CLLA Bankruptcy Section Newsletter

If you are having trouble navigating through the newsletter, the online version can be found here:
http://www.cllabankruptcy.org/bankruptcy/september2004.cfm

James Carville presents a timely and provocative view of Washington politics, spiced with his own unique brand of optimism and humor, just weeks prior to the Presidential elections.

James Carville, known around the world as a presidential political pundit for his shoot-from-the-hip style, will be the keynote speaker at the 16th Annual Commercial Law League of America Breakfast to be held on October 11, 2004 at the 78th Annual Meeting of the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges. This program is presented through the generous support of The Garden City Group, Inc.

Please join us for The Honorable Frank W. Koger Memorial Current Developments in Hot & Emerging Areas of Bankruptcy Program. This program is consistently rated as one of the premier educational offerings at the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges. Topics for 2004 include: A Look at In Re Hood, Current Issues in Consumer Credit and Financing Transactions, 2003-2004 Supreme Court Case Review, Non-Bankruptcy Alternatives and Electronic Discovery Issues.

This program is presented through the generous support of LoisLaw, the provider of fast, accurate and affordable online legal research.

Other sponsors include Michael Fox International, the CLLA Bankrutpcy Section and CLLA Fund for Public Education.

Click here for a full list of topics and speakers.

Sua Sponte

Case Analysis

Ninth Circuit BAP Rules that Draw on Letter of Credit Collateralized by Debtor's Money Will Reduce Landlord's Claim Under Bankruptcy Code Section 502(b)(6).

Case Law Update

Sua Sponte

With the National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges to be held this year in Nashville between October 10 and 13, 2004, just weeks away, I am pleased to announce the recipient of this year’s Lawrence P. King Award for Excellence in the Field of Bankruptcy. Established in 2001 in honor of the late Professor Lawrence King, this award is given by the Bankruptcy Section of the Commercial Law League for the purpose of recognizing that lawyer, judge, teacher, or legislator who exemplifies the best in scholarship, advocacy, judicial administration, or legislative activities in the field of bankruptcy, and the standards established by Professor King during a lifetime of devotion to the practice and practitioners of bankruptcy law. The recipient will have made a lasting contribution to the improvement of commerce and to the fair and ethical treatment of debtors, creditors and the public at large. Finally, the award recognizes a career as opposed to a single event and is presented at the Commercial Law League’s annual breakfast program at the NCBJ. Past award winners include Professor Lawrence King (in memoriam, 2001), Professor Elizabeth Warren (2002), and the Honorable Joe Lee (2003).

This year’s recipient is Professor David G. Epstein, visiting professor of law at Dedman School of Law of Southern Methodist University in Dallas, Texas. Professor Epstein has been teaching, practicing and lecturing on bankruptcy for over 30 years. He is known and respected by members of both the bar and bench. Professor Epstein was most recently the Charles E. Tweedy, Jr. chair of law at the University of Alabama. He has previously served as a law clerk for the Texas Supreme Court and was partner in the law firm of King and Spalding, as well as the Dean of the Emory Law School and the University of Arkansas Law School. He was a tenured professor at Emory, Arkansas, and the Universities of Texas and North Carolina, as well as a visiting professor at the University of Michigan, University of Illinois, University of Chicago, Brigham Young University, University of Houston, Washington University, Georgia State, Harvard, NYU, and Georgetown.

Over the last 30 years, there have been few more nationally-respected authorities on consumer and business bankruptcy. Professor Epstein is co-author of Bankruptcy, a three-volume treatise for judges and lawyers, and of three best-selling law school text books, Debt: Bankruptcy and Related Laws, Basic Commercial Law, and Business Reorganization Under the Bankruptcy Code. Many lawyers who took bankruptcy in law school have also undoubtedly relied on his well-respected volume for the Nutshell series – Bankruptcy and Other Debtor-Creditor Laws In a Nutshell. Finally, many lawyers admitted during the last ten years have relied heavily on Professor Epstein’s lectures on contracts to get through their state’s bar exam. Anyone who has heard him lecture at other programs in the past will want to attend this program to hear him speak again.

