Frequent Mistakes that Could Put Your Social Security at Risk Your social security is an important asset that you can help support you after you retire – or after you have finished working due to disability. But social security rarely pays enough for you to meet all your expenses. And if something unexpected comes up, you may not have the money you need. You may find yourself in trouble with debt at some point, and you may be relying on your social security income to provide basic support. However, if your debt problems get to the point that your creditors are trying to garnish your bank account, your social security might be at risk. You may be able to file for bankruptcy to stop the garnishment, but if you don’t take preventive measures or don’t act quickly enough, you may not be able to protect some of that social security income. Here are frequent mistakes that could put your social security at risk: Putting Your Social Security into a Bank Account with Other Funds You likely deposit your social security funds into the same bank account that you use for all your money. Social security is a protected source of income. So, if your creditors get a judgement allowing them to garnish your bank account or wages, they are not supposed to be able to take your social security income. The trouble is that if you have been putting your social security into the same account as your other money, there’s no way to prove what money is social security and what money is from other sources. The only thing you can do to protect your money is to put it into a dedicated account. If the only money you are putting into one account is social security money, there can be no question about its source, and it will be protected. You can work with a Gilbert bankruptcy attorney to put a stop to the garnishment, but the best preventive measure you can take to protect your social security is to keep it in a dedicated account. Not Direct Depositing Your Social Security One way you can show how much social security has gone into the account is by setting up direct deposit. Then you will have an electronic record of every amount that has gone into the account and when it hit the account. Setting up direct deposit also protects up to two months of your social security income. The U.S. Treasury requires that banks protect up to two months of deposits from levies and garnishments. Therefore, even if you respond quickly to the original Writ of Garnishment and the creditors still try to seize funds, you will have some protection under federal law. Solutions through Bankruptcy Of course, the best protection against garnishment of your bank accounts and wages by creditors is to talk with a bankruptcy attorney in Mesa about your options for debt relief under Chapter 7 bankruptcy and Chapter 13 bankruptcy. Filing for bankruptcy will issue an automatic stay, which will put an immediate halt to any collection activity or legal proceedings. That doesn’t mean that your creditors will never be able to seize your assets, but it does mean that you’ll be given time to explore your options through bankruptcy. You may be able to file for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and have all of your unsecured debts discharged, or you may be able to restructure your debt under a Chapter 13 bankruptcy debt repayment plan. Your Gilbert bankruptcy attorney will help you understand how each option would benefit you best, dependent on your financial circumstances, such as what kind of debt you owe and how much income you have. Call My AZ Lawyers to learn more about the bankruptcy process and how it may help you get out from under overwhelming debt. Our bankruptcy lawyers will review your finances and talk to you about your goals to help you determine the best course of action. We may be able to help you put an end to garnishments, stop foreclosure, and more. Our bankruptcy law office serves clients throughout Mesa, Glendale, Tucson, and Phoenix. Call us today to schedule a consultation with a bankruptcy lawyer and explore your options for debt relief. Arizona Offices: Mesa Location: 1731 West Baseline Rd., Suite #100 Mesa, AZ 85202 Office: (480) 448-9800 Email: info@myazlawyers.com Website: https://myazlawyers.com/ Glendale Location: 20325 N 51st Avenue Suite #134, Building 5 Glendale, AZ 85308 Office: (602) 509-0955 Tucson Location: 2 East Congress St., Suite #900-6A Tucson, AZ 85701 Office: (520) 441-1450 Avondale Location: 12725 W. Indian School Rd., Ste E, #101 Avondale, AZ 85392 Office: (623) 469-6603 The post Frequent Mistakes that Could Put Your Social Security at Risk appeared first on My AZ Lawyers.

Businesses across the country have shut down due to COVID-19. People who were experiencing financial hardships are continuing to do so. Income has been reduced while bills continue to pile up. Many New Jersey individuals suffering under economic strain who were thinking about filing for bankruptcy or who were preparing for filing might be concerned […] The post Can I File for Bankruptcy in New Jersey because of COVID-19? appeared first on .

