https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/03/nyregion/nyc-taxi-drivers-hunger-strike.html

If you live in Pennsylvania and are receiving Social Security Disability benefits, either through Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) or Supplemental Security Income (SSI), you understand how challenging a complex the process is. Obtaining your benefits required a significant amount of time, energy, and documentation. Unfortunately, obtaining benefits is not the end of the process. […] The post What Happens at a Disability Benefits Review in Pennsylvania? appeared first on .

Dealing with a disabling condition can be incredibly difficult, especially when attempting to obtain government benefits to assist you financially. But these benefits may be necessary if your impairments leave you unable to work. You may be wondering if you can just get your own doctor to provide you with approval for disability benefits. Unfortunately, […] The post Can a Doctor Put You on Disability in Pennsylvania? appeared first on .

Thousands of Pennsylvanians rely on Social Security Disability benefits to pay for necessary expenses. The Social Security Administration (SSA) manages two distinct programs that provide monthly benefits to disabled individuals. The extent that you can own property and maintain your benefits depends on which program governs your disability benefits. Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) does […] The post Can You Own Property and Be On Disability in Pennsylvania? appeared first on .

For many people in Pennsylvania, the student loan crisis is real. Their monthly mortgage, rent, utilities, and other necessary expenses are difficult to pay because of their student loan payments. Bankruptcy provides people drowning in debt relief and protection under the federal Bankruptcy Code. Unfortunately, discharging student loan debt is almost impossible. However, this does […] The post Can You File for Bankruptcy to Avoid Defaulting on Your Student Loan in Pennsylvania? appeared first on .

 https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/25/nyregion/gene-freidman-dead.html

 “One pill makes you largerAnd one pill makes you small….”— “White Rabbit” by Jefferson AirplaneSenior Care Centers Inc., a chain of skilled nursing facilities, accomplished the feat of filing once as a complex chapter 11 case in 2018 (“First Case”) and then re-filing as a small business debtor in 2021 (“Second Case”). This success can be attributed to its ability to shed debt in its First Case, as well as in its decision to exclude its operating subsidiaries (and their debt) from its Second Case.In 2018, the company sought bankruptcy protection in the Northern District of Texas in Case No. 18-33967 and requested complex case status based on having more than $10 million in debt and more than 50 parties in interest. It emerged a year later with a confirmed plan that was substantially consummated in March 2020. Under the plan, it pared back its operations from more than 100 facilities to approximately 22 of its best-performing locations.In 2021, it filed a new case, along with parent company Abri Health Services, LLC, in Case No. 21-30700, and it elected to be treated as a small business debtor filing under subchapter V of chapter 11.Some Background on Large and Small CasesThe “complex” case designation is not found in the Bankruptcy Code. It references a series of procedures adopted by local rules in various bankruptcy courts to allow the court to more efficiently deal with larger cases.[1] The complexity of the original Senior Care Centers case is shown by the fact that the case has over 3,000 docket entries.Subchapter V was added to the Bankruptcy Code and went into effect on Feb. 20, 2020. Initially, subchapter V was only applicable to cases with aggregate debt of $2,725,625.[2] However, just one month later, on March 27, 2020, this debt limit was temporarily increased to $7,500,000 by the CARES Act. The debt limit will revert to the original level on March 27, 2022, unless extended by Congress. Subchapter V includes several provisions designed to make smaller cases more affordable. There is no creditors’ committee,[3] disclosure statements are not required,[4] and the absolute priority rule is replaced by a disposable-income requirement.[5]How Did the Cases Change?In the First Case, Senior Care Centers and its affiliates entered bankruptcy with $45.56 million in secured asset-based-lending debt.[6] The debtor had $4.33 million in additional secured debt and owed $35 million to landlords. Finally, the debtor owed $36.7 million in unsecured trade debt. Thus, when Senior Care Centers entered the First Case, it had over $120 million in debt and truly qualified as a “complex case.”When Senior Care Centers filed the Second Case, it reported just $3,065,730 in debt, nearly all of which was unsecured. The schedules stated that $500,000 of unsecured debt consisted of claims classified as “Holders of Allowed Convenience Class Claims” under the plan in the First Case, and that $2,494,717.62 consisted of rent owed to a landlord with which the debtor had ongoing difficulties. The parent company, Abri, listed $2,676,709.02 in debt consisting primarily of the same rental obligations.Going from $120 million to $3 million in debt is a major feat. Part of this reduction was accomplished by the deleveraging of the company’s balance sheet, which occurred in the First Case. The substantial amounts of secured debt were refinanced and then paid after the First Case, leaving the parent companies relatively debt-free. However, the second reduction in debt came from the decision of which debtors filed bankruptcy. In the First Case, Senior Care Centers filed along with its operating subsidiaries, which had the unsecured trade debt.In the Second Case, only the two parent companies filed. TXMS Real Estate Investments Inc., the landlord with the large claim in the Second Case, objected to the debtors’ designation as a small business debtor, claiming that they were seeking “to have their cake and eat it, too.” Apparently Senior Care Centers Inc. and the operating entities were all parties to a master lease with TXMS. When Senior Care Centers filed bankruptcy, it contended that the automatic stay prohibited TXMS from terminating the master lease, thus protecting the nondebtor operating entities. However, because the operating entities did not file, Senior Care Centers sought to have their trade debt excluded from the subchapter V eligibility calculation.The court has not heard the objection, so it is not known whether Senior Care Centers’ strategy to take advantage of subchapter V will succeed. However, its strategy appears to make financial sense. A complex case has complex costs for the debtor. In the First Case, Senior Care Centers was dealing with a panoply of debt. In the Second Case, it was dealing primarily with a single creditor. By limiting the entities that filed, Senior Care Centers could attempt to achieve a more cost-effective remedy for dealing with what it described as a recalcitrant lessor.[1] See, e.g., U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Local Rules, Appx. E, Procedures for Complex Chapter 11 Cases.[2] 11 U.S.C. § 101(51D).[3] 11 U.S.C. § 1181(a).[4] 11 U.S.C. § 1181(b).[5] 11 U.S.C. § 1191(b).[6] Disclosure Statement for Third Amended Plan, p. 5.

