Case law

Nisselson v. Roussopoulos (In Re Roussopoulos)

198 B.R. 33 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Jul 12, 1996

Clearly, setting aside the default would result in some delay to the Trustee, “[b]ut delay standing alone does not establish prejudice.” Enron, 10 F.3d at 98 . … Livadiotakis does not provide information qualifying him as an expert to support his conclusions.

In re Ocean Rig UDW Inc.

570 B.R. 687 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Aug 24, 2017

UDW also maintains a “law 89 establishment” in Greece. … Thus, the Foreign Debtors’ COMI was clearly the Cayman Islands before and on the Petition Date. (See also Appell Decl. ¶ 31.)

Richard A Hazelton and Kelly J Hazelton

United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Sep 25, 2020

That immunity can be abrogated by specific acts of Congress. … (a) Notwithstanding an assertion of sovereign immunity, sovereign immunity is abrogated as to a governmental unit to the extent set forth in this section with respect to the following:

Kreidle v. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (In Re Kreidle)

145 B.R. 1007 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · Jun 23, 1992

The statute is strictly construed in the government’s favor because it effects a waiver of sovereign immunity. Kenlin Indus. Inc. v. United States, 927 F.2d 782, 786 (4th Cir.1991). … The court concludes there is a limited availability of qualified attorneys with the tax expertise necessary to litigate Debtor’s case.

In Re Aviation Technical Support, Inc.

72 B.R. 32 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · Feb 10, 1987

Rather this reading establishes a two tier tent: one for official committees and another for volunteer committees in terms of qualifying for reimbursement. … Committees are an integral part of that process and to deny such compensation would clearly discourage participation by creditors on committees. See, e.g. In re Major Dynamics, 16 B.R. at 279-80 .

Ryan v. Defense Finance & Accounting Service (In re Ryan)

571 B.R. 146 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · Mar 31, 2017

In support of the contention that he was technically qualified for MOS 15W, the Plaintiff emphasizes that the results of his medical assessments performed during the discharge proceedings established that he was fit for duty … The Regulations’ examples of conditions under which repayment of an unearned bonus will not be sought are situations that are clearly beyond a service member’s control and do not involve any type of misconduct by the service

Bailey v. James (In Re James)

42 B.R. 265 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Kentucky · Sep 6, 1984

. *266 The issue involves a question of federal law 1 which is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal bankruptcy court. 2 In deciding the federal question we will rely on the established caselaw definition of embezzlement … The phrase “while acting in a fiduciary capacity” does not qualify the word “embezzlement” and therefore the court need not find that the debtor was acting in a fiduciary capacity in order to hold a debt nondisehargeable

In Re NBI, Inc.

129 B.R. 212 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · Jun 19, 1991

The retainers received by ST & G and I & S are clearly excessive in nature for bankruptcy purposes. … Clearly, these provisions recognize that counsel may bargain for too much from a prospective debtor in more ways than one.

Lorence v. Does 1 Through 50 (In Re Diversified Contract Services, Inc.)

167 B.R. 591 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · May 11, 1994

The proceeding would qualify as core as a proceeding arising under title 11. … Such claims were clearly core under either 28 U.S.C. § 157 (b)(2)(A) or (0).

In Re Lederman

140 B.R. 49 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · May 18, 1992

RTC argues that Charter Federal reasonably relied on written materials produced by Rezak in its determination to establish the *52 requested credit line. … By so doing, Rezak clearly waived his right to assert the privilege against self-incrimination regarding the documents production now requested by the RTC.

In Re Alta Title Co.

55 B.R. 133 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · Nov 4, 1985

The filing of a petition sufficient on its face clearly gives the bankruptcy court jurisdiction over an involuntary case. Canute Steamship Co. v. … It is indispensable to the maintenance of an involuntary petition that the existence of three qualified creditors be established, if challenged. 28 A pleading defect in this regard does not affect the court’s power to proceed

Nickless v. Kessler (In Re Berman)

352 B.R. 533 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 28, 2006

Under the Tax Postponement Program, a qualified homeowner is able to postpone payment of property taxes. … The issue was presented as ministerial; when in fact, it clearly was not that simple.

Bobby Eugene Goddard v. Michael Brandon Burnett

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 28, 2026

presented here, the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding a lack of good faith. … As the court again stated: The Debtor’s testimony did not establish any necessity for all three Vehicles.

In Re Brooks

60 B.R. 155 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 27, 1986

Radiology Associates established a qualified Defined Contribution Plan in 1968 which it has maintained since that time known as the “Profit Sharing and Thrift Plan of Radiology Associates of Port Worth” (“the Plan”). … Furthermore, the Debtor’s current wages are clearly exempt under Texas law. 17. The above conclusions of law shall constitute findings of fact wherever appropriate. IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 .

Davis v. Illinois State Police Federal Credit Union (In Re Davis)

244 B.R. 776 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 1, 2000

It is the “well-established duty of the trial court to ensure that the claims of a pro se litigant are given a ‘fair and meaningful consideration.’ ” Palmer v. … Hence, § 5318(g)(3) provides immunity for “disclosure of any possible violation of law or regulation.” 31 U.S.C. § 5318 (g)(3).

French v. United States (In Re French)

242 B.R. 369 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 9, 1999

French, as a matter of law, does or does not qualify for equitable relief under § 6015(f). This holding is based upon two considerations: First, the Court cannot conclude that Mrs. … For example, the Parties clearly dispute the extent to which Mrs. French was involved in her husband’s business, with Mrs.

Earls v. United States (In re Earls)

549 B.R. 871 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 15, 2016

Earls argues that the most obvious tax purpose served by the 2008 Filings is to establish the correct amount of his tax liability. … In contrast, the Sixth Circuit in Hindenlang clearly considered timing to be a relevant factor in determining whether there was a reasonable effort to comply with the tax laws.

In Re Damianopoulos

93 B.R. 3 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. New York · Feb 5, 1988

Even assuming termination, he asserted that the process was not complete and immune from reversal, nor was a final decision ever issued by the City Court. Id. … Clearly, this kind of default is prohibited under the Code.

DeHart v. Miller (In Re Miller)

424 B.R. 171 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 5, 2010

A hearing was held on October 21, 2009, at which time the parties stipulated that the sole issue to be decided by this Court was whether the Award qualifies as alimony, support, or separate maintenance reasonably necessary … Therefore, I find that the application of the Gianakas factors clearly establishes that the Award was intended by the state court to serve as support and was not a division of property. IV.

Brandt v. American National Bank & Trust Co. (In Re Foos)

188 B.R. 239 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 26, 1995

In order to establish constructive fraud, the transfer must have been made for “less than a reasonably equivalent value.” … Both of these transfers clearly qualify as “reasonably equivalent value” and the Trustee has, therefore, failed to state a claim that such transfers can be avoided under § 548(a)(2) or Illinois law. *245 The Trustee has also