      At Shenwick & Associates, we are receiving many calls and emails these days from clients regarding leases which they would like to terminate and the principals' exposure for guarantees and good guy guarantees associated with those leases.Most commercial tenants in New York City are organized as either corporations or LL Cs and those entities are the tenant on the commercial office lease. Almost all landlords in New York City will require a principal or principal’s of the corporation or LLC to guarantee the lease.There are two types of lease guarantees in New York. A full or complete guarantee for the payment of rent or a “good guy guarantee (“GGG”)”, which is a specialized type of guarantee, which can limit the payment of the guarantor under the lease, if certain conditions enumerated in the GGG are met. Under the full or complete guarantee, for example if the tenant fails to make lease payments for 6 months and owes $50,000 for rent and additional rent under the lease, the Landlord can demand that the guarantor pay those monies and if payment is not made, the Landlord can sue the guarantor for $50,000. The second type of guarantee which is known as a good guy guaranty limits the principal’s exposure under the guarantee if certain conditions are met. To be a “good guy” means that the tenant vacates the space and delivers possession to the Landlord without litigation. An example of how GGG operates is provided below. The GGG provides that the principal’s financial exposure under the GGG terminates when: 1. the tenants sends notice to the Landlord that it is vacating the leased space (the usual notice required is 90 to 120 days), 2. the tenant must be current on its payment of rent and additional rent, when it sends the notice to the Landlord or current on rent when it vacates the space, 3.the space must be left “broom clean” and 4. keys for the office must be delivered to the Landlord. Under this scenario, if all 4 conditions are satisfied, the guarantor is released from liability under the Lease. However, if the 4 conditions are not satisfied the guarantor’s liability continues until the lease expires. If the tenant is unable to pay the rent due under the lease when it vacates the principal will often pay the rent for the tenant to terminate the GGG. It should be noted that just because the tenant vacated the space, the lease is not terminated and the tenant remains liable for rent until the lease terminates. If the tenant does not pay the rent, the landlord can sue the tenant but not the guarantor.Under that scenario, the tenant will either close its business or file for chapter 7 bankruptcy. As can be seen from the above examples, a GGG is a more limited form of guarantee. The statute of limitations for a landlord to commence an action under a guaranty under New York State law is 6 years. CPLR 213(2)Under New York custom and practice, the guarantee whether it is a regular guarantee or a GGG can be incorporated into the lease or it can be a separate document. Under certain limited circumstances based on a NYC administrative law, certain guarantees are void see New York City Administrative Code §22-1005, which provides for the suspension of certain contractual obligations between March 7 and Sept. 30, 2020. The law is applicable to leases for restaurants, bars, retail establishments and other similar non-essential businesses that were required to cease operations due to various COVID-19-related executive orders issued by the Governor. If a guarantor can avail themselves of that law, then the guarantor may be able to avoid liability even if the tenant does not pay rent under the lease. From a landlord’s perspective once they obtain possession of their space, they need to determine based on cost benefit analysis if they want to sue the tenant or the guarantor for rent that is due and owing. The landlord will consider the cost of litigation (legal fees and court costs) and the ability to collect on a judgment, if one is obtained. Due to the covid virus, many Landlords are taking a wait and see attitude and not commencing lawsuits immediately, as they may have in the past. A tenant that wished to vacate a lease should have the lease and the guarantee reviewed by an experienced attorney and the tenant and guarantor need to develop a strategy to deal with the landlord. Any clients having questions regarding a terminating a lease or with respect to a guarantee or good guy guarantees should contact Jim Shenwick at 212-541-6224 or email him at jshenwick@gmail.com. Jim Shenwick negotiates commercial leases, practices debtor creditor law and bankruptcy law.

Chapter 13 Trustee Thomas Gorman Thomas Gorman is a lawyer. He’s the Chapter 13 Trustee for the Alexandria VA Division of the US Bankruptcy Court. That’s a full time job. He was appointed in 2009. He runs your Chapter 13 bankruptcy hearing, called the “meeting of creditors.” Creditors hardly ever attend the meeting of creditors. […] The post Chapter 13 Trustee Thomas Gorman by Robert Weed appeared first on Northern VA Bankruptcy Lawyer Robert Weed.

