The plaintiffs, who held a claim against the bankruptcy estate for unpaid ERISA plan payments, filed this adversary proceeding against the IRS, which held an administrative expense claim for post-petition payroll taxes, to make the IRS establish that it actually held an administrative claim and, if it did, then to use equitable estoppel or equitable subordination to move the plaintiffs’ claim ahead of the IRS. The court denied the IRS’s motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, saying “[w]hile the plaintiffs bear ‘a heavy burden’ in bringing forth sufficient facts to convince this court that the conduct of the IRS should lead to equitable subordination or equitable estoppel of its claim, the allegations in the complaint are sufficient ‘to raise a right to relief above a speculative level’ and survive a motion to dismiss on those causes of action. However, the existence of the IRS’s administrative claim is not open to challenge; the only matter to be decided in this case is how the available funds will be apportioned between these two claimants.”
You are here
Opinions
United States Courts Opinions (USCOURTS) collection is a collaborative effort between the U.S. Government Publishing Office (GPO) and the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) to provide public access to opinions from selected United States appellate, district, and bankruptcy courts.
The District of Nebraska offers a database of opinions for the years 1997 to current, listed by year and judge. For a more detailed search, enter the keyword or case number in the search box above.
The fees owed to the law firm that represented the debtor in his pre-petition divorce were excepted from discharge because of the debtor's false representations in agreeing – but failing – to endorse a check and turn the proceeds over to the law firm.
The court denied a motion to strike portions of affidavits submitted on a motion for summary judgment, ruling that although they contained irrelevant testimony, they provided background information and should be accorded a reduced weight.
The debtor's full-recourse "sale" of accounts receivable was actually a financing arrangement because the debtor bore the risk of uncollectibility. The creditor perfected its lien within the preference period, so the transfer was avoidable.
The bank's contractual rights to the flow of payments received by the debtor under a purchase agreement may have priority over certain set-off rights claimed by the buyer. The court granted relief to the bank to obtain a determination of those rights.
A default judgment against a builder for unpaid construction liens was not preclusive as to dischargeability under § 523(a)(4). A question existed whether Nebraska construction finance statutes create a trust, or merely an agency relationship.
The debtor's student loans were "qualified education loans" under § 523(a)(8). As a young man in good health with marketable skills and no dependents, the debtor was unable to establish on summary judgment that repayment would be an undue hardship.
Plan confirmation was denied because the debtor needed to amend to provide for adequate protection payments to begin at confirmation and to clarify that he was surrendering his interest in certain collateral. The Till interest rate was appropriate.
The court clarified lien avoidance procedure so that debtors may use all of the exemptions to which they are entitled to avoid a lien under § 522(f)(1)(B). The court's prior decision of In re Vasina was overruled to the extent it held otherwise.
As the owner of improved real estate which it leased to another business, the debtor was a single asset real estate debtor under § 362(d)(3). Its bankruptcy case was filed in good faith in an effort to reorganize its debt despite a pending foreclosure.