Case law

Arid Waterproofing, Inc. v. Pennsylvania, Department of General Services (In Re Arid Waterproofing, Inc.)

175 B.R. 172 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 3, 1994

The debtor responds that the prerequisites for mandatory abstention have not been established, in that this is a core proceeding and the Board of Claims cannot timely adjudicate this litigation. … This adversary proceeding is simply a pre-petition contract action against the state, based upon nonbankruptcy law, and is clearly noncore. See, e.g., Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v.

James v. Draper (In Re James)

112 B.R. 687 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 1, 1990

Clearly, the Defendants are individuals, and are not, in themselves, “governmental *698 units.” … Congress clearly intended that § 362(a) would apply generally to governmental units.

In Re Zawisza

73 B.R. 929 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 27, 1987

However, clearly Kras is not controlling, being easily distinguishable. … IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE DEBTOR DOES NOT HAVE REGULAR INCOME Geriatric next asserts that the Debt- or does not have regular income, as required by § 109(e), and consequently is not qualified to file a Chapter

First Options of Chicago, Inc. v. Kaplan (In Re Kaplan)

162 B.R. 684 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 26, 1993

The IRC, on the other hand, establishes certain criteria for a pension plan to be “tax qualified.” See id. at 418 . … Therefore, we conclude that the second and third elements of the five-pronged prerequisites for establishing a cause under § 523(a)(2)(A) have clearly not been proven by the requisite preponderance of the evidence by Options

Seitz v. Freeman (In Re CitX Corp.)

302 B.R. 144 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 3, 2003

Plaintiffs COBRA action is a suit to establish the amount of a claim. … Clearly, certain state courts view the immunity of an equity receiver to suit in a non-appointing court as a defense which may be waived — indeed, waived simply by implication.

PVI Associates v. Redevelopment Authority (In Re PVI Associates)

181 B.R. 210 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 28, 1995

or governmental immunity. … and remain immune from suit except as the general assembly shall specifically waive the immunity.

In Re Alan Wood Steel Company

12 B.R. 964 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 9, 1981

We conclude that the above provision clearly states that the employees’ past service shall be taken into account in determining when he qualifies for a pension. … The first paragraph quoted above clearly provides that only the employees’ actual service with the debtor shall be used to determine if and when they qualify for pensions.

In Re Cf Foods, Lp

265 B.R. 71 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2001

sovereign immunity. … Waiver of sovereign immunity.

Saint Joseph's Hospital v. Department of Public Welfare of Pennsylvania (In Re Saint Joseph's Hospital)

103 B.R. 643 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 21, 1989

A state may not selectively waive its immunity. Hoffman establishes that “a State that files no proof of claim ... would not be subjected to monetary recovery.” 109 S.Ct. at 2823 (emphasis added). … and data and the procedures established exists.

In Re Joshua Slocum, Ltd.

99 B.R. 261 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 1989

These principles are well-established. … It is usually important to finally resolve as many issues as possible as soon as possible in any bankruptcy proceeding, and the instant issue is clearly no exception.

In re Greenly

481 B.R. 299 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 12, 2012

The qualified assignment was memorialized by a Qualified Assignment, Release and Pledge Agreement dated January 1, 1997 (the “Qualified Assignment”). Stipulation, Exh. F, p.ll. … Greenly seeks to withdraw the Payments from her bankruptcy estate and immunize the Payments from the *314 claims of her prepetition creditors. As a statutory predicate, Mrs.

In Re Weatherley

169 B.R. 555 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 22, 1994

In order to succeed under § 362(d)(1), the IRS must establish “cause,” such as lack of adequate protection of a security interest or of any other “special interest” which it establishes that it has in the Debtor’s property … It would appear that, despite the general immunity of the IRS for monetary liability under the Bankruptcy Code, see United States v.

Frymire v. Painewebber, Inc. (In Re Frymire)

87 B.R. 856 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 24, 1988

Clearly, this is the rule in the vast majority of American jurisdictions. … Thus, what we believe is meant by the above-quoted statement in Gordon is that publications which are definitely qualified as being simply an opinion, about which there could clearly be a point of difference, are not actionable

Eisenberg v. Pennsylvania State University (In re Lewis)

574 B.R. 536 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 7, 2017

To avoid a transfer as a fraudulent transfer under either the Bankruptcy Code or PUFTA, the Trustee must establish that Mr. … interest in the Parent Plus loan proceeds, which I expressly do not, the complaints nonetheless fail to state fraudulent transfer claims under both the Bankruptcy Code 16 and PUFTA. 17 The facts alleged in the complaints clearly

In Re Atallah

95 B.R. 910 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 18, 1989

In addition, even if ERISA “qualification” would exempt a retirement plan trust fund from property of the estate, it has not been established on the present record that the Debtor’s IRAs are so qualified. … The assets of a Keogh plan, in contrast, are clearly assets of the estate.

United States v. Stelweck (In Re Stelweck)

86 B.R. 833 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 6, 1988

The Plaintiff has also established that the representations were material. … Moreover, if the Plaintiff wished the Defendants to answer its questions, it could have requested a grant of use immunity pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 344 .

In Re DiPinto

336 B.R. 693 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 2006

The second person thus qualifies for a counseling waiver (assuming all of the other conditions of 109(h)(3) are met). … As Congress clearly contemplated, within that week one would either lay the eligibility issue to rest by snagging the counseling agency’s certificate, or would qualify for the temporary exemption and, in tandem, lay the groundwork

Varalli v. PTL Intermodal (In Re Metro Shippers, Inc.)

95 B.R. 366 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 1989

in function between the interim trustee and the permanent trustee, and keeping an eye toward the origin of limitations provisions in bankruptcy, courts *369 have uniformly concluded that the two year limitations period established … “An interim trustee will generally take little affirmative action” as he or she “is faced with the clearly presented possibility of replacement....” Matter of Killian Constr. Co., 24 B.R. at 849-50 .

In Re Sensor Systems, Inc.

79 B.R. 623 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 25, 1987

The latter is the only person able to qualify as a creditor on the filing date. The original creditor would not be entitled to prove a claim even if he wished to do so because none is owing. … The claims of the Claimants here not only existed, but whatever secured status they had was established, prior to the date of the bankruptcy filing, unlike the claim at issue in Burka .

Benoit v. Lassina (In Re Lassina)

261 B.R. 614 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 2001

May 6, 1999), that the language of section 1930 permits the waiver of the administrative filing fees set by the Judicial Conference, reasoning that Congress clearly intended that this fee might be waived under section 1915 … The applicant who seeks IFP treatment must submit an affidavit which establishes that she cannot afford to pay the filing fees or other costs of litigation. Adkins v. E.I.