Case law

In re NE Opco, Inc.

501 B.R. 233 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Nov 1, 2013

For a start, both are clearly goods under the plain meaning of the U.C.C. … It held that the relationship between the debtor and Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (PREPA), which was clearly one between a customer and a utility, was governed as a service by section 366 of the Code.

Nedelka v. Internal Revenue Serv. (In re Nedelka)

595 B.R. 449 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Dec 20, 2018

("Forms filed after their due dates and after an IRS assessment rarely, if ever, qualify as an honest or reasonable attempt to satisfy the tax law.") … Those debts were clearly not dischargeable by § 1328(a), and were not discharged by the Discharge Order.

Triad Guaranty Insurance v. American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. (In re American Home Mortgage Holding)

477 B.R. 517 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Aug 27, 2012

But, because Triad failed to aver that any party other than a non-debtor could qualify as a current “owner” of Triad-insured loans, these entities appear to be non-debtors. 2. … Triad’s claims clearly do not “arise in” the bankruptcy case. 53 B. The Court Lacks Post-Confirmation “Related To” Jurisdiction.

In Re Nellson Nutraceutical, Inc.

356 B.R. 364 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Dec 4, 2006

The Court previously ruled during trial that the Debtors’ witness is qualified as an expert. … These factors are, “[1] the degree to which the expert testifying is qualified, [2] the relationship of a technique to ‘more established modes of scientific analysis,’ and [3] the ‘non-judicial uses to which the scientific

Harbour v. ABX Enterprises, Inc. (In Re APS Holding Corp.)

282 B.R. 795 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Aug 21, 2002

There was no established schedule according to which the invoices would be paid. (Id. at 13-14; Saldi Depo. at 16-17.) … Saldi, were clearly never rejected by Debtors. (Def.’s Br. (Doc. #23) at 13.)

Schroeder v. New Century Holdings, Inc. (In Re New Century Holdings, Inc.)

387 B.R. 95 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Jun 17, 2008

ERISA does not specify what is required for a plan to qualify as unfunded. … No court has established a bright-line test to determine at what point a “select group” becomes too large to allow *112 the plan to qualify as a top hat plan. Demery v.

In Re Sun Healthcare Group, Inc.

245 B.R. 779 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Feb 25, 2000

This was clearly a timely motion for reconsideration of the amended Final DIP Order under Rule 9023 or 9024. B. … The Constitution clearly states that federal law has supremacy. 12 This clearly includes bankruptcy law. See, e.g., People of State of New York v.

Official Comm. Unsecured Creditors of HH Liquidation, LLC v. Comvest Grp. Holdings, LLC (In re HH Liquidation, LLC)

590 B.R. 211 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Jan 26, 2018

In addition, when an exculpatory clause immunizes *273 the managers of a limited liability corporation from breach of fiduciary duty claims, a controlling equity holder is likewise immunized. See Shandler v. DLJ Merch. … Additionally, because Holdings' Managers are immune from any claim for a breach of the duty of care, Comvest (as the controlling equity member) is also immune from liability for breach of the duty of care.

Tri Supply & Equipment, Inc. v. Brady (In Re Brady)

458 B.R. 814 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · May 18, 2011

For purposes of § 523(a)(4), the applicable state law creating a fiduciary relationship must clearly outline the fiduciary duties and identify the trust property; if state law does not clearly and expressly impose trust-like … Tri Supply points the Court to the Construction Trust Statute to *821 establish the existence of an express trust for its benefit.

Beneficial National Bank v. Priestley (In Re Priestley)

201 B.R. 875 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Jun 6, 1996

Beneficial had an established lending relationship with Priestley, having previously extended him a $100,-000 commercial mortgage and a $25,000 consumer line of credit. … Therefore, Priestley’s misrepresentation qualifies as a statement of financial condition.

In Re Peregrine Systems, Inc.

319 B.R. 800 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Jan 20, 2005

Bettin failed to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination. … Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973): the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by showing that the plaintiff is (a) a member of a protected class; (b) applied for and was qualified for a

Hechinger Liquidation Trust v. Universal Forest Products, Inc. (In Re Hechinger Investment Co. of Delaware, Inc.)

326 B.R. 282 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Jun 16, 2005

Thus, the issue before the Court is whether UFP has proven that it qualifies for the exception under both subsections (B) and (C) of § 547(c)(2). … not clearly erroneous.

EXDS, Inc. v. RK Electric, Inc. (In Re EXDS, Inc.)

301 B.R. 436 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Oct 31, 2003

As in most Chapter 11 cases, including the case before me, the debtor files a motion to establish a bar date. … There the court held that the State of Mississippi relinquished any right of sovereign immunity by filing a proof of claim even where that proof of claim stated that the State “reserved” state sovereign immunity.

Accardi v. IT Corp. (In Re IT Group, Inc.)

323 B.R. 578 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Mar 31, 2005

Under ERISA, a plan is unfunded if the beneficiary cannot establish “through the plan documents, a legal right any greater than that of an unsecured creditor to a specific set of funds from which the employer is, under the … The cases Appellants cite involve qualified ERISA plans that are not exempt from the ERISA fiduciary responsibility provisions. See, e.g., Coleman v. Nationwide Life Ins. Co., 969 F.2d 54 (4th Cir.1992).

In Re Majestic Star Casino, LLC

457 B.R. 327 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Sep 13, 2011

In qualifying Mr. Herman as an expert, the Court found it significant that: a.Mr. … The evidence clearly, precisely and overwhelmingly establishes that Mr. Herman’s opinion as to the true tax value of the Vessels is reliable.

In re Energy Future Holdings Corp.

588 B.R. 371 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Aug 1, 2018

"To establish an administrative claim under this section, there must be (1) a post-petition transaction between the claimant and the estate and (2) a benefit to the estate." … Energy Future Holdings Corp. , 575 B.R. at 626 ("With the deal now clearly dead, NextEra still took no action to terminate the Merger Agreement.

In re Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc.

519 B.R. 76 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Oct 20, 2014

The Union’s refusal to negotiate qualifies for the finding that it rejected the Proposal without good cause. See, e.g., In re Garofalo’s Finer Foods, 117 B.R. 363, 371 (Bankr. N.D.Ill.1990). 6. … These factors clearly militate in favor of rejection. Most importantly, liquidation will result if the Court denies the Motion.

Golden v. Guardian (In Re Lenox Healthcare, Inc.)

343 B.R. 96 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Jun 1, 2006

Guardian argues that because the Debtor was solely liable for employee claims and Guardian was merely the Debt- or’s agent, it clearly was a conduit. … As such, the Trustee must establish each element of section 547(b), including section 547(b)(5).

Chao v. Lexington Healthcare Group, Inc. (In Re Lexington Healthcare Group, Inc.)

335 B.R. 570 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Dec 15, 2005

If the employer does not pay the gross wages to the employees (or to the plan as directed by the employees), then clearly some portion of the employees’ wages have been “withheld.” … The facts in Begier suggest what may qualify as a nexus. In that case, the funds had actually been paid to the IRS to satisfy the debtor’s trust fund obligation. Id. at 56 , 110 S.Ct. 2258 .

EBS Pension L.L.C. v. Edison Bros. Stores, Inc. (In Re Edison Bros.)

243 B.R. 231 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Jan 7, 2000

The excess proceeds were defined in the First Edison Plan as all rights which Edison had to the funds in the terminated pension plan net of the funds transferred to a new qualified pension plan and related costs and taxes … associated with the termination of the old pension plan and establishment of the new pension plan.