Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/70550936/In-re-International-Management-Associates-Certification-of-Direct-Appeal-of-Order
Timestamp: 2017-07-26 23:16:25
Document Index: 290319210

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 158', '§ 548', '§ 544', '§ 544', '§ 18', '§ 548', '§ 548', '§ 18', '§ 158', '§ 158', '§ 157', '§ 158', '§ 158', '§ 158', '§ 158', '§ 158', '§ 158', '§ 158', '§ 158']

In re International Management Associates - Certification of Direct Appeal of Order | Bankruptcy In The United States | Chapter 11
In re International Management Associates - Certification of Direct Appeal of OrderUploaded by FloridaLegalBlogRelated InterestsBankruptcy In The United StatesChapter 11BankruptcyPublic LawJudiciariesRating and Stats0.0 (0)Document ActionsDownloadShare or Embed DocumentEmbedView MoreCopyright: Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)Download as PDF, TXT or read online from ScribdFlag for inappropriate contentCase 09-00601-pwbDoc 39
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 1 of 32
IN RE: INTERNATIONAL MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, LLC, et al.,
IN RE: TRUSTEE’S “FOR VALUE” MOTION IN ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS LISTED ON EXHIBIT “A”, Debtor.
CERTIFICATION OF DIRECT APPEAL OF ORDER (Doc. 38) TO U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Pursuant to Rule 8001(f)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2), this Court, acting on its own initiative, with the support of the parties, certifies the Order annexed hereto (the “Order”) (Doc. 38) for direct appeal to the United States Court of
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 2 of 32
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit (the “Eleventh Circuit”) on the basis that the Order involves a question of law that is a matter of public importance as to which there is no controlling decision by either the Eleventh Circuit or the Supreme Court of the United States, and an immediate appeal of the Order may materially advance the progress of the adversary proceedings in which the appeal is taken and the bankruptcy cases to which they relate. In accordance with Rule 8001(f)(4)(A) and Rule 8001(f)(3)(C)(i) - (iv) which it incorporates, the Court submits the following: Facts necessary to understand the question presented. The Order addresses a common legal issue applicable to 108 adversary proceedings brought by the Plan Trustee1 under a confirmed Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization to recover allegedly fraudulent transfers under 11 U.S.C. § 548 and similar provisions of applicable state law pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 544. The material facts, as assumed for purposes of the Court’s ruling on the legal issue that the Order addresses, are as follows: (1) Kirk Wright formed the Debtors purportedly to manage and operate as hedge funds, each of which was structured either as a limited liability company or a limited partnership. (2) In reality, Mr. Wright used the Debtors at all material times to operate a fraudulent “Ponzi” scheme whereby capital contributions made into the Debtors by later equity investors were used to knowingly pay earlier investors more than their equity investments were actually worth, including nonexistent principal and fictitious profits, to perpetuate the illusion that the Debtors had
The Plan Trustee generally has the rights and powers of a bankruptcy trustee to avoid transfers, as more particularly explained in the Order, at pages 3-5. 2
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 3 of 32
positive investment gains, to keep existing investors from seeking recovery of their equity investments, and to induce prospective investors to make new equity investments. (3) Each of the Investor Defendants made a capital contribution through execution of a limited liability company agreement, a limited partnership agreement, and/or a subscription agreement with one or more of the Debtors such that it held an equity interest in one or more of the Debtors denominated as a membership unit or a limited partnership interest. (4) During the operation of the scheme, investors requested and received transfers from the Debtors, representing returns of principal and/or purported profits on their equity investments. (5) At some time during the operation of the scheme, each Investor Defendant received one or more transfers of property from one or more of the Debtors on account of such Investor Defendant’s equity interest in one or more of the Debtors. The legal question presented. The Plan Trustee filed suit against certain investors (each, an “Investor Defendant”) who received transfers from one or more of the Debtors during the operation of the Ponzi scheme, in order to avoid and recover such transfers for the benefit of the bankruptcy estate and nonrecovering investors, on the basis that each transfer is avoidable as an actually and/or constructively fraudulent transfer as to the Debtors’ creditors. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 544(b), 548(a)(1); O.C.G.A. §§ 18-2-22 et seq., 18-2-70 et seq. For purposes of addressing the common legal question set forth below, the Order assumes that the Plan Trustee has established his prima facie case against each Investor Defendant pursuant to the avoidance provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and state law fraudulent transfer statutes. Even assuming that the Trustee has established his prima facie avoidance case, § 548(c) 3
