11 U.S.C. § 510(C)

13 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Kham & Nate's Shoes NO. 2, Inc. v. First Bank OF Whiting
  908 F.2d 1351· 7th Cir.· 1990-07-19 ·cited 30×
  The court held that a bank's decision to terminate further advances under a line of credit, as permitted by the contract, was not inequitable conduct warranting subordination of its claims, and that allowing shareholders to retain equity interests in exchange for guaranteeing new
• In re 604 Columbus Ave. Realty Tr. v. 604 Columbus Ave. Realty Tr.
  968 F.2d 1332· 1st Cir.· 1992-06-19 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the FDIC, as receiver, cannot raise federal defenses for the first time on appeal under FIRREA, and that the D'Oench doctrine does not bar all claims related to the kickback scheme.
• In re Missionary Baptist Found. OF Am. v. Huffman
  818 F.2d 1135· 5th Cir.· 1987-05-26 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court failed to provide sufficient findings to justify the equitable subordination of Huffman's claim, even after remand.
• In the Matter of: CTS Truss, Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  868 F.2d 146· 5th Cir.· 1989-03-10 ·cited 16×
  The court held that equitable subordination is unavailable against the FDIC when the FDIC acquired the claim through a failed bank, due to the protections afforded by 12 U.S.C. § 1823(e).
• In re Christian Life Ctr. v. Silva
  821 F.2d 1370· 9th Cir.· 1987-07-10 ·cited 14×
  The court held that LDC's claim for attorney's fees as an administrative expense was properly disallowed, but the blanket subordination of all officers' indemnity claims was premature.
• In re Fabricators, Inc. v. Tech. Fabricators, Inc.
  926 F.2d 1458· 5th Cir.· 1991-03-27 ·cited 13×
  The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's decision to equitably subordinate TFI's claims and transfer its liens to the estate, finding sufficient evidence of inequitable conduct.
• In re CTS Truss, Inc. v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.
  859 F.2d 357· 5th Cir.· 1988-11-04 ·cited 8×
  Equitable subordination is unavailable against the FDIC when the FDIC is an innocent transferee of assets and the alleged misconduct was by the predecessor bank, especially when the FDIC shield statute applies.
• In re Poole v. Goldberg
  796 F.2d 318· 9th Cir.· 1986-08-08 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court's order subordinating claims for repurchased shares was improperly reversed by the district court, and that the determination of solvency at the time of payment is crucial for subordination.
• In the Matter of: B & W Enters., Inc. v. Goodman OIL Co.
  713 F.2d 534· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Six Months Rule and the Necessity of Payment Rule do not apply to non-railroad reorganizations under the Bankruptcy Code.
• Mukamal v. Bakes
  383 B.R. 798· S.D. Fla.· 2007-11-05 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the plaintiff, as a trustee, lacked standing to pursue claims on behalf of creditors against third parties like Ernst & Young and the Wellspring Defendants, as these claims were not directly assigned to the trust under the plan.
• Seidle v. United States (In Re Airlift Int'l
  120 B.R. 597· S.D. Fla.· 1990-05-31 ·cited 2×
  The court held that IRS claims for Section 4971(a) taxes were not entitled to administrative priority because they arose from the rejection of an executory contract and were incurred pre-petition, and that these claims could be equitably subordinated as penalties.
• In re Castletons, Inc. v. Zions First Nat'l Bank
  990 F.2d 551· 10th Cir.· 1993-04-02
  Pre-bankruptcy payments to a creditor arising from floating liens on all debtor's assets do not constitute preferential transfers if the creditor remains undersecured. A claim for late check return is barred by a one-year statute of limitations if the liability is deemed a penalt