﻿<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="../StyleSheet/rss.xsl"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Bankruptcy Law Community Blogs</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/bankruptcylaw</link><description>Visit the Bankruptcy Law Community at lexisnexis.com for bankruptcy legal news, resources and information you can't find elsewhere. Read bankruptcy law blogs and articles, get insights and analysis from respected legal professionals and more.  </description><copyright>http://www.lexisnexis.com/terms/copyright.aspx</copyright><atom:link href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/community/bankruptcylaw/Rss.aspx?id=59" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>The Stockton Saga Continues: Untouchable Pensions on the Chopping Block?</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/05/22/the-stockton-saga-continues-untouchable-pensions-on-the-chopping-block.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/05/22/the-stockton-saga-continues-untouchable-pensions-on-the-chopping-block.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_BankruptcyCourt4.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;by &lt;a href="http://www.sheppardmullin.com/bshreero" target="_blank"&gt;Barbara Altimus Shreero&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://www.stocktongov.com/files/Transcript_4_01_2013_JudgeKleinRulingCityofStockton.pdf" target="_blank"&gt;Judge Christopher M. Klein&amp;#39;s decision&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;to accept the
City of Stockton&amp;#39;s petition for bankruptcy on April 1, 2013 set the stage for a
battle over whether public workers&amp;#39; pensions can be reduced through municipal
reorganization.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Stockton&amp;#39;s public revenues tumbled dramatically when the
recession hit, leaving Stockton unable to meet its day-to-day obligations.
Stockton slashed its police and fire departments, eliminated many</description><author>SheppardMullinRichterHampton@placeholder.com (Sheppard Mullin)</author><pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 11:06:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Bankruptcy Judge Sets Specialty Products’ Asbestos Liability At $1.16 Billion</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/05/21/bankruptcy-judge-sets-specialty-products-asbestos-liability-at-1-16-billion.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/05/21/bankruptcy-judge-sets-specialty-products-asbestos-liability-at-1-16-billion.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_BankruptcyCourt2.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;WILMINGTON, Del. -- (Mealey&amp;#39;s) Former joint compound
producer Bondex International Inc. and its related holding company Specialty
Products Holding Corp. face an estimated $1.16 billion in pending and future
asbestos personal injury claims, about double what the companies estimate their
asbestos liabilities at, a federal bankruptcy judge in Delaware overseeing the
companies&amp;#39; joint Chapter 11 case ruled May 20 (&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;In re:&amp;nbsp; Specialty
Products Holding Corp., et al.&lt;/span&gt;, No. 10-11780, D. Del. Bkcy.; 2013 Bankr.
LEXIS 2051) &lt;span style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:&amp;#39;Arial&amp;#39;,&amp;#39;sans-serif&amp;#39;;mso-fareast-font</description><author>emerson.heffner@lexisnexis.com (Emerson Heffner)</author><pubDate>Tue, 21 May 2013 14:57:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Supreme Court Sets Defalcation Bar at Gross Recklessness under Section 523(a)(4) </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/05/15/supreme-court-sets-defalcation-bar-at-gross-recklessness-under-section-523-a-4.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/05/15/supreme-court-sets-defalcation-bar-at-gross-recklessness-under-section-523-a-4.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_SupremeCourt-_2800_5_2900_.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;In the only bankruptcy case pending before it this term,
a unanimous Supreme Court has ruled that the archaic term
&amp;quot;defalcation&amp;quot; used in 11 U.S.C. Sec. 523(a)(4) requires&amp;nbsp; &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p style="padding-left:30px;"&gt;knowledge of, or gross recklessness in respect to, the
improper nature of the relevant fiduciary behavior&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;complained of. &lt;i&gt;Bullock v. BankChampaign&lt;/i&gt;, No.
