NACBA Member David Shaev testifies in support of proposed changes to Bankruptcy Rules.
NACBA member David Shaev (NY) testified before the Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules on Friday, February 5, 2010, on the subject of the proposed changes to Bankruptcy Rules 3001 and 3002. Shaev was the only witness who testified on behalf of consumer debtors and strongly supported the proposed changes, suggesting that, if anything, they should be strengthened.
In addition to submitting written testimony [linked], Shaev rebutted the testimony of other witnesses, including debt buyers and bank representatives, who focused on the fact that few objections to Proofs of Claim are typically filed. David stated that in general there is no incentive to file objections to claims because any money saved would be distributed to other creditors and because attorney’s fees are not awarded for successful objections.
He had the opportunity to expand on NACBA Member Professor Katherine Porter’s study on mortgage claims and was able to debunk the other witnesses’ basic argument on secured and unsecured claims, using as an example a proof of claim filed by PRA Receivables Management as agent for Portfolio Recovery Assets, which had filed an unsecured proof of claim for over $12,000 with no documentation. A summary page was annexed, but did not identify any creditor that the debtor could verify as a debt. David explained that he demanded documentation by letter prior to the filing of the objection but received none. The Judge expunged the entire claim at hearing as well as others, totaling approximately 60% of the total unsecured claims filed.
NACBA Board Member John Rao, a member of the Rules Committee, was also at the hearing.
I Can’t Make It to My Creditors Meeting — Now What Do I Do?
I Can’t Make It to My Creditors Meeting — Now What Do I Do?
by Craig Andresen, Minnesota Bankruptcy Attorney
There really are few reasons which are good enough to justify rescheduling a bankruptcy meeting of creditors (or section 341(a) meeting). After all, the bankruptcy filing amounts to “making a federal case out of things,” and it just doesn’t seem right for the debtor to fail to make room in his or her schedule to show up to be examined by the trustee, as the law requires.
Bankruptcy trustees have been known to remark that the debtor chose voluntarily to file the bankruptcy case, and if the debtor wasn’t going to have time to appear for mandatory meetings, perhaps a better time should have been chosen to file the case.
Rescheduling the creditors meeting can mean additional attorney fees, inconveniencing the other parties involved, disrupting your lawyer’s schedule, and, worst of all, impressing people with how little the bankruptcy case might really mean to the debtor. Rescheduling will also result in extra court notices being served on the trustee and other parties in the case. Thus these parties are unnecessarily reminded of the case’s existence – and if they have been unsure about whether they should file objections to the case, a rescheduling of the creditors meeting might be just what they needed to help them decide to go ahead and object.
If the debtor has a real emergency, such as a serious illness or other circumstance making it impossible to attend, rescheduling the creditors meeting would normally be necessary. It is a simple matter for your bankruptcy lawyer to contact the trustee, inform him or her of the problem, obtain a new date for the meeting, and send out a notice of the rescheduling to the creditors and other parties in interest.
Yes, the meeting of creditors can be rescheduled, but it should done only as a last resort and only when absolutely necessary.