Congratulations to Professor Epstein. We look forward to honoring him at our breakfast, which will feature James Carville, just weeks prior to November’s presidential election. I am told that a record number of seats have already been sold. With the addition of the King Award presentation to Professor Epstein, an already strong program has become an even hotter ticket. While I am informed that some tickets remain, if you haven’t made plans to do so yet, please buy your tickets soon, as the event will undoubtedly be a sell out.

On a closing note, I have been asked by Gerry Phillips, Chair of the CLLA’s Western Region, to procure a speaker for the CLLA Western Region’s conference to be held in San Francisco on February 18-19, 2005. Gerry has tentatively provided a title for the program, “Pitfalls and Profit – Areas of Opportunity in Modern Bankruptcy Practice”, and has suggested one or more of the following topics for presentation: processing of claims in bankruptcy, including responding to claim objections; the scope of the automatic stay as it relates to the ability to proceed against other parties; and the use of Section 523 remedies. As you are all aware, the chance to address attendees at a Commercial Law League conference presents you with an opportunity to gain tremendous exposure and market both yourself and your firm to a wide array of prospective clients and referral sources. If you are interested in pursuing this opportunity, please call Gerry Philips directly at (775) 322-2345 ext 19.

Alan I. Nahmias
Plotkin, Rapoport & Nahmias
16633 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 800,
Encino, CA 91436-1836
Phone: 818-995-2555
Fax: 818-907-9261

Case Analysis

Ninth Circuit BAP Rules that Draw on Letter of Credit Collateralized by Debtor's Money Will Reduce Landlord's Claim Under Bankruptcy Code Section 502(b)(6).

Synopsis: In In re Mayan Networks Corp., 306 B.R. 295 (9th Cir.BAP 2004), the Ninth Circuit Bankruptcy Appellate Panel ruled that a landlord’s draw on a standby letter of credit posted as security will reduce the landlord's allowed claim against a debtor tenant under Bankruptcy Code section 502(b)(6). The letter of credit in this case was collateralized by deposit accounts belonging to the debtor tenant at the issuing bank. The Mayan Networks case is important because it shows how letters of credit pledged as security in a commercial lease could adversely affect a landlord's claim in a tenant's bankruptcy case.

Facts: Mayan Networks Corporation (the “Debtor”) and Redback Networks, Inc. (the “Landlord”) entered into a five-year sublease of a commercial building in January 2000. Pursuant to the sublease, the Debtor provided the Landlord with two forms of security: (1) $351,033 in cash and (2) a $648,966 letter of credit issued by Silicon Valley Bank (the “Bank”). The letter of credit was referred to in the sublease as a “security for the faithful performance by [Debtor] of all of [Debtor’s] obligation under this Sublease.” The sublease also provided that the letter of credit would be returned to the Debtor at the end of the sublease term and upon the surrender of the leased premises to the Landlord. To obtain the letter of credit, the Debtor pledged over $650,000 in cash to the Bank.

The Debtor filed its Chapter 11 petition on November 5, 2001 and subsequently moved to reject the sublease. The Landlord filed an administrative claim for post-petition rent as well as a general unsecured claim for damages arising from the rejection of the sublease. The Debtor and the unsecured creditor’s committee objected to the Landlord’s claim, but agreed that the Landlord's claim under the § 502(b)(6) cap was $2,701,535.14. The Landlord agreed to reduce that sum by the $351,033.80 in cash pledged as a security. The parties further stipulated that their dispute concerned whether the portion of the security deposit made with the letter of credit should be credited against the capped sum.

The Bankruptcy Court ruled against the Landlord. It held that the letter of credit had to be credited against the capped claim and that the net unpaid balance of the allowable claim was approximately $1.7 million. The Landlord appealed to the Ninth Circuit BAP.

Discussion: The Ninth Circuit BAP agreed with the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling that the Landlord’s draw upon the letter of credit should be applied in partial satisfaction of the Landlord’s allowed claim under § 502(b)(6). The court initially looked at the plain language of the statute and recognized that the Landlord's claim could not exceed one year's rent.

However, the BAP also recognized that the plain language of the statute does not indicate whether security deposits are a part of the capped claims. As a result, the issue on appeal was “whether the claim that shall be allowed is the total amount of damages that a landlord may recover or the amount that the landlord may claim against the bankruptcy estate in addition to any security that has been recovered.”

