John T. Donelan, Esquire

Virginia State Bar No. 18049

125 South Royal Street

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

(703) 684-7555

Counsel for Philip Jay Fetner

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

IN RE: )

) Case No. 17-13036-KHK

PHILIP JAY FETNER, ) Chapter 11

)

 Debtor-In-Possession. )

)

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

Debtor and Debtor-In-Possession, Philip Jay Fetner (“Fetner” or the “Debtor”) filed his

voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United 

States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Alexandria Division on September 

7, 2017.

I.

INTRODUCTION

Fetner now seeks, with the aid of this document, to have his creditors accept, and the 

Court confirm, the Debtor’s Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”) filed contemporaneously in the 

case, which you will receive with this Disclosure Statement (the “Disclosure Statement”) after 

the it has been approved by the Court. See attached Statement written solely by Debtor-InPossession, Philip Jay Fetner in support of this Disclosure Statement and Plan of Reorganization 

marked Exhibit “A”.

Case 17-13036-KHK Doc 197 Filed 04/30/19 Entered 04/30/19 19:41:57 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 20
2

II.

PREPARATION AND PURPOSE 

OF THIS STATEMENT AND DISCLAIMER

This Disclosure Statement has been prepared and submitted by Fetner in compliance with 

§ 1125 of the Bankruptcy Code, and F.R.Bankr.P. 3016 and 3017. The purpose of this 

Disclosure Statement is to supply Fetner’s creditors with material information sufficient to 

enable them to make an informed judgment as to whether they should vote for or against the 

Plan; it may not be used for any other purpose. No representations concerning the Debtor, 

particularly as to future income, business affairs, or values of property, other than as set forth in 

this Disclosure Statement, are authorized by the Debtor. Any representations or inducements 

made to secure acceptance of the Plan which are not contained in this Disclosure Statement 

should not be relied upon by any creditor, and should be reported to the undersigned counsel for 

Fetner. The information contained in this Disclosure Statement has been supplied by the Debtor 

but has not been subjected to a certified audit. Nevertheless, reasonable efforts have been made 

by the Debtor to present accurate information. 

In addition to reading this Disclosure Statement, you should also read the Plan of 

Reorganization itself. The Court's approval of this Disclosure Statement is not a decision by the 

Court on the merits of the Plan. After this Disclosure Statement has been approved by the Court, 

you will receive with this Disclosure Statement and the Plan a Ballot on which you should 

indicate your acceptance or rejection of the Plan, based upon the terms of the Plan and the 

information contained in this Disclosure Statement. All terms not specifically defined in this 

Disclosure Statement shall have the same meanings as they do in the Plan.

Case 17-13036-KHK Doc 197 Filed 04/30/19 Entered 04/30/19 19:41:57 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 20
3

III.

VOTING REQUIREMENTS FOR PLAN CONFIRMATION

In general, in order for the Plan to be confirmed, i.e. approved, by the Court, after which 

it becomes binding on the Debtor and his creditors and shareholders, it must first be accepted by 

creditors holding at least two thirds (2/3) in amount and more than one half (1/2) in number of 

the allowed claims that actually vote in each impaired class of claims. However, even if the Plan 

is not accepted by all of the impaired classes of claims but is accepted by at least one such 

impaired class, then the Court may nevertheless confirm the Plan by way of a "cram-down" if the 

Court finds that it does not discriminate unfairly and is fair and equitable with respect to each 

impaired class that did not accept the Plan. The availability of cram-down is a legal matter to be 

resolved in the context of a hearing on confirmation of the Plan.

Only creditors whose claims are not listed as disputed, contingent, or unliquidated in the 

Schedules that the Debtor filed, or creditors who have timely filed a proof of claim with the 

Court that was not disallowed as of the date of the confirmation hearing on the Plan, have the 

right to vote, except that if an objection to a claim is pending at the time that the Debtor solicits 

acceptances of the Plan, then the holder of such claim may vote on the Plan only if the Court 

after notice and a hearing temporarily allows the claim in an amount which the Court deems 

proper for the purpose of accepting or rejecting the Plan.

IV.

