity passport that only allows a taxpayer’s direct return to the U.S.
California tax and bankruptcy expert Morgan King writes in his latest newsletter:
“The IRS has begun certifying federal tax debts of more than $50,000 to the State Department, which poses problems for travelers. Why? Because the State Department generally won’t issue passports to taxpayers who have been flagged for delinquencies.
Internal Revenue Code 7345 allows this. Once the State Department is notified, it can either deny a passport application and/or revoke a current passport. If it happens while a taxpayer is out of the country, the State Department may issue what’s called a limited validity passport that only allows a taxpayer’s direct return to the U.S.
Buying at a foreclosure sale “don’t let a bargain become a burden”
Reprint from:
Vandeventer Black LLP USA February 14 2018
Looming maturity dates (for which borrowers are not prepared to pay the remaining balance) or other monetary defaults of numerous commercial mortgages may present many opportunities for purchasing property on a discounted basis. With proper precautions and investigation, what appears to be a “deal” really can be a “deal.” However, purchasing a property at a foreclosure sale or other distressed sale has many traps for the unwary. What appears to be a bargain can quickly turn into a nightmare, if the buyer rushes into the purchase without enough information.
Bidders often forget that, at a foreclosure, they are agreeing to purchase the property “as-is,”
Buying at a foreclosure sale can become a nightmare
Bidders often forget that, at a foreclosure, they are agreeing to purchase the property “as-is,” subject to (i) no closing contingencies and (ii) all of the property’s defects and deficiencies. If a bidder is successful, the bidder is committed to completing the acquisition of the property, regardless of the condition of the property. There are countless examples of expensive post-acquisition issues that could have been easily detected with minimal due diligence. Some of these latent issues include environmental conditions, liens and deed restrictions, and major repair items. Accordingly, purchasers of real estate at a foreclosure sale should undertake the same due diligence as if they were purchasing the real estate in an arm’s length non-foreclosure transaction from a third party (even though time may be limited).
The purchase that may seem like a bargain can become a financial disaster if purchasers do not enter the purchase with their eyes wide open.
Prior to bidding, every bidder should obtain a title report, which will identify the liens and encumbrances that will continue to burden the property following the foreclosure purchase. In addition, although access to the property is often limited prior to foreclosures, the prospective purchaser should also try to obtain a basic property condition report prior to bidding. If purchasers are not careful, they could end up purchasing a property that is (i) subject to debt far higher than the amount of the purchase price or (ii) in very poor physical condition.
Although this may sound unfair to the buyer, the buyer is typically paying a substantially discounted price. The money saved is often spent on performing repairs and improvements that have been neglected by the financially distressed owner. Also, lenders price their loans with the anticipation that they will be able to sell the subject properties at foreclosure with minimal costs and liability exposure. If lenders were subjected to the same costs and liability as a seller in a “regular” sale, the borrowing costs and interest rates for all borrowers could increase.
Proper due diligence and consulting with your attorney on the front end can save tremendous heartache on the back end. If a deal looks too good to be true, it probably is, and the purchaser should not be afraid to walk away from the sale if they feel they do not have sufficient information.
Vandeventer Black LLP – Richard J. Crouch
Other articles:
Buying Tax Liens – not entirely Gold Investment
Trustee sale “foreclosure” process in Arizona
About the Author:
Diane L. Drain is a well known and respected Arizona bankruptcy attorney. She is an expert in both consumer bankruptcy and Arizona foreclosure. Since 1985 she has been a dedicated advocate for her clients and spokesperson for Arizona citizens. As a teacher and retired law professor, Diane believes in offering everyone, not just her clients, advice about the Arizona bankruptcy and foreclosure laws. She is also a mentor to hundreds of Arizona attorneys. 
I would be flattered if you connected with me on GOOGLE+
*Important Note from Diane: Everything on this web site is available for educational purposes only, is not intended to provide legal advice nor create an attorney client relationship between you, me, or the author of any article. Any information in this web site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from an attorney familiar with your personal circumstances and licensed to practice law in your state.*
Share this entry
The post Buying at a Foreclosure May Become a Disaster appeared first on Diane L. Drain - Phoenix Bankruptcy & Foreclosure Attorney.
