Case law

Makoroff v. Allegheny Graphics, Inc. (In Re Allegheny Label Inc.)

128 B.R. 947 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Jun 28, 1991

Roughen denies that certain elements required for a preferential transfer have been established. … The trustee has failed to clearly and convincingly establish that this sum also was part of the consideration paid by Graphics.

In re Villamont-Oxford Associates Ltd. Partnership

230 B.R. 457 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Apr 17, 1998

Judge Proctor acknowledged in Jacksonville Riverfront that other cases have held that the Reform Act did not overrule Phoenix Piccadilly, and that the debtor in the case before him did not qualify as a “single asset real … In this case, the first prong of the test set forth by the District Court is clearly satisfied.

Pursue Energy Corp. v. Mississippi State Tax Commission

338 B.R. 283 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Mississippi · Mar 31, 2005

Findings of fact by the bankruptcy courts are to be reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard. Id.; see also Bankruptcy Rule 8013. 1 Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. … issues; (2) lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case; (3) whether the other proceeding involves the debtor as a fiduciary; (4) whether a specialized tribunal with the necessary expertise has been established

Curtis v. Stepp (In re Stepp)

263 B.R. 549 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jun 19, 2001

Herein, the Debtor held himself out as being qualified and authorized to perform the work he contracted to do for Curtis. … Clearly, Curtis relied upon his expertise and ability to perform the job for which she contracted.

Guttman v. Associates Commercial Corp. (In Re Furley's Transport, Inc.)

272 B.R. 161 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland · Sep 6, 2001

The Trustee also established that each of these transfers was made on account of an antecedent debt. … ACC qualifies as an initial transferee with respect to both the Monetary Transfers and the Oklahoma and Pennsylvania Trailers.

Anzivino v. Commercial Services Corp. (In Re Plunkett)

47 B.R. 172 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Feb 28, 1985

You are clearly not in a position to adjudicate anything, and without jurisdiction whatever you rule is void. (Evidentiary Hearing Transcript, pp. 21-22). … The question is whether a reasonable attorney could have concluded that facts supporting the claim might be established, not whether such facts actually had been established. (Emphasis in Original) Nemeroff v.

Ford v. Skorich

2006 BNH 6 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire · Feb 3, 2006

To establish his preference claim against Skorich, the Trustee must demonstrate the following: A. A transfer of an interest of the Debtor in property; B. To or for the benefit of a creditor; C. … re Besing), 981 F.2d 1488, 1493 (5th Cir.1993) (“[B]ecause the Code’s definition of ‘transfer’ expressly includes involuntary dispositions of property, dispositions of property brought about by state judicial proceedings clearly

Casey v. Schneider ex rel. Denis R. Behan Trust (In re Behan)

506 B.R. 8 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Feb 25, 2014

Words and phrases shall have their general meaning unless otherwise clearly required by the context. … A power of appointment will be difficult to value and is clearly worth much less than the value of the equity in the real estate. VI.

Weinman v. Crowley (In re Blair)

588 B.R. 605 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · Aug 2, 2018

Dennis opined that the Debtor "was clearly insolvent as of May 7, 2011 .... and no information has been provided to indicate that he became solvent thereafter." Expert Report at 7. … Then, the proponent of the expert testimony must establish that the methodology generally is deemed reliable in the field. Id.

Pinsker v. Borders, Inc. (In re BGI, Inc.)

465 B.R. 365 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Feb 17, 2012

The commonality requirement is clearly met in this case. … The Class Members may find it difficult to establish liability because they must both (i) establish that all of the elements of a WARN Act claim are met, and (ii) overcome the Debtors’ affirmative defenses.

Mukamal v. General Electric Capital Corp. (In re Palm Beach Finance Partners, L.P.)

517 B.R. 310 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. · Aug 23, 2013

This kind of circular logic flies in the face of the well-established law of negligence. … The alleged falsity of the Recommendation Letter does not qualify as the identification of a false statement of material fact.

Prairie Eye Center v. Butler (In Re Butler)

297 B.R. 741 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois · Sep 3, 2003

Baker, a qualified and experienced attorney licensed to practice in the state of Illinois. … He clearly knew that violating the covenant not to compete would cause financial harm to Plaintiff, yet he knowingly violated the covenant anyway.

Scott v. Resolution Trust Corp. (In Re Scott)

157 B.R. 297 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · Jul 25, 1993

The RTC seeks summary judgment on the issue, arguing that, as an agency of the United States, the doctrine of sovereign immunity bars an award of punitive damages against it. … . § 1441a(b)(l)(A) provides for the establishment of the Resolution Trust Corporation as an “instrumentality of the United States.”

Five Star Partners, L.P. v. Vincent Netherlands Properties, B v. (In Re Five Star Partners, L.P.)

169 B.R. 994 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · Jul 8, 1994

It is also the methodology used by Georgia courts: “[W]e look first to the words of the statute to determine what [the legislature’s] intent was and if those words be plain and unambiguous and the intent may be clearly gathered … In his diary entry on January 6, 1943, Justice Frankfurter wrote: My dissent in the Monia opinion, having been distributed the day before — turning on the proper construction of the immunity provisions under the Interstate

Hays v. DMAC Investments, Inc. (In Re RDM Sports Group, Inc.)

250 B.R. 805 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Georgia · Jul 7, 2000

It has already been established that as of June 23, 1997, the day of the sheriffs levy and the establishment of its lien, DMAC was a creditor with an antecedent debt. Insolvency is presumed during the preference period. … (In re Cocolat, Inc.), 176 B.R. 540, 547 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.1995) (“the release of a lien that has already been recorded on the debtor’s property clearly qualifies as ‘new value’ ”).

In Re Smither

194 B.R. 102 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Kentucky · Feb 27, 1996

The state court clearly intended the award to be in the nature of support. … However, 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(15) is written in a similar manner to 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(8), which provides that certain debts, which qualify as student loans, are nondisehargeable unless the Debtor can establish certain statutory

Mixon v. Mid-Continent Systems, Inc. (In Re Big Three Transportation, Inc.)

41 B.R. 16 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Arkansas · Nov 18, 1983

The insolvency of the debtor and antecedency of the debt have already been discussed and established. … Such transactions are clearly preferential transfers. Cooper Petroleum Co. v. Hart, 379 F.2d 777 (5th Cir.1979); Kobusch v.

House of Mercy, Inc. v. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (In re House of Mercy, Inc.)

353 B.R. 867 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Louisiana · Apr 25, 2006

Aetna Life & Casualty, 903 F.2d 480 , 489 (7th Cir.1990), stated: “In this section Congress clearly expressed its intent not to alter the substantive scope of section 405(h). … In Town & Country, the court’s decision primarily addressed questions as to the effect of § 106 of the Bankruptcy Code on waiver of sovereign immunity. Id. at 1149-1154.

Feggins v. LVNV Funding LLC (In re Feggins)

535 B.R. 862 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Alabama · Aug 25, 2015

The granting of a right to creditors to file a proof of claim is not a grant of immunity if the claim is not well-founded. … Thus qualified, § 501(a) does not conflict with the Crawford court’s application of the FDCPA.

Bank of America, N.A. v. Outboard Marine Corp. (In Re Outboard Marine Corp.)

300 B.R. 308 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Oct 20, 2003

If it is not, the second question to be addressed is whether the invoices in this case, combined with the financing statement, qualify as a security agreement in compliance with § 25-9-203. … (In re Hite), 4 B.R. 547, 549 (Bankr.N.D.Ohio 1980) (citation omitted) (observing that “[t]he policy behind the financing statement requirement is clearly that of notice filing.”); Mountain Farm Credit Serv. v.