Death of Ted Kennedy

I have thought long and hard about whether, and how, I would comment on the death of Senator Ted Kennedy. There is no doubt he was an incredibly effective and powerful senator, and was integral in the passage of some incredibly important legislation. In addition, he was a man of who faced almost unfathomable tragedy, from the death of all three of his brothers, a plane crash, and bad health. Ultimately, however, he was a man who used his position of privilege and wealth to avoid responsibility for the death of another person. Like Robert Byrd's membership in the KKK, that incident is something that will, and in my opinion should, define his life.

However, there is no question that instead of dwelling on his life's limitations, he worked to overcome his past by doing great works for the public interest. His talent was the ability to craft and pass legislation with long lasting human benefits. Civil Rights was one of his focuses.

It was this arena in which his death has irony, poignancy, and in my position, is being under reported. President Barack Obama will be giving the eulogy at his funeral. The first major piece of legislation that Senator Kennedy pushed was the 1964 Civil Rights Act. A Bill that was intended, and did in fact, give African American's basic human rights in the United States. A bill that was in trouble at the time of the death of his brother, Jack Kennedy. Ted used the outpouring of grief to change the tenor in Congress, and push that bill through. 45 years later, the 45th President of the United States was sworn in; our first African American President. That was, and in an exclamation point on the success of that Bill.

Today, we face another civil rights issue, that being access to affordable health care. Without health care, noone is free from the fear of sickness without care. There was no more passionate Senator in favor of access to health care than Senator Kennedy. From Medicare to schip, Kennedy is was always pushing for increased access for all to health care.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if some senator and congressperson, from either party, took up the mantel of health care reform and used the death of Senator Kennedy to fulfill is mission and goal. In 45 years who will be giving his or her eulogy?

Are we really so miserable? | Salon Life

Salon.com, my favorite online magazine, asks the question of whether we are really so miserable.  After all, 1 of 10 American's is on anti-depressives.  Is this a new age of discontent, where we drift through life without meaning, wondering why we exist.  Blaming an obscure 1997 law which allowed drug companies to advertise, the article labels this companies as pushers with high priced marketing campaigns.  The article quotes a 1947 play, "the Age of Anxiety" and wonders whether we have simply replaced the bottle with what is in the bottles.  

There is some truth to this.  The marketing campaigns of drug companies have made consumers quite "knowledgeable."  As my friend, a urgent care physician notes, I don't diagnosis and prescribe any more, I give my patients what they "demand."  This is not a good trend in medicine with people self diagnosis and demanding, instead of seeking counsel and guidance from their physicians.   With drugs so readily available, it is possible, as Salon notes, our family doctor is replacing our friendly bartender. 

I look at our current situation as a bit different, however.  The current economic downturn should have brought our society together.  After all, in 1947 we had just clawed our way out of a recession and defeated Nazism.  We were probably due to a letdown.  In our current situation, by reverse analogy, we should be banning together, our minor mental concerns (and I am not making light of serious depression) pushed aside for the task of making ends meet in a very difficult economic society.

Quite the opposite, instead of pulling together, we are focusing on our differences.  We have seniors after all, who are already on national health care, protesting access of uninsured Americans who haven't reached the Golden Years.  At that same time, the 47 Million uninsured quietly suffer the lack of insurance without any visible anger; possibly aided by some form of anti-depressant.  Maybe if they felt a greater control over their lives, with guaranteed access to health care, and access to financial safety valves like bankruptcy, they would be off the drugs and out in force. 

 

Are we really so miserable? | Salon Life

Corporate vs Personal Bankruptcy Attitudes | Tamela Rich

Interesting blog post from Tamela Rich about the differing attitudes between personal and business bankruptcy.

Specifically, she wondered why there is such a stigma on individuals filing for personal bankruptcy as opposed to almost adoration for business that use bankruptcy as a financial tool.  This is an interesting and tough question, and deserves some analysis.

