Sua Sponte

Louis S. Robin
Fitzgerald, O'Brien, Robin & Shapiro
Longmeadow, Massachusetts
Email: louis.robin@prodigy.net

On behalf of the Commercial Law League on your Bankruptcy Section, I had the distinct pleasure of attending the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges in San Diego, California from October 15 -18, 2003. As always, the Commercial Law League and the Bankruptcy Section had the honor of conducting the Opening Breakfast for the Conference, attended by many Bankruptcy Judges and other professionals.

• read more...

Case Analysis

Mr. Gary Weiner
Weiner & Peskin, PC
Springfield, MA
Email: gweiner@weinerpeskin.com

FIRST CIRCUIT RULES THAT CERTAIN NEGOTIATION TACTICS MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF THE AUTOMATIC STAY “CREDITORS BEWARE”

Synopsis : In the case of In re Diamond , 2003 WL 22309623 (1st Cir. 2003), the First Circuit reversed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's dismissal of the debtor's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The First Circuit ruled that Premier Capital, an unsecured creditor of the debtor who had filed an adversary proceeding to deny the debtor a discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727, may have crossed the line in its negotiating tactics and therefore remand was appropriate to determine whether Premier and/or its attorneys actions constituted a violation of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362.

• read more...

Case Law Update

Paige Barr
DePaul University J.D. Candidate
paigebarr@yahoo.com

No Express Language Needed for Retroactive Application. A generally applicable state law providing for superpriority status of certain wage liens need not under § 546(b)(1)(A) contain language expressly providing for retroactive perfection of the lien interest in order to trigger an exception to the automatic stay provision. The Court found no ambiguity in the text of § 546(b)(1)(A) (“the rights and powers of a trustee . . . are subject to any generally applicable law that permits perfection of an interest in property to be effective against an entity that acquires rights in such property before the date of perfection.”). The phrase “before the date of perfection” appears in immediate proximity to the language, “any entity that acquires rights in such property,” which language separates “before the date of perfection” from “permits perfection of an interest in property to be effective.” Therefore, “before the date of perfection” modifies “any entity that acquires rights in such property” rendering the perfected interest to take effect (with superpriority) when it is perfected because any other property interest acquired pre-perfection is subject to the perfected interest. In re AR Accessories Group, Inc. , 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 19519 (7th Cir. Sept. 22, 2003).

• read more...

Sua Sponte

On behalf of the Commercial Law League on your Bankruptcy Section, I had the distinct pleasure of attending the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges in San Diego, California from October 15 -18, 2003. As always, the Commercial Law League and the Bankruptcy Section had the honor of conducting the Opening Breakfast for the Conference, attended by many Bankruptcy Judges and other professionals.

This year we had two distinct honors at the Opening Breakfast. The first was the renaming of our Educational Program for the Honorable Frank W. Koger. It is an honor that I am certain that all of us would prefer to have foregone because we would all rather have Judge Koger with us. As you all know, Judge Koger passed away late last year suddenly, leaving us all at least a little diminished. At this point, I will defer to the words of Judge Koger's good friend Philip Hendel, and past Bankruptcy Section Chair, who honored us at the Breakfast with his thoughts of his and our dear friend:

“Frank Koger's loss was a monumental one, not only to his family and many friends, but to the entire bankruptcy community.

Long after Frank's term of office as president of the CLLA expired, he did so much to enhance and enrich the organization in many ways. He continually unhesitatingly accepted new responsibilities to serve in a number of areas, particularly as our liaison with NCBJ.

Frank thoroughly enjoyed the continuation of his close personal relationships with his many friends despite his responsibilities, even after his appointment to the bench and while serving as President of the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges.

He was a bright, kind and decent man. He was always willing to share his vast experience and knowledge with others. We all admired and learned from him. Above all, he never lost his sincere, warm, humble manner.

