2014 Super Lawyers Business Edition
Kokoszka & Janczur, P.C. is proud to announce that Frank J. Kokoszka has been included in the most recent edition of the Super Lawyers Business Edition.
Thursday, November 20, 2014
Sunday, November 9, 2014
Recent Firm News
Kokoszka & Janczur, P.C. is proud to announce that Senior Partner Frank J. Kokoszka was recently appointed to the Panel of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy Trustees for the Northern District of
Illinois. He will one of the trustees hearing cases in DuPage County, Illinois.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
REMINDER- OUR CHICAGO ADDRESS
Reminder, we have moved and our Chicago Office is:
Kokoszka & Janczur, P.C.
122 South Michigan Avenue
Suite 1070
Chicago, Illinois 60603-6270
Kokoszka & Janczur, P.C.
122 South Michigan Avenue
Suite 1070
Chicago, Illinois 60603-6270
Monday, June 30, 2014
New Chicago Address
Effective July 7, 2014, the new address for our Chicago Office will be:
122 South Michigan Avenue
Suite 1070
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Our phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail address shall stay the same.
122 South Michigan Avenue
Suite 1070
Chicago, Illinois 60606
Our phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail address shall stay the same.
Thursday, June 19, 2014
We Have Some Exciting News
In July, 2014, Kokoszka & Janczur, P.C. will be moving to a new Chicago location.
Kokoszka & Janczur, P.C. will be sharing that suite with another law firm that we highly respect, with attorneys that we have known for a long time.
As the official move date moves closer, we will post our new Chicago address.
Kokoszka & Janczur, P.C. will be sharing that suite with another law firm that we highly respect, with attorneys that we have known for a long time.
As the official move date moves closer, we will post our new Chicago address.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
SIMPLE DEFINITIONS OF TEN BANKRUPTCY TERMS
Ten Bankruptcy Terms
by
Frank J. Kokoszka, Esq.
Kokoszka & Janczur
Almost every attorney,
whether he/she be a litigator, corporate attorney or real estate practitioner,
will be confronted with bankruptcy issues.
The following are ten (very
simple) bankruptcy definitions or "terms of art," that every
attorney should master, to know just enough about bankruptcy to be considered
"dangerous."
1. Adversary
Proceedings: An adversary
proceeding or "adversary" is a lawsuit filed in or within a
bankruptcy case (think of it as a "battle" within the
"war"). Adversary proceedings
are governed generally by Part VII of the Bankruptcy Rules (Rules 7001- 7087),
which incorporate most of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Bankruptcy Rule 7001 lists what type of
matters or disputes must be "fought" as an adversary; i.e., commenced by the filing of a
complaint. Most issues in a bankruptcy
case are not adversary proceedings, but are "contested matters"
(defined below).
2. Applicable Law: Bankruptcy is governed by the Bankruptcy Code
which is Title 11 of the United States Code, the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure (the "Bankruptcy Rules"), Local Rules, and to a great,
great, extent, case law. As one
of my bankruptcy mentors, a prominent bankruptcy attorney, once taught me,
"some bankruptcy judges feel compelled to publish every decision they
enter." Bankruptcy law is
constantly being shaped by new case law and the skilled bankruptcy practitioner
must keep abreast of recent decisions.
Please note that state law does come into play in some instances, such
as determining whether something is a valid security interest.
3. Automatic
Stay: Generally, the automatic stay
commences immediately with the filing of a voluntary bankruptcy petition and
the entering of an order of relief in an involuntary case.[1]
There are exceptions where an entity has filed for bankruptcy within certain
time periods. The automatic stay operates as an injunction prohibiting any
collection action against a debtor outside of the bankruptcy court. See Bankruptcy Code Section 362. This includes collection letters, telephone
calls, repossessions or lawsuits against the debtor. There are exceptions to the automatic stay,
and situations in which a party can seek to have the automatic stay modified or
"lifted." The purpose of the
automatic stay is to allow the bankruptcy to go forward in an orderly
fashion. Willful violations of the
automatic stay can subject the violator to punitive damages. Even innocent violations of the automatic
stay (such as a repossession by a creditor who did not know of the bankruptcy)
are void, and must be corrected (for example, by returning the repossessed
collateral).
4. Contested Matters: When the resolution of a disputed matter in a
bankruptcy case does not have to be brought as an adversary proceeding, then it
is a "contested matter."