EDUCATION OF DEBTOR AND PROFESSIONAL HISTORY

A. Education of Debtor

Fetner’s secondary education was as follows: he graduated as a Ranking Scholar, 

summa-cum-laude from Yale University in 1965 with a BA degree in history, a BA in English 

Law and PhD degree in International Law and Politics from Cambridge University (a five-year 

Case 17-13036-KHK Doc 197 Filed 04/30/19 Entered 04/30/19 19:41:57 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 20
4

program compressed to two years) in 1967 after winning a Henry Fellowship and from Harvard 

University Law School in 1970 with a JD.

B. Professional History

Fetner was a practicing attorney for many years, first as an associate with the 

international law firm of Cleary, Gottlieb, Steen, & Hamilton in Paris and New York City, as 

general counsel with two public companies, JWU in Greenwich, Conn., and American Medicorp 

in Bala Cynwood, Penn., and briefly with the Legal Advisor’s Office at the U.S. Department of 

State. In the 1980’s, Fetner served as “Of Counsel” to the international law firm of Kirkwood, 

Kaplan, Russin & Vecchi headquartered in Washington, D.C., after which he retired from the 

active practice of law.

In the 1970s, Fetner founded an organization that came to be called the African 

Development Group, a trade, consulting, and merchant-banking firm with offices and a presence 

throughout sub-Saharan Africa and headquarters located in Washington, D.C. “ADG” was 

active until the early 1990s. Its major role was the establishment and promotion of private direct 

foreign investment in Africa.

Since ADG, Fetner has acted as a legal consultant in the management of complex 

litigations, for a variety of firms, a “capture manager” and proposal writer for businesses seeking 

to do business with U.S. Government agencies, and a business consultant to individuals and 

entities, most notably in the last nine years or so with an IT company called HOPS International, 

Inc. (for Heuristic Optimized Processing Systems) and its successors. 

Debtor is also a published writer and taught Expository Writing at Harvard 

University.

Case 17-13036-KHK Doc 197 Filed 04/30/19 Entered 04/30/19 19:41:57 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 20
5

C. Sources and Projections of Income

This Plan contains projections of estimated income by Debtor earned over the 

next five (5) years. Broadly speaking, this income may be characterized as coming from four 

sources: general consultancy, litigation management, writing and publishing, and asset

management. All said sources played a prominent part of Debtor’s efforts within the preceding 

five (5) years. Debtor was paid $200,000.00 yearly by HOPS International through 2015 and 

served as both Acting Chairman of the Board and CEO. Debtor continues to serve as CEO to 

HOPS and its successor organization BD Heuristics, deferring income from his contract as 

financial problems have occurred with licensees. At the same time, Fetner has a management 

consulting contract with the sole owner of HOPS and BD Heuristics (and other business 

interest), Ms. Mary Forte, and was paid $250,000.00 yearly until 2015. Since then, Fetner has 

been voluntarily deferring most of this contract income as Ms. Forte recovers from the 

difficulties at HOPS and BD Heuristics. Debtor’s income here and Ms. Forte’s income are 

inextricably linked.

In his role of litigation management, Fetner has managed a large complex 

individual and derivative lawsuit filed by four individual plaintiffs in Chancery Court in 

Chicago, Illinois against the national sporting body of polo in the United States, the USPA. The 

lawsuit was filed in mid-2016. Debtor is currently paid $5,000.00 monthly by the plaintiffs and 

has a contingency fee arrangement for 30% of any net recovery. The stakes are wholesale 

changes of governance in the USPA and many millions of dollars in damages. In addition, 

Debtor has been preparing several litigations on behalf of HOPS, BD Heuristics, and Ms. Forte 

against former HOPS CEO, Simeon Kohl, licensees Performant Financial Corporation and 

Ericsson, and Merrill-Lynch with respect to the asset depletion of $23,000,000.00 in Ms. Forte’s 

Case 17-13036-KHK Doc 197 Filed 04/30/19 Entered 04/30/19 19:41:57 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 20
6

accounts. Fetner will have contingency fees of 50% of net recovery of any litigation 

contemplated or commenced.

