Case law

Matter of Don Miller, Inc.

35 B.R. 714 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 9, 1984

Miller countered by arguing that the slightest detriment by the promisee or benefit received by the promisor established sufficient consideration. … The court said: The financing statement which the claimants filed clearly fails to qualify also as a security agreement because nowhere in the form is there any evidence of an agreement by the debtor to grant claimants a

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Hodge (In Re Hodge)

216 B.R. 932 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 4, 1998

Upon a review of the record and the findings made by the Court in the District Court Action, this Court finds that the final judgment in the District Court Action establishes actual fraud for the purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 523 … Clearly, in a case where the issue of fraud was fully litigated, as occurred in the District Court Action, collateral estoppel is appropriate.

In re Gambale

2014 BNH 7 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire · Jun 19, 2014

Laureyns as “these payments were clearly not for child support; they were for expenses the [Debtor] already had a legal obligation to pay.” … Heat and hot water are necessities that clearly contribute to the well-being of one’s family. See Keeran v.

In Re McCartney

336 B.R. 588 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Georgia · Jan 12, 2006

For example, a debt relief agency must, in an advertisement directed to the general public, disclose clearly and conspicuously that the assistance provided may involve filing for bankruptcy relief. 11 U.S.C.A. 528(b)(2). … Second, the plaintiff must establish a casual link between the injury and the challenged conduct. Lujan, 504 U.S. at 560 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 , 119 L.Ed.2d 351 .

Grillo v. Corigliano (In Re Grillo)

331 B.R. 614 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 7, 2005

The test to establish liability under section 6672 can be reduced to two elements: “(1) the individual must be a ‘responsible person,’ and (2) his or her failure to pay the tax must be ‘willful.’ ” United States v. … Simply put, the reckless disregard standard is satisfied where the party “ ‘(1) clearly ought to have known that (2) there was a grave risk that withholding taxes were not being paid and if (3) he was in a position to find

Chao v. Lexington Healthcare Group, Inc. (In Re Lexington Healthcare Group, Inc.)

335 B.R. 570 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Dec 15, 2005

If the employer does not pay the gross wages to the employees (or to the plan as directed by the employees), then clearly some portion of the employees’ wages have been “withheld.” … The facts in Begier suggest what may qualify as a nexus. In that case, the funds had actually been paid to the IRS to satisfy the debtor’s trust fund obligation. Id. at 56 , 110 S.Ct. 2258 .

Williams v. Threet (In Re Threet)

118 B.R. 805 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Aug 28, 1990

The legislative history of this section clearly establishes Congressional intent that the bankruptcy estate be as all-encompassing as the language indicates. The scope of the paragraph is broad. … This is a legal right which clearly becomes part of the Debtor’s estate.

In Re McCombs

436 B.R. 421 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 17, 2010

stated so in Section 331 — for it was clearly aware of the concept of disbursement. … In re Tom Carter Enters., 49 B.R. 243, 245 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1985) (noting that Congress was clearly aware of the concept of disbursement, as evidenced by its use of the term in establishing the statutory maximum for compensation

Deliguori v. Granite Bank (In re Deliguori)

146 B.R. 52 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 11, 1992

The Court discussed the issue at bar thus: Property that is properly exempted under § 522 is (with some exceptions) immunized against liability for prebank-ruptey debts. § 522(e). … No property can be exempted (and thereby immunized), however, unless it first falls within the bankruptcy estate.

Fireside Thrift of Hawaii, Inc. v. Kealoha (In Re Kealoha)

2 B.R. 201 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Hawaii · Jan 11, 1980

Where relief is sought on account of fraudulent representations, the facts sustaining the charge should be clearly and satisfactorily established. [Emphasis added] Id. at 238 , 377 P.2d at 712 . 13. … There, the court held that to establish mutual mistake . warranting setting aside a stipulation settling litigation, the party seeking relief must establish there was a misconception of fact; the fact was material; it was

In re Wilson

347 B.R. 880 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Aug 8, 2006

Here, the Debtors are clearly entitled to claim the homestead exemption in the Residence. … of 2005 (BAPCPA), which applies to all bankruptcy cases filed on and after October 17, 2005, by the expansion of § 522(b)’s pre-existing requirements concerning a debtor's domicile and the addition of language exempting qualifying

Diesel Performance, Inc. v. G. Paoletti Co. (In Re G. Paoletti, Inc.)

205 B.R. 251 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · Jan 9, 1997

As discussed above, Oakland was clearly on notice that it would be bound by the Wells Fargo motion. … As a result, in order to establish that it owns the Oakland Trucks, Oakland must establish that it explicitly agreed with the Debtor that title would pass from the Debtor to Oakland prior to delivery. 5 *259 Section 2201(

Barnett v. K-Mart (In Re Barnett)

15 B.R. 504 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas · Nov 19, 1981

Campbell, supra, they clearly conflict with and frustrate the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code. The first specific area of conflict involves discharge of debts. … If, however, notice is sent after a petition in bankruptcy is filed or the 7 days expires after a petition is filed, this is clearly a form of civil collection, stayed by § 362(a). See Harris v.

Dunaway v. LVNV Funding, LLC (In re Dunaway)

531 B.R. 267 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Missouri · May 19, 2015

Debtors argue that action taken in bankruptcy courts should not be exempt from this prohibition because if they are then debt collectors will have a blanket immunity to pursue claims in bankruptcy court that they could not … BAP 2008) (“[T]he debt validation provisions required by FDCPA clearly conflict with the claims processing procedures contemplated by the [Bankruptcy] Code and Rules”).

In Re Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine

160 B.R. 882 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Oct 29, 1993

Each plan sponsor must establish and maintain a ledger account, known as a funding standard account, containing funds sufficient to satisfy the minimum funding standard. … Clearly, Debtor created its Pension Plan prepetition in consideration of its employees’ labor.

Galaxy Computer Services, Inc. v. Baker

325 B.R. 544 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · May 27, 2005

Additionally, there is scant evidence that these two consultants were qualified to produce such a report. … The Court finds that Taylor qualifies as an expert based on his knowledge, skill, experience, training and education.

In Re Draiman

450 B.R. 777 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Apr 19, 2011

Moreover, the release may not provide for “blanket immunity.” Id. The immunity afforded by the release must not affect matters beyond the jurisdiction of the court or unrelated to the reorganization. Id. … Thus, the release cannot be construed as blanket immunity for all transgressions and omissions.

HSBC Bank USA v. Fane (In Re MF Global Inc.)

466 B.R. 244 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Mar 7, 2012

BACKGROUND On January 23, 2012, this Court issued an order establishing a process by which former MF Global, Inc. … In light of the stipulated facts, the Settlement Agreement clearly falls within the range of reasonableness described in In re W.T. Grant, Co., 699 F.2d 599 and complies with the Iridium, factors, as applica *251 ble.

Enron Creditors Recovery Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. (In Re Enron Creditors Recovery Corp.)

407 B.R. 17 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jun 29, 2009

See e.g., Coral, 797 F.2d at 1361 (noting that, although establishing the intent of the third-party lender is one way to prove lack of control, it is not the only way). … Moreover, not every transaction would have to establish its "commonness,” as that would undermine the purpose of the safe harbor.

In re Aegean Marine Petroleum Network Inc.

599 B.R. 717 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Apr 8, 2019

To some extent, these exculpation provisions are based on the theory that court-supervised fiduciaries are entitled to qualified immunity for their actions. … The need for a formal service of process is a well-established prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction. See Hansberry v. Lee , 311 U.S. 32 , 61 S.Ct. 115 , 85 L.Ed. 22 (1940).