Sklar v. Susquehanna Bank (In re Global Prot. USA, Inc.)
Decision Date | 26 February 2016 |
Docket Number | Case No.: 12–16322–ABA,Adv. No.: 12–1879–ABA |
Citation | 546 B.R. 586 |
Parties | In Re: Global Protection USA, Inc., Debtor Andrew Sklar, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Global Protection USA, Inc., Plaintiff v. Susquehanna Bank, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of New Jersey |
John S. Mairo, Robert M. Schechter, Porzio, Bromberg & Newman, P.C., Morristown, NJ, for Plaintiff.
William G. Wright, Capehart & Scatchard, P.A., Mt. Laurel, NJ, for Defendant.
Before the court is an adversary proceeding of Andrew Sklar, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Global Protection USA, Inc. (the "Trustee")1 against Susquehanna Bank (the "Bank"), seeking avoidance of certain transfers. After four days of trial, including testimony and admission of documentary evidence, an Updated Joint Stipulation of Undisputed Facts and Witness Lists ("JS") (Doc. No. 120)2 and post-trial memorandums from the parties, the proceeding is now ripe for consideration. The court concludes that all of the transfers may be avoided and recovered by the Trustee. The court denies the Trustee's request for attorney's fees and costs for this proceeding, but grants $2,000 as a sanction for the Bank's late production of its expert's report.
The court has jurisdiction over this contested matter under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1334(a)and 157(a) and the Standing Order of the United States District Court dated July 10, 1984, as amended October 17, 2013, referring all bankruptcy cases to the bankruptcy court. JS, ¶ 7. This matter is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (F), (H), and (O). Id., ¶ 9. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409. Id., ¶ 10. The statutory predicates for the relief sought herein are 11 U.S.C. §§ 547, 548, 549and 550.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7052, the court issues the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Henry v. Comm. Walldesign (In re Walldesign, Inc.)
...is not an initial transferee. In re Video Depot , 127 F.3d at 1198–99 (collecting cases); Sklar v. Susquehanna Bank (In re Global Prot.) , 546 B.R. 586, 622–23 (Bankr. D. N.J. 2016) (same). These courts reason that "[t]he mere power of a principal to direct the allocation of corporate resou......
-
In re Anthony M. Mortellite, Jr. & Colleen Mortellite, , LLC, Case No.: 17-21818-ABA
...has held that cash collateral orders are construed by applying normal contract interpretation provisions. In Re Glob. Prot. USA, Inc., 546 B.R. 586, 607-08 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2016)(citing In re Residential Capital, LLC, 501 B.R. 549, 621 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2013)). "Thus, where terms of a contract......
-
Edwards v. Mario Reis, M&M Fuel Serv., LLC (In re M&M Fuel Oil Trucking, Inc.), Case No.: 15-13965 (VFP)
...LAW The Bankruptcy Court has the power to sanction parties for civil contempt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 105(a). In re Global Prot. USA, Inc., 546 B.R. 586, 631 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2016). In order to establish civil contempt, a plaintiff must prove the following three elements by clear and convinci......
-
In re Hopkins
...'should be tailored to fit the particular wrong.' Topalian v. Ehrman, 3 F.3d 931, 936 (5th Cir. 1993)." In Re Glob. Prot. USA, Inc., 546 B.R. 586, 631 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2016). Mr. Hopkins It is clear to the court that Mr. Hopkins knew that his bankruptcy was pending when he closed on the sale ......