Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
7,439 results
0.37s
543 B.R. 570 · United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Jan 19, 2016
Larry and Kimberly Gibas Are Not Eligible to Be Debtors To avail oneself of bankruptcy relief under Title 11, a person must qualify to be a debtor under section 109. … The sequential approach clearly defines a debtor’s legal rights going forward, furthers the purpose of section 109(g)(2), and is an efficient use of judicial and party resources.
Cited 12 timesPublishedUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Mar 25, 2022
As the Claims Release clearly releases the exact claims that Ms. Allen now seeks to assert for wrongful termination, retaliation, and discrimination, this factor strongly weighs in favor of the Debtor. … “These benefits qualify as the sort of consideration that . . . militate in favor of the Agreement’s validity.” Id. (citing Kramer v. Vendome Grp. LLC, 2012 WL 4841310, at *5 (S.D.N.Y.
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Oklahoma · Feb 16, 2021
Article X’s restrictive covenants are not conditioned on a member’s insolvency or triggered by the commencement of a bankruptcy case, so §§ 541(c) and 363(l) are clearly inapplicable. … (b) The following provisions establish the procedure by which the Company and/or the Other Members may elect to purchase the Units specified in the Offer Notice (the “Offered
Cited 0 timesUnknownWasserstein, as Trustee of the WB Bridge Creditor v. 11 Apple LLC
United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Feb 5, 2024
While LTRB contends that the Trustee does not qualify as LTRB’s former client, the Trustee and the UST disagree. See Disqualification Opp. ¶ 20; but see Disqualification Motion ¶ 22; UST Letter at 3. … Supp. 1057, 1060 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), aff'd, 569 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1978) (“Furthermore, if a substantial relationship is established, the presumption of access to confidences prevails even though the ‘confidential’ information
Cited 0 timesUnknownWieland v. Assaf (In re Briones-Coroy)
481 B.R. 685 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Colorado · Oct 23, 2012
Facts Established During the Course of this Case and at Trial 1. … So, to my belief, Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 will qualify how much a customer is paying for a bankruptcy, which is $200. 82 The bottom line is that Mr.
Cited 10 timesPublishedTimes Square JV LLC v. 1601 Enterprises Inc
United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Mar 11, 2024
New York law clearly provides that—even if Plaintiff did not comply with its own Lease obligations—1601 Enterprises would “still be obligated to . . . pay [] because there was no express provision in the lease relieving … notwithstanding the payment obligations imposed by the Lease, 1601 Enterprises has not paid Fixed Rent or Operating Expenses for all of the First Rental Period and much of the Second Rental Period, which qualifies
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Feb 5, 2024
While LTRB contends that the Trustee does not qualify as LTRB’s former client, the Trustee and the UST disagree. See Disqualification Opp. ¶ 20; but see Disqualification Motion ¶ 22; UST Letter at 3. … Supp. 1057, 1060 (S.D.N.Y. 1976), aff'd, 569 F.2d 737 (2d Cir. 1978) (“Furthermore, if a substantial relationship is established, the presumption of access to confidences prevails even though the ‘confidential’ information
Cited 0 timesUnknownClean Air Car Service & Parking Branch Two, LLC
United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Sep 5, 2025
Wang do not support his position and warned that “it may very well be that this repeated assertion with respect to managerial rights and venue argument could be sanctionable” because, in the Court’s view, “it clearly lacks … May 15, 2025) (“Appellant has failed to establish that Operr Plaza and Clean Air 2 lacked authority to file for bankruptcy.
Cited 0 timesUnknownThe Cadle Company II, Inc. v. Crescent Bank & Trust
United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Louisiana · Mar 31, 2025
Thus, the Court finds that the summary judgment record establishes each of the transfers made by LOCAP to Consolidated, and that it further establishes the subsequent transfers to Crescent. 2. … The Bankruptcy Court is the most qualified court to address pretrial matters and get the matter ready for trial.”44 Now that discovery has concluded, these Motions for Partial Summary Judgment remain the
Cited 0 timesUnknownOld Carco LLC, (f/k/a Chrysler LLC)
United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Jan 27, 2022
They further assert that FCA aims to broaden the effect of the Sale Order to immunize FCA from the consequences of its post-Closing conduct. (Id.) … Proceedings “arising under” the Bankruptcy Code are those “that clearly invoke substantive rights created by federal bankruptcy law.” MBNA Am. Bank, N.A., 436 F.3d at 108–09.
