Case law

In Re Jefley, Inc.

219 B.R. 88 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Mar 3, 1998

included reductions in vacation times, holidays, and personal days; a freeze on employees’ pensions and health and welfare contributions; an increase from 16 hours to 20 hours in the minimum weekly work-time necessary to qualify … The balance .of the equities must clearly favor rejection of the collective bargaining agreement (footnote omitted). It is established in this Circuit that the burden of proving all nine elements falls upon the Debtor.

Williams v. Gelt Financial Corp. (In Re Williams)

232 B.R. 629 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 9, 1999

Instead, she provided a comparison between the two Transactions, explaining that only the First Transaction qualified as a “high cost” loan. … The testimony presented at trial established that the Defendant failed to provide these advance disclosures.

Hinson v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (In re Hinson)

481 B.R. 364 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. North Carolina · Apr 17, 2012

As such, it is clearly a statute designed to protect the public and is also one which establishes public policy in favor of protecting struggling homeowners. … The bank defendants, acting as lenders and mortgage servicers clearly engaged in acts in or affecting commerce.

In Re United States Lines, Inc.

199 B.R. 476 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Aug 13, 1996

Unmatured Interest Section 502 of the Bankruptcy Code clearly provides that claims for unmatured interest shall not be allowed. … By modifying the term “interest” with the term “postpetition”, the Code qualifies its intent to limit the disallowance of interest to only that which accrues postpetition.

Ries v. Ardinger (In re Adkins Supply, Inc.)

555 B.R. 579 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 26, 2016

General Objections General objections clearly fail the specificity requirement. The Fifth Circuit requires that any party resisting discovery must, for each request, specifically support each individual objection. … Defendants’ “conclusory assertion ... does not come close to the particular and specific demonstration of fact required to satisfy the burden of establishing the need for a protective order.” Hunsinger v.

In Re Cook

432 B.R. 519 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jul 14, 2010

However, in the Chapter 7 context, a secured claim under § 506(d) is not established in the same way. Id. at 875. … The court concluded that the Code clearly intended to treat undersecured and wholly unsecured claims differently.

Matter of Selden

58 B.R. 667 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Nebraska · Jan 27, 1986

The FDIC responds that it is immune from the state law waiver defenses. Issues 1. Does Mrs. … The whole scheme of the various subsections of § 1823 clearly deal with the FDIC in its corporate capacity and not in its capacity as receiver.

Chrysler Capital Corp. v. Salzman (In Re Salzman)

61 B.R. 878 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jun 9, 1986

INTENT TO DECEIVE A debtor who is not granted immunity under 11 U.S.C. § 344 is free to claim the privilege against self-incrimination, and may refuse to testify and, nevertheless, retain a right to claim a discharge in bankruptcy … The evidence in this case clearly and convincingly reflects the fact that the debtors were sole shareholders and controlling officers of BFM.

McFarland v. General Electric Capital Corp. (In re International Manufacturing Group, Inc.)

538 B.R. 22 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. California · Sep 10, 2015

The court’s discussion and holding both strongly suggest the court believed that a preference, which the payments to Burnazos clearly were, cannot also be a fraudulent transfer. … Id. at 770 . 4 As the trustee puts it, “[i]f creditor status were enough to immunize a transfer from section 548 avoidance by magically transforming it into a preference, then a trustee could never avoid transfers made as

In Re Farley Inc.

152 B.R. 516 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Mar 10, 1993

To qualify for treatment of § 365(d)(3), a landlord must first establish that its claim against the debtor (i) arose post-petition (ii) under an unexpired lease of non-residential real property. … However, the initial issue presented here is whether a landlord must also establish that the debtor was a lessee on the unexpired lease.

American Chemical Works Co. v. International Nickel, Inc. (In Re American Chemical Works Co.)

235 B.R. 216 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Rhode Island · Jun 1, 1999

The threshold issue is whether ACW, a corporate debtor, qualifies for relief under § 362(h), or whether the remedy provided therein is limited to natural persons. … Even if ACW had met the higher burden of proof as to liability in establishing civil contempt (i.e., by clear and convincing evidence) and criminal contempt (by proof beyond a reasonable doubt), 3 ACW has failed to establish

In Re Coleman

417 B.R. 712 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Mississippi · Jul 2, 2009

Clearly, both parts of the Moline Properties doctrine are satisfied because KCC was organized for a business purpose, and KCC actually carried on some business activity. … The law of the case doctrine clearly does not apply. Notably, in a similar case, Limited Gaming of America v. Commissioner, 82 T.C.M.

Labrum & Doak v. Brown (In Re Labrum & Doak, LLP)

225 B.R. 93 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 14, 1998

The principles established in the equitable distribution cases relied upon by Solo appear inappropriately adapted here. … Moreover, these terms, particularly the Half/Third Proposal, were clearly never agreed to by the Ryan Firm Defendants.

Jackson v. Cash

United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Columbia · Feb 14, 2025

Cash attempted to refinance the Mortgages, but was unable to qualify for a loan, which resulted in Mr. Jackson’s name remaining on the loans. Ms. Cash continued to have issues qualifying for financing on the Property. … As to Jackson III, the statements thereunder clearly fall squarely within the judicial proceedings privilege.

Leslie v. Hart (In Re Hart)

130 B.R. 817 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Indiana · Jul 3, 1991

To establish that a debt is nondis-chargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(4), a creditor must establish that: 1) an express trust existed, 2) the debt was caused by fraud or defalcation, and 3) the debtor acted as a fiduciary … The stipulations in the consent judgment clearly establish that the debt is nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523 (a)(4). Paragraph 3 of the Agreed Judgment Order indicates that Ms. Klingman and Mr.

Toledo Trust Co. v. Peoples Banking Co. (In Re Hartley)

52 B.R. 679 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Sep 10, 1985

The law is clearly to the contrary.” 402 P.2d at 377 . Finally, Oakes was another case which also refused to enforce an agreement between banks. … The Montanino case found that the parents of the woman the Debtor was living with qualified as “insiders.”

In re Couture Hotel Corp.

554 B.R. 369 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 29, 2016

as a custodian or other qualified witness under Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6)(D). 33 Thus, in U.S. v. … resulted in a ruling that the jail assaults were not covered under Matagor-da County’s policy. 77 Despite the fact that Matagorda County had received a significant benefit from TAC’s funding of the settlement and that it was clearly

In Re Pleasant View Utility District of Cheatham County

24 B.R. 632 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Tennessee · Sep 14, 1982

Chapter 9 bankruptcy petition. 1 Upon consideration of the evidence presented at the hearing on July 6, 1982, stipulations, exhibits, briefs of the parties and the entire record, this court concludes that the debtor is qualified … Under these circumstances, the debtor clearly has not been and cannot in the future meet its obligations as they become due.

Elsaesser v. Cougar Crest Lodge, L.L.C. (In Re Weddle)

353 B.R. 892 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Idaho · Oct 5, 2006

Those who are not per se insiders may still qualify as insiders, but “only if they meet the test for non-statutory insiders, which requires some showing of control of the debtor.” Enter. … However the existence of such closeness of relationship, or even leverage, does not itself establish an insider status.

Jackson v. Cash

United States Bankruptcy Court, District of Columbia · Feb 14, 2025

Cash attempted to refinance the Mortgages, but was unable to qualify for a loan, which resulted in Mr. Jackson’s name remaining on the loans. Ms. Cash continued to have issues qualifying for financing on the Property. … As to Jackson III, the statements thereunder clearly fall squarely within the judicial proceedings privilege.