11-1518 (5/13/13), Slip Op., p.1, which can be found &lt;a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1518_97be.pdf"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;. While
the case represents a setback for the creditor in the specific case, the
judicial hairsplitting engaged in by the Court ensures that trial courts will
continue</description><author>ssather@bnpclaw.com (Stephen Sather)</author><pubDate>Wed, 15 May 2013 11:42:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>The Ninth Circuit Holds that Bankruptcy Courts Have Authority to Recharacterize Debt as Equity</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/05/14/the-ninth-circuit-holds-that-bankruptcy-courts-have-authority-to-recharacterize-debt-as-equity.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/05/14/the-ninth-circuit-holds-that-bankruptcy-courts-have-authority-to-recharacterize-debt-as-equity.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_BankruptcyCourt3.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;On April 30, 2013, the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit held that the bankruptcy court has authority to
recharacterize as equity, rather than debt, advances of funds made purportedly
as a loan to the recipient prior to its bankruptcy. &lt;i&gt;In re Fitness Holdings
International, Inc.&lt;/i&gt;, --- F.3d ----, 2013
U.S. App. LEXIS 8729 (9th Cir. 2013) [&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00236&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2013%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%208729" target="_blank"&gt;an enhanced version of this opinion is available to lexis.com
subscribers&lt;/a&gt;]. The Ninth Circuit, in reversing the district court,
held that the fact</description><author>SheppardMullinRichterHampton@placeholder.com (Sheppard Mullin)</author><pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 17:04:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>U.S. Supreme Court Remands Bankruptcy Defalcation Case, Says Higher Standard Needed</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/05/13/u-s-supreme-court-remands-bankruptcy-defalcation-case-says-higher-standard-needed.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/05/13/u-s-supreme-court-remands-bankruptcy-defalcation-case-says-higher-standard-needed.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_Supreme-Court-_2800_3_2900_.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) The U.S. Supreme Court on
May 13 unanimously vacated and remanded a case involving a bank&amp;#39;s claim that a
debtor who had acted as trustee for his father&amp;#39;s insurance trust was guilty of
defalcation for making loans to himself during the time he had control of the
trust, ruling that the 11th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals needed to review the
case to determine if it should apply the higher standard of &amp;quot;defalcation&amp;quot;
outlined by the high court (&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;Randy Curtis Bullock v. BankChampaign&lt;/span&gt;, No.
11-1518, Chapter 7, U.S. Sup.)&lt;b&gt;
&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;(lexis.com
subscribers may &lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com</description><author>james.cordrey@lexisnexis.com (James Cordrey)</author><pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 13:43:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>State Taxes and Bankruptcy – Does the Court Have Jurisdiction?</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/05/13/state-taxes-and-bankruptcy-does-the-court-have-jurisdiction.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/05/13/state-taxes-and-bankruptcy-does-the-court-have-jurisdiction.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_Bankruptcy-Court.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;by Fred
Witt&lt;/b&gt;, Co-author, Sheinfeld, Witt &amp;amp; Hyman, Collier on Bankruptcy Taxation
(LexisNexis). &lt;b&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;and
David Elrod&lt;/b&gt;, Shareholder, Elrod, PLLC, Dallas, Texas&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;i&gt;The
views expressed are those of the authors alone.&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Introduction&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In addition to possible disputes over federal taxes owed
to the IRS, debtors in a title 11 case must also consider disputes with state
and local jurisdictions over state and local taxes. The Bankruptcy Code vests
bankruptcy courts with broad jurisdiction to determine the amount or legality
of any tax.&lt;a&gt;&lt;sup&gt;[1]&lt;sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/a&gt;
However, two recent cases have declined jurisdiction</description><author>fredwitt@gmail.com (Fred Witt)</author><pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 09:27:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Insurance Coverage for Ponzi Scheme Losses?</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/05/08/insurance-coverage-for-ponzi-scheme-losses.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/05/08/insurance-coverage-for-ponzi-scheme-losses.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_2D00_Money_2800_Shredded_2900_.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;It sounds like a good idea: Insure against losses from investing
in a Ponzi scheme. Insurance policies, including homeowner&amp;#39;s policies, can
provide coverage from losses from fraud, embezzlement or forgery. But does it
work to provide compensation for losses in a Ponzi scheme?&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Last year, the Second Circuit affirmed a district court&amp;#39;s
dismissal of a Madoff customer&amp;#39;s complaint against a homeowners policy, but not
for the reasons you might expect. &lt;i&gt;Horowitz
