TG-1 * Transgallaxys Forum 1

Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Die Wahrheit über Neil Solomon  (Read 4081 times)

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1131
Die Wahrheit über Neil Solomon
« on: February 17, 2007, 10:39:22 AM »

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
17.02.2007 10:57 Uhr

Weltweiter Verkaufserfolg
Wundertrank aus Polynesien

Noni-Saft schmeckt faulig, ist teuer und seine Heilkraft nicht belegt.
Trotzdem macht ein US-Konzern damit gute Geschäfte - auch dank seltsamer Verkaufsmethoden.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mehr:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/,wirm3/wirtschaft/artikel/536/102434/

.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2007, 04:22:14 AM by ama »
Logged
Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik
http://www.klinikskandal.com

http://www.reimbibel.de/GBV-Kinderklinik-Gelsenkirchen.htm
http://www.kinderklinik-gelsenkirchen-kritik.de

besucher

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 126
Die Wahrheit über Neil Solomon
« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2007, 06:48:07 PM »

Die Noni-Verkäufer haben auch schon ihre dümmlich-naiven Kommentare hinterlassen.

Wie schlecht kann Produktwerbung sein?
« Last Edit: February 17, 2007, 06:48:54 PM by besucher »
Logged

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1131
Die Wahrheit über Neil Solomon
« Reply #2 on: February 21, 2007, 04:04:29 AM »

Warum sind MLMer MLMer? Antwort: Weil sie nicht lesen können. :-)

http://www.sueddeutsche.de/wirtschaft/artikel/536/102434/?page=5#readcomment

[*QUOTE*]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
18.02.2007 00:29:15

thorstenial Wer vorbehaltlos glaubt, was in der Zeitung steht, ist auch nicht besser als...

...derjenige, der so niederträchtig geschrieben hat. Bekanntermaßen verdienen Journalisten an schlechten Neuigkeiten, denn gute interessieren angeblich niemanden. Wenn Sie dazugehören, dann sollten Sie hier aufhören zu lesen. Verpassen werden Sie aber die GANZE Story, nämlich insbesondere den Teil, der im Artikel nicht erwähnt wird.

Heute hat die sueddeutsche mehreren Tausend Menschen deutlich gezeigt, dass sie nicht mehr das ist, was sie mal war. In den AGB der sz, $2. Abs. 4 wird erklärt, dass die veröffentlichten Artikel, ...mit größter Sorgfalt recherchiert sind...und dass die sz keine Gewähr für... Richtigkeit sowie für die Brauchbarkeit der abgerufenen Beiträge übernimmt. Das ist auch gut so, denn das sollte fett gedruckt über dem ganzen Artikel stehen. Geld dürfte die sz für diesen Mist eigentlich auch keines verlangen! Gleich werden Sie lesen warum.

Der Übertitel: "weltweiter Verkaufserfolg". Na so was! Wenn die Leute nicht wiederkommen würden, weil es für sie funktioniert, würde die Kunde darüber schneller eilen, als jede Verkaufsanstrengung und die Firma würde spätestens 2 Jahre nach der Öffnung ihre Tore schließen können. Fakt: Sie ist heute fast 11 Jahre alt.

Die Natur des Artikels ist insgesamt ?aufrissig?. Geschickt werden schier ungeheuerliche ?Fakten? auf miese Art eingespielt und die daraus resultierende, zweifelhafte Bedeutung der Fantasie des Lesers überlassen. Gearbeitet wird mit Klischees und den Ängsten der Menschen. Das ist aber alles völlig ?normal? und als noch üblich abzutun, wenn es da nicht eine ungeheuerliche Behauptung gäbe, bei der ganz und gar nicht, geschweige denn mit Sorgfalt, recherchiert wurde.

Die infame Behauptung, dass Dr. Neil Solomon seinen Doktortitel hätte aberkannt bekommen, haut den Fass aus dem Boden. Hier hat der ?gute? Journalist einfach in die interne Brancheninfo seiner Kollegen geschaut. Dort ist er dann auf einen alten Artikel der Schweizerischen BLICK gestoßen, die bereits 2002 vergeblich versucht hatte, den Vormarsch der Noni Sache zu stoppen. Mangels Handhabe hatte man sich ganz weit aus dem Fenster gelehnt und Dr. Solomon kurzerhand diffamiert. Der gute Doktor hatte sich mittels seiner Anwälte an das reißerische Boulevard-Blatt gewendet und eine Entschuldigung und Rücknahme der Ungeheuerlichkeiten bewirkt. Ca. 4 Wochen später konnte man darüber im BLICK lesen. Wie peinlich für die Herren Journalisten.