Contested matters are usually resolved by filing a motion and the
opportunity for a hearing. See
Bankruptcy Rules 7001 (to determine whether something is an adversary
proceeding), 9014, and 2002 (dealing with notice requirements). For example, a creditor seeking relief from
the automatic stay would file a motion, since such is considered a contested
matter.
5. Discharge: A discharge is a permanent injunction against any action
to collect a debt incurred before the bankruptcy filing, unless the debt was
either (1) reaffirmed; or (2) excepted from discharge. A bankruptcy discharge frees the debtor from
the legal obligation to pay the debts which existed prior to the bankruptcy and
provides the debtor with a "fresh start." See Bankruptcy Code Sections 523 and 524.
There are exceptions
to discharge. Corporations and other
legal entities (non-individuals) do not get a discharge when they are
liquidated in a chapter 7 case. There are
time limits to how often a Debtor can obtain another discharge. Debtors who have committed illegal acts in
connection with the bankruptcy or business debtors who cannot (or will not)
explain their financial affairs and produce supporting records are also denied
a discharge (See, pervious K & J Law blog entry: “Business Debtors Beware!”). The Denial of Discharge requires the
commencement of an adversary proceeding objecting to discharge.
Second, some debts may
not be included in a general discharge.
Some type of claims automatically are deemed
"non-dischargeable." For
example, in general, most (but not all ) taxes, child support obligations and
student loans are not discharged. Additionally,
the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules (and of course, case law) provide
grounds for objecting to the dischargeability of a particular debt. In order to do this, a creditor must commence
an adversary proceeding. Thus, a debtor may receive a general
discharge but, an individual creditor may object to the specific
dischargeability of the creditor's claim.
6. Disposable
Income: In a chapter 13 case, which
is a repayment plan for individuals with "regular
income," the debtor and the chapter 13 trustee negotiate a budget in
order to determine how much the debtor can afford to set aside each month to
pay creditors. The amount of the debtor's income above necessary expenses is
known as "disposable income."
The trustee receives the debtor's disposable income (often through
payroll withholding), and distributes it to creditors per a chapter 13 plan
approved by the bankruptcy court. See
Bankruptcy Code Section 1322.
7. Exempt Property: Just as certain property is "exempt" from judgment and
collection by garnishment or citation, certain property of the debtor is "exempt" from turnover to the
trustee in a chapter 7 case. While the Bankruptcy Code lists certain
exemptions, the Code allows each state to choose whether its debtors will use
the federal exemptions or state exemptions.
See Bankruptcy Code Section 522.
In Illinois, a debtor must use the state exemptions. These exemptions are set forth in the
Illinois Code of Civil Procedure at 735 ILCS 5/12-1001 et seq. (exemptions of
personal property) and 735 ILCS 5/12-901
(homestead exemption), and include the following: necessary wearing apparel, up
to $15,000 in value in a homestead property, up to $2,400 in value in one car,
and $4,000 worth of other personal property (sometimes referred to as the
"wild-card" exemption). Only
an individual and not a corporation can claim exemptions.
8. Preference: A preference is a payment (or other
"interest") made for an antecedent debt to a creditor while the
debtor is insolvent. See Bankruptcy Code
Section 547. An insolvent debtor is one
who cannot pay all of its creditors, so if it pays some creditors, it is
"preferring" them to the other creditors. Every preference reduces the amount of assets
available to pay the other, non-preferred, creditors. The Bankruptcy Code presumes that most
payments made by a debtor within 90 days of a bankruptcy filing are preferences
which may be avoided (recovered by the bankruptcy estate), although there are
defenses. For payments benefiting
"insiders," (relatives, partners, stockholders, officers, etc.) the
90 day period is extended to one year.
Preference law is also
aimed to discourage extremely aggressive collection methods (such as
repossessions, levys and garnishments) against debtors who are on the verge of
bankruptcy. This consideration sometimes
restrains non-trade creditors, such as banks and mortgagees, and makes it
easier to work out many situations.
9. Proof of Claim: A proof of claim is an official form (Official Form #10)
which creditors must file to share in any payments the trustee makes to
creditors. There are deadlines for
filing proofs of claims, which are usually stated in the bankruptcy notices
sent by the clerk of the bankruptcy court, (known as the "bar date.")
Most
consumer chapter 7 cases are "no asset" cases. A creditor may get a notice stating that
"at this time there appear to be no assets available from which payment
may be made to unsecured creditors."
If so, unless the creditor receives a follow-up notice, there will be no
payments to unsecured creditors by the bankruptcy trustee, and there is no need
to file a proof of claim.