If you are considering filing for bankruptcy, you should hire an experienced bankruptcy lawyer to help you manage the process. Bankruptcy laws are incredibly complex. A lawyer will make declaring bankruptcy easier, faster, and more successful. Although you are allowed to file for bankruptcy yourself, it is often an expensive mistake. In this article, you will learn ten reasons why you should hire a bankruptcy lawyer. 10 Benefits of Hiring a Bankruptcy Lawyer 1) Hiring a lawyer increases your chances of successfully eliminating debt. An annual report published by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California shows that individuals representing themselves (pro se) have a significantly lower bankruptcy success rate than individuals represented by a lawyer. In the case of Chapter 13 Bankruptcy, debtors represented by a lawyer are more than ten times more likely to reach a successful outcome than individuals representing themselves. 2) A lawyer can help you decide if bankruptcy is the right option for you. It is essential to evaluate and understand all of the options available to you when you are facing overwhelming debt. While it may seem like bankruptcy is your only choice, a lawyer may have a better solution for managing your debt without declaring bankruptcy. 3) You don’t know which bankruptcy option is best for your situation. An experienced bankruptcy lawyer will review your financial situation and explain your bankruptcy options. In Wisconsin, the two most common types of personal bankruptcy are a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy and a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy. Wynn at Law, LLC’s lawyers can help you identify which type best fits your current situation and guide you through the entire process.  4) A bankruptcy lawyer will help eliminate all eligible debts. A bankruptcy lawyer will know which debts can be discharged and the best type of bankruptcy to use to discharge your debt. For example, a lawyer can identify and eliminate debts beyond the statute of limitations for collections. You will also save money by fully discharging your obligations and not having lingering debts after completing your bankruptcy.  5) Experience is crucial to success. Do you know the U.S. Bankruptcy Code? Do you know Wisconsin District Courts’ bankruptcy laws? Do you know what property is exempt from bankruptcy? Filing for bankruptcy requires knowledge of the federal code and local case law. An experienced bankruptcy lawyer has worked on hundreds of cases and understands the intricate details of the process. A bankruptcy lawyer will be familiar with current laws, courtroom procedures, the bankruptcy filing process, and filing timeframes. 6) Hiring a lawyer saves you time. Hiring a lawyer saves you countless hours, as you no longer have to spend your time researching and reviewing bankruptcy information. In some cases, a lawyer can identify shortcuts and smooth out the scheduling process. Wynn at Law, LLC’s bankruptcy lawyers will guide you through the complicated procedures and keep you informed at every stage.  7) You don’t have to handle the paperwork. Filing for bankruptcy requires accurate, detailed, and timely paperwork. It is crucial to have precise information and sufficient supporting documentation. While much of the information will come from you, a lawyer can help you complete the paperwork and provide legal advice on your disclosures, valuing assets, income, and expenses. 8) Lawyers have an established relationship with the bankruptcy court, judges, and trustees. A bankruptcy lawyer has gone through this before; they are familiar with bankruptcy courtroom etiquette. Lawyers have already built relationships with the people involved in the process, making communication easier for you. When the trustee asks for additional information or details, your bankruptcy lawyer will be prepared. 9) You get protection from harassment by creditors and collection agencies. Once you hire a bankruptcy lawyer, harassing phone calls from creditors will stop. Once a lawyer represents you, you can inform creditors or debt collectors and force their phone calls and letters to go through your lawyer instead. After you officially file, an automatic stay will be granted, which legally extends your harassment relief. 10) Lawyers offer you peace of mind and protection from uncertainty. Peace of mind goes a long way. You won’t have to worry about mistakes, losing your assets, or preparing for a court appearance. Your bankruptcy lawyer will advise you on what will happen ahead of time, complete your paperwork correctly, and sit by your side in creditor meetings or court. It is your lawyer’s responsibility to fight for the best outcome for you and protect your rights. Do I Need a Bankruptcy Lawyer? The logistics of bankruptcy paperwork, credit reporting bureaucracy, and collection agencies’ tactics can be challenging to manage without a lawyer. While you do not need a lawyer to file for bankruptcy – it is strongly recommended.  