Case law

Enron Corp. v. Bear, Stearns International Ltd. (In Re Enron Corp.)

323 B.R. 857 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Apr 27, 2005

The Confirmation established the per-share price to be paid and the terms of the adjustments to be made to such price. … Requirement to Qualify as Settlement Payment The Court concludes that in order to qualify as a settlement payment that is protected by the safe harbors, the settlement payment must be “commonly used” within the industry.

In Re Adler Coleman Clearing Corp.

204 B.R. 111 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jan 7, 1997

A person whose claim against the debtor qualifies as a “customer claim” receives preferential treatment in the distribution of assets from the debtor’s estate. … established for the purpose of satisfying creditors’ claims).

In re Motors Liquidation Co.

598 B.R. 744 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Mar 22, 2019

Hence, American Axle's contingent right to payment clearly did not "depend[ ] entirely on the fortuity of future occurrences," Elliott , 829 F.3d at 156 , but was instead firmly rooted in the parties' contractual relationship … American Axle's Failure to Timely File a Proof of Claim Does not Qualify as Excusable Neglect.

In Re Leslie Fay Companies, Inc.

212 B.R. 747 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Aug 18, 1997

To establish a prima facie case of disability discrimination, a plaintiff must show that (i) she is an individual with a disability; (ii) she is qualified to perform the essential functions of the job; and (hi) the employer … It is clearly relevant if the alleged harasser is the plaintiff’s supervisor rather than her co-worker, although such a distinction will not always be dispositive. Id. 779-80 .

Motors Liquidation Co. Avoidance Action Trust ex rel. Wilmington Trust Co. v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In re Motors Liquidation Co.)

552 B.R. 253 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jun 30, 2016

The circuit affirmed the decision of the courts below, but concluded that it “need not decide whether the payments fall within the ‘settlement payments’ safe harbor because they clearly fall within the safe harbor for ‘transfers … The note purchase agreements “were clearly ‘securities contracts’ because they provided for both the original purchase and the ‘repurchase’ of the Notes.

In re AMR Corp.

478 B.R. 599 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Sep 13, 2012

The applicability of Rule 408 was specifically acknowledged by the Court during trial and was not corrected or qualified by the APA or any other party at that time. (See Trial Tr., 91:23-92:4, May 14, 2012(Roghair)). … It is well-established that the necessity test under Section 1113 is not a bare minimum needed for reorganization.

Allen v. Official Employment-Related Issues Committee (In Re Enron Corp.)

297 B.R. 382 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Aug 28, 2003

threatened or endangered in the enjoyment of what he claims to be his rights, to initiate the proceedings against his tormentor and remove the cloud by an authoritative determination of the plaintiffs legal right, privilege and immunity … At the outset, the Court determines that all potential liability directly relating to the avoidance of the Bonuses had clearly accrued prior to the Complaint Filing Date.

1111 Myrtle Avenue Group LLC v. Myrtle Property Holdings LLC (In re 1111 Myrtle Avenue Group LLC)

575 B.R. 567 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Aug 25, 2017

Relevant with respect to the issues before the Court, the Agreement contained a provision that allowed the Agreement to be assigned, but severely limited who qualified as an as-signee: Purchaser may assign this Agreement … Brunner, the Plaintiff-Seller explained that he had used the $7.5 million Deposit for a different transaction and therefore would not qualify for a like-kind exchange under the tax code. See 8/17 Trial Tr. 31:16-25.

U.S. Home Corp. v. Los Prados Community Assoc., Inc. (In re U.S.H. Corp.)

280 B.R. 330 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jul 12, 2002

In addition, it is well settled that the “bankruptcy court is undoubtedly the best qualified to interpret and enforce its own orders including those providing for discharge and injunction,” In re Texaco, Inc., 182 B.R. 937 … However, not only did the State Court refrain from determining the Debtors’ Bankruptcy Grounds defense to Los Pra-dos’ claims at the Summary Judgment Hearing, 3 the State Court clearly expressed its intention that this Court

In Re Chateaugay Corp.

