Case law

In Re Beverage Enterprises, Inc.

225 B.R. 111 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1998

Next, the Debtor argues that the Union’s claim does not qualify as a § 503(b)(1)(A) administrative expense because WARN Act “back pay” liability is not based on services rendered. … Severance pay in this category is granted priority as an administrative expense only to the extent that it is earned during the period of time the employer is in bankruptcy. *116 It is therefore clearly established by the

Dufrayne v. FTB Mortgage Services, Inc. (In Re Dufrayne)

194 B.R. 354 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 4, 1996

Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, 38 F.3d 1380, 1384-85 (3d Cir.1994), would support a finding that FTB does not qualify under the secured lender exception, for if FTB does qualify for the exemption, it can not be held *364 … Clearly, some investment motive is present in all mortgage financing transactions.

In Re Duval Manor Associates

191 B.R. 622 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 1996

Established principals of construction likewise militate against adopting such a statutory interpretation. … An increase of this magnitude is clearly not a fanciful notion if the 17 top floor units are rendered usable.

Altenberg v. Schiffer (In Re Sally Shops, Inc.)

50 B.R. 264 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 20, 1985

Defendants have failed to meet their burden of establishing a violation of the disciplinary rules. … Weir is uniquely qualified to prosecute the action or actions necessary to assert the debtors’ claims referred to above. Attached hereto, as Exhibit "A”, is a letter dated September 7, 1984 from Mr.

Cooley v. Wachovia Mortgage Co. (In Re Cooley)

365 B.R. 464 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 13, 2007

SABIC moved to dismiss the federal action on the ground of sovereign immunity, but the district court denied its motion. Id. SABIC appealed to the Third Circuit. Id. … Bank One National Association (In re Randall), supra, 358 B.R. at 160-161 ("Clearly, a determination by me that the 2000 loan transaction was validly rescinded in April of 2003 would have the effect of reversing the state

NPF X, Inc. v. Shubert (In Re Nuclear Imaging Systems, Inc.)

277 B.R. 59 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 6, 2002

Moreover, of these two tests, the requirement of “transactional relatedness” is more difficult to establish than the requirement of a common question. … Nonetheless, the court concluded that the joinder requirements of Rule 7020 were not established. 4 .

Republic Realty Mortgage Corp. v. Harris (In re Eagson Corp.)

26 B.R. 660 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1982

The clause in the October 12,1972, agreement, under which Republic and Westinghouse asserted that they were immune from liability for the damages asserted by Eag-son in the third count of its counterclaim, provided: Neither … Further, even construing the exculpatory clause strictly against Republic and Westinghouse, the clause does clearly and with sufficient particularity evidence the intent of the parties to exculpate Republic and Westinghouse

In Re Bova

211 B.R. 803 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 1997

Gowen noted that, at that time, spousal immunity barred a claim of the Debtor against his wife’s coverage. … Gowen’s testimony was quite convincing in establishing that these hopes were unrealistic.

Barker v. Altegra Credit Co. (In Re Barker)

251 B.R. 250 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 20, 2000

The Broker clearly appears to meet all of these criteria. … Neither Party Has Adhered to “the Law of the Case” Established in Barker I in Their Present Briefing.

Begier v. United States, Internal Revenue Service (In Re American International Airways, Inc.)

83 B.R. 324 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 1988

Zlatkin clearly establishes that the notice requiring establishment of the trust fund was not delivered to Mr. Edmondson until March 1, 1984, irrespective of the earlier date appearing on it. … Clearly, the January and February, 1984, withholding taxes were “antecedent debts” as of April 30, 1984.

In Re 6200 Ridge, Inc.

69 B.R. 837 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 6, 1987

There is a reasonable likelihood that Continental will meet its burden at the final *839 hearing of establishing that the debtor does not have equity in the property. 4. … Clearly, the pledge is relevant for adequate protection purposes under § 362(d)(1). See Commonwealth of Pennsylvania School Employees Retirement Fund v.

Richardson v. Philadelphia Housing Authority (In Re Richardson)

94 B.R. 56 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 21, 1988

However, it contends that the subject payments are immunized from application of § 547 by way of § 547(c)(2). … Clearly, the question is whether there was an “unusual action" (see H.Rep. No. 95-595) that deviates from normal business practices between the parties. 7 .

Shellem v. Koons (In Re Koons)

206 B.R. 768 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 18, 1997

Moreover, § 523(a)(15) is not the most clearly worded section. … The detrimental consequences to the Plaintiff are a very doubtful contingent liability on the Mortgage and a liability on the Account which, while not as unlikely to ripen as the Mortgage debt, is not clearly established.

In Re J.B. Winchells, Inc.

106 B.R. 384 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 13, 1989

‘My power to set aside a previously entered order, although well established, see Wayne United Gas Co. v. … may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.

In Re Reading Broadcasting, Inc.

386 B.R. 562 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 12, 2008

Victor had never been qualified as an expert to provide opinion testimony under Fed.R.Evid. 702. … PTN offers no evidence that a qualified, interested bidder was prevented or discouraged from submitting an offer.

In Re Thomas

222 B.R. 742 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 15, 1998

While this date clearly lies outside of the three year lookback period provided by the statute, the running of such period was suspended during the pendency of the Debtor’s prior bankruptcy case. … It is well established that trust fund taxes fall within the ambit of Code § 507(a)(8)(C) and are therefore entitled to *747 priority treatment.

Barrett v. Commonwealth Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n (In Re Barrett)

104 B.R. 688 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 17, 1989

Three admittedly and apparently equally well-qualified real estate appraisers testified at the trial. The Debtors called two such witnesses. … Insolvency under the Bankruptcy Code is clearly established by a “balance sheet test,” i.e., a debtor is deemed insolvent only if his liabilities exceed his assets at the crucial point in time, here December 5, 1988, the

Feldman v. People First Fed. Credit Union (In re White)

600 B.R. 335 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 7, 2019

To the contrary, it is clearly a question of law. … To establish that a transfer is exempt from the Trustee's avoiding power under the earmarking doctrine, the following three elements must all be established: The following are requirements for the earmarking doctrine: "(1

Vu v. Lin (In re Vu)

591 B.R. 596 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Nov 7, 2018

Plaintiff's counsel did not precisely quantify the amount of attorneys' fees that might qualify as damages incurred by Plaintiff, other than to state that she is requesting a "reasonable attorneys' fee." … I do not want to contribute to the establishment of incentives for counsel to do just that.

Country Store Products, Inc. v. Cornucopia Products, Inc. (In re Country Store Products, Inc.)

21 B.R. 28 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 1, 1980

It must be stressed that, in his capacity as Secretary-Treasurer, no one should be more qualified and knowledgeable of Country Store’s financial transactions and relationship with Cornucopia than Richard G. Ball. … Even if the plaintiff could establish the existence of a sale, its rights to this equipment, as an unsecured creditor, now were inferior to those of Continental Bank a secured creditor with a perfected security interest.