Given the apparent ambiguity of the statutory language, the BAP referred to the statute's legislative history, which specifically endorsed the 1944 Second Circuit case of Oldden v. Pronto Realty Corp., 143 F.2d 916 (2d Cir. 1944). The Oldden court specifically held that a tenant's security deposit should be deducted from the landlord's claim after the statutory cap had been applied. As a result, the issue for the BAP to consider became whether a letter of credit should be treated like a security deposit for the purposes of calculating the Landlord’s claim under § 502(b)(6).

The Landlord argued that it should not since the obligation of the Bank to honor the letter of credit was independent from the underlying lease. The Landlord contended in essence that the letter of credit and its proceeds were not property of the estate. However, the BAP rejected these literalistic arguments. It reasoned that the analysis must not be whether the amounts are paid to the Landlord directly from the estate. Instead, the appropriate analysis should look to the impact that the draw on the letter of credit would have on the property of the estate. Consequently, the BAP noted that the $650,000 in cash that was pledged to the Bank was property of the estate and was in effect used to pay the Landlord under a letter of credit.

The court referred to two cases in which a similar issue had been addressed before. In Solow v. PPI Enters., Inc. (In re PPI Enters., Inc.), 324 F.3d 197 (3d Cir. 2003), a letter of credit was produced as a security deposit but was not collateralized, as in the Mayan Networks case. The Third Circuit nevertheless had ruled that the claim should be reduced by the letter of credit draw or else it would, in the words of the BAP, "result in a ‘end run’ around the 502(b)(6) cap." The BAP also referenced its earlier case of In re Condor Systems, Inc., 296 B.R. 5 (9th Cir. B.A.P. 2003) in which the BAP had held that a draw upon a letter of credit would not reduce an employee claim under § 502(b)(7). In that case again, the debtor did not provide a security to the bank (that is, collateralize the letter of credit) and there was no adverse impact on the estate by the draw on the letter of credit. For Mayan Networks, the BAP rejected the rationale of PPI Enterprises but also indicated that the present case was distinguishable from Condor because there was not a third party obligor bearing a substantial risk: “[t]he Bank was fully protected if it had to pay on the letter of credit. Inserting the Bank between the landlord and the debtor did not change the true nature of this arrangement, which was to have the debtor provide a security deposit on the lease.”

The BAP ultimately concluded that the rationale of the Oldden case should apply: “the underlying rationale [of Oldden] should apply to anything that is in fact the equivalent of a security deposit, which is not limited only to cash.” The BAP found that the letter of credit in the present case was essentially the equivalent of a security deposit. The amount of money left in the estate to pay unsecured creditors would be reduced by $650,000, while the Landlord would receive the full amount of the secured claim both from cash security deposit and the letter of credit. The BAP found that allowing the Landlord to obtain an advantage just by allowing it to keep the money pledged as security at the Debtor's bank would defeat the purposes of § 502(b)(6). As a result, the draw upon the letter of credit should “be applied in satisfaction of the landlord’s claim against the debtor and the amount of such a claim will be reduced by the amount of the draw.”

Judge Klein issued a lengthy concurring opinion in which he rejected the majority’s reference to legislative history and the Oldden case. Instead, Judge Klein stated that § 502(b)(6) is not ambiguous given the statutory scheme of the Bankruptcy Code and warned that “an untutored reliance on Oldden leads to a temptation to extend Oldden to situations in which the security deposit is not part of the estate and thereby stray into error.” Judge Klein noted that the outcome of the Mayan Networks case would have been different if the security deposit had been provided by somebody else and was refundable to that person: “[t]he estate’s cap shelters the estate but not co-obligors.” Ultimately, Judge Klein explained that, “[t]he bottom line is that landlords are permitted to obtain credit enhancements that will net them more than the 502(b)(6) cap, but only so long as the excess does not come from property of the estate.”

