Generally, if a debtor pays an unsecured creditor shortly (if not an insider, within 90 days) before a bankruptcy is filed, allowing the creditor to receive more than they would in the bankruptcy if no payment had been made, then the trustee can recover these funds.   Courts have created an equitable exception to the preference right where funds were provided to the debtor by a third party to pay a specific debt, concluding that such funds are not recoverable as a preference because the funds were never property of the debtor, thus the transfer does not disadvantage any creditor.  This doctrine was discussed regarding a motion for summary judgment in In re Barreto, 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 3504, Case #14-08712 (Bankr. D. Puerto Rico, 7 November 2018).   The debtor had paid $6,510 toward criminal restitution within 90 days of the filing of a chapter 7 bankruptcy.  The debtor asserted that the source of these funds was money lent to him from his sister, which loan was conditioned on the use of the funds to pay the criminal restitution.  The matter came up for summary judgement in the bankruptcy court, which the court denied finding there remained disputed issues of material fact.  However, the court went in some detail as to the requirements to satisfy the earmarking doctrine.  The trustee initially has the burden of proof to show by a preponderance of the evidence that all elements of 11 U.S.C. §547(b).  The statute provides that a trustee may avoid any transfer of an interest of the debtor in property-(1) to or for the benefit of a creditor; (2) for or on account of an antecedent debt owed by the debtor before such transfer was made;(3) made while the debtor was insolvent;(4) made-  (A) on or within 90 days before the date of the filing of the petition; or   (B) between ninety days and one year before the date of the filing of the petition, if such creditor at the time of such transfer was an insider; and(5) that enables such creditor to receive more than such creditor would receive if-  (A) the case were a case under chapter 7 of this [*9] title;  (B) the transfer had not been made; and   (C) such creditor received payment of such debt to the extent provided by the provisions of this title." 11 U.S.C. § 547(b).  If the trustee proves all these elements, then the defendant to whom the funds were paid can avoid paying the trustee if it can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the transfer satisfies one of the exceptions contained in 11 U.S.C. 547(c).  The fact that the payment was for nondischargeable restitution does not prevent recovery.    The critical issue is whether the transfer allowed the creditor to receive more than it would under a chapter 7 liquidation.  Per the earmarking doctrine, if the funds were never under the control of the debtor, then the payment is not a preference as the money was never subject to an equitable interest of the debtor, and cannot be considered property of the estate under §541.1  The focus of the earmarking doctrine is not on what the creditor received, but what the debtor's estate has lost.  If the debtor had no equitable interest in the property transferred, there can be no preference.  Where the debtor was found to have control and authority over the disposition of funds, resulting in a diminishing of the debtor's estate, the doctrine has been held not to apply.2   A hypothetical chapter 7 liquidation analysis must be filed as part of a motion for summary judgment.   As an judicially created equitable exception the application of the ear marking doctrine must be narrowly construed.  The court found that if the facts showed that the sister lent the funds exclusively for the specific purpose of paying the restitution, the earmarking doctrine may be applicable, even though the funds came from an insider as defined in §101(31)(A)(1). 1 In re EUA Power Corporation, 147 B.R. 635, 640 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1992). See: In re Loggins, 513 B.R. 682, 701 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 2014); Tabb, Law of Bankruptcy, Third Edition, 2013, § 6.11; 5 Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 2425547.03[2][a], Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer es., 16th ed. 2017).↩2 In re Bankvest Capital Corp., 374 B.R. 333, 344 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2007).↩Michael BarnettMichael Barnett, PA506 N Armenia Ave.Tampa, FL 33609-1703813 870-3100hillsboroughbankruptcy.com

What is a Bankruptcy Trustee? A Bankruptcy Trustee is an individual who is appointed by the United States Trustee’s Office, (a Division of the United States Department of Justice), to administer bankruptcy cases within a particular State and District. In Pennsylvania, there are 3 Bankruptcy Districts: Eastern, Middle and Western Districts. Chapter 13 Trustees are […] The post The Role of a Trustee in a Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Filing in Pennsylvania appeared first on .

