Case law

Structured Asset Services, L.L.C. v. Self (In Re Self)

325 B.R. 224 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · May 23, 2005

Self was made on January 16, 2001, clearly within that time frame. See Creditor Ex. No. 4i. Accordingly, the Debtor’s answer was false. … Thus, the Creditor has established this element. Third, the Creditor must establish that the false statements and omissions were knowingly made.

Montalvo v. Autoridad de Acueducto y Alcantarillados (In re Montalvo)

537 B.R. 128 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico · Sep 24, 2015

amount is not moot, given that the actions PRASA took are in clear violation of the *135 stay that left Plaintiff and his family without water from August 26, 2014 to October 23, 2014; (ii) PRASA’s collection actions are clearly … Section 366(b) establishes adequate assurance of payment for post-petition services in all cases, except for chapter 11 cases.

Sac River Valley Bank v. Newcomb (In Re Newcomb)

51 B.R. 276 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Missouri · Oct 31, 1985

entitled to trial and determination in a court of general jurisdiction to be limited to trial and determination before judges who, because of legislative limitations placed upon their competence, could not be considered qualified … Since *282 these individuals were not in office on the date of enactment, section 121 may easily be viewed as an attempt by Congress to make appointments to bankruptcy judgeships — a power Congress clearly does not have under

In Re DeLuca

194 B.R. 797 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Apr 1, 1996

In order to qualify under the rubric of being "in control of the debtor", the alleged insider "must exercise sufficient authority over the debtor so as to unqualifiably dictate corporate policy and the disposition of corporate … As a practical matter, the debtor argues, Principal Mutual has a financial strangle-hold on the debtor and is therefore clearly a "person in control" of the debtor.

In Re Premier International Holdings, Inc.

423 B.R. 58 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Jan 20, 2010

Statutory Interpretation “[C]ontemporary Supreme Court jurisprudence establishes that the purpose of statutory interpretation is to determine congressional intent.” 4 To that end, the starting point is to examine the plain … 55 The Court than applied this holding to the ad hoc committee at issue. 56 Nonetheless, the committee in the Northwest case was not formally organized. 57 The Northwest Court held, in effect, that all ad hoc committees qualify

Soriano v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re Soriano)

587 B.R. 371 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Oklahoma · Jun 18, 2018

Whether it be a plan or an order, the same should clearly state its intended effect on a given issue. … Soriano's claims appear to be premised upon Wells Fargo's failure to adequately respond to a "Qualified Written Request".

Brenda Jo Musel

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Jul 7, 2021

Clearly, those who hold a “right” to receive payment from the operation of a business hold some sort of intangible property right under [state] law. … [The state] clearly has the authority to define property rights with respect to property within its jurisdiction and which is subject to [] state law.

Juniper Development Group v. Kahn (In Re Hemingway Transport, Inc.)

174 B.R. 148 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 1, 1994

Delaney testified that he observed drums at the rear of the property, which were clearly visible from the path as well as the railroad tracks. … The government moved for summary judgment, arguing that the failure to conduct an inspection established that the buyer did not qualify as an innocent purchaser as a matter of law. Id. at 352 .

Koken v. Reliance Group Holdings, Inc. (In Re Reliance Group Holdings, Inc.)

273 B.R. 374 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Feb 22, 2002

from state taxation; and (iv) whether the state has immunized itself from responsibility for agency operations. … Clearly, the actions are "related to” the bankruptcy case. 31 . Not all circuits are in agreement on the boundaries of a bankruptcy court’s core jurisdiction.

In Re American Motor Club, Inc.

149 B.R. 317 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Jan 7, 1993

The Court determined that previous litigation had established the Insurance Dept.’s intent to challenge “deductible” type insurance contracts. Id. at 5 (citing American Auto. … D.Md.1990), “a determination whether an entity qualifies as a party in interest should be made within the specific reorganization process context for which the determination is sought.”

In Re Jensen-Farley Pictures, Inc.

47 B.R. 557 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah · Feb 14, 1985

Subsection (b) also contemplates that certain qualifying expenses incurred prepetition receive an administrative priority. … It should be borne in mind that the Supreme Court clearly stated in Randolph v.

Colonial Penniman, LLC v. Williams (In re Colonial Penniman, LLC)

575 B.R. 664 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Aug 18, 2017

At the March Hearing, the Court accepted two purchase agreements into evidence solely to establish that the offers were received by the Debtor. See Debtor Exs. 5, 6; March Tr. 37:17-20, 39:16-21. … Compl. ¶ 22 (alleg *681 ing that “the Debtor has been unable to identify a qualified real estate agent willing to accept the listing”).

In Re Prussia Associates

322 B.R. 572 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Apr 5, 2005

The parties’ appraisers did not offer “expert” opinions on interest rates presently available in the market place, nor were they “qualified” by the parties for that purpose. … If the injunction against Fremont is viewed as a permanent one, it is clearly impermissible.

In re Bronikowski

569 B.R. 48 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. North Carolina · Jun 16, 2017

.”); Vogel, 57 B.R. at 333-34 (“Section 541 clearly establishes that the estate is created when the petition is filed. … employees; or (iv)labor force/workforce reduction, realignment or similar measure, if the Plan participant incurs a termination of employment on or after September 1 of the Plan year set forth in Section 1 above, and also qualifies

In Re Farley, Inc.

237 B.R. 702 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · Jun 7, 1999

As § 4123.75 clearly stated, it only allowed recovery against an employer that failed to comply with § 4123.35. … workers’ compensation coverage for employers under the state, and granting qualifying employers the privilege of self-insurance, and auditing and monitoring self-insurers to ensure compliance.

Sherron Associates Loan Fund XXI (Lacey) L.L.C. v. Thomas (In re Parks)

503 B.R. 820 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · Dec 18, 2013

See Highway & City Freight Drivers, 576 F.2d at 1288 n. 2 (rejecting application of state law and holding that “[fjederal law clearly controls the interpretation of federal statutes”). … Co.), 137 B.R. 332, 334-35 (W.D.Mo.1992) (establishing control is not necessary to qualify as per se statutory insider); Angell v. First Eastern, L.L.C.

Leonard v. First Commercial Mortgage Co. (In Re Circuit Alliance, Inc.)

228 B.R. 225 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Dec 24, 1998

While not always articulated as such, the “mere conduit” exception is supported by basic fairness as well as public policy considerations: regardless of the lack of qualifying language in § 550(a), the broadest application … The verbiage that the Plaintiff used to farm in these documents was far from precise, and it was not structured from the perspective of a trial advocate as Rule 56 clearly contemplates.

Graham v. Huntington National Bank (In re Medcorp, Inc.)

521 B.R. 259 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Oct 31, 2014

“The language of section 547(b)(4)(B) clearly states that an insider relationship is to be determined on the exact date of the challenged transfer.” … The Receiver and Huntington were clearly attempting to get along in a situation where their goals were generally aligned.

Artificial Intelligence Corp. v. Casey (In Re Casey)

198 B.R. 918 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. California · Jul 10, 1996

Time deadlines in the rules aré established to encourage an expeditious determination of the amount and status of claims. … A complete reading of the Rule clearly discloses the 120 day service requirement.

United Tort v. Quorum Health Resources, LLC (In re Otero County Hospital Ass'n)

527 B.R. 719 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Mexico · Mar 18, 2015

Schlicht is not a surgeon and was neither qualified nor privileged to perform surgery. … Masel's letter was privileged under the Review Organization Immunity Act, N.M.S.A. § 41-9-1 through § 41-9-7 ("ROIA”), and not discoverable. No party asked this Court to require production of Dr.