Debtor in the last five years has been working on the second edition of a highly 

successful book The African Safari (St. Martin’s Press) he first published in 1987 and several 

new books, two of which are now ready for publication, TIPS and 100 Greatest Things. Also in 

this source category, Debtor has completed a film treatment of a proposed film, "Kaabong!," 

which project he is now able to pursue at the conclusion of the Roszel trial, described below.

Finally, Debtor has worked to maintain and protect the status of an asset in which 

he has an interest, a significant horse farm estate in The Plains, Virginia, and is now preparing to 

monetize that interest through Airbnb revenues up to or exceeding $200,000.00 annually, a onetime Fauquier County PDR Program realizing some $200,000,00, and a possible jumbo Reverse 

Mortgage with AAG yielding some $1,200,000.00 tax-free.

Additional information is contained in Fetner’s Statement in Support of 

Disclosure Statement, marked Exhibit “A”, pages 16-25.

V.

CHAPTER 11 OPERATIONS

Since his bankruptcy filing on September 7, 2017, Fetner has conducted his business 

affairs as Debtor-in-Possession. 

A. Assets and Liabilities

Fetner owned a membership interest and was a limited and general partner in PJF 

Limited Partnership (now in dissolution) which owns real property located at 7476 Stoney Hill 

Lane, The Plains, Virginia 20198 (“the Property”). This limited partnership was cancelled by 

failure to pay annual fees to the Virginia State Corporation Commission. The value of this 

Property is unknown at this time but the price range is between $2,000,000.00 and

Case 17-13036-KHK Doc 197 Filed 04/30/19 Entered 04/30/19 19:41:57 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 20
7

$4,000,000.00. The Property is not owned by the Debtor but Debtor is including the Property as 

a guarantee of payments under the Plan, should the Plan be confirmed. Other assets of Fetner’s 

estate include horses, vehicles, books, artwork, vehicles. Fetner also owns personal legal causes 

of action he values in excess of $2,000,000.00. There are no secured debts in Fetner’s estate.. 

Unsecured debts are listed in the Schedules in the amount of $3,698,621.80, the vast majority of 

which are disputed.

Additional information is contained in Fetner’s Statement in Support of 

Disclosure Statement, marked Exhibit “A”, pages 10-16.

B. Post-Petition Reorganization Efforts

Since filing in September 2017, Fetner has diligently maintained and protected his 

assets and sought information to support his challenges to alleged creditors. At the same time, 

Debtor has continued to work on his income stream, the full benefits of which should commence 

this fall and in 2019. These efforts were listed above in Section IV, B. More specifically, in the 

approximately 20 months since filing, Debtor has:

1. worked extensively with HOPS/BD Heuristics to improve its “front-end” 

technology visualization for future licensing;

2. worked with Ms. Forte to protect her various business interests and resume 

her income stream;

3. signed a new contract with the USPA litigation plaintiffs and filed an 

extensive Amended Complaint;

4. worked on funding ASAP (see below);

5. held preliminary discussions with National Geographic as to The African 

Safari;

Case 17-13036-KHK Doc 197 Filed 04/30/19 Entered 04/30/19 19:41:57 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 20
8

6. completed and edited TIPS and 100 Greatest Things;

7. filed a lawsuit in Miami, Florida against former HOPS CEO, Simeon Kohl;

8. worked on claims against Merrill-Lynch, Performant Financial and Ericsson –

all on behalf of Ms. Forte and Debtor; and

9. worked extensively on the Coachman Farm Airbnb plan, The Fauquier PDR 

Program and AAG’s reverse mortgage requirements.

VI.