The reality is that there is a lot of mythology in business bankruptcy.  Most people really don't understand what is going on, and it seems quite above them.  That way, when it is used like a tool by the likes of Donald Trump, most people just shrug their shoulders, and strive to be that sophisticated.

In contrast, everyone can relate to someone filing personal bankruptcy.  Even people who make a good living often live hand to mouth at some point, and feel the financial cliff which is always lurking.  When someone choose to use bankruptcy to get out of a bad financial situation, they are demonized for not making good financial decisions. In my opinion, this relates to our culture of scarcity, which believes that what someone else is able to acquire is something that I can't have.  This "envy" is based on a belief that our society has limited resources.  If someone "else" files bankruptcy, it is affecting what "I" have.  In reality, the opposite is true, in that bankruptcy allows a crippled financial participant to get "back in the game."

To a lesser extent this is what is going on in the health care debate.  There is a belief that if everyone has access to health care, people with health care will someone loose what we have.

An efficient capitalist system does not require "losers" who are desolate, without food, clothing, health care, etc.  Quite the opposite, the healthier our population is, the more prepared we are as a society to compete globally.  We figured this out when the Russians launched Sputnik; and our current public education system is proof of what we can do.  To a lesser extent, personal bankruptcy is a necessary and important tool to assure that all members of our society can participate.  

Corporate vs Personal Bankruptcy Attitudes | Tamela Rich

My Article in Minnesota Bench & Bar on Counseling a Financially Distressed Business Client; Beyond the purely legal!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/18502559/Bench-Bar

Please read my new article in the Minnesota State Bar Association magazine Bench & Bar on counseling a financially distressed business client. Instead of dealing with the purely legal aspects of restructuring, it addresses the psychological, practical and spiritual issues that individuals in financial distress face.

I, along with my partner, Tom Wallrich, will be giving a seminar at the MNCLE Annual Closely Held Business Institute on August 20, 2009, called The Practical, Ethical and Psychological issues of representing a Business in Financial Distress. This seminar will be a panel discussion with Tom and I leading a licensed psychologist, a workout specialist, the former head of the Minnesota Lawyer's Board, and a brand expert through hypothetical situations.

See the brochure here.

http://www.minncle.org/materials/seminars/44210.pdf

Backstreet’s Back (In Court) - Bankruptcy Beat - WSJ

The Backstreet Boys launched my favorite, and yours, music revolution in the late 90's, the "boy band."  Now, the Backstreet Boys are trailblazing again, this time with regard to preference actions in Ponzi schemes. By way of background, Lou Pearlman, the manager of, among other groups as the BSB and N'Sync, was charged and convicted of criminal fraud in the form of a Ponzi scheme, and was sentenced to 25 years in jail.  An involuntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy ensued.

Now, the trustee in the bankruptcy case is pursuing fraudulent conveyance actions for all payments that were made to investors in Pearlman's ventures.  This is more than a novelty, as it could signal how other Ponzi schemes, such as Maddof and Petters, will be treated. It has been argued that as a Ponzi venture is by nature illegitimate, all payments to investors in those schemes are deemed in furtherance of the fraud.  This allows a trustee to pursue those payments as fraudulent conveyance, either under Bankruptcy Code Section 548 (with a two year look back), or under state court fraudulent conveyance statutes (most likely the adoption of the Uniform Fraudulent Conveyance Act), which can have a much longer look back (as much as 8 years). 

To make matters worse for the investors, these statutes do not necessarily require the showing of an action intent to defraud.  Instead, what is generally required is proof that the transfer was made without adequate consideration while the debtor was insolvent.  As the payments were not paid pursuant to a valid investment, it can be argued that no consideration was paid for the transfer--insolvency is easy.

If the Trustee is successfully in this case, expect this to embolden other trustee's across the country in similar schemes.  So it is possible that the BSB will be breaking hearts in both decades.

