Facing dire financial straits due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but think you can’t file bankruptcy because you’ve been in bankruptcy court before? We’ve got good news: you may be eligible to file again. It depends on when your last bankruptcy case was, and when you filed. If you filed Chapter 7… You can file for […] The post How Often Can You File Bankruptcy in Montgomery County, PA? appeared first on .

Facing dire financial straits due to the Covid-19 pandemic, but think you can’t file bankruptcy because you’ve been in bankruptcy court before? We’ve got good news: you may be eligible to file again. It depends on when your last bankruptcy case was, and when you filed. If you filed Chapter 7… You can file for […] The post How Often Can You File Bankruptcy in Montgomery County, PA? appeared first on .

  In Bentley v. OneMain Fin. Grp. LLC, 2020 Bankr. LEXIS 1837, Case No 19-8026 (6th Cir. B.A.P., 8 July 2020) the BAP affirmed a bankruptcy court decision that had held OneMain Financial had not violated the discharge injunction.  The case involved a surrendered 2001 Dodge Dakota in a chapter 7 case filed in 2018.  The schedules showed an $8,000 lien on the vehicle which was valued at $150, and stated an intent to surrender the vehicle to the creditor.  Discharge was entered June 11, 2018 with no further action taken on the vehicle.   Debtor called the creditor after the discharge asking them to take the lien off the vehicle, noting that the vehicle was totaled.   The creditor suggested taking the vehicle to a scrap yard, at which point it would 'consider accepting that to release the lien.'  Several weeks later Debtor's father in law, who owned the property where the vehicle was stored, called the creditor along with the debtor and was told that the creditor would not repossess the vehicle because the value was too low, and indicated that they would have to make an offer to have the lien released, which would then have to be approved by the creditor's management.  The father in law offered to have the vehicle towed to the highway or one of creditor's locations, but OneMain's representative indicated that debtor would then be charged any fees associated with abandoning the vehicle.  OneMain again suggested getting an estimate for the value of the vehicle on a mechanic's letterhead saying what's wrong with the vehicle and what it would cost to repair, along with an offer to purchase the vehicle, and OneMain would consider whether to accept the offer. In November 2018 Debtor moved to reopen his case and pursue OneMain for an alleged violation of the discharge injunction.  Once the case was reopened, Debtor sought sanctions under 11 U.S.C. 524(a)(2) for collecting or attempting to collect a discharged debt by refusing to release it's lien on the vehicle until payment of the discharged debt.  10 days after the filing of the motion, OneMain released the lien.  The bankruptcy court ruled in favor of OneMain on summary judgment, citing Pratt v. GMAC (In re Pratt)1 for the proposition that the debtor must show that the creditor acted in such a way as to 'coerce' or 'harass' the debtor improperly.  Determining that unlike the creditor in Pratt, which requested payment in full of its claim to release the lien, the debtor here only requested a minimal consideration, and that the creditor here gave several options to obtain release of its in rem rights. The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel noted that while §524(a)(2) releases a debtor's personal liability on a debt, it does not affect a creditor's in rem rights in the collateral.  The panel agreed with the Pratt case that when a debtor indicates collateral is to be surrendered, the court must examine whether the creditor acted in a way to 'coerce' or 'harass' the debtor improperly.  The court went into an in depth analysis of Pratt, noting it stated five facts 'material' to the assessment of objective coercion.  1) the debtor's timely filed their notice of intent to surrender; 2) the debtor's made the vehicle available to the creditor to repossess; 3) the value and condition of the vehicle made it necessary to tow to a salvage dealer who would not accept it without a lien release; 4) the creditor determined it was not cost effective to repossess the vehicle; and 5) state law would not allow the vehicle to be junked without the release of the creditor's lien. The BAP found that the case before it had facts significantly different from Pratt, including that the vehicle had some value, and the creditor did not insist on payment in full of its debt to release the lien.  It also determined that even finding all five factual conditions to be met did not require an assessment of objective coercion, as the ruling in Pratt was primarily based on the creditor's insistence on being paid in full.  Nor did the panel find that conversations between the debtor and creditor for release of the lien are prohibited.  Such conversations are only prohibited where they are designed to 'collect, recover or offset the debt as a personal liability of the debtor.  Nor did the court find the procedures required by OneMain to be unduly burdensome, as the creditor never required Debtor to do anything other than direct the party wishing to take possession of the vehicle to contact the creditor.  The court noted a debtor's surrender of collateral does not divest a debtor of ownership and its obligations, nor require a creditor to take possession of it.  The case does not apply a bright line for debtors of what they need to do when they wish to surrender collateral a creditor does not want, and that a creditor refuses to release the lien on.  Perhaps the better solution for a debtor in this position would be to file a motion to redeem the collateral under 11 U.S.C. 722, and force release of the title in that manner for a recalcitrant creditor.Michael BarnettLaw Offices of Larry Heinkel, PA506 N Armenia Ave.Tampa, FL 33609-1703tel: 813 870-3100https://myfloridabankruptcylawyer.com1 462 F.3d 14, 19 (1st Cir. 2006).↩