   The trustee in In re Patel, 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 2897, Case No 6:18-bk-00036-KSJ (Bankr. M.D. Fl. 20 October 2021) had initially abandoned the property after discussing the residence situation at the 341 meeting, but then sought to withdraw the abandonment three years later.  While the court noted that the trustee failed to show fraud or newly discovered evidence warranting revocation of the abandonment, the court went on to note that it would have allowed the exemption regardless.    The hotel, owned by Debtors' daughter, was about 200 miles from the homestead property.  Debtors manage the hotel for the daughter.  The court noted that abandonment divests the estate of control of abandoned property, revesting title in the debtor.  Abandonment pursuant to a notice under §554(a) or (b) is generally considered 'strictly irrevocable' unless the debtor has been given incomplete or false information, thus foregoing a proper investigation of the asset.1  In ruling on a request to revoke abandonment of an asset, courts apply Rule 60(b), Federal Rule of Civil Procedure made applicable in bankruptcy by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9024.  This rule provides that a court may relieve a final judgment for reasons including newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under Rule 59(b), and fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by an opposing party.  The court found that the debtor's testimony at the 341 meeting and at the trial on the trustee's request to withdraw the abandonment was remarkably similar, and found no contradiction or fraud warranting revocation of the abandonment.  The court went on to find that under Florida law, in order to abandon a homestead, the debtor must state an intention to abandon the homestead property and have an intent not to return to the property.2  Absence from a homestead that is involuntary or compulsory, or which arises out of health, financial, or family reasons, does not constitute a relinquishment of homestead rights.3  As the Debtors live at the hotel because it is necessary for their jobs, they have not relinquished their homestead rights, and such property would retain its homestead exemption.  1 In re Fuller, 682 B.R. 852, 858 (Bankr. S.D. Ind. 2020) citing Catalano v. Comm'r, 279 F.3d 682, 686 (9th Cir. 2002).↩2 In re Beebe, 224 B.R. 817, 820 (Bankr. N.D. Fla. 1998).↩3 In re Ballato, 318 B.R. 205, 210 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2004).↩Michael BarnettMichael Barnett, PA506 N Armenia Ave.Tampa, FL 33609-1703813 870-3100https://hillsboroughbankruptcy.com

