Illinois Bankruptcy Lawyer Blog

Courtesy of King Bankruptcy Media

In re Robinson, 06-10618-SSM (Bankr. E.D.Va. 2007)

Fees Reduced: Failure to Provide "Clear" Fee Agreement

Citing §528(a)"s "requirements for debt relief agencies" the bankruptcy court severely reduced a chapter 13 attorney"s fees because his fee agreement, while "detailed and comprehensive" was apparently too dense and hard to read (visually dense, small type, disorganized). The court basically held that if a consumer didn"t know what to expect they would probably think that the $3,000 fee prominently displayed in the document was all they would ever have to pay.

________________________

In re Gutierrez, 356 B.R. 496 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Cal. 2006)

Fees Disgorged: Failure to Follow BAPCPA Disclosure or Written Fee Agreement

Bankruptcy Court found that debtor"s attorney failed to provide "Bankruptcy Truthfulness Notice" prescribed by §527(a)(2) within 3 business days of the first offer of bankruptcy assistance. Court ordered $700 retainer disgorged plus $675 in legal fees. Debtor"s attorney was also accused of failing to provide the disclosure required by §342(b)(1) (describing the difference between various chapters) within 3 days of first offering assistance, but the court ruled that disclosure was adequate as long as it was given prior to the filing. Finally, Court held that attorney failed to provide written fee agreement within 5 business days of first consulting with the client as required by §528(a)(1).

________________________

In re Ott, 343 B.R. 264 (Bkrtcy.D.Colo. 2006)

Case Dismissed Due to Attorney"s Failure to File Payment Advices

Debtor failed to file "payment advices" within 45 days of filing the petition as required by per §§521(a)(1)(B)(iv) and 521(i). Debtor's counsel informed court he may have inadvertently failed to inform debtors of the requirement. Case was nonetheless automatically dismissed (as required by the BAPCPA). Debtor moved for relief based on counsel's mistake. The Court observed that by passing the BAPCPA Congress had determined that debtors in bankruptcy were "the moral equivalent of shoplifters" so the Court could not extend the 45-day deadline (See Judge Keith Lundin's treatise on Chapter 13 -- dismissal is automatic and requires no action).

________________________

In re Ginsberg, 354 B.R. 644 (Bkrtcy.E.D.NY 2006)

Case Dismissed Due to Attorney"s Failure to Order Credit Counseling

Debtor filed a Chapter 7 case but was not advised by Counsel to complete credit counseling as required by §109(h) or, in the alternative, to file a certificate of exigent circumstances to extend the time in which to get counseling or seek a permanent exemption based on disability, etc. On the date the Court issued an order to show cause why case should not be dismissed, the Debtor completed credit counseling and filed a certificate. The Court nonetheless dismissed the case and promptly hung the Attorney out to dry, noting that: "... if a debtor suffers adverse legal consequences as a result of attorney error the debtor"s recourse is against the attorney ..." Ouch.

________________________

In re Nichols, 2007 WL 456635 (Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y.)

Debtor Not Punished For Attorney Failure to Seek Waiver of Credit Counseling Requirement

Attorney filed debtor's petition using outdated forms and failed to indicate that debtor had completed pre-petition credit counseling; attorney then failed to seek extension to complete counseling. Trustee moved to dismiss. Court said that it construed §109(h) to provide that credit counseling must be completed and submitted within 45 days of filing and debtors had reasonably relied on their counsel (which had misconstrued the provision).

________________________

• bankruptcy court abused discretion by dismissing rather than allowing debtor to convert from chapter 13 to chapter 7
• bankruptcy court abused discretion by retroactively nullifying the automatic stay
• creditor actions which would have taken place after the automatic stay were void ab initio and could not be revived

Download the full opinion from the Box on the right >>>>

:: Bankruptcy Attorney in Illinois :: M. Hedayat & Associates, P.C. ::

what was it P.T. Barnum said again ...?

when we told you about the Amp'd bankruptcy in this post not long ago and broke down the significance of the filing in this one, we thought it was curtains for our hero, a would-be player in the competitive cellular market.

little did we know that Amp'd would be merrily borrowing once more as early as today! and not just from any lender -- but from the very creditor that sought to punch Amp'd proverbial lights out.

the Bankruptcy Court in DE determined that Amp'd may make use of some $7.5M in cash from its largest creditor (and service provider) Verizon to help it reorganize. sources say there may be something in it for Verizon too, but don't quote me on that.

