Substantive Consolidation

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

• In re Tex. Extrusion Corp. v. Lockheed Corp.
  844 F.2d 1142· 5th Cir.· 1988-05-12 ·cited 31×
  The court held that an order approving a disclosure statement is not a final order for purposes of appeal, and that the bankruptcy court's application of Rule 70 was harmless error. The court also affirmed the cancellation of the lis pendens.
• Holywell Corp. v. Bank of N.Y.
  59 B.R. 340· S.D. Fla.· 1986-03-20 ·cited 19×
  The court affirmed the bankruptcy court's orders approving substantive consolidation and confirming the plan of reorganization, finding no reversible error.
• In re Cont'l Vending Mach. Corp. & Cont'l Apco, Inc. v. Wharton
  517 F.2d 997· 2d Cir.· 1975-06-05 ·cited 18×
  The court held that a Chapter X reorganization plan may consolidate assets and liabilities for unsecured creditors while preserving the separate security interests of secured creditors, as long as the plan is fair and equitable and preserves the bargained-for rights of secured cr
• In re Fundamental Long Term Care, Inc. v. Rubin Schron
  873 F.3d 1325· 11th Cir.· 2017-10-19 ·cited 16×
  The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of all claims against real-estate investor Rubin Schron in a complex bankruptcy adversary proceeding arising from a "bust-out" scheme in which nursing-home operators transferred assets to judgment-proof entities to evade liability for $
• Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. Ouimet Corp.
  711 F.2d 1085· 1st Cir.· 1983-06-09 ·cited 14×
  The court held that the Ouimet Group's liability for pension plan termination under ERISA is not reducible by benefits accrued before Avon's membership, and the bankrupt entities' estates should not be prioritized over solvent members' liability to PBGC.
• In re Augie/Restivo Baking Co., Ltd. v. Augie/Restivo Baking Co., Ltd.
  860 F.2d 515· 2d Cir.· 1988-10-24 ·cited 10×
  Substantive consolidation of bankruptcy proceedings is improper when it impairs the rights of creditors who extended credit to separate entities based on their individual financial status and did not rely on the combined assets.
• In re Gulfco Inv. Corp. v. Hogan
  593 F.2d 921· 10th Cir.· 1979-02-07 ·cited 9×
  The court held that substantive consolidation cannot be used to strip secured creditors of their security or to reduce them to unsecured status, and that consolidation was premature due to insufficient information.
• In re Baker & Getty Fin. Servs., Inc. v. Carl D. Rafoth for Baker & Getty Fin. Servs., Inc.
  974 F.2d 712· 6th Cir.· 1992-09-02 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Cordek was a principal maker of the note, not an accommodation maker, and affirmed that the Bank's claim should not be equitably subordinated. The court also affirmed the recovery of preferential transfers, holding that the preference period is calculated from
• In re Hemingway Transp., Inc. v. Herbert C. Kahn for Hemingway Transp., Inc.
  954 F.2d 1· 1st Cir.· 1992-01-16 ·cited 8×
  The court held that Woburn's attorney fees incurred in defending against the trustee's CERCLA action are not entitled to administrative priority, but its claim for these fees is allowable as an unsecured prepetition claim.
• In re Geiger Enters., Inc. v. Cent. Tr. Co. Rochester N. Y.
  635 F.2d 106· 2d Cir.· 1980-10-29 ·cited 6×
  A dismissal of a bankruptcy petition under the old Act to permit refiling under the new Code is permissible only if it does not materially prejudice the substantive rights of creditors under the old Act.
• Eastgroup Props. v. S. Motel Assoc., Ltd.
  935 F.2d 245· 11th Cir.· 1991-07-11 ·cited 5×
  The court held that the bankruptcy trustee established a prima facie case for substantive consolidation, and the appellants failed to demonstrate reliance on the separate credit of one entity, thus affirming the consolidation order.
• Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Colonial Realty Co.
  966 F.2d 57· 2d Cir.· 1992-06-01 ·cited 4×
  The bankruptcy court's equity jurisdiction may be invoked to permit the substantive consolidation of the estates of a general partnership and its individual general partners.
• In re Walter J. Giller, Jr., M.D. v. Walter J. Giller, Jr., M.D., P.A.
  962 F.2d 796· 8th Cir.· 1992-04-23 ·cited 4×
  The court held that substantive consolidation of the debtors' bankruptcy cases was appropriate, and the trustee retained the power to avoid transfers to third parties for the benefit of other debtors.
• Gray v. Manklow (In Re Optical Techs.
  252 B.R. 531· M.D. Fla.· 2000-07-27 ·cited 3×
  The appellate court affirmed the bankruptcy court's grant of summary judgment, finding no genuine issues of material fact regarding de facto merger or control, and affirmed the denial of the motion to vacate the judgment.
• Miami Ctr. Ltd. P'ship v. Bank of N.Y. (In Re Holywell Corp.)
  93 B.R. 780· S.D. Fla.· 1988-10-31 ·cited 3×
  The court held that the bankruptcy court properly dismissed the complaint because the confirmed plan of reorganization established the standard of care and governed the trustee's duties, and the alleged breaches were either previously resolved or pending in other proceedings.
• In re Ida v. Reider and James M. Reider
  31 F.3d 1102· 11th Cir.· 1994-09-13 ·cited 2×
  The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's affirmation of the bankruptcy court's order substantively consolidating the estates of debtor spouses Ida V. Reider and James Reider. The court found that the lower courts applied incorrect legal standards and that substantive co
• Smith v. Slott
  S.D. Fla.· 2026-01-14
  The court held that the bankruptcy court correctly denied the motion to amend because the proposed counterclaim was barred by res judicata and issue preclusion, and further, the bankruptcy court lacked jurisdiction due to a pending appeal.
• Liquidity Solutions, Inc. v. Winn-Dixie Stores
  377 B.R. 322· M.D. Fla.· 2007-10-10
  The court granted Winn-Dixie's motion to dismiss the appeals, finding them equitably moot.
• Gould v. Smith (In Re Holywell Corp.)
  118 B.R. 876· S.D. Fla.· 1990-08-30
  The district court held that the bankruptcy court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the adversary proceeding because the record did not establish that the non-debtor subsidiaries' assets were part of the bankrupts' estate.