v. American International Group, Inc.&lt;/i&gt;, 498 Fed. App&amp;#39;x 51 (2d Cir. 2012) [&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00236&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2012%20U.S.%20App</description><author>kphelps@diamondmccarthy.com (Kathy Bazoian Phelps)</author><pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 07:25:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Video: Kathy Bazoian Phelps Interviewed on the Not So Legal Show </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/05/07/video-kathy-bazoian-phelps-interviewed-on-the-not-so-legal-show.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/05/07/video-kathy-bazoian-phelps-interviewed-on-the-not-so-legal-show.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;Kathy Bazoian Phelps, partner at Diamond
McCarthy LLP, &lt;a href="http://www.theponzibook.blogspot.com/" target="_blank"&gt;Ponzi
scheme blogger&lt;/a&gt;, and coauthor of &lt;a href="http://www.theponzibook.com/" target="_blank"&gt;the Ponzi Book&lt;/a&gt;, was recently interviewed by attorney
Stephanie Cohen of &lt;a href="http://thenotsolegalshow.com/" target="_blank"&gt;The
Not So Legal Show&lt;/a&gt;. You can watch the interview below:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;(Please visit the site to view this media)&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;For
more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us
through our &lt;a href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/trial/contactrep-communities.asp?access=contactrepCommunities_Portal" target="_blank"&gt;corporate site&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;div style="clear:both;"&gt;&lt;/div&gt;</description><author>BankruptcyLaw@lnstaff.com (LexisNexis Bankruptcy Law Community Staff)</author><pubDate>Tue, 07 May 2013 08:57:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>April 2013 Ponzi Scheme Roundup</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/05/03/april-2013-ponzi-scheme-roundup.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/05/03/april-2013-ponzi-scheme-roundup.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Roundup2.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:4px;margin-bottom:4px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;April was a remarkably busy month for Ponzi scheme news,
especially in India. Here is a summary of stories that were reported this
month. Be sure to read the international news, because Ponzi schemes are not
just limited to the U.S. Please feel free to post comments about these or other
Ponzi schemes that I may have missed. And please remember that I am just
relaying what&amp;#39;s in the news, not writing or verifying it. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Gary
Thomas Armitage,&lt;/b&gt; 62, was sentenced to 10 years in connection
with a plea agreement regarding a $250 million real estate and investment Ponzi
scheme that defrauded about 2,000 investors. Armitage&amp;#39;s co-defendant, &lt;b&gt;James Stanley Koenig</description><author>kphelps@diamondmccarthy.com (Kathy Bazoian Phelps)</author><pubDate>Fri, 03 May 2013 15:25:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>"Girls Gone Wild" Chapter 11 Case - [Insert Joke Here] </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/05/01/quot-girls-gone-wild-quot-chapter-11-case-insert-joke-here.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/05/01/quot-girls-gone-wild-quot-chapter-11-case-insert-joke-here.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_Video_2800_Camera-lens_2900_.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;GGW LLC and its affiliates (&amp;quot;GGW&amp;quot;), which produce and
distribute the soft core pornography videos known as &amp;quot;Girls Gone Wild&amp;quot;, &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/02/28/girls-gone-wild-bankruptcy/1954419/"&gt;recently
filed for relief under chapter 11&lt;/a&gt; of the Bankruptcy Code.&amp;nbsp;The filing
follows years of legal troubles for the company&amp;#39;s founder, Joe Francis,
including criminal charges of racketeering and tax evasion, and &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2013/02/28/girls-gone-wild-empire-put-into-bankruptcy-to-keep-it-from-steve-wyn/"&gt;civil
litigation against Steve Wynn&amp;#39;s Mirage Resorts</description><author>Kelley.Drye@placeholder.com (Kelley Drye &amp; Warren LLP)</author><pubDate>Wed, 01 May 2013 17:12:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Duane Morris Alert: Second Circuit Establishes Relevant Time Period for "Center of Main Interests" Determination Under Chapter 15 of the Bankruptcy Code</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/29/duane-morris-alert-second-circuit-establishes-relevant-time-period-for-quot-center-of-main-interests-quot-determination-under-chapter-15-of-the-bankruptcy-code.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/29/duane-morris-alert-second-circuit-establishes-relevant-time-period-for-quot-center-of-main-interests-quot-determination-under-chapter-15-of-the-bankruptcy-code.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Gavel2.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;The Second Circuit&amp;#39;s decision is significant in
international insolvency cases because wind-down activities conducted in
advance of a foreign insolvency proceeding can impact the center of main
interests analysis.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href="http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8e4629a7-e10c-4b93-ae26-e676cb249d18/17/doc/11-4376_opn.pdf#xml=http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov/decisions/isysquery/8e4629a7-e10c-4b93-ae26-e676cb249d18/17/hilite/" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;i&gt;Morning Mist Holdings Limited v. Krys (In re Fairfield
Sentry Limited)&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/a&gt;, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 7608, Case No. 11-4376, (2d Cir.