Are you still considering filing without an attorney, even after reviewing the list of reasons you should hire a bankruptcy lawyer? If so, you should understand some of the risks of representing yourself (pro se representation) when filing for bankruptcy. The Risks of Filing Bankruptcy Without a Bankruptcy Lawyer One little mistake could cost you everything. If you file incorrectly or the filing is incomplete, the bankruptcy judge could throw out your case. If that happens, you may not be able to refile for any type of bankruptcy in the near future or if you can refile, you may lose protection from creditors taking action against you. Incorrectly listing assets could cost you not only your debt being discharged, but you could lose the possessions you sought to protect. Bankruptcy lawyers know how to protect your assets and successfully lead you through the process. Mistakes could mean criminal charges for fraud or perjury. Committing fraud in a bankruptcy case can land you in jail. You cannot hide assets or income from the bankruptcy trustee or judge (even those that you haven’t received yet). Do you know the law well enough to avoid this serious situation? Did you sign over a vehicle, deed property, gift money, or other assets to a friend or relative? A bankruptcy lawyer will help you file your petition and truthfully list your assets in a way that protects you from criminal charges.  You may end up paying more of your debt. When communications between the bankruptcy trustee and your creditors occur, can you respond without negatively impacting your bankruptcy discharge? If a creditor files a lawsuit or contests your discharge of debt – how will you respond? A bankruptcy lawyer can protect your interests, effectively communicate with all parties involved, and save you money in negotiating with creditors. Get a Free Consultation with a Wisconsin Bankruptcy Lawyer Meeting with a bankruptcy lawyer in the early stages of financial difficulty can allow you to explore all of your debt relief options. If you can’t make regular payments on your existing debt, filing for bankruptcy may be a solution. Wynn at Law, LLC’s lawyers will meet with you to discuss your financial situation and help you determine if bankruptcy is right for you. Contact Wynn at Law, LLC for a free bankruptcy consultation: 262-725-0175 Wynn at Law, LLC has law offices in Lake Geneva, WI, Delavan, WI, and Salem Lakes, WI. Our lawyers provide legal advice and representation to residents throughout Southeastern Wisconsin. We are a debt relief agency that can help individuals or couples file for bankruptcy relief under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Filing for bankruptcy is an intricate legal process. The federal court in the Eastern District of Wisconsin oversees bankruptcy cases for residents of Walworth County, Racine County, and Kenosha County. The post Why Should I Hire a Bankruptcy Lawyer? appeared first on Wynn at Law, LLC.

In a recent mega-retail case, our client had outstanding, pre-petition purchase orders (“P Os”) for goods the debtor wanted delivered. It’s true that post petition suppliers have an administrative priority to get paid. However, that priority is meaningful only if there is cash available for payment. In this, as in most cases, lenders had liens on all of the debtor’s assets. The debtor got authority to use the banks’ cash collateral, subject to a budget. However, the budget did not disclose whose sales got paid. It was possible, if the reorganization failed, that the client might not get paid for millions of more dollars in sales. This becomes particularly aggravating, as the post-petition delivery provides more collateral for the pre-petition lenders. What could be done to make sure the sale occurred with certain payment and not alienating the debtor or the anticipated purchaser of its assets? PO As Executory Contract Bankruptcy Code § 365 authorizes debtors in possession (“DI Ps”) to assume (keep) or reject “executory contracts.” Executory contracts are agreements where the obligation of both parties to the contract “are so far unperformed that failure of either to complete performance would constitute a material breach excusing the performance of the other.”[1] For a DIP to assume an executory contract, they must provide the contract’s counter-party with “adequate assurance of future performance under such contract.”[2] P Os are executory contracts.[3] Suppliers/vendors can ask the bankruptcy court to enter an order requiring the DIP to decide keep or reject the sales contemplated by P Os (a “365 Motion”)[4]. If the DIP rejects the P Os, the goods don’t get shipped and the supplier has a prepetition claim for its damages.