Introduction
Earlier this month, the Liquidating Trustee in the Intermet bankruptcy filed preference actions against various defendants. This post will look at the nature of Intermet’s business, why the company filed for bankruptcy and the circumstances behind the formation of the Liquidating Trust that is pursuing the preference actions.
As I often do on this blog, much of the information used in this post comes from information provided in the Debtors’ Declaration in Support of its Chapter 11 Petitions. Intermet filed for bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on August 12, 2008 (the “Petition Date”). In support of its bankruptcy filings, Intermet filed a Declaration of William H. Whalen
When a large corporate bankruptcy hits the news chances are the company has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The title of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code is “Reorganization” and while companies like General Motors or Washington Mutual make headlines, individuals are also eligible to file under Chapter 11.
In some cases, Chapter 11 may be the only option for an individual to file bankruptcy. Eligibility for Chapter 7 is dictated by a “means test” that determines the debtor’s ability to repay debts. Those who are able to repay their creditors may consider Chapter 13, but debt limits may disqualify the debtor from Chapter 13. The debt limits for Chapter 13 are currently $360,475 for unsecured debt and $1,081,400 for secured debt.
An individual debtor who files for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection will follow many of the same (or similar) procedures that apply to Chapter 13 cases. The debtor must file a petition and schedules of assets, liabilities, income and expenses; a plan to pay creditors; and attend a meeting with a bankruptcy trustee. The debtor is required to commit all disposable income to repaying debts for five years. Disposable income in Chapter 11 is determined differently than in a Chapter 13 case. The bankruptcy court compares the Chapter 11 debtor’s monthly income against the reasonable monthly expenses. The result may be dif
Offering payday loan debt help is a big part of my work as a debt consolidation lawyer 
providing bankruptcy services in Indiana, and I was very glad to read about a Federal Trade Commission crackdown on one payday loan operation (Consumer Bankruptcy News, May 6, 2010).
When people are undergoing financial troubles, one of their biggest concerns, I’ve found, is the possibility their wages will be garnished. Under the new bankruptcy laws of Indiana, as is true under federal law, employers must obey court orders to garnish an employee’s wages. The only time a creditor can garnish wages without having a court order is if the creditor is a federal agency.
All of the Anderson, Bloomington, Indianapolis, and Columbus bankruptcy lawyers who work in the Mark Zuckerberg bankruptcy law offices, like myself, are used to helping clients prevent, or at least put a halt to, wage garnishment through bankruptcy’s automatic stay. The automatic stay is a court order that goes into effect as soon as someone files personal bankruptcy in Indiana.
The reason the FTC has charged at least a couple of online payday loan operations with illegally attempting to garnish debtors’ wages is that they did not obtain court orders. The lenders were essentially passing themselves off as having the same collection rights as the government.
After almost twenty five years as an Indiana lawyer for bankruptcy, I’ve seen my share of abusive payday loan practices. As a special alert to all my Indiana bankruptcy clients and readers, the payday loan companies named in the FTC suit are Eastbrook, LLC (also doing business as Ecash and GeteCash) and LoanPoint, LLC.
In writing about bankruptcy matters over the past three years, I’ve made no secret of the fact that I do not like payday lending. Whil
Even in the best of financial times, living on one income is a challenge. From necessities like food, shelter, clothing, medical bills, transportation, and taxes to “wants” like entertainment and leisure, the drains on a family’s financial resources are many. This is especially true in this American society built upon conspicuous consumption. Living frugally can seem impossible and unfair, especially when it seems that so many other people live wasteful lives. How does a family manage not only to survive, but to prosper with only one income?
What it Takes Families can flourish, even on a limited single-income budget. But do Full Article…