The October 2018 New York City Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC) sales results have been released to the public. And as is our practice, provided below are Jim Shenwick’s comments about those sales results.1. The volume of transfers rose dramatically from September. In October, there were 106 unrestricted taxi medallion sales.2. However, 99 of the 106 sales were foreclosure sales, which means that the medallion owner defaulted on the bank loan and the banks were foreclosing to obtain possession of the medallion. We disregard these transfers in our analysis of the data, because we believe that they are outliers and not indicative of the true value of the medallion, which is a sale between a buyer and a seller under no pressure to sell (fair market value).  One transfer was an estate sale for no consideration and another transfer was from an individual to an LLC for no consideration, which also does not reflect fair market value and which we have also excluded from our analysis.3. The large volume of foreclosure sales (approximately 94%) is in our opinion evidence of the continued weakness in the taxi medallion market. 4. The five regular sales for consideration ranged from a low of $150,000 (one medallion), $160,000 (three medallions) and a high of $175,000 (one medallion).5.  Accordingly, the median value of a medallion in October was $160,000, down 8.5% from $175,000 in September.In Jim Shenwick’s opinion, the new NYC law restricting the number of Uber, Via and Lyft licensesdoes not seem to have yet increased the value of taxi medallions.Please continue to read our blog to see what happens to medallion pricing in the future. Any individuals or businesses with questions about taxi medallion valuations or workouts should contact Jim Shenwick at (212) 541-6224 or via email at jshenwick@gmail.com.

Economists have always been fond of Uber. Its willingness to battle incumbents, use of technology to match buyers and sellers, and embrace of “surge” pricing to balance supply and demand make the ride-hailing giant a dismal scientist’s dream. Steven Levitt, the author of the bestselling “Freakonomics”, called it “the embodiment of what the economists would like the economy to look like”. But if economists subjected Uber and its competitors to a cost-benefit analysis, they might not be so impressed.This might surprise customers. A study in 2016 by researchers from Oxford University, the University of Chicago and Uber itself found sizeable benefits from ride-hailing services for consumers. Using data from 48m Uber trips taken in four American cities in 2015, they estimated the difference between how much customers were willing to pay and their actual fare. Each $1 spent on UberX rides generated a “consumer surplus” of $1.60. Across America, that surplus was estimated to be $6.8bn a year.Drivers also benefit. Few sign up for lack of anything else, as is true of some gig work: in America roughly eight in ten have left another job to get behind the wheel. The typical American Uber driver makes $16 per hour ($10 after expenses), higher than the federal minimum wage. In London earnings after expenses come to £11 ($14) per hour and a recent survey found Uber drivers reporting higher levels of life satisfaction on average than other workers.But against these benefits, there are costs to weigh. Far from reducing congestion by encouraging people to give up their cars, as many had hoped, ride-hailing seems to increase it. Bruce Schaller, a transport consultant, estimates that over half of all Uber and Lyft trips in big American cities would otherwise have been made on foot or by bike, bus, subway or train. He reckons that ride-hailing services add 2.8 vehicle miles of driving in those cities for every mile they subtract.A new working paper by John Barrios of the University of Chicago and Yael Hochberg and Hanyi Yi of Rice University spells out one deadly consequence of this increase in traffic. Using data from the federal transport department, they find that the introduction of ride-sharing to a city is associated with an increase in vehicle-miles travelled, petrol consumption and car registrations—and a 3.5% jump in fatal car accidents. At a national level, this translates into 987 extra deaths a year.What could be done to tip the balance back to benefits overall? “Congestion pricing is the most direct solution,” says Jonathan Hall of the University of Toronto. Several cities, including London, Stockholm and Singapore, have moved in this direction, charging drivers for entering busy areas at peak hours. If ride-hailing firms tweaked their pricing to encourage carpooling, that would help, too.One of the worst things a city can do, says Mr Barrios, is to cap the number of ride-hailing cars on their streets, as New York did in August. That marked a step back towards the days when barriers to entering the taxi market were high and competition was low. A dismal outcome, as most right-thinking economists would agree.Copyright © The Economist Newspaper Limited 2018. All rights reserved.

