From: Crain's New York BusinessBy: Gwen Everetthttps://www.crainsnewyork.com/coronavirus/ag-james-and-cuomo-suspend-state-debt-collectionNew York will freeze collections on medical and student debt owed or referred to the state, Attorney General Letitia James and Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced Tuesday.More than 165,000 debts are affected by the decision, the AG and governor said, adding that the freeze will last at least 30 days. During that time, the attorney general's office will take applications to suspend other types of debt owed or referred to the state, James said, and will decide whether to extend the freeze. It's an effort to mitigate the mounting financial stresses New Yorkers are facing as the Covid-19 crisis rattles the state's economy. The state shut down restaurants, bars and event spaces Monday."In this time of crisis, my office will not add undue stress or saddle New Yorkers with unnecessary financial burden," James said. 

From: vox.comBy: Matthew Yglesiashttps://www.vox.com/2020/3/16/21181500/joe-biden-elizabeth-warren-bankruptcy

Corona Virus and Debt             Due to the extreme measures necessary to prevent the spread of the COVID-19 “corona virus,” many Americans face a serious reduction in income.  This will likely make it very difficult for many to meet their monthly debt obligations.             While this particular event, a world-wide pandemic which causes such economic turmoil, is very rare, our economy is no stranger to downturns and recessions.  It is the nature of economics that there will times of growth and prosperity, and times of contraction and loss.  This has always been the case.             The law has evolved over the centuries to help people when hard times come around.  The Bankruptcy Code is perhaps one of the strongest legal tools which has been developed to accomplish this.              If you find that you are unable to service your debts, whether it is a mortgage, a car loan, credit cards, personal loans, or medical bills, the Bankruptcy Code is designed to provide relief for you.  The purpose of the Bankruptcy Code is to provide people struggling with debt a fresh start.  In most cases, bankruptcy filers are able to keep all of their property, including their homes and retirement accounts.              It helps to get advice on a potential Bankruptcy filing as soon as you become seriously concerned about paying your debts.  Bankruptcy may not be the best route for everyone, and even when it is the best option, it is sometimes best to delay the filing.  We offer a free consultation to determine the best course of action for you.  While we usually have that consultation in person, we would be glad to do so by phone if you prefer.             The attorneys at our firm have a great deal of experience in handling these kinds of problems in difficult economic times.  We have seen these kinds of situations before, and we can give you expert legal advice on how to handle them.  Again, there is no fee for the initial consultation.  If you are worried about how you will handle your debt through this crisis, please give us a call.          The post COVID-19, Corona Virus, Debt & Bankruptcy appeared first on Chris Wesner Law Office.

From: NY PostBy: Rosemary Misdary, David Meyer and Jorge Fitz-GibbonCoronavirus has slammed the brakes on the Big Apple taxi industry. New York City cabbies are suffering a radical drop in ridership amid concerns over the potentially deadly bug, with some only scraping together a few bucks after long shifts behind the wheel. “We don’t make money,” said Queens cabbie Jones Donkoi while trying to land fares on the Upper West Side. “I collected $300 in fares but if you take the taxes and surcharges and lease payment, I make about $40 at the end of a 12-hour shift.” “I support three children,” he said. “I’m going to find another job because I can’t continue like this. I can’t buy anything.” Driver Mohammad Azad said it’s so bad out there that he had just $10 in his pocket after his first three hours on the road on Sunday. “Our pockets are empty,” said Azad, who was near Spring Street in SoHo Sunday. “If it continues like this, it will be very hard to survive in New York City. All taxi drivers are miserable. Am I scared? Yes. But we take the risks.” Another driver said he took home just $50 one day last week, and at one point drove around two hours without a single fare. “I don’t know what’s going to happen,” said the cabbie, who would only identify himself as Patrick. “I am driving around hoping to get a passenger and there are none. They are too scared.” One cabbie said his family has had to cut down on food spending and even stopped buying laundry detergent to try to get by. Taxi garages throughout the city told The Post that business has dropped by 30–50 percent as fewer tourists hit the city and more locals stay indoors to avoid contact with the COVID-19 virus. And cabbies are feeling the squeeze. “It’s really dire out there,” said Bhairavi Desai, executive director of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance. “Trips dry up after evening hours and with significant loss of airport trips, only small fares remain.”A chunk of the fares they collect go toward paying off their pricey taxi medallions or, in some cases, the weekly lease payments to garages that rent them their cabs. “Tomorrow I will ask if my garage can lower the rate to rent the cabs,” said Brooklyn cabbie Abdallah Abdujabar. “Every week I pay $600 plus gas, EZ Pass. It adds up to $800, $900.” Then there are fees that come out of the fares, including a $2.50 state congestion surcharge and a 30-cent city surcharge. According to taxi garage owners and dispatchers, the crunch is having a ripple effect on the industry. Garages that rent out the cabs rely on the drivers’ lease payments to pay off their medallions, and without that money coming, some owners said they risk defaulting on bank loans they took out to make their medallion payments. “My drivers work a 12-hour shift and they’re not even making the money to pay the lease on the car,” said Mahbub Hassan, a dispatcher at Yellow Cab Crescent Management in Long Island City. “In four hours, they’re lucky to get three rides.” “We have 268 cabs in our fleet, and 100 of those cars are just sitting there without drivers,” Hassan said. “We have been giving our drivers $200, $300 discounts on the lease, and drivers are still not making enough to cover the lease payment.” Added a manager at Midtown Operating Corp: “At the end of the day, we are all in the same boat along with the rest of the city. My pockets are not that deep.” Meanwhile, drivers said they also have to live with the fear that they’re exposing themselves to the virus while trying to make a living. “They give me three hand sanitizers per shift,” driver Muhammad Boote, a cabbie for 12 years, said of his bosses at Queens Medallion Leasing in Long Island City. “I’ve almost run out. I need to ask for more.” Additional reporting by Anabel Sosa and Khristina Narizhnaya