I guess there really is one born every minute.

:: Bankruptcy Attorney in Illinois :: M. Hedayat & Associates, P.C. ::

Good Afternoon:

This message is being sent to members of the Liaison Committee of the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division. I am an attorney and the author of the Bankruptcy Blog, which I began 4 years ago to highlight issues affecting the bankruptcy bar in our District. Over the years our most popular posts have dealt with opinions and documents issued by Judges in the Northern District, as well as developments like the advent of this Committee (we posted about the Committee"s formation here).

We are writing today because we want to help "get the word out" about the Committee"s activities and ideas, as well as to solicit ideas from the practitioner community and inform the Committee about them. In our opinion these goals could be met most effectively using publishing tools such as

• RSS information feeds
• Wiki pages for Judges and cases
• A Blog maintained for the Court

We see great potential in the use of these vehicles to communicate about

• the status of current cases (especially mega-cases)
• judicial opinions, policies, and standing orders
• hearing dates and deadlines relating to a case
• statutory and rule-based resources for practitioners and the public
• interaction among practitioners in a discussion forum

RSS feeds could also be used to track subjects of interest to Attorneys without the need for the Court to add another layer of administration, preserving precious labor and time. The success of the Bankruptcy Blog (2000+ members and growing) is proof of how popular and useful this idea can be. In fact, the tremendous growth of the blog has encouraged bar associations around the country to follow suit. We are justifiably proud of having set the standard in this area, and would like to remain innovative by looking at new ways to obtain and share information. Here is what we know

• more people are online now than ever before and the trend is likely to accelerate
• readership of the Bankruptcy Blog has soared recently as more people look for information about decisions made by our Judges
• the current generation of lawyers considers e-mail too cumbersome to be an effective way of staying on top of information

Facts like these prompted a follow up question in our minds: What is the Court doing to reach out to practitioners, debtors, creditors, and litigants? Are invaluable tools being overlooked? To answer questions like these we propose opening a dialogue with the Court about the best way to share information, deadlines, documents, opinions, etc. and in our opinion RSS, Wiki"s, and other innovative publication methods represent a big step in the right direction. But to be effective we need the Court"s support. I still remember that Judge Wedoff"s leadership was crucial in making e-Filing a reality in the Bankruptcy Court. In fact, the Bankruptcy Blog was created about the same time e-Filing appeared on the Court"s horizon. We feel that the next phase in the Court"s use of technology is upon us now and that this committee has a golden opportunity to spearhead the effort. We hope that it will consider doing so and would like to be part of that effort.

Thank you for your attention to this message. I look forward to speaking with members of the Committee about their vision for the future of Court communications with the bar.

The Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division recently announced the formation of a Bankruptcy Liaison Committee designed to

[P]romote communication about Court procedures, etiquette, filings and other issues, and to assist the Court and attorneys in creating a more efficient environment.

Efficiency; I like the sound of that. What else will the Liaison Committee do?

the Committee develops and sponsors education programs concerning issues affecting the bench, attorneys, financial institutions, and consumers [and] creates social opportunities to allow greater interaction between the Court and those who appear before it.

I"m sold. But wait, there"s more (my favorite part)

The Committee provides an opportunity to relay issues, concerns or ideas anonymously ... [to] be presented to Bankruptcy Judges for their review and consideration.

Not contained in the notice was any indication that suggestions would actually be taken by the Judges; only that they would be considered.

Okay, time to take off my 'cynical committee veteran' hat. For the record, I have the highest hopes for this committee. I believe it is a great idea. However, after having been involved with and chaired bar association and court-based committees for some time now, I fear for its effectiveness.

By all means however, if you get involved with the Committee or make suggestions through it please let us know. We'd be happy to work with you to spread the word and would be even more interested in what (if anything) comes of your efforts.

See Committee Member List in Box to the right >>>>

Judge Hollis' office recently revised its application for approval of fees in Ch. 13 cases. Now

Cases filed on or after May 1

Attorney must file fee application per General Order No. 07-02. Fees up to $3,500 will be awarded through completion of the case without itemization as long as the application reflects that debtor entered into a Model Retention Agreement.

Cases filed before May 1

Attorney must file an application with itemization of time in 1/10^th"s of an hour unless they choose Option A or B for flat fees per the Court"s Standing Order of 9/28/05. Other than filing fees, expenses must be detailed on an attached sheet together with a photocopy of the receipt for each expense or other proof that it was actually incurred and paid. Photocopying shall be limited to 10 cents/page absent proof of greater actual expenses. Detailed itemization of documents photocopied, including number of pages, must also be included.