Aber das stoppt die unbedarften Schmierfinken bei der sz nicht, so einen Mist abzudrucken. Doppelt peinlich! Ich freue mich schon auf die Entschuldigung der sz, denn Herr Dr. Solomon lässt so was NIE auf sich beruhen.

Zu diesem ganzen Artikel gibt es noch soviel klarzustellen, dass Ihre und meine Zeit dafür zu wertvoll ist, das zu tun. Es ist müßig sich schlechter Presse zu widersetzen. Aber schlimmer als schlechte Presse ist gar keine?

Ich selbst habe sehr gute Erfahrungen mit dem Saft gemacht. Ich schlafe effektiver und arbeite weitaus konzentrierter und ausdauernder als zuvor. Das bringt mir eine Zeitersparnis von ca. 2 bis 3 Stunden pro Tag. Das ganze kostet mich ca. ¤ 5 pro Tag und ist ein prima Tauschgeschäft, wenn Sie etwas mehr Zeit haben wollen?

Schließlich kann jeder selbst herausfinden, was das Produkt kann. Die unkomplizierte Zufriedenheitsgarantie macht?s möglich. Fazit: selber testen, was dran ist, als Miesmacherjournalismus mehr Zeit geben, als er verdient hat.

-tm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]









Logged
Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik
http://www.klinikskandal.com

http://www.reimbibel.de/GBV-Kinderklinik-Gelsenkirchen.htm
http://www.kinderklinik-gelsenkirchen-kritik.de

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1131
Die Wahrheit über Neil Solomon
« Reply #3 on: February 21, 2007, 04:10:49 AM »

[*QUOTE*]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
In Re: NEIL SOLOMON, M.D.,
Debtor.
NEIL SOLOMON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
No. 94-2198
v.
ELLEN W. COSBY, Chapter 13
Trustee; JANE COE; MARY DOE; JANE
ROE; JOHN ROE,
Defendants-Appellees.
In Re: NEIL SOLOMON, M.D.,
Debtor.
NEIL SOLOMON,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
No. 94-2263
ELLEN W. COSBY, Chapter 13
Trustee,
Defendant-Appellant,
v.
JANE COE; MARY DOE; JANE ROE;
JOHN ROE,
Defendants-Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Frederic N. Smalkin, District Judge.
(CA-94-1414-S, BK-93-5-6357-SD)
Argued: June 5, 1995
Decided: October 23, 1995