Many of us were close enough to enjoy his sense of humor and Garrison Keeler "down home" qualities. He had the unique ability to recognize the real ones from the fakes at about a quarter of a mile! He made those who he cared for feel inspired, needed and above all, loved. Being addressed as "dear friend" was as pleasurable an experience as eating cotton candy as a child at a traveling circus.

It is hard to lose those who significantly make life meaningful and provide a role model to others. Frank did that for countless of our colleagues; he never quit giving and by doing so, I suspect that he was always at peace with himself. I have a feeling that Frank looks down upon all of us today with a sense of pride and accomplishment. May his memory instill in all of us the joy of giving and serving others.”

I thank Phil for sharing his kind and thoughtful words with us.

I also had the honor of presenting the Lawrence P. King Award for Excellence in the Field of Bankruptcy. This award was established to celebrate the life and achievements of Professor Lawrence King, who died in April, 2001. This year we were honored to present the award to the Honorable Joe Lee, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky.

Judge Lee has served for more than 40 years as a United States Bankruptcy Judge in the Eastern District of Kentucky. He has been a principal figure in bankruptcy reform and scholarship. He is known for working tirelessly to assure the fair treatment of parties before him and the continued improvement of the bankruptcy system. He received his law degree from the University of Kentucky in 1955. He has served as the President of the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges. He has testified before House and Senate Judiciary subcommittees on eight occasions while the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978 was being formulated and on six occasions since the Code was enacted. He is a recipient of the Kentucky Bar Association Outstanding Judge Award (1991) and was inducted into the University of Kentucky College of Law Hall of Fame (1998).

Judge Lee was introduced by his and the League's good friend David Epstein. David is presently teaching Bankruptcy at SMU's Law School , and has served as the Dean of the University of Arkansas Law School and the University of Alabama Law School. In addition to repeating Judge Lee's impressive list of accomplishments and contributions to the field of Bankruptcy, he told those attending that the “CLLA had gotten it right” in presenting this year's award to Judge Lee. We thank David Epstein for his confirmation of our judgment, but most of all we thank him for his kind words toward Judge Lee.

I am also pleased to report that this years' educational program at the NCBJ was well received and well attended. But most of all, it was of the highest quality. I think this year's speakers, G. Eric Brunstad, Jr., Esq., John Collen, Esq., The Honorable David S. Kennedy, Selinda Melnik, and the Honorable Alfred M. Colin, for their wonderful and thorough presentations. I also thank The Honorable Judith K. Fitzgerald and Judith Greenstone Miller, Esq., for their Chairing of this year's educational program - their work throughout the year continued the reputation of the League for contributing educational programs of the highest degree. If you didn't have the luck of attending the program, we have a limited number of copies of the handouts available. An order form and program description can be found by clicking here.

I hope to see many of you at the Eastern Meeting in New York Convention in a couple of weeks.

Louis S. Robin
Fitzgerald, O'Brien, Robin & Shapiro
1200 Converse Street
Longmeadow, MA 01106
Phone: 413-567-3131
Fax: 413-565-3131
Email: louis.robin@prodigy.net

back to top ^

Case Analysis

FIRST CIRCUIT RULES THAT CERTAIN NEGOTIATION TACTICS MAY BE IN VIOLATION OF THE AUTOMATIC STAY “CREDITORS BEWARE”

Synopsis : In the case of In re Diamond , 2003 WL 22309623 (1st Cir. 2003), the First Circuit reversed the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's dismissal of the debtor's complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The First Circuit ruled that Premier Capital, an unsecured creditor of the debtor who had filed an adversary proceeding to deny the debtor a discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727, may have crossed the line in its negotiating tactics and therefore remand was appropriate to determine whether Premier and/or its attorneys actions constituted a violation of the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362.

Facts: John J. Diamond, III, the debtor in a Chapter 7 proceeding, filed a complaint seeking damages against one of his creditors, Premier Capital, Inc., and Premier's attorney, Randall Pratt. The debtor claimed that both defendants violated 11 U.S.C. §362 of the Bankruptcy Code by using coercive negotiation tactics in an attempt to obtain a favorable settlement of a discharge proceeding.