April 16, 2013) [&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE</description><author>Duane.Morris@placeholder.com (Duane Morris LLP)</author><pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 16:03:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Supreme Court Will Not Hear Equitable Mootness Doctrine Appeal By Debenture Trust</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/29/supreme-court-will-not-hear-equitable-mootness-doctrine-appeal-by-debenture-trust.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/29/supreme-court-will-not-hear-equitable-mootness-doctrine-appeal-by-debenture-trust.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_Supreme-Court.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;WASHINGTON, D.C. - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) The U.S. Supreme Court on
April 29 denied a petition for &lt;i&gt;certiorari&lt;/i&gt; in which a debenture trust
company argued that the Second Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals inappropriately
applied the doctrine of equitable mootness in affirming a bankruptcy court&amp;#39;s
decision that overruled its objections to the reorganization plan of Charter
Communications Inc. (&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;Law Debenture Trust Co. v. Charter Communications Inc&lt;/span&gt;.,
No. 12-847, Chapter 11, U.S. Sup.) &lt;b&gt;(lexis.com subscribers may &lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00209&amp;amp;searchtype=bo&amp;amp;search=number%2812-847%29&amp;amp;source</description><author>james.cordrey@lexisnexis.com (James Cordrey)</author><pubDate>Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:49:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Student Loans: Nondischargeability Questioned in Seventh Circuit and Beyond</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/25/student-loans-nondischargeability-questioned-in-seventh-circuit-and-beyond.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/25/student-loans-nondischargeability-questioned-in-seventh-circuit-and-beyond.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Students_2800_Graduation_2900_.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;by &lt;a href="http://www.sheppardmullin.com/amcneile" target="_blank"&gt;Adam McNeile&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Conventional wisdom says that it is nearly impossible to
obtain a discharge of student loan debt in bankruptcy. Indeed, Section
523(a)(8) expressly excepts student loans from discharge, unless the exception
of such indebtedness from discharge would impose an undue hardship upon the debtor.
But two recent developments may signal that this bedrock principle is eroding -
&lt;i&gt;i.e&lt;/i&gt;., (i) the Seventh Circuit&amp;#39;s affirmance of a bankruptcy court&amp;#39;s
ruling that an impoverished but otherwise healthy woman&amp;#39;s student loan debts
were dischargeable, and (ii) the</description><author>SheppardMullinRichterHampton@placeholder.com (Sheppard Mullin)</author><pubDate>Thu, 25 Apr 2013 14:48:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Claims Trading from the Inside Out: Ninth Circuit BAP Holds that a Non-Insider Claimant's Vote on a Plan Is Not Discounted Merely Because the Claimant Purchased Its Claim from an Insider</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/22/claims-trading-from-the-inside-out-ninth-circuit-bap-holds-that-a-non-insider-claimant-s-vote-on-a-plan-is-not-discounted-merely-because-the-claimant-purchased-its-claim-from-an-insider.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/22/claims-trading-from-the-inside-out-ninth-circuit-bap-holds-that-a-non-insider-claimant-s-vote-on-a-plan-is-not-discounted-merely-because-the-claimant-purchased-its-claim-from-an-insider.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_Bankruptcy-Court.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;by &lt;a href="http://www.sheppardmullin.com/mlauter" target="_blank"&gt;Michael M. Lauter&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In an unpublished decision in &lt;i&gt;In re The Village at
Lakeridge, LLC&lt;/i&gt;, BAP Nos. NV-12-1456 and NV-12-1474 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Apr. 5,
2013), the United States Bankruptcy Appellate Panel of the Ninth Circuit held
that a vote on a plan of reorganization submitted by a non-insider claimant is
not to be disregarded under Bankruptcy Code section 1129(a)(10) merely because
the claimant purchased the claim from an insider. In other words, the
transferee of a claim does not step into the shoes of the transferor vis &amp;agrave; vis
the transferor&amp;#39;s status as an insider.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Under Bankruptcy</description><author>SheppardMullinRichterHampton@placeholder.com (Sheppard Mullin)</author><pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:31:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Wife's Homestead Claim Remains in Limbo With No Answer from Fifth Circuit</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/22/wife-s-homestead-claim-remains-in-limbo-with-no-answer-from-fifth-circuit.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/22/wife-s-homestead-claim-remains-in-limbo-with-no-answer-from-fifth-circuit.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Homestead.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;The plight of the non-filing spouse who stands to lose an
interest in the homestead is a trap that is easy to overlook. Under 11 U.S.C. Sec.
