In re Micro-Precision Technologies, Inc., 303 B.R. 238 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2003) (denying the United States Small Business Administration’s (the “SBA’s”) Motion for Disallowance of H.F. Huang’s Claim No. 4 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(1) or, in the Alternative, for Recharacterization of the Huang Claim as a Junior Preferred Equity Interest pursuant to § 105, overruling in part and sustaining in part the Debtor’s Objection to the SBA’s Claim No. 3, and directing the SBA to file an amended proof of claim clarifying the amount it is owed).
You are here
Opinions
The District of New Hampshire offers a database of opinions issued from 1999 to present. For a more detailed search, enter a keyword or case number in the search box above.
Soto v. Lanoue (In re Soto), 302 B.R. 757 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2003) (denying the Debtor’s request for an award of damages and attorney’s fees pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(h), finding that although the Defendant’s action of going to the police department to get the trailer back was taken in violation of the automatic stay, the Debtor failed to prove that the action was willful because the Defendant did not have notice of the stay when he took the action.
Bezanson v. Thomas (In re R & R Assocs. of Hampton), 2003 BNH 036 (On remand, denying the allegation of Count II, finding that the Defendants who represented both the general partners of the Debtor and the Debtor under Chapter 11, whose case subsequently converted to Chapter 7, did not breach their fiduciary duty and that the Defendants’ legal representation of the Debtor was not negligent).
Atlantic Orient Corp. v. AOC Energy LLC, et al (In re Atlantic Orient Corp.), 2003 BNH 035 (holding that claim preclusion, issue preclusion and Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a) did not bar the defendant from asserting that it had either a prior license or that the technology was in the public domain as a defense to a Motion for Contempt for violation of a permanent injunction).
Davis v. Davis (In re Davis), 2003 BNH 033 (holding that (1) the debtor’s obligation of $135,000 to former spouse was a property settlement and not alimony, maintenance or support and therefore dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5); and (2) based on the evidence presented, the debt was excepted from discharge pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6)).
MacMillan v. United States (In re MacMillan), 2003 BNH 034 (overruling the debtors’ objection to the IRS’s claim because the debtors failed to produce sufficient evidence to rebut the IRS’s prima facie case and to meet their burden of proving that the IRS’s tax deficiency assessment was erroneous).
In re Chase, 2003 BNH 032 (sustaining creditors’ objection to the debtor’s claim of homestead exemption under NH RSA 480:1 as the debtor’s absence from her home in the period prior to her incarceration was not involuntary and temporary but rather voluntary and indefinite).
In re River Valley Fitness One Limited Partnership, 2003 BNH 031 (overruling objections to the competing plans of reorganization based upon allegations that the both plans were not proposed in good faith under section 1129(a)(3) and that the Debtor’s Plan did not satisfy the classification standards articulated in In re Granada Wines, 748 F.2d 42 (1st Cir. 1984) by separately classifying certain unsecured claims; finding both competing plans to be confirmable and applying section 1129(c) to confirm the Debtor’s Plan because the treatment of creditors was superior, the creditors preferred the Debtor’s Plan and there was less operational risk).
Smith v. Kessler Farm Condo Ass’n (In re Kiely), 2003 BNH 030 (ruling that the condominium association had a non-priority, general unsecured claim for outstanding prepetition condominium fees based on the facts and despite the association’s policy to apply funds to the oldest outstanding fees first; the association was unable to establish that its claim was entitled to priority under 11 U.S.C. §§ 503(b)(1)(A) and 507(a)(1)).
In re Morley, 2003 BNH 029 (holding that a settlement agreement executed in connection with the debtor’s previous bankruptcy limited the creditor’s recourse to recovery from the debtor’s real property and thus the creditor’s previously liquidated general unsecured claim had to be disallowed in its entirety).