Case law

In Re Haven Eldercare, LLC

382 B.R. 180 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · Feb 13, 2008

Establishing Procedures for Monthly Compensation and Reimbursement of Expenses of Professionals and Committee Members (Doc. I.D. No. 350) (hereafter, the "Motion"). … The Motion does not clearly define the universe of individuals or other entities that would be entitled to utilize the Monthly Payment Procedure.

Lewis v. Anco Insulations, Inc. (In re Friede Goldman Halter, Inc.)

602 B.R. 307 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Louisiana · Jun 10, 2019

The decision to abstain or not to abstain is committed to the discretion of the district court, and we will affirm unless the court clearly abused its discretion." 27 The permissive abstention analysis is driven by equitable … Mich. 2004) ("[S]tate courts are qualified to interpret the language of bankruptcy plans and orders and routinely engage in such interpretation."). Unico Holdings, Inc. v.

Moya v. Administracion Sistemas De Retiro De L. Empleados Del Gobierno Y La Judicatura (In re Vargas Moya)

601 B.R. 845 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico · May 16, 2019

The consensual agreement is independent to the lien established by law and the contributions are an additional guarantee as it was clearly contemplated by the statute. … For purpose of this subsection, a government plan is a "qualified employer plan" and a "government plan" "...means any plan, whether or not qualified, established and maintained for its employees by the United States, by

In Re Standard Financial Management Corp.

77 B.R. 324 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Jul 16, 1987

Otherwise, immunity is too easily obtained for damaging documents and the facts contained therein, by simply deliberately arranging an accidental disclosure. … In this criminal matter pending before the Grand Jury, the individual was clearly encouraged to produce more documents.

In Re Slocum Lake Drainage District of Lake County

336 B.R. 387 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jan 19, 2006

The Debtor has the burden of proof to establish that it is eligible to be a debtor under Chapter 9. See In re City of *391 Bridgeport, 129 B.R. 332, 334 (Bankr. Conn.1991). … In marked contrast to the Illinois statutes, the California statute cited supra clearly shows an intent by the state legislative body to specifically authorize a local public entity to file a Chapter 9 bankruptcy petition

Lefelstein v. Donlevy (In re Donlevy)

342 B.R. 774 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · May 25, 2006

Fiduciary Duty To qualify as a fiduciary under § 523(a)(4), a fiduciary relationship must have an existence independent of the debt- or’s wrongdoing. … Here, an express trust was established.

In re Carpenter

519 B.R. 811 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Montana · Oct 3, 2014

The Sixth Circuit decided that such claims for reimbursement did not qualify as a “tax” within the meaning’ of the Bankruptcy Code. … The penalty in this case, as permitted under MCA § 39-51-1301(2), is clearly penal in nature, and is thus not allowed as a tax.

In Re Roberts

210 B.R. 325 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Iowa · Jun 18, 1997

Clearly, these exhibits are hearsay and are inadmissible unless they fall within some recognized exception to the hearsay rule. … Exhibit 1 is unquestionably presented to establish the value of this 1990 Cadillac and is, therefore, hearsay.

In Re West Chestnut Realty of Haverford, Inc.

177 B.R. 501 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Jan 27, 1995

Case law has fairly well established the proposition that stock option agreements are generally executory contracts within the ambit of 11 U.S.C. § 365 and the foregoing test. … In this Court’s view, the extinguishment of DiFrancesco’s contingent equity interest clearly impairs DiFrancesco.

In Re Astle

338 B.R. 855 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho · Mar 14, 2006

This language rather clearly makes § 366(c)(2) applicable only in chapter 11 cases. The initial clause found in § 366(c)(2) (i.e., “Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4)”) does not contradict this conclusion. … First, neither paragraph (c)(3) nor (c)(4) purports to expand § 366(c)(2)’s scope beyond chapter 11; they merely qualify (c)(2)’s operation in chapter 11 cases.

Apgar v. Homeside Lending, Inc. (In Re Apgar)

291 B.R. 665 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 8, 2003

Ap-gar has a right to rescind the loan, does this form clearly and conspicuously inform her of that right? Mrs. … Determined the maximum amount they would qualify for; xvii. Helped clear up some of plaintiffs credit problems; and xviii.

McKeever v. McClandon (In Re McKeever)

132 B.R. 996 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 29, 1991

To avoid the tax deed transfer under § 548, the debtor must also establish that they received less than reasonably equivalent value for the transfer. … The Court cannot find as a matter of law that tax deed transfers constitute an exception to § 548 and are immune from attack as a fraudulent transfer due to the negative impact upon the tax deed market.

In Re Clearpoint Business Resources, Inc.

442 B.R. 292 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Dec 30, 2010

The evidence of the Debtors’ and StaffChex’s conduct shows clearly and convincingly that the parties orally modified the Agreements. … Debtors claim that despite the termination qualifying payments, Staff-Chex failed to transfer the customer accounts to Debtors.

American Freight System, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission (In Re American Freight System, Inc.)

174 B.R. 604 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas · Nov 17, 1994

Clearly, at the time AFS’s undercharge claims arose, it was a motor carrier of property. AFS’s undercharge claims resulted from it providing motor vehicle transportation. … The doctrine provides that if a noncarrier acquires a single established carrier system, the noncarrier is not required to get the ICC’s blessing if the single carrier system happens to be comprised of a number of corporate

In Re Murrin

461 B.R. 763 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Jan 4, 2012

The Murrins strenuously resisted the petitioning creditors on this requirement, focusing on the qualifying adverb “generally.” … Coming when and as it did, this was an obnoxious ploy; it was clearly intended to promote further evasion and disruption.

In Re Miraj and Sons, Inc.

192 B.R. 297 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 16, 1996

The First Commitment Letter was clearly executed by both parties contemporaneously with the Note. … This letter also establishes a bar date of 90 days from the date of the letter or the postmark, whichever is later, for filing claims resulting from the disaffirmance. Id.

In Re Gillett Holdings, Inc.

137 B.R. 452 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · Aug 23, 1991

For investment bankers and certain other professionals, the line between reasonable and acceptable employment and fee agreements and unreasonable, or unacceptable, agreements is not defined or clearly drawn by the Bankruptcy … Unpub *458 lished decisions do not establish case law and do not serve as precedent." Mortgage & Realty Trust, supra at 630. 15 .

In Re New Century Trs Holdings, Inc.

446 B.R. 656 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Apr 11, 2011

Claimants who seek to have their claims paid ahead of general unsecured creditors bear the burden of establishing that their claim qualifies for priority status. … Moreover, the allegations underlying the claim clearly are not actual or necessary costs of preserving the estate. Mr.

Smith v. Litchford & Christopher, P.A. (In Re Bay Vista of Virginia, Inc.)

428 B.R. 197 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 1, 2010

The requisite testimony must come from the custodian of the records or ‘other qualified witness.’ The Trustee’s counsel is neither.”); Roberts v. … The binding effect of a factual stipulation on the parties at trial has been recognized by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals: Before the [Administrative Law Judge], the Director clearly stipulated to the findings of fact

In Re Monclova Care Center, Inc.

254 B.R. 167 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · May 25, 2000

Thus, § 502 establishes the general rule that even if a proof of claim is clearly objectionable, the failure of a party in interest to actually interpose an objection to the claim causes that claim to be allowed. … Instead, it is clear that an oversecured creditor’s claim may be qualified by a confirmed plan of reorganization, and the right to receive postpetition interest is therefore subject to any limitation contained in a debtor