541(a)(2), when one spouse files bankruptcy, all joint management community
property enters the bankruptcy estate. This means that if the filing spouse
elects not to claim the homestead as exempt in favor of selecting other
property or is subject to a cap, the non-filing spouse may lose her interest in
the property without having any say in the matter. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;I have previously written about the &lt;i&gt;Odes Ho Kim&lt;/i&gt;
case &lt;a href="http://stevesathersbankruptcynews.blogspot.com/2010/08/bad-news-for-non-filing-spouse.html"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.
In</description><author>ssather@bnpclaw.com (Stephen Sather)</author><pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:52:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Please Take Subpoenas Seriously: A Recent Sanction Ruling in a Ponzi Scheme Case</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/22/please-take-subpoenas-seriously-a-recent-sanction-ruling-in-a-ponzi-scheme-case.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/22/please-take-subpoenas-seriously-a-recent-sanction-ruling-in-a-ponzi-scheme-case.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_FinancialAudit.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;The Moss Adams accounting firm was sanctioned for not
complying with a bankruptcy trustee&amp;#39;s subpoena for documents related to &lt;b&gt;Frederick Darren Berg&amp;#39;s Meridian Mortgage&lt;/b&gt;
$100 million real estate investment Ponzi scheme. The court ruled that Moss
Adams did not fully comply with a 2010 subpoena and must compensate the trustee
for the costs of the legal battle to get the information. A copy of the court&amp;#39;s
unpublished decision is &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Documents.Bankruptcy+LC+Documents/2013-04_2D00_22-Phelps_2D00_Moss_5F00_Adams_5F00_Contempt_5F00_Ruling</description><author>kphelps@diamondmccarthy.com (Kathy Bazoian Phelps)</author><pubDate>Mon, 22 Apr 2013 08:47:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Judge Rules in Favor of Stockton and Accepts Chapter 9 Petition</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/12/judge-rules-in-favor-of-stockton-and-accepts-chapter-9-petition.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/12/judge-rules-in-favor-of-stockton-and-accepts-chapter-9-petition.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_BankruptcyCourt3.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;by &lt;a href="http://www.sheppardmullin.com/dkennedy" target="_blank"&gt;Danielle Kennedy&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Round one of the fight between the City of Stockton,
California and its creditors is finally over. On April 1, 2013, Bankruptcy
Judge Christopher M. Klein held that Stockton satisfied the eligibility requirements
for a Chapter 9 debtor.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Back on June 28, 2012, Stockton filed a petition seeking
to adjust its debts under Chapter 9 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a name="more"&gt;&lt;/a&gt;Stockton&amp;#39;s bond insurers (who guaranteed
payment of pension obligation bonds) objected to Stockton&amp;#39;s petition. The bond
insurers (joined by the indenture trustee</description><author>SheppardMullinRichterHampton@placeholder.com (Sheppard Mullin)</author><pubDate>Fri, 12 Apr 2013 09:30:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Now It Gets Interesting - Stockton, CA Found Eligible to Remain in Chapter 9 </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/11/now-it-gets-interesting-stockton-ca-found-eligible-to-remain-in-chapter-9.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/11/now-it-gets-interesting-stockton-ca-found-eligible-to-remain-in-chapter-9.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Bankruptcy+LC+Images/ContentImage_2D00_BankruptcyCourt4.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;Nearly nine months after it &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://www.bankruptcylawinsights.com/2012/06/articles/chapter-9-1/stockton-california-chapter-9-filing-another-outlier-or-harbinger/"&gt;filed
for protection under Chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code&lt;/a&gt;, a federal bankruptcy
judge last week determined that &lt;a target="_blank" href="http://seekingalpha.com/article/1326671-federal-judge-green-lights-stockton-bankruptcy?source=google_news"&gt;the
city of Stockton, California has satisfied the requirements of Section 109(c)
of the Bankruptcy Code&lt;/a&gt; and may proceed with its efforts to adjust its