UPRIGHT LAW and KEVIN CHERN, partner, sanctioned for ‘unconscionable harm to clients’
Report from the Department of Justice, 2/13/18 – Law Solutions Chicago, doing business as “UpRight Law”, UpRight’s managing partner Kevin Chern, and affiliated partner attorneys Darren Delafield and John C. Morgan Jr. were sanctioned hundreds thousands of dollars “for causing ‘unconscionable’ harm to their clients”.
The court found that the law firm and its attorneys, “systematically engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, provided inadequate representation to consumer debtor clients, and promoted and participated in a scheme to convert auto lenders’ collateral and then misrepresented the nature of that scheme..” said Director Cliff White of the Executive Office for U.S. Trustees.
The court also revoked UpRight’s bankruptcy filing privileges in the Western District of Virginia for not less than five years, and its local partners for 12 and 18 months, respectively. The bankruptcy court also sanctioned Sperro LLC (Sperro), an Indiana towing, ordering turnover of funds.
“Lawyers who inadequately represent consumer debtors harm not only their clients, but also creditors and the integrity of the bankruptcy system,” said Director White. “The damage caused increases exponentially when they operate nationally, like UpRight. This case is demonstrative of the vigorous enforcement actions that the U.S. Trustee Program can and will take to protect all stakeholders in the bankruptcy process.”
for more…
See also an article from Credit Slips :
“To oversimplify (and leave out certain other issues of bad behavior), the law firm steered debtors who owned cars in which they had zero equity into an arrangement in which the debtor’s car would be towed for an (unpaid) fee by an affiliated firm and then stored in Indiana. The existing auto lender would never be notified of any of this. The affiliate would then assert a warehouseman’s lien for the unpaid fee and foreclose on the car, and use the sale proceeds to pay back the fee and pay the debtor’s bankruptcy filing fee to the law firm, with the auto lender getting nothing.”
For more…..
About the Author:
Diane L. Drain is a well known and respected Arizona bankruptcy attorney. She is an expert in both consumer bankruptcy and Arizona foreclosure. Since 1985 she has been a dedicated advocate for her clients and spokesperson for Arizona citizens. As a teacher and retired law professor, Diane believes in offering everyone, not just her clients, advice about the Arizona bankruptcy and foreclosure laws. She is also a mentor to hundreds of Arizona attorneys.
I would be flattered if you connected with me on GOOGLE+
*Important Note from Diane: Everything on this web site is available for educational purposes only, is not intended to provide legal advice nor create an attorney client relationship between you, me, or the author of any article. Any information in this web site should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from an attorney familiar with your personal circumstances and licensed to practice law in your state.*
Share this entry
The post UpRight Law, Kevin Chern Sanctioned for Unconscionable Harm to Clients appeared first on Diane L. Drain - Phoenix Bankruptcy & Foreclosure Attorney.
Bankruptcy may be able to help you reduce or erase your medical debt. However, medical debts are handled differently in each type, or “chapter,” of bankruptcy in California. Therefore, it is important to understand how bankruptcy affects medical debt before you file your petition. In this article, the Roseville Chapter 7 lawyers of The Bankruptcy Group will explain some key differences between how medical debt is treated in Chapter 7, and what happens to medical debt when you file for Chapter 13. Depending on your financial resources, your long-term goals, and the amount of medical debt you’ve incurred, one chapter may be a better bankruptcy option than the other.
Chapter 7 Medical Debt Relief
Chapter 7, which is also called “liquidation bankruptcy,” is the most popular type of personal bankruptcy, not only in California but across the United States. According to federal bankruptcy court statistics, there were 486,347 Chapter 7 filings in 2017, including more than 50,000 in California’s courts.
Like debtors (people who file for bankruptcy) in Chapter 13, Chapter 7 debtors are required to meet a few federal bankruptcy requirements before filing a petition for bankruptcy. For example, it is mandatory to complete pre-bankruptcy credit counseling.
