Creditors, Let’s Talk about Bankruptcy!

     Bankruptcy! This is not a topic that most creditors wish to discuss! However, with Judges still “reacting” to the economic downturn of the last few years, with bankruptcy filings on the rise, with the conversion of many Chapter 13 cases to Chapter 7, with the aggressive lawsuits filed by counsel for debtors for violations of consumer laws, with increasingly detrimental provisions in Chapter 13 plans, and, with the strict review of proofs of claim and the requirements for the same, we should talk! 

     In regard to proofs of claim, our local bankruptcy courts require that if you are alleging a security interest in the debtor’s principal residence, in addition to the proof of claim form, you must also file a completed form B 10 (Attachment A) setting out the principal due, interest due, late fees, returned check fees, attorney’s fees, escrow shortage, amount due to bring loan current, etc. In addition, each time the debtor becomes delinquent on their mortgage during the bankruptcy, you must file form B 10 (Supplement 2), setting out late charges and other expenses charged to the debt. In the event the debtor’s mortgage payment amount changes due to increase or decrease in interest rate, insurance premiums or real estate taxes, form B Supplement (1) will need to be filed.

     Obviously, this is a more complex and detailed filing, and, certainly, will be closely scrutinized. While you can file your own proofs of claim, we can also do it for you. 

     Creditors must be very careful to fully redact ALL “identifying data” (this includes procedure codes and/or other identifying treatment references for healthcare providers) on court filings to help protect debtors’ vital information from identity theft. Failure to do so will result in a court award of sanctions and attorney’s fees. Several local bankruptcy attorneys are reviewing all proofs of claim in their cases to spot possible violations. I have already had clients who have filed their own proofs of claim and been sued for violations. This is a very expensive problem. 

     Accordingly, I am still offering a “flat rate” fee for filing your proofs of claim and ask that you consider taking advantage of the same. In the end, I think that this will be a less costly and better alternative for you. I will file your first proof of claim in a case for a charge of $250.00. Second and subsequent pleadings for the same case will be billed at one half hour, and one quarter hour respectively. 

     I invite you to please call me so that we can discuss your questions. 

Eddie

Bankruptcy: Bank's Security Interest - Stocks pledged as Security

     In the case of Winters v. George Mason Bank the United States District Court, reviewing a case from the United States Bankruptcy Court at Alexandria, Virginia, affirmed a ruling for the creditor bank which enforced the bank's security interest against stocks held jointly by a mother and daughter and pledged as collateral for the bank's loan (actually a series of loans) to the daughter and her husband (which were in default), even though the daughter and her husband had declared bankruptcy. 

     The District Court found that from over the course of three years the plaintiff signed a total of three commercial pledge agreements pledging as collateral her interest in the stocks. In the second of three years the daughter and her husband filed a bankruptcy petition. The plaintiff argued that because she and her daughter jointly owned the stocks, those stocks were part of the bankruptcy estate. The plaintiff also argued that the second pledge agreement was an act to create or perfect a lien against that property, and thus violated the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code. The District Court ruled, however, that the automatic stay did not apply to non-bankrupt codebtors, nor did the automatic stay prevent actions against guarantors of loans. The District Court further stated that even if the agreement violated the stay as to the debtors, the agreement did not violate the stay as to the plaintiff. The District Court found that the plaintiff's attempt to use the automatic stay to her own benefit contradicted the purpose behind the stay provision. The plaintiff sought to use the automatic stay to avoid an agreement that was beneficial to the bankruptcy estate, and an agreement that she and the debtors had voluntarily entered into. Accordingly, the District Court upheld the bank's lien.

Collections: Bank Loses Without Aggressive Action

     The need for aggressive action was again proven when a bank lost a priority in assets due to the bank's non-action. 

     In the case of First Union National Bank of Virginia v Craun, a federal court found that the bank obtained a consent judgment from the debtor (a limited partner in a Virginia limited partnership), but took no further action. A year later the limited partnership perfected a security interest in the debtor's partnership interest by filing a financing statement with the state corporation commission. The partnership's security interest was to perfect a loan by the debtor from the partnership. 

     Eventually a dispute arose on the priority of liens on the proceeds between the bank, based on its judgment, the partnership, and on its perfected assignment. 

     The partnership had priority, the court ruled, because the bank had not sought to enforce the judgment or levy on the limited partner before the assignment was perfected. The Court stated: 

     "… had a writ of execution issued, and had such a writ been delivered into the hands of the marshal, defendant's inchoate intangible rights in distributions from the limited partnerships could have subjected to the lien of the writ....Plaintiff could then argue the writ of execution would have taken priority over a security interest perfected after the writ was issued and placed in the hands of the serving official, assuming the secured lienor was provided notice of the issuance of execution...But, that is not the case here.  Plaintiff did not cause a writ of execution to issue. Instead, it merely sought the entry of a charging order armed only with what may be best described as a "naked" final judgment...Therefore, until a charging order entered, the judgment debtor...virtually was free, as against the instant plaintiff, to encumber intangible property, including here interests to discretionary distributions of a limited partnership."

     The lesson of Craun is simple - take aggressive action and consult with counsel early in the process.