massive bond, pension and employee obligations.&amp;nbsp;&lt;a target="_blank" href="http</description><author>Kelley.Drye@placeholder.com (Kelley Drye &amp; Warren LLP)</author><pubDate>Thu, 11 Apr 2013 17:30:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>State Restitution Funds to Ponzi Scheme Victims: A Good Idea? </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/08/state-restitution-funds-to-ponzi-scheme-victims-a-good-idea.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/08/state-restitution-funds-to-ponzi-scheme-victims-a-good-idea.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/COMMUNITY/LEGALBUSINESS/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_USMap.gif" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;Should a state provide
funding to reimburse victims of Ponzi schemes? Is it possible for states to
promulgate fair and comprehensive laws in this regard? Does funding at the
state level to reimburse victims give those victims a disincentive from
exercising caution and avoiding the frauds in the first place? These are difficult
questions that a few states have already decided and others may join. Laws are
on the books in Indiana and Montana, and New Hampshire is thinking about it.&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;b&gt;Indiana&lt;/b&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;br /&gt;
In 2010, Indiana became the first state to adopt legislation establishing a
&amp;quot;Securities Restitution Fund.&amp;quot; The law gave the Indiana Securities</description><author>kphelps@diamondmccarthy.com (Kathy Bazoian Phelps)</author><pubDate>Mon, 08 Apr 2013 08:14:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Cadwalader Clients &amp; Friends Memo: Court Holds that Stockton is Eligible to File for Chapter 9</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/05/cadwalader-clients-amp-friends-memo-court-holds-that-stockton-is-eligible-to-file-for-chapter-9.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/05/cadwalader-clients-amp-friends-memo-court-holds-that-stockton-is-eligible-to-file-for-chapter-9.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_2D00_Gavel.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;On April 1, 2013, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Eastern District of California ruled that the City of Stockton qualified to
file for protection under chapter 9 of the Bankruptcy Code. The court&amp;#39;s decision
on this issue serves as an important milestone for chapter 9 jurisprudence,
clarifying the requirements for &amp;quot;good faith&amp;quot; negotiations and being &amp;quot;insolvent&amp;quot;
as conditions to filing for chapter 9 protection. Significantly, the court held
that a municipal debtor need not negotiate with all of its creditors, only
those that it intends to impair.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Statutory Background&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Bankruptcy Code enumerates various criteria with
respect to a municipality&amp;#39;s eligibility</description><author>Cadwalader@placeholder.com (Cadwalader, Wickersham &amp; Taft LLP)</author><pubDate>Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:14:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Meet Judge Tony Davis </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/03/meet-judge-tony-davis.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/03/meet-judge-tony-davis.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Gavel.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;From 1989 to 2007, Judges Larry Kelly and Frank Monroe
occupied the bankruptcy bench in Austin, providing a period of judicial
continuity rivaled only by their colleagues in San Antonio (Judges Leif Clark
and Ronald King served at the same time from 1988 to 2012).&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Effective today on April 1, the Austin bar
will be welcoming its third new judge in six years as Judge Craig Gargotta
moves to San Antonio and Judge Tony Davis takes the bench.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Here is an introduction to the newest jurist
to oversee Austin insolvency proceedings.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Judge Tony Davis spent his time as a student and a young
practitioner in three very different locales. He received a B.A. in</description><author>ssather@bnpclaw.com (Stephen Sather)</author><pubDate>Wed, 03 Apr 2013 12:44:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Lenders Beware -- Fifth Circuit Has Lowered the Bar for Cramdown Plan Confirmation</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/02/lenders-beware-fifth-circuit-has-lowered-the-bar-for-cramdown-plan-confirmation.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/02/lenders-beware-fifth-circuit-has-lowered-the-bar-for-cramdown-plan-confirmation.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_Bankruptcy-Court2.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;by &lt;a href="http://www.sheppardmullin.com/edkim" target="_blank"&gt;Eugene Kim&lt;/a&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;In a recent Fifth Circuit decision, &lt;i&gt;Western Real
Estate Equities, LLC v. Village at Camp Bowie I, L.P.&lt;/i&gt;, No. 12-10271 (5th