Comment: The Mayan Networks majority and concurring opinions provide important guidance for landlords and tenants entering into commercial leases. It seems clear that courts will continue to use the rationale in Oldden to treat landlords holding security deposits differently from other secured creditors. A secured creditor, of course, must deduct the value of its security from its total claim, but may otherwise share in the bankruptcy estate to the extent that it is unsecured. The claim of a landlord holding a security deposit, however, is artificially reduced by the § 502(b)(6) cap, which could limit the landlord's claim to less than the value of the security. The Mayan Networks case extends this policy to affect even transactions between third parties to a bankruptcy case, namely the bank issuing a letter of credit and a landlord. As a result of the Mayan Networks case, landlords could find themselves forced to actually surrender any recovery obtained from a collateralized letter of credit that exceeds the 502(b)(6) cap! In any event, this case indicates that the form of the lease transaction – and specifically whether a letter of credit acting as a security is collateralized – will greatly affect a party’s rights in a subsequent bankruptcy if § 502(b)(6) is applicable. Given Judge Klein’s concurring opinion, landlords are particularly well advised to negotiate for security deposits in the form of letters of credit that are not collateralized by the tenant’s bank accounts or any property that might otherwise ultimately belong to the tenant's bankruptcy estate.

Jesse Mainardi
Cooper, White & Cooper LLP
201 California Street, 17th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
Tel.: 415.433.1900
Fax: 415.433.5530

Case Law Update

Failure to List Creditor in a No-Asset, No-Bar-Date Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Does Not Justify Revocation Discharge. Dischargeability is unaffected by scheduling in a Chapter 7 no-asset, no-bar-date bankruptcy. Creditor alleged that debtors had obtained their discharge by fraud by failing to list the creditor on the matrix used to create the creditor list, from which notices were sent until after the court clerk's office had created that list. Debtors had listed the creditor on their schedule, but admitted to omitting creditor’s name from the typed list that was scanned to send out notices. Even if debtor had intentionally committed a fraud on the court, creditor would not be entitled to relief under either § 727(d)(1) or § 523(a)(3)(A) because debtors' bankruptcy was a no-asset Chapter 7 bankruptcy and therefore, even if creditor had received notice, she would not have received anything for her claim. In re Nielsen, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 18821 (9th Cir. Sept. 7, 2004).

Proper Way to Discharge Student Loan Debt is through an Adversary Proceeding Where Debtor Establishes Undue Hardship. Creditor’s claim on student loan debt, filed one day after proof of claim deadline, was disallowed. Bankruptcy court subsequently held creditor, which attempted to collect the debt, could not argue that undue hardship was not established; such argument was res judiciata because the plan was not challenged and the discharge order stated that the debt was discharged. Court of Appeals reversed because there was no evidence that the confirmed plan or discharge order mentioned or established the existence of undue hardship. Court distinguished this case from Andersenv. UNIPAC- NEBHELP, 179 F.3d 1253 (10 th Cir. 1999), where the confirmation of the plan, to which there was no objection, amounted to a binding adjudication of undue hardship thereby turning a nondischargeable debt into a dischargeable debt since there was an express finding of undue hardship in the plan. In re Poland, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 18843 (10th Cir. Sept. 7, 2004).

Fault in Delay “Immensely Persuasive” Factor in Pioneer Analysis. The Seventh Circuit failed to join the First, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits which have held that the four factors established in Pioneer Investment Services v. Brunswick Assn., 507 U.S. 380, 385 (1993), danger of prejudice, length and potential impact of delay, the reason for delay and the movant’s good faith, do not hold equal weight. However, in this case the Seventh Circuit was ready to find that the third factor was “immensely persuasive” where the creditor, whose claim was for $750,000, waited 81 days after claim deadline to make move under Rule 9006(b) to file the untimely claim and the creditor’s attorney had actual knowledge of the original bar date. In re Kmart, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 18248 (7th Cir. Aug. 27, 2004).

Tenth Circuit Expands its Test for Recharacterization of Loans. Formerly, the Tenth Circuit only examined: (1) the initial operating capital of the business, (2) the length of time the business was in operation at the time of the loan, and (3) whether the parties treated the transaction as a loan or as a capital investment. In this case, the court adopted a more extensive set of criteria to judge whether funds advanced to a now-bankrupt entity were true loans or camouflaged equity investments. Joining the Sixth Circuit, which recently applied the following multi-factor test from the tax cases to a bankruptcy recharacterization inquiry, the court considered the following factors to distinguish true debt from camouflaged equity: (1) the names given to the certificates evidencing the indebtedness; (2) the presence or absence of a fixed maturity date; (3) the source of payments; (4) the right to enforce payment of principal and interest; (5) participation in management flowing as a result; (6) the status of the contribution in relation to regular corporate creditors; (7) the intent of the parties; (8) "thin" or adequate capitalization; (9) identity of interest between the creditor and stockholder; (10) source of interest payments; (11) the ability of the corporation to obtain loans from outside lending institutions; (12) the extent to which the advance was used to acquire capital assets; and (13) the failure of the debtor to repay on the due date or to seek a postponement. However, the court did note that the list is not exclusive. In re Hedged Investment Assoc., 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 18164 (10th Cir. Aug. 26, 2004).

