Ms. Griffith stated she filed a status report on the issues yesterday. Court noted it was not available at the time and Court has not reviewed it. Colloquy regarding flex accounts. COURT ORDERED, based on the concurrence of counsel, flex funds to be released immediately. Colloquy regarding premium payment to Zurich of $118,000.00. Matter trailed for counsel to call her client to find out the amount of the funds in the accounts. RECALLED. Colloquy regarding Zurich payment premium and work toward a consensual resolution. Matter trialed to 1:30 p.m. for a telephonic after counsel have conferred with their clients and each other. RECALLED. Same parties present as before. Chris Bayley, Pro Hoc Vice pending also present. Warren Forsythe, also present. All parties present telephonically. Ms. Griffith requested Mr. Bayley be allowed to address the Court today and advised Mr. Bayley's Pro hoc Vice application is pending. Colloquy regarding stop loss minimum premium, the balance of UMR weekly claim checks, funds in Defendants accounts, and expenses to be paid. Court stated, with regard to the issue of whether or not the receivership should immediately pay working capital, the stop loss minimum premium, and the balance of the UMR weekly claim checks, Court FINDS that the cash on hand is subject to the bank's security interest and Court cannot consider requesting the bank to advance additional funds to pay them, in making the ruling in not requiring the receiver to make even a partial payment, Court FINDS there is not even enough cash on hand to satisfy the obligation, Court does this with the realization it will create claims however the priority of those claims have not been determined. Court cautioned the receiver that this is the time to gather the information with regard to all the former employees that may have a right to assert claims and to gather names and addresses so that in the event that the claims process is open to them at a later time, the receiver can put them on notice of their right to make a claim. Mr. Iqbal noted concerns that the client files and storage fees be paid and that essential staff receive their salary. Court stated once the December bills are paid from the funds in the retainer account, it may allow for a transfer of some of the funds to the general account for operating purposes. Mr. Bayley agreed and stated the issue was high on the receiver's priority list. Matter concluded.
Not my area of practice at all, so forgive my ignorance, but does the BK Trustee now supplant the receiver? Why would it be better to file before receiver appointed? What does this development portend, if anything, in terms of potential personal liability of partners?
Problem is it might be considered a bad faith bankruptcy filing if they were doing it in response to the receiver being appointed. I guess the question would be whether an enforceable order was entered prior to their filing. Should be interesting.
There's a lot of case law in the context of a Chapter 11 case that if a receiver is appointed, and a subsequent Chapter 11 is filed (usually in an effort for the debtor to reassert control), that the receiver can usually remain as the controlling entity. This renders the Chapter 11 case an empty shell and basically an exercise in futility.
LSC filed a Chapter 7 though. I don't know if the same case law applies to 7's as 11's.
Looking at the docket, it looks like the bank's attorney's filed a "Motion to Excuse Turnover" trying to prevent the receiver from having to turn over funds to the Chapter 7 trustee. Filed on Feb. 2., 2015. They also requested that this matter to be heard on OST, which was denied on Feb. 3, 2015.
Guest
Anonymous
February 2, 2015 8:50 pm
I missed the Nationwide ad but had Cats in the Cradle, what for me is one of the worst songs of my childhood, inflicted on me multiple times in the bizarre Nissan ad which seems to say "It's okay to no be there for your child's formative years, and to subject them to emotional trauma watching you almost die on live television, so long as you ultimately win a championship, look directly at the camera from the winner's podium and then pick said now teenager up from school in our flashy new car."
One of the most depressing songs that I remember growing up. Does not make me want to buy a Nissan. Maybe the geniuses in charge of this campaign should design an ad around Wayne Newton's immortal classic of the same era, "Daddy Don't You Walk So Fast." That would really cheer people up.
This puts Golightly's production values to shame http://www.break.com/video/mike-jones-mark-jones-super-bowl-commercial-2814921
LSC filed BK last week?