See new procedures to apply for Ch.13 fees before Judge Hollis

Automotive Professionals, Inc., 07-06720

Issued: June 12, 2007

Judge: Carol A. Doyle

Ed. Note: To discuss the API case and its aftermath join the discussion on my bankruptcy link group or my bankruptcy site

On Thursday the nation's 5th largest air carrier was cleared for take off and its shares began trading again on the NYSE for the first time since its 20-month reorganization began. The event marked what ought to be the last vestige of the wave of airline bankruptcies after 9/11.

According to government figures, in 2005 Northwest's cost structure was higher than that of every airline except U.S. Airways. But by the end of its reorganization in 2006, its costs were lower than those of U.S. Airways, Delta, and Continental; though still higher than rivals American and United. This week NWA said that as a result of the restructuring it had slashed its debt by $4.2 billion and its annual fleet costs by $400 million, trimmed down its unprofitable routes, and cut $1.4 billion in annual labor costs. Said a NWA spokesperson

Today is a landmark in the history of Northwest Airlines. We've repositioned the company as a strong, globally focused airline with a great route network, a revitalized fleet, a competitive cost structure, and a recapitalized balance sheet.

NWA has the oldest operating fleet of planes and will upgrade over the next 2 years, including becoming the first North American carrier to buy the Boeing 787 Dreamliner, as well as 72 new regional jets. One advantage Northwest will have is that its new labor contracts lock workers into lower pay rates and more company-friendly work rules through the end of 2011, longer than any of its U.S. competitors.

:: Bankruptcy Attorney in Illinois :: M. Hedayat & Associates, P.C. ::

1st Circuit

Fields Station LLC v. Capitol Food Corp., No. 06-2327

Denial of motion to dismiss Chapter 11 petition is affirmed; Appellant made no prima facie showing that Appellee submitted its petition in bad faith. Read more...

2nd Circuit

In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Prod. Liab. Litig., No. 04-5974,04-6056

Denial of motion to remand is vacated; district court lacked removal jurisdiction under federal officer removal or bankruptcy removal statutes, and no alternative ground for jurisdiction was satisfied. Read more...

3rd Circuit

In re: Hechinger Inv. Co. of Delaware, Inc., No. 06-2166 and 06-2229

Debtor sought to recover sums paid to a creditor before filing as preferential transfers; bankruptcy court agreed, rejected defendant's position that payments had been simultaneous transfers for value rather then preferential transfers, and denied prejudgment interest. All findings reversed by the Appellate Court. Read more...

5th Circuit

State of Texas v. Soileau, No. 05-20501

State of Texas determined to be subject to a Chapter 7 discharge of its debt against a bail bondsman. The State had moved the bankruptcy court to dismiss it out based on sovereign immunity — an argument that worked at the bankruptcy court level but was reversed by the Appellate Court based on Supreme Court precedent. Read more...

6th Circuit

In re: DSC, Ltd., No. 06-1813

Dismissal of involuntary bankruptcy petition due to lack of sufficient qualified creditors as prescribed under §303(b) is affirmed where debtor's settlement did not moot the appeal; bankruptcy court properly established and enforced a joinder deadline; and bankruptcy court properly found that plaintiffs were not qualified petitioning creditors under §303(b)(1). While §303(c) allows joinder "before a case is dismissed or relief is ordered," the statute does not prohibit a court from setting an earlier deadline based on its inherent case management authority. Read more...

Preferred Capital, Inc. v. Sarasota Kennel Club, Inc., No. 06-3063

State law, as opposed to federal law, controls the interpretation of a forum selection clause when the clause is raised as the sole basis for personal jurisdiction over the defendant. In an action brought to enforce a rental agreement between plaintiff's assignor and defendants, dismissal of the claim for lack of jurisdiction is affirmed on the grounds that a forum selection clause in the contract violates the public policy of Ohio and is unenforceable. Read more...

In re: Glance, No. 06-1630

A security interest in a debtor's property is a "noncontingent, liquidated, secured debt[]" under § 109(e) of the Bankruptcy Code. Read more...

