Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Plan Form Feedback Sought

02 Jan Chapter 13 Bankruptcy Plan Form Feedback Sought

Feedback is being sought on a suggested mandatory national form for chapter 13 bankruptcy plans. The Advisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules has created a working group to study the proposal and is holding a conference on January 18, 2013, to discusscurrent drafts of a plan form and bankruptcy rule amendments to implement the form.

  • January 18, 2013,8:30 a.m. to 3 p.m.
  • Courtroom 2525 on the 25th floor
  • Everett M. Dirksen U.S. Courthouse
  • 219 S.Dearborn St., Chicago, IL

Seventeen representativesof several groups affected by the plan form and rule amendments: servicers, debtors, trustees, judges, and clerks, have been invited to join the rules committee and participate in the conference. The meeting is open to public observers.


Judge Wedoff

The goal is to finalize a proposal for consideration by the Rules Committee at its April 2-3, 2013, meeting, according to Committee ChairmanEugene R. Wedoff, Bankruptcy Judge for theNorthern District of Illinoisand chair of theAdvisory Committee on Bankruptcy Rules. The proposed form and rules changes also would have to be approved by theCommittee on Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Judicial Conference, the Supreme Court, and then Congress. The plan and rules would be published for six months public comment in August 2013 and go into effect December 1, 2014, if approved at each stage of the rules making process.

Form Plan Working Group: Hon. Eugene R. Wedoff,John Rao,Prof. Troy McKenzie,Prof. Elizabeth Gibson,Hon. Elizabeth Perris,Hon. Arthur Harris,Hon. Judith WizmerandRicardo Kilpatrick.

Send your comments, accolades or criticisms, and suggestions tothe Form Plan Working Group by email toProf. Troy McKenzieand/orJudge Eugene Wedoff.

January 18 Agenda

8:30 ‐ 8:45 Welcome and Introductions

8:45 – 10:30 Panel 1. The Draft Form Plan
Panelists: Glenn Stearns, Judge Rebecca B. Connelly, William E. Brewer, Jr., Mary Beth Ausbrooks, Kathy Huffman, Lawrence Friedman.Committee Liaison: John Rao.

ï‚· Is the plan organized in a logical manner?

ï‚· Is the length of the plan a concern?

ï‚· Does the plan omit provisions that are necessary or frequently used?

ï‚· Does the plan include provisions that are unnecessary or infrequently used?

ï‚· Does the plan give sufficient guidance as to its operation after confirmation?

ï‚· Does the plan appropriately emphasize areas that present key issues in the chapter 13process?

 Will the plan work in both mortgage conduit and non‐conduit jurisdictions?

ï‚· Should the plan specify a different treatment of home mortgages and other secured claims if relief from the automatic stay is granted?

 Does the plan appropriately treat the inclusion of non‐standard provisions?

 Is it advisable to propose a form dealing with pre‐confirmation adequate protectionpayments? Is the proposed form suitable for this purpose?

10:45 – 12:00 Panel 2. Draft Rule Amendments I
Panelists: Debra Miller, Judge Deborah J. Saltzman, Tara Twomey, Alane Beckett, Ramona Elliott.Committee Liaison: Judge Arthur Harris.

ï‚· Draft Rule 3002(a) requires a secured creditor to file a proof of claim in order to have anallowed secured claim. Does this amendment present particular concerns?

 Draft Rule 3002(c) changes the deadline for filing proofs of claim in chapter 13 cases to 60 days after the petition date so that proofs of claim are filed before the confirmation hearing date established by Code § 1324(b). Is this amendment an improvement over the current rule?

 Several interrelated rule amendments would provide that the validity, amount, andtreatment of a claim under the plan will control over a proof of claim. Draft Rule 3012,together with draft Rule 3015(g), provide that the plan may make a binding determinationof the amount of an allowed secured claim, as well as the amount of a claim entitled topriority treatment, subject to ultimate resolution at the confirmation hearing. Draft Rule3007, in turn, provides an exception to the need to file a claim objection if claim allowanceis resolved under Rule 3012. Similarly, draft Rule 4003(d) makes clear that a plan mayprovide for avoidance of liens under Code § 522(f). And draft Rule 7001 makes clear thatan adversary proceeding is not necessary to determine the validity, priority, or extent of alien resolved through a plan. Do these amendments present particular concerns?

ï‚· If any proposed amendment raises particular concerns, what alternative would yousuggest, and how would the suggested alternative impact the draft plan?

12:45‐ 2:00 Panel 3. Draft Rule Amendments II
Panelists: Kevin Anderson, Judge William Brown, John Colwell, Andrew Altenburg, Michael Bates.Committee Liaison: Judge Elizabeth Perris.

ï‚· Draft Rule 3015(c) requires the use of the official form plan in all chapter 13 cases. DraftRule 9009 limits modification of official forms so designated, including the form chapter 13plan. Are these amendments advisable?

ï‚· Draft Rule 5009 provides that a debtor may obtain an order declaring that a lien has beensatisfied, and that the order will be effective as a release of the lien. This provision isintended to facilitate documentation for title purposes. Does this amendment presentconcerns with respect to the timing of the order? Are there other concerns raised by thisamendment?

 Several draft rule amendments concern service and notice in chapter 13 cases. Draft Rule3015(d) is intended to ensure that creditors receive a copy of the plan before confirmation.Draft Rule 3015(f) provides that objections to confirmation must be filed and served seven‐days prior to the confirmation hearing. Draft Rule 3015(h) deals with notice of amodification of the plan after confirmation. Do these provisions adequately provide fornotice to interested parties?

 Some of the draft amendments require enhanced service. Draft Rule 3012 provides that arequest to determine the amount of secured and priority claims under a plan must beserved in accordance with Rule 7004’s requirements for adversary proceedings. Draft Rule4003(d), which concerns a plan proposing lien avoidance under Code § 522(f), and draftRule 5009 also require service in accordance with Rule 7004. Are these enhanced serviceprovisions appropriate?

 Because draft Rule 3015(f) sets a seven‐day default deadline for objections to planconfirmation, current Rule 2002(b)(2) would effectively require that notice of theconfirmation hearing be given at least 35 days before the hearing. Should the RulesCommittee consider amending Rule 2002(b)(2) to provide either for 21 days’ notice of thedeadline to file objections to confirmation or 35 days’ notice of the confirmation hearing?

ï‚· If any proposed amendment raises particular concerns, what alternative would yousuggest, and how would the suggested alternative impact the draft plan?

2:15 ‐ 3:00 Open forum to raise and discuss issues not previously addressed or fullycovered, including the value of a national form for chapter 13 plans.

Additional Resources:


Photo Credit:LicenseAttributionSome rights reservedbyFried Dough

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...
The following two tabs change content below.
Jill Michaux has helped Kansas consumers with debt problems for three decades. She and her partner, Mark Neis, are Topeka's only bankruptcy specialists, board certified in consumer bankruptcy law by the American Board of Certification. She help start the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.
No Comments

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.