116 B.R. 887 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jul 11, 1990

A review of the legal *907 precedents clearly establishes that the bond replacements qualify as both a substituted contract and novation. … The documentation between the parties clearly establishes that the Aetna bond No. 018 S 71955 was substituted for the three pre-existing bonds.

Voyager Digital Holdings, Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Mar 11, 2023

However, while “qualified immunity” is a similar doctrine, it is not entirely accurate as a description of the authority that I have in mind for the exculpation provision. … Many of the same decisions that discuss such a “qualified” immunity, however, also make clear that there is a broader immunity for actions that are specifically approved by a court and/or that have been explicitly required

In Re Suzanne De Lyon, Inc.

125 B.R. 863 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Apr 2, 1991

The Debtor is currently qualified to do business only in Texas. SDL prepared and filed an application to become qualified to do business in New York shortly before filing the Chapter 11 petition. … The proximity of the creditors in this case clearly favors retaining the case in New York. There are more unsecured creditors in the New York metropolitan area than there are in Texas.

Babitt v. Vebeliunas (In Re Vebeliunas)

252 B.R. 878 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Apr 21, 2000

This decision is clearly distinguishable from the one at hand, for here the deed to the IVT was recorded, and the banks had notice of it. … Because “[t]he doctrine of equitable estoppel should be applied cautiously and used only when grounds for its application are clearly established,” this doctrine is not appropriate *889 in this case.

In Re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.

129 B.R. 22 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Apr 22, 1991

Barclays, however, cannot satisfy the remaining two prongs necessary to qualify the letter as an informal proof of claim. … Standing alone, it is insufficient to establish that Barclays intended to hold DBL liable.

Lozada v. Educ. Credit Mgmt. Corp. (In re Lozada)

594 B.R. 212 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Nov 16, 2018

Fact ¶¶ 40-43, but his loan servicer rejected his application stating he did not qualify for it. [Tr. 91:9-14]. Instead, when Mr. … The factual record clearly demonstrates that Mr. Lozada did not make an effort to maximize his income to repay his student loan debt.

Keene Corp. v. Coleman (In Re Keene Corp.)

164 B.R. 844 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Mar 3, 1994

These two sections are in pari materia, and provide, clearly and unambiguously, that a debtor is a party in interest who may seek the appointment of an examiner. … The Court need not resolve this split of authority because Keene has failed to demonstrate that it meets the qualifying debt requirement.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Maxwell Newspapers, Inc. v. MacMillan, Inc. (In Re Maxwell Newspapers, Inc.)

189 B.R. 282 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Dec 14, 1995

Further, they urge that they should now be allowed to argue an “account stated” legal theory, rather than the conditional one expressed so clearly in their complaint. II. .A. … To establish standing pursuant to section 1123(b)(3)(B), the plaintiff who is neither the debtor nor the trustee must establish two elements: “(1) that it has been appointed, and (2) that it is a representative of the estate

Weisfelner v. Fund 1 (In re Lyondell Chemical Co.)

503 B.R. 348 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jan 16, 2014

While more nuanced knowledge might be necessary to establish ratification in other contexts, it is more than sufficient here for the LBO lenders to have known — as the documents themselves establish — that they were lending … It was apparently undisputed that the novation qualified as a "swap” transaction that would be immunized from section 544 and 548 liability under section 546(g). See 494 B.R. at 199 . .

Betty Owen Schools, Inc. v. United States Department of Education (In Re Betty Owen Schools, Inc.)

195 B.R. 23 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Apr 24, 1996

Clearly, bankruptcy courts have jurisdiction over property of the debt- or’s estate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2). … The burden is on the moving party to clearly establish the absence of a genuine issue as to any material fact. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322, 323 , 106 S.Ct. at 2552, 2553 ; Adickes v. S.H.

Hartigan v. Pine Lake Village Apartment Co. (In Re Pine Lake Village Apartment Co.)

16 B.R. 750 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jan 20, 1982

Certainly this section should be used sparingly and not as a substitute for a motion to dismiss under Code § 1112(b), where one of the nine enumerated grounds must be established before a Chapter 11 case may be dismissed. … The debtor desires to engage another manager who the debtor says “will be independent and qualified” to operate the property.