Case law

Kozyack v. Levy (In Re Financial Federated Title & Trust, Inc.)

273 B.R. 706 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. · Nov 16, 2001

or surreptitiously extract from its assets the sum of $535.84 in cash and use the same to improve his home thereby contributing to the bankruptcy of the Bread Company to the detriment of innocent creditors and then claim immunity … Rather, the undisputed evidence clearly reflects that the El Cabal-lo Property was purchased by First R & R with funds directly obtained from the Fin-Fed fraud.

In Re Summit Metals, Inc.

379 B.R. 40 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Dec 4, 2007

b)(3)(C), (D) or (F); and (ii) whether Richardson’s fees qualify for reimbursement under section 503(b)(4). … Kelly (“Kelly”), Jepsco’s president, chief executive officer, sole di *50 rector, and sole employee, qualifies it as a creditor of the Debtor.

In Re Nargassans

103 B.R. 446 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jul 19, 1989

It is sufficient to establish ... that there are good grounds for the claim and that no defenses have been asserted in substantiate form.” 701 F.2d at 1077 . … The New York State Legislature clearly sought to achieve this balance in the last sentence of BCL § 630(a) by providing the safeguard of a returned unsatisfied execution directed to the company.

In Re Delta Air Lines, Inc.

370 B.R. 537 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Apr 25, 2007

The Bond Trustee also established a website “solely dedicated to the interests of the 1992 Bondholders,” which reported on all material events and pleadings “and finally all of the documents associated with the Settlement … The Indenture clearly vests in the Bond Trustee alone the power to exercise the Bondholders’ remedies in the event of a default, subject to instruction by a majority in principal amount of Bondholders.

Official Committee Of Unsecured Creditors v. BlockFi Inc.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Oct 10, 2023

Sovereign Immunity The United States’ argument with respect to sovereign immunity is inextricably tied to its jurisdictional argument. … Because sovereign immunity is jurisdictional in nature, see FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. at 475, if unequivocal waiver is not established, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the issues raised.

In re Gutierrez

528 B.R. 1 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Vermont · Nov 4, 2014

Gutierrez filed his bankruptcy petition in bad faith, and misrepresented information in his bankruptcy schedules to mislead the Court into believing (1) his debts are primarily business debts, (2) he qualifies for relief … First, the Debtor’s position is not clearly inconsistent with his position in state court.

Goforth v. United States of America Department of Education (In Re Goforth)

466 B.R. 328 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 9, 2012

If and when he takes and passes one or both of those exams he will be qualified to obtain work as a computer network person, with estimated earnings from $8 to $15 per hour. … The Defendant thus has established entitlement to *342 summary judgment with respect to the third prong of the Brunner test.

Burgess v. Henrie (In Re Henrie)

235 B.R. 113 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Jun 22, 1999

Clearly, Plaintiff did not need spousal support from Defendant. … While Defendant’s military experience may qualify him for employment as a mechanic or repairer, no evidence was offered to show that this work is available or pays more than Defendant’s current job.

Quaker Oats Co. v. Affiliated of Florida, Inc. (In Re Affiliated of Florida, Inc.)

237 B.R. 495 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Jul 7, 1998

It appears well-established that a secured creditor is a “purchaser” for purposes of § 672.403 of the Florida Statutes. … priority claim in bankruptcy when the right to reclaim is entirely subordinated by the rights of a superior secured creditor would be to give the seller greater rights than possessed outside of bankruptcy, and this would clearly

Balvich v. Balvich (In Re Balvich)

135 B.R. 327 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · May 22, 1991

Thus, “a debt could be in the ‘nature of support' under § 523(a)(5) even though it would not legally qualify as alimony or support under state law.” Yeates, 807 F.2d at 878 . … The parties clearly contemplated the possibility that Mrs. Balvich might choose to live elsewhere and sell the marital residence. She has, in fact, done so and has since re-married.

In Re Board of Directors of Multicanal S.A.

340 B.R. 154 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Mar 29, 2006

Factor 1, which analyzes the types of exchanges that can be the subject of a § 3(a)(10) exemption, was clearly fulfilled. … Its clients include both qualified and non-qualified institutional buyers.

Baker v. Sheffield (In re Sheffield)

349 B.R. 484 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Mississippi · Jun 27, 2006

Consequently, it is the opinion of this court that the defendant is clearly unable to pay the property settlement obligations. … Even if the defendant were able to pay these debts, the benefit of her discharge in bankruptcy clearly outweighs the detri *493 ment to the plaintiff.

In Re Cortez

335 B.R. 351 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Nov 5, 2004

The Code itself provides no guidance as to what qualifies as substantial abuse. … The court may, however, consider post-petition events to the extent they were clearly in prospect at the petition date. For example, if the evidence in the case at bar had established that Mr.

In Re Wilson

85 B.R. 722 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 27, 1988

Since divorce proceedings are clearly within the province of state courts, 11 U.S. … The debtor has suggested no federal interest which could mandate a result different from that established by state law. 8 .

In Re Flagstaff Foodservice Corp.

56 B.R. 910 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jan 15, 1986

The Financing Order also provided that GECC would have a qualified super-priority status as to sums not secured under the agreement. … Additionally Hormel’s telegram clearly indicates that the reclamation demand was being made on Flagstaff.

In Re Henderberg

108 B.R. 407 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. New York · Jun 12, 1989

This the Plan did and upon its confirmation “the fixing of the allowed amount of claims ... establishes] new rights and obligations and permanently supplant[s] those entered into pre-petition.” … The Court concludes that Tarnow and its progeny are all factually dissimilar to the instant dispute, focusing primarily as they do on Code § 506(d)(2) which clearly mandates that the failure of a creditor to file a proof

Public Service Co. of New Hampshire v. New Hampshire (In Re Public Service Co.)

108 B.R. 854 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire · Nov 30, 1989

The defendants made qualified responses to paragraphs 17 and 18 of the complaint. … The section has been clarified to clearly indicate that both secured and unsecured claims, or either of them, may be impaired in a case under title 11.

Mukamal v. Bank of America (In Re Egidi)

386 B.R. 884 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. · Apr 4, 2008

The Bohlen test sets out three elements that must be met to qualify a transfer as earmarked. … The rules established in the avoidable preference cases are applicable to a certain extent in the context of fraudulent transfers.

Hovis v. Ducate (In Re Ducate)

355 B.R. 536 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina · Nov 7, 2006

However, due to the qualified language 5 of these statements the Court finds that there is a genuine issue of material fact concerning the origin of $105,177.33 deposited into the account. … or made to or for any intent or purpose to delay, hinder, or defraud creditors and others of their just and lawful actions, suits, debts, accounts, damages, penalties, and forfeitures must be deemed and taken ... to be clearly

Ramette v. Al & Alma's Supper Club Corp. (In Re Bame)

252 B.R. 148 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Aug 22, 2000

Finally, the Defendants’ actions clearly exercised control over property of the estate. Therefore, the undisputed evidence establishes that the Defendants violated the automatic stay. See 11 U.S.C. § 362 (a)(3). … Thus, in order to qualify as a “purchaser,” the Trustee must have acquired Certificate No. 1 by some type of voluntary transaction. See Mazer v. Williams Bros.