Case law

Rasmussen v. LaMantia

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maine · Oct 9, 2020

That same day, the Defendant asked the Plaintiffs to write him a second check, outside of the schedule of payments established by the contract. … Such reliance does not, however, immunize the debtor from a finding of fraudulent intent in all circumstances.

Dymarkowski v. McConegly

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio · Jan 12, 2021

Defendant asserts she was unsure she would qualify for another loan. [Adv. Doc. #28, Ex. E, p. 35, Q. #13; Adv. Doc. #32, p. 9, Declaration of Kathleen E. … However, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals expressed their “agreement with the majority of Circuits” in adopting the clearly erroneous standard of review because reasonably equivalent value of a transfer is a question

Rusty Williams McMurray

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Nov 10, 2025

Claimants failed to establish the validity and amount of their debts. … While this is clearly irksome to Claimants, the Court cannot see how it can be blamed on or otherwise tied to Debtor.

RGW Construction, Inc. v. Lucido

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. California · Sep 13, 2023

Knox, 567 U.S. at 307-08 (quoting therefore establish each element by a preponderance of the evidence. Fed.R.Bankr.P. 1 4005; Retz v. … Del. 2012) (there is no language in the statute qualifying what level of 3 business activity is sufficient).

Jason Rudolph Stanford

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 28, 2025

Fraud automatically qualifies for exemplary damages upon clear and convincing proof. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.003(a)(1); Presidio, 960 S.W.2d at 47–48. 3. … Exemplary and Punitive Damages Authorized by Chapter 41 Because malice and fraud are clearly established, the Plaintiff (and thus the bankruptcy estate) is entitled to exemplary damages under Tex. Civ.

STUTZMAN v. HEINLE

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Montana · Nov 9, 2022

Similarly, testimony given under oath in connection with the bankruptcy proceedings, such as a § 341 meeting, also “qualifies as occurring under oath for 12 Mont. … Even if Plaintiff established Defendant acted knowingly, Defendant did not act with fraudulent intent when he made the false oath.

Limor v. Buerger (In Re Del-Met Corp.)

322 B.R. 781 · United States Bankruptcy Court, M.D. Tennessee · Mar 4, 2005

Clearly, the Trustee can prove that the transfer of four pieces of gas equipment “sometime in 2000 or 2001” falls within one year of November 28, 2001. … On these Motions to dismiss, it cannot be said that the allegations of the Complaint establish the defense as a matter of law. F.

Manolo Blahnik USA, Ltd.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Aug 18, 2020

Under section 303(b)(2), however, if the debtor has fewer than 12 eligible holders (not counting certain interested parties), an involuntary filing can be made by one or two qualifying creditors. See id. § 303(b)(2). … But the court held that the petitioning creditor could rely on an undisputed component of its claim that underlies a disputed multi-part judgment because “the amount of that undisputed claim is clearly severable from the

Washington 1993, Inc. v. Hudson (In Re Hudson)

420 B.R. 73 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. New York · Nov 17, 2009

Hudson has to offer is thus clearly barred by the time limit for the admission of new evidence to reopen a judgment under Rule 60(c). 20 Nevertheless, assuming arguendo that the evidence were admissible, it would have no … Hudson, however, is that Rule 60(b)(2), as discussed previously, 22 is qualified by Rule 60(c), which bars the admission of new evidence more than one year after judgment has been entered.

The Maxus Liquidating Trust v. YPF S.A.

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · Apr 6, 2021

Boelter’s involvement at all, and attendance at part of a lengthy oral argument certainly does not qualify as substantial involvement. Ms. … That is clearly insufficient to require disqualification of the entire firm.62 62 In support of the Motion to Disqualify, YPF submitted two Declarations of W.

Adelphia Communications Corp. v. Rigas (In Re Adelphia Communications Corp.)

323 B.R. 345 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Mar 24, 2005

We are not faced with a case in which the corporate officer claims to have been "successful” on some parts of the case but was clearly “unsuccessful” on others, and therefore take no position on this feature of the Merritt … The Court rejects the notion, argued by the Rigases (Rigas Reply Mem. in Further Supp. at 2), that advancement decisions are immune from scrutiny under the "entire fairness” doctrine because they do not involve mergers and

Teresa Denise Green

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. South Carolina · Nov 3, 2021

It is well-established that the solicitation of financial information and preparation of bankruptcy petitions and schedules constitute rendering legal advice. … At the time she executed the Retainer Agreement, it included work that no person at Recovery Law was qualified or permitted to perform.

Ditech Holding Corporation

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · May 24, 2023

I believe that my claim may qualify to be classified as a 363(0) (see Exhibit A) and perhaps a Summary Judgement under Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices, Chapter 501-part II, Florida Statutes Section … The record clearly shows that the Plan Administrator has worked closely with the Consumer Claims Trustee to identify documents that are relevant to claims objections—the Retained Records—including the entirety of Ms.

Sheldon Stone, as Creditor Trustee of the Internat v. Citizens Equity First Credit Union

United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois · Mar 30, 2022

The previously-appointed creditors committee then filed a liquidating plan that was confirmed and established a creditor trust. … Sargent explained that the balance sheet test clearly showed ISCO’s positive earnings and earning capacity but did not contemplate the shareholder advances to Mr.

Ta-Von Becker

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Oct 6, 2021

This is clearly foreclosed by the fact that the only exceptions to the stay with regard to collection involve domestic support obligations. See §§ 362(b)(2)(B); 362(b)(2)(C). The court rejects Ms. … Becker has carried his burden of establishing cause to grant relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d). Therefore, the Court will lift the stay to permit Mr.

Sklar v. Susquehanna Bank (In re Global Protection USA, Inc.)

546 B.R. 586 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Feb 26, 2016

Although there was only the one transaction, the Bank argues that a first-time transaction can qualify for the preference defense, citing Jubber v. SMC Elec. Prods. (In re C.W. Min. … It was not established for the purpose of providing bridge loans to businesses that the Guarinos were associated with. The court in Shubert v. Mull (In re Frey Mech.

Halaw v. Wilding

United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Jun 29, 2023

• Defendant’s participation in sixteen months of litigation with the knowledge that Appellants-Plaintiffs’ Adversary Complaint could arguably have been dismissed is more than enough to qualify … The Claire Transport facts versus the facts before this Court are clearly distinguishable.

In re: B.C.I. Finances Pty Limited (In Liquidation), et al.

United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · May 26, 2026

Nate’s Fine Foods”) were resolved by transcript ruling, wherein, relevant here, the Court concluded that the Binetters had improperly attempted to invoke the Fifth Amendment on behalf of a corporate entity though the law clearly … Importantly, the “person” covered by the Fifth Amendment is limited to natural persons; corporations or partnerships or other business entities have no such immunity. Braswell v.

French

United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas · Oct 16, 2025

Invoice number 103 clearly stated that barn “Curb Footings” were a billed item.137 As discussed above, there were no footings under the barn. … Mickels also failed to establish his status as an intended beneficiary.

Sonoma Cellar LLC

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia · Feb 19, 2026

The language used is broad and is qualified by the lead in of “[t]o the fullest extent reasonably possible and practicable.” … That alone does not establish knowing participation in a conspiracy.