By Ashley CullinsWesley Snipes must pay millions to the IRS after failing to convince a tax court that he doesn't have the assets to pay more than six figures.After the IRS tried to collect $23.5 million in back taxes, the actor asked for an offer-in-compromise which would let him settle his debt for less than the amount owed and for the notice of federal tax lien that was filed against his home to be withdrawn. He put up just shy of $850,000 in cash as an OIC, but the IRS rejected the offer and sustained its lien. So Snipes filed a petition asking the tax court to overturn the decision.U.S. Tax Court Judge Kathleen Kerrigan on Thursday upheld the IRS decision finding Snipes failed to provide sufficient proof of his assets and financial condition and the settlement officer didn't abuse her discretion in rejecting his request.The lien was placed in August 2013, just a few months after the actor was released from prison following his conviction on related tax crimes. At the time, he owed $23.5 million for the years 2001 through 2006. Snipes then requested an installment agreement or OIC and made his cash payment. A settlement officer looked into his real estate holdings and assets but was unable to determine that he no longer owned certain properties that he claimed to have unloaded. Following the investigation, the officer determined that the reasonable amount that could be collected was about $17.5 million, but Snipes didn't increase his OIC offer.During the proceedings that followed, Snipes claimed his financial adviser had taken out loans and disposed of assets without his knowledge and offered up an affidavit from the adviser admitting to misconduct — but he didn't provide documentation showing the diversion of the assets.The settlement officer later reduced Snipes' estimated liability to $9.5 million, but Snipes stayed with his original offer."Given the disparity between petitioner’s $842,061 OIC and the settlement officer’s calculation of $9,581,027 as his RCP, as well as petitioner’s inability to credibly document his assets, the settlement officer and her manager had ample justification to reject the offer," writes Kerrigan in the opinion, also noting that Snipes failed to show paying the bill would result in economic hardship. "Accordingly, we conclude that the settlement officer did not abuse her discretion in determining that acceptance of petitioner’s OIC was not in the best interest of the United States."© 2018 The Hollywood Reporter.  All rights reserved.

When filing for bankruptcy, one of the central themes behind the Bankruptcy laws is to provide people with a fresh financial start. Central to that idea is that they need not be destitute when filing. Thus, the Federal Bankruptcy Exemptions were created by Congress to allow bankruptcy filers to retain a certain amount of personal […] The post What are Bankruptcy Exceptions and Can They Be Amended in Pennsylvania or NJ? appeared first on .

  Too often counsel do not fully disclose fees and limits of representation in the fee disclosure required by Rule 2016(b).  A court in New Jersey examined this issue in In re Busillo, 2018 Bankr. LEXIS 3352, Case #15-15627 (Bankr. D.N.J. Oct 29 2018).   The court examined three cases by the same firm, in which the firm filed 2016(b) statements asserting $3,500 received prior to the filing of the statements, with a balance due of $0, and that:In return of the above disclosed fee, I have agreed to render legal services for all aspects of the bankruptcy case, including:a. Analysis of the debtor's financial situation, and rendering advice to the debtor in determining whether to file a petition in bankruptcy;b. Preparation and filing of any petition, schedules, statement of affairs and plan which may be required;c. Representation of the debtor at the meeting of creditors and confirmation hearing, and any adjourned hearings thereof;d. Representation of the debtor in adversary proceedings and other contested matters;e. [Other provisions as needed].The section entitled services excluded from the fee was left blank.   When the firm filed fee applications asserting that the $3,500 was simply a retainer, and sought an additional $3,500 fee award (along with amended 2016(b) statements in 2 of the 3 cases) the court expressed concern over 1) whether the 2016(b) statement or the engagement letter controls; 2) whether the clients were notified of an increase in hourly rates, and if such increases were agreed upon; 3) whether the court can award fees for pre-petition representation, and 4) any other issues that may arise.  