[5] If the DIP assumes the P Os, the supplier can require “adequate assurance of future performance.” This could include COD payment, letters of credit, or the lenders explicitly authorizing the prompt payment after delivery. It’s simply making sure the supplier gets paid. The Tale’s Outcome It was one month into the case. The debtor didn’t indicate that it was going to do to give the client comfort. We prepared the motion. On the eve of filing the motion, the official creditors’ committee in the case negotiated assurances of payment for post-petition sales. We did not have to file the motion. The Take Away A creditors’ committee may act fast enough to protect suppliers receiving payment, without a 365 Motion. Absent such action, nervous pre-petition suppliers with outstanding purchase orders appear to have a vehicle to assure payment for post-petition deliveries. References 1 See, V. Countryman, Executory Contracts in Bankruptcy, Part 1, 57 Minn.L.Rev. 439, 460 (1973). Examples of executory contracts are A.) leases (If the rent’s not paid I’m evicted. If I’m not in the apartment, I no rent for the landlord); B.) employment contracts (No work / no pay. No pay / no work) 2 See 11 U.S.C. § 365(b)(1)( C ). 3 Purchase Orders with yet to be delivered goods are executory contracts. See, In re Harnischfeger Indus., Inc., 293 B.R. 650, 659 (Bankr. D. Del. 2003), In re TK Holdings Inc. 2018 WL 1306271, at *27 (Bankr. D. Del.), In re Collins & Aikman Corp., 384 B.R. 751, 762 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2008), In re JZ, LLC, 357 B.R. 816, 823 fn. 19 (Bankr. D. Idaho 2006), aff’d sub nom. In re JZ L.L.C., 371 B.R. 412 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2007), In re APF Indus., Inc., 118 B.R. 122, 123 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1990)(“ The executory contract sought to be assumed is a purchase order.”). 4 See, e.g., In re Hawker Beechcraft, Inc., 483 B.R. 424 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012)(Licensor of intellectual property used by DIP to manufacture, sell, and support aircraft sought to compel the DIP to assume or reject licensing agreement.), In re Dana Corp., 350 B.R. 144 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2006)(DIP’s supplier moved to shorten time for debtors to assume or reject executory supply agreements). 5 This means the creditor gets “bankruptcy dollars” not whole dollars. Bankruptcy Dollars are what general unsecured creditors receive in bankruptcy cases for their allowed claims. They are a fraction of the debt. See, In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Grp., Inc., 138 B.R. 687, 711 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1992).(“Tiny bankruptcy dollars”), In re SunEdison, Inc., 557 B.R. 303, 309 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2016)(A creditor’s successful Bankruptcy Litigation would result in Bankruptcy Dollars”), In re Breitburn Energy Partners LP, 571 B.R. 59, 69 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2017)(“. . .value of the claim in “bankruptcy dollars” is not worth the expense to either party of litigating it.”)   The post A Remedy For Nervous Post-Petition Suppliers appeared first on Wayne Greenwald, P.C..

   In 2010 §222.11 of the Florida Statutes dealing with exemption of wages was amended to increase the threshold above which wages of a head of a household could be garnished if the borrower had agreed in writing to such garnishment from $500/week to $750/week.  The 2010 statute read (2)(a) All of the disposable earnings of a head of family whose disposable earnings are less than or equal to $500 a week are exempt from attachment or garnishment.(b) Disposable earnings of a head of a family, which are greater than $500 a week, may not be attached or garnished unless such person has agreed otherwise in writing. In no event shall the amount attached or garnished exceed the amount allowed under the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 1673.In 2010 this section was amended to read(2)(a) All of the disposable earnings of a head of family whose disposable earnings are less than or equal to $750 a week are exempt from attachment or garnishment.(b) Disposable earnings of a head of a family, which are greater than $750 a week, may not be attached or garnished unless such person has agreed otherwise in writing. The agreement to waive the protection provided by this paragraph must:1. Be written in the same language as the contract or agreement to which the waiver relates;2. Be contained in a separate document attached to the contract or agreement; and3. Be in substantially the following form in at least 14-point type:IF YOU PROVIDE MORE THAN ONE-HALF OF THE SUPPORT FOR A CHILD OR OTHER DEPENDENT, ALL OR PART OF YOUR INCOME IS EXEMPT FROM GARNISHMENT UNDER FLORIDA LAW. YOU CAN WAIVE THIS PROTECTION ONLY BY SIGNING THIS DOCUMENT. BY SIGNING BELOW, YOU AGREE TO WAIVE THE PROTECTION FROM GARNISHMENT.(Consumer's Signature) (Date Signed)I have fully explained this document to the consumer.(Creditor's Signature) (Date Signed)In no event shall The amount attached or garnished may not exceed the amount allowed under the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 1673.  This amendment was at issue in Maki v. Multibank 2009-1 RES-ADC Venture, LLC, 2020 Fla. App. LEXIS 16135, Case No 2D19-2060 (2nd D.C.A. 13 Nov 2020).  