The Second Circuit has sided with a blogger who was sued for defamation for his headline "TCPA Class Certification Denial Exposes Major Spousal Scheme."  Wexler v. Dorsey & Whitney, LLP, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 21474 (2nd Cir. 7/9/20). While the case does not fall within the usual fare for this blog, I am always happy to write about another blogger.The underlying case which led to the blog post was a putative class action in which the  husband-attorney proposed that his wife serve as class representative. Even though the husband agreed to withdraw from the case and forego any attorney's fees as class counsel, he still reserved the right to seek an award based on quantum meruit. The Court found that the husband's potential to seek quantum meruit fees disqualified the wife from serving as class counsel.Artin Betpera, an associate with Dorsey & Whitney, wrote a rather clever blog post about the case, the introduction to which said: There are plenty of things I'd like to do with my wife one day. Take a trip to Greece. Finally convince her to go camping with me (never going to happen). But filing a class action with her as a class representative is definitely not one of them.That's exactly what one husband-and-wife duo tried to pull in the Eastern District of New York. Senior Judge Frederic Block made quick work of the scheme.The attorney-husband did not find this amusing and filed suit for defamation. The firm and the blogger moved to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action. The plaintiff apparently failed to argue his claim that the post itself was defamatory, focusing instead on the headline. The U.S. Magistrate dismissed the case and the husband-attorney appealed.The Second Circuit explained that only assertions of fact as opposed to opinion could constitute libel.  Distinguishing between opinion and fact requires a consideration of the following factors: (1) whether the specific language in issue has a precise meaning which is readily understood; (2) whether the statements are capable of being proven true or false; and (3) whether either the full context of the communication in which the statement appears or the broader social context and surrounding circumstances are such as to signal readers or listeners that what is being read or heard is likely to be opinion, not factOpinion at *6-7. Based on this standard, the Second Circuit had no problem finding that the headline was a statement of opinion. We agree with the magistrate judge that the headline in this case constitutes opinion and is therefore not actionable. The tenor of the article reflects that it is meant to be not only informative but also amusing and entertaining, making hyperbole in the headline expected and reasonable. The article's placement on a law firm's blog also suggests that it is informed, at least in part, by the firm's and its author's opinions. The context of the statement therefore cuts against a determination that it is an assertion of fact meant to be taken literally. The language "exposes major spousal scheme" also does not have a readily understood precise meaning of the nefarious sort that is advanced by Wexler — it could just as easily mean exactly what happened here, that the TCPA decision brought to light an ethically questionable arrangement by a married couple (here, to represent both the attorney's and the class's fiscal interests in a class action). The use of "major" does not change this analysis, as that is a relative term, the applicability of which is a matter of opinion. An average reader would not understand the headline to be "an attempt to convey with technical precision literal facts about" Wexler. And because the statement does not have a readily understood precise meaning, it is not capable of being proved true or false.  Nor do we think that a reasonable reader would think that the headline was based on facts other than those disclosed in the article, which accurately describes the ruling of the court. The headline is therefore properly read as non-actionable opinion rather than fact, and Wexler's defamation claim fails.Opinion at *7-9 (cleaned up).The Court then invited Mr. Wexler to to show cause why sanctions should not be issued for filing a frivolous appeal.When I write about cases, it is common that one party wins and one party loses. The losing party may disagree with the opinion and on occasion, I have had persons tell me that the Court's fact finding was wrong or that their attorney was incompetent. I try to make it clear in my blogging that I am reporting on what a court found. I believe that I am free to report what a court finds, even if it is embarrassing or distasteful to one of the parties. This opinion takes that protection one step further. I often offer my opinion on what the implications of a case are.  However, this case shows that I can make my posts "not only informative but also amusing and entertaining."     