Don't think so. Minutes from last hearing:
Ms. Griffith stated she filed a status report on the issues yesterday. Court noted it was not available at the time and Court has not reviewed it. Colloquy regarding flex accounts. COURT ORDERED, based on the concurrence of counsel, flex funds to be released immediately. Colloquy regarding premium payment to Zurich of $118,000.00. Matter trailed for counsel to call her client to find out the amount of the funds in the accounts. RECALLED. Colloquy regarding Zurich payment premium and work toward a consensual resolution. Matter trialed to 1:30 p.m. for a telephonic after counsel have conferred with their clients and each other. RECALLED. Same parties present as before. Chris Bayley, Pro Hoc Vice pending also present. Warren Forsythe, also present. All parties present telephonically. Ms. Griffith requested Mr. Bayley be allowed to address the Court today and advised Mr. Bayley's Pro hoc Vice application is pending. Colloquy regarding stop loss minimum premium, the balance of UMR weekly claim checks, funds in Defendants accounts, and expenses to be paid. Court stated, with regard to the issue of whether or not the receivership should immediately pay working capital, the stop loss minimum premium, and the balance of the UMR weekly claim checks, Court FINDS that the cash on hand is subject to the bank's security interest and Court cannot consider requesting the bank to advance additional funds to pay them, in making the ruling in not requiring the receiver to make even a partial payment, Court FINDS there is not even enough cash on hand to satisfy the obligation, Court does this with the realization it will create claims however the priority of those claims have not been determined. Court cautioned the receiver that this is the time to gather the information with regard to all the former employees that may have a right to assert claims and to gather names and addresses so that in the event that the claims process is open to them at a later time, the receiver can put them on notice of their right to make a claim. Mr. Iqbal noted concerns that the client files and storage fees be paid and that essential staff receive their salary. Court stated once the December bills are paid from the funds in the retainer account, it may allow for a transfer of some of the funds to the general account for operating purposes. Mr. Bayley agreed and stated the issue was high on the receiver's priority list. Matter concluded.
case 15-10462 – filed 1-30-15
What a surprise.
Should have filed before the receiver was appointed.
Not my area of practice at all, so forgive my ignorance, but does the BK Trustee now supplant the receiver? Why would it be better to file before receiver appointed? What does this development portend, if anything, in terms of potential personal liability of partners?
Problem is it might be considered a bad faith bankruptcy filing if they were doing it in response to the receiver being appointed. I guess the question would be whether an enforceable order was entered prior to their filing. Should be interesting.
There's a lot of case law in the context of a Chapter 11 case that if a receiver is appointed, and a subsequent Chapter 11 is filed (usually in an effort for the debtor to reassert control), that the receiver can usually remain as the controlling entity. This renders the Chapter 11 case an empty shell and basically an exercise in futility.
LSC filed a Chapter 7 though. I don't know if the same case law applies to 7's as 11's.
Looking at the docket, it looks like the bank's attorney's filed a "Motion to Excuse Turnover" trying to prevent the receiver from having to turn over funds to the Chapter 7 trustee. Filed on Feb. 2., 2015. They also requested that this matter to be heard on OST, which was denied on Feb. 3, 2015.
I missed the Nationwide ad but had Cats in the Cradle, what for me is one of the worst songs of my childhood, inflicted on me multiple times in the bizarre Nissan ad which seems to say "It's okay to no be there for your child's formative years, and to subject them to emotional trauma watching you almost die on live television, so long as you ultimately win a championship, look directly at the camera from the winner's podium and then pick said now teenager up from school in our flashy new car."
One of the most depressing songs that I remember growing up. Does not make me want to buy a Nissan. Maybe the geniuses in charge of this campaign should design an ad around Wayne Newton's immortal classic of the same era, "Daddy Don't You Walk So Fast." That would really cheer people up.
Harry Chapin died in a car crash. Way to vet your weepy ad music, Nissan.