Any concealment of the books, papers, records, or assets of the regulated entity, or any refusal to submit the books, papers, records, or affairs of the regulated entity, for inspection to any examiner or to any lawful agent of the Director.The regulated entity has incurred or is likely to incur losses that will deplete all or substantially all of its capital, and there is no reasonable prospect for the regulated entity to become adequately capitalized (as defined in section 4614(a)(1) of this title). Examiners and accountants; authority to contract for reviews of regulated entities; ombudsman. Review of and authority over enterprise assets and liabilities. The Budget also includes the following proposals to facilitate additional conversions of HUD-assisted properties: 1) eliminates the 185,000 unit cap on Public Housing conversions; 2) eliminates the deadline of September 30, 2018, for submission of RAD applications; 3) standardizes ownership and control requirements for converted Public Housing properties in situations where low-income housing tax credits are used or where foreclosure, bankruptcy, or default occurs; and 4) protects tenants' right to continue occupancy under second component conversions. 1437 et seq.) ("the Act" herein), not otherwise provided for, [,628,525,000] ,854,000,000, to remain available until [expended] September 30, 2019, shall be available on October 1,  2016 (in addition to the ,000,000,000 previously appropriated under this heading that shall be available on October 1,  2016), and ,000,000,000, to remain available until [expended] September 30, 2020, shall be available on October 1,  2017: Provided, That the amounts made available under this heading are provided as follows: (1) [,681,451,000] ,447,000,000 shall be available for renewals of expiring section 8 tenant-based annual contributions contracts (including renewals of enhanced vouchers under any provision of law authorizing such assistance under section 8(t) of the Act) and including renewal of other special purpose incremental vouchers: Provided, That notwithstanding any other provision of law, from amounts provided under this paragraph and any carryover, the Secretary for the calendar year  2017 funding cycle shall provide renewal funding for each public housing agency based on validated voucher management system (VMS) leasing and cost data for the prior calendar year and by applying an inflation factor as established by the Secretary, by notice published in the Federal Register, and by making any necessary adjustments for the costs associated with the first-time renewal of vouchers under this paragraph including tenant protection, [HOPE VI,] and Choice Neighborhoods vouchers: Provided further, That in determining calendar year  2017 funding allocations under this heading for public housing agencies, including agencies participating in the Moving To Work (MTW) demonstration, the Secretary may take into account the anticipated impact of changes in [targeting and utility allowances] the medical expense threshold, on public housing agencies' contract renewal needs[: Provided further, That none of the funds provided under this paragraph may be used to fund a total number of unit months under lease which exceeds a public housing agency's authorized level of units under contract, except for public housing agencies participating in the MTW demonstration, which are instead governed by the terms and conditions of their MTW agreements]: Provided further, That the Secretary shall, to the extent necessary to stay within the amount specified under this paragraph (except as otherwise modified under this paragraph), prorate each public housing agency's allocation otherwise established pursuant to this paragraph: Provided further, That except as provided in the following provisos, the entire amount specified under this paragraph (except as otherwise modified under this paragraph) shall be obligated to the public housing agencies based on the allocation and pro rata method described above, and the Secretary shall notify public housing agencies of their annual budget by the latter of 60 days after enactment of this Act or March 1,  2017: Provided further, That the Secretary may extend the notification period with [the prior written approval of] notification to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations: Provided further, That public housing agencies participating in the MTW demonstration shall be funded pursuant to their MTW agreements, and in accordance with the requirements of the MTW program, and shall be subject to the same pro rata adjustments under the previous provisos: Provided further, That the Secretary may offset public housing agencies' calendar year  2017 allocations based on the excess amounts of public housing agencies' net restricted assets accounts, including HUD held programmatic reserves (in accordance with VMS data in calendar year  2016 that is verifiable and complete), as determined by the Secretary: Provided further, That public housing agencies participating in the MTW demonstration shall also be subject to the offset, as determined by the Secretary, [excluding amounts subject to the single fund budget authority provisions of their MTW agreements,] from the agencies' calendar year  2017 MTW funding allocation: Provided further, That the Secretary shall use any offset referred to in the previous two provisos throughout the calendar year to prevent the termination of rental assistance for families as the result of insufficient funding, as determined by the Secretary, and to avoid or reduce the proration of renewal funding allocations: Provided further, That up to ,000,000 shall be available only: (1) for adjustments in the allocations for public housing agencies, after application for an adjustment by a