More owners are permanently shutting their doors after new lockdown orders, realizing that there may be no end in sight to the crisis.Gabriel Gordon shuttered his popular barbecue restaurant in California after the state saw a resurgence of coronavirus cases and imposed new restrictions.Credit...Horatio Baltz for The New York TimesBy Emily FlitterJuly 13, 2020On the last Friday of June, after Gov. Greg Abbott of Texas said that bars across the state would have to shut down a second time because coronavirus cases were skyrocketing, Mick Larkin decided he had had enough.No matter that Mr. Larkin, an owner of a karaoke club in Wichita Falls, Texas, had just paid $1,000 for perishable goods and protective equipment in anticipation of the weekend rush. No matter that the frozen margarita machine was full, that 175 plastic syringes with booze-infused Jell-O were in place, or that there were masks for staff members and hand sanitizer for guests.That day, June 26, Mr. Larkin and his partner dumped what they had just bought into the trash and decided to close their club, Krank It Karaoke, for good.“We did everything we were supposed to do,” Mr. Larkin said. “When he shut us down again, and after I put out all that money to meet their rules, I just said, ‘I can’t keep doing this.’”It was harrowing enough for small businesses — the bars, dental care practices, small law firms, day care centers and other storefronts that dot the streets and corners of every American town and city — to have to shut down after state officials imposed lockdowns in March to contain the pandemic.But the resurgence of the virus, especially in states such as Texas, Florida and California that had begun to reopen, has introduced a far darker reality for many small businesses: Their temporary closures might become permanent.Nearly 66,000 businesses have folded since March 1, according to data from Yelp, which provides a platform for local businesses to advertise their services and has been tracking announcements of closings posted on its site. From June 15 to June 29, the most recent period for which data is available, businesses were closing permanently at a higher rate than in the previous three months, Yelp found. During the same period, permanent closures increased by 3 percent overall, accounting for roughly 14 percent of total closures since March.Researchers at Harvard believe the rates of business closures are likely to be even higher. They estimated that nearly 110,000 small businesses across the country had decided to shut down permanently between early March and early May, based on data collected in weekly surveys by Alignable, a social media network for small-business owners.Christopher Stanton, an associate professor at Harvard Business School who was one of the researchers, said it was difficult to accurately gauge how many small businesses were closing because, once they shut their doors for good, the owners were hard to reach. He added that it could take up to a year before government officials knew the true toll the pandemic was taking on small businesses.At the moment, 39 states continue to record growing numbers of new cases daily.It is not clear how many of the businesses Yelp is tracking count as “small” — defined by the Small Business Administration as those with 500 or fewer employees. But the company found that, among the tracked businesses — which include restaurants, retailers and other independent, consumer-facing operations — retail businesses, led by beauty supply stores, have been closing at the highest rate since the pandemic began. Restaurants are the next hardest-hit group.ImageNick Muscari decided to permanently close Nick’s Sports Grill and Lounge in Lubbock after Texas’s second round of virus closures.Credit...Dylan Cole for The New York TimesSmall businesses account for 44 percent of all U.S. economic activity, according to the S.B.A., and closures on such an immense scale could devastate the country’s economic growth. If they were grouped together, small businesses would be among the country’s biggest employers, said Satyam Khanna, a resident fellow at the Institute for Corporate Governance and Finance at New York University School of Law who has written about the effects of the pandemic on small businesses.So when small businesses close en masse, an entire sector of the economy suffers, Mr. Khanna said. There is lower cash flow, higher debt and more unemployment. “That leads to a big drag on the eventual recovery,” he said. “Because they are such an important source of jobs, losing them the way we are losing them now is going to make things far worse than they otherwise need to be.”Because small businesses depend heavily on foot traffic and operate on thin margins, they