New Cases For the Week of June 30,
2003 - July 4, 2003
Brought to you by BKINFORMATION.COM
- The Source for Business Bankruptcy Information on the Internet
July
3, 2003
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
In
re CPDC, Inc.
(DBN Subscription Required) |
5th
Cir. |
The
court erred in assessing usury liability
against the defendants, since defendants
timely cured alleged usury violations,
bringing them within the safe harbor
afforded by Tex. Fin. Code Ann. §
305.103.
The
district court, sitting as an appellate
court in review of a bankruptcy court
ruling, erred in allowing supplementation
of the record with evidence that had not
been presented to the bankruptcy court. |
|
|
|
July
1, 2003
|
Case
|
Court
|
Holding
|
Major
Paint Company v. United States
(DBN Subscription Required) |
Fed.
Cir. |
Because
capitalized bankruptcy costs (i.e., costs
expended on the hiring of outside
professionals during bankruptcy
proceedings) incurred by a debtor did not
arise under a federal law, did not qualify
for the special ten-year net operating
loss carryback provided in I.R.C. §
172(b)(1)(C). I.R.C. § 172 (2000). |
In
re Personal and Business Insurance Agency
(DBN Subscription Required) |
3rd
Cir. |
In
a fraudulent transfer action under section
548, the invocation of the doctrine of
imputation against a trustee should not be
allowed when a bad actor has been removed
and the defense is serving only to bar the
claims of an innocent successor |
Kleven
v. Household Bank, F.S.B.
(DBN Subscription Required) |
7th
Cir. |
Although
a history of dealing between a debtor and
creditor is certainly the strongest factor
supporting a determination that the
business between a debtor and an alleged
preference creditor is ordinary for
preference avoidance purposes, such a
history is not absolutely necessary in
every case. In some instances, the
ordinary course of business may be
established by the terms of the parties'
agreement, until that agreement is somehow
or other modified by actual performance.
In the absence of modifying behavior,
there is no reason why a court should not
look to the terms of the parties'
agreement in order to determine their
ordinary course of business. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|