10. Reaffirmation: A reaffirmation is a promise by the
debtor to pay a debt despite the discharge. There are two usual reasons why a
debtor would enter into a reaffirmation: (i) there is collateral for the debt
which the debtor wants to keep; or (ii) the debt may not be dischargeable and
by saving the creditor the expense of an adversary proceeding, a debtor can
usually get a compromise as to the amount of the debt, and/or a structured
repayment plan, and also avoid the embarrassment of an adversary proceeding on
the public record. A reaffirmation
agreement cannot place an undue hardship upon the debtor.
Some big consumer
creditors, like credit card issuers and department stores, routinely ask for
reaffirmations of the entire pre-petition debt, even though there is no reason
in the world why the debtors should agree.
They usually talk about maintaining "good credit" -- a foolish
notion, considering that people with a recent bankruptcy don't have "good
credit."
[1] Creditors can file an involuntary
bankruptcy petition against an entity.
In an involuntary case, the entity that the creditors put into bankruptcy
is called the "alleged debtor."
The alleged debtor has time to respond to the involuntary bankruptcy
filing. If the court determines or the parties agree that the alleged debtor
should remain in bankruptcy, then an order for relief is
entered.
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Business Debtors- How Are Your Business Records?
Business
Debtors Beware!
Author: Mark D. Liston, Kokoszka
& Janczur, P.C.
Editor: Frank J. Kokoszka,
Kokoszka & Janczur, P.C.
The prime feature of a chapter 7 bankruptcy
for most individual debtors is the discharge.
However, there are exceptions to the discharge and these exceptions fall into
two major categories. The exception of a particular debt from discharge and the
denial of the debtor’s discharge entirely. These two exceptions serve different
purposes. As for the first (provided for by Section 523 of the Bankruptcy
Code), certain debts are deemed particularly important, so these debts cannot
be dischargeable. Examples include generally child support, taxes, and student
loans (this does not mean that taxes and student loans are always non-discharageable)
. Additionally, debts incurred by criminal, immoral, or otherwise improper
conduct cannot be discharged. Examples include theft, fraud, deliberate injury
to person or property, and debts arising from drunk-driving accidents. The
principle is that if you owe someone a debt because you wronged them, you do
not deserve a discharge of that debt.
With respect to denial of the
discharge entirely (provided by Section 727 of the Bankruptcy Code), the policy
is that a debtor who does something dishonest or knowingly improper within the
bankruptcy process itself should not receive a discharge of any debts. Examples include transferring or concealing assets, failure
to fully disclose the information required on the bankruptcy forms, testifying
falsely, and refusing to obey a court order. Conversely, the general rule
embodied in Section 727 is essentially that the “honest but unfortunate debtor”
who cooperates with the trustee and the court should receive a discharge.
However, one glaring exception to
that general rule can be found in Section 727(a)(3), which provides for the
denial of discharge where “the debtor has concealed, destroyed, mutilated,
falsified, or failed to keep or preserve
any recorded information, including books, documents, records, and papers, from
which the debtor’s financial condition or business transactions might be
ascertained, unless such act or failure to act was justified under all of
the circumstances of the case.” (Emphasis added.) Concealing, destroying,
mutilating, and falsifying obviously involve a dishonest or wrongful motive,
but that is not necessarily true of the mere failure to keep or preserve
records. Indeed, the debtor’s intent is simply not a factor in determining
whether they have failed to keep or preserve adequate business records. Instead, “[t]he
statute places an affirmative duty on the debtor to create books and records
accurately documenting her financial affairs.” In re Lindemann, 375 B.R.
450, 467 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2007). If the debtor has not done so, then her
discharge must be denied unless she can show that her failure to create and
maintain records was “justified,” a standard that is usually not satisfied by
the debtor’s after-the-fact explanations. This is true regardless of whether
the failure to keep records stemmed from any improper motive.
Additionally, the records must be
“comprehensible,” in that they clearly and intelligibly reflect the debtor’s
business transactions. In re Juzwiak, 89 F.3d 424, 429 (7th
Cir. 1996). Records are only adequate if they are organized and “provide the
trustee or creditors with enough information to ascertain the debtor's
financial condition and track his financial dealings with substantial
completeness and accuracy for a reasonable period past to present." Lindemann,
375 B.R. at 468. And whether they are adequate is a question of quality, not
quantity, so merely producing a large volume of confusing, incomplete, or
unorganized records is insufficient. Courts have repeatedly stated that they
should not have to sift through reams of complicated and poorly organized
documents in order to reconstruct the flow of the debtor’s assets or financial
situation. It has even been said that “‘too many’ is just as bad as ‘not
enough.’” In re Vandewoestyne, 174 B.R. 518, 522 (Bankr. C.D. Ill.