Bankruptcy: Liquidating Secured Property

     The order discharging a bankruptcy debtor will allow a creditor holding a pre-petition claim secured by a security interest in property belonging to the debtor to pursue his or her interest in the collateral without the need to file pleadings or to further consult the Bankruptcy Court, as long as the property is not property of the estate. More secured creditors are simply waiting until the bankruptcy case is closed before acting to liquidate property because motions for relief from the stay are expensive. In a no asset consumer case, the wait involved is usually not exceptionally long.

Collections: Notice of Sale of Security Interest

     The case of The State Bank of the Alleghenies v. Hundall, decided by the United States District Court at Roanoke, Virginia, serves as a good example of what happens where a creditor sells items pledged as security for a loan without making proper notice to all parties.

     In Hundall, the defendant guaranteed the bank's loan to his brother for a dry-cleaning business, but the defendant guarantor never received notice of how, when and by what manner of sale the bank intended to sell motor vehicles belonging to the brother's business. The evidence taken clearly proved that the bank failed to send notice of the sale of the motor vehicles, which had a fair wholesale value of approximately $8,500.00 in the aggregate. The District Court ruled that this violated the provisions of Virginia Code §8.9-504(3); however, the Code does not provide a remedy for the failure to comply with the statutory provisions for resale, and the appropriate remedy had not been ruled upon by the Virginia Supreme Court. The District Court, in its ruling, cited that courts which have addressed this appropriate remedy for failure to provide notice have adopted one (1) of the following three (3) rules:
     1. The debtor must prove that he has suffered an injury in order to obtain any recovery against the secured party;
     2. The secured party is absolutely barred from recovering a deficiency, even if the debtor suffered no injury; and
     3. A rebuttable presumption is that the collateral was worth the amount of the debt which requires the secured party to prove that the debtor suffered no injury.
     Virginia Code §8.9-507(1) entitles the debtor, or any person entitled to notification, "to recover from the secured party any loss caused by the failure to comply with the provision of this part".
     The Court elected the third of the three remedies listed above, and forced the creditor to prove the fair value of the collateral.
     The lesson of Hundall: creditors should send notice to all parties to the transaction -- the principal debtors, guarantors and the owners of the collateral.

Collection: Pre Default Waiver of Notice of Sale is Void

    In the case Woodward v. Resource Bank, from the Circuit Court, City of Virginia Beach, the Virginia Supreme Court reviewed provisions in a promissory note that provided for the debtors' waiver of notice of the default sale of the collateral securing the loan. In Woodward, a married couple operated a gas station and convenience store in Portsmouth and desired to expand. The couple obtained the financing necessary to purchase a store in Virginia Beach (the Pavilion Store) from a bank. In doing so the couple executed a note for $80,000.00 which was secured by a second deed of trust on their home, as well as with security interests in the inventory and equipment at the Pavilion Store. Later the couple decided to purchase a third store in Virginia Beach. They obtained financing from the same bank by executing a note in the amount of $90,900.00, and by signing a security agreement which granted the bank a security interest in the equipment and inventory of all three stores. The bank required the principal shareholders of the corporation to sign a guaranty for $45,000.00 of the $90,900.00 note. The guarantee agreement stated that the liability of the guarantors would not be affected by "any failure to ... give any required notices" by the bank.
     The couple defaulted on the note and the bank demanded that the guarantors honor their respective guaranties. Thereafter, the bank sold the collateral securing the notes without formal notice. The collateral was sold at prices far below the stated value. The shareholders argued that they were entitled to notice of the sale, notwithstanding that they had signed pre-default waivers of notice, because they were "debtors" within the meaning of Virginia Code §8.9-105(1)(d) and §8.9-504(3). The Virginia Beach Circuit Court agreed with the bank that the waivers precluded the necessity of giving notice, but the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that since the shareholders were "debtors" within the meaning of the statutes, they were entitled to notice of the disposition of the collateral. Applying the plain language of Virginia Code §8.9-504(3), the Virginia Supreme Court held that the notice provision contained therein may not be waived before the occurrence of a default.
     The Virginia Supreme Court further ruled that a rebuttable presumption arose that the value of the collateral that the bank sold equaled the amount of the debt because the bank failed to give notice to the guarantors, and because the sale was thus "commercially-unreasonable". Virginia Code §8.9-504(3) requires that every aspect of the disposition of collateral, including "the method, manner, time, place and terms must be commercially reasonable". Because the bank failed to rebut this presumption by putting on evidence to the contrary, the Court ruled that the indebtedness was extinguished, and the creditor was precluded from further collection.
     The lesson of Woodward is simple: always obtain a legal opinion regarding sales of reclaimed security, and always follow the requirements of the applicable statutes.

