Case law

Matson v. Alpert (In re LandAmerica Financial Group, Inc.)

470 B.R. 759 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Mar 1, 2012

Plaintiffs direct right of action is further qualified by statute. … This section does not include by-laws in the definition of the charter or otherwise incorporate them into the charter documents. 21 The Corporations and Associations Article of the Maryland Code clearly establishes that when

In re ASPC Corp.

601 B.R. 766 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · May 10, 2019

No qualified competing bids were received, and the auction was cancelled. … Such phrases are known as "notwithstanding clauses," and their effect is well established.

Vera T. Welte Testamentary Trust

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Iowa · Apr 22, 2021

The Trust also argued it qualifies as a debtor, and the Rand Estate also lacks standing to raise the issue. … The parties clearly stated their intent to cover such notes in the future advances clause. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v.

Rosen v. Kore Holdings, Inc. (In Re Rood)

459 B.R. 581 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland · Sep 26, 2011

Here, the various email communications between the individual Defendants clearly establishes “a meeting of the minds in an unlawful arrangement.” Electronics Store, Inc. v. … Plaintiffs’ response to this argument based upon the intracorporate immunity doctrine is found in their consolidated rebuttal to Defendants’ memoranda (D.E.

McCarty v. National Bank of Alaska, N.A. (United Marine Shipbuilding Inc.)

198 B.R. 970 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Washington · Jul 9, 1996

Once established, the right to setoff is treated as an allowed secured claim under 11 U.S.C. § 506 (a). Id. at 469 . … The inadvertent release of the funds by the IRS to the Trustee does not qualify as an act by the government inconsistent with exercising a right of offset so as to amount to a waiver of that right.

United States ex rel. Wright v. Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland (In re North American Oil & Gas Co.)

130 B.R. 482 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · Aug 13, 1991

The district courts clearly do have the discretion to enjoin filing of related lawsuits in other United States district courts. Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. … The court notes at the outset that both this court and the bankruptcy court in Houston are equally qualified to hear this action.

In Re Perry

425 B.R. 323 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · Feb 24, 2010

This paragraph clearly characterizes the commitment fee as principal. … Ann. § 271.005: (1) the transaction must be a qualified transaction; (2) the parties to the qualified transaction must agree to the choice of law provision in writing; and (3) the transaction must bear a reasonable relation

In re AHF Development, Ltd.

462 B.R. 186 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Aug 17, 2011

Several years prior, it served as a “qualified intermediary” for “1031 exchanges” in connection with transactions with another asserted creditor, Matt Mal-ouf. … As a general rule, dismissal is mandated if “cause” for dismissal is established. 11 U.S.C. § 1112 (b)(1). Such cause has been established here. See § 1112(b)(4) (identifying grounds that constitute cause).

Food Management Group, LLC v. Matrix Realty Group, Inc. (In Re Food Management Group, LLC)

372 B.R. 171 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jul 25, 2007

Accordingly, the first element of plaintiffs’ case—the existence of a valid and enforceable contract—has been established. B. … We clearly understand how that is necessary to enhance and maintain brand equity and maximize a store’s profits!

In Re Hill

328 B.R. 490 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · Aug 3, 2005

As to the second element, the Trustee must establish substantial abuse as defined by § 707(b). Under the Krohn test, this would require a showing of either lack of honesty or want of need. In re Krohn, 886 F.2d at 126 . … Thus, the amount available to unsecured creditors over a 60-month period would be negative $45,653, clearly leaving zero percent available on unsecured claims.

Morris Street Associates v. Welch (In Re Welch)

211 B.R. 788 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · Jul 29, 1997

The court believes that the individual plaintiffs were all generally competent and knowledgeable people, clearly capable of forming their own opinions and with prior experience in the purchase of real estate. … No credible evidence was introduced to establish the present value of the property.

O'Cheskey v. CitiGroup Global Markets, Inc. (In re American Housing Foundation)

543 B.R. 245 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Dec 31, 2015

While Rule 15(c)’s relation back rule is “truly procedural,” 13 statutes' of repose “creat[e] a substantive right.” 14 Relation back is not allowed here: TUFTA’s § 24.010 is a statute of repose and is immune to procedural … The Second Amended Complaint clearly séts forth'the who (both transferor and transferee), what (money), and when (dates) of the transfers. It states that the fluids were transferred by wire transfers.

Wachovia Bank, N.A. v. Spitko

357 B.R. 272 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Oct 23, 2006

This scenario clearly indicates a scheme to defraud creditors.” Id. at 1583. … Clearly Maintech had not been dissolved under state law.

In Re Peregrine Systems, Inc.

314 B.R. 31 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Sep 8, 2004

AA WPG engaged in the business of public accounting, qualified to audit public companies in Germany. See note 4, infra. 3 . … These press releases began four months prior to Peregrine's petition date and the filing of the California action, and clearly establish that Arthur Anderson was aware of the issue pre-petition.

In Re Texans Cuso Insurance Group, LLC

426 B.R. 194 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Mar 2, 2010

Thus, a decrease in revenue and earnings, with a corresponding drop in the Earn-Out Amount, is clearly a “natural, probable, and foreseeable consequence” of the Debtor’s breach of the Employment Agreement. … Here, the Debtor has failed to establish several key elements.

In re Korn

523 B.R. 453 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Dec 18, 2014

Brown has established cause for relief under 11 U.S.C. § 1112 (b)(1) and the Debtor has not established the existence of unusual circumstances under § 1112(b)(2). … He qualifies the payment commitment by stating that it is subject to review and approval by the Bankruptcy Court at the time of the Confirmation Hearing and the amount approved by the Bankruptcy Court shall control under

In re Darden

474 B.R. 1 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · May 25, 2012

A contract is ambiguous if a genuine doubt appears as to its meaning, that is, if, after applying established rules of interpretation, the written instrument remains rea *11 sonably susceptible to at least two reasonable … As explained above, a plan will qualify for confirmation only if the Debtor proposes it in good faith.

McConnie Navarro v. Banco Popular De Puerto Rico (In re McConnie Navarro)

563 B.R. 127 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico · Jan 9, 2017

The moving party has the burden to establish that it is entitled to summary judgment; no defense is required where an insufficient showing is made. López, 938 F.2d at 1517 . … However, such a disclaimer does not immunize a creditor from sanctions if other parts of the communication or other actions seek collection of the debt.”...

Cardinal Industries, Inc. v. Buckeye Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

105 B.R. 834 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Ohio · Sep 28, 1989

Further, this case does not qualify as a “limited fund” case. … That theory is clearly rejected by the Bankruptcy Code.

Trevino v. Select Porfolio Servicing, Inc. (In re Trevino)

599 B.R. 526 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Texas · Mar 7, 2019

The Fifth Circuit has established that when there are conflicting precedents, the older rule is presumptively correct unless there is an intervening U.S. … However, the party bears a heavy burden of showing a clearly expressed congressional intention that referring a matter to arbitration would conflict with the purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, and that such an intent clearly