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________________________________________
Reversed and remanded by published opinion. Judge Wilkinson wrote
the majority opinion, in which Judge Widener joined. Judge Michael
wrote a dissenting opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
ARGUED: Alan M. Grochal, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, Balti-
more, Maryland, for Appellant. Deborah Hunt Devan, WEINBERG
& GREEN, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee Cosby; Edward
Charles Dolan, HOGAN & HARTSON, L.L.P., Washington, D.C.,
for Appellees Coe, Doe, and Roe. ON BRIEF: Paul Walter, Mary
Fran Ebersole, TYDINGS & ROSENBERG, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellant. Shoshana Katz, WEINBERG & GREEN, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee Cosby; James H. Lystad, HOGAN & HART-
SON, L.L.P., Washington, D.C., for Appellees Coe, Doe, and Roe.
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge:
This case presents the question whether a Chapter 13 debtor must
include in his "disposable income" some portion of funds invested in
various individual retirement accounts ("IRAs"). The bankruptcy
court denied confirmation of the debtor's proposed Chapter 13 plan
for failure to include hypothetical distributions from the IRAs in the
disposable income to be paid under the plan. Because we believe that
funds held in the debtor's IRAs but not distributed to the debtor do
not constitute "disposable income" under 11 U.S.C. § 1325, we
reverse.
I.
The debtor herein, Neil Solomon, M.D., filed a Chapter 13 bank-
ruptcy petition on September 20, 1993; he filed his proposed Chapter
13 plan shortly thereafter. Dr. Solomon's only creditors are three for-
mer patients (and the spouse of one) who have sued him in tort for
alleged sexual misconduct during the course of their treatment as his
medical patients.* The plaintiffs claimed compensatory and punitive
damages totaling approximately $160 million. Solomon scheduled
each plaintiff's claim as contingent, unliquidated, and disputed and
listed the amount of each claim as zero. Although these debts were
arguably non-dischargeable under Chapter 7 since they arose from
"willful and malicious injury by the debtor," 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6),
the claims could be discharged under the broader"super-discharge"
available to Chapter 13 debtors. 11 U.S.C. § 1328(a).
Solomon scheduled assets valued at $2,184,645, of which he
claimed $2,140,501.25 to be exempt from the claims of his creditors.
Of the assets claimed exempt, $1,413,888 is held in three individual
retirement accounts. Federal law does not require that income be
withdrawn from these accounts until the recipient reaches age 70 1/2.
See 26 U.S.C. § 408(a)(6); 26 C.F.R.§ 1.408-2(b)(6). Solomon, cur-
rently age 62, informed the bankruptcy court that he had no intention
of withdrawing any funds from the IRAs during the term of the plan.
Moreover, under Maryland law, the IRAs are exempt from execution
by creditors. Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 11-504(h). Solomon
was thus left with approximately $40,000 in non-exempt assets.
After his petition was filed, Solomon voluntarily surrendered his
medical license and ceased practicing medicine. As a result, his net
monthly income decreased substantially from the $14,800 initially
disclosed in Schedule I to approximately $2,650, which consisted pri-
marily of monthly mandatory distributions from his Maryland state
pension. According to the plan, Solomon proposed to pay the Trustee
$750 per month for an extended term of five years, 11 U.S.C.
§ 1322(d), for a total payout to the creditors of $45,000. Solomon
planned to use the remainder of his monthly income, together with
income from investments and exempt assets other than his IRAs, to
pay his normal living expenses.
In February 1994, the Chapter 13 Trustee and the creditors filed
various objections to the proposed plan. Only the treatment of Solo-
mon's three IRAs is relevant to this appeal. According to the Trustee,
the IRAs should have been taken into account in determining the
minimum amount Solomon should be required to pay under his Chap-
ter 13 plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(1)(B) (upon objection by trustee
or unsecured creditor, when plan proposes less than full payment of
unsecured claims, debtor must devote all his projected disposable
income for typical three-year term to payments under the plan). The
Trustee also objected to the plan on the ground that it did not satisfy
the "good faith" requirement of § 1325(a)(3), but the bankruptcy court
declined to address this fact-dependent issue, preferring to decide
questions such as the disposable income requirement that could be
resolved as a matter of law.
The bankruptcy court agreed with the Trustee and denied confirma-
tion on the ground that Solomon's plan failed to provide for payment
of all his projected disposable income when it failed to include some
minimum amount attributable to allowed distributions from his IRAs.
Under applicable non-bankruptcy law, the bankruptcy court noted,
Solomon has the right to receive periodic distributions from these
accounts without suffering a tax "penalty," despite his stated intention
not to take such distributions. On appeal, the district court affirmed.
Solomon appeals, and the Trustee cross-appeals, arguing that confir-
mation should be denied since the plan was not filed in good faith.
II.
A.
The Trustee objected to confirmation of Solomon's Chapter 13
plan on the ground that the plan did not meet the"disposable income"
requirement of § 1325(b) since it failed to include hypothetical with-
drawals from the IRAs in the calculation of Solomon's monthly
income. We hold, however, that the funds invested in Solomon's
IRAs are not "disposable income" within the meaning of
§ 1325(b)(2).
The statute defines "disposable income" as"income which is
received by the debtor and which is not reasonably necessary to be
expended . . . for the maintenance or support of the debtor or a depen-
dent of the debtor." 11 U.S.C. § 1325(b)(2). If the trustee or the
holder of an allowed unsecured claim objects to the confirmation of
