Case law

Wilen v. Pamrapo Savings Bank, S.L.A. (In Re Bayonne Medical Center)

429 B.R. 152 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · May 26, 2010

Medical was clearly to the contrary. Quoting from In re Friedman, 126 B.R. at 69-70 , the Tenth Circuit in In re U.S. … It would not have qualified for the ordinary course defense, even if raised.

In Re Elsub Corp.

70 B.R. 797 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 27, 1987

The petitions filed by counsel for Stephen Canale and Wagman Andre Walker were not verified, and filed after the established deadline for filing. … The circumstances herein clearly permit the withdrawal of these four (4) creditors’ petitions for joinder previously filed in this case.

Matter of Lan Associates Xiv, Lp

193 B.R. 730 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 16, 1996

In this case, Metro's failure to file a timely proof of claim neither constitutes "neglect" nor qualifies as "excusable" under the Pioneer criteria. … Metro has failed to establish excusable neglect under Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9006. Metro's motion for allowance of its late filed claim is denied.

BlockFi Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 18, 2025

Tooley 845 A.2d at 1031 (establishing test for whether a stockholder's claim is derivative or direct). … Therefore, Movant’s assertion that the Gatekeeper Provision immunizes wrongful conduct is unfounded.

Benneman v. Pearl (In Re Pearl)

40 B.R. 860 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 25, 1984

Kinnear, Esquire, was appointed as receiver in both matters, duly qualified, and is acting as Attorney Pro Se in both matters. 3. Debtor, Charles R. … The Debtor has failed to establish any prejudice to itself as a result of the Purchasers’ inaction, and the Court therefore holds that, as against the Debt- or, the Purchasers, would hold an equitable lien on the property

Marra v. Kroen (In Re Kroen)

280 B.R. 347 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 18, 2002

And, it would be no small rupture in the policy voiding waivers if an attorney were permitted to assert the waiver as a misrepresentation qualifying the fee-based debt for a § 523(a)(2)(A) exception to discharge. … Reaffirmation is effective only if included in a post-petition written agreement made by the debtor before the discharge; the agreement must clearly and conspicuously advise the debtor that such an agreement is not required

Official Committee Of Unsecured Creditors v. BlockFi Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 10, 2023

Sovereign Immunity The United States’ argument with respect to sovereign immunity is inextricably tied to its jurisdictional argument. … Because sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature, see FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475, if unequivocal waiver is not established, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the issues raised.

Youngman v. Bursztyn (In Re Bursztyn)

366 B.R. 353 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Apr 10, 2007

Clearly, under the facts herein, if an inspection was to be allowed, prior notice could not be given to this Debtor. … Clearly, a bankruptcy trustee does not satisfy the definition of a federal law enforcement officer under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 for the following three reasons: (1) a bankruptcy trustee is not an “agent” of

In Re Brierwood Manor, Inc.

239 B.R. 709 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 12, 1999

Examination of the statutory text supports the proposition that the deletion by Congress was clearly an oversight. … Alvarez (In re Engel), 124 F.3d 567, 571 (3d Cir.1997), that a professional’s retention pursuant to § 327 does not establish a right to payment from the estate under § 330. 13 .

Alliance Shippers, Inc. v. Guarracino (In re Guarracino)

575 B.R. 298 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 16, 2017

It simply establishes the validity of the assignment of the judgment. … An express trust is established when three requirements are met: (1) there is a declaration of trust; .(2) there is a clearly defined trust res; and (3) there is an intent to create a trust relationship.

McDonnell v. Gilbert

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 23, 2022

In other words, does the term “ERISA-qualified,” as used by the Court in mean “tax-qualified.” … To prevail, the Trustee must initially establish that a “transfer of an interest of the debtor in property” occurred.

In Re Cook

432 B.R. 519 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 14, 2010

However, in the Chapter 7 context, a secured claim under § 506(d) is not established in the same way. Id. at 875. … The court concluded that the Code clearly intended to treat undersecured and wholly unsecured claims differently.

In Re Heldor Industries, Inc.

131 B.R. 578 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Sep 6, 1991

The bankruptcy courts are empowered to approve sales of estate property free and clear of liens and other interests, and Congress clearly intended such sales to be final and unassailable. … qualified by other definitional statutes suggests that the Act contemplates improved real estate; indeed, the only logical reading of the statute is that the industrial establishment to which the act refers is improved real

In re Biolitec, Inc.

528 B.R. 261 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 17, 2014

The settlement proposed that Chatham or any qualified overbidder would fund the creation of a trust for the benefit of unsecured creditors, pay the expenses of administering the trust, and waive any unsecured deficiency claim … It is well-established that § 105 may not be invoked to provide relief that contradicts the express requirements of the Code.

Hargrave v. Township of Pemberton (In Re Tabone, Inc.)

175 B.R. 855 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 21, 1994

Application of 11 U.S.C. § 721 (b) With the respective priorities established as to the existing liens and interests against debtor’s real property, we turn next to 11 U.S.C. § 724 (b). … The court concluded that “as far as the federal government is concerned, N.J.S.A. 33:1— 26 cannot immunize liquor licenses from the attachment of federal liens, for ...

Floyd v. Hill (In re Hill)

495 B.R. 646 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 12, 2013

Section 523(a)(19) speaks clearly for itself when it identifies as the object of this exception to discharge— a “debt ... for violation of ... securities laws ... … It is only those judgments, orders or decrees which are the sources of the debts to be excepted from discharge which qualify for possible extended preclusive use.

Matter of Rosemiller

188 B.R. 129 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Aug 25, 1995

The proof of claim does not clearly specify to whom the term “United States” or “States” refers and consequently there is no clear creditor. … Moreover, these certificates qualify as self-authenticating for purposes of the Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 902. Craig v. United States, No. C 93-0298, 1993 WL 280761 , *2 (N.D.Cal.1993); White v.

Custom Distribution Services, Inc. v. City of Perth Amboy Tax Assessor (In Re Custom Distribution Services, Inc.)

216 B.R. 136 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 17, 1997

Given that those tax years were never the subject of an appeal before a judicial tribunal, this court holds that they are clearly subject to review under section 505. … In this case, clearly the remediation of the environmental contamination on the property is a prerequisite for the evaluation of the land at its highest and best use. Id.

In Re Dennis

230 B.R. 244 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 23, 1999

With that exception, however, which is only applicable in chapter 9 and chapter 11 cases, the Code clearly requires a proof of claim to be filed for a claim to be allowed. … Chrysler, therefore, does not qualify as a party in interest and thus has no standing to object to confirmation of the debtor’s plan on the grounds which it has asserted.

In re Circle 10 Restaurant, LLC

519 B.R. 95 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Nov 7, 2014

The Division of Taxation contends that when the New Jersey Legislature enacted N.J.S.A. § 33:1-26, it clearly intended to allow only taxing authorities to treat a liquor license as property. … interest created by N.J.S.A. 33:1-26, a liquor license in New Jersey constitutes “property” within and for the purposes of section 6321, and that as far as the federal government is concerned, N.J.S.A. 33:1-26 could not immunize