From: forbes.comBy: Adam S. MinskyYesterday, President Trump announced that he would be freezing student loan interest as part of his national emergency declaration regarding the Coronavirus outbreak. But with few details provided during his public announcement, student loan borrowers have been wondering what exactly this means for them. Here’s what President Trump’s student loan interest rate freeze would do:Interest accrual on certain federal student loans will be frozen. This means that no further interest will accrue on certain federal student loans going forward. The student loan interest freeze will only apply to student loans “held by federal government agencies,” such as the U.S. Department of Education and its contracted student loan servicers. The student loan interest freeze is temporary, but will continue indefinitely until the policy is changed. The student loan interest freeze will be implemented automatically, likely in the coming week (although the exact timing is unclear).While some applauded the President’s decision, there is much that the national emergency declaration does not do:Private student loans are not covered by the interest freeze, since these loans are not held by U.S. federal government agencies. Certain federally-guaranteed student loans — such as federal Perkins loans and FFEL-program loans — may not be subject to the interest freeze if they are not held by a federal government agency (which is the case for many of these loans). Borrowers must continue to pay their normal monthly payments on all student loans. Your monthly payment amount will not change, nor will your payments be suspended. To be absolutely clear: the President’s declaration does not include any student loan payment relief at all, whatsoever. For student loan borrowers who have already accrued significant uncapitalized interest (such as for borrowers on income-driven repayment plans), all outstanding interest will still have to be paid off first, before any payment will be applied to principal. This is required under federal regulations and the underlying federal student loan promissory notes, and President Trump’s declaration does not alter these terms. For student loan borrowers in default, so-called “forced collections” will continue. That means student loan borrowers will still be subject to administrative wage garnishment, offset of Social Security payments, and involuntary seizure of federal and state tax refunds. Ultimately, while President Trump’s interest rate freeze will pause balance growth (or, in some cases, temporarily reduce the cost of repayment), student loan borrowers who are struggling with lost income or wages due to the Coronavirus outbreak do not receive any direct student loan relief from the national emergency declaration. This is an evolving situation, so stay tuned.

Virus update–March trustee hearings cancelled. No rescheduling plan has been announced yet. (Will there be a call-in plan instead??) The Judges here in the Alexandria VA bankruptcy court have invited the lawyers to a conference call on Wednesday. We may know more after that. This announcement applies only to the trustee hearings.  Those are the […] The post Virus update–March trustee hearings cancelled by Robert Weed appeared first on Robert Weed - AE.