a Chapter 13 plan and the plan proposes less than full payment of
unsecured claims, the plan may be confirmed only if it provides for
payment of "all of the debtor's projected disposable income" to be
received during the life of the plan. 11 U.S.C.§ 1325(b)(1)(B).
Solomon's IRAs are not "income" under the clear terms of this sec-
tion. Both the statutory definition of "disposable income" as income
that is received by the debtor as well as the requirement that projected
income must be calculated over the life of the plan contemplate
income that a debtor is actually receiving at the time of confirmation.
Projected disposable income typically is calculated by multiplying a
debtor's monthly income at the time of confirmation by 36 months,
the normal duration of a Chapter 13 plan, then determining the por-
tion of that income which is "disposable" according to the statutory
definition. See Anderson v. Satterlee (In re Anderson) , 21 F.3d 355,
357 (9th Cir. 1994). It is undisputed that, at the time of the confirma-
tion hearing on Solomon's plan, he was not actually receiving any
disbursements from his IRAs; he further insisted that he had no inten-
tion of withdrawing funds from the IRAs during the life of the plan.
On these facts, we cannot sanction the bankruptcy court's inclusion
of some hypothetical amount of income from the IRAs in the calcula-
tion of disposable income. "[R]ather than engaging in hopeless specu-
lation about the future," a court should determine projected disposable
income by calculating a debtor's "present monthly income and expen-
ditures" and extending those amounts over the life of the plan. In re
Crompton , 73 B.R. 800, 808 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987). Solomon's pres-
ent, regular monthly income does not include distributions from his
IRAs, and the bankruptcy court's imputation of amounts from such
speculative distributions in its calculation of disposable income is
contrary to the plain terms of the statutory definition.
Cases such as In re Schnabel , 153 B.R. 809 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1993),
and In re Hagel , 171 B.R. 686 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1994), are distin-
guishable: they involved debtors who, at the time the bankruptcy peti-
tion was filed, were receiving regular monthly pension or social
security payments. Schnabel , 153 B.R. at 812; Hagel , 171 B.R. at 687
& n.3. In this case, by contrast, Solomon receives no regular distribu-
tions from his IRAs, has indicated no intent to take such distributions
during the life of the Chapter 13 plan, and is not required to do so by
the Internal Revenue Code until he reaches age 70 1/2. See 26 U.S.C.
§ 408(a)(6); 26 C.F.R. § 1.408-2(b)(6). Schnabel and Hagel thus do
not require that these accounts be treated as a source of hypothetical
income regularly received by Solomon.
B.
Although they are not a source of regular, periodic income, Solo-
mon's IRAs are assets of the estate, much like a checking or savings
account. See Education Assistance Corp. v. Zellner , 827 F.2d 1222,
1226 (8th Cir. 1987) ($6,000 lump-sum payment from retirement
fund, which Chapter 13 debtor transferred into IRA, was asset of the
estate rather than disposable income); see also Official Bankr. Form
6, Schedule B (Personal Property) (listing "nterests in IRA, ERISA,
Keogh, or other pension or profit sharing plans" as personal property
of the debtor); Official Bankr. Form 6, Summary of Schedules (debt-
or's real and personal property constitute assets of the estate). In fact,
Solomon listed each of his IRAs as personal property in the schedules
submitted to the bankruptcy court. In this regard, the IRAs are rele-
vant not to the "disposable income" requirement, but rather to the
"best interests of creditors" prerequisite for confirmation of a Chapter
13 plan. See 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(4) (unsecured creditors must receive
no less in a Chapter 13 proceeding than they would in a Chapter 7 liq-
uidation proceeding).
Here, the debtor's IRAs would be "exempt" assets and thus
unavailable to creditors in a Chapter 7 liquidation. Maryland has
elected to opt out of the federal exemptions, see 11 U.S.C. § 522(b);
Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. § 11-504(g), and instead has estab-
lished specific exemptions under state law. Solomon relies on one of
these state-law exemptions, Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann.
§ 11-504(h), which provides, in relevant part, that "any money or
other assets payable to a participant or beneficiary from, or any inter-
est of any participant or beneficiary in, a retirement plan qualified
under . . . § 408 . . . of the United States Internal Revenue Code
. . . shall be exempt from any and all claims of the creditors of the
beneficiary or participant . . . ." Solomon's IRAs are qualified under
26 U.S.C. § 408(a) and hence fall within the terms of the Maryland
exemption.
Because the IRAs would be unavailable to creditors in a Chapter
7 proceeding by virtue of the state law exemption, creditors would
receive nothing from those accounts if Solomon's non-exempt assets
were to be liquidated. Thus, preserving the IRAs from the claims of
Solomon's creditors in this Chapter 13 proceeding is both logically
sound and in keeping with the Code. In fact, in a Chapter 7 proceed-
ing, Solomon's creditors would be entitled to the proceeds from liqui-
dation of non-exempt assets worth approximately $40,000. The
$45,000 he proposes to pay the creditors under his Chapter 13 plan
thus appears to satisfy the "best interests of creditors" prerequisite for
confirmation. The Supreme Court has emphasized that the mere hap-
penstance of bankruptcy should not result in a windfall to creditors.
Patterson v. Shumate , 504 U.S. 753, 764 (1992). Nor, we think,
should a debtor's choice to proceed under Chapter 13 invariably enti-
tle creditors to more than they would receive in Chapter 7, contrary
to the mandate of the Bankruptcy Code.
Our holding today is consistent with the treatment accorded IRAs
by the Internal Revenue Code. Subject to certain limitations, a taxpay-