The court noted a 2009 decision holding that where counsel filed a 2016(b) disclosure that conflicted with his retainer agreement, counsel was bound by the 2016(b) statement.1  Counsel also noted that additional funds received post-petition had been applied to each Debtor's account, even though the Court had not approved the fee applications.    The court found that it had an independent duty to review fee applications, even if no objection is filed, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 329.  This section requires any attorney representing a debtor to file a statement of compensation paid within a year of filing or agreed to be paid in contemplation of or in connection with a case by such attorney, and the source of such payment.  This statute is implemented by Rule 2016(b) and mandates the filing of such statement, even if counsel does not request fees through the case.  The court found that counsel cannot withdraw against a retainer while representing a debtor in bankruptcy, prior to approval of such fees.2   Such conduct also may be considered a violation of the rules of professional conduct.  See RPC 1.15(a)  ("A lawyer shall hold property of clients or third persons that is in a lawyer's possession in connection with a representation separate from the lawyer's own property.").   The court rejected counsel's argument that the schedules and plan showed that the firm sought to be paid on an hourly basis, stating it is not the court's duty to sift through other pleadings to determine the fee sought by the law firm.  Based on the firm's failure to comply with Rule 2016(b) the court found it could cap the fees at $3,500 or require the firm to disgorge fees.    However, lacking objection by any party in interest, the court exercised its discretion to allow the firm to receive the no-look fee plus supplemental fees in each case.  The court found the Busillo case to be typical.  Counsel had sought fees of $4,697.50 and $1,180.81 in costs.  The firm assisted in confirming a plan and a modified plan.  The court allowed the no look fee plus $400 supplemental fees for preparing and filing a modified plan ($300) and amended schedules ($100).  No hourly fee award was allowed as there was no showing why the work provided was more difficult or required more time than what is provided in the supplemental fee form.  The court found that the requirement to file a 2016(b) disclosure did not apply in the Crane case, as the retainer was received more than one year before the petition date.  But, since the firm in fact filed a 2016(b) statement, it had a duty to accurately state the terms of its retention.   This case involved an attempt to cram down a mortgage claim under §1322(b)(2) arguing that the mortgage was secured by two adjoining lots, when the home was situated on only one lot.  This involved litigation ultimately resulting in a settlement.  The court allowed reduced fees for a total of $14,347.50 fees and $960.95 in expenses.  In the third case, Reed, the court again allowed the no look fee lus supplemental fees of $3,305 for filing amended plans, attending additional confirmation hearings, filing motions to expunge claims, and amending schedules, as well as an hourly rate for negotiating a loan modification.1  In re Jackson, 401 B.R. 333 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2009)↩2 In re Chapel Gate Apts., Ltd., 64 B.R. 569, 575 (Banks. N.D. Tex. 1986)↩Michael BarnettMichael Barnett, PA506 N Armenia Ave.Tampa, FL 33609-1703www.hillsboroughbankruptcy.com

Did you know that if you’ve been charged with a crime, you can be found NOT GUILTY by using the defense of self-defense? In Pennsylvania, self-defense acts as an affirmative defense; this means, that you had the right to defend yourself under the law and, so, you cannot be held criminally responsible for your actions.  […] The post How Can You be Found Not Guilty by Self Defense in Pennsylvania? appeared first on .

Bankruptcy is a very effective means of stopping and ultimately addressing the underlying debt leading to a wage garnishment. The automatic stay that exists when a bankruptcy is filed is equivalent to a very powerful court order that stops the majority of collection activities including wage garnishments, bank levies and sheriff’s sales – just to […] The post Can Bankruptcy Stop a Wage Garnishment in Pennsylvania or New Jersey? appeared first on .