The case involved a home equity line of credit obtained in 2005, on which a judgment was obtained in 2017 resulting in the seeking of a writ of garnishment against Maki's wages. Maki's wage was $754.79/week.  The initial dispute was over which version of the statute applied.  Multibank argued that retroactive application of the statute would impair the terms of the parties' contract, citing Hart v. Wachovia Bank, N.A., 159 So. 3d 244, 246 n.2 (Fla. 1st DCA 2015) finding that a 2013 amendment to the statute which modified the legal sufficiency of a contractual exemption waiver did not apply retroactively.  Likewise, the 2010 change to the required language to waive the full wage exemption cannot apply retroactively, but this bar does not apply to the exemption-threshold component of the statute, as that would not impair Multibank's substantive right to garnish Maki's wages.   The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled regarding a similar statute in that state that when a statute increases the wage exemption threshold, it does not abrogate the remedy, it simply in the interest of public welfare increased the debtor's exemption so that he and his family might be saved from being a charge upon the state.1   The 2nd DCA agreed with this reasoning, finding that the 2010 amendment increasing the threshold from $500/week to $750/week applied retroactively to the 2005 loan.    The next issue was the amount of wages that could be garnished.  The amount garnished cannot exceed the amount allowed under the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 15 U.S.C. s. 1673.  This statute reads:a) Maximum allowable garnishmentExcept as provided in subsection (b) and in section 1675 of this title, the maximum part of the aggregate disposable earnings of an individual for any workweek which is subjected to garnishment may not exceed(1) 25 per centum of his disposable earnings for that week, or(2) the amount by which his disposable earnings for that week exceed thirty times the Federal minimum hourly wage prescribed by section 206(a)(1) of Title 29 in effect at the time the earnings are payable,whichever is less. . .   Multibank asserted that the laws together allow recovery of 25% of all of Maki's disposable income, ie $188.70/week, whereas Maki asserted that only that portion above the $750 threshold was subject to the 25% allowed in the Consumer Credit Protection Act.  The 2nd DCA again agreed with Maki finding that the legislature intended to shield a debtor's first $750 in disposable income from garnishment even if the total disposable income exceeded such amount.  This was the interpretation provided in US AmeriBank v. Kelpal, 100 So. 3d 56 60 n.4 (Fla. 2d DCA 2011).  §222.11(2)(a)'s total exemption for wages of less than $750/week clearly indicates that legislature's intention to ensure that debtors have at least that amount to pay for the basic necessities of life, and creditors should not be able to eat into that base by seizing a portion of that even if the total weekly income exceeds $750.  Thus the 2nd DCA ruled that the first $750/week in wages of a head of a household is completely exempt, and the 25% garnishment allowed only applies to sums over such amount.1 Hooter v. Wilson, 273 So. 2d 516, 522 (La. 1973)↩Michael Barnett, Esq.Michael Barnett, PA506 N Armenia Ave.Tampa, FL 33609-1703813 870-3100mbarnett@tampabankruptcy.comhttps://hillsboroughbankruptcy.com

 https://patch.com/new-york/new-york-city/nyc-comptroller-backs-proposed-taxi-driver-bailout-programOriginally appeared on the Patch.com  New York City Comptroller Scott Stronger has backed a proposal that would bail out taxi drivers burdened with exorbitant debt owed on medallions and worsened by the coronavirus pandemic. (Courtesy of Tim Lee)NEW YORK CITY — New York City Comptroller and mayoral hopeful Scott Stringer has put his weight behind a proposal from the New York Taxi Workers Alliance that aims to bail out thousands of taxi drivers drowning in medallion debt amid the coronavirus pandemic. The plan would write down outstanding loans on medallions to $125,000 and offer up funds to ensure drivers in default can sell a medallion and recuperate all or part of its cost, Stringer announced at a news conference on Thursday. The plan would also reduce the interest on outstanding loans for medallions taxi and offer drivers a way out of the industry without landing in a financial sinkhole, he said. "For decades, driving a cab in New York City was a road to the middle class for immigrants from around the world," Stringer said in a news conference. "But today, the medallion that once promised prosperity and stability is now a financial sinkhole." Should a driver default on a medallion, the city would take back the medallion and place a minimum bid equivalent to the amount owed on it before offering it for sale on the free market, guaranteeing purchase of any medallions that borrowers default on. The taxi workers alliance estimates the plan could cost the city up to $75 million, a rather small amount compared to the $810 million lawsuit Attorney General Letita