In re: Barrett, No. 06-3519

An order discharging Chapter 7 bankruptcy debtor's student loan debts on the basis of "undue hardship" pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a) is affirmed where: 1) the debtor was not required to provide expert medical evidence to establish that the circumstances underlying his inability to repay would likely continue for a substantial portion of the repayment period; and 2) in light of the significant tax consequences of enrolling in an Income Contingent Repayment Plan (ICRP) due to his inability to repay, debtor's decision to forgo the ICRP was reasonable and was not grounds for finding bad faith. Read more...

8th Circuit

Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co. v. Scott, No. 06-1626

In an insurer's declaratory judgment action against defendant seeking a declaration that its property insurance policy afforded no coverage for fire damage to her house and personal property, judgment as a matter of law for insurer is affirmed as: 1) no rational jury would be able to reconcile the difference between insured's stated personal property in a bankruptcy and in an insurance claim less than one year later; and 2) the only reasonable inference on the evidentiary record was that insured made a material misrepresentation in submitting her claim, thus voiding her coverage. Read more...

Brown v. Pyatt, No. 06-3404

In a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case in which the bankruptcy petition did not list several checks which had been written prior to the debtor's filing but not yet honored, a decision reversing an order for debtor to return to the estate money in the bank account that had not processed as of the date of bankruptcy filing is affirmed, as funds transferred by the checks were property of the estate, the debtor did not have control of money after the checks were honored, and consequently he could not be subject to a motion to compel turnover. Read more...

US v. Holthaus, No. 06-2843

A sentence and restitution order imposed for defendant's knowingly and fraudulently making a false declaration or statement in connection with his bankruptcy petition is affirmed over claims of error regarding: 1) a finding that defendant intended to defraud his creditors of more than $30,000, which resulted in a six-level increase under the USSG; and 2) a conclusion that the bankruptcy trustee was a victim under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, and the district court's order of restitution for the trustee's uncompensated work as a result of defendant's offense. Read more...

Lewallen v. Green Tree Servicing, L.L.C., No. 06-1925

In a Chapter 13 bankruptcy action brought to avoid foreclosure on debtor's home, a denial of creditor's motion to dismiss or, alternatively, compel arbitration is affirmed where: 1) the creditor waived its right to arbitrate by waiting eleven months to assert the right and acted inconsistently with its right to arbitrate by engaging in judicial proceedings and serving discovery requests; and 2) the debtor was prejudiced by the late assertion of the right. Read more...

9th Circuit

In re: Adbox, Inc., No. 05-55158

In a dispute between the primary financial backers of a start-up company in bankruptcy, involving backers' counterclaim against the company's bankruptcy trustee and the trustee's preference action to recover a payment made by the company to backers, dismissal of the counterclaim and summary judgment for the trustee in the preference action are affirmed as: 1) the trustee was not an "opposing party" within the meaning of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13 and the counterclaim was properly dismissed; and 2) summary judgment in the preference action was proper as plaintiffs failed to meet their burden of proof on their earmarking defense. Read more...

10th Circuit

Rupp v. United Sec. Bank, No. 06-4014

In the context of a trustee's power to avoid preferential transfers under §547(b), a company was held not to be an insider as defined in §101(31)(A) vis-/*-vis its director emeritus, now a chapter 7 debtor. Read more...

:: Bankruptcy Attorney in Illinois :: M. Hedayat & Associates, P.C. ::

Issued May 30, 2007

Judge Hon. Jacqueline P. Cox

See the opinion here

From Judge Goldgar"s page on the site maintained by the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division:

In General

Attorneys seeking fees in Chapter 13 cases must file an application with itemization of time in 10^th"s of an hour and a description of services rendered unless they used the Court"s Model Retention Agreement.

Cases Filed After May 1

Attorneys who use the Model Retention Agreement may receive up to $3,500 through the close of the case without an itemization. See General Order No. 07-02 and Standing Order No. 3 as amended May 30.

Cases Filed Before May 1

Attorneys who use the court's Model Retention Agreement may receive up to $3,000 through the close of the case or up to $2,500 through plan confirmation without submitting itemization of activities.

See Standing Order No. 3 in the Box on the right >>>>

As noted in this article and my recent post on the subject, the bankruptcy of hip/hot cell phone company Amp'd Mobile could have far-reaching implications for this niche industry. Here is what was noted in that blog

Hypergrowth Not To Blame. On June 1st, Amp'd filed for Chapter 11 citing growth as a disruptive element to their back-end infrastructure. In the days following, a more complicated picture emerged though, implicating Verizon Wireless, the carrier from which Amp'd bought network time at wholesale, in a strong-arm scheme to recover more than $30 million in back payments.