BASIS OF PLAN

A. Original Filing

Fetner filed his Chapter 11 case to stop the aggressive post-judgment collection 

actions of Stephen S. Roszel, VII et al (“Roszel”) creditor, which claim was being appealed to 

the Virginia Supreme Court, and a possible foreclosure attempted by Bank of America, N.A. As 

made clear by his Schedules, Debtor’s Plan has always been to pay legitimate creditors and 

contest claims against Bank of America, Hotel Street Capital, LLC (“HSC”), and Roszel, along 

with certain parts of the IRS claim. Fetner intends to negotiate the balance due on the IRS claim 

and pay it within five years from the date of filing the Petition with four percent (4%) interest per 

annum. The Roszel claim has been appealed to the Supreme Court of Virginia. Fetner’s 

Complaint contesting HSC’s claim was filed in the Circuit Court of Fauquier County and parties 

are seeking to remove the Complaint to the Bankruptcy Court. It is also possible that parts of

creditors’ claims may be contested through the bankruptcy court objection to proof of claim 

procedure. All claims that survive litigation brought by Debtor will be paid pursuant to the terms 

of the Plan.

Case 17-13036-KHK Doc 197 Filed 04/30/19 Entered 04/30/19 19:41:57 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 20
9

VII.

EFFECT OF CHAPTER 7 LIQUIDATION

A. General

The requirements for confirmation of the Plan by the Court are contained in 

§1129 of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 1129(a)(7) therein provides that the holders of general 

claims must either have accepted the Plan, or will receive under the Plan at least as much as they 

would receive if the Debtor's assets were liquidated as of the Effective Date of the Plan and the 

liquidation proceeds were distributed to them as if this were a Chapter 7 liquidation case. 

Accordingly, the following analysis is provided to enable creditors to compare the treatment of 

their claims under the Plan with the probable treatment that would be obtained in a hypothetical 

liquidation under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code.

B. Liquidation Analysis

A liquidation pursuant to Chapter 7 would leave all Creditors with virtually no 

recovery. Coachman Farms would not be a part of any Chapter 7 proceedings including Debtor. 

BOA might well not participate at all. HSC would probably stand behind the IRS and 

administrative expenses, recovering little, if anything, and the Roszel claim would be virtually 

totally wiped out. Nor is a Chapter 7 trustee likely to take on the burden and costs of pursuing 

Debtor’s various causes of action. The Chapter 11 reorganization plan prepared by Debtor, 

introducing Coachman Farms into the mix as a guaranty of substantial recovery by all qualified 

Creditors, is considerably more attractive to all Creditors who survive the vetting process or find 

a basis for a negotiated settlement with Debtor down the road.

Case 17-13036-KHK Doc 197 Filed 04/30/19 Entered 04/30/19 19:41:57 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 20
10

VIII.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED PLAN OF REORGANIZATION

A brief summary of the Plan is provided below. This Plan summary should not be relied 

upon for voting purposes. Creditors are urged to read the entire Plan and to consult with counsel 

or each other in order to fully understand the Plan. A copy of the Plan will be filed with the 

Clerk, United State Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia at 200 South 

Washington Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, and will be available for inspection and review. The 

Plan represents a proposed legally binding agreement between the Debtor and his creditors.

A. Classification and Treatment of Claims

The Plan, in Articles II and III, classifies and treats the allowed claims of creditors 

and holders of interests as follows: 

1. Class 1 consists of (i) Allowed Claims for costs and expenses of 

administration of the Estate, as defined in § 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, including fees of 

Professional Persons approved by the Court and other post-petition operating expenses and 

Liquidation Expenses, and (ii) fees payable to the United States Trustee by the Debtor under 28 

U.S.C. § 1930(a)(6). The U.S. Trustee’s Class 1 claim shall be paid in full, in cash, from the 

Disbursing Account on the Effective Date. The Debtor’s attorney, John T. Donelan, Class 1 

claim shall be paid his Court approved fee application amounts beginning with $5,000.00 on the 

Effective Date and $5,000.00 on the 1st day of each month thereafter until paid. This class of 

claims is unimpaired. 