are especially vulnerable to the ripple effects of a widespread shutdown.For nearly two decades, Rich Tokheim and his wife sold sports memorabilia — hats, T-shirts, coffee mugs and other trinkets — to fans in Omaha at their store, The Dugout. Since 2011, The Dugout has occupied prime real estate across the street from the city’s 24,000-seat baseball stadium, which usually hosts the College World Series each spring.The 2020 World Series was canceled in March. In the weeks that came after, other sporting events were scrapped — starting with college sports and extending to professional leagues that have struggled to relaunch their activities.Mr. Tokheim, 58, watched his business fall off with growing unease, but it was only after a friendly chat with a retired college athletic director in May that the gravity of his situation hit home. He was already worried about the state of the virus in Nebraska, and whether there was enough tracking. Then the athletic director predicted that if college football was canceled for the year, it would be the end of Division I sports as a whole.“That really put me in overdrive,” Mr. Tokheim said. He negotiated an early exit on his store lease and announced a clearance sale at the store. The Dugout closed for good on June 30.The government’s Paycheck Protection Program, rolled out in April and administered by the S.B.A., earmarked $660 billion of aid for small businesses, but stipulated that a loan would be forgiven only if most of it was used to pay employee wages for eight weeks. The rules were later relaxed, but in a sign of how many small-business owners did not feel confident that they would be on steady ground by the time repayment was due, roughly $130 billion of aid money remained untapped when the program ended in June.Even for those who took a P.P.P. loan, survival is no guarantee. Nick Muscari, a 38-year-old restaurateur in Lubbock, Texas, received one. His restaurant, Nick’s Sports Grill and Lounge, had been the culmination of Mr. Muscari’s life’s work — his years of toil as a waiter, pizza cook and manager at restaurants and bars beginning in his teenage years. Three years ago, he bought out the two partners who helped him start the restaurant in 2010. He considered it a crowning achievement, but to do so, he had to borrow money. He still owes a bank $80,000.ImageMr. Muscari still owes a bank $80,000 on his now-shuttered restaurant.Credit...Dylan Cole for The New York TimesImageNick’s Sports Grill and Lounge is now up for rent.Credit...Dylan Cole for The New York TimesImage“We never had anybody catch the virus in our establishment,” Mr. Muscari said.Credit...Dylan Cole for The New York TimesMr. Muscari tried to ride out the spring lockdown that temporarily shuttered his restaurant with the help of the P.P.P. money. But when the state’s second closure order took effect on June 26, he decided to close for good.“It had been in the back of our minds, just like, you know, if this happens again, can we make it?” Mr. Muscari said. “We were following all the rules and people were spread out. We never had anybody catch the virus in our establishment."Mr. Muscari, with the business closed and its 30 employees jobless, has nothing left but his house and his car. He also expects his landlord to try to sue him for the eight years’ worth of rent he is contracted to pay on his defunct restaurant’s space.Many small businesses are also finding it onerous keep up with constantly changing local guidelines, while others are deciding that no matter what their local officials say, it just is not safe to keep going. Gabriel Gordon, the owner of a tiny but popular barbecue restaurant in Seal Beach, Calif., decided to close permanently after studying the restaurant’s layout. He had determined that the kitchen would never be safe for multiple staff members to occupy at once while the virus was still active in the area.“It’s essentially two hallways that are 11 feet wide,” Mr. Gordon said, describing the shape of the restaurant, Beachwood BBQ. “There are food trucks that are larger than my kitchen.”Whatever the specific reasons may be for each closure, Justin Norman, Yelp’s vice president of data science, said that the federal government should offer small businesses more help. Mr. Norman said Yelp was concerned about the effects of small-business closures, especially those owned by people of color, on society. Yelp, however, also has a financial interest in maintaining a robust small-business environment, because it relies heavily on advertising by businesses on its platform.“The time is right now to inject more capital or we may lose them forever,” Mr. Norman said. “It’s going to make our economies worse, it’s going to make our communities worse.”