er's contribution to an IRA is tax deductible, and the account accrues
interest tax-free. 26 U.S.C. §§ 219, 408(e); In re Chiz , 142 B.R. 592,
592-93 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1992). As a general matter, only when the
account holder takes a distribution from the account is the payment
subject to tax. 26 U.S.C. § 408(d). Moreover, a taxpayer need not take
a distribution until he reaches age 70 1/2. 26 U.S.C. § 408(a)(6); 26
C.F.R. § 1.408-2(b)(6). In light of these provisions, we do not believe
that the funds held in the accounts but not distributed to Solomon con-
stitute "income" as that term is commonly understood. "Income is not
a gain accruing to capital or a growth in the value of the investment,
but is a gain, a profit, something of exchangeable value, proceeding
from the property, severed from the capital, however invested or
employed, and coming in, being derived, that is, received or drawn by
the recipient for his separate use, benefit, and disposal." Black's Law
Dictionary 687 (5th ed. 1979). See also 26 U.S.C. § 408(d)(1) (sub-
ject to certain exceptions, "any amount paid or distributed out of an
individual retirement plan shall be included in gross income by the
payee or distributee") (emphasis added).
In sum, we do not think it a condition of invoking the protections
of Chapter 13 that one withdraw pension or retirement income to fund
a plan that otherwise meets the § 1325 prerequisites for confirmation.
A contrary holding could have devastating results for pension and
retirement savings. By requiring an otherwise eligible Chapter 13
debtor to withdraw such monies to fund a Chapter 13 plan, we would
effectively undercut the very purpose of retirement and pension plans:
to ensure that workers have sufficient funds with which to support
themselves and their dependents during their retirement years. We
agree with the Third Circuit that "Congress has expressed a deep and
continuing interest in the preservation of pension plans, and in
encouraging retirement savings, as reflected in the statutes which
have given us ERISA, Keogh plans and IRAs," Velis v. Kardanis , 949
F.2d 78, 82 (3d Cir. 1991). We decline to undercut this clear congres-
sional purpose by conditioning the availability of Chapter 13 relief on
a debtor's agreement to withdraw funds from an IRA prior to the dis-
tribution date mandated by the Internal Revenue Code and its accom-
panying regulations.
III.
Our holding does not mean, however, that Solomon is entitled to
invoke the protections of Chapter 13. Whether his Chapter 13 plan
will be confirmed hinges upon a finding by the bankruptcy court on
remand that the debtor has proposed this plan in good faith. See 11
U.S.C. § 1325(a)(3) (plan may be confirmed only if "proposed in
good faith and not by any means forbidden by law").
In Neufeld v. Freeman , 794 F.2d 149 (4th Cir. 1986), this court
addressed the elements that inform the good faith determination. This
totality-of-the-circumstances inquiry focuses on such factors as the
percentage of proposed repayment to creditors, the debtor's financial
situation, the period of time over which creditors will be paid, the
debtor's employment history and prospects, the nature and amount of
unsecured claims, the debtor's past bankruptcy filings, the debtor's
honesty in representing the facts of the case, the nature of the debtor's
pre-petition conduct that gave rise to the debts, whether the debts
would be dischargeable in a Chapter 7 proceeding, and any other
unusual or exceptional problems the debtor faces. Id . at 152 (citing
Deans v. O'Donnell , 692 F.2d 968, 972 (4th Cir. 1982)). On remand,
the bankruptcy court should consider relevant factors in its
§ 1325(a)(3) analysis of Solomon's plan, mindful of the fact that the
good faith inquiry is intended to prevent abuse of the provisions, pur-
pose, or spirit of Chapter 13. Neufeld , 794 F.2d at 152.
It is here that the concerns of our dissenting brother are addressed.
The dissent vents its understandable displeasure with the nature of the
acts of which Solomon stands accused. It fashions on appeal a "Solo-
mon Rule" which, however attractive in the particular case, would
thwart the general intent of Congress to safeguard pension and retire-
ment plans. The better approach is to require triers of fact in bank-
ruptcy cases to review the good faith with which individual debtors
attempt to invoke Chapter 13 protections. This good faith inquiry is
expressly mandated under § 1325(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code and
has been expressly held by this circuit to encompass"both pre-
petition conduct and prior bankruptcy filings by the debtor." Neufeld ,
794 F.2d at 150. Having the trier of fact determine whether Solomon
failed to exercise good faith is preferable to reworking the law of
Chapter 13 based on the circumstances of a single debtor. Our dis-
senting brother would do just that, however -- in reaching the dis-
tasteful situation here, the dissent would compel debtors to
prematurely withdraw and make available pension savings which they
had no intention of using during the life of a Chapter 13 plan.
IV.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
REVERSED AND REMANDED
MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent.
Facing tort claims of sexual misconduct made by several former
medical patients who seek damages of $160 million, the debtor, Neil
Solomon, filed a bankruptcy petition. In an attempt to wipe out these
claims under the broader "super-discharge" available under Chapter
13, Solomon proposes a plan that offers his former patients (his only
creditors) a total of just $45,000, payable in monthly installments of
$750 over the next five years. But Solomon, who has retired, refuses
to make available to his creditors any income (which is readily acces-
sible without penalty) from three exempt IRAs worth more than $1.4
million. He does not need any income from the IRAs for the reason-
able maintenance and support of himself or any dependent. I would
hold that income he could elect to receive without penalty from his
IRAs may be counted as projected disposable income for purposes of
his Chapter 13 plan. This result best comports with the language of