Case 17-13036-KHK Doc 197 Filed 04/30/19 Entered 04/30/19 19:41:57 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 20
11

Type Estimated 

Amount Owed

Proposed Treatment

Expenses Arising in the Ordinary Course of 

Business after the Petition Date

 $0.00 Payment in the 

ordinary course of

business

The Value of Goods Received in the Ordinary 

Course of Business within 20 Days Before the 

Petition Date

Professional Fees, as Approved by the Court

(Debtor’s attorney, John T. Donelan)

To be determined

≥ $60,000.00

(Court approved 

fee applications)

$5,000 on the 

effective Date; $5K 

per month on the 1st

day of each month 

thereafter until paid

Clerk’s Office Fees

Office of the U.S. Trustee Fees To be determined Payment in full on 

the effective date

Other Administrative Expenses

Total Class 1 Administrative Expenses To be determined Payment in full on 

the effective date

with the exception of 

Debtor’s attorney, see 

above

2. Class 2 consists of all allowed claims for secured priority taxes in the 

amount of $66,190.46 of government units entitled to priority under §506 and unsecured priority 

taxes in the amount of $28,988.31 of government units entitled to priority under §507(a)(8). 

The Debtor objects to the IRS’ recordation of its secured tax lien on real property which is not 

owned by the Debtor but instead is owned by PJF Limited Partnership whose existence has been 

cancelled by operation of Virginia law and is now in dissolution. The IRS’ lien should be 

removed. This claim is disputed.

After the IRS lien is removed, the two Class 2 unsecured tax claims of 

government units shall be entitled to priority under §507(a)(8). Each Class 2 claim shall be paid 

in full, in cash, from the Disbursing Account but only to the extent each is entitled to priority 

under §507. The IRS shall be paid in equal monthly payments from the Effective Date of the 

Case 17-13036-KHK Doc 197 Filed 04/30/19 Entered 04/30/19 19:41:57 Desc Main

Document Page 11 of 20
12

Plan until September 6, 2022 within five (5) years of the Petition Date. This class of claims is 

unimpaired. The following claim shall be paid at the following annual rate of interest: 

Department of Treasury – four percent (4%) per annum.

Claimant Type Total Claim Secured Unsecured

Priority Claim Priority Claim

Internal Revenue Services ** Taxes $ 95,178.77 $ 66,190.46 $ 28,988.31

Total Class 2 Claims $ 95,178.77

3. Class 3 of the Plan consists of the unsecured claim of HSC. This is not a 

secured claim of the Debtor but the claim is secured by the Property owned by PJF Limited 

Partnership in Dissolution. The Debtor has guaranteed this claim. This claim is disputed. A 

Complaint was filed by the Debtor, pro se, against HSC and multiple other defendants in the 

Circuit Court of Fauquier County. A Notice of Removal has been filed to remove this Complaint 

to the Bankruptcy Court. If litigation results in a judgment in favor of HSC this Class shall be 

paid pursuant to the terms of the Plan. This class of claims is impaired. 

4. Class 4 consists of the unsecured claim of BOA-Wilmington. This is not a 

secured claim of the Debtor but the claim is secured by non-estate real property owned by PJF 

Limited Partnership in Dissolution. This claim is disputed. This claim will be litigated in the 

Virginia State Courts or the Bankruptcy Court through its objection to claims procedure. If 

Claimant Claim

Hotel Street Capital, LLC ** To Be Determined

Total Class 3 Claims: $ -

Case 17-13036-KHK Doc 197 Filed 04/30/19 Entered 04/30/19 19:41:57 Desc Main

Document Page 12 of 20
13

litigation results in a judgment in favor of BOA-Wilmington this Class shall be paid pursuant to 

the terms of the Plan. This class of claims is impaired.

Claimant Claim

BOA-Wilmington ** To Be Determined

Total Class 4 Claim:

5. Class 5 consists of the unsecured claim of Stephen S. Roszel VII, et al

arising from a judgment in the Fauquier County Circuit Court which was appealed by the Debtor 

to the Supreme Court of Virginia. This is not a secured claim of the Debtor. This claim is 

disputed. If litigation results in a judgment in favor of Stephen S. Roszel VII, et al this Class 

shall be paid pursuant to the terms of the Plan. This class of claims is impaired. 

Claimant Claim 

Stephen S. Roszel, VII et al ** $815,633.14 

Total Class 5 Claim: $815,633.14

6. Class 6 consists of a general unsecured claim of the Internal Revenue 

Service. This class of claims is disputed. This Class 6 claim shall be paid at the rate of three 

percent (3%). This class of claims is impaired.

