 | 
|
THE CONSUMER BANKRUPTCY LETTER |
|
|
In This Issue:
|
January 25 2005
|
|
|
|
•
|
TAX DISCHARGE IN BOSTON!
|
|
|
|
•
|
From BankruptcyBooks.com
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
FEATURED SITE #4: MYFICO.COM
|
|
|
|
•
|
HEADS-UP ON RECENT CASES
|
|
|
|
|
•
|
URGENT POST: BANKRUPTCY REFORM ACTION TODAY?
|
|
|
|
|
|
A WHOLE LOT OF ONLINE INTEREST AND AMORTIZATION CALCULATORS IN ONE PLACE
When I'm calculating a chapter 13 plan I frequently need to know how much interest to include in the overall payment for a secured or partially secured debt. So, I can enter the current fair market value of the collateral (for example, a car), the number of months of the plan, and the interest rate. But I also need to add the total amount of interest as a lump sum figure. This is where a fast way to calculate the total interest to be paid comes in handy.
There are several Online sources for interest and loan amortization calculators. We think the most complete variety of calculators for various purposes is the page at MYFIC.COM.
This page has 51 calculators! And, they don't cost anything!
These run the gamut from the interest calculator described above (on the page, it is listed under “Loan Calculators” and is the first one on that list, to mortgage, auto loan, debt and credit cards, savings, personal finance, investment, and retirement calculators.
NOTE: One thing MYFICO.com does not have is a calculator to determine the interest and penalties on a delinquent tax liability. An application to do this calculation is available from TimeValue.com for a reasonable price.
|
|
 |
|
|
PLAN BARRED PUNITIVE DAMAGES CLAIM AGAINST DEBTORS
The bankruptcy court did not err in confirming a plan prohibiting punitive damages against the debtor and debtor's parent. The debtor settled potential claims against the parent with the approval of the bankruptcy court. Moreover, claimants asserting a right to punitive damages adduced no facts or circumstances that supported such a right. A "freakish" pre-peition punitive damage verdict for other claimants was an aberration. Thus, there was no denial of a right to trial as alleged by claimants.
The bankruptcy court did not err in requiring disclosure of the debtor's customer list. The list (which was sought by claimants' attorney to solicit more clients) had been sold as an asset during the bankruptcy and had value because it was confidential. Lawyers have a right under the first amendment to solicit clients; they do not have a right to a subsidy in this endeavor. Counsel could have bid for the list like any other asset, or they could have rented the list from its buyer. Lawyers pay for paper, books, office space, and other inputs into their profession; they must pay for mailing lists too.
In re A.G. Financial Service Center, Inc. (7th Cir. 2005)
__________________
WHAT IS A CORPORATE “INSIDER” FOR PREFERENTIAL TRANSFER PURPOSES?
The bankruptcy court erred in holding that an insider of an insider (a corporation wholly owned by a statutory insider) was an insider.
A trustee can avoid a transfer of an interest in a debtor's property if the transfer meets certain requirements, including that the transfer occurred within the requisite pre-bankruptcy period. § 547(b). Because the transfer at issue in this case, the filing of the UCC-1 to perfect MAPPS's security interest in debtor's property, occurred more than 90 days but less than one year before bankruptcy, it is avoidable under § 547 only if MAPPS was an insider. § 547(b)(4)(B).
State law controls whether it is appropriate for the bankruptcy court to pierce the corporate veil. In re Pajaro Dunes Rental Agency, Inc., 174 B.R. 557, 582 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 1994).
In order to pierce the corporate veil, the court must apply the correct legal standard. That requires considering both the unity of interest between the shareholder and the corporation and whether an inequitable result will follow from recognizing the corporate form. Although the bankruptcy court considered the unity of interest prong and found that it was met, it failed to consider what inequity would follow if the corporate form were recognized.
Piercing the corporate veil requires more than a unity of interests; it also requires some inequity arising out of the use of the corporate form. The court did not make any finding that there was any such inequity in this case, nor does the trustee point to any evidence that would support such a finding. Therefore, the court erred.
In re Enterprise Acquisition Partners, Inc. (9th Cir. BAP 2005)
_______________________
ATTY FEES NOT ALLOWABLE IN ABSENCE OF STATUTE OR SETTLEMENT TERMS PROVIDING FOR SAME
Where a settlement agreement between a Chapter 7 trustee and a third party sued by the trustee did not have an attorneys fees provision, and State law contained no entitlement to attorneys fees to the prevailing party in contract litigation, the counterparty to the agreement was not entitled to payment of his legal fees incurred in connection with successful litigation against the trustee regarding the interpretation of the settlement agreement.
In re Weinschneider (7th Cir. 2005)
source: bkInfo.com
|
|
 |
|
|
PUBLISHED BY KING BANKRUPTCY MEDIA FOR BANKRUPTCY PROFESSIONALS 7080 Donlon Way Suite 222 Dublin California 94568 (925) 829-6460. Morgan D. King, Editor.
© King Bankruptcy Media 2004 CONTACT US AT editor@bankruptcymedia.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