The final day of this year's NCBJ only included two panels so I don't need an introduction.Twelve Years of Turbulence:  Keynote by Gary Kennedy and Terry Maxon Former American Airlines General Counsel Gary Kennedy and his co-author Terry Maxon gave the keynone address on the final day of the conference.   They have authored a book entitled Twelve Years of Turbulence which discusses Mr. Kennedy's time as GC, including the bankruptcy of American Airlines.   You can find the book here.  You can also watch a promo video for the book which they played during the talk here.   It is worth 90 seconds of your time to watch.Gary Kennedy described his position as General Counsel to American Airlines during its bankruptcy as having the dual role of being the lawyer to the board of directors and the client to the outside counsel.    He began his career at a firm that did chapter 11 work, experience that would prove a benefit many years later.  He spent thirty years at American Airlines, including a stint as General Counsel.   As GC, he fulfilled many roles.  Once a lawyer called him to say that American had lost the luggage with his fiancee's wedding dress and that the wedding was in two days.  Although GC's typically do not track down lost luggage, he put the word out and the dress was located the day before the wedding.   His advice was to never check money, medications or a wedding dress.American's turbulence began before Kennedy became general counsel.  On September 11, 2001, a flight attendant named Betty Ong called the reservations number to say that her flight had been taken over by three men who had killed a passenger and stabbed a flight attendant.  The call was routed to the operations center and she remained on the phone with American until her plane hit the World Trade Center.  Hour later, another American flight crashed into the Pentagon.   On the morning of the terrorist attacks of 9/11. the entire air transportation system closed.  When it re-opened people were leery of flying.   To make matters worse, another American flight crashed two months later, killing all on board.This left the airline in an extremely fragile condition.  The company was losing billions of dollars.  No revenue was coming in to a business that had heavy fixed costs.   By 2003, American was insolvent and had no room to maneuver.  It was at this time that the company's CEO, Don Carty, asked Gary Kennedy to take the position of General Counsel.  At this point he had been out of the legal department for ten years and was running one of the business units.  However, he had begged for the General Counsel's job and was not in a position to turn it down.CEO Carty told him, "As GC, you will have to tell me things that I don't want to hear and stand up to me when I do things I shouldn't do."   Mr. Kennedy said that "In short time his words came back to haunt me."In 2003, Gary Kennedy was told that his first job was to put the company into bankruptcy.  The company announced that it was going to file bankruptcy on April 15, 2003 unless it could re-negotiate its contracts with its three employee unions to give the company two billion dollars a year in concessions.   On April 14, 2003, after working round the clock for weeks the bankruptcy was ready to file.  Boxes of paper filings were lined up on dollies and a fleet of cars was ready to take the documents to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of New York.   Two of the three unions approved the deal but the flight attendants said no.  They delayed the filing to allow the flight attendants to re-vote.  They approved the concessions on the re-vote and bankruptcy was avoided.Then things got ugly.  In its Form 10-K filing, which was due the next day, the company would disclose that it had agreed to buy millions of dollars in retention bonuses in connection with the bankruptcy filing.   Within sixty minutes of the securities filing, the employees felt deceived and were "as angry a group as you could imagine."   Co-author Terry Maxon (of the Dallas Morning News) explained that announcement of the retention bonuses put the company in immediate jeopardy of filing bankruptcy.  "There is no incentive program for management that the employees like.  When you are giving big concessions, it's even worse.  They are getting theirs.  We are not getting ours.  It set up a situation that American Airlines would have to file for bankruptcy unless they did something extraordinary."CEO Don Carty called up Kennedy and told him to rescind the bonuses.   He agreed.  When he told his wife what had happened, she said "That was an expensive phone call.  If he calls again, don't answer."   However, the unions still wanted blood.  Kennedy told his CEO that he needed to go to the board and tell them of the possibility that the CEO should resign.  As General Counsel, his job was to be loyal to the company and not to the individual who had hired him.   Carty resigned.The company began to pull away from the cliff when the Great Recession of 2008 hit and oil went to $150 a barrel.   Kennedy remembered a manta that had been taught during his brief tenure as a bankruptcy lawyer--"thou shalt not wait too long to file bankruptcy."  However, the new CEO was almost religiously opposed to chapter 11.   