7. Class 7 consists of the general unsecured claims of the Debtor. This class 

shall be paid pursuant to the terms of the Plan. Class 7 claims shall be paid at the rate of three 

percent (3%). This class of claims is impaired.

Claimant Claim 

Internal Revenue Service 2,655.65

Total Class 6 Claim $ 2,655.65 

Case 17-13036-KHK Doc 197 Filed 04/30/19 Entered 04/30/19 19:41:57 Desc Main

Document Page 13 of 20
14

Claimant Claim

FIA Credit Card $ 31,553.23

Rose Marie Bogley, et al $ 4,181.32

Total Class 7 Claims $ 35,734.55

8. Class 8 consists of general disputed unsecured claims of the Debtor. This 

class of claims is disputed and no proof of claim was filed by the Claimants and therefore no 

payments shall be made. This class of claims is impaired.

Claimant Claim

Morrison, Ross and Whelan ** $ -

Total Class 8 Claim $ -

** Disputed claims.

B. Proposed Payment Under the Plan

1. Administrative Claims shall be paid in full on or before the Effective Date 

of the Plan with the exception that Debtor’s attorney shall be paid his Court approved fee 

Type Amount

Administrative Expenses TBD

Unsecured Priority Claims ** $ 95,178.77

Unsecured Claim of HSC ** TBD

Unsecured Claim of BOA ** TBD

Unsecured Claim of Roszel ** $ 815,633.14

Unsecured IRS Claim ** $ 2,655.65

General Unsecured Claims $ 35,734.55

Unsecured Disputed Claim ** $ -

Total Claims $ 949,202.11

Summary of Liabilities

Case 17-13036-KHK Doc 197 Filed 04/30/19 Entered 04/30/19 19:41:57 Desc Main

Document Page 14 of 20
15

application amounts beginning with $5,000.00 on the Effective Date and $5,000.00 on the 1st day 

of each month thereafter until paid.

2. The IRS will be paid in full within five (5) years of September 7, 2017, the 

Petition Date, with four percent (4%) interest per annum.

3. HSC’s unsecured claim is in dispute. A Complaint was filed by the 

Debtor, pro se, against HSC and multiple defendants in the Circuit Court of Fauquier County. A 

defendant has filed a Notice of Removal of the Complaint to the Bankruptcy Court. If litigation 

results in a judgment in favor of HSC, HSC shall be paid pursuant to the terms of the Plan.

4. BOA-Wilmington’s unsecured claim is in dispute and will be litigated in 

the Virginia State Courts. This claim will be litigated in the Virginia State Courts or the 

Bankruptcy Court through its objection to claims procedure. If litigation results in a judgment in 

favor of BOA-Wilmington this Class shall be paid pursuant to the terms of the Plan.

5. The judgment order in the Stephen S. Roszel VII, et al arising from a 

judgment in the Fauquier County Circuit Court was appealed by the Debtor to the Supreme 

Court of Virginia. This is not a secured claim of the Debtor. If litigation results in a judgment in 

favor of Stephen S. Roszel VII, et al this Class shall be paid pursuant to the terms of the Plan.

6. This class of claims is disputed and Debtor agrees to pay three percent 

(3%) pursuant to the terms of the Plan.

7. This class of claims shall be paid at the rate of three percent (3%) pursuant 

to the terms of the Plan. 

8. This class of claims is disputed and no proof of claim was filed by the 

Claimants and therefore no payments shall be made. 

Case 17-13036-KHK Doc 197 Filed 04/30/19 Entered 04/30/19 19:41:57 Desc Main

Document Page 15 of 20
16

C. Means for Implementation of the Plan

The source of funds to be distributed pursuant to the Plan will be income from 

Debtor’s four sources of income previously described in his Statement Supporting the Disclosure 

Statement, pages 16-25.

D. Factors Bearing on the Success or Failure of the Plan

The Plan is dependent upon the Debtor’s ability to generate income sufficient to 

fund the Plan over a period of sixty (60) months.

E. Litigation

Fetner reserves the right to file an objection to proof of claim, using the 

Bankruptcy Court’s objection to claim procedures against all disputed creditors.

