Case law

In re Midway Gold US, Inc.

575 B.R. 475 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · Oct 6, 2017

to committee members.” 136 This qualified immunity afforded to committees and their members has also been held to apply to professionals who provided services to the committee in fulfilling its duties. 137 The U.S. … Tex. 2010) (“.,, committees and their members are entitled to qualified immunity for any acts or omissions during a [C]hapter 11 case that were within the scopes of their duties.”)). .

In Re Ewald

73 B.R. 792 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Texas · May 1, 1987

The federal laws that Congress listed as illustrations of law which might allow exemptions under this Code section as “other federal laws” are all clearly distinguishable from ERISA-qualified plans. … Referring again to the authority of In re Goff, the Fifth Circuit noted that qualified pension plans qualify for exemption under state law and bankruptcy code provision as long as they qualify as “spendthrift trust” plans

In re Ashby

485 B.R. 567 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Kentucky · Jan 23, 2013

Finally, the debt was established by a property settlement agreement entered in an order of a court of record. From a statutory standpoint, the obligation is clearly a DSO. … Here, the proposed Plan clearly fails the requirements of § 1322(a)(2).

Brown v. Westvaco Corp. (In Re Cassada)

86 B.R. 541 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · May 12, 1988

The retirement plans were established by the debtor’s employer and are qualified under federal tax law and perhaps under ERISA, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. … Westvaco has established several retirement plans for salaried employees, including a deferred income plan and a stock ownership plan.

In Re Kent

396 B.R. 46 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Arizona · Mar 31, 2008

The Annuities are similar to the structured settlements established in the decision of In re Sparks, 2005 WL 1669609 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Tenn.2005). … Kimberly Kent, but the actual AGASC Annuity document is clearly similar to the Qualified Assignment in the Sparks case.

Dionne v. Harless (In Re Harless)

187 B.R. 719 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · Sep 25, 1995

Harless’ interest in the account was clearly transferrable although transfer would result in adverse tax consequences. … _” So the section conflicts with the uniform federal scheme for IRAs established by 26 U.S.C. § 408 (a).

In re Lake Lotawana Community Improvement District

563 B.R. 909 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Missouri · Dec 19, 2016

Anticipation of Litigation In the Eighth Circuit, the “determination of whether the documents were prepared in anticipation of litigation is clearly a factual determination: ‘The test should be whether, in light of the nature … Decisions to this effect confuse the work—product immunity with the attorney—client privilege.

Shaia v. Marsh (In Re Marsh)

26 B.R. 94 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Dec 27, 1982

. § 34-1 and, therefore, was not a “householder” who could qualify for a homestead exemption. … The trustee clearly has the burden in a complaint to turnover property to establish he is entitled to the property.

In Re Armstrong

408 B.R. 559 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Jul 20, 2009

Section 1307 should not be used as an “escape hatch” to provide a debtor with immunity from his conduct and avoid the consequences of section 1307(c) and the requirement that all debtors must play by the rules. … In Marrarna the Supreme Court clearly held that a debtor’s right to convert from chapter 7 to chapter 13 is not an absolute right, but is subject to review for bad faith.

Wilson v. Georgia (In re Wilson)

259 B.R. 432 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Georgia · Jul 17, 2000

In the case at bar, the Department of Medical Assistance and the Department of Revenue are agencies of the State of Georgia and clearly fall within the definition of a governmental unit under Section 106(b). … Binding precedent requires this Court to employ the “logical relationship test” in establishing whether or not a claim is a compulsory counterclaim.

Eau Claire County v. Loken (In Re Loken)

32 B.R. 205 · United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Aug 4, 1983

The county acknowledges that public officials are immune from liability for damages arising out of their official conduct but notes that immunity is available only when the official’s action is taken in good faith. … The trust res is clearly defined as consisting of the fees collected. The intention to create a trust seems clear from the statutory wording.

In Re Barnes

264 B.R. 415 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Michigan · Jun 6, 2001

(“[A]n IRA cannot be exempt under section 5205(c) because it is ... clearly not a spendthrift trust due to its very nature as a self settled device established and controlled by the individual.”). … For purposes of this subdivision, all trusts, custodial accounts, annuities, insurance contracts, monies, assets or interests established as part of, and all payments from, either any trust or plan, which is qualified as

In Re Cf Foods, Lp

265 B.R. 71 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Aug 3, 2001

sovereign immunity. … Waiver of sovereign immunity.

In Re the Colonial BancGroup, Inc.

436 B.R. 695 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Alabama · Jun 25, 2010

The plan, which was distributed to respondents, is clearly titled “The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan.” Plan, p. 1. … Further, the plan is clearly titled, “The Colonial BancGroup, Inc. Non-Qualified Deferred Compensation Plan.” 23 The plan was disseminated to employees, and the plan is controlling.

DnC America Banking Corp. v. Topcroft, Inc. (In re Topcroft, Inc.)

122 B.R. 235 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 13, 1990

The debtor concedes DnC qualifies as a bank under the applicable New York law defining banks, but asserts it must also qualify under New Jersey law in order to take advantage of the exemption DnC asserts applies to this matter … Since DnC does not, it cannot qualify under the literal requirements of the statute.

Drewes v. Jamestown Implement, Inc. (In Re Hoggarth)

78 B.R. 1000 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. North Dakota · Oct 16, 1987

The burden is on the mov-ant to establish the lack of an issue of material fact. Id. … What is suggested by the Lindberg and Richards cases is that section 348 should not be applied in a way which clearly emasculates the manner in which Congress intended Chapter 7’s to operate.

In RE LeCLAIR

461 B.R. 86 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · May 19, 2011

This exclusion itself is qualified by a further exclusion limiting its application when the payment was from a qualified rollover transaction. … Clearly, an evidentiary hearing is needed before a determination can be made as to the appropriate application of Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 235 § 34A to Ms.

In Re Ullman

116 B.R. 228 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Montana · Jul 13, 1990

The corporation established two qualified plans in 1976 — a profit sharing plan and pension plan. At all times, the Debtor was trustee of both plans. … Clearly, none of these events have been satisfied as of the petition date. This Court’s decision of In re Conroy, 110 B.R. 492 (Bankr.Mont.1990), governs two of the issues in this case.

In Re Wendt

320 B.R. 904 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Minnesota · Mar 3, 2005

More to the point of the Debtor’s theory, the statute itself does not impose either of these characteristics on the Board’s plan by operation of law; the language clearly is prescriptive rather than deeming. … . § 401 (a), established the concept of a "qualified trust,” created as a "part of a stock bonus, pension, or profit-sharing plan of an employer,” that would enjoy and confer the benefits of deferral of taxation on employee-participants

In Re McCullers

451 B.R. 498 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · Jun 8, 2011

Read together, § 541(a) and (b) establish a fixed point in time at which parties and the bankruptcy court can evaluate what assets are included or excluded from property of the estate. … Section 541(a) clearly establishes this point as the commencement of the case.