   In a case study of what not to do in filing chapter 13 cases, the attorney for the Debtor in In re Chapman, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 642, Case No. 19-26731-beh, (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 11 March 2020) was sanctioned under Rule 9011 for a portion of the fees incurred by the secured creditor.  A Holly Olm called the law office leaving a message seeking to file a chapter 13 case.  An appointment was scheduled the same day at which she disclosed that the case was actually for her mother, and that a foreclosure sale was scheduled for the next day regarding her mother's home.  Ms. Olm met with a paralegal at the firm, which prepared an emergency petition based on a power of attorney held by Ms. Olm for her mother.   The chapter 13 was filed the same day.  Ms. Olm asserted that her mother (Ms. Chapman) had filed one prior case, yet question 9 of the petition inquiring as to prior filings is answered 'none.'  Neither the attorney nor the paralegal ever spoke to the Debtor, Ms. Chapman prior to filing, nor did they even have contact information for her.  Neither spoke to the Ms. Olm's brother who was supposed to be helping to fund the repayment plan, again having no contact information for him.   Neither the attorney or the paralegal checked the court records to check who filed the prior cases, or to see if it affected the home mortgage.  The bankruptcy was filed as a bare petition, without a plan or schedules, and filed a request to pay the filing fee in installments (a request later denied).  The firm charged $600 for the emergency filing, but the contract provided that continued representation would be dependent on Ms. Olm providing additional information.  While the filing of a bankruptcy normally triggers an automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. §362(a) which prevents further collection actions.  However, as Ms. Olm did not disclose and the firm did not discover that two prior cases had been pending for Ms. Chapman within the last 12 months, resulting in the automatic stay not coming into effect when the last case was filed.  11 U.S.C. §362(c)(4)(A)(ii).  Instead, the debtor would have to file a motion to impose the stay, demonstrating that the filing of the later case is in good faith as to the creditors to be stayed.  11 U.S.C. §362(c)(4)(B).  Upon receipt of an administrative entry in the court docket noting the prior cases, the bank holding the mortgage filed a motion seeking an order that no stay was in effect.  Debtor's counsel filed an objection as well as a motion to continue the stay (apparently misunderstanding the effect of §362(c)(4)(A).  Upon being called by counsel for the bank and discussing the matter, Debtor's counsel withdrew his objection to the bank's objection and withdrew his motion to continue the automatic stay; and the Court signed the order confirming that no stay was in effect.  In the meantime Debtor's counsel filed a motion to impose the stay, to which both the bank and the trustee objected.  While he withdrew the motion a week later, the bank filed a motion for sanctions against both the Debtor and counsel asserting a violation of Rule 9011, Fed. R. Bankr. Proc.  The bankruptcy was dismissed on 15 August 2019 for failure to file the filing fee, but the motion for sanctions remained pending.  After trial the bank withdrew the motion for sanctions against the Debtor. but maintained the motion as to counsel.  At trial Ms. Chapman testified that she had no knowledge of the foreclosure, the sheriff's sale, or the bankruptcy until 23 July 2019 when she first learned that her house payments were not being made, her insurance had defaulted, her property taxes had not been paid, and that multiple foreclosures had been initiated by the bank resulting in multiple bankruptcies.  All the foregoing was attributed to her now estranged daughter, Ms. Olm.    After the death of Ms. Chapman's husband in 2013, she and her daughter decided to pool their resources to stay in the home, and Ms. Chapman gave Ms. Olm a power of attorney and allowed her to take over managing their finances.  Rule 9011 is modeled on Rule 11 of the Fed. R. of Civ. Proc.  Both sections have both a subjective and an objective component.  The subjective asks why the petitioner pursued the litigation: whether it was for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.1  The objective component asks whether the filing was made after reasonable investigation into the law and facts.2  Here the firm not only filed with the expected intent of halting confirmation of a sheriff's sale the following day, but due to its lack of investigation it failed to correct an error in the petition as to prior cases, filed an objection to the bank's motion, and filed a motion to continue the stay, all without having filed schedules.  The subsequently filed motion to impose the stay alleges no new information not contained in the motion to continue the stay.  Such belated filing belies the conclusion that counsel had fully investigated and understood the history of Ms. Chapman's bankruptcies.  The Court noted that prior cases can easily be checked on PACER.  While an extensive investigation is not required, a motion to impose the stay should not be filed without adequate support grounding it.  The amount of sanctions under Rule 9011 should be limited to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.3  The court should consider equitable considerations such as whether the conduct was part of a pattern of misconduct, whether counsel is experienced in the area of law, and whether the conduct was willful or negligent.4Given that this did not appear to be part of a pattern of misconduct, and the conduct appears to be negligent based on a sympathetic though untrue story by the daughter, rather than the $4,004.80 fees and costs requested by the bank, the Court awarded sanctions in the amount of 1/3 the bank's reasonable fees, to be determined.  Debtor counsel should always be extra vigilant when client's request emergency filings, doubly so when such emergency filing is for someone other than the person being met with.   1 In re Collins, 250 B.R. 645, 661 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2000).↩2 Collins, 250 B.R. at 661 (citing Szabo Food Serv., Inc. v. Canteen Corp., 823 F.2d 1073, 1083 (7th Cir. 1987)).↩3 Divane v. Krull Elec. Co., 319 F.3d 307, 314 (7th Cir. 2003); Fries v. Helsper, 146 F.3d 452, 459 (7th Cir. 1998).↩4 In re Brent, 458 B.R. 444, 462 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2011).↩Michael BarnettMichael Barnett, PA506 N Armenia Ave.Tampa, FL 33609-1703813 870-3100https://hillsboroughbankruptcy.com