The debtor had worked as a licensed real estate broker for approximately seventeen years. In October 2000, he filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition which was later converted to a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Hampshire. Premier filed a complaint pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 727 on the basis that Diamond had concealed assets and made false oaths. During the course of negotiations to resolve the discharged proceeding, Premier's attorney, Randall Pratt, allegedly told Diamond's counsel that if Premier lost, “it” would proceed to the New Hampshire Real Estate Commission to “have the debtor's real estate license taken away from him.” In re Diamond , 286 B.R. 476 (D. N.H. 2002). The debtor agreed to Premier's proposed settlement, but the bankruptcy court rejected the settlement and further found for the debtor in the discharge proceeding. The debtor then filed a complaint against Premier and Pratt, alleging that Pratt's statement was an improper attempt to collect, assess, or recover a debt by using coercive negotiation tactics in violation of the Bankruptcy Code's automatic stay. The debtor sought actual damages, costs, attorneys' fees and punitive damages. Upon Premier and Pratt's motion to dismiss the complaint, the bankruptcy court ruled that Pratt's statement did not “go over the line” and dismissed the complaint. Diamond then appealed to the district court, which affirmed the dismissal, and then Diamond further appealed to the First Circuit.

Analysis : The first issue reviewed by the First Circuit, was whether or not negotiations regarding a § 727 challenge are permissible, or if such negotiations should be considered a per se violation of the automatic stay. Here the First Circuit ruled that a per se rule stating that negotiations about discharge violate the automatic stay would not be appropriate where negotiations are not coercive. In re Diamond , 2003 WL 22309623, at *1 n.1.

Section 727 “imposes an extreme penalty for wrongdoing . . . [and] as such it must be construed strictly against those who object to the debtor's discharge and ‘liberally in favor of the bankrupt.'” See In re Rowena Garcia Clyde Bulter , 260 B.R. 622 ( D. Ct. 2001) ( citing In re Chalasani , 92 F.3d 1300 (2d Cir. 1996). The bankruptcy process is intended to grant the extraordinary relief of a discharge under §727 to only the honest debtor. See In re Taylor , 190 B.R. 413, 416 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1995); Hage v. Joseph ( In re Joseph ), 121 B.R. 679, 681 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1990).

Once a complaint objecting to discharge is filed the ability to resolve the case amicably will be the subject of judicial scrutiny. Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7041 specifically references that an adversary proceeding pertaining to an objection to discharge may be dismissed only on order of the court and must contain terms and conditions which the court deems proper. ( emphasis added).

Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019 sets the standard by which a compromise of a controversy may be considered. The factors to be considered by the court are:

• Probable success of the litigation on the merits
• The estate's ability to collect on a judgment it may receive
• The complexity of cost of the litigation
• The best interest of the creditors

See , Protective Comm. for Indep. Stockholders v. Anderson , 390 U.S. 414 (1968).

In the present case the court was not called upon to rule on a compromise as the proposed settlement was rejected and the debtor ultimately prevailed in the discharge proceeding. Thus, the First Circuit was left with reviewing the settlement negotiations and the tactics involved in same.

Section 362 (a) (6) provides a debtor with the fundamental protection against any action to collect, assess, or recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of a case. The court stated that the present issue before it was one of first impression. However, it did acknowledge that it had recently dealt with the issue of a violation of the automatic stay where a creditor sought negotiations through a reaffirmation agreement. See Jamo v Katahdin Fed. Credit Union (In re Jamo ), 283 F.3d 392, 398 (1st Cir. 2002). The First Circuit ruled that it made sense to extend the decision of the Jamo Court and adopt the majority approach which allows settlement negotiations in § 727 discharge proceedings.