The National Conference of Bankruptcy Judges has put out a statement on Inclusive Language which recommends using the term  "firewall," "screen" or "ethics wall" instead of "Chinese wall" to describe "an information barrier within an organization intended to prevent exchange of information or communication that could lead to conflicts of interest." It stated that the term "Chinese wall" was considered offensive without further elaboration. According to Bryan Garner's A Dictionary of Modern Legal Usage, the term refers to The Great Wall of China, while others have said that it refers to the screen walls used in internal Chinese architecture. In Peat Marwick Mitchell & Co. v. Superior Court, 200 Cal. App.3d 275 (Cal. App. 1988), Judge Peter Low wrote a concurring opinion objecting to the term "Chinese Wall" in which he stated:The enthusiasm for handy phrases of verbal shorthand is understandable. Occasionally, however, lawyers and judges use a term which is singularly inappropriate. "Chinese Wall" is one such piece of legal flotsam which should be emphatically abandoned. The term has an ethnic focus which many would consider a subtle form of linguistic discrimination. Certainly, the continued use of the term would be insensitive to the ethnic identity of the many persons of Chinese descent. Modern courts should not perpetuate the biases which creep into language from outmoded, and more primitive, ways of thought.The Second Circuit recommended the use of the term "Information Barrier" and noted the use of the term in Securities and Exchange Commission regulations. Lindsay v. Morgan Stanley (In re Morgan Stanley Info. Fund Sec. Litig.), 592 F.3d 347 (2nd Cir. 2010). Notwithstanding the efforts of legal reformers, the term remains in wide use. A LEXIS search found 605 uses of the term in the federal courts, including numerous opinions from 2020 and 2021. In contrast, the terms "ethics wall" and "information barrier" were mentioned just 33 times. While the term may be ubiquitous, it does a poor job of describing its subject. It would be thoroughly infeasible for a law firm to build an edifice on the magnitude of the Great Wall of China to cordon off information within the firm. On the other hand, the paper or silk barriers used in Chinese architecture could prove too insubstantial to prevent information from leaking through. In doing my research, the earliest usage of the term I could find did not concern ethics or confidentiality, but rather civil rights. In Fong Yue Ting v. United States, 149 U.S. 698 (1893), three Chinese laborers sought writs of habeas corpus after being arrested for failing to have a certificate of residence. The Southern District of New York granted the writs but was reversed by the Second Circuit and the denial of the writs was affirmed by the Supreme Court. In dissent, Justice Brewer wrote:Whatever may be true as to exculpation, I deny that there is any arbitrary and unrestrained power to banish residents, even resident aliens. What, it may be asked, is the reason for any difference? The answer is obvious. The Constitution has no extraterritorial effect, and those who have not come lawfully within our territory cannot claim any protection from its provisions. And it may be that the national government, having full control of all matters relating to other nations, has the power to build, as it were, a Chinese wall around our borders and absolutely forbid aliens to enter. But the Constitution has potency everywhere within the limits of our territory, and the powers which the national government may exercise within such limits are those, and only those, given to it by that instrument.149 U.S.at 738. Thus, in its first usage, it referred to the nation's first anti-immigration legislation and nativist attempts to exclude Chinese immigrants. This an unsavory origin and another reason not to use the term. 

