Case law

Rite Aid Corporation

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 25, 2024

After the Motion was filed, the Court held a status conference and established a framework and timeline for submissions and discovery. … The parties signed Amendment 15 to the APA on January 31, 2024—Paragraph 3 of which clearly establishes that “the Estimated Closing Working Capital shall be deemed to be an amount equal to negative $192,288,920.”

GGI Props., LLC v. City of Millville (In re GGI Props., LLC)

588 B.R. 401 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 6, 2018

However, if "a litigant establishes evidence to support a finding of a 'reasonable probability' or 'likelihood' that the contingencies would be fulfilled, then the contract's relevance and admissibility would be established … Brooks stated that he worked in demolition, he was not qualified as an expert, see Fed. R. Evid. 702, and otherwise his testimony was confused. Mr.

Forman v. Salzano (In Re Norvergence, Inc.)

405 B.R. 709 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · May 13, 2009

A transfer of Debtor’s funds to the Defendants qualifies as a transfer of debtor’s property. See In re APF Co., 274 B.R. 634, 640 (Bankr.D.Del.2001). … This, according to Popular, shows the Salzano Scheme clearly benefited NorVergence.

In Re Resorts International, Inc.

199 B.R. 113 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 3, 1996

The operative language of Paragraph 5 of the Deposit Agreement which purports to allocate accrued interest together with the principal is qualified by the phrase “unless *123 provided otherwise herein.” … However, Sections 7.10(a) and (d) of the Plan and Paragraph 3 of the Deposit Agreement clearly allocate the pre-settlement interest income to Resorts, not to the Litigation Trust.

Tri Harbor Holdings Corporation v. Sigmapharm Laboratories, LLC

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 22, 2022

Each party filed its submission(s) over the uncertified statement of Counsel and in a timely manner according to the deadlines established in the July 22, 2022 Sixth Supplemental Joint Scheduling Order.2 Although the … Evidence should not be excluded pursuant to a motion in limine, unless it is clearly inadmissible on all potential grounds. . . .

In Re Elsinore Shore Associates

102 B.R. 958 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 19, 1989

involving holigraphic mermaids, treasure chests, treasure zones and especially display monitors throughout the casinos are indeed unique when considered as a whole, the utilization of the treasure map concept alone does not qualify … The record merely establishes that Atlantis agreed to consider Mecklerstone’s ideas and that the parties embarked upon a course of negotiation looking toward an agreement which never materialized.

In Re Landmark Distributors, Inc.

195 B.R. 837 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 2, 1996

The court finds the Pierce case clearly distinguishable from the case at bar in that Pierce involved an unsuccessful attempt to prove bad faith and damages under § 303(i)(2), whereas in Landmark , the court found that the … element of bad faith was overwhelmingly established.

Bond v. National Financial Services (In re U.S. Mortgage Corp.)

491 B.R. 642 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 23, 2013

In sum, these important protections do not grant complete immunity from every conceivable claim made by Plaintiffs. Id. at 450 . … Here, the applicability of the in pari delicto defense to the § 548(a)(1)(A) claims is not established on the face of the Complaint.

A-1 Advanced Moving & Storage, Inc. v. Norvergence, Inc. (In Re Norvergence, Inc.)

424 B.R. 663 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 24, 2010

Furthermore, the individual averments therein clearly attempt to allege fraudulent action. … The NJCFA clearly does not apply to protect these alleged consumers from other states.

Truong v. 325 Broadway Associates LLC (In re Truong)

557 B.R. 326 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 30, 2016

. §§ 541 (b)(2) and 362(b)(10), Debtor had no interest in the Leased Premises to qualify as property of the estate, and Debtor was afforded no protection by the stay from entry of the judgment of possession and warrant of … In so holding, the court reasoned that: [t]he language of Section 362(b)(10) clearly indicates that it is not necessary for a landlord to move in the Bankruptcy Court to vacate the automatic stay when the Debtor is operating

In Re Nashua Trust Co.

73 B.R. 423 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 29, 1987

The court qualified him as an expert in pricing, terms and conditions of loan portfolios, both new portfolios and portfolios in default. (Tr. at 110). … The Trustee clearly has the burden of proof on the issue of adequate protection. See In re Gauvin, 24 B.R. 578 (Bkrtcy.App.Pan. 9th Cir.1982).

James Olivette Ezell

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 25, 2026

Clearly, Mr. Ezell qualifies as a serial bankruptcy filer. His actions have caused many delays of foreclosure proceedings. … Upon establishing cause, “bankruptcy courts have discretion to dismiss with prejudice and bar the filing of subsequent bankruptcies." In re Napier-Lopez, 2023 Bankr.

Wasserman v. Capazzi (In Re Day)

443 B.R. 338 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 2, 2011

These cases could well be viewed as rarities involving clearly defined policy-laden matters reflected in statute or regulation. … If in writing, the trust agreement would qualify as an instrument "of the nature” included in NJ.S.A. 46:16-1 and would then if *346 unrecorded be trumped by the BFP per N.J.S.A. 46:22-1. 14 .

Bennett Enterprises, Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 16, 2021

Thus, an order must be eligible for immediate enforcement as a final order under Rule 4:59 to qualify under Rule 4:42, Id. … As noted, the burden is on Debtor to establish that the Sale Contract is executory.

Rusciano v. City of Atlantic City

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jan 8, 2020

District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … However, “it is well established that a Court may refuse to grant leave to amend a complaint where the amendment would be futile.” Jn re LG Phillips Displays USA, Inc., 395 B.R. 864, 870 (Bankr. D.

In Re Resorts International, Inc.

145 B.R. 412 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 16, 1990

The second element under Section 1123(b)(3)(B) which must be demonstrated is that the trustee or appointed party qualifies as a representative of the estate. … Congress clearly intended to transfer some of the judicial gloss placed on the fair and equitable test under former law into the fair and equitable test under § 1129(b). 124 Cong.Rec.H. 11, 103 (September 28, 1978, S. 17,

Wolfson

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Mar 31, 2026

A Yes, does it qualify and does it meet the credit policy. … Indeed, those backstops clearly identified a judgment in favor of American Express. 1st Colonial Ex. 68.

Stephen David Samost

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 2, 2024

Additionally, [the Debtor] responded to the information subpoena sent by NJDEP in July 2022, clearly understanding that Plaintiff was a valid judgment creditor. … The NJDEP, through the Dam Litigation, established the Debtor’s liability to repair the Dam and his 45% share of the liability.

In re G-I Holdings, Inc.

477 B.R. 542 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 13, 2012

G-I Reply at 8 (citing § XIV, ¶¶ 1, 4 to demonstrate “quite clearly that a central feature of the Producer Agreement was to prevent internecine fighting among producers”). … To do so, the court examines the entire agreement to determine if the language clearly expresses the parties’ intent.

BlockFi Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 29, 2023

As explained, the record clearly demonstrates that BlockFi’s offer was dependent on the value of BTC. … “A qualified acceptance is a new proposal.” CAL. CIV. CODE § 1585; see also Roth Grading, Inc. v. Martin Bros. Constr., 493 F. Supp. 3d 865, 869 (E.D.