Case law

In Re American Preferred Prescription, Inc.

194 B.R. 721 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Apr 17, 1996

Both of these cases clearly establish that a finding of substantial contribution by a creditor under section 503(b)(3)(D) is a pre-condition to an award of counsel fees under section 503(b)(4). … Therefore, this alleged benefit does not qualify as a substantial contribution to the estate in this instance.

In Re Tri-Continental Exchange Ltd.

349 B.R. 627 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · Sep 11, 2006

This suffices to qualify SVG as the “center of main interests” even though the enterprise perpetrated an insurance scam primarily in the United States and Canada. … As “Brown,” he had relocated to SVG by late 1994 and was establishing TCE, CSL, and AME.

In Re Davis

378 B.R. 539 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Nov 2, 2007

pre-BAPCPA presumption in favor of granting the relief requested by the debtor as a “caution and reminder” for the court to “give the benefit of any doubt to the debt- or and dismiss a case only when a substantial abuse is clearly … Therefore, the mortgage debt does not qualify as a business debt because the Debtor had no profit motive and was not regularly employed in fixing up homes and selling them for a profit.

In re City of Detroit

504 B.R. 97 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Dec 5, 2013

The suit was clearly an act to exercise control over the City’s property. … This argument arises from the fact that the City mysteriously declined to qualify its financial analysts as expert witnesses.

In Re Tomasini

339 B.R. 773 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · Mar 8, 2006

Indeed, if those were the standards, this Debtor might qualify for an extension of the stay. … The Debtor fails to establish that this case was filed in good faith as to the creditors to be stayed pursuant to the statutory requirements.

North American Science Associates, Inc. v. Clark (In Re Clark)

222 B.R. 114 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Dec 5, 1997

Regarding the civil consent judgment, Ohio law clearly allows for the consent judgments to be given issue preclusive effect. City of Columbus v. Alden E. … Finally, the Court found that neither of the two qualifying phrases in § 523(a)(7), that the fines be “to and for the benefit of a governmental unit,” and “not in compensation for actual pecuniary loss,” allows the discharge

In Re Kmart Corp.

362 B.R. 361 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Feb 14, 2007

Clearly, Claimants were not parties to the contested proceeding commenced when Kmart objected to the BONY Claims. Claimants did not intervene and were not joined in that proceeding. … Moreover, given the large number of lease claims asserted against the estate and the sophistication of Kmart and its counsel, clearly Kmart understood the import of the Agreed Order.

In re Thomas

331 B.R. 798 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Arkansas · Jul 7, 2005

Under this ruling, the IRA and annuity are clearly property of the estate. Furthermore, since the Debtor has elected to claim the state exemptions, he may not exempt the funds at issue. See Rousey v. … At the time a divorce decree is entered, the court will distribute all marital property equitably, according to the guidelines established by statute. Ark.Code Ann. § 9-12-315(a) (Michie 2002).

In Re County of Orange

219 B.R. 543 · United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. California · Dec 31, 1997

Here, the Notes clearly are represented by certificates. … establishes a defense or a defect going to the validity of the security.”

In Re McDaniels

86 B.R. 128 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Apr 26, 1988

Clearly there is no right to a nunc pro tunc order of appointment. In re Johnson, 21 B.R. 217 (Bankr.D.C.1982). … To establish the basis for a nunc pro tunc order of employment, an applicant must demonstrate each of the following requirements and, all evidentiary matters must be established by clear and convincing evidence: 1.

In Re Nassoko

405 B.R. 515 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jun 5, 2009

As to E-Loan, it clearly had prior knowledge of the discharge, not only through the notice of discharge it received but also through its subsequent entry into a settlement with the Debtor. … In sum, the wording of the letter does not immunize Respondents from liability for a violation of § 524.

In Re Celotex Corp.

204 B.R. 586 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Florida · Dec 6, 1996

The Trust established under the Plan is a “qualified settlement fund” within the meaning of IRC § 468B and the regulations issued pursuant thereto. … The contents of the Plan clearly establishes the Plan complies with Section 1123(a)(2) through 1123(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code. 30 212.

Davidson v. Bank of New England, N.A. (In re Hollis)

86 B.R. 152 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Arkansas · Apr 25, 1988

Clearly, whatever I decide can be supported by case law. The trick is to do justice.” In re Furimsky, 40 B.R. 350, 354 (Bkrptcy.D.Ariz.1984). … Charles Darwin Davidson is the duly appointed acting and qualified Bankruptcy Trustee in this Chapter 11 proceeding. 2. Defendant is a national banking association based in Boston, Massachusetts. 3.

In Re Ebbrecht

451 B.R. 241 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · May 11, 2011

Stern, Esq. was appointed and has duly qualified to serve as the Chapter 7 trustee (“Trustee”) of Debtor’s case. A Chapter 7 Trustee’s Report of No Distribution was filed by the Trustee on February 9, 2011. … Congress clearly intended to provide two separate provisions covering two very different situations, and adopted two very different procedures.

In Re Archie

240 B.R. 425 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Alabama · Jun 2, 1999

Thus, the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 clearly indicates that the valuation established in the preconversion chapter 13 case applies in the converted chapter 7 case and that payments made toward a secured claim during a … George Gekas (proposing “means-test” for determining if debtors qualify for chapter 7); In re Pearson, 214 B.R. at 164 (in legislative history to § 348(f), Congress showed its concern that debtors not be discouraged from

In Re Erewhon, Inc.

21 B.R. 79 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · May 4, 1982

Clearly, in the area of fees there are no explicit yardsticks. … attorney was not necessary and may have been over qualified for the tasks at hand.

Spirco, Inc. v. Copelin (In Re Spirco, Inc.)

201 B.R. 744 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 18, 1996

Class 8 claimants consisted of parties having allowed unsecured nonpriority claims against debtor for which Innovo also was liable, by guaranty or otherwise, as established by entry of a final order upon motion by debtor, … Suits between third parties which affect the bankruptcy estate may qualify as "related to” proceedings. See Celotex, -U.S. at-n. 5, 115 S.Ct. at 1498 -99 n. 5. 2 .

In Re New Hampshire Electric Cooperative, Inc.

146 B.R. 890 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Hampshire · Sep 21, 1992

It is of course well-established that expenses reimbursable under § 330(a)(2) cannot include any profit or mark-up factor. … reference to existing customs and practices outside the bankruptcy court arena is relevant, at least in a sense of assuring that bankruptcy court compensation allowances are not “so far off base” as to seriously discourage qualified

Waldo v. Montana Department of Labor & Industry Uninsured Employers Fund (In Re Waldo)

186 B.R. 118 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Montana · Sep 5, 1995

The transaction establishing Debtor’s liability to the fund was the UEF’s determination of the amount “to be paid” to Mrs. Loos. The transaction occurred on the date the UEF and Mrs. … Given this and other factors outlined in Camilli and Suburban I, claims by the state run plan for unpaid premiums would likely not qualify as a tax, an issue I do not decide here. 7 .

Kaler v. Kana (In re Kana)

478 B.R. 373 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. North Dakota · Aug 15, 2012

Accordingly, the Court finds that Debtors met their burden of establishing all of the elements of res judicata. … Additionally, he argues “this situation [clearly] presents a balance of equities that justifies the requested relief.”