Case law

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.

Levy v. Runnells (In Re Landbank Equity Corp.)

66 B.R. 949 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Nov 6, 1986

RICHMOND EQUITY CORPORATION This disease now known as Land-bank would have spread to Richmond as Richmond Equity Corporation was there established to originate loans. … A judge may not isolate and hold his factual findings immune by chalking them off to demeanor and credibility. We are aware of that and it has not been done.

Latimer v. Lake County Treasurer (In re Latimer)

528 B.R. 166 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Apr 2, 2015

Given the foregoing, § 108(b) clearly applies to the facts of this case. … It also certainly qualifies as the performance of, “any other similar act” by a deadline.

In Re Office Products of America, Inc.

136 B.R. 675 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · Jan 8, 1992

(In re Swiss Hot Dog Co.), 72 B.R. 569, 571 (D.Col.1987) ( 11 U.S.C. § 365 clearly mandates court approval); Schondorf v. … Assuming that Jesup’s arguments even raise equitable estoppel, the facts do not establish it.

Holden v. United States of America (Internal Revenue Service) (In Re Holden)

236 B.R. 156 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont · Jul 21, 1999

We must first determine whether or not Debtors’ post-petition refund qualifies as property of the estate. … No other creditor enjoys such immunity, and we flatly refuse to confer such immunity here. 15 .

Smith v. McLeskey (In Re Bay Vista of Virginia, Inc.)

394 B.R. 820 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Sep 24, 2008

Smith’s claims clearly qualify as core proceedings. Opposition Memorandum, at 6. … In the instant matter, the Trustee instead seeks to establish a claim against the McLes-key Defendants. 14 .

International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. v. Nesbitt Corp. (In re Joe Powell & Associates, Inc.)

23 B.R. 329 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Aug 26, 1982

However, that fact does not necessarily establish undue delay considering the nature of this litigation. … Amendment of the pleadings would clearly have been prejudicial to the defendant in Troxel Manufacturing Co. v.

In Re Frost

96 B.R. 804 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Feb 10, 1989

Because the debtors’ motion clearly identified the amount of Atlantic’s *806 secured claim as an issue and Atlantic was aware that valuation was an issue, the Court denied the continuance. … Normally the lending institution selects the appraiser to establish the property’s value.

Committee of Unsecured Creditors for Pittsburgh Cut Flower Co. v. Hoopes (In Re Pittsburgh Cut Flower Co.)

124 B.R. 451 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 30, 1991

Unless defendant qualifies as an “insider” under the Code, this particular transfer may not be avoided. Debtor in this case is a corporation. … Clearly, at the date of initial execution of the agreements and through the various amendments, defendant was in no position to exercise dominion and control over debtor.

In Re NorthWestern Corp.

325 B.R. 346 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · May 5, 2005

A qualifying “transaction” was defined to include confirmation of a chapter 11 plan of reorganization. … Clearly Exhibit “A” fails that test because, as admitted by Mr.

In Re Davis

134 B.R. 34 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Nov 22, 1991

The foregoing was not, in this court’s opinion, intended to enunciate an additional requirement in order to qualify for the exemption. … The Michalak court set out: That the established standard for appellate review of a bankruptcy decision was the “clearly erroneous” rule; that it was unconvinced that the items sought to be exempted in that case were necessities

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.

Farmers Bank v. McCloud (In Re McCloud)

7 B.R. 819 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Tennessee · Dec 22, 1980

The proof in this proceeding clearly establishes that the debtor’s disposition of the Bank’s collateral was a willful act. … The Court attempted to qualify its holding, however, by further declaring: It is not necessary in the construction we give to the language of the exception in the statute to hold that every wilful act which is wrong implies

In Re Duvall

218 B.R. 1008 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · Mar 13, 1998

West (In re West), 68 B.R. 647, 648-49 (Bankr.C.D.Cal.1986) (concluding that “avoidance of a judicial lien is limited by the amount of the exemption because the amount of the exemption establishes the outside boundary of … Id. at 75-76; accord 4 CollieR on Bankruptcy ¶ 522.07, at 522-35 (15th rev. ed.1997) (concluding that “[t]he Code clearly will not permit enforcement of a waiver executed in favor of a creditor,” but noting that the statutory

L.T. Ruth Coal Co. v. Big Sandy Coal & Coke Co. (In Re L.T. Ruth Coal Co.)

66 B.R. 753 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Kentucky · May 14, 1986

Our precedents clearly establish that only controversies in the former category may be removed from Art. Ill courts and delegated to legislative courts or administrative agencies for their determination. … If the intent is to force *800 trustees to bring qualifying actions in state fora, the verb in the amendment should be changed to “can be.”

Hurston v. Anzo (In re Anzo)

547 B.R. 454 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · Mar 25, 2016

If a debt is established, then the court gets to the issue of whether it is non-dischargeable. Id. State statutes of limitations are relevant to the first issue, the establishment of a debt. … Writings with pertinent omissions may qualify as ‘materially false’ for purposes of § 523(a)(2)(B). In re Boice, 149 B.R. at 45 .

In Re Kandu

315 B.R. 123 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · Aug 17, 2004

The Supreme Court has identified the nature of rights that qualify for heightened judicial protection. … The legislative history clearly reveals that the primary purpose of DOMA is to restrict marriage to one man and one woman.

Lexington Health Care Center of Elmhurst, Inc. v. McDade (In Re McDade)

282 B.R. 650 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Aug 28, 2002

To qualify under § 523(a)(4), a fiduciary relation must have an existence independent of a debtor’s wrongdoing. … The two cases cited by the Creditor in support of its position are clearly distinguishable. First, in Reliance Ins. Co. v.

Smolen v. Hatley (In Re Hatley)

227 B.R. 753 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Jun 16, 1998

Section 523(a)(4) clearly qualifies the term “defalcation” by “[t]he phrase ‘while acting in a fiduciary capacity.’ ” See 4 King et. al., Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 523.10[l][c] (West 1998). … The Seay Court acknowledges that Oklahoma state courts have established a general policy that acknowledges the existence of a fiduciary duty between joint venturers or partners, but finds that policy inadequate to establish