Case law

Levit v. Spatz (In Re Spatz)

209 B.R. 907 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 19, 1997

The interest expense of $115,000 was clearly excessive in relation to the remaining debt of $300,000. … The Court found McCann highly qualified and his methodology well supported and logical, with one exception.

Fisher v. Prime Table Restaurant & Lounge, Inc. (In Re Lake States Commodities, Inc.)

271 B.R. 575 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 11, 2002

First, the Court determines if the proposed expert qualifies as an expert. In the absence of any objection in this regard and in light of Malek’s impressive training and experience, Malek qualifies as an expert. 58. … Clearly, it is not an opinion formulated by him after an audit or any search for the truth of the actual amount of the indebtedness. An expert’s testimony cannot be used to subvert rules of evidence.

In Re Owens

269 B.R. 794 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 27, 2001

The Debtor, as a licensed practical nurse, is the most qualified and only member of the family who is able to help care for her mother. … The Debtor has not established a new homestead in Louisiana.

In Re Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc.

272 B.R. 677 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 25, 2002

The State therefore clearly does not meet the “integrated transaction” test for the “same *682 transaction” element of a recoupment claim. The State cites United States v. … To qualify for setoff, a claimant must establish four elements: 1) the creditor holds a claim against the debtor that arose prepetition; 2) the creditor owes a debt to the debtor that arose prepetition; 3) the claim and debt

In Re John Dawson & Associates, Inc.

289 B.R. 654 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 16, 2003

Each transaction exceeded the investment parameters established by Cameron. (TEX 7; CEX 18). … The findings made by the [trial] court clearly indicate the elements of a ratification ...” Id. at 182. Conclusion Here, Cameron is a sophisticated and experienced investor.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Outboard Marine Corp. (In Re Outboard Marine Corp.)

300 B.R. 308 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 20, 2003

If it is not, the second question to be addressed is whether the invoices in this case, combined with the financing statement, qualify as a security agreement in compliance with § 25-9-203. … (In re Hite), 4 B.R. 547, 549 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1980) (citation omitted) (observing that “[t]he policy behind the financing statement requirement is clearly that of notice filing.”); Mountain Farm Credit Serv. v.

In Re Mercury Finance Co.

249 B.R. 490 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 13, 2000

It is neither a qualifying round for ongoing litigation nor a way to test the waters. See Nat’l Wrecking Co. v. … The Trust Agreement’s terms ensured that the arbitration would not be a final resolution, but rather an expensive and time-consuming qualifying round.

Sylvester v. Martin (In Re Martin)

130 B.R. 930 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 5, 1991

Clearly the jury’s findings on the issues was the basis for that judgment. … Two of the nine statements qualified as misrepresentations under Wisconsin law: (b) that the financial statements which he gave to Philip R.

Inskeep v. Grosso (In Re Financial Partners, Ltd.)

116 B.R. 629 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 26, 1990

The facts of this case are clearly set forth in the Memorandum Opinion dated October 31, 1989, and need not be repeated here. … Id. 1 *641 Financial clearly satisfies both conditions of the definition of futures commission merchant as set forth by the Ninth Circuit in Co Petro.

Inskeep v. Griffin (In Re Griffin Trading Co.)

418 B.R. 714 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 30, 2009

This testimony, however, establishes only the latest possible time MeesPi-erson’s bank, or the beneficiary bank, accepted. … We have no evidence regarding the calculation of the foreign futures secured amount or what customers qualified as foreign futures or foreign options customers.

Bowers-Siemon Chemicals Co. v. H.L. Blachford, Ltd. (In Re Bowers-Siemon Chemicals Co.)

139 B.R. 436 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 1992

As such BSCC clearly had an interest in the funds. No legal restrictions were placed on BSCC’s use of the money, Blachford paid the money to Cook who deposited it into BSCC’s account. … The only consideration in this transaction which qualifies as new value under § 547(a)(2) is the stock and that was not “given to the debtor.”

Kelleher v. National Asset Loan Management, Ltd. (In re Shelbourne North Water Street L.P.)

550 B.R. 391 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 28, 2016

They argued that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over NALM based on the Sovereign Immunities Act. … The NALM Parties have met their burden of establishing that Kelleher’s complaint violated Rule 9011.

American Eagle Bank v. Friedman (In re Friedman)

543 B.R. 833 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 29, 2015

Rather, the opinion noted that the United States Attorney’s office had denied a grant of immunity. This, it was reasoned, might support the debtor’s belief that he is under investigation. … The Debtor’s wife, therefore) is clearly considered to be an insider under the Bankruptcy Code.

Fosco v. Fosco (In Re Fosco)

289 B.R. 78 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Dec 10, 2002

A: We’ve discussed it when he gets established in a better job he would pay. Q: What’s established in a better job, what does that mean? … A: That he should establish himself and make some money and be able to pay his bills. Q: And what does he say when you discuss that he should establish himself in a better job?

CIT Communications Finance Corp. v. Maxwell Ex Rel. Estates of marchFirst, Inc. (In Re marchFirst, Inc.)

378 B.R. 563 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 15, 2007

Count I alleges that Maxwell willfully breached his fiduciary duty to CIT by failing to file a complete inventory for the Debtors within 30 days of qualifying as trustee, stating in the Statement of Financial Affairs that … Here, the court will not go through the exercise of determining whether CIT has a prima facie case because the proceeding is clearly barred by the statute of limitations.

Ebner v. Beatty (In re Beatty)

541 B.R. 428 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 13, 2015

: *433 In accordance with Article XIII, Section 5 of the Illinois Constitution, which prohibits the impairment or diminishment of benefits granted under this Code, a QILDRO issued against a member of a retirement system established … The Judges’ Retirement System posts a detailed guide to QILDROs that clearly explains how to obtain rights in a member’s benefits, which was available to Jacqueline and any other interested party.

Deady v. Hanson (In Re Hanson)

432 B.R. 758 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jul 13, 2010

A fiduciary relationship qualifies under § 523(a)(4) only if it “imposes real duties in advance of the breach.... ” Marchiando, 13 F.3d at 1116 . … Further, there was clearly no express trust created between the parties. None of the documentary evidence revealed a trust.

In Re Farley, Inc.

146 B.R. 739 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 2, 1992

Upon the trial of the action, the facts so specified shall be deemed established, and the trial shall be conducted accordingly. … Die establishes liability and damages in excess of that cap. In re Goldblatt Bros., Inc., 66 B.R. at 346 .

In Re Shethi

389 B.R. 588 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 30, 2008

Id 6 In this case, the trustee contends that he has established both prejudice and bad faith. … Of those five objections, however, three are clearly inapplicable to the amended exemption claim.

In Re Lake States Commodities, Inc.

173 B.R. 642 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Nov 7, 1994

Further, as the rule clearly indicates oral claims are not eligible to vote. … The burden of establishing the invalidity of the claim for this purpose is on the objector. 4 Collier on Bankruptcy, ¶ 702.01, p. 702-8 (15th Ed.1994) (citations omitted).