Skip to main content

Page Banner(Taxonomy)

judge keenan

Gold v. First Tenn. Bank Natl Assn (In re Taneja)

Ruling
Bankruptcy court did not err in finding that transferee bank did not establish good faith defense to avoidance.
Issue(s)
Whether a bank proved its good-faith defense to avoidance of an alleged fraudulent transfer based on the testimony of two bank employees?

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Gold v. First Tenn. Bank Natl Assn (In re Taneja) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Court :
Judge or Jurisdiction information not available
Consumer opinion summary, case decided on February 21, 2014 , LexisNexis #0614-124

Alvarez v. HSBC Bank USA (In re Alvarez)

Ruling
Bankruptcy court properly refused to avoid lien on entireties property held with non-debtor.
Issue(s)
Could bankruptcy court strip off lien on property held by debtor in tenancy by the entireties with non-debtor spouse.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Alvarez v. HSBC Bank USA (In re Alvarez) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Court :
Judge or Jurisdiction information not available
Consumer opinion summary, case decided on October 23, 2013 , LexisNexis #1113-040

Matson v. Alarcon

Ruling
Severance compensation claim was entitled to administrative expense status.
Procedural posture

Appellee claimants sought priority treatment under 11 U.S.C.S. § 507(a)(4) in a debtor's bankruptcy case for claims for severance compensation. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond, overruled appellant trustee's objections to priority treatment of the claims. The trustee's appeal was certified to the court of appeals.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Matson v. Alarcon Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Court :
Judge or Jurisdiction information not available
Commercial opinion summary, case decided on July 06, 2011 , LexisNexis #0711-113