1994).
There are no types of records
specifically required in every case, and what is adequate has to be decided
based on the particular facts of the debtor’s case, such as the type, size, and
complexity of the business. Nonetheless, something like a “morass of checks and
bank statements” will likely be insufficient. Union Planters Bank, N.A. v.
Connors, 283 F.3d 896, 899 (7th Cir. 2002). As for the period of
time prior to the bankruptcy filing the records must cover, some courts have
found two years to be sufficient, though it may be longer if warranted by the
particular facts of the debtor’s case.
It should be noted that the
failure-to-keep-or-preserve prong of this exception is generally not implicated
in consumer bankruptcies. In re Scott, 172 F.3d 959, 970 (7th
Cir. 1999). Instead, its principal application is to business debtors. This
tempers the harshness of the rule, but it will still come as a surprise to many
business debtors to learn that they may be denied a discharge solely because
they had been sloppy or careless in their recordkeeping. After all, the average
business debtor had no intention of filing for bankruptcy before his business
began failing or he suffered a sudden financial catastrophe, and therefore he didn't knowingly disregard the duty imposed on him by bankruptcy law to keep adequate records. Additionally many debtors are in bankruptcy because of their poor—yet not
dishonest—handling of their finances, including poor record-keeping. To find out
the very reason for their bankruptcy is also the reason they are denied a discharge will strike them as draconian, especially since the trustee will
still liquidate all their non-exempt assets.
Courts have considered the seeming harshness
of this rule and have tailored the application of the law accordingly, so that the
education, experience, and sophistication of debtors are taken into
consideration when determining the adequacy of their records. Lindemann,
375 B.R. at 468. So, for example, a bricklayer will not be held to the same
standard as a lawyer or accountant. Nonetheless, there is still the potential
for a simple, honest debtor to do his best to cooperate with the trustee and
disclose fully but still walk away without a discharge because the trustee or a
disgruntled creditor files an adversary proceeding and is able to show that the
debtor’s business records are unsatisfactory.
Under the statute, it is possible
for a debtor to show that their failure to keep or preserve records was
“justified under all of the circumstances of the case,” though it does not give
clues as to when the failure is justified. In cases where courts have found a
failure to keep or preserve adequate records, it is very rare that the debtor
has been able to justify that failure. Explanations that documents were
destroyed by flooding; destroyed by a landlord after an eviction; eaten by
mice, and in the possession of a third party have all been rejected. In re
Hansen, 325 B.R. 746, 762 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2005); In re Wasserman, 332
B.R. 325, 333 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2005); In re Costello, 299 B.R. 882, 889
(Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2003); In re Fink, 351 B.R. 511, 524 (Bankr. N.D. Ill.
2006).
One argument in support of this
exception to discharge is that creditors, the trustee, and the court have the
right to know the financial condition of the debtor and how that condition came
about, but the debtor’s failure to keep adequate business records effectively deprives
them of that right. Additionally, the trustee and court may not be able to fully
ascertain whether the debtor is truly “honest but unfortunate” if he did not
maintain records of his business transactions sufficient to track his recent
financial history. Others would respond that a discharge should only be denied
on the basis of the failure to keep or preserve business records if there is
some evidence that such failure was the product of a dishonest intent.
At any rate, it is essential that
individuals who owe primarily business-related debts and their attorneys do
their best to ensure adequate records exist before filing for bankruptcy under
Chapter 7.
If you have any questions, either because you are considering filing for bankruptcy or you are a creditor of a business debtor, please contact Mark Liston or Frank Kokoszka at 312-443-9600.
Saturday, March 29, 2014
Wednesday, January 22, 2014
For Our Fellow Lawyers
Lawyers And Depression
CNN has a very enlightening and sobering article about the suicide rate in the legal profession.
The Law is a stressful profession, and hopeful attorneys faces with stressed of the profession will seek assistance to cope with the profession we have chosen.
CNN has a very enlightening and sobering article about the suicide rate in the legal profession.
The Law is a stressful profession, and hopeful attorneys faces with stressed of the profession will seek assistance to cope with the profession we have chosen.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)