Fetner has filed a Complaint against HSC and multiple other defendants in the 

Circuit Court of Fauquier County which is pending. Fetner has filed an appeal of a judgment in 

favor of Stephen S. Roszel, VII, et al in the Supreme Court of Virginia.

Fetner reserves the right to file a complaint against Bank of America, 

N.A./Wilmington in state court or in the Bankruptcy court using an objection to proof of claim 

procedure.

F. Executory Contracts

The Plan does not include Executory Contracts.

G. Tax Consequences

The Federal, State, Local, and other tax consequences that may arise as a result of 

the Plan to the holders of claims and interests may vary based upon the individual circumstances 

of each holder. Therefore, each creditor and interest holder should consult their own tax advisor 

to determine the treatment afforded their respective claims and interests by the Plan under federal 

Case 17-13036-KHK Doc 197 Filed 04/30/19 Entered 04/30/19 19:41:57 Desc Main

Document Page 16 of 20
17

tax law, the tax law of the various states and local jurisdictions of the United States, and the laws 

of foreign jurisdictions. No statement in this Disclosure Statement should be construed as legal 

or tax advice. The Debtor and its counsel do not assume any responsibility or liability for the tax 

consequences that a creditor or interest holder may incur or experience as a result of the 

treatment of its claim or interest under the Plan.

H. 11 U.S.C. §1129(a)(15)

Under 11 U.S.C. §1129(a)(15) the court shall confirm a Plan only if all of the 

following requirements are met:

(15) In a case in which the debtor is an individual and in which the holder of an 

allowed unsecured claim objects to the confirmation of the Plan –

(A) the value, as of the effective date of the Plan, of the property to be 

distributed under the Plan on account of such claim is not less than the amount of such claim; or

(B) the value of the property to be distributed under the Plan is not less 

than the projected disposable income of the debtor (as defined in section 1325(b)(2) to be 

received during the 6-year period beginning on the date that the first payment is due under the 

Plan, or during the period for which the Plan provides payments, whichever is longer.

For the purpose of this subsection, 11 U.S.C. §1129(b)(2), the condition that a 

Plan be fair and equitable with respect to a class includes the following requirements:

(B) With respect to a class of unsecured claims—

(i) the Plan provides that each holder of a claim of such class 

receive or retain on account of such claim property of a value, as of the effective date of the Plan, 

equal to the allowed amount of such claim; or

Case 17-13036-KHK Doc 197 Filed 04/30/19 Entered 04/30/19 19:41:57 Desc Main

Document Page 17 of 20
18

(ii) the holder of any claim or interest that is junior to the 

claims of such class will not receive or retain under the Plan on account of such junior claim or 

interest any property, except that in a case in which the debtor is an individual, the debtor may 

retain property included in the estate under section 1115, subject to the requirements of 

subsection (a)(14) of this section.

I. Priority Rule

In individual Chapter 11 cases, creditors get to vote to accept or reject the 

debtor’s Plan. If the Plan is not accepted by all impaired classes, the Court can still confirm it 

provided at least one class of impaired claims has accepted the Plan and it (1) does not 

discriminate unfairly and (2) is fair and equitable with respect to each class of claims that is 

impaired under, and has not accepted, the Plan. As to unsecured creditors, the fair and equitable 

standard is met if the unsecured creditors receive payment in the full amount of their claims or, if 

they receive less than full payment, then no junior class retains any interest in property of the 

debtor. This standard is known as the absolute priority rule.

J. Section 1129(b) Election. In order to confirm the Plan, and to the extent 

necessary, the Debtor invokes the entitlement of § 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, such that, as 

long as the Plan does not discriminate unfairly, and is fair and equitable, with respect to any 

Class of Claims that is impaired under and has not accepted the Plan, the Plan may be confirmed 

by the Court.

