Agway liquidating trust old people dating service

The ensuing default judgment recited that plaintiff had personally committed acts of fraud in securing funds from defendant. Proc., rule 1007(b)(1).) The rules require that the schedules be “prepared as prescribed by the appropriate Official Forms.” (Fed. Proc., rule 1007(b)(1).) Official Form 6, which governs personal property, requires a debtor to list “all personal property of the debtor of whatever kind,” including “contingent and unliquidated claims of every nature [and] ․ counterclaims.” (Collier on Bankruptcy, supra, appen. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of defendant on the complaint based on the doctrine of judicial estoppel, which protects the integrity of the judicial process by preventing a party from taking inconsistent positions in separate cases.

agway liquidating trust-77

The United States takes the position that Agway is barred from the relief it seeks pursuant to Code § 505(a) based on sovereign immunity, as well as the Declaratory Judgment Act. The court in PT-1 Communications rejected this argument, holding that "to preclude a § 505 claim from being asserted by a liquidating trustee appointed pursuant to a plan, would fly in the face of the Bankruptcy Code §§ 1123(b)(3)(B) and 1141. While the Liquidating Trustee indicates that he is seeking a determination that the Agway estate incurred no excise tax liability in connection with the Capstone transaction, the Court interprets his request as one seeking an order declaring that there is no tax liability, as asserted on Form 5330, filed with the IRS on July 11, 2008.

In addition, the United States argues that because it has not disputed the tax liabilities reported on the post-confirmation returns, there is no "case or controversy" over which the Court has jurisdiction. In addition, the United States contends that Code § 505(b) only applies to determinations sought by the trustee of the bankruptcy estate and does not apply to a postconfirmation transaction and post-confirmation tax returns and requests made by a post-confirmation debtor, namely Agway, Inc. Those sections explicitly permit a plan to designate a representative of the estate to enforce a claim of the debtor or the estate, and provide for the vesting of the estate's property in an entity other than the debtor." Id. The court concluded that the liquidating trustee, having been designated in the debtors' plan to enforce certain claims of the estate, had standing to assert certain counterclaims for refunds for the 2001 tax year. In the case now under consideration, the Court concludes that the Liquidating Trustee has standing to file a motion pursuant to Code § 505 post-confirmation, particularly in light of § 7.01(f) of the Plan, to which no objection was filed by the IRS, expressly granting him such standing. The Declaratory Judgment Act provides that declaratory judgments may only be entered in "a case of actual controversy." 28 U.

This issue was recently addressed in In re PT-1 Communications, Inc., 403 B. Waiver of sovereign immunity is a prerequisite to subject matter jurisdiction.

Grossman, Los Angeles, for Plaintiff, Cross-defendant and Appellant. Asher, Los Angeles, for Defendant, Cross-complainant and Respondent. § 541(a)(1), (7).) “Claim” means a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured․” (Id., § 101(5)(A).)Under Chapter 11, a debtor has a continuing duty to notify the bankruptcy court of its assets by, for example, amending its schedules or including the assets on subsequently filed documents.

Kest indicated the Trust might be interested in providing the money.

On or about January 20, 1999, the Trust loaned RKG and Gottlieb 5,000 in accordance with the terms of a promissory note. [judicial estoppel may be more appropriate in cases involving “unfair detriment”].) Further, given that “judicial estoppel is an equitable doctrine, ․ its application, even where all necessary elements are present, is discretionary.” (MW Erectors, supra, 36 Cal.4th at p. Rptr.3d 755, 115 P.3d 41, italics omitted.) Because of its harsh consequences, the doctrine should be applied with caution and limited to egregious circumstances. In a prior bankruptcy case, plaintiff did not list any legal claims as assets, an omission seemingly at odds with the filing of this action. We conclude that, in accordance with the principles of judicial estoppel, the summary judgment must be reversed because the bankruptcy court did not adopt or accept the truth of plaintiff's omission, eliminating any threat to judicial integrity. Duty of Disclosure in Bankruptcy Cases The Bankruptcy Code and rules require a debtor to file various “schedules,” including a “schedule of assets.” (See 11 U. Presently under consideration by the Court is a motion ("Motion") filed on November 26, 2008, by D. The Motion was originally scheduled to be heard on December 18, 2008, but was adjourned to January 27, 2009, due to scheduling conflicts of the interested parties. According to the Liquidating Trustee, the IRS was provided with a copy of the Plan and failed to object to its confirmation. Goldberg (In re Hartman Material Handling Systems, Inc.), 141 B. Hence, it involves the tax effects of a transaction that occurred after confirmation of Agway's plan. ("Agway") estate incurred no excise tax liability as a result of the sale of its ownership interest in Agway Widewaters Corporation ("AWC"). The Plan provides that the "Liquidating Trustee may request an expedited determination of taxes of the Liquidating Trust. XIII(q) of the Plan (providing for the Court's retention of jurisdiction to determine matters under Code § 505 for all taxable periods throughout the termination of the Liquidating Trust). Neither § 505 nor any other provision of the Code provide authority for such a result." Id. The court in Allis-Chalmers indicated that "it would be improper for this court to determine in advance the post-confirmation NOL [net operating losses] tax rights of a former debtor who has not yet attempted to use its NOLs." Id. It concluded that there could be no pre-confirmation finding determining tax issues that did not arise until after confirmation and dismissed Allis-Chalmers' complaint seeking declaratory relief without prejudice "to A-C's right to assert this [c]ourt's confirmation finding in response to any future IRS action. The transaction which serves as the basis for any possible liability was authorized by Order of the Court on October 10, 2007. Although a default judgment may have collateral estoppel effect in certain circumstances, there was no privity here because plaintiff's interests in defending the cross-complaint differed significantly from the interests of his companies, namely, the companies could not afford counsel and had no assets.

Tags: , ,