I have not been in a courtroom since the first part of March. Courts have adapted to life under Covid-19 with a combination of telephonic and video hearings. I have attended several CLE presentations on virtual court and have some observations of my own. Here are some tips.If you are not 15 minutes early, you are late. When working with technology, assume that you may have problems and dial in/log in early. Sometimes you may input the wrong access code and have to look it up. Other times the court's phone line may be overloaded and you may have to try multiple times. You may notice that the battery on your laptop is almost dead and to go searching for the cord. Judges hate it when you log into a hearing which is already in progress. I have heard one judge order a late participant to hang up. Make sure you know what technology the court is using. Prior to one hearing, I noticed a blurb about Webex video hearings on the court's website and decided to log in that way. What I didn't notice was that the court wasn't using Webex yet and I ended waiting for a connection that never came with the result that I violated Rule 1.Don't use a speakerphone. Speakerphones produce bad sound quality. However, you don't want to hold the phone to your ear the entire team so it is best to get some technology. I have tried both ear buds and a headset to connect to my cell phone by bluetooth. I found that the earbuds tend to fall out so I prefer the headset.Mute your phone when not speaking. The judge does not want to hear your dog barking or you asking for more coffee. State your name before speaking. Seriously, this was a rule for in person court but it is all the more important for virtual court. Wait your turn. Another thing judges hate is when people interrupt. It muddies the record and is rude. Typically, judges will tell you the order in which they will call on people. If the judge fails to call on you, then you should pipe up before he moves on but you should be very patient.Exhibits  are tricky. You still have to exchange exhibits in advance just like before. However, you can't hand them to the courtroom deputy or place a copy on the witness stand like we would do in IRL court. Make sure that everyone has a set of exhibit books in advance, including the court and the witness. Don't count on being able to pull up an exhibit on the screen. Different courts may have different capabilities. See Rule 2.When presenting direct testimony, it is good to prepare a written proffer, file it with the court and then send it to all the parties, including the court. This is probably a good time to point out that while the prohibition on ex parte contacts still applies, the courtroom deputy and law clerk are the gatekeepers for getting the judge what he needs. Know their email addresses.If you are appearing by video, dress like you are in court. Today will be only the second time since mid-March that I have worn a coat and tie. Hopefully I still remember how ties work.Finally, an anecdote. I recently participated in a day long hearing in Alaska on a claims objection. My client was a witness so I was just monitoring the hearing.The sponsoring attorney spent days working on her proffer because she was not a party and did not want to have words put in her mouth. The hearing got started late because someone was calling in from a location with bad cell service and the static overpowered the line. No one would fess up to creating the bad connection. We had to go through a series of having people hang up and dial back in until the connection was adequate.  When the time came for y client to be cross-examined, she had the exhibits on her laptop and could readily pull them up. She and I were in a conference room at my office. If I had wanted to mouth the answers to her or pass her notes, I could have. I did not for the reason that I believe in the rule that if you can get caught doing something wrong, you probably will. What are your stories from virtual court? I would love to hear them.