section 1325(b) and the overall purposes of Chapter 13, which gives
a debtor such as Solomon an enormous break under the"super-
discharge."
I.
A.
A debtor can not be forced into Chapter 13 bankruptcy, as he can
be into Chapter 7. The debtor alone makes the affirmative decision to
seek the protections of Chapter 13 in order to obtain the "super-
discharge." See 11 U.S.C. § 303(a). Here, Solomon filed under Chap-
ter 13 because only under that chapter can he wipe out the claims his
patients made against him for sexual misconduct."Super-discharge,"
however, does not come without a price, and indeed it should not. The
debtor must be willing to sacrifice his projected disposable income for
three years. Specifically, under section 1325(b)(1), when an objection
is made and the Chapter 13 plan does not afford full payment of unse-
cured claims, the court may not approve the plan unless it "provides
that all of the debtor's projected disposable income to be received in
the three-year period beginning on the date that first payment is due
under the plan will be applied to make payments under the plan."
Projected pension and social security payments are taken into
account in calculating disposable income under Chapter 13. In re
Hagel , 171 B.R. 686, 689 (Bankr. D. Mont. 1994); In re Schnabel ,
153 B.R. 809, 818 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1993). Likewise, if a Chapter 13
debtor has retired and is old enough to take distributions from his IRA
without penalty under the federal tax laws, his projected IRA distribu-
tions should be included in the disposable income calculation. 1  
Including social security, pension or IRA payments in the disposable
income calculation does not mean that the Chapter 13 debtor is
thrown into the streets to beg or forced onto the public assistance
rolls. Section 1325(b)(2) defines "disposable income" as "income
which is received by the debtor and which is not reasonably necessary
to be expended for the maintenance or support of the debtor or a
dependent of the debtor." Thus, even under Chapter 13, the claims of
creditors are secondary to the reasonable needs of the debtor and his
dependents. Yet once those needs are met, the creditors are entitled
to the remaining income in the three-year period.
Although section 1325(b)(2) defines "disposable income" as "in-
come which is received by the debtor," section 1325(b)(1)(B) calls for
a "projection" of income for three years into the future. The court, not
the debtor, has the final say in projecting the debtor's disposable
income. 5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1325.08[4][a] (15th ed. 1995). In
the usual case, the projection is relatively straightforward. E.g. ,
Anderson v. Satterlee (In re Anderson) , 21 F.3d 355, 357 (9th Cir.
1994) (court multiplies the debtor's monthly income by 36 and then
determines how much of the total is income that is disposable). This,
however, is not the usual case.
Solomon is 62 years old. Before January 1, 1994, he had a net
monthly income of $14,800. As of January 1, 1994, Solomon reports
a net monthly income of $2,650; of this amount, $2,146 is his state
pension payment from Maryland. It is from the $2,650 that Solomon
proposes to make monthly payments of $750 to his creditors. Solo-
mon's monthly income has dropped substantially because he surren-
dered his medical license and stopped practicing medicine. He plans
to support himself with his state pension and interest and dividends
from exempt assets owned jointly with his wife.
The point here is simple: Solomon has retired. One would, there-
fore, expect (and could reasonably project) that Solomon would start
to draw income from his IRAs. They are, after all, called retirement
accounts.
The Internal Revenue Code supports this analysis. It allows a per-
son to draw income without penalty from his IRA once he reaches the
age of 59 1/2. See 26 U.S.C. § 408(a)(6); 26 C.F.R. § 1.408-1(b)(6).
Congress therefore determined that 59 1/2 is a reasonable age to begin
retirement. Because Solomon is 62, has retired, and can never return
to the practice of medicine, it is reasonable to project that his dispos-
able income during the next three years will include income from his
IRAs.
Under Chapter 13 Solomon can still shield all of his assets, includ-
ing exempt assets such as his IRAs. And he can obtain a "super-
discharge" and free himself of the sexual misconduct claims. In
return, Solomon must do one thing: pay all of his projected disposable
income (including that from exempt assets) to his creditors during the
relatively short life of his plan. This is a small price to pay for any
debtor in such trouble, regardless of his disposable income level. The
bankruptcy and district courts were right to refuse confirmation of a
plan that did not project income from Solomon's IRAs.
B.
The majority says that requiring a Chapter 13 debtor such as Solo-
mon to contribute disposable IRA income "could have devastating
results for pension and retirement savings." Ante at 8. I respectfully
disagree for three reasons.
First, the statutory definition of "disposable income" under section
1325(b)(2)(A) ensures that during the life of his plan Solomon (or any
other Chapter 13 debtor) would always have sufficient funds for the
maintenance and support of himself and his dependents. All of the
reasonable living expenses of the debtor and his family come off the
top before a penny is paid to creditors.
Second, section 1325(b) does not require that all of the funds in the
IRAs be used to fund the Chapter 13 plan. Far from it. A retired
Chapter 13 debtor would simply be required to include the amount he
would reasonably be expected to withdraw as retirement income for
three years. Section 1325(b)(1)(B) gives the bankruptcy court the ulti-
mate responsibility to make the projection, and there exists an ample
basis for making a logical and sensible one. Here, the bankruptcy
court suggested applying the minimum distribution formulas estab-
lished by the Internal Revenue Code and regulations. Solomon v.
Cosby (In re Solomon) , No. 93-5-6357, slip op. at 24 (Bankr. D. Md.
Mar. 30, 1994). For example, "
  • ne alternative measure of the mini-

