Originally posted by Redsox
View Post
On the other hand, since your initial post, two 9th Circuit appellate level cases have come out and (limiting the holding in Lanning to the facts of that case) both allude to the need to use form 22C in calculating what unsecured creditors must get regardless of a debtor's ability to pay. Of course, the requirement to devote DMI only arises if a creditor or the Trustee objects. I suspect the other 2 Trustees will continue to be realistic as neither wants to be out of a job (too many failed cases means no $$ to run their offices) but I also suspect creditors will, once again, start objecting to Plans that do not pay unsecured creditors what form 22C says they are entitled to receive. Only time will tell.
Des.
Comment