From: CNN PoliticsBy: Eric Bradner and Arlette Saenz, CNN Sat March 14, 2020 (CNN)  Former Vice President Joe Biden says he now backs Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren's bankruptcy plan, endorsing his former Democratic rival's proposal to repeal portions of a law they had clashed over 15 years earlier.Biden touted his support for Warren's plan as an olive branch to supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders in a virtual town hall for Illinois voters Friday night, calling it "one of the things that I think Bernie and I will agree on." He highlighted a portion of Warren's plan that would allow student loan debt to be eliminated in bankruptcy just like other debts. "I'm going to endorse -- I've endorsed -- Elizabeth Warren's bankruptcy proposal, which in fact goes further, allows for student debt to be relieved in bankruptcy, provides for a whole range of other issues that allows us to in fact impact on how people are dealing with their circumstances," Biden said. "So there's a whole range of things we agree on."Biden's move to back Warren's plan shows that, as he moves toward clinching the Democratic presidential nomination and seeks to soothe over tensions from a year-long intra-party battle, the former vice president is taking steps to embrace his former rivals and adopt planks of their platforms -- and is willing to move left to do so.  Warren's team got a heads-up from the Biden camp that he would be endorsing the senator's bankruptcy plan ahead of his public announcement on Friday, a Warren aide told CNN's MJ Lee. The two teams were in touch leading up to the announcement, the aide said. A Biden campaign aide said he would likely say more about his support for Warren's bankruptcy plan in his debate against Sanders on Sunday night.  Biden and Warren's high-profile battle over a 2005 bill that made it more difficult to declare bankruptcy, when he was a Delaware senator and leading advocate of the measure and she was a Harvard professor and vocal opponent, played a key role in inspiring Warren's move into politics.  As a presidential candidate, she used it to highlight her differences with Biden. On the day in April 2019 that Biden entered the race, she said at a rally that Biden had been "on the side of the credit companies."  The law, which was heavily backed by the banking and credit card industries, made it harder for Americans to get out of debt by filing for bankruptcy. Supporters of the measure said it would prevent financially irresponsible people from abusing the system, while opponents denounced it, saying it would hurt struggling people by increasing the regulation, documentation and costs of seeking bankruptcy protection. Bankruptcies plummeted after the law took effect, but not for the right reasons, consumer advocates argued. Biden was seen as a leading proponent of the bill at the time, though it was largely backed by Republicans and passed by a GOP-controlled Congress. Biden's campaign has argued he successfully fought for changes to the bill that prioritized child support and alimony in front of lenders and required credit card companies to warn borrowers about their interest rates. The Warren plan targets a series of provisions that she has criticized for years, arguing that they benefit credit card companies and big lenders at the expense of Americans struggling with consumer, household and student debt. Warren's proposal would make the bankruptcy system "simple, cheap, fast, and flexible," she wrote in a Medium post when she unveiled it in January. It would merge the two types of consumer bankruptcy filings -- Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 -- into one, offering filers a "menu of options" for dealing with their unpaid debt. It would eliminate what she termed "burdensome paperwork" that makes bankruptcy more expensive, deterring some from filing. It would reverse the 2005 law's requirement that filers seek pre-filing credit counseling, as well as the additional rules it placed on consumer bankruptcy attorneys. She would also reduce the cost of filing and make it easier for people to keep their homes and cars during bankruptcy. The proposal would make it harder for the wealthy to shield assets in trusts and would crack down on companies that violate consumer financial protection laws while trying to collect on debts. And her proposal would end the ban on shedding student loan debt in bankruptcy. CNN's Gregory Krieg and Tami Luhby contributed to this report.