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas · Oct 26, 2020
They did not attempt to establish the reasonableness of their fees. … The Trustee did not assert “clearly inconsistent” positions.
Cited 0 timesUnknown465 B.R. 243 · United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · Jan 6, 2012
The “at this time” qualifier to the stay modification denial is important. It does not preclude a future, justifiable request. … Excess is clearly what occurred with the County’s special revenue warrant financing for the sewer system. Many causes for this excess have been presented to the Court.
Cited 2 timesPublishedAshland Inc. v. G-I Holdings Inc. (In re G-I Holdings, Inc.)
564 B.R. 217 · United States Bankruptcy Court, D. New Jersey · Dec 21, 2016
Ashland argues that the Complaint does not assert a bankruptcy claim, and this Court’s analysis must begin and end with the Complaint, “which clearly does not assert any federal claims, much less claims ‘arising in’ bankruptcy … Ashland urges here that Defendants have the burden to establish jurisdiction, and that all doubts must be resolved against federal jurisdiction.
Cited 6 timesPublishedJoel I. Sher, Chapter 11 Trustee v. JP Morgan Chase Funding Inc.
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Maryland · Dec 17, 2019
The court found that they were “clearly in a position to control the outcome of the Board’s vote on the LBO” and, to the extent the trustee pleaded an actual intent to hinder, delay or defraud, the “intent [of the independent … The flaw in Defendant’s argument is that an admitted intention to delay creditors is not immunized by the transferor’s conviction that it is for the creditors’ good and the debtor, if only given time,
Cited 0 timesUnknownGoodvin v. Department of Education
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Kansas · Sep 1, 2020
In Polleys, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted the Brunner test, describing what the debtor must show to establish undue hardship: (1) that the debtor cannot maintain, based on … Goodvin clearly recognizes that his participation in another IDR plan like REPAYE for all his loans is an exercise in futility.66 As noted previously, Goodvin will retire ten years into the repayment period and have little
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Massachusetts · Nov 12, 2021
“The burden of proof is on the [Trustee] to establish these conditions by a preponderance of the evidence.” Conti v. Laroque (In re Heinze), No. 02-83050C-7D, 2008 WL 3200216, at *2 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Aug. 1, 2008). … Clearly, a move would be disruptive to a minor student under any circumstance. In this case, such a disruption is mitigated slightly by the time that will be required to close a sale and possibly to evict Mr.
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Aug 28, 2023
The Second Circuit has not stated how much time must elapse before a delay in prosecuting an action qualifies as “significant.” See Rubin v. Abbott Lab’ys, 319 F.R.D. 118, 119 (S.D.N.Y. 2016). … Clearly, the case at bar is not such a classic setoff situation. As an alternative basis, there is conflicting case law regarding the merits of the recoupment argument. See Pereira v. Equitable Life Ins.
Cited 0 timesUnknownFindley v. Blinken (In Re Joint Eastern & Southern Districts Asbestos Litigation)
120 B.R. 648 · United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. New York · Nov 30, 1990
It emerges clearly from the foregoing efforts that the two questions referred by the Court call without a doubt for affirmative answers. … For non-malignant disease to qualify for consideration as part of Level I, it must involve a claimant who (a) has died where asbestos disease was a substantial contributing factor to the death or (b) is unable to work, suffers
Cited 32 timesPublishedUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. New York · Nov 27, 2019
The Trustee was appointed as the interim Chapter 7 Trustee, has duly qualified, and is the permanent trustee of the Debtors’ estate. … Clearly, if the court dismisses an action on its own motion, then revocation cannot have taken place because the court and not the lender affirmatively acted to terminate the action.
Cited 0 timesUnknownUnited States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Tennessee · Jun 24, 2021
All remaining allegations and prayers for relief not previously admitted, denied or qualified are hereby denied as is specifically set forth hereafter, and strict proof is demanded thereof. … This is clearly an error because preservation of the interest under § 551 (which occurs automatically for nonpossessory interests that are avoided) would render nothing more than a declaratory judgment that the transfers
Cited 0 timesUnknown
Ask Donna