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 4 of 32
of the Bankruptcy Code and state law fraudulent transfer statutes afford an affirmative defense to a fraudulent transfer claim where the defendant-transferee can establish that he acted in “good faith” and that he provided the transferor “value” in exchange for the transfer. See, e.g., 11 U.S.C. § 548(c), O.C.G.A. §§ 18-2-78, 18-2-22 et seq. Accordingly, an Investor Defendant can establish an affirmative defense to the Trustee’s avoidance claims only if the Investor Defendant can establish the required element of the affirmative defense that it provided the Debtors “value” in exchange for any transfer made on account of the Investor Defendant’s equity interest, without regard to whether the Investor Defendant can satisfy its burden to show that it acted in “good faith.” At the request of the Plan Trustee and with the participation of the Investor Defendants, the Court consolidated the adversary proceedings for the limited purpose of considering the Plan Trustee’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment with regard to a common and critical legal issue. The Court assigned a “Miscellaneous Proceeding” file number for purposes of entertaining the summary judgment motion, considering responses thereto, and entering a single order applicable in all of the adversary proceedings. The sole legal issue addressed in the Order, and therefore subject to appeal, is whether an Investor Defendant, as a holder of an equity interest (as opposed to a claim based on a debt) in a Debtor, can establish that the Investor Defendant tendered “value” to the transferor-Debtor in exchange for the cash transfer that the Investor Defendant received from the Debtor, and thereby establish a required element of the Investor Defendant’s affirmative defense to the Trustee’s fraudulent transfer claims, assuming that, at the time of each subject transfer: (i) the Investor Defendant tendered to the Debtor the Investor Defendant’s essentially worthless equity interest in the Debtor in exchange for the transfer; and (ii) the Investor Defendant held an unasserted claim 4
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 5 of 32
against the Debtor that arose at the time the Investor Defendant originally invested as an equity holder in the Debtor. The relief sought. The Plan Trustee in his motion for partial summary judgment sought a ruling that an Investor Defendant cannot meet the Investor Defendant’s burden to establish the affirmative defense that the Investor Defendant provided reasonably equivalent “value” to the Debtor in exchange for the transfer the Investor Defendant received from the Debtor; whereas the Investor Defendants seek a ruling that an Investor Defendant can meet his burden to establish the required element of the affirmative defense. The Order denies the Plan Trustee’s motion. Consequently, the Plan Trustee seeks reversal of the Order whereas the Investor Defendants seek its affirmance. The reasons why the appeal should be allowed and is authorized by statute or rule. Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeals 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2) provides, “The appropriate court of appeals shall have jurisdiction of appeals described in the first sentence of subsection (a) if the bankruptcy court, the district court, or the bankruptcy appellate panel involved, acting on its own motion or on the request of a party to the judgment, order, or decree described in such first sentence, or all the appellants and appellees (if any) acting jointly” make one of three specified certifications and if the court of appeals authorizes the direct appeal. The first sentence of 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) authorizes appeal from interlocutory orders of bankruptcy judges entered in cases and proceedings referred to the bankruptcy judges under 28 U.S.C. § 157. As shown below, this Court makes two of the three possible certifications, either of which is sufficient to permit the Court of Appeals to exercise 5
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 6 of 32