Once credit counseling and other pre-bankruptcy requirements have been successfully completed, it is time for the debtor to file his or her bankruptcy paperwork with help from a Folsom Chapter 7 bankruptcy lawyer. This includes:
- The petition for bankruptcy.
- Supporting financial documents that outline debts, assets, income, and other financial details.
If the court agrees to proceed after reviewing these documents, the court will randomly assign a trustee to the case. After examining your assets, the trustee may sell some of your property to your creditors (lenders to whom you owe money), which helps repay your debts. However, you can likely keep most or all of your property by strategically using bankruptcy exemptions, which our Sacramento Chapter 7 attorneys can help you evaluate carefully.
Once your debts have been repaid to the greatest extent possible, and you have completed several additional procedural requirements, the bankruptcy court will grant you a discharge if there are no issues with your case. The discharge wipes out liability for your remaining “dischargeable debts,” which are debts that can be erased in bankruptcy. Medical debts are dischargeable in Chapter 7, which means they will be wiped out at the end of your case.
During the Chapter 7, before you can receive your discharge, you may be required to pay off a portion of your medical debt. However, because medical debts are unsecured (not secured by collateral) and are not priority debts (such as child support or employee compensation), medical creditors typically receive a lower priority than many others in Chapter 7.
Chapter 13 Medical Debt Relief
Though slightly less widespread than Chapter 7, Chapter 13 is another common type of personal bankruptcy, with the federal courts reporting 294,637 Chapter 13 cases filed during 2017, including nearly 20,000 Chapter 13 filings in California. Chapter 13 is also known as “reorganization bankruptcy,” which should not be confused with Chapter 11 reorganization. (For more information about Chapter 11, which is typically used by businesses, consult with our Roseville Chapter 11 attorneys.)
Chapter 13 is very different from Chapter 7 in that, if the bankruptcy unfolds smoothly, none of your assets are at risk of liquidation. However, there’s a catch: in Chapter 13, you must agree to a long-term repayment plan, called a “plan of reorganization,” which requires you to use your disposable income to make recurring payments over a period of three to five years. This is where the term “reorganization bankruptcy” comes from.
If you follow the terms of your reorganization plan, and satisfy all other bankruptcy requirements, the court should grant you a discharge, similar to the Chapter 7 process our Roseville Chapter 13 bankruptcy lawyers described in the previous section. The discharge will wipe out the remaining dischargeable debts at the end of your reorganization plan. Medical debts are dischargeable in Chapter 13, which means that when you have finished your plan, your outstanding medical debt can be erased.
Sacramento and Roseville, CA Bankruptcy Lawyers Can Help You Get Rid of Medical Bills
Don’t rule out bankruptcy as an option until you have discussed your financial situation with an experienced Folsom Chapter 13 attorney. If you feel as though you are drowning in medical debt, it may be the right time to consider Chapter 7, Chapter 13, or potentially individual Chapter 11. In addition to lowering or eliminating your medical bills, bankruptcy can also help you keep valuable property, avoid utility shut-offs, get more time to pay off loans, and begin the process of improving your credit score. For a free legal consultation with an experienced Roseville bankruptcy lawyer from The Bankruptcy Group, contact us online, or call our law offices today at (800) 920-5351.
The post Should You File Chapter 7 or 13 Bankruptcy to Clear Medical Debt in CA? appeared first on The Bankruptcy Group, P.C..
There are many misconceptions about President Trump, bankruptcy, and his history in the business world. Some claim that Trump has been a successful businessman for much of his life. Others point out that bankruptcy has been common among his businesses, alleging his failure. The reality of the Trump bankruptcy rumors is pretty different.
Personal and corporate bankruptcy can bring welcome relief in a time when debts become too much. If you have questions about your debts or the bankruptcy process, contact Northwest Debt Relief Law Firm today at (206) 488-0555.
Trump Bankruptcy Rumors
It has been claimed that Trump has filed for bankruptcy many times over the years. Although he has never filed for personal bankruptcy, several of his companies have utilized bankruptcy to reorganize debts or obtain better terms on those debts.