Commercial leases in New York City,COVID-19, Recent Protests and aStrategy to TerminateCommercial LeasesAs a result of COVID-19, recent protests and the advent oftechnologies such as Zoom and Google Meet, manytenants have excess office space/s that they cannot ordo not want to continue to rent and would like to endor terminate their lease or stop paying rent. At Shenwick & Associates, we have received many calls from clients with these issues and we have developed astrategy to address them. First, we review the company's financial informationincluding a recent balance sheet, income statement, the commercial lease and guaranty, if any. Second, we determine if the company is a candidate fora bankruptcy filing, either chapter 7 (a liquidation where thecompany closes as a result of the filing), a small businessSubchapter 5 bankruptcy filing, or a full-blown chapter 11business bankruptcy filing. In the case of a Chapter 7 filing, the lease will terminate;however, the Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee appointed tothe case will also liquidate or close the business. Forbusinesses that are losing money or do not see a brightfuture, this may be a good strategy. A company that wants to remain in business, but terminateor reject their lease, should consider a bankruptcy filingunder  new Subchapter 5, which is a fast-paced, lesscostly chapter 11 business bankruptcy filing. As part of aSubchapter 5 bankruptcy filing, the lease can be rejected,and the landlord would be paid their lease rejectiondamages and other monies owed over 5 years or less fromdisposable income of the business. If Subchapter V does not work due to the debt limit of$7,500,000 or for other reasons, a company can considera full-blown chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. However, theywould want to consider the cost from a chapter 11 filing,versus the expected savings from rejecting the lease.Chapter 11 is a complicated, risky and expensive processfor many companies. Another strategy that we have been using withmuch success is preparing a bankruptcy petition,without filing the petition (a so called Pro-FormaBankruptcy Petition).This bankruptcy petition would accurately disclose theassets, liabilities and earnings of the company. Then wewould forward that bankruptcy petition to the landlordor their counsel indicating that if the tenant and landlordcannot reach an agreement where the tenant is allowed toterminate their lease (pursuant to a Lease SurrenderAgreement), then the tenant or company will file forbankruptcy. The benefit of this strategy is that it is quick,relatively inexpensive, the landlord gets financial disclosureregarding the company or tenants finances upfrontwithout litigation or discovery and we convince the landlordthat releasing the tenant from their lease is a “win-win” forboth the tenant and the landlord. How is this strategy a win for the landlord? Thelandlord keeps the tenant’s security deposit, theLandlord will also  save substantial money onbankruptcy and landlord tenant legal fees, theyremove an unprofitable tenant from their building,and they obtain possession of the premises quickly allowingthem to re-let the space. One of the reasons that we have had much success with thisstrategy in these trying times is that we have been filing bankruptcy petitions  for individuals and businesses forover 20 years and the landlord or their counsel can Pacerour law firm’s bankruptcy filings, or visit ourwebsite and blog. Based upon our work and experience in this areaof the law,landlords realize that bankruptcy is a real optionfor the tenant not an idle threat.Clients or their advisors who would like todiscuss these strategies with Jim Shenwickor schedule a consultation can reach him at:phone: 212-541-6224or email: jshenwick@gmail.comWe look forward to hearing from you

If you are filing bankruptcy, Get Your Money Out of Wells Fargo. People filing bankruptcy get kicked when they are down, if they bank  at Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo sees your bankruptcy on your credit report and they freeze your checking and savings account.  At least they do if you have more than five thousand […] The post Get Your Money Out of Wells Fargo by Robert Weed appeared first on Northern VA Bankruptcy Lawyer Robert Weed.

