Case law

Spradlin v. Williams (In re Alma Energy, LLC)

521 B.R. 1 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Kentucky · Oct 22, 2014

Initially, the arguable basis rule may seem peculiar&emdash;a pseudo-qualified immunity for courts that act extrajurisdictionally. … On appeal, the United States switched positions on sovereign immunity, taking the position that it had waived its sovereign immunity. Id. at 155-56 . But the D.C.

Flatau v. Jackson (In Re Hirsch-Franklin, Enterprises, Inc.)

63 B.R. 864 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Georgia · Jul 31, 1986

The allowance of interest on post-petition taxes therefore would require the reinsertion of statutory language which was clearly left out beforehand. … Usery, 426 U.S. 833 , 96 S.Ct. 2465 , 49 L.Ed.2d 245 (1976), and thereby rejected its previous “rule of state immunity from federal regulation that turns on a judicial appraisal of whether a particular governmental function

In Re MacKta

261 B.R. 189 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 18, 2000

This is clearly contrary to the testator’s intent, and the court considers the argument to be without merit. … Mackta and Trust established thereunder, have standing to pursue the claim directly with the court?

Case Credit Corp. v. Baldwin Rental Centers, Inc. (In Re Baldwin Rental Centers, Inc.)

228 B.R. 504 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia · Dec 1, 1998

This silence in section 502 clearly indicates Congress’s intent to treat rejection of assumed leases as administrative expenses. In re Monica Scott, Inc., 123 B.R. 990 , 990 n. 2 (Bankr.D.Minn.1991). … While it is possible to establish Case’s entitlement to payment by way of its motion, the proof by Case is incomplete for that purpose.

Strauss v. Student Loan Office-Mercer University (In Re Strauss)

216 B.R. 638 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · Jan 12, 1998

In this new ease, ECMC’s debt will qualify for the discharge for student loan debts that first came due more than seven years before the petition was filed. … There is no doubt that the debtor could qualify for this exception. No purpose would be served in requiring the debtor to file another bankruptcy case.

In re Dorff

480 B.R. 919 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Oct 16, 2012

Plaintiffs must establish that they qualify for Rule 60(b) relief by “clear and convincing evidence.” Lonsdorf v. Seefeldt, 47 F.3d 893, 897 (7th Cir.1995) (citation omitted); Simons, 715 F.2d at 1252 . … These are examples of excuses for failing to pay the filing fee that might establish excusable neglect.

In re Qimonda AG

482 B.R. 879 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 7, 2012

Clearly, though, Altis’s rights in the property, if any, will have to be determined in connection with a Rule 9024 Motion. … The Barton doctrine does not provide a general, or even a qualified, immunity to the Foreign Representative. Rather, it is the necessary product of the Court’s supervision of its professionals.

In Re McIsaac

19 B.R. 391 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Apr 12, 1982

The McIsaacs' success in these lawsuits is clearly speculative. … Finally, the testimony of the McIsaacs and the documentary evidence filed with the court clearly establish that, at the time the creditors petitions were filed, neither of the alleged bankrupts had sufficient assets to satisfy

Sams v. Avco Financial Services (In Re Sams)

9 B.R. 479 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Mar 16, 1981

Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 provides; “The Congress shall have Power ... to establish . .. uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States.” … Such an amount is clearly substantial. Congress enacted § 522(f) to allow a Pebtor to protect his exemptions and ensure the achievement of a “fresh start”.

In Re Reiland

382 B.R. 779 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Feb 28, 2008

for the purposes of this case. *790 Clearly, the status of the Debtor’s rights under the policy, i.e., as a benefit of employment or not, must be measured as of a certain point in time. … It was clearly that way here, up to at least April, 2003; Four D was being billed for the premiums as the owner of the policy.

In re Allison

578 B.R. 782 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · Jan 12, 2018

Second, the services provided by the Applicant were clearly necessary in order for the Debtor to complete his case. … They do not simply attend the minimal level of continuing legal education for the purpose of qualifying for a higher presumptive hourly rate or no-look fee under the Pee Memorandum.

La Lomia v. United States General Services Administration (In Re Art Metal, U.S.A., Inc.)

109 B.R. 74 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 13, 1989

The foregoing quotes from the 88 Annual Report and the 1990 Budget reflect clearly that none of the money utilized by the PBGC comes from the government (except as investment income). … As the Court stated, “the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit except where it has consented to be sued.” Id. at 1197 .

AJ Ruiz Consultoria Empresarial S.A. v. Bank of China Limited

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Feb 6, 2024

A defendant seeking to dismiss on the basis of immunity typically has “the burden of establishing a prima facie case that it is a foreign sovereign.” … After such a showing by the defendant, the burden then shifts to the plaintiff to establish that an exception to sovereign immunity applies.

Bryan Starling

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jun 19, 2020

Debtor filed a response arguing that sovereign immunity does not apply to actions brought to enforce the discharge injunction and that the Debtor’s 2002 Form 1040 qualifies as a “return” under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a), entitling … Whether Sovereign Immunity bars this action against the IRS and ConServe?

In Re Traub

140 B.R. 286 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico · May 20, 1992

When compared with his monthly expenses of approximately $10,000 per month, there is clearly an ability to pay. Under Kelly, this alone is sufficient to establish substantial abuse. … In the case at bar the presumption was clearly overcome.

In Re Domenico

364 B.R. 418 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 2, 2007

Had Congress meant to limit the language to fees required for the current case, it could easily have used qualifying language such as “nonpayment of any fees or charges arising in the case required under chapter 123....” … The rule is clearly limited to the filing fees for a currently filed case. It speaks of "the” filing fee rather than "any” filing fee.

Triad Guaranty Insurance v. American Home Mortgage Investment Corp. (In re American Home Mortgage Holding)

477 B.R. 517 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Aug 27, 2012

But, because Triad failed to aver that any party other than a non-debtor could qualify as a current “owner” of Triad-insured loans, these entities appear to be non-debtors. 2. … Triad’s claims clearly do not “arise in” the bankruptcy case. 53 B. The Court Lacks Post-Confirmation “Related To” Jurisdiction.

In Re Borders Group, Inc.

453 B.R. 459 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Apr 27, 2011

An individual’s title, by itself, is insufficient to establish that an individual *469 is a director or officer. … Initially, the UST raised concerns that neither the Motion nor its accompanying declarations clearly established that the KERP Employees were not insiders because the Motion did not list the Debtors’ employees’ names, job

Chizk v. Ramon (In Re Ramon)

433 B.R. 571 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Jun 10, 2010

Thus, distinguishing it from a plan established under 26 U.S.C. § 401 (k) is a distinction without (for purposes of the case before the court) a difference. b. … The court several times attempted to explain to Plaintiff that, while the State Court Judgment clearly liquidated Defendants' debt to her, it did not dispose of the issues raised in the Complaint.

Dollinger v. Bottom (In Re Bottom)

176 B.R. 950 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Florida · Dec 14, 1994

Clearly “a spendthrift trust cannot exist if the beneficiary is able to control the assets of the trust before its maturation.” First Florida National Bank, N.A. v. … I conclude that this trust fails to qualify as spendthrift under Florida law.