Collection: Bank Loses Without Aggressive Action

     The need for aggressive action was again proven when a bank lost a priority in assets due to the bank's non-action.
     In the case of First Union National Bank of Virginia v Craun, a federal court found that the bank obtained a consent judgment from the debtor (a limited partner in a Virginia limited partnership), but took no further action. A year later the limited partnership perfected a security interest in the debtor's partnership interest by filing a financing statement with the State Corporation Commission. The partnership's security interest was to perfect a loan by the debtor from the partnership.
     Eventually a dispute arose on the priority of liens on the proceeds between the bank, based on its judgment, and the partnership, based on its perfected assignment.
     The partnership had priority, the court ruled, because the bank had not sought to enforce the judgment or levy on the limited partner before the assignment was perfected. The Court stated:
 "… had a writ of execution issued, and had such a writ been delivered into the hands of the marshal, defendant's inchoate intangible rights in distributions from the limited partnerships could have subjected to the lien of the writ....Plaintiff could then argue the writ of execution would have taken priority over a security interest perfected after the writ was issued and placed in the hands of the serving official, assuming the secured lienor was provided notice of the issuance of execution...But, that is not the case here. Plaintiff did not cause a writ of execution to issue. Instead, it merely sought the entry of a charging order armed only with what may be best described as a "naked" final judgment...Therefore, until a charging order entered, the judgment debtor...virtually was free, as against the instant plaintiff, to encumber intangible property, including interests to discretionary distributions of a limited partnership."
     The lesson of Craun is simple - take aggressive action and consult with counsel early in the process.

Bankruptcy: Bankruptcy Filings: Chapter 7 and 13

     Although there are other Chapters under which debtors may seek relief, Chapters 7 and 13 are the most frequently encountered.
Chapter 7

     Chapter 7 involves a discharge of debt by court order. While secured debts may be routinely "reaffirmed", unsecured debts normally are not. Traditionally, debts have been reaffirmed through a Reaffirmation Agreement. The Courts of the Eastern District of Virginia have held, however, that creditors cannot force debtors to execute reaffirmation agreements if they were not in default at the time of the bankruptcy filing.
     Why would a debtor want to pay a debt when he has filed for Chapter 7 relief? The answer is future credit. The possibility of future credit can be sufficient incentive to encourage voluntary repayment for at least two (2) reasons:
     1. Debtors want and need future credit after bankruptcy discharge, and

     2. Reasonable credit after bankruptcy is very difficult to obtain as bankruptcy carries a stigma. Absent special circumstances, the only credit card a debtor may obtain after bankruptcy is a "secured" credit card. These cards are tantamount to a line of credit drawn upon account deposits pledged as security. There are also user fees and high interest rates.
     How do you encourage debtors to voluntarily pay their pre-bankruptcy petition debts? Consider adopting the following written policies:
     1. Post-bankruptcy credit may be extended to debtors who voluntarily pay their dischargeable debts ("the carrot").
     2. No future credit or services, other than those required by law, will be extended to debtors who have caused you a loss by bankruptcy or otherwise, unless the debt is voluntarily repaid (“the stick").
     How do creditors inform their debtors of this policy once a petition of bankruptcy is filed? Consider sending a letter directly to the debtors’ counsel asking that counsel advise their client of the policy.

Chapter 13
     Chapter 13 involves a "reorganization" of the debtor's finances. The debtor is required to devise a plan for repayment: 100% for secured debts and a court-approved percentage for unsecured debts. Creditors are paid in the order of priority - preferred (taxes), secured, and finally, unsecured. Creditors are required to file proofs of claim with the Bankruptcy Court to protect their place in the plan. Plans can take up to five (5) years to complete.

Co-Makers
     When can you proceed against co-makers? In Chapter 7 you can proceed immediately. In Chapter 13, you have to either wait until the plan pays out, or petition the Bankruptcy Court to lift the automatic stay against the co-maker. Once this is granted you can proceed against the co-maker for the percentage not paid by the plan. Although you are required to file the motion to lift the stay, the court is required to grant your relief.

Planning Summary
     Regardless of the Chapter, the best way to minimize your bankruptcy loss is to be secured. In Chapter 13 cases, security can mean the difference between payment at 100% rather than at a nominal percentage. In Chapter 7 cases, security can mean the difference between reaffirmation or no payment at all. In either Chapter, collateral is the key.
     The second best protection from bankruptcy loss is having a solvent co-signer. The old saying "two heads are better than one" can mean much in bankruptcy, especially when your co-signer is not a spouse. Generally, spouses do not make good co-signers because they can file a joint petition for bankruptcy and, in fact, often do because family finances are inter-related. It should be noted, however, that in a case of jointly owned real estate, a spouse's signature is necessary in order to perfect a lien against any real property.

 

Bankruptcy: Accidental Release Forfeits Security

     Being careful when filing releases is even more evident in light of the decision rendered by the 4th U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals in In Re Kitchen Equipment Company of Virginia, Inc. In Kitchen the secured creditor, a bank, accidentally checked the "termination" box instead of the "partial release" box on a multipurpose security form. The creditor had intended to release only two items of the debtor's collateral. The two items were specified in the description block. The Court ruled, however, that by filing the release checked "termination," the creditor lost its entire security interest when the debtor filed for bankruptcy protection under Chapter 11. The bank argued that the interest should be honored under equitable principles and under the Virginia form of the Uniform Commercial Code. Nevertheless, the Court refused to allow the bank's financing statement to prevail over the bankruptcy trustee's statutory lien.