This panel looked at how Covid has affected the legal professional and how it will affect the practice going forward. The panel consisted of Judge Elaine Hammond (Bankr. N.D. Cal.), Judge Christopher Sontchi (Bankr. D. Del.), Judge Laura Taylor (Bankr. S.D. Cal.), Matthew Feldman of Wilkie Farr and Stuart Gold from Gold Lange Majoros Smalarz PC. This was the last session of the conference that I attended and one of the most interesting. Some of the topics discussed included a nurse in scrubs doing her reaffirmation hearing from the breakroom, a judge conducting court from his dining room table and a law firm with story time and honey on the roof. And then there was the vitriol seeping from online hearings. Innovating Through Covid While Covid has been bad for the nation, it has encouraged some innovations in bankruptcy. Mr. Gold explained that allowing 341 meetings to be conducted remotely has been good for debtors. They don't have to take off work, arrange for childcare or pay for parking. It also   benefits debtor's attorneys who don't have to travel to a specific location for a creditor's meeting and makes it easier for creditors to participate. Judge Taylor said that having reaffirmation agreement hearings remotely was another benefit. She gave the example of a nurse in scrubs attending her reaffirmation hearing from the breakroom. However, she cautioned against doing reaffirmation hearings by phone. She said that one of the greatest mistakes she almost made involved a couple with two vehicles, an expensive car that the husband, a realtor said he needed for work, and a minivan. As the husband was explaining how important it was to keep up appearances, the wife was shaking her head. Judge Taylor allowed the couple to reaffirm the minivan instead. In another case, a couple in their 20s sought to reaffirm a debt on a grave plot. Judge Taylor saw that the wife had tears streaming down her face. She asked the wife why the grave plot was so important to her. It turned out that the couple had lost a child and that their grave plots were on either side of the child. She said that if she had not been able to see them, she might have denied the request. Judge Hammond said that when the court introduced an electronic filing box for pro se parties, they realized that most filings came in on Saturdays and Sundays. Since the physical intake window was only open 9-4 on Mondays through Fridays, the electronic filing box opened up the ability for pro se parties to participate. Impact on Negotiations and Civility Mr. Feldman said that one thing that has been lost with virtual hearings is the ability to negotiate on the courthouse steps. He said that when parties see each other in person and have to stand before the judge, they are more likely to negotiate. He added that chapter 11 is all about negotiation. He said that one thing he is doing is setting regular Zoom calls with creditors to maintain a sense of engagement. He also said that judges should be more proactive in requiring parties to negotiate. He said that in a virtual world, it is easy for parties to get entrenched in their positions. He said that Zoom mediations make the process more accessible and are here to stay. He said that when parties are not speaking to each other, the court should force them to mediate even if it is just for one session. Mr. Gold said that being able to negotiate was a strong skill in consumer cases as well. He said that law schools should be teaching negotiation and settlement rather than just trial skills. Judge Sontchi echoed the sentiment that not being present in person inhibits negotiation. He said that people aren't spending the 30 minutes before a hearing talking and instead were busy preparing their outline. He said that we've evolved to speak face to face and need to be within six feet of each other. He said that Zoom is just not the same. He said that a lot of mediation is breaking down walls between people and that it's harder to do that on video. He also said that fifteen years he thought mediation was overdone but he has totally changed on that and admits he was wrong. He did say that Zoom was a big boon to creditors who may now participate by video for free rather than paying to appear by phone. (Ed.: Prior to Covid, Delaware used a system called Court Call in which attorneys had to register to appear by phone and pay for the service). Mr. Feldman said that it's too easy to be impolite in video hearings and that it's harder to behave that way when you're walking into the courtroom together. He said that it seems that the level of vitriol in hearings is elevated. He said that it's so much easier to be nasty when you are not with them. On the other hand, he said that mediation forces you not to behave that way. Judge Sontchi echoed that the behavior of lawyers has changed and that it poses a problem for maintaining courtroom discipline. He related that when he first began to do remote hearings, he did the from his dining room and did not wear a robe. He said that may have made a mistake because it added to an informality that made it easier for people who weren't repeat players to act very aggressively, not just with each other but with court. Mr. Feldman said that he was in favor of forced mediations. He said that he has no problem with the judge saying you're going to have a mediation. If it works, it works. He added that part of being a lawyer is managing your client. This means managing their expectations and encouraging them to be realistic about a case. He said that the best cases are those that resolve themselves voluntarily. Judge Taylor had a different perspective on forced mediation. She said that it costs big money to mediate. She said that if parties don't want to mediate, it just doesn't work. She said at the end of the day I'm not going to waste their money. Mr. Gold added that mediation can be valuable in consumer cases and noted that his district maintains a panel of volunteer mediators. The Future of Hearings Judge Hammond asked the panel how much of court is going to stay on video. Judge Taylor made a plea for courthouses and courtrooms. She said that there are three reasons why we will always have a need to do things with feet on the ground.  The first is trials. She described Zoom trials as ranging from “meh it was ok” to “the single worst trial experience in my entire life.” Second, she cited the disparity between pro se parties and those with lawyers.  