July 5, 2020Yahoo NewsThe application deadline for the Paycheck Protection Program was extended on Saturday after President Donald Trump signed the extension bill that Congress passed into law.Potential applicants now have until August 8 to request federal relief funds under the program intended to help businesses affected by the coronavirus pandemic.Around $130 billion in funds were left over when the original deadline came on June 30, with some businesses not knowing they are eligible for the program.  Visit Business Insider's homepage for more stories.President Donald Trump on Saturday signed into law an amendment to the Paycheck Protection Program that gives businesses affected by the coronavirus pandemic more time to apply for federal funds.The law extends the deadline to apply for the federal government's loan-based relief program to August 8. The original deadline to apply for the loans was June 30, but Congress moved quickly to extend the deadline after around $130 billion was left over from the initial $660 billion pot, NPR reported.The Senate initially approved the extension on Tuesday with unanimous consent, and the House of Representatives followed suit the next day. Trump signed the bill on July 4, giving potential recipients just over a month to apply for the remaining funds.As of June 30, more than 4.8 million loans have been approved totaling $520 billion, with the average loan amount around $107,000, according to the Small Business Administration.Here's what potential applicants should know before applying.What are Paycheck Protection Program fundsPaycheck Program Funds are federally backed loans that businesses can apply for to help cover expenses and maintain worker levels. Though they start as loans, businesses that meet specific criteria from the SBA can apply to have their loans forgiven so that they don't need to be paid back.Part of the program is that no fees will be attached to the loans for small businesses, no collateral is required, and repayment starts after six months. Interest rates are also set at 1%, according to the SBA.Who can apply for Paycheck Protection Program FundsWhile the program is intended for small businesses, that title covers more than just family-owned hardware stores and ice cream shops. As Business Insider's Dominick Reuter reported, freelancers and self-employed workers including gig-workers can also apply for funds.Businesses with more than 500 employees can also access funds if they meet the SBA's size standards. Business owners who are unsure of whether their enterprise counts as a small business can use the SBA's size standards tool, located on its website.What July and August applicants need to knowLoan applicants completing the process after June 5 are subject to new loan maturity guidelines. The SBA said recipients who applied before June 5 will be subject to a two-year maturity timeline while those applying after June 5 will have a five-year maturity timeline.Loans are also processed through local banks and lenders to streamline the process as opposed to having the federal government do it. The SBA provides a list of which lenders can process applications for and issue PPP loans on its website.How to get loans forgiven by the federal governmentThe SBA's website says loan forgiveness will be based on "employee retention criteria" and only be given if the funds are spent on "eligible expenses." The Payroll Protection Flexibility Act recently amended the program's rules so that only 60% of funds received have to go to payroll expenses in order for loans to be forgiven, as Business Insider's Joseph Zeballos-Roig reported.Even if borrowers don't use 60% on payroll, they can still apply for partial forgiveness. Businesses seeking this option need to fill out a five-page form that can be found on the SBA's website to apply for forgiveness after reviewing the rules for forgiveness.

We may tell our children in years to come that there was a time, especially if it was during rush hour on a rainy day, when you couldn't get a cab in New York City for love or money.  These days, the streets are mostly empty. It's estimated that 90% of the taxi business has dried up.That's part of the reason why the city, with help from the National Guard, started a program that pays cab drivers to deliver food to low-income housebound residents.Mouhamadou Aliyu, a yellow cab driver of many years standing, gets up before dawn to participate. He knows there's a health risk: "But this is my home, and yellow is what I do," he explained. "Right now, there is a pandemic. Our people, they are suffering. The city call us.  We are answering the call."mouhamadou-aliyu-b-620.jpgYellow cab driver Mouhamadou Aliyu.  