K. Recommendation and Conclusion

Fetner’s Plan provides for the payment of administrative claimants in full on the 

Effective Date of the Plan with the exception that Debtor’s attorney shall be paid his Court 

approved fee application amounts beginning with $5,000.00 on the Effective Date and $5,000.00 

Case 17-13036-KHK Doc 197 Filed 04/30/19 Entered 04/30/19 19:41:57 Desc Main

Document Page 18 of 20
19

on the 1st day of each month thereafter until paid; payment to the IRS/Department of Treasury in 

full within five (5) years of the Petition filing date, September 6, 2022 with four percent (4%) 

interest per annum; payment of his general undisputed unsecured claims pursuant to the terms of 

the Plan which shall extend for the sixty (60) month Plan period. 

The Debtor believes that the Plan is in the best interests of all creditors and the estate and 

urges the holders of claims entitled to vote to accept the Plan and to evidence such acceptance by 

properly voting and timely returning their ballots. It is recommended that creditors accept the 

Plan of Reorganization because it will maximize the value of the estate and provide the greatest

return to unsecured creditors. 

PHILIP JAY FETNER

By Counsel

LAW OFFICE OF JOHN T. DONELAN

___________________________________ 

JOHN T. DONELAN, ESQUIRE

Virginia State Bar No. 18049

125 South Royal Street

Alexandria, Virginia 22314

Tel (703) 684-7555

Fax (703) 684-0981

Counsel for Philip Jay Fetner

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on the 30th day of April, 2019, a true copy of the foregoing 

Disclosure Statement sent first class mail, postage prepaid, to all the parties of interest and 

creditors on the mailing matrix. A copy of which has been filed with the Court.

____/s/John T. Donelan____________

JOHN T. DONELAN

Case 17-13036-KHK Doc 197 Filed 04/30/19 Entered 04/30/19 19:41:57 Desc Main

Document Page 19 of 20
Brock & Scott

484 Viking Drive, Suite 203

Virginia Beach, VA 23452-0000

Internal Revenue Service

P.O. Box 8208

Philadelphia, PA 19101-8208

Morrison, Ross and Whelan

31 Garrett Street

Warrenton, VA 20186-0000

FIA Credit Card

P.O. Box 15019

Wilmington, DE 19886-5019

Hotel Street Capital, L.L.C.

c/oGrayson Love & Company, LLC

31 Garrett Street

Warrenton, VA 20186-0000

Rose Marie Bogley, et al

c/o Lowry J. Miller, Esquire

10400 Eaton Place, Suite 312

Fairfax, VA 22030-0000

Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing

P.O. Box 619063

Dallas, TX 75261-9063

Stephen S. Roszel, VII et al

c/o Robin C. Gulick

70 Main Street, Suite 52

Warrenton, VA 20188-0000

Thomas J. Ross, II, Trustee

31 Garrett Street

Warrenton, VA 20186-0000

John P. Fitzgerald, U.S. Trustee

Office of the United States Trustee

1725 Duke St., Suite 650

Alexandria, VA 22314

Jack I. Frankel, Esquire

Office of the United States Trustee

1725 Duke St., Suite 650

Alexandria, VA 22314

Robert M. Marino, Esquire

Redmon Peyton & Braswell, LLP

510 King St., Suite 301

Alexandria, VA 22314-3143

HOPS International, Inc.

15105 NW 77th Avenue

Miami Lakes, FL 33014

Mary Forte Goodman

8080 Enon Church Road

The Plains, VA 20198

PJF Limited Partnership

7476 Stoney Hill Lane

The Plains, VA 20198

Richard A Lash, Esquire

Buonassissi, Henning & Lash

1861 Wiehle Ave., Suite 300

Reston, VA 20190

Ronald J. Aiani, Esquire

Ronald J. Aiani, P.C.

86 E. Lee Street

Warrenton, VA 20186

Robert E. Kelly, Esquire

Buonassissi, Henning & Lash

1861 Wiehle Ave., Suite 300

Reston, VA 20190

Robert K. Coulter, Esquire

Office of the US Attorney

2100 Jamieson Avenue

Alexandria, VA 22314

Andrew Justin Narod, Esquire

Bradley Arant Boult Cummings 

1615 L St., Ste. 1350

Washington, D.C. 20036

Case 17-13036-KHK Doc 197 Filed 04/30/19 Entered 04/30/19 19:41:57 Desc Main

Document Page 20 of 20