James filed against the city in February for inflating the value of medallions. The proposal also calls for monthly loan payments to be capped at less than $800 and for interest rates to be kept at or below 4 percent. New York Taxi Workers Alliance executive director Bhairavi Desai said the bailout is the last chance the industry has to weather the pandemic, which has drastically decreased ridership and left cab drivers in a financial lurch for months. "It is the only way drivers, the yellow cab industry is going to survive," Desai said. Ricardo Lopez, who has driven taxis for 40 years in New York City, said he is hopeful the plan goes through. He is facing bankruptcy as he works to continue making payments on his medallion. "I paid $60,000 [for my medallion] 40 years ago and have been paying on and off until today," Lopez said. "We are in bankruptcy, literally. If I don't get any help directly, I'm going to go out of this business soon because I can't afford it anymore. The streets are empty." Taxi drivers in New York City watched their fares dry up as the coronavirus pandemic gave way to stay-at-home orders and business closures earlier this year. Although ridership has been on a steady increase since the city ground to a standstill in March and April, taxi industry revenue remains down some 81 percent from where it was in 2019, the New York Times reports. Ridership was also down by about 70 percent in September compared to the year prior. Stringer said while the proposal cannot increase ridership in the face of a pandemic, it can right a wrong and save New York City families staring down the barrel of financial ruin. "Predatory lenders took drivers for a ride and left families in a wreckage of financial distress and despair," Stringer said. "We have a fiscal and moral obligation to make this right—and embracing this plan is a start."   

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/12/nyregion/nyc-taxi-drivers-coronavirus.html Originally appeared on  The New York TimesWhile some businesses have adapted to virus restrictions, the yellow cab industry is especially suffering. In September, an average of 3,257 yellow cabs and 575 green cabs operated each day, according to city data. In both cases, that was about 70 percent lower than in September 2019.Credit...Karsten Moran for The New York Times Before the coronavirus arrived in New York, yellow taxis were an enduring symbol of the city’s hustle, crowding the streets of Midtown Manhattan, ferrying passengers to airports and carrying tourists to boutique hotels. But eight months into the pandemic, the industry lies almost entirely crippled.Revenue for the taxi industry is down 81 percent over the same period a year ago, according to the latest city data. That is better than in the worst days of the pandemic in March and April — but not by much.Even as some parts of city life have returned, reliable sources of taxi passengers have not. Offices, especially in Midtown, are closed. Tourism is virtually nonexistent, and the airports are mostly empty.“I can’t hold on, not like this,” said Vinod Malhotra, who owns his cab and has driven for 27 years through terrorist attacks, natural disasters and economic calamities. He made it through the pandemic’s peak in New York, too, but as the crisis slogs on, he is on the brink of bankruptcy. “I can make it maybe one more month, maybe two.”Ride-hailing companies, such as Uber and Lyft, also took a hit when the city largely shut down in the spring. But they have bounced back more quickly. Revenue is now about a third lower than last year, and the chief executive of Uber, Dara Khosrowshahi, said last week on a call with investors that city ridership outside of commuting hours had returned to normal.Bruce Schaller, a former city transportation official, said customers might be using taxis less because they believed they were more of a health risk, even though that was not the case.“I think taxis feel like more of a public space than an Uber car or Lyft car,” he said.Almost all drivers in every sector stopped working altogether during the peak, city data shows, in part because of the possibility of getting sick on the job, a threat that was magnified by the deaths of dozens of drivers. In a recent survey by the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, nearly half of drivers said either they or someone in their home had contracted the virus.While many drivers were out of work, they relied on the federal government’s enhanced unemployment program, which paid $600 a week in addition to state benefits.But those federal benefits ended over the summer, as did some other programs that kept cabdrivers afloat, including initiatives that paid taxi drivers meals to homes and provide rides for essential workers during overnight subway closures.Aloysee Heredia Jarmoszuk, the head of the city Taxi and Limousine Commission, which oversees yellow cabs and ride-hailing companies, said the industry was steadily recovering, albeit slowly. “The pandemic hit for-hire transportation hard, but every month since March has seen increases in trips across all segments,” she said.Still, drivers of both yellow cabs and the green cabs that operate outside of Manhattan have been reluctant to return to work. In September, an average of 3,257 yellow cabs and 575 green cabs operated each day, according to city data. In both cases, that was about 70 percent lower than in September 2019.Several fleet owners said they had called drivers to beg them to return. Some offered discounts letting drivers rent out cabs for half the normal rate, or less. Recently, they said, drivers have begun returning.Drivers who own their own cabs have returned even more slowly.