Case law

Hal Luftig Company, Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Dec 7, 2023

Here, the Plan is clearly non-consensual, as FCP did not vote to accept the plan. (Voting Declaration ¶ 12.) Accordingly, confirmation of the Plan is only possible pursuant to Section 1191(b). … The stay in no way affects the duty of [all courts] to apply now the precedent established by [the circuit case] as binding authority.’”) (quoting Martin v.

Hal Luftig Company, Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Nov 22, 2023

Here, the Plan is clearly non-consensual, as FCP did not vote to accept the plan. (Voting Declaration ¶ 12.) Accordingly, confirmation of the Plan is only possible pursuant to Section 1191(b). … The stay in no way affects the duty of [all courts] to apply now the precedent established by [the circuit case] as binding authority.’”) (quoting Martin v.

BAM TRADING SERVICES INC. d/b/a BINANCE.US v. VOYAGER DIGITAL, LLC, VOYAGER DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC., VOYAGER DIGITAL LTD., AND MICHAEL WYSE, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR OF THE WIND-DOWN DEBTOR

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Nov 25, 2025

I meant what the words clearly said. II. … More particularly, section 4.10 stated: Except for the representations and warranties expressly contained in this Article IV (as qualified by the Schedules and in accordance with the

GOL Linhas Aereas Inteligentes S.A. and Gol Finance (Luxembourg)

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · May 22, 2025

Purdue Pharma, the Supreme Court declined ‘to express a view on what qualifies as a consensual release.’ . . . … The Supreme Court established an implied consent standard in Roell, holding that waiver based on “actions rather than words” was sufficient. Id.at 589.

Harrison, Jr. v. Konfino

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Apr 29, 2020

He said that he did so because he thought those prices were fair, but he also admitted that he himself was not qualified to assess the current values of diamonds. … However, the purported sales were so clearly not “commercially reasonable” in other respects that it is not necessary to decide this point. party.