appellate jurisdiction if it authorizes the direct appeal. Certification of no controlling decision or matter of public importance. This Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A)(i), that the Order involves a question of law that is a matter of public importance as to which there is no controlling decision by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit of the Supreme Court of the United States. Given the spate of fraudulent investment schemes recently uncovered through the United States, undoubtedly numerous courts, trustees, receivers, and parties are currently analyzing notions of fairness and equality among defrauded investors where some investors received material transfers from the scheme while other equally defrauded investors are left financially ruined, in the specific factual circumstance where the defrauded investors held equity interests in the fraudulent scheme. As set forth in the Order,2 numerous courts have addressed fraudulent transfer claims where defrauded investors received pre-petition distributions from a Ponzi scheme when the recovering investors held debt-based claims against the fraudulent scheme from the outset and have determined under those facts that the recovering investors have a defense based on “value.” These cases do not specifically address the issue presented here. In In re AFI Holding, Inc., 525 F.3d 700 (9th Cir. 2008), the Ninth Circuit did address this question, ruling that recovering investors who held equity interests in the fraudulent scheme from the outset could assert the “value” defense. No other cases appear to have definitively addressed this question. As demonstrated in the arguments in the parties’ briefs to this Court, the parties fundamentally disagree as to whether the fact that the Investor Defendants held equity interests in
See Order at pages 6-7. 6
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 7 of 32
the fraudulent scheme from the outset is a material distinction that requires an analysis different than that of the courts that have analyzed fraudulent transfer claims against defrauded recovering investors who held debt-based claims against the fraudulent scheme from the outset. As set forth in the Order, this Court concluded that the Investor Defendants may assert the “value” defense and denied the Trustee’s motion. The parties exhaustively and
comprehensively reviewed case law, and the Court conducted its independent research. The Court found no controlling decision by either the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit or the Supreme Court of the United States on this issue. The Court respectfully submits that the Eleventh Circuit’s consideration of this issue, aided by the excellent advocacy of counsel on both sides, will provide considerable guidance to courts and parties on this issue, both within this Circuit and throughout the United States. Certification of material advancement of proceedings and cases. This Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A)(iii), that an immediate appeal from the Order may materially advance the progress of the proceedings in which the appeal is taken and in the bankruptcy cases to which the appeal relates. In this regard, the Court notes that the parties strongly support direct appeal of the Order to the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit because it will conserve the resources of the parties and the judiciary. A ruling by the Eleventh Circuit will resolve a fundamental question of law applicable to the claims against all of the Investor Defendants in 108 proceedings, and a definitive appellate ruling will materially shape how the parties, and therefore this Court, proceed in those matters. In this regard, the Court observes that this legal issue is a critical one that, in many instances, may well be dispositive of the outcome. In any event, appellate determination of the issue will materially advance the prospects of settlement of many cases and, therefore, avoid substantial litigation and the prospect of numerous appeals. 7
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 8 of 32
Certification of Appeal For reasons set forth above, the Court, pursuant to Rule 8001(f)(4)(A) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2), acting on its own initiative, with the support of the parties, hereby certifies the Order annexed hereto (the "Order") for direct appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 158(d)(2)(A)(i), this Court hereby certifies (1) that the Order involves a question of law that is a matter of public importance as to which there is no controlling decision by either the Eleventh Circuit or the Supreme Court of the United States, as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A)(i), and (2) that an immediate appeal of the Order may materially advance the progress of the adversary proceedings in which the appeal is taken, as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A)(iii). Accordingly, 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(A) provides for the Eleventh Circuit to have appellate jurisdiction if the Eleventh Circuit authorizes the direct appeal of the Order. This Court respectfully requests that the Eleventh Circuit authorize and allow direct appeal of the Order because of this Court's certifications shown above, as well as for any additional reasons set forth in any supplemental statements of the basis for certification that individual parties may appropriately file pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(d)(2)(C) and Rule 8001(f)(4)(B) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. End of Order
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 9 of 32
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 10 of 32
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 11 of 32
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 12 of 32
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 13 of 32