“My job isn’t safe. I don’t know who has had the Covid, and there are no customers anyway,” said Andrew Chen, 53, an immigrant from Burma, now Myanmar, who has owned his own cab since 2006. “So I just stay home.”Now, a knockout punch may be coming for those drivers, who bought the city permits called medallions that allow them to own and operate a cab.As The New York Times has reported, hundreds of drivers were already squeezed before the pandemic after being channeled into large, exploitative loans they could not afford in order to buy their medallion. Lenders suspended collections for months during the worst of the virus, but some have started to demand payments.“People talk about the state of the taxi industry the same way they talk about the election: ‘This is the existential moment.’ But this time, it really is,” said Bhairavi Desai, who has represented drivers since the 1990s as the head of the Taxi Workers Alliance. “It really is.”  Bhairavi Desai, the head of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, was planning to announce a new proposal to help cabdrivers.Credit...Amr Alfiky/The New York TimesIn January, a city task force proposed a $500 million bailout for drivers in loans. In February, the New York State attorney general, Letitia A. James, said her office would sue the city for $810 million and use the money to compensate drivers.That momentum evaporated as the virus exploded across the city.On Thursday, Ms. Desai plans to unveil a proposal that could eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars owed by medallion owners and would cost the city a maximum of $75 million, much less than in previous plans.Under the proposal, lenders would agree to reduce the amount owed by each borrower to $125,000, repaid over 20 years with a 4 percent interest rate. That structure would lower monthly payments to under $800. In return, lenders would receive a guarantee that the city would pay for any medallion loan that fails because of nonpayment, an assurance that experts say could win over lenders.The plan is supported by Scott M. Stringer, the city comptroller and mayoral candidate. He said in a statement it could actually save taxpayer money by protecting the city from the attorney general’s lawsuit.“This breakthrough proposal offers a responsible and necessary approach to relieve crushing debt for drivers and reduce ballooning costs for taxpayers,” he said.City Council Speaker Corey Johnson, who has previously supported a bailout, said the Council would review the proposal but suggested that the city, whose budget has been decimated by the pandemic, may not be able to pay for a rescue package on its own. A spokesman for Mayor Bill de Blasio pointed out that the mayor has said the federal government should fund any bailout.Several lenders who would have to agree to the deal declined to comment. They have denied wrongdoing, blaming the industry’s problems on Uber and Lyft.The largest holder of loans now is Marblegate Asset Management, a private equity firm that bought thousands of them earlier this year. It has not collected payments during the pandemic, a spokesman said, and has voluntarily forgiven $70 million in debt.Mr. Malhotra, the cabdriver, emigrated to New York from India in the early 1990s and bought his medallion in 2011 for $640,000. He now owes Marblegate about $435,000, he said.He still drives 12 hours a day, six days a week, he said, but lately has had to wait longer and longer between customers. He is barely making enough to support his wife and three children, and he cannot make loan payments. He fears getting a call from his lender.He said he might have to file for bankruptcy and surrender his medallion to a large fleet. Others are in the same situation. If nothing happens soon, he said, the city could lose an entire generation of cabby owner-drivers.“We need help, and nobody is helping,” he said. “So day by day, it will go more down. And then it will just be gone.”

We Stop Navy Federal Trying to Pull a Fast One This is a story of Navy Federal trying to take unfair advantage of a disabled vet; and how we were able to stop them. Harry is the disabled vet. He wasn’t able to quite make ends meet when he filed Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in 2015, […] The post We Stop Navy Federal Trying to Pull a Fast One by Robert Weed appeared first on Northern VA Bankruptcy Lawyer Robert Weed.