One of a Kind of First of its Kind? According to its Chapter 11 documents, Amp'd's problem wasn't a lack of customers (it reportedly had about 200,000) - it was that the customers weren't paying. Instead a full 40% of its subscribers had missed payments amounting to roughly $2 million, or a month's payroll. In short, the real cause of the Amp'd meltdown was good old fashioned red-blooded American mismanagement and capitalist greed. Not to mention poor customer credit screening. The real question is whether these factors will play a part in the fortunes of all such players, or whether Amp'd was an orphan - a lone gunman, an outlier - or whether it was merely the first salvo in an oncoming landslide.

Can Amp'd Get a Better Signal? Could Amp'd recover? Possibly. Short answer 'Yes' with an if ... long answer 'No' with a but. To stay competitive Amp'd will have to deliver better pricing, better handsets and equipment, or better services in the future. Then there are the deep discounts that Amp'd will have to provide to compete with Virgin Mobile and the unique content and services it will need to stay on top of Boost Mobile and Helio.

:: Bankruptcy Attorney in Illinois :: M. Hedayat & Associates, P.C. ::

See all graphs (including specifics on each market) on the blog Seeking Alpha

See graph loaded in Box on the right >>>>

:: Bankruptcy Attorney in Illinois :: M. Hedayat & Associates, P.C. ::

In re Gregory and Narvel Robson, 07-03691

Issued: May 23, 2007

Judge: Jack B. Schmetterer

Trustee: Tom Vaughn (Ch. 13 Trustee)

Attorney for Movant/Plaintiff: Christopher H. Purcell

Attorney for Respondent/Defendant: Robert J. Semrad & Assoc.

See Opinion loaded in Box on the right >>>>

:: Bankruptcy Attorney in Illinois :: M. Hedayat & Associates, P.C. ::

In re Jeffrey M. Karp, 05-30498

Issued: May 22, 2007

Judge: Jack B. Schmetterer

Trustee: David P. Liebowitz

Counsel for Debtor: Chester H. Foster, Jr.

Counsel for Sherry Karp and Marlene Katz: Arnold G. Kaplan, Esq.

Issues: Who can be a credit? What is a claim? Who has the burden of proof and persuasion (respectively)?

See Opinion loaded in Box on the right >>>>

:: Bankruptcy Attorney in Illinois :: M. Hedayat & Associates, P.C. ::

This Notice and Order to all Creditors regarding Claims Bar Date in Chapter 11 has been added to Judge Schmetterer's Required Forms List.

:: Bankruptcy Attorney in Illinois :: M. Hedayat & Associates, P.C. ::

If you thought Bill Gates was too rich and Sultan of Brunei too extravagant, let this be a lesson to you. there's no mansion like a Mumbai sky mansion.

Check this out and see what I mean.

see the PDF document in the Box on the right >>>>

:: Bankruptcy Attorney in Illinois :: M. Hedayat & Associates, P.C. ::

This recent item has to do with the reaction of a bankruptcy Judge in Florida to a Chicago lawyer who referred to that Judge on the record as a few fries short of a happy meal. The Judge subsequently issued a Rule to Show Cause stemming from that comment.

What ensued among members of the legal blogosphere was sympathy for ... the lawyer! That's right: the Internet was veritably a-twitter with posts warning that Judges may go too far when they take umbrage to such remarks.

Uh ... did I miss something? Is this bizzarro world where hamburgers eat people and cats chase dogs? Is there anyone who doesn't think the lawyer in question goofed by being so offhanded? My response to the original item was this (and I stand by it)

To think I used to ask myself why my foreign-born and raised clients didn't 'get' our legal system. There's your reason right there. If you were to set these events anywhere else in the world the lawyer in question would be in irons (literally).

Moreover, where I was born he (there are no 'she' lawyers there) would also lose his family and his freedom. Yet I notice the bulk of discussion in the blogosphere has centered on the propriety of the JUDGE's actions.

Oh, come on people. Just because we are trained to argue every point to death does not mean that we should. The lawyer screwed up and should be punished. Let it go already.

Enough said.

