Case law

Official Committee of Unsecured, Creditors v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A. (In Re M. Fabrikant & Sons, Inc.)

394 B.R. 721 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Oct 10, 2008

“Where a plaintiffs conclusory allegations are clearly contradicted by documentary evidence incorporated into the pleadings by reference, however, the court is not required to accept them.” Labajo v. … (In re Crafts Plus+, Inc.), 220 B.R. 331, 338 (Bankr.W.D.Tex. 1998)(“Once it has been established that a qualified transfer has been made, § 550 provides for recovery against either the initial transferee ... or ‘the entity

Navient Solutions, LLC

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · May 11, 2021

Navient has failed to establish that its fee request is reasonable. As explained below, the Court finds that the majority of the fees requested are unreasonable. … Navient failed to establish the reasonableness of the fees sought. This Court has discretion to either reduce the fees or deny the fees in their entirety.

In re Relativity Fashion, LLC

565 B.R. 50 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Mar 22, 2017

The decision in Penrod makes clear that Relativity’s dispute with Netflix qualifies as an action “on a contract” for purposes of section 1717. … In fact, the License Agreement states clearly that there are no third party beneficiaries, actual or intended. Docket No. 1997, at 5 (citing Hearing Ex. 43-A, at § 10.13); see also Sessions Payroll Management v.

In re: Genesis Global Holdco, LLC, et al.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jan 13, 2026

An intent to release a claim must be “clearly established and cannot be inferred from doubtful or equivocal . . . language . . . .” Id. at 87–88 (citations omitted). … highly qualified, professional drafters knew how to write an explicit release and resolution of claims.

Spizz v. Eluz

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Sep 1, 2020

In or around 2004, the Ampal Board of Directors established a special committee of independent directors (“Special Committee”) to review and approve transactions with any related party, which included Maiman and MNF. … “sole purpose is to provide the jury with an understanding of the relevant customs and norms applicable to an officer confronted with a situation involving a conflict of interest, which is an objective opinion from a qualified

Spizz v. Eluz

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · May 14, 2020

The party offering the expert carries the burden of establishing the requirements imposed by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence,6 and the court acts as a “gatekeeper” to ensure that the “expert’s testimony both rests … When material facts are subject to bona fide dispute, an expert lacking personal knowledge of the facts is clearly not the person to provide testimony about those facts. 2.

Matter of Scher

12 B.R. 258 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jun 16, 1981

NDSL was established by the National Defense Education Act of 1958, Pub.L.85-864, 72 Stat. 1581 , 20 U.S.C. (1976 ed.) §§ 401-602. … Under this program, the money is borrowed from a qualified lender and it is guaranteed by either the federal government, a state agency, or a private non-profit organization.

In re Lehman Bros.

541 B.R. 45 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Oct 8, 2015

Judkins otherwise qualified for the benefits of the Relocation Policy, he did not sell his home in Maryland. 207 The costs Mr. … Accordingly, the Trustee’s position here is not clearly inconsistent with his earlier position, nor does it assert two separate positions.

MAJOR, LINDSEY & AFRICA, LLC v. Mahn

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Feb 10, 2025

If a mere inability to monitor moved a standard employer-employee relationship into the realm of section 523(a)(4) fiduciary relationships, much of the caselaw holding that employer-employee relationships do not qualify … Aug. 10, 2016) (“As a general rule, an intentional breach of statutory duties by a debtor, whose conduct is clearly motivated by the prospect of financial gain, is not sufficient alone to imply malice . . . .

Anderson v. Credit One Bank, N.A.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Mar 28, 2025

Nevertheless, as already established, Plaintiff’s briefs and oral arguments also seek leave for Plaintiff to amend the Complaint to more clearly include a declaratory judgment class claim. … are qualified and experienced and to date have conducted this litigation ably, including in the face of Credit One’s extraordinary misconduct.”

In re Aéropostale, Inc.

555 B.R. 369 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Aug 26, 2016

But that case is clearly distinguishable. … Keehan, 900 F.Supp.2d 377, 392 (D.Del.2012) (“[I]t is well established that mere ownership or direction of a corporate entity, without more, is not sufficient to establish that the corporate form should be disregarded.”)

MatlinPatterson Global Opportunities Partners II L

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Dec 16, 2022

Because the Foreign Representative seeks only the latter [Abstention Mot., ECF No. 355 at 16] and likely does not qualify for the former, this opinion considers only permissive abstention. … Meanwhile, other factors are not established or are weak.

Harlem Multifamily LLC v. Eight-115 Associates, LLC

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

On August 7, 2020, Yann Geron (the “Trustee”) was appointed interim trustee of the Debtor’s estate and thereafter qualified and is serving as permanent trustee. (Opposition ¶ 16.) … Rather, the Overruling Order finds that the 9019 Motion is clearly a core proceeding, as it clearly “would have no existence outside of the bankruptcy.”

Xin v. Zhu

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Aug 12, 2022

Moreover, a plaintiff must also establish that its reliance was justifiable. … None of the foregoing qualifies as an express misrepresentation or statement. Id. at *5 n.7.

In Re Best Products Co., Inc.

168 B.R. 35 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · May 25, 1994

This rule, clearly established, applies regardless of whether the grantee was guilty of actual or constructive fraud. … Some of the proceeds of the Term Loan and the Bridge Loans would also probably qualify as consideration flowing to Best in that they were made available to pay back antecedent debt of Best.

Ditech Holding Corporation

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jun 3, 2024

Claimant also stated that the Claim qualifies as an Administrative Expense under 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(9) in the amount of $120,000. Id. … App. 2020) (unpublished table decision) (finding the probate court erred in denying petition for appointment of personal representative because the petition “clearly establishe[d] the need for a personal representative

In Re Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

445 B.R. 143 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Feb 22, 2011

Movants submit that such a failure to disclose at best qualifies as mistake, inadvertence or excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1). LBHI Resp. ¶¶ 150-161. … Barclays was the one qualified buyer in a position to promptly complete a going concern acquisition — it is as simple as that.

Cortlandt Liquidating LLC

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Feb 2, 2023

This establishes that the statute measures “rent reserved within time periods.” Therefore, the sentence structure of the statute supports the time approach. … Ed. 2d 786 (1957) (“‘no changes in law or policy are to be presumed from changes of language in the revision unless an intent to make such changes is clearly expressed.”)

MEGHJI v. INTO THE BLOCK CORP.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Mar 10, 2025

safeguards” Celsius may have established. (Agreement § 1; id., App’x A § 3.) … Thus, whether something qualifies as a “security” necessarily requires an inquiry into whether it may be considered one of the items enumerated in the definition.

Endo International plc and 70 Maple Avenue, LLC

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Nov 2, 2022

The UST concedes that the Debtors qualify as a “controller” under the GDPR but contends that, since the Debtors assertedly “have the duty to make public all information contained in their Court filings in these cases,” … Those factors clearly weigh against the unfettered disclosure of the identities of the Individual Litigation Claimants. So does the fact that such disclosure is not necessary to the orderly operation of these cases.