mum [yearly] withdrawal is the actuarially determined amount needed
to exhaust the fund during the lifetimes of the owner and the primary
beneficiary." Id. In any event, the IRS's formulas ensure a steady
income stream from the IRA throughout a person's retirement years.
In addition, the formulas produce a ready projection of future income.
As the bankruptcy court rightly observed:
This approach appears to serve the dual statutory objectives.
It would reasonably preserve Debtor's I.R.A.s for retirement
within the applicable, statutory parameters for self-directed
pension accounts; and it would also allow computation of a
reasonable income expectation for Debtor's disposable
income determination under 11 U.S.C. 1325(b).
Id. at 25. Thus, under the bankruptcy court's suggestion, a minimum
annual IRA distribution would be dedicated to the payment of Solo-
mon's creditors during the life of his plan. Thereafter, Solomon (or
any other Chapter 13 debtor) would get all of his IRA distributions
for the rest of his (projected) lifetime.
Third, persons who are not retired would not be required to include
projected income from their IRAs. They would have the disposable
income from their jobs to pay their creditors. However, if a retiree
voluntarily invokes Chapter 13, it is only reasonable to require him
to use any excess pension or IRA income to fund his plan.
C.
The majority notes that paying projected IRA income to creditors
goes beyond what is required by the "best interests of creditors" test
for confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan. 2   Thus, according to the major-
ity, because Solomon's IRAs would be exempt from liquidation in a
Chapter 7 proceeding, his failure to include IRA income in his Chap-
ter 13 plan "appears to satisfy the ?best interests of creditors' prereq-
uisite for confirmation." Ante at 7. Perhaps it does, but this does not
dispose of the question before us today.
Satisfaction of the "best interests" test is but one prerequisite for
confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan. The creditor must also satisfy the
"disposable income" test. Therefore, I cannot accept the majority's
suggestion that satisfaction of the "best interests" test results in atis-
faction of the "disposable income" test. Using the "best interests" test
to set the minimum or "floor" for payments to creditors under Chapter
13 would completely eviscerate the "disposable income" test of sec-
tion 1325(b)(1)(B). See In re Schnabel , 153 B.R. at 815 ("[w]here
assets may be claimed exempt, there is superimposed an entirely new
floor [different from the Chapter 7 liquidation value], below which a
confirmable plan may not fall -- the § 1325(b) test of ?disposable
income'").
Finally, allowing creditors to share in a retired debtor's projected
disposable IRA income (for three years) under Chapter 13 does not
violate the Supreme Court's admonition in Patterson v. Shumate , 504
U.S. 753, 764 (1992), that the mere happenstance of bankruptcy
should not result in a windfall to creditors. See ante at 7. I reempha-
size that Solomon himself voluntarily chose to seek the protection of
"super-discharge" under Chapter 13. That choice subjected his plan to
the "disposable income" test of section 1325(b)(1)(B) and placed his
IRA income at risk. That choice was not happenstance; it was Solo-
mon's considered decision. In fact, to hold that Solomon's projected
disposable income does not include projected income from his IRAs
results in a windfall to Solomon. It is a windfall that nullifies Con-
gress's determination that "Chapter 13 proceedings . . . look to [the
debtor's] future income . . . as a source of repayment of debt." S. Rep.
No. 65, 98th Cong. 1st Sess. 20 (1983).
II.
The majority remands for proceedings under section 1325(a)(3) to
determine whether Solomon proposed his plan in good faith. Perhaps
his creditors will ultimately achieve relief under that section. That
possibility, however, does not change the fact that the bankruptcy and
district courts have already correctly refused to confirm Solomon's
Chapter 13 plan because it fails to meet the "disposable income" test
under section 1325(b). I would let the judgment stand and put an end
to the matter right now.

