Case law

In re H.H. Distributions, L.P.

400 B.R. 44 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2009

The Bank has clearly negated any inference that it will provide any financial support after June 2009 or any deferral of loan repayment then due. … The generally accepted method for establishing enterprise value is the capitalization of future earnings. Haskell Dawes, 199 B.R. at 878 .

McCormack Terminal Co. v. F.A. Potts & Co. (In Re F.A. Potts & Co.)

42 B.R. 712 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 27, 1984

Instead, it expressly and clearly required that the marine services charges be offset against the paragraph 6(a) and (b) payments on a less than annual basis. … Thus, the meaning of language cannot be distorted to establish the ambiguity.”

Bruce Raymond Wainer, Sr. and Stella Thalmer Wainer

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 16, 2021

The court anchored the factors “contributions over time” and “contributions by others” to its perception that the Iowa exemption statute “clearly” contemplated retirement plans that had been established through an “on-going … Here, the Debtors clearly intended the Annuity to provide them with income that substituted for lost wages. Ms.

In Re Union Meeting Partners

178 B.R. 664 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1995

F.R.B.P. 3001(e) (establishing procedures to be followed in conjunction with the assignment of claims and interests). … The Debtor, on the other hand, argues that Lincoln never established the origins of the money contained in the DIP Account.

MB Ltd. Partnership v. Nutri/System, Inc. (In Re Nutri/System, Inc.)

169 B.R. 854 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 8, 1994

was an artifice and a sham designed to execute illegitimate purposes in abuse of the corporate fiction and the immunity it carries....”’ quoting Coryell v. … Furthermore, clearly not all of the Heico Defendants engaged in the activities which the Landlords claim amounted to domination of the Debtors, nor do they all have claims which may be subordinated, assets which may be reached

Carto v. Oakley (In re Oakley)

503 B.R. 407 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 30, 2013

In the Eighth Circuit, the B.A.P. has held that where the debtor listed the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) as a creditor, the IRS held a claim qualifying it as a creditor with standing to object to discharge under § … The elements of establishing a nondischargeable claim for false pretenses are similar: In order to establish that a debt is non-dischargeable under § 523(a)(2)(A) as a debt for money, property, services, or credit obtained

Jennifer R. Morrell v. Wayne R. Stamp

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2021

Thus, even if a debt does not qualify as alimony or support under state law, it might still be “in the nature of support” for purposes of §523(a)(5). … Based on the entire record, the circuit court concluded that it did not find the bankruptcy court’s findings to be clearly erroneous.

In Re Executive House Associates

99 B.R. 266 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 20, 1989

Under the principle established in Clearfield Trust *275 Co. v. … Extensive valuation testimony was offered by the parties, largely though the testimony of two qualified expert witnesses and their lengthy appraisal reports. Ex. G-CC; Ex. D-5.

Mattera v. Blum (In Re Mattera)

128 B.R. 107 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 18, 1991

Robert Ludwig (“Ludwig”), the Debtor’s well-qualified appraiser, 3 testified that, at the time of the sheriff’s sale, the Home was worth at least $67,000. … The Debtor clearly had no TILA claim against these parties. Therefore, CLS has no right to recover any portion of its attorney’s fees from the K, H & W Defendants.

In Re South Canaan Cellular Investments, Inc.

427 B.R. 44 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 25, 2010

Clearly, the provisions of a contract govern the allowance of interest during the period prepetition. … debtors purposely declined to pay a prepetition claim totaling $3,100 on the effective date of the plan. “ ‘Artificial’ impairment occurs when a plan imposes an insignificant or de minimis impairment on a class of claims to qualify

Burtch v. Ganz (In Re Mushroom Transportation Co.)

366 B.R. 414 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 3, 2007

Clearly, the theft of client funds by a member of a law firm constitutes a breach of fiduciary duty. … ‘Where a fiduciary acts upon the advice of counsel, such fact is ‘a factor to be considered in determining good faith, but is not a blanket of immunity in all circumstances’; (citing cases).’

In re Milbourne

557 B.R. 376 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 7, 2016

The Debtor argues that this provision “clearly limits reimbursement for attorneys fees and costs from unit owners to those in connection with actions and proceedings against a unit owner.” Debtor’s Second Suppl. Mem. 5. … Although the Court agrees that WCCA’s post-petition attorneys’ claims do not qualify as administrative expenses under § 503(b), they may be allowed under § 506(b) to the extent of the value of the underlying collateral, subject

In re Brown

498 B.R. 486 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 26, 2013

In fact, no decision of this Court or any Court of Appeals, other than the decision below, has ever found a promise to contribute future labor, management, or expertise sufficient to qualify for the Los Angeles Lumber exception … Three such sections are clearly relevant to the analysis.

In Re Nuclear Imaging Systems, Inc.

260 B.R. 724 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 2000

In order to make the administration of this sweeping program more efficient, Congress authorized the Secretary to contract with private insurance carriers to administer on his behalf the payment of qualifying Part B claims … While not clearly articulated, however, one can construe NPF X, Ine.’s argument regarding its lien priority to suggest that if its lien interest primes the setoff right of the United States in these receivables, the “secured

In Re Garman

413 B.R. 215 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 6, 2009

Mayer’s opinion, the trustee is seeking compensation beyond the ceiling established by section 826(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. … Deans, was clearly a factor in the willingness of Ms. Deans and the trustee to enter into the March 2007 settlement with Ms.

In Re Fellheimer

443 B.R. 355 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 2010

Clearly, the one year period for seeking revocation under section 727(d)(1) has long since expired, as the debtor’s discharge was granted in 2004. … Clearly, he took no steps to act as Ms. Overlander’s attorney in his chapter 7 case. See generally, Rode v.

In re Gonzalez

550 B.R. 711 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 2016

However, the purchaser’s rights are qualified materially by the owner’s right of redemption. … At the same time, however, the Roach court went to great lengths to point out that the text of § 1322(b) establishes clearly that "Congress drew a distinction between modifications and cures.” 824 F.2d at 1375 .

In Re Hh Distributions, Lp

400 B.R. 44 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 16, 2009

The Bank has clearly negated any inference that it will provide any financial support after June 2009 or any deferral of loan repayment then due. … The generally accepted method for establishing enterprise value is the capitalization of future earnings. Haskell Dawes, 199 B.R. at 878 .

Charles Eppolito, Jr

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 19, 2020

The party seeking to reopen the case must establish the existence ofone of these three reasons, and only then this Court may, within its discretion, reopen the bankruptcy case. … Trustee argues that theseallegations in the Complaint “clearly set[] forth that the debtor’s cause of action arose in December 2005, when the defective device was implanted into the debtor.”

Bell v. Parkway Mortgage, Inc. (In Re Bell)

309 B.R. 139 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 2004

Clearly, these are real estate related fees for title insurance and fall within 12 C.F.R. § 226.4 (e)(7)(i). … Clearly, Parkway had notice of this issue prior to trial.