Having determined that negotiations were not a violation of the automatic stay, the court then turned to whether or not Premier's statements regarding Diamond's real estate license could have constituted impermissible “coercion or harassment.” In re Diamond , 2003 WL 22309623, at *2. The real issue for the court was whether the alleged statement could constitute an impermissible negotiation tactic, was there an immediateness of any threatened action and in what context was the statement made. The court concluded that Premier's alleged statement could reasonably be deemed “tantamount to a threat” of an immediate action against the debtor. Id. , see also Jamo , 283 F. 3d, at 402. The court's analysis was that Premier's statement placed Diamond “between a rock and a hard place,” Diamond , 2003 WL 22309623, at *2, if the debtor prevailed in the § 727 complaint, he then faced the administrative proceeding and the possibility of revocation of his real estate license, the source of what had been his livelihood for the past seventeen years. If Premier prevailed in the § 727 proceeding, than Diamond would suffer because he would not obtain the discharge of his debts. Thus, the court concluded that the debtor was faced with a loss either way. In this situation, the court found dismissal on the pleadings unacceptable where an unsecured creditor's statements functionally force the debtor to treat a professional license as collateral, since the statement could be found to be coercive by a trier of fact. Id. at 3. The First Circuit rejected Premier's argument that the threat, only a one-time communication between counsel, should not rise to a violation of the automatic stay. The court believed that the statement may in fact have been coercive especially if settlement occurred soon thereafter, something which the court indicated was unclear on the record.

Finally, the court rejected Premier's last argument that the threat could not be perceived as coercive, since Diamond's complaint failed to allege that Premier lacked a good faith basis for filing the complaint to revoke his license through the Real Estate Commission. The court stated that, “if the threat was an empty one,- - - in other words, if it lacked a good-faith basis, - - - we do not think that Premier would have made it at all.” Id . at 3. The fact that Premier sought to have an argument both ways, the argument had a good-faith basis for making the threat and simultaneously claiming that the threat was an empty one, was rejected by the First Circuit. The First Circuit concluded that the alleged statement could be found coercive and that Diamond could indeed prove a set of facts that Premier and/or its counsel's statements coerced Diamond to settle, would in fact be a violation of § 362. As such, the court determined that the issues needed to be brought out on remand by the district court.

COMMENTS: The decision of the First Circuit on initial review seems to protect the rights of the debtor and the integrity of the Code by enforcing the automatic stay provisions of § 362. However, what is potentially troubling is the impact that this decision could have settlement negotiations between the parties. Hard-ball litigation tactics which cross the line into the debtor's livelihood clearly appear to be subject to a violation of the automatic stay, but about simple threats of ongoing appeals or custody disputes between a debtor and his/her non-debtor spouse. Settlement discussions will now be subject to more scrutiny as to what crosses the line. Having a court review settlement discussions between counsel and determining what is coercive may be too fine a line for many counsel to follow and the impact on “hard-ball litigation tactics” could be severe. The bottom line is: creditor beware of how you proceed.

Gary Weiner
Weiner & Peskin, PC
95 State Street Suite 918 Springfield, MA   01103
Phone: 413-732-6840 Fax: 413-785-5666
Email: gweiner@weinerpeskin.com
www.weinerpeskin.com

back to top ^

Case Law Update

No Express Language Needed for Retroactive Application. A generally applicable state law providing for superpriority status of certain wage liens need not under § 546(b)(1)(A) contain language expressly providing for retroactive perfection of the lien interest in order to trigger an exception to the automatic stay provision. The Court found no ambiguity in the text of § 546(b)(1)(A) (“the rights and powers of a trustee . . . are subject to any generally applicable law that permits perfection of an interest in property to be effective against an entity that acquires rights in such property before the date of perfection.”). The phrase “before the date of perfection” appears in immediate proximity to the language, “any entity that acquires rights in such property,” which language separates “before the date of perfection” from “permits perfection of an interest in property to be effective.” Therefore, “before the date of perfection” modifies “any entity that acquires rights in such property” rendering the perfected interest to take effect (with superpriority) when it is perfected because any other property interest acquired pre-perfection is subject to the perfected interest. In re AR Accessories Group, Inc. , 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 19519 (7th Cir. Sept. 22, 2003).