FOOTNOTES
*Solomon apparently paid all his other creditors in full before filing
his Chapter 13 petition.
1  
The language of section 1325(b) makes no distinction between
income from exempt assets (such as pension funds and IRAs) and in-
come from non-exempt assets (such as marketable securities). This was
not an oversight on the part of Congress. To receive the protections of
"super-discharge," a debtor under Chapter 13 proposes to pay his debts
over three years from future income. S. Rep. No. 65, 98th Cong. 1st Sess.
20 (1983). Also, even though such income is not shielded from creditors,
a debtor's fresh start remains assured because the debtor may keep all of
his assets, whether exempt or not. What the debtor must give up, how-
ever, is his projected disposable income during the life of his plan. It is
irrelevant whether that income is derived from exempt or non-exempt
assets. In re Hagel , 171 B.R. at 689; In re Schnabel , 153 B.R. at 817-18.

2  
Under the "best interests" test a Chapter 13 plan must provide unse-
cured creditors with no less value than they would receive if the debtor
liquidated under Chapter 7. See 11 U.S.C.§ 1325(a)(4).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
[*/QUOTE*]

.
Logged
Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik
http://www.klinikskandal.com

http://www.reimbibel.de/GBV-Kinderklinik-Gelsenkirchen.htm
http://www.kinderklinik-gelsenkirchen-kritik.de

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1131
Die Wahrheit über Neil Solomon
« Reply #4 on: February 21, 2007, 04:20:09 AM »

Zitate aus dem Artikel bei Forbes, den die Morinda-Hökerer VOR seinem Erscheinen lauthals bejubelten:

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2004/0524/178_print.html

Entrepreneurs
Tale of the South Pacific

Dirk Smillie, 05.24.04

"A multilevel marketer is pushing a Polynesian fruit drink that tastes like rotten cheese. You don't mind because the stuff also cures every ailment known to man."

"Wadsworth shifted the huckstering to Neil Solomon, a retired M.D. who months earlier had written a glowing review of noni in an obscure Canadian health journal. Trained in medicine at Johns Hopkins, he was once Maryland's secretary of health and was mentioned as a possible gubernatorial candidate. Solomon is now a paid speaker for TNI".

"He's not practicing medicine anymore. In 1993 he surrendered his license after eight women alleged he had improperly used his position as head of a Maryland weight-loss clinic to have sexual relations with them"

"Solomon filed for bankruptcy to protect his assets, but he later agreed to pay a total of $45,000 and signed a statement admitting unethical behavior. The Maryland Board of Health told Solomon that if he ever denied any deed he had admitted to in his statement, the board would release the sordid details of its own investigation".



NACH dem Erscheinen des Artikels erwähnten die Morinda-Hökerer diesen Artikel nicht mehr...
.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2007, 05:45:19 AM by ama »
Logged
Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik
http://www.klinikskandal.com

http://www.reimbibel.de/GBV-Kinderklinik-Gelsenkirchen.htm
http://www.kinderklinik-gelsenkirchen-kritik.de

ama

  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1131
Die Wahrheit über Neil Solomon
« Reply #5 on: January 03, 2009, 04:11:17 PM »

push
Logged
Kinderklinik Gelsenkirchen verstößt gegen die Leitlinien

Der Skandal in Gelsenkirchen
Hamer-Anhänger in der Kinderklinik
http://www.klinikskandal.com

http://www.reimbibel.de/GBV-Kinderklinik-Gelsenkirchen.htm
http://www.kinderklinik-gelsenkirchen-kritik.de

Julian

  • Boltbender
  • Jr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1371
Re: Die Wahrheit über Neil Solomon
« Reply #6 on: September 06, 2020, 09:42:00 PM »

Marke: 4000
Logged
StarCruiser http://WWW.ALLAXYS.COM mission countdown
Pages: [1]