The company began leveraging every asset it could find to raise a pool of cash to get through the recession.   Company Treasurer Beth Goulet said that the company was pulling all of the cookies out of the cookie jar and and borrowing against them until they could get their costs under control.   She said they tapped five or six financial markets in one day.  They were borrowing huge sums of money but couldn't continue to support a business that was generating such heavy losses.By November 2001, the other airlines that had previously filed for bankruptcy had all received concessions from their employees.  Because American had not filed bankruptcy, they were at the top of the heap in terms of costs.  The Board instructed Kennedy to be ready to file in three weeks.  This time the company did not publicly announce that it was filing.  They worked feverishly to prepare a massive bankruptcy and keep it quiet.  No one knew about the proceeding except for one pesky reporter who seemed to want to blow a hole in the plan.   Terry Maxon explained that on November 28, 2011, he checked his iPhone and saw an email from a friend who worked at the airport asking him if he knew that American was going to make a big announcement the next day.   He began calling all around Dallas.  At 8:15 p.m., he called the CEO's office.  He said that if someone answered the phone in the CEO's office at 8:15 on a Monday night, something big must be up.   Half an hour later, the head of corporate communications called back and asked him what he was going to run.  He told him that he was going to say that the company was going to make a big announcement amid rumors of bankruptcy.  The communications head confirmed that the company would be filing bankruptcy but asked him to hold the story until 6:00 a.m., which he did.  When the company did file the next day, the Dallas Morning News got the scoop.He decided to ask one more question about the CEO who so adamantly opposed bankruptcy and was told that he had suddenly decided to retire.Before the company could file, it had to decide where to file.  The two logical choices were either the Northern District of Texas where the company was located or the Southern District of New York.   Kennedy felt strongly about filing in the DFW area.  "Being a hometown airline, not only would we have a vested interest in the outcome but so would the people administering the case."  He said he felt that they should be in their hometown.  However, outside counsel insisted that the level of sophistication of the judges in New York was such that they had to file in New York.  The company ultimately filed in New York.  "I will say as a postscript that if I had the opportunity to do it again, I would have filed in Dallas Fort Worth.  Part of the difficulty for me was that club atmosphere of the lawyers and financial advisors based in New York.  I felt like an outsider looking in."  Once the company filed, nothing went as planned.   Where they thought the U.S. Trustee would appoint one union to the creditors' committee, it appointed all three of them.   They were assigned a brand new, untested judge.  When the CEO unloaded on him, he explained that he could not control these factors but acknowledged his responsibility to move the case along.Meanwhile U.S. Airways decided that it wanted to merge with American.   When American was not receptive to the proposal, the employees who distrusted management teamed up with U.S. Airways and agreed to new conditional agreements.  At that point, he said he had to look at his fiduciary duty to do what was in the best interest of the creditors and others.The negotiations were made more difficult by the differing corporate cultures.  Kennedy described American as being a a conservative Brooks Brothers never have a day of fun in their lives company, while U.S. Airways never had a day when they weren't having fun.  One day after a hard day of negotiations, Kennedy heard someone calling his name.  It was the president of U.S. Airways inviting him to join them for drinks and dinner.  Kennedy asked, "Who's buying?  We're in bankruptcy."  He said they had a raucous good time but he felt guilty about having a good time with the enemy.They ultimately reached a deal but had to get the government to agree to the deal.  It was clear that the Department of Justice was opposed to the deal. The government agreed to give an answer by August 2013.  One day Kennedy was walking the stairs when he stopped to check his phone.  He received a message, "They are going to file."   The Department of Justice sued to block the merger.  Kennedy knew that he had to tell the CEO the bad news and tried to find someone to go with him.  He wasn't able to persuade anyone, including the janitor to join him.The government took the position that all of the woes of the airline industry stemmed from mergers.  American tried to persuade the regulators and proposed changes to meet the government's concern.  He received a reply from an Assistant U.S. Attorney that was laced with profanity including some curse words he didn't know the meaning of.   However, they were finally able to reach an agreement.Approval of the merger allowed American to exit bankruptcy.  He said, "The story closes on this note.  