Corporations are not Included as “Individuals” in § 362(h). Joining the Second, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits, the First Circuit found corporations without the power to sue under § 362(h) to obtain damages for violations of the automatic stay. Relying on statutory language, legislative history, and public concerns the Court declined to include corporations within the definition of § 362(h)'s definition of “individual.” Spookyworld, Inc. v. Town of Berlin (In re Spookyworld) , 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 20615 (1st Cir. Sept. 25, 2003).

Chapter 7 Debtor Cannot Avoid a Valueless Lien under § 506. Joining the Fourth Circuit, the only other circuit to have ruled on the issue, the Sixth Circuit applied the Supreme Court's reasoning in Dewsnup v. Timm , 502 U.S. 410, 116 L. Ed. 2d 903, 112 S. Ct. 773 (1992), holding that a Chapter 7 debtor may not use § 506 to "strip off" an allowed junior lien where the senior lien exceeds the fair market value of the real property in question. Debtors could not utilize § 506(a) and (d) to "strip off" a junior lien, because the creditor's claim was allowed pursuant to § 502 and the claim was secured, whether or not the value of the property sufficed to cover the claim. Section § 506(d) addresses determination of secured status and is intended to facilitate valuation and disposition of property in the Code's reorganization chapters, not to confer an additional avoiding power on Chapter 7 debtor. When debtor proceeds under Chapter 7 creditors are entitled to their lien position until foreclosure or other permissible final disposition is had. Talbert v. City Mortgage Services (In re Talbert) , 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 19660 (6th Cir. Sept. 25, 2003).

Cash Classified as Intangible Property for Purposes of Debtor Exemption Statutes. Seventh Circuit found United States currency to be intangible personal property within the meaning of an Indiana statute that places some of the property of a bankrupt or other judgment debtor beyond the reach of his creditors. Recognizing cash as interchangeable with other financial assets, Court reasoned things interchangeable should be equally treated under the law in order to prevent evasion through easy substitution. Money in whatever form is a medium of exchange rather than a useful good. Rejecting arguments that currency was tangible in the literal sense, the Court noted treating cash as a form of tangible property for purposes of the exemption statute would have created perverse incentives for debtors while depriving creditors of access to a financial asset as easily liquidated as any of the financial assets conceded to be intangible property. In re Oakley , 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 19720 (7th Cir. Sept. 25, 2003).

Post-Bankruptcy Attempts to Enforce Pre-Bankruptcy Obligations in Non-Bankruptcy Forums Using Non-Bankruptcy Law. Post-discharge agreement to pay a discharged debt must comply with Bankruptcy Code §§ 524(c) and (d)'s procedural requirements for reaffirmation agreements. Agreement was entered after the discharge of the debt, contrary to § 524(c)(1), and was not filed with the court and reviewed by debtors' counsel, contrary to § 524(c)(3); therefore, an invalid reaffirmation agreement. Since the agreement was based “in part” on a discharged debt, it triggered scrutiny pursuant to § 524. The agreement was not “made before granting the discharge,” pursuant to § 524(c), and therefore was unenforceable, with or without new consideration. In re Lopez , 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 19803 (9th Cir. Sept. 26, 2003).

Reopening a Judgment Based on Mistake of Fact. The Second Circuit held a bankruptcy court has the authority to, on its own initiative, reopen a judgment based on its own mistake of fact within the time limit to appeal. Thus, the bankruptcy court can reopen the case even without an appeal from the aggrieved party. Court based its decision on the plain language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) (“on motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party or a party's legal representative from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (1) mistake …”), advisory committee's note to the 1946 amendment (the amendment “changed [the] language to make clear that relief from judgment was available for any mistake, including mistake of the court”) and second circuit precedent which extended the previous allowance of mistake of law corrections to mistake of fact corrections ( Cappillino v. Hyde Park Cent. Sch. Dist ., 135 F.3d 264 (2d Cir. 1997). 310 Assoc. v. 310 Assoc. (In re 310 Assoc.) , 2003 WL 22251336 (2d Cir. Oct.2, 2003).