public housing agency that experienced a significant increase, as determined by the Secretary, in renewal costs of vouchers resulting from unforeseen circumstances or from portability under section 8(r) of the Act; (2) for vouchers that were not in use during the previous 12-month period in order to be available to meet a commitment pursuant to section 8(o)(13) of the Act; (3) for adjustments for costs associated with HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) vouchers; [and] (4) for public housing agencies that despite taking reasonable cost savings measures, as determined by the Secretary, would otherwise be required to terminate rental assistance for families as a result of insufficient funding; and (5) for adjustments for voucher costs associated with a housing mobility program: Provided further, That the Secretary shall allocate amounts under the previous proviso based on need, as determined by the Secretary; (2) [0,000,000] 0,000,000 shall be for section 8 rental assistance for relocation and replacement of housing units that are demolished or disposed of pursuant to section 18 of the Act, conversion of section 23 projects to assistance under section 8, the family unification program under section 8(x) of the Act, relocation of witnesses in connection with efforts to combat crime in public and assisted housing pursuant to a request from a law enforcement or prosecution agency, enhanced vouchers under any provision of law authorizing such assistance under section 8(t) of the Act, HOPE VI and Choice Neighborhood vouchers, mandatory and voluntary conversions, and tenant protection assistance including replacement and relocation assistance or for project-based assistance to prevent the displacement of unassisted elderly tenants currently residing in section 202 properties financed between 19 that are refinanced pursuant to Public Law 106–569, as amended, or under the authority as provided under this Act: Provided, That when a public housing development is submitted for demolition or disposition under section 18 of the Act, the Secretary may provide section 8 rental assistance when the units pose an imminent health and safety risk to residents: Provided further, That the Secretary may only provide replacement vouchers for units that were occupied within the previous 24 months that cease to be available as assisted housing, subject only to the availability of funds: [Provided further, That of the amounts made available under this paragraph, ,000,000 may be available to provide tenant protection assistance, not otherwise provided under this paragraph, to residents residing in low vacancy areas and who may have to pay rents greater than 30 percent of household income, as the result of: (A) the maturity of a HUD-insured, HUD-held or section 202 loan that requires the permission of the Secretary prior to loan prepayment; (B) the expiration of a rental assistance contract for which the tenants are not eligible for enhanced voucher or tenant protection assistance under existing law; or (C) the expiration of affordability restrictions accompanying a mortgage or preservation program administered by the Secretary: Provided further, That such tenant protection assistance made available under the previous proviso may be provided under the authority of section 8(t) or section 8(o)(13) of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U. With this funding, the Housing Choice Voucher program will provide housing assistance to over 2.2 million extremely low- to very low-income families to rent decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market.
In addition to no-cost conversions, the requested million would be awarded to both PHAs and Section 202 PRAC owners to cover the incremental subsidy necessary for properties to feasibly convert.
The law firm filed a claim against the debtor, and the debtor, succeeded in interest by a Plan Trust, objected to claim of law firm. Valkenet Trustee sought preferential avoidance of deed of trust perfected within 90 days prior to bankruptcy petition date. Keir, Chief J., held that the creditor was entitled to be equitably subrogated to the lien position held prior to the refinance transaction despite recording its new lien beyond ten days after the promissory note was signed on a date within the preference period and filing a certificate of satisfaction prior to recordation of its new lien. Debtors, who were married, but in separate cases, opposed the motions and the court held a lengthy evidentiary trial. Keir, Chief J., explaining the different analyses of the applicable Bankruptcy Code sections, held that cause existed under both 11 U. The court found that the appropriate remedy was the appointment of a chapter 11 Trustee who could further assess whether there was any means for a financial reorganization. (In the matter of the Administrative Claim of Moody’s Wall Street Analytics) Held, (1) Chapter 11 debtor corporation had standing to reject executory contract notwithstanding the fact that the debtor’s parent corporation was the contracting party and not the debtor, where the obligee demanded payment from the debtor and the debtor was unwittingly in possession of the claimant’s computer equipment on the petition date; (2) debtor may reject an executory contract to which it was not a party in the exercise of its sound business judgment based upon the reasonable belief that the debtor might be liable for performance of the contract; (3) debtor’s rejection of an executory contract is not an acknowledgment of indebtedness per se; (4) while rejection of an executory contract may give rise to an unsecured claim and/or an administrative claim against the bankruptcy estate for breach of contract, administrative claimant seeking rejection damages bears burdens of proving