NYC Cap on Ride-Hail Vehicles Made Permanent from Courthouse News ServiceMANHATTAN (CN) – The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission voted Tuesday to permanently freeze the number of Ubers, Lyfts and other ride-hailing vehicles that drive here.A one-year cap on such vehicles was set to expire next week. It was first instituted last August after a 39-6 City Council vote.Taxicabs speed down Broadway near the intersection of Seventh Avenue and 42nd street in New York’s Times Square on May 5, 2005. (AP Photo/Kathy Willens)From 12,600 in 2015 to more than 80,000 last year, the number of Uber, Lyft, Via and similar vehicles on the city’s streets has exploded in recent years, according to Taxi and Limousine Commission reported by Bloomberg. More cars mean more of them drive around empty, increasing congestion and emissions.In addition to the vehicle cap, the commission voted Wednesday to reduce the amount of time drivers can spend looking for riders below 60th street in Manhattan. That allotted downtown time will drop to 31% by August 2020, down from its current level of 41%.Uber challenged the cap in court earlier this year, claiming it relied on bogus traffic data. The ride-hailing service said the cap was anti-competitive and “will have a disproportionate impact on residents outside of Manhattan who have long been underserved by yellow taxis and mass transit” in the outer-borough areas where most Uber trips occur.New Yorkers are split on the issue, with some saying the city should instead address other causes of its traffic-congestion crisis, such as by implementing congestion pricing in Midtown Manhattan. The city’s residents are also widely frustrated with the crumbling subway system, which sometimes forces people to find alternate methods of transportation, with the history of race discrimination among yellow cabs, and with the trend of sporadic taxi service in the outer-boroughs.Community groups in the city have fought against the cap, saying it stifles drivers’ abilities to buy rather than lease the cars they use.New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, a contender in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, weighed in on the decision Wednesday.“For far too long, ride-share apps took advantage of their drivers,” de Blasio said in a statement. “Their wages plummeted and families struggled to put food on their tables. We stood up and said no more. We will not let big corporations walk all over hardworking New Yorkers and choke our streets with congestion. Our caps have resulted in increased wages and families finally have some relief.”Arthur Goldstein, a former attorney for the Taxicab Service Association, called the cap long overdue.“The ride-hailing cap will help to reduce congestion on our streets, but does not adequately address the consequences of nearly a decade of government inaction,” Goldstein, who is with the firm Davidoff Hutcher & Citron, said in an email. “When Uber, Lyft and other app-based companies began flooding the streets with cars, many yellow cab owners who have invested in taxi medallions were deprived of an opportunity to earn a return on their investment. These largely immigrant entrepreneurs who invested in taxi medallions are still suffering. Uber and Lyft continue to operate relatively free from regulations applied to their regulated yellow cab competitors and, with ten of thousands of ride-hailing vehicles remaining on the street, the problem persists.”

Bankruptcy Myth: If married, both spouses must file bankruptcy. If you are married, you have the option of filing bankruptcy singly, so this myth is simply not true. Hence, the only involvement your spouse may have in your bankruptcy will be supplying information and financial documents, like paystubs. Therefore, this may be especially true if the debt was incurred before you were married to your spouse.  Additionally, a spouse’s income will count towards your income for the purpose of income qualification for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy. If there is any debt accrued during the marriage and are community property, a spouse still does not need to necessarily file bankruptcy with you. Community debts will be discharged as to the name of the person filing bankruptcy.   Hence, the other spouse will be protected from the collection on the debt as long as you remain married.  Therefore, only if you get divorced may the creditor on these debts pursue your spouse for payment. Thus, the best idea regarding bankruptcy and your spouse may be to see which is more beneficial; Filing singly or filing bankruptcy jointly. If I File a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, Does my Spouse Need to File? Much like with a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy, you are allowed to file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy without your spouse. However, please keep in mind, if you are sharing a household with your spouse, you must factor in and include both your income in your bankruptcy even if you file a Chapter 13 bankruptcy alone.  Please do not hesitate to call our Phoenix bankruptcy attorneys or Arizona Debt Relief Team with any questions regarding declaring chapter 13 bankruptcy in Arizona with your spouse. Arizona Bankruptcy Law Offices: Mesa Location: 1731 West Baseline Rd., Suite #100 Mesa, AZ 85202 Office: (480) 637-3427 Email: [email protected] Website: https://myazlawyers.com/ Glendale Location: 20325 N 51st Avenue Suite #134, Building 5 Glendale, AZ 85308 Office: (602) 610-0132 Tucson Location: 2 East Congress St., Suite #900-6A Tucson, AZ 85701 Office: (520) 231-2822 Avondale Location: 12725 W. Indian School Rd., Ste E, #101 Avondale, AZ 85392 Office: (623) 469-6603 The post Bankruptcy Myth: If married, both spouses must file bankruptcy. appeared first on My AZ Lawyers.