Finally, she mentioned the vitriol that has arisen and said that she could have controlled behavior better in courtroom. She said that they were going to continue to use aspects of virtual technology. She gave the example of allowing minor witnesses to appear remotely. However, she said that there was something important about being present to parties in front of her. She said that when a judge rules on a contested matter, “you make a temporary friend and a permanent enemy.” She said she was giving bad news to somebody all the time. She said she didn’t want to become deadened to the process. She added that if you don’t obey my orders, you are not going to explain it by Zoom. Judge Sontchi said that he had just an in person hearing the prior week. He said that he was so happy to have people in my courtroom. He also said that it gave him better control over the process. One witness was going on for half an hour. He figured out that the witness was reading from notes and made him share them with the other side. He said that it was a mess and that if he had been on Zoom, he never would have known. Mr. Feldman spoke about the additional roles for personnel when a hearing was on Zoom. He said that they would gather in a large conference room and that associates would be asked to pay attention to specific participants.  He said it is very difficult for the lawyer on point to pay attention to everything.   Judge Sontchi said that with social distancing requirements, it was going to be very difficult to meet the requirements without limiting the number of people who can be in the courtroom. He said that a hearing with just four parties might involve 25 people. He also asked how much pressure am I putting on people who don’t want to travel for health reasons. He said that he would keep first day hearings on Zoom. He said that having in person first day hearings requires a colossal moving of people to get them there on 24 hours’ notice. However, he pointed out that virtual hearings depend on operating on a waiver by the judicial conference. He said that they would continue to do continue to do remote first day hearings as long as they were allowed to do so. Judge Taylor said that she has employed a veto system. If one person objects to in person hearings, they will be conducted virtually. She said that if someone has health concerns, requiring everyone to attend virtually levels the playing field.  She said one problem with Zoom is that the judge is harder to read. She said on Zoom, I’m looking at me. She said sometimes you have to say I’m looking at you.  She described it as a “very Kabuki kind of thing.” She said that in smaller cases, there is an access to justice problem. People have different access to technology. If one firm has tech skills and one doesn’t, that say s come into court room. She doesn’t want the under-techeHd firm to have the perception that I’m being outlawyered with all this technology. The Future of Law Firm Practice The panel was asked how to preserve firm culture in a time of Covid. Mr. Feldman said that his firm, Wilkie Farr, had prior experience going remote. In in 2019, a helicopter hit their building and they went from live to remote in half an hour. The experience encouraged them to invest in technology so that when Covid hit, the transition occurred seamlessly. He said that Covid had forced him to think about what you lose and what changes permanently. Their firm, which has a thousand lawyers has had 200 attorneys turn over during the pandemic. He said that no one has met any of them. He said that AmLaw 200 firms are not going to be in person in the office five days a week anymore because the associates won’t tolerate it.   Requiring everyone to report for a traditional work week would be a competitive disadvantage. He said that we do a lot more training and a lot more connectivity. He said that one attorney leads virtual yoga. At 11:00 a.m., every morning an attorney with young child will read a children’s book as a way for attorneys to connect with their families. However, he said that connection and training is not a substitute for in person interactions. He said that no one wanted to be in New York City during the pandemic. He said most associates gave up their apartments and moved back to where they were from. Given that reality, he asked the rhetorical questions of how do you supervise, how do you train? He said that associates miss out when they lose the ability to meet with a senior attorney. He described their efforts as a work in progress and said this is the challenge that worries me. He worried about the 4th year or 5th year associate who has not been properly trained and may not be of quality to move out. On a lighter note, he said that Wilkie Farr put beehives on roof of their New York headquarters and now they give out honey from their hives.  The Final Word  Mr. Gold said that the key to the future was adapt adapt adapt. He said that we need to be flexible. He added that periods of major disruption offer the opportunity for change, to continue to evolve. Judge Sontchi talked about the steps the court had to take to adapt. He said that at first, they tried Skype for Business but that didn't work out. Then they went to Zoom. He said that as we come out of out of Covid, we need to be more careful and inclusive. He said that when people talk about going back to normal, we don’t know what that means He said that it's not going to be the world that existed on March 1, 2020. Judge Taylor said that sanctions were one area where she would be inflexible. She said that for discipline issues, she wanted to see people in person. She likened it to being sent to the principal’s office. Judge Sontchi commented that in a year and a half he has only had one request for an in-person hearing. Judge Taylor made an appeal to the bar to speak out to say that the courts need money for technology. Judge Sontchi predicted that we will be mostly live in two years but will still be able to be on remote where appropriate. A Note on How I Write These Articles When I attend NCBJ, I have my laptop open and try to take careful notes on what I hear. That means typing really fast and butchering the spelling of words. Later, I take my raw notes and try to form coherent paragraphs. Sometimes I may look up a case that was mentioned and add the citation. Other times my notes don’t make sense to me, and I will omit sections I didn’t understand. In a free-flowing discussion like this one, I may rearrange some topics so that they make better narrative sense. My hope in writing these articles is that I will catch the sense of what I am hearing even though it is beyond my capacity to produce a literal transcript. Sometimes I will contact a speaker for clarification if I think a point is important and I am not 100% sure of what I heard or if I heard something that could be controversial. To the subjects of these posts, I apologize for anything I get wrong and beg your indulgence. If you find any mistakes, I am always happy to revise my work to make it more accurate.