We were able to close the transaction in bankruptcy."  Between the value of the merger and the value obtained in bankruptcy, the company was able to pay its creditors in full, the employees received raises and few lost their jobs and even shareholders received some value.  Having guided the company in and out of bankruptcy, Kennedy retired and decided to write a book.  American has turned out to be quite successful following its bankruptcy. For me, having listened to this story, there are three takeaways.  Bankruptcy is a powerful tool.   Bankruptcy can be unpredictable and scary.  You should trust your gut when it comes to choosing venue in your home town.  Don't Judge . . . Until You've Walked a Mile in a Judge's Boots This was a workshop where a judge who had decided a case would introduce the facts and issues and then invite people at each table to discuss how the court should rule.   Each table had at least one judge.  My table had four judges, one professor and one other practitioner besides myself.The first problem had to do with post-confirmation jurisdiction.   Prior to bankruptcy, one brother offered to purchase the other brother's property.   After he failed to close, he sued his brother and filed filed a lis pendens.   The debtor who owned the property filed bankruptcy.   The state court suit was dismissed but the lis pendens was not released.   After litigation in bankruptcy, the court ruled that the brother who had filed suit in state court (the non-debtor brother) was entitled to nothing and awarded damages against him.   The debtor brother confirmed a plan which said that he reserved the right to challenge the lis pendens.   Eight months after confirmation, the reorganized debtor realizes that the lis pendens is still in place and runs to bankruptcy court to have it removed.  The non-debtor brother objects saying that the bankruptcy court lacks jurisdiction.   What should happen?I was part of a minority who thought the bankruptcy court did not have jurisdiction because the dispute did not involve enforcement of an express plan provision, although in the real world I would have argued for bankruptcy jurisdiction because I like litigating in bankruptcy court.   Other more creative thinkers argued that the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction because 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1141(c) vested the property in the debtor free and clear of all claims and interests.  They argued that the lis pendens was a claim against the property that would have been wiped out by the plan.  However, the most creative thinkers (who included a Texas Bankruptcy Judge sitting at my table) thought that the debtor could file a motion to enforce the judgment in the adversary proceeding, a maneuver that would not require re-opening the bankruptcy case).   The lis pendens that was filed in state court gave notice of the non-debtor brother's claim to the property.   The adversary proceeding denied that claim.   Therefore, the adversary proceeding judgment could be enforced to expunge the lis pendens.The actual judge who handled the case, Judge Charles Walker of the Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, said that he found jurisdiction based on enforcing the plan.  He added that the brothers were still fighting and that the appeal of the adversary proceeding judgment was pending before the Sixth Circuit.  The second problem involved a scenario that was discussed in several panels during the conference.  For a number of years, parents had paid for the college education of their three children, two of whom were in graduate school and one who was an undergraduate.  After losing all of their money to a Ponzi Scheme in 2018, the parents file bankruptcy.   The Trustee sues the universities to recover the funds as a fraudulent transfer.    Once again, I started out in the minority saying that if the parents did not have a legal obligation to pay the tuition, they did not receive reasonably equivalent value.   However, the majority stretched to find a benefit that the parents received from educating their children.  Some participants focused on the societal benefit to having an educated workforce.   Some focused on the obligation of parents to support the family even when the children are grown.  Still others found value in the possibility that the children would be able to support their parents in their old age.  At this point in time, there are cases going both ways and no circuit court decisions.  As a result, this is an area where the court is free to vote its conscience.     The judge who handled the case was Michele J. Kim from the Southern District of Georgia.  She ruled that the trustee could not recover the college tuition.  She added that as an immigrant to this country, there was no question of whether she would go to college and no doubt that the parents would pay for it.Final ThoughtsI love the city of San Antonio.  It is a city celebrating its Tricentennial with a wealth of history and culture.  The first NCBJ I ever attended was in San Antonio in 2005.   As we say farewell to this year's conference, I will leave you with a duck on the Riverwalk and some of the local-flavored music that greeted attendees. I look forward to next year's conference in Washington, D.C.