Case law

In Re Sacred Heart Hospital of Norristown

177 B.R. 16 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 1, 1995

Tinkering with an established bar date may raise due process claims of parties who have timely filed claims by originally-established bar dates, since it gives late filers a second bite at an apple which is likely to be less … It is clearly disruptive to the formulation of a plan to frustrate a debtor’s logical assumptions regarding the amounts of total claims by compelling the debtor to alter or extend an established bar date.

In Re Waldman

81 B.R. 313 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 24, 1987

The Debtor and Michael Delaney, a duly-qualified realty appraiser, provided testimony regarding the condition and value of the Debtor’s premises. … Since the judgment has been opened, we clearly are not in any way bound by it.

Fleet v. United States Consumer Council, Inc. (In Re Fleet)

76 B.R. 1001 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 18, 1987

Civ.P. 23(b)(3), and establish a schedule for the resolution of these issues. B. … Carlisle & Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156 , 94 S.Ct. 2140 , 40 L.Ed.2d 732 (1974), established, the Plaintiffs must bear the cost of this notice.

421 Chestnut Partners, LP v. Aloia (In re Aloia)

496 B.R. 366 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 17, 2013

Nothing in the Bankruptcy Code itself indicates an intention to create immunity during a gap period. … However, as December 2nd fell on a Sunday, Rule 9006(a)(1)(C) established Monday, December 3, 2012, as the filing deadline.

Galloway v. Long Beach Mortgage Co. (In Re Galloway)

220 B.R. 236 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 14, 1998

the miscalculation of arrears and objection to fees and costs, Long Beach rests its case on the legal argument that the amount of these charges is determined by the foreclosure judgment which is res judicata and therefore immune … Clearly, the litigation of these counts, if successful, would operate to undermine the initial judgment of [the creditor]. Id., 329 Pa.Super. at 272 , 478 A.2d at 463 .

Hopkins v. First NLC Financial Services, LLC (In Re Hopkins)

372 B.R. 734 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 22, 2007

As explained by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, a trial court may not grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings pnless the movant clearly establishes there are no material issues of fact, and he is entitled to judgment … The plaintiff has clearly put CHC on notice of the nature of his claims. Accordingly, CHC’s motion for a more definite statement is denied. Garza v.

In Re Glenn

198 B.R. 106 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 10, 1996

although Norton does not discuss this issue and it does not appear that the IRS’ potential violation of § 553(a) was an issue in that decision, the return set off against the Debtor’s pre-petition debt to the IRS in Norton was clearly … Hankerson was reversed on the ground that the IRS was immune from suit, a result supported by the decision in United States v.

In Re Aqua Associates

123 B.R. 192 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 17, 1991

Levin, a well-qualified appraiser, valued the Property at present at $750,000 without the Lease and $1,000,000 with the Lease. … The issue of whether the loan will enhance the value of the Debtor’s sole asset, i.e., the Property, rather clearly tips in the Debtor’s favor.

In Re Fund Raiser Products Co., Inc.

163 B.R. 744 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 8, 1994

The Court has concluded that the movant, Ruth Segal, has established the validity of a claim against the Debtor secured by the Gift-co stock, and has sustained the Movant’s burden under 11 U.S.C. § 362 (g) of establishing … The 1992 amendments are of little moment to the instant controversy because both before and after the 1992 amendments, a security interest in the Giftco stock could clearly be perfected via possession.

In re Ginko Associates, L.P.

372 B.R. 229 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jul 25, 2007

Clearly, the evidence shows that Mr. Tota relied upon Mr. Garrett’s promises. … the intent of the parties; 3) the language of the contract must be construed, in cases of ambiguity, against the party seeking immunity from liability; and 4) the burden of establishing the immunity is upon the party invoking

Crompton v. Boulevard Mortgage Co. (In Re Crompton)

68 B.R. 831 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 9, 1987

On October 4, 1986, Irving Geller, a qualified real estate broker and appraiser in the City of Philadelphia, prepared a written appraisal for the Mortgagee, in which he valued the premises at $8,000.00. … We have already indicated our basis for concluding that the value of the premises, at the crucial date of confirmation, should be established at $5,000.00.

Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission v. Metro Transportation Co. (In Re Metro Transportation Co.)

64 B.R. 968 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Sep 29, 1986

On August 4, 1986, the Debtor amended its October 12, 1985, self-insurance application so as to request the PUC to review and approve a revised self-insurance plan, contemplating no participation by a qualified insurance … Therefore, we clearly do not conclude that 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a) protects the Debtor from the relief sought by the PUC hereinafter.

Strong v. Option One Mortgage Corp.

356 B.R. 121 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 31, 2004

The burden of establishing the unconscionable nature of a contract or contract provision clearly rests upon the party challenging the contract or term. Denlinger, Inc. v. … Clearly, such an offer was designed to profit the lender.

In Re Metropolitan Hospital

110 B.R. 731 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 14, 1990

Any issues concerning the standing of the bondholders’ committee or the indenture trustee to bring such a suit, the immunity (if any) of the governmental defendants to such suit, see generally Hoffman v. … Clearly, the indentures sought to lien future gross revenues.

Red Bell Brewing Co. v. GS Capital, L.P. (In Re RBGSC Investment Corp.)

242 B.R. 851 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 5, 2000

As is established in Three Rivers Motors Co. v. … Bronich, 517 Pa. 378, 383 , 537 A.2d 1355, 1358 (1988), specific performance should only be granted where the facts clearly establish the plaintiffs right thereto, where adequate remedy at law does not exist, and where justice

Armstead v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development (In Re Armstead)

106 B.R. 405 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 20, 1989

paid by the United States; and (ii) attorney fees shall not be awarded in excess of $75 per hour unless the court determines that an increase in the cost of living or a special factor, such as the limited availability of qualified … The Hall decision is clearly distinguishable.

Lichtenstein v. Anderson (In Re Eastern Continuous Forms, Inc.)

302 B.R. 320 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 9, 2003

Impending disruption of the UARCO account relationship would clearly qualify as material within the meaning of the Asset Purchase Agreement. … Glusman’s assertion that the venture was doomed was clearly wild speculation on his part.

In Re Fries

68 B.R. 676 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 29, 1986

For these reasons, I am satisfied that the debtors have established cause for the extension of their plan to 60 months. III. … In re Hines, 723 F.2d 333 (3d Cir.1983) does not clearly address these issues.

D'Alfonso v. A.R.E.I. Investment Corp. (In Re D'Alfonso)

211 B.R. 508 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 4, 1997

Clearly, the instant Sale does not fit within this paradigm; the Debtor did not voluntarily sell the Property. … However, this was clearly done after DiGiaeomo was aware of the commencement of Case One prior to the Sale and he clearly should have known of the Sale’s invalidity.

In Re 1606 New Hampshire Avenue Associates

85 B.R. 298 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · May 13, 1988

And, clearly, the realty in issue here is developed. … With some reluctance, we qualified him to provide expert testimony at all.