Memes regarding Trump’s bankruptcies often claim that he has filed for bankruptcy at least four times in the past 15 years. In reality, more than four of his companies have claimed Chapter 11 protection. However, some of those occurred after Trump had already removed himself from the operation of the companies. In most situations, Trump was forced to give up the majority of his ownership in exchange for better debt terms for those companies.
Trump Companies That Have Filed Bankruptcy
Trump Taj Mahal
This casino in Atlantic City opened in 1990, being completed with more than $675 million in bonds that had 14 percent interest rates. Less than a year later, the Trump Taj Mahal had $3 billion in debt. To keep the business in operation, in 1991, Trump’s company filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy and agreed to give up half his ownership, sell his Trump Shuttle airline and his Trump Princess yacht, and set a limit on his personal spending. This allowed the company to attain lower interest rate loans with additional time for repayment.
Trump’s Castle and Trump Plaza Casinos
In 1992, these two Atlantic City hotel-casinos filed a Chapter 11 Trump bankruptcy. Both had millions in debt, and Trump agreed to give up half of his shares of the companies for more favorable term on loans.
Trump Plaza Hotel
Also in 1992, Trump filed bankruptcy for this New York hotel. Again, Trump had to give up nearly half of his ownership in the property to obtain better terms on loans and debts.
Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts
In 2004, Trump sought Chapter 11 protection for this hotel and casino that had $1.8 billion in debt. He reduced his ownership from 40 percent to 27 percent to obtain more favorable lending terms.
Trump Entertainment Resorts
Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts was renamed Trump Entertainment Resorts (TER) after its 2004 bankruptcy. However, in 2009, TER obtained Chapter 11 protection with more than $1.2 billion in debt.
Bankruptcy Is Not Necessarily Failure
Many people who disagree with Trump’s politics have pointed to his business bankruptcies as evidence that he is a “failure.”
However, bankruptcy, especially for companies, is not always a failure. Chapter 11 bankruptcy allows companies to reorganize debts and obtain better repayment terms instead of completely going under. In most cases, Trump bankruptcy is identified by seeking better debt and loan terms instead of ending a business.
In reality, a Trump bankruptcy is carefully using Chapter 11 to benefit the business. Trump has claimed many times that he has not failed, and instead he has “used the laws to corporate advantage.”
Most of Trump’s companies that have stumbled end up successfully in operation later.
A Bankruptcy Attorney Can Help You
If your debts are becoming overwhelming, you may look at Trump bankruptcy as an example of how you can achieve success after unmanageable debt. A skilled bankruptcy lawyer can evaluate your situation and help you through the process. Call us today at (206) 488-0555.
The post The Truth About Trump Bankruptcy appeared first on Portland Bankruptcy Attorney | Northwest Debt Relief.
There are many misconceptions about President Trump, bankruptcy, and his history in the business world. Some claim that Trump has been a successful businessman for much of his life. Others point out that bankruptcy has been common among his businesses, alleging his failure. The reality of the Trump bankruptcy rumors is pretty different.
Personal and corporate bankruptcy can bring welcome relief in a time when debts become too much. If you have questions about your debts or the bankruptcy process, contact Northwest Debt Relief Law Firm today at (206) 488-0555.
Trump Bankruptcy Rumors
It has been claimed that Trump has filed for bankruptcy many times over the years. Although he has never filed for personal bankruptcy, several of his companies have utilized bankruptcy to reorganize debts or obtain better terms on those debts.
Memes regarding Trump’s bankruptcies often claim that he has filed for bankruptcy at least four times in the past 15 years. In reality, more than four of his companies have claimed Chapter 11 protection. However, some of those occurred after Trump had already removed himself from the operation of the companies. In most situations, Trump was forced to give up the majority of his ownership in exchange for better debt terms for those companies.
Trump Companies That Have Filed Bankruptcy
Trump Taj Mahal
This casino in Atlantic City opened in 1990, being completed with more than $675 million in bonds that had 14 percent interest rates. Less than a year later, the Trump Taj Mahal had $3 billion in debt. To keep the business in operation, in 1991, Trump’s company filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy and agreed to give up half his ownership, sell his Trump Shuttle airline and his Trump Princess yacht, and set a limit on his personal spending. This allowed the company to attain lower interest rate loans with additional time for repayment.