CBS NEWS Drivers earn $53 a route. Each route entails about six deliveries, and it means waiting in line for hours to get fully loaded; lugging boxes of food up into crowded apartment complexes; and then cleaning up for the next run."It's very hard. It's very tough. Very challenging," Aliyu said.Nine hours, most of it waiting; two delivery runs = $106 for a day's work. Not even close to the amount he needs to pay even a fraction of his monthly expenses. "But, we're still hopeful," Aliyu told "Sunday Morning" special contributor Ted Koppel. "We're New Yorkers. We don't give up!"As a young immigrant from West Africa back in 1994, Aliyu saw Manhattan through rose-colored glasses: "I came here with nothing, nothing at all. This was my dream. As a yellow cab driver, to hold a medallion is like being on top of my game. This is where I want to be. This is the American dream."In 2003, he became an American citizen. By 2004, Aliyu had learned that you don't get rich just driving a cab; to make money, he was told, you need to own the taxi – and to own it, you need a special license: a medallion.taxi-medallion-620.jpg CBS NEWS The city paid for ads promoting the deal as essentially risk-free; and it was New York City that has made literally billions of dollars selling these medallions at auction. When there are more buyers than medallions, the price goes up. That, in theory, is where even an immigrant cab driver could get rich: "So I said, 'Why not?' But, in order for me to place a bid to go for the medallion, I have to raise $20,000. But I have only $7,000. So, I apply for credit card. I get approved. I call them, I say, 'Can I use it for anything I want?' They say, 'Yes, it's your money. You can do whatever you want with it.'"Koppel said, "Then you had $13,000 that you had on your two credit cards. $20,000 cash down, on a $331,000 bid.""Yes, that would be a loan. And you have to pay for the car, gas, maintenance, all that. But still, life was good. Even I would say life was great."Within about a year Aliyu's medallion had appreciated more than $100,000, and remarkably, the value kept rising. "Lucky me, I was able to buy a house here in the Bronx, a three-family house," He said. "So, things was good. And then, moving forward, the medallion value was going up. In 2013 the city auctioned medallion at $1,350,000."Seven years ago – in theory, on paper – Aliyu was a millionaire.taxi-medallion-headlines-620.jpg CBS NEWS"The only reason that it was worth over a million dollars was that there was some other immigrant who could be taken advantage of to pay that amount," said New York Times reporter Brian Rosenthal. "And not really even pay that amount, but be trapped in a loan that would shackle them in debt for the rest of their lives."Rosenthal won a Pulitzer Prize for his series exposing the taxi medallion scam. As he explained in the Times' documentary series "The Weekly," those medallions were money-makers … just not for the drivers."There was the city which sold the medallions, the brokers who collected commissions, and the bankers who wrote the loans and sold some of them for profit," he said. "And what we found in our reporting was that the value of the medallion went from $200,000 to over a million dollars, when the revenue that it had to bring in did not change at all.n Eventually, you realize that this wasn't by accident. Many insiders knew that the whole thing was a house of cards."The loans were never stable," Rosenthal said, "they were never sustainable, and they were always going to be a burden that was unpayable after this bubble popped. And that's what happened."Last summer, the New York City Council held a hearing on what was called the owner-driver crisis.  Mouhamadou Aliyu was one of the witnesses:"Every single day, every single hour, I think about taking my own life," he told city officials. "I think about suicide. The only thing that stops me is my four kids. If I do so, what's going to happen to them? I'm supposed to be a millionaire today, and I'm proud of it. And you guys are trying to take that away from me. It's not acceptable. I'm calling on you: Please! Please! Have mercy on us. Help us."Koppel said of Aliyu's testimony, "He speaks rather plaintively of his status as a millionaire: I'm a millionaire. He's never gonna see that day again, is he?""No, he's not," Rosenthal said. "I mean, he deserves it. He works very hard. I've met hundreds of these cab drivers, and they all work extremely hard."Many of the drivers are convinced that ride-share companies – like Lyft and Uber – ruined their business. Even without them, though, said Rosenthal, the medallion bubble had to burst.Six months ago, said Aliyu, the medallion was worth less than $100,000. What he still owes on that medallion, however, is more than $600,000. The chances that he'll ever be able to pay that off? Slim and none.One slender ray of sunshine: New York State's Attorney General is preparing to sue the City of New York to the tune of more than $800 million for misleading medallion owners. It could take years, and even that sum wouldn't make the drivers whole again.And then, of course, there's the pandemic. Well over 50 cab drivers have died from the virus since March. Most drivers these days are staying home; the few available fares just aren't worth the health risk.Aliyu said, "There is no more sleep. There is no night. At night we chat on the WhatsApp group, we're so worried. If nothing is done, when this pandemic will be over, the yellow cab industry will be over, too, will be finished."