Backstreet’s Back (In Court) - Bankruptcy Beat - WSJ

SENATE DEMOCRATS LOOK TO REVIVE CRAMDOWN PROPOSAL

As the foreclosure rate continues to climb, Senate Democrats are taking a second look at a failed proposal to allow the modification of troubled borrowers' mortgages in chapter 13, Dow Jones Daily Bankruptcy Review reported today. At the hearing before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Administrative Oversight and the Courts today, Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.) called on the Senate to adopt the proposal he's been championing since 2007 that was defeated in the Spring of 2008 and then in the Senate earlier this year: allowing bankruptcy judges the power to cram down the mortgages of homeowners in chapter 13 bankruptcy. Subcommittee Chairman Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) warned that failing to allow cramdowns this time around would exacerbate the economic downturn. Yet opponents of cramdowns, including Ranking Member Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.), argued that allowing cramdowns would create troubling consequences both for lenders and for future borrowers. ABI Resident Scholar Prof. Adam Levitin of Georgetown University Law countered that lenders wouldn't punish borrowers with higher prices as long as cramdowns didn't cause them to lose more than they would in a foreclosure. However, this isn't possible, he said, because bankruptcy law requires that creditors recover at least the same amount of their claims in a bankruptcy as they would in a liquidation or foreclosure. Mark A. Calabria, director of financial regulation studies at the Cato Institute, said such efforts wrongly assume that the foreclosure crisis was caused by predatory lending practices that created so many subprime borrowers. Rather, he claims that the crisis was actually caused by the combination of falling home values and what he called "negative income shock," including job losses.

As all my loyal readers know, I am a big fan of mortgage cramdown legislation, as it allows owner occupied real estate to be maintained by the homeowner. While this creates a short term loss for the banks, it forces them to have their books reflect reality. Good Senator Durbin! Let's get this done.

Portions of this post were contributed by David Asmus, Esq. from the Hinshaw & Culbertson, St. Louis Office.

Cubs Bankruptcy illustrates efficacy of a 363 sale.

The Cubs prospective bankruptcy is a good illustration of how Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code can assist in complicated and multi-dimensional businesses.  The Cubs is a good business and makes money.  The ivy covered walls of Wrigley Field are a beautiful backdrop to a great baseball experience, and occasionally, I say occasionally, good baseball.  The bad news is that the Cubs are owned by the same company that owns the Chicago Tribune, which while a great paper, is not a profitable business.  To make matters worse, there are bank loans of the Tribune Company which  secures the Cubs.  So, how can you sell the Cubs without either paying off all the secured claims of the Tribune Company or getting the secured creditors consent?

Section 363. 

Section 363 allows a debtor to sell assets over existing liens if the Court approves the sale. 

Section 363 (f) provides that: The trustee may sell property under subsection (b) or (c) of this section free and clear of any interest in such property of an entity other than the estate, only if—

(1) applicable nonbankruptcy law permits sale of such property free and clear of such interest;

(2) such entity consents;

(3) such interest is a lien and the price at which such property is to be sold is greater than the aggregate value of all liens on such property;

(4) such interest is in bona fide dispute; or

(5) such entity could be compelled, in a legal or equitable proceeding, to accept a money satisfaction of such interest.

In the case of the Cubs, like most 363 sales, the sale would most likely be approved under section (5), which is really a "catch all."  Also, Court's find "bona fide" disputes often.  Regardless, the Tribune Company would be able to sell their most valuable asset.  In fact, the threat of bankruptcy, will most likely force the secured creditor to consent. 

So, have a valuable asset that you need to sell over excessive liens.  Can't get the secured lender to consent.  Use section 363 to leverage the secured lenders, or if they won't agree, file bankruptcy and sell the business in a bankruptcy court authorized sale.

And I didn't ever use any baseball metaphor.

Could Chapter 11 Help the Chicago Cubs Turn the Page? | Bleacher Report