Cases

451 B.R. 454 (2011) In re EQUIPMENT ACQUISITION RESOURCES, INC., Debtor. Equipment Acquisition Resources, Inc., Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Internal Revenue Service, Sheldon Player, Donna Malone, Mark Anstett, and Martha Anstett, Defendants. Bankruptcy No. 09 B 39937. Adversary No. 10 A 00099. United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division. June

Memorandum Opinion and Order Edmond E. Chang, United States District Judge Equipment Acquisition Resources, Inc. (EAR) filed a chapter 11 bankruptcy petition in October 2009. The bankruptcy court confirmed a liquidation plan that appointed William A. Brandt, Jr. as EAR’S Plan Administrator. Brandt then brought a fraudulent-transfer action against Defendant Horseshoe Casino to recover $8,278,000 million in

Memorandum Opinion and Order EDMOND E. CHANG, District Judge. Equipment Acquisition Resources went bankrupt and eventually filed, in an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy, a first amended complaint seeking recovery of money that the company made to cover tax liabilities of its shareholders. The United States of America, on behalf of the Internal Revenue Service, moved to dismiss one of the counts (Count 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION Donald R. Cassling, United States Bankruptcy Judge This matter is before the Court on the motion of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (the “FDIC”), as receiver for Charter National Bank and Trust (“Charter”), for summary judgment on the second amended complaint brought by William A. Brandt, Jr. (the “Plaintiff’) in his capacity as plan administrator for Equipment Acquisition Res

FLAUM, Circuit Judge. In this adversary proceeding, William Brandt, acting as plan administrator for Equipment Acquisition Resources (“EAR”), seeks to avoid and,recover fraudulent transfers made to the Horseshoe Casino (“Horseshoe”). Brandt alleges that EAR made fraudulent transfers to Sheldon Player, the original owner of EAR, and that Player used these funds at Horseshoe. Hors

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW DONALD R. CASSLING, Bankruptcy Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the cross motions of plaintiff William A. Brandt, Jr., not individually but solely in his capacity as Plan Administrator (the “Plan Administrator”) for the Debtor, Equipment Acquisition Resources, Inc. (“EAR”), and defendant Charter Airlines, LLC (“Charter Airlines”) for summary judgm

MEMORANDUM DECISION TIMOTHY A. BARNES, District Judge. The matter before the court arises out of eleven different motions to dismiss filed individually by separate defendants in eleven different causes of action1 brought by William A. Brandt, jr. as the Plan Administrator (the “Plaintiff” or the “Plan Administrator ”) for Equipment Acquisition Resources, Inc. (“EA

MEMORANDUM DECISION TIMOTHY A. BARNES, Bankruptcy Judge. The federal district courts have “original and exclusive jurisdiction” of all cases under tide 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code ”). 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a). The federal district courts also have “original but not exclusive jurisdiction” of all civil proceedings arising under title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, or arising in or re

MEMORANDUM DECISION TIMOTHY A. BARNES, Bankruptcy Judge. The federal district courts have “original and exclusive jurisdiction” of all cases under title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code ”). 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a). The federal district courts also have “original but not exclusive jurisdiction” of all civil proceedings arising under title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, or arising in or r

MEMORANDUM DECISION TIMOTHY A. BARNES, Bankruptcy Judge. The federal district courts have “original and exclusive jurisdiction” of all cases under title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code ”). 28 U.S.C. § 1334(a). The federal district courts also have “original but not exclusive jurisdiction” of all civil proceedings arising under title 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, or arising in or rela

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ELAINE E. BUCKLO, District Judge. In 2008, Equipment Acquisition Resources, Inc. (“EAR”) entered into five equipment leases with Alliance Commercial Capital, Inc. (“Alliance”). Alliance subsequently assigned all of its rights, title and interest in the leases and equipment to Republic Bank of Chicago (“Republic Bank”). In 2009, EAR and Republic Bank entered into agr

CUDAHY, Circuit Judge. This is a case about the approval of a settlement plan that could potentially prejudice the litigation stance of a third party. Equipment Acquisition Resources, Inc. (EAR) was a corporation engaged in the sales and service of semiconductor manufacturing equipment. EAR defrauded various creditors in what was apparently a Ponzi scheme. The company’s illega

FLAUM, Circuit Judge. This case concerns whether a bankruptcy trustee can bring an action under § 544(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code to recoup a debtor’s federal tax payment. Section 544(b)(1) allows a trustee to step into the shoes of an actual creditor who could have avoided the transfer outside bankruptcy using a state-law cause of action. The federal government’s sovereign imm

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2025 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

Filed 1/15/25; Certified for partial publication 2/10/25 (order attached) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION FOUR OPTRONIC TECHNOLOGIES, B330798 INC., (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No.22STCV35

(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2025 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit

IN THE MISSOURI COURT OF APPEALS WESTERN DISTRICT EQUITY FINANCIAL ) RESOURCES, INC., ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) WD83461 ) HOWARD OVERMAN, et al., ) FILED: March 16, 2021 Appellants. ) Appeal from the Circuit Court of Clay County The Honorable Janet L. Sutton, J

OPINION JOHN DONOVAN, Justice. In trial court cause number 2012-16446, ERG Resources, LLC (“ERG”) sued Pa-rex Resources, Inc. (“Parex Canada”), Ramshorn International Limited (“Rams-horn”), and Parex Resources (Bermuda), Ltd. (“Parex Bermuda”) (collectively, “the Defendants”). In this opinion, we consider two companion interlocutory appeals stemming from

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE ) LIGHT YEARS AHEAD, INC, a ) Delaware Corporation, ASYLUM ) HOLDINGS, LLC, a Nevada Limited ) Limited Liability Company, and Kevin ) Murphy, Individually, ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) C

IN THE SUPREME COURT, STATE OF WYOMING 2025 WY 29 OCTOBER TERM, A.D. 2024 March 17, 2025 CONTANGO RESOURCES, LLC, Appellant (Petitioner), v. S-24-0185 FREMONT COUNTY, WYOMING, Appellee (Respondent). Appeal from the District C