Trump’s Castle and Trump Plaza Casinos
In 1992, these two Atlantic City hotel-casinos filed a Chapter 11 Trump bankruptcy. Both had millions in debt, and Trump agreed to give up half of his shares of the companies for more favorable term on loans.
Trump Plaza Hotel
Also in 1992, Trump filed bankruptcy for this New York hotel. Again, Trump had to give up nearly half of his ownership in the property to obtain better terms on loans and debts.
Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts
In 2004, Trump sought Chapter 11 protection for this hotel and casino that had $1.8 billion in debt. He reduced his ownership from 40 percent to 27 percent to obtain more favorable lending terms.
Trump Entertainment Resorts
Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts was renamed Trump Entertainment Resorts (TER) after its 2004 bankruptcy. However, in 2009, TER obtained Chapter 11 protection with more than $1.2 billion in debt.
Bankruptcy Is Not Necessarily Failure
Many people who disagree with Trump’s politics have pointed to his business bankruptcies as evidence that he is a “failure.”
However, bankruptcy, especially for companies, is not always a failure. Chapter 11 bankruptcy allows companies to reorganize debts and obtain better repayment terms instead of completely going under. In most cases, Trump bankruptcy is identified by seeking better debt and loan terms instead of ending a business.
In reality, a Trump bankruptcy is carefully using Chapter 11 to benefit the business. Trump has claimed many times that he has not failed, and instead he has “used the laws to corporate advantage.”
Most of Trump’s companies that have stumbled end up successfully in operation later.
A Bankruptcy Attorney Can Help You
If your debts are becoming overwhelming, you may look at Trump bankruptcy as an example of how you can achieve success after unmanageable debt. A skilled bankruptcy lawyer can evaluate your situation and help you through the process. Call us today at (206) 488-0555.
The post The Truth About Trump Bankruptcy appeared first on Portland Bankruptcy Attorney | Northwest Debt Relief.
Nebraska becomes the first bankruptcy court in the nation to allow debtors to sign bankruptcy petitions digitally.
An amendment to Nebraska Rule of Bankruptcy Procedulre 9011-1 became effective February 5 allowing attorney to use services like DocuSign and SignEasy to obtain client signatures on official court pleadings.
The immediate reaction? One central Nebraska attorney emailed me this:
This is fantastic! My client signed, we were notified, I signed, all before I could even drop her hard copy in the mail (mail leaves [our small central Nebraska town] at 12:30, so timing wise we have a completed document before the mail left the building)! I am so pumped!
Nebraska is a big state spanning 450 miles across. It commonly takes 7 to 10 days to get documents signed and returned in the mail, and that is especially vexing when a client’s wages or bank accounts are being garnished. Allowing the use of digital signatures is truly a blessing for small town debtors who do not have quick access to a lawyer, let alone a bankruptcy attorney. (12 of Nebraska’s 93 counties have no lawyers at all.)
Debtors in our largest cities also benefit by not having to take time off work to sign routine documents they have already viewed via email.
Nebraska bankruptcy attorneys are lucky to receive this historic change in court procedure. Allowing digital signatures will encourage them to make changes to documents that improve the accuracy of bankruptcy schedules since it will be so much easier to get updated signatures on the fly.
Most attorneys will continue to gather old fashioned ink signatures on paper, and there is nothing wrong with that. But for those of us who represent clients in all 93 Nebraska counties and who are in constant email contact with clients to view and discuss developments in their case, the use of digital signatures is truly welcome.
Sincere thanks is due to Judge Thomas Saladino who was willing to review the signature process and to make changes to Nebraska’s court procedures.
Image courtesy of Flickr and Charles Knowles
By GINIA BELLAFANTE
Last spring, Bhairavi Desai, a middle-aged woman without a driver’s license and thus an unlikely leader for thousands of mostly male drivers in the world’s largest market for hired vehicles, delivered emotional testimony in front of New York City’s Taxi & Limousine Commission about the mounting existential difficulties in her field.