Settlement Negotiations Pertaining to a Challenge to Discharge. Settlement negotiations pertaining to a challenge to discharge do not violate the automatic stay. Extending the previously decided notion that, “while the automatic stay is in effect, a creditor may engage in post-petition negotiations pertaining to a bankruptcy-related reaffirmation agreement so long as the creditor does not engage in coercive or harassing tactics,” the court, aligning with the majority, allowed settlement negotiations in § 727 discharge proceedings. Diamond v. Premier Capital, Inc. (In re Diamond) , 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 20615 (1st Cir. Oct. 9, 2003).

Spousal Maintenance Excluded from Property of the Estate. Post-petition maintenance payments are not property of the estate under § 541(a)(5)(B). Under § 541(a)(5)(B) the bankruptcy estate includes “Any interest in property that would have been property of the estate if such interest had been an interest of the debtor on the date of the filing of the petition, and that the debtor acquires or becomes entitled to acquire within 180 days after such date-- as a result of a property settlement agreement with the debtor's spouse, or of an interlocutory or final divorce degree.” Recognizing the difference between property settlements and maintenance, the Court assumed that Congress acted intentionally and purposefully in excluding spousal maintenance or alimony from the language of § 541(a)(5)(B). The Court found that the right to receive alimony or maintenance was a personal statutory right and therefore not subject to § 541(a)(5)(B). Wise v. Wise (In re Wise) , 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 20814 (10th Cir. Oct. 10, 2003).

Paige Barr
DePaul University J.D. Candidate
200 N. Dearborn St., Apt. 4101
Chicago, IL 60601
(312)782-4428
paigebarr@yahoo.com

back to top ^

INSOL Report

On September 21 through the 23, INSOL held its Annual Conference - Americas at the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas. Over 200 delegates from over 25 countries attended. They were treated to 3 days of top quality educational programs, cocktail parties and final night banquet. On the first day of the conference, the topics were UNCITRAL, Offshore Incorporations, The Global Expansion of Consumer Credit, The Domino Effect – Industries at risk, The South American Syndrome Sovereign Risk and Offshore Asset Protection Trusts. On the final day, the programs included Debt Trading – A worldwide business trend, What are Rating Agencies Missing, Failure of Corporate Stewardship and the Likely Consequences, Comparative Regimes, INSOL services, and the keynote speaker, Stephen Cooper, on What the Future Holds.

The programs were some of the best discussions on cross border issues that I have had the pleasure to experience. The discussions were expansive. The networking was unique. Speaking with attorneys from various jurisdictions regarding their problems with insolvency issues and cross border issues was fascinating. A complete report of the conference will appear in the next INSOL World, which will include synopsis of the programs.

INSOL provided a forum where insolvency professionals can network and discuss problems that are universal in nature. All of the individuals that I spoke to, enjoyed the programming, camaraderie and entertainment that the program and Las Vegas offered.

If you are interested in learning more about INSOL, please visit www.insol.org or send an email to Harry Greenfield, INSOL Representative for the CLLA. (email is: greenfield@bucklaw.com)

Harry W. Greenfield
Buckley King
1400 Bank One Building
600 Superior Ave. E.
Cleveland, OH   44114
Phone: 216-363-1400
Fax: 216-579-7156
Email: greenfield@bucklaw.com

back to top ^

Washington Hot News

October 23, 2003

On October 21, Sens. Graham (R-SC) and Durbin (D-IL), both members of the Senate Judiciary Committee introduced S.1772 , a bill to establish a priority for the payment of claims for duties paid the United States by licensed customs brokers on behalf of the debtor.  The bill is the companion measure to HR 3003 , introduced in the House September 4th.  The Senate bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee.

