Case law

Desmond v. Northern Ocean Liquidating Corporation fka Norther

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 1, 2024

In the alternative, it appears that if any baseline is capable of being established, the Trustee contends that the Court should establish a baseline period prior to the time when evidence suggests that NOLC was aware … Fyfe, Inc., 891 F.2d at 67–71 (affirming the district court’s finding that the challenged transfers were not made within the ordinary course of business when the new arrangement “was clearly intended to control the [debtor

Kevin Anderson

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 4, 2019

As suggested by the enacting legislation’s title, “Giving Debtors the Ability to Keep Leased Personal Property by Assumption,” § 365(p) confers a benefit upon consumer debtors by establishing a simple mechanism for debtors … Div. 167 (1994) held that the car lease in that case did not qualify as a retail installment contract under Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 255B, § 1. See also, Aguiar v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., No.

Riley v. Tencara, LLC (In Re Wolverine, Proctor & Schwartz, LLC)

447 B.R. 1 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Jan 21, 2011

(“WPS, Inc.”), “for use by prospective qualified acquirers ... in connection with their preliminary consideration of an acquisition of the Company....” … The fixing of the lower limit is the elusive boundary which cannot be clearly defined.

Muhammed Al-Idrisi

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 12, 2021

“The burden of proof is on the [Trustee] to establish these conditions by a preponderance of the evidence.” Conti v. Laroque (In re Heinze), No. 02-83050C-7D, 2008 WL 3200216, at *2 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Aug. 1, 2008). … Clearly, a move would be disruptive to a minor student under any circumstance. In this case, such a disruption is mitigated slightly by the time that will be required to close a sale and possibly to evict Mr.

Desmond v. Edrissi

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 12, 2021

“The burden of proof is on the [Trustee] to establish these conditions by a preponderance of the evidence.” Conti v. Laroque (In re Heinze), No. 02-83050C-7D, 2008 WL 3200216, at *2 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Aug. 1, 2008). … Clearly, a move would be disruptive to a minor student under any circumstance. In this case, such a disruption is mitigated slightly by the time that will be required to close a sale and possibly to evict Mr.