The executive director of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, Ms. Desai had been a labor activist for 21 years but she had never seen anything like the despair she was witnessing now — the bankruptcies, foreclosures and eviction notices plaguing drivers who were calling her with questions about how to navigate homelessness and paralyzing depression.
“Half my heart is just crushed,’’ she said, “and the other half is on fire.”
The economic hardship that Uber and its competitors had inflicted on conventional drivers in New York and London and other cities had become overwhelming. For decades there had been no more than approximately 12,000 to 13,000 taxis in New York but now there were myriad new ways to avoid public transportation, in some cases with ride-hailing services like Via that charged little more than $5 to travel in Manhattan. In 2013, there were 47,000 for-hire vehicles in the city. Now there were more than 100,000, approximately two-thirds of them affiliated with Uber.
While Uber has sold that “disruption” as positive for riders, for many taxi workers, it has been devastating. Between 2013 and 2016, the gross annual bookings of full-time yellow-taxi drivers in New York, working during the day when fares are typically highest, fell from $88,000 a year to just over $69,000. Medallions, which grant the right to operate a taxi in New York City, were now depreciating assets and drivers who had borrowed money to pay for them, once a sound investment strategy, were deeply in debt. Ms. Desai was routinely seeing grown men cry and she had become increasingly concerned about the possibility that they would begin taking their lives.
On Monday morning, Doug Schifter, a livery driver in his early 60s, killed himself with a shotgun in front of City Hall in Lower Manhattan, having written a lengthy Facebook post several hours earlier laying out the structural cruelties that had left him in such dire circumstance. He was now sometimes forced to work more than 100 hours a week to survive he said; when he had started out in the 1980s a 40-hour week was fairly typical. He blamed politicians — mayors Michael R. Bloomberg and Bill de Blasio, Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo — and their acquiescence to the rich for permitting so many cars to flood the streets. He blamed the Taxi Commission for the fines and hassles it imposed.
He had lost his health insurance and accrued credit card debt and he would no longer work for “chump change,’’ preferring, he said, to die in the hope that his sacrifice would draw attention to what drivers, too often unable to feed their families now, were enduring. He had forecast all of this doom in columns he had written for a trade publication called Black Car News, he wrote, but few had listened to him.
Implicit in his testament was the anger he felt over the de-professionalization of his life’s work. Mr. Schifter had driven more than five million miles throughout his tenure, through five hurricanes and 50 snowstorms. He had chauffeured celebrities and worn a suit. He was not driving a car to supplement the income he was getting from his crepe business and he was not trying to make a little extra money for massage. He was not a participant in the gig economy; he was a casualty of it.
For at least a century, the suicide as spectacle, prompted by a reversal of fortune, has typically been the practice of the wealthy. In the months after Wall Street’s crash in 1929, four people threw themselves out windows in New York (leading to the folklore that there had been many, many more such deaths). Decades later, Bernie Madoff’s son Mark hanged himself from a dog leash in his SoHo apartment. In 2016, Sanjay Valvani, a hedge fund manager accused of insider trading, slashed his throat in the bedroom of his Brooklyn townhouse, to much sensation in the tabloid and financial press. Poverty too often kills you without making you try.
For taxi drivers staring down an even bleaker future of driverless cars at a moment when Washington considers a weekly paycheck bump of $1.50 an occasion to break out the layer cake, it is hard to see where the metaphoric Prozac will come from.
The problems facing the city’s taxi drivers have become so bad, Ms. Desai said, that even on New Year’s Eve many complained that they roamed around unable to pick up fares. At about that time she had received a call from a woman who runs a community radio station in the Bronx, with an audience made up mostly of Dominican livery drivers. Two drivers that the host knew of had killed themselves and other drivers were on the show talking about the isolation and fear they saw all around them.
In the days preceding his death, Mr. Schifter wrote about his decreasing faith in our politics and about his commitments to his spiritual life. “Forget the cliché you only live once it is not true,” he said in a Facebook post. “The clues are all about you if you take the time to seek them.”
Copyright 2018 The New York Times Company. All rights reserved.
Updated daily, this blog will keep you informed on the latest bankruptcy news! 
Learn more about how Bankruptcy works and what you need to know.