Section 544(a)(2) Did not Vest Trustee with the Rights and Powers of the IRS to Reach Entireties Property For Benefit of Individual Creditors. Debtor and her spouse owned home in a tenancy by the entireties. The house was exempt property under state law. Court denied trustee’s argument that § 544(a)(2), despite its exemption, allowed him to stand in the shoes of the IRS as a creditor for purposes of reaching entireties property. It was clear from the plain definitions of "extend" and "credit" that voluntariness of the extension of credit was implicit in § 544(a)(2). Court reasoned that if the trustee was able to stand in the shoes of the IRS, conceivably no state law exemption would continue to exist, despite the Bankruptcy Code's explicit recognition of exemptions under state law. Therefore, the strong-arm clause of the Bankruptcy Code could not vest the trustee with the rights and powers of the IRS under federal tax laws to reach entireties property for the benefit of the debtor's individual creditors. Additionally, the appellate court found that the IRS was an involuntary creditor as it could not decline to hold a taxpayer liable for his taxes. Scholssberg v. Barney, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 16746 (4th Cir. Aug. 16, 2004).

Residential Leasehold Qualifies as Homestead. Under Oregon state law, a residential leasehold qualifies as a homestead. Debtor claimed an exemption for refundable security deposit and deposit for future rent obligations that his landlord retained at the time debtor filed for bankruptcy. There was no dispute that the debtor's apartment was his "actual abode" for purposes of Oregon state law. In finding that a residential leaseholder could be an "owner" under state law, the court held that the homestead exemption was to be liberally interpreted. The deposit and the lease were not severable, so the homestead exemption applied to the deposit. The exempted homestead was not subject to assumption or rejection by the trustee, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365. In re Casserino, 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 16740 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2004).

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

Washington Legislative Update

IRS Alters Stance on Bankruptcy Code Application to Certain Pension Plans
On September 9th, the IRS's Chief Counsel office announced it will no longer argue the IRS may include in the value of its secured claim the debtor's interest in a pension plan that is excluded from property of the estate under Section 541(c)(2), a change in its litigating position on the application of Bankruptcy Code Section 506(a) to pension plans excluded from a bankruptcy estate under Bankruptcy Code Section 541(c)(2).

The IRS explained that under Section 506(a), a creditor with a lien on property of the estate holds a secured claim to the extent of the value of the creditor's interest in the estate's interest in such property. Section 541(a) provides that, upon the commencement of the bankruptcy case, an estate is created that consists of all legal or equitable interests of the debtor on that date.

PBGC Offers Bankruptcy Changes to Safeguard Airline Workers, Retirees
Making reference to 2 bankrupt airlines, who have indicated that they will not make required contributions to their pension plans, the PBGC September 14th offered specific changes that could be made in bankruptcy to better protect workers and retirees.

"The pension agency should be able to perfect a lien in favor of the pension plan when companies in bankruptcy skip their legally required contributions, and companies should notify participants within 30 days of a bankruptcy filing of the plan's funded status on a termination basis and of legal limits on PBGC's guarantees," the agency said in a news release.

According to the PBGC, when a company outside of bankruptcy skips legally required pension contributions, PBGC is able to perfect a lien against the company's assets.

Rep. Boehner (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Education and the Workforce, expressed concern about the possibility of companies using PBGC as a pension dumping ground to increase their economic prospects and get a leg up on the competition.

The PBGC has said it will guarantee the basic pension benefits of workers from US Airways and United Air Lines if the plans of those companies terminate. However, it will also ask Congress to help ensure corporations meet their pension obligations.