Cir. 2013) [&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00209&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2013%20U.S.%20App.%20LEXIS%203949" target="_blank"&gt;an enhanced version of this opinion is available to lexis.com
subscribers&lt;/a&gt;], the court held that the acceptance vote from a minimally and
&amp;quot;artificially impaired&amp;quot; class of claims meets the 11 U.S.C. &amp;sect; 1129(a)(10)
requirement for the confirmation of a non-consensual &amp;quot;cramdown&amp;quot; chapter</description><author>SheppardMullinRichterHampton2@placeholder.com (Sheppard, Mullin, Richter &amp; Hampton LLP)</author><pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 16:30:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>Bankruptcy Judge: California City May Proceed with Chapter 9 Bankruptcy</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/02/bankruptcy-judge-california-city-may-proceed-with-chapter-9-bankruptcy.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/02/bankruptcy-judge-california-city-may-proceed-with-chapter-9-bankruptcy.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images/ContentImage_5F00_Bankruptcy-Court.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;SACRAMENTO, Calif. - (Mealey&amp;#39;s) A federal bankruptcy judge in California on April 1
ruled that the City of Stockton, Calif., which had filed for Chapter 9
bankruptcy in June, was eligible to seek bankruptcy because the city did not
file its petition in bad faith and was indeed insolvent at the time it sought
bankruptcy.&amp;nbsp; The bankruptcy judge&amp;#39;s decision makes Stockton the largest municipality in the
country to file for bankruptcy (&lt;span style="text-decoration:underline;"&gt;In Re:&amp;nbsp; City of Stockton, California&lt;/span&gt;,
No. 12-32118, Chapter 9, E.D. Calif. Bkcy.).&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Bankruptcy Judge Christopher Klein issued a one-sentence
order affirming the city&amp;#39;s right to file for</description><author>james.cordrey@lexisnexis.com (James Cordrey)</author><pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 08:55:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>March 2013 Ponzi Scheme Roundup</title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/02/march-2013-ponzi-scheme-roundup.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/02/march-2013-ponzi-scheme-roundup.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_Roundup.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;March continued the trend of way too many breaking news
stories in Ponzi scheme cases. Here is the summary of the stories that were
reported this month. Please feel free to post comments about these or other
Ponzi schemes that I may have missed. And please remember that I am just
relaying what&amp;#39;s in the news, not writing or verifying it. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;b&gt;Brett
Amendola&lt;/b&gt;, 38, of Virginia, was sentenced to 84 months in prison
in connection with his $5 million Ponzi scheme involving the purported purchase
of a golf course that defrauded more than a dozen victims. Amendola had
persuaded investors to provide short-term funding that would be held in escrow
to fulfill a requirement</description><author>kphelps@diamondmccarthy.com (Kathy Bazoian Phelps)</author><pubDate>Tue, 02 Apr 2013 08:19:00 -0400</pubDate></item><item><title>A Warning Against Do It Yourself Legal Forms </title><link>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/01/a-warning-against-do-it-yourself-legal-forms.aspx</link><guid>http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/bankruptcylaw/blogs/bankruptcylawblog/archive/2013/04/01/a-warning-against-do-it-yourself-legal-forms.aspx</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;img src="http://www.lexisnexis.com/Community/LegalBusiness/cfs-file.ashx/__key/CommunityServer.Components.SiteFiles/Images.Miscellaneous+Images/ContentImage_2D00_BlankLegalForm.jpg" style="max-width:550px;border:0;float:left;margin-top:6px;margin-bottom:6px;margin-left:12px;margin-right:12px;" border="0" alt="" /&gt;A debtor avoided losing her home in a recent case
illustrating the perils of do it yourself legal forms. &lt;i&gt;Lowe v. Vazquez&lt;/i&gt;,
No. SA-12-CV-00399-DAE (W.D. Tex. 3/28/13) [&lt;a href="http://www.lexis.com/xlink?showcidslinks=on&amp;amp;ORIGINATION_CODE=00237&amp;amp;searchtype=get&amp;amp;search=2013%20U.S.%20Dist.%20LEXIS%2044271" target="_blank"&gt;an enhanced version of this opinion is available to lexis.com
subscribers&lt;/a&gt;]. &lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;The Debtor paid $10 to download a living trust form while
she was living in Nevada. When she moved to Texas, she conveyed her homestead
to the trust. Her stated reason for setting up the trust was:&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&amp;nbsp;The one and only reason I created the Living</description><author>ssather@bnpclaw.com (Stephen Sather)</author><pubDate>Mon, 01 Apr 2013 12:44:00 -0400</pubDate></item></channel></rss>