October 6, 2003
Bill to Allow Private Tax Debt Collections Approved by Senate Finance Committee.

On October 1, the Senate Finance Committee approved by a vote of 19-2 a bill, S.1637 , an international tax bill, entitled the Jumpstart Our Business Strength Act, that includes language that would allow the IRS to hire private companies for the collection of outstanding tax liabilities, with the companies entitled to up to 25 percent of the amounts they collect.

According to a description of the collection provision, all taxpayer protections that are applicable to the IRS also would apply to the contractors. The contractors would be prohibited from collections directly from taxpayers, meaning that all payments would be processed by IRS employees.

While no job losses are expected at IRS based on the amendment, Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union, which represents some 97,000 IRS employees, said that proponents of the provision are ignoring plentiful evidence that private tax debt collection has not worked in the past.

October 1, 2003
Bankruptcy rules proposed.

The Advisory Committee on Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure have proposed amendments to the following rules:

Bankruptcy Rules: 1007, 3004, 3005, 4008, 7004, and 9006.

The text of the proposed rule amendments and the accompanying Committee Notes can be found at the United States Federal Courts' Home Page at http://www.uscourts.gov/rules on the Internet.

The Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure submits these amendments for public comment. All comments and suggestions with respect to them must be placed in the hands of the Secretary not later than February 16, 2004. All written comments on the proposed rule amendments can be sent by one of the following four ways: electronic mail via the Internet at http://www.uscourts.gov/rules ; regular mail to Peter G. McCabe, Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, Washington, DC 20544; overnight mail to Peter G. McCabe, Secretary, Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States, Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building, One Columbus Circle, NE., Washington, DC 20002; or facsimile to Peter G. McCabe at (22) 502-1755.

Public hearings are scheduled to be held on the amendments to:

Bankruptcy Rules in Washington, DC, on January 30, 2004

back to top ^

83rd New York Meeting:

REGISTRATION DEADLINE QUICKLY APPROACHING!   Be sure to register now for the 83rd New York Meeting and take advantage of the networking opportunities provided to widen your contacts of peers in your profession and strengthen your existing business relationships.  Listed below are a few of the social events organized for the CLLA New York meeting:

Thursday, November 13, 2003

Welcoming Dessert Party Honoring the Triadic Spirit from 9:30 p.m. – 11:30 p.m.

Friday, November 14, 2003

Chair's Welcoming Reception/Cocktail Party from 6:15 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.

Friday Night Comedy Club seating at 10:00 p.m. (Showcasing top comedians in the country) sponsored by the Young Members' Section (Special Ticket Required)

Saturday, November 15, 2003

Annual Reception/Cocktail Party from 5:30 p.m. – 7:00 p.m.

Sunday, November 16, 2003

Brunch  - Special Presentation to Warren Pinchuck for his 20th Year of Service as Arrangements Chair for the Eastern Region from 10:45 a.m. - 1:00 p.m.

In addition to excellent social/networking events, the educational program is outstanding! Two highlights are:

• Three distinguished judges make up our panel of speakers on the topic of Professionalism and Competence in the Legal Profession:  Views from the Bench session.  The Honorable Kevin Carey , The Honorable Leif M. Clark and The Honorable William T. Bodoh will provide a critical and important perspective on how you practice law. 

• If you have questions, they have answers!  Join our panel of expert attorneys who have defended FDCPA complaints and have prepared office procedures to avoid violations of this important statute to learn how to keep both you and your clients out of trouble.  The Ask The Experts Q & A:  Fair Debt Collection Practices Act session will be spearheaded by David R. Gamache, Jon Elliott, Manuel Newburger, Arthur Sanders and Randy T. Slovin.
• Full education program can be found by clicking here.

REGISTER TODAY!  Make sure your completed registration is in the League office before October 31 so that you are included in the official Roster of Attendees!