Chapter 12 Legislation
It is believed that a bill will be introduced in the next couple of days by Reps. Baldwin (D-WI) and Smith to extend chapter 12.

On the 15th, Rep. Capito's (R-W.Va.) amendment to bar IRS from hiring private-sector collection professionals to collect taxes owed to the federal government was approved by voice vote after an extended debate. Capito argued that sensitive taxpayer information might be misused, and that because collection professionals can be paid based on what they collect, they might engage in abusive practices to increase pay. Others, such as Rep. Van Hollen (D-Md.), argued tax collection is a government responsibility that should not be delegated to outside parties.

1. House Judiciary Approves New Judgeships, but not for Bankruptcy Courts

September 9th, the House Judiciary Committee approved by voice vote S.878, a bill passed by the Senate in May, creating new federal judgeships, but the House stripped out provisions for new federal bankruptcy judges. It is uncertain whether the Senate will accept the amendments.

2. Judicial Conference Rules Committee Circulates Proposed Rule Amendments

A preliminary draft of proposed amendments to the Bankruptcy Rules is being circulated to the bench, bar, and public by the Standing Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Judicial Conference of the United States. At present, the Standing Committee has not approved these proposed amendments, except to authorize their publication for comment.

Comments on the proposed amendments are due February 15, 2005. In addition, anyone wishing to comment orally may do so by requesting, at least 30 days before, the two scheduled hearings: February 3, 2005, in Washington, D.C., and February 7, 2005, in San Francisco. Those wishing to testify should contact the secretary at least 30 days before the hearing.

Synopsis of Proposed Amendments:

Rule 5005(c) is amended to include the clerk of the bankruptcy appellate panel among the persons who can transmit erroneously delivered papers to the clerk of the bankruptcy court.

Rule 9036 is amended by deleting the current language requiring the sender of an electronic notice to have received confirmation of receipt of that notice for the notice to be complete. At the time the rule was promulgated, the sender of an electronic communication generally would receive a notification that the recipient of the notice received it.

Rule 1009 is amended to include a provision requiring the debtor to submit a corrected statement of Social Security number when the debtor becomes aware of an error.

Rule 2002(g) is amended by adding a new subdivision (g)(4) that authorizes entities and notice providers to agree on the manner and address to which service may be effected.

Rule 4002 is amended by adding a new subdivision (b), implementing the directives of Bankruptcy Code Section 521, requiring that a debtor bring documentation to the Section 341 meeting to establish current income and ownership to financial accounts, as well as the debtor's most recently federal tax return.

Rule 7004 is amended to revise the method of service of a summons and complaint on the attorney for the debtor whenever an entity serves the debtor with a summons and complaint.

Rule 9001 is amended to add a definition of notice provider to the rule (to be read in conjunction with the proposed amendment to Rule 2002(g)).

Schedule I of Official Form 6 is amended to require the disclosure of the current income of the non-filing spouse of a debtor.

1. Debt Collection Firms Settle FTC Charges Of Harassing Consumers and Third Parties

On August 25th, 2 debt collection companies resolved with the FTC accusations of unlawful debt collection practices, and agreed that they will comply with federal law regulating debt collection practices, according to a proposed consent order (In re Applied Card Systems, Inc., FTC, File No. 032-3040, 8/25/04).

The FTC alleged that the Florida based Applied Card Systems, Inc., and Applied Card Systems of Pennsylvania, Inc. harassed consumers with multiple phone calls and abusive language and allegedly called third parties who had told them they did not have any information about the consumers from whom the companies were trying to collect.

The proposed consent order prohibits the respondents - directly or through any corporation, subsidiary, division, or other, device - from engaging in any unfair or deceptive act or practice in violation of FTC Act Section 5.

The draft complaint and proposed consent order are available at http://www.ftc.gov/

2. Grassley Planning 'Full-Court Press' on Export Tax Repeal Legislation

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Grassley (R-Iowa) intends "a full-court press" on critical export tax repeal legislation (H.R. 4520), containing language allowing private debt collection professionals to collect Federal tax debt.

But the bill faces significant challenges in the weeks ahead, with so many of the interests still being significant distances apart, with optimism declining that lawmakers can get the bill done before the November elections.

David Goch
Washington Legislative Counsel
Commercial Law League of America