damages and that the debtor was obligated to perform the contract, particularly where the debtor is not a party to the rejected contract, but might be liable on some other basis; (5) debtor’s rejection of an executory contract to which it was not a party did not give rise to a claim for any damages against the bankruptcy estate where administrative claimant failed to prove both debtor’s obligation to perform the contract and that debtor’s rejection thereof caused damage to the claimant. Held, Section 503(c)(1) requirements not satisfied by the agreement of the purchaser of Chapter 11 debtor corporation’s stock (pursuant to confirmed plan) to pay the same compensation as that proposed by the KERP, because the agreement to match the debtor’s KERP was not a bona fide job offer as not coming from a different business, and therefore not an offer in competition with the KERP. The Debtor, an experienced real estate developer, sought to refinance an existing loan secured by a first lien on the real property at issue. Furthermore, the court found that the automatic stay did not apply to Florida actions that had been commenced against the officers, employees and shareholders pursuant to 11 U. In complaint for declaratory judgment that tax debt owed to State of Maryland for years 1992 to 1996 was dischargeable in bankruptcy, debtor had filed returns for those tax years but had not filed a report of federal adjustment after the IRS audited her and found additional income. § 523(a)(1)(B)(i) because a report of federal adjustment is not the type of “equivalent report” of which the failure to file would render tax debt nondischargeable. Held, collateral estoppel did not apply to render State court judgment nondischargeable under 523(a)(2)(A) because it was not based on the debtor’s intent not to perform a contract; further, collateral estoppel did not apply to render State court judgment nondischargeable under 523(a)(2)(B) because it was not based upon a written misrepresentation of financial ability. The Court, in concluding pursuant to well established law that a genuine benefit to the estate must be established, found that: (1) conclusory and bald averments that the Receiver and Counsel’s work tended toward the preservation and benefit of the estate was not sufficient; (2) reduced compensation for the Receiver would be awarded only for the ten-day pre-petition period; (3) Counsel was not entitled to any compensation, as his time records did not provide any evidence that his work tended toward the preservation or benefit of the estate. Debtor filed an amended list of exemptions on the eve of a consensual conversion from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7. § 341(a) meeting, objecting to the remaining exemptions taken.
Subsequently, the debtor filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. Motions for appointment of chapter 11 trustees or alternatively for conversion were filed by the purported largest secured creditor, alleging, inter alia, dishonesty, mismanagement and futility. § 1104 and § 1112 for appointment of a trustee, dismissal or conversion. Without such reaffirmation, any waiver of discharge contained in the assumption agreement is ineffective. district court (which held that certain key employees of the Chapter 11 debtor were officers and therefore subject to the provisions of Section 503(c)(1) as insiders of the debtor), the issue was whether any of five employees could satisfy limitations set forth in the statute in order to receive payments under a Key Employee Retention Plan (“KERP”). § 362(a)(3) as the actions did not seek to obtain possession of, or control assets of the bankruptcy estate. State court judgment was entered after debtors filed one page pro se answer but did not appear for trial. The Receiver served in this capacity for the ten-day pre-petition period and was superseded by the commencement of the bankruptcy case pursuant to 11 U. The Receiver and Counsel argued that it was not necessary that their actions contributed a substantial benefit to the estate for an award of fees but instead that the Court should rule in their favor because their activities could reasonably have been thought to be beneficial to the estate when they were performed. Held, collateral estoppel rendered state court judgment for defamation nondischargeable because (1) issue of malice had been necessarily litigated in state court; plaintiff was a public official and therefore was constitutionally required to prove actual malice to obtain a judgment for defamation; (2) the issue of willfulness, defined as intent to cause injury, was necessarily litigated in state court because conduct was defamatory per se, creating a presumption of intent to cause injury, and state court trial transcript did not show rebuttal of presumption; (3) collateral estoppel rendered state court judgment for abuse of process nondischargeable because judgment was necessarily based on findings of willfulness and malice.
Establishment of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.
Authority to require reports by regulated entities.
For continuing activities under the heading "Rental Assistance Demonstration" in the Department of Housing and Urban Development Appropriations Act, 2012 (Public Law 112–55), and in accordance with priorities established by the Secretary, $50,000,000, to remain available through September 30, 2020: Provided, That such funds shall only be available to properties converting from assistance under section 9 of the United States Housing Act of 1937 (42 U. C 1437g) or under section 202(c)(2) of the Housing Act of 1959 (12 U. The Budget expands this authority to enable Section 202 Housing for the Elderly Project Rental Assistance Contracts (PRACs) the option to also convert to Section 8 contracts.