:: Bankruptcy Attorney in Illinois :: M. Hedayat & Associates, P.C. ::

in this piece CNN Money reported recently that many borrowers who qualify for first-tier loans are being fed so-called subprime loans instead, meaning that they are paying way too much up front in costs and junk fees, not to mention being saddled with high interest rates and a prepayment penalty in the event that they wise up and try to get out of their situation. As pointed out in the item

... sub-prime loans are usually designed for borrowers with damaged or sketchy credit histories. Lenders charge higher rates to these customers to offset the extra risks they take on. Prime loans are usually granted to borrowers with credit scores of 650 or higher ...

just taking a guess I'd say that many mortgage lenders, desperate to stay afloat, may have been slipping in these killer loans as a means to stave off the kinds of crashes that have left their industry half-empty. but hey, what do I know?

:: Bankruptcy Attorney in Illinois :: M. Hedayat & Associates, P.C. ::

on june 1st despite amassing a user base of over 200,000 and wading through $360,000,000 (yes, $360 million!) in startup money, Amp'd Mobile had to file for Chapter 11 protection. but not to despair; they issued this press release

On June 1st, 2007, Amp'd Mobile Inc. filed for protection under Chapter 11 ... as a result of our rapid growth our infrastructure was unable to keep up with customer demand ... we expect to continue normal business operations throughout the reorganization process. We are confident that we will emerge from this stronger than ever

in case you're keeping score (and I know you are) this makes it Amp'd + 360 million | Amp'd Users 0 | Amp'd Investors - 360 million

:: Bankruptcy Attorney in Illinois :: M. Hedayat & Associates, P.C. ::

Think you have a right to privacy? Think again: check out the data that banks, credit card companies, landlords, employers, and others can obtain about you at the push of a button courtesy of this report on The Consumerist.

Employment Report

ChoicePoint (866) 312-8075

Check Writing History Report

ChexSystems (800) 428-9623

Shared Check Authorization Network (800) 262-7771 Fax: (800) 358-4506

TeleCheck (800) 835-3243.

Residential and Tenant Reports

ChoicePoint: (877) 448-5732

Safe Rent (888) 333-2413

UD Registry (818) 785-3905

Medical History Reports

MIB (866) 692-6901

Insurance Claims Reports

ISO A-Plus Report (800) 627-3487

Note: under the Fair Credit Reporting Act you're entitled to one of each report per year for free

The "Other" Consumer Reports [Privacy Rights Clearinghouse]

:: Bankruptcy Attorney in Illinois :: M. Hedayat & Associates, P.C. ::

In re Hodges, 05-46676

Issued: February 28, 2007

Judge: Jacqueline P. Cox

Chapter 13 Debtor brought claim objection against Social Security Administration ("SSA") for the agency's post-confirmation attempt to collect disability benefit overpayment, alleging that the demand for payment was unsubstantiated and in violation of the automatic stay. SSA countered that Bankruptcy Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 405(h), which forces debtors to exhaust administrative remedies prior to moving in the district courts. Court held that 405(h) extended specifically to the bankruptcy courts.

:: Bankruptcy Attorney in Illinois :: M. Hedayat & Associates, P.C. ::

In Re Samuel and Denise Mathis, 06-11395

Issued: May 4, 2007

Judge: Carol A. Doyle

:: Bankruptcy Attorney in Illinois :: M. Hedayat & Associates, P.C. ::

In re Arlington Hospitality, Inc., et al. 05-34885 



Issued May 10, 2007



Judge A. Benjamin Goldgar

:: Bankruptcy Attorney in Illinois :: M. Hedayat & Associates, P.C. ::

In re Nanovation Technologies, Inc. and Nanovation Technologies of Michigan, Inc., 01 B 26090 (Jointly Administered)

Chatz v. BearingPoint, 03 A 2300

Issued: May 17, 2007

Judge: Pamela S. Hollis

:: Bankruptcy Attorney in Illinois :: M. Hedayat & Associates, P.C. ::

From Glenn Stearns, Chapter 13 Trustee for the southwest suburbs of Chicago:

pay advices, tax returns, tax transcripts: Attorneys and Debtors may e-mail or mail these to the appropriate analyst but never fax them. See Trustee Office Directory in the Box widget on the right >>

schedule E: must be completed if child support appears as a deduction on schedule I or an expense on schedule J. See Schedule E in the Box widget on the right >>

full creditor names: If you download creditor names and addresses from a credit report, convert them to the full creditor name (not just abbreviations).

Next BAPCPA CLE class: Aug or Sep at the DCBA

:: Bankruptcy Attorney in Illinois :: M. Hedayat & Associates, P.C. ::