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 14 of 32
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 15 of 32
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 16 of 32
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 17 of 32
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 18 of 32
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 19 of 32
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 20 of 32
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 21 of 32
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 22 of 32
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 23 of 32
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 24 of 32
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 25 of 32
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 26 of 32
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 27 of 32
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 28 of 32
07-06140-pwb Perkins v. Haines 07-06156-pwb Perkins v. Clay et al 07-06213-pwb Perkins v. Wright 07-06214-pwb Perkins v. Ware et al 07-06215-pwb Perkins v. Carter 07-06216-pwb Perkins v. Mair 07-06265-pwb Perkins v. Thornton 07-06267-pwb Perkins v. Louis 07-06285-pwb Perkins v. Coleman 07-06287-pwb Perkins v. Carter et al 07-06309-pwb Perkins v. Williams-Cochrane 08-06091-pwb Perkins v. Atlanta Verve, LLC et al 08-06099-pwb Perkins v. Wisneski 08-06102-pwb Perkins v. Paces Ferry Medical Group, P.C. 08-06104-pwb Perkins v. Phillips 08-06109-pwb Perkins v. Atwater 08-06110-pwb Perkins v. Bailey 08-06112-pwb Perkins v. Braxton 08-06113-pwb Perkins v. Burks 08-06125-pwb Perkins v. Stephen Regan, Sr. 08-06127-pwb Perkins v. Miller
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 29 of 32
08-06128-pwb Perkins v. Michelle Peoples-Wisneski 08-06130-pwb Perkins v. Bond 08-06131-pwb Perkins v. Pettit 08-06132-pwb Perkins v. Byrd 08-06133-pwb Perkins v. Robison et al 08-06134-pwb Perkins v. McDade 08-06135-pwb Perkins v. Moore 08-06137-pwb Perkins v. Hinckson 08-06138-pwb Perkins v. Hines et al 08-06139-pwb Perkins v. Jeter 08-06141-pwb Perkins v. Anderson 08-06142-pwb Perkins v. Fowler 08-06143-pwb Perkins v. Gallassero 08-06144-pwb Perkins v. Gardner et al 08-06145-pwb Perkins v. Gist 08-06147-pwb Perkins v. Hall 08-06148-pwb Perkins v. Herbert 08-06149-pwb Perkins v. International Medical Systems, LLC 08-06150-pwb Perkins v. Bishop 08-06153-pwb Perkins v. Spikes 08-06154-pwb Perkins v. Shelton 08-06155-pwb Perkins v. Seymour 08-06156-pwb Perkins v. Pinkney et al
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 30 of 32
08-06158-pwb Perkins v. July et al 08-06160-pwb Perkins v. Maughan et al 08-06161-pwb Perkins v. Paris 08-06162-pwb Perkins v. Peoples 08-06163-pwb Perkins v. Pinkney 08-06164-pwb Perkins v. Redfern et al 08-06166-pwb Perkins v. Wilson et al 08-06167-pwb Perkins v. Brossard et al 08-06168-pwb Perkins v. Davis 08-06169-pwb Perkins v. DeRobbio 08-06170-pwb Perkins v. Edwards 08-06171-pwb Perkins v. Edwards 08-06173-pwb Perkins v. Abdur-Rabbani 08-06174-pwb Perkins v. Elayne R. Rossi Revocable Trust 08-06175-pwb Perkins v. Crockett 39 Family Partners, Ltd. 08-06176-pwb Perkins v. Hall et al 08-06177-pwb Perkins v. Ricciardi 08-06178-pwb Perkins v. Braxton-Davis 08-06179-pwb Perkins v. McManners 08-06180-pwb Perkins v. Harley-Lewis 08-06181-pwb Perkins v. Ellner 08-06182-pwb Perkins v. Qudsi
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 31 of 32
08-06183-pwb Perkins v. Curtright 08-06184-pwb Perkins v. Flint 08-06185-pwb Perkins v. Atlanta Perinatal Associates, P.C. et al 08-06187-pwb Perkins v. Hooper 08-06188-pwb Perkins v. Hooper 08-06189-pwb Perkins v. Perkins 08-06191-pwb Perkins v. TBC Capital, Inc. et al 08-06195-pwb Perkins v. Hall 08-06196-pwb Perkins v. Bishop 08-06197-pwb Perkins v. Central Georgia Anesthesia Services, P.C. 08-06198-pwb Perkins v. Worthy-Pickett 08-06199-pwb Perkins v. Work 08-06201-pwb Perkins v. Whonder 08-06202-pwb Perkins v. Steele et al 08-06205-pwb Perkins v. Noble 08-06206-pwb Perkins v. Mt. Nebo Baptist Life Center, Inc. 08-06207-pwb Perkins v. Mair 08-06209-pwb Perkins v. Jackson 08-06214-pwb Perkins v. Eskridge et al 08-06215-pwb Perkins v. George Russell Curtis, Sr. Living Trust et al 08-06217-pwb Perkins v. Burnett 08-06218-pwb Perkins v. Bryan
Filed 12/01/09 Entered 12/01/09 15:05:59 Document Page 32 of 32
08-06219-pwb Perkins v. Bronner 08-06221-pwb Perkins v. Jones 08-06223-pwb Perkins v. Champagne et al 08-06225-pwb Perkins v. David Laird Family Trust et al 08-06226-pwb Perkins v. Edwards, III 08-06227-pwb Perkins v. Roger O'Neal Family Trust et al 08-06228-pwb Perkins v. Paris 08-06229-pwb Perkins v. Perman 08-06232-pwb Perkins v. Shelton, III 08-06233-pwb Perkins v. Withers et al 08-06234-pwb Perkins v. Shelton 08-06236-pwb Perkins v. Bronner et al 08-06238-pwb Perkins v. Wright 08-06239-pwb Perkins v. Randolph 08-06240-pwb Perkins v. Edwards 08-06241-pwb Perkins v. Jeffries 08-06244-pwb Perkins v. Bishop 08-06249-pwb Perkins v. Perman et al 08-06250-pwb Perkins v. Reese 08-06253-pwb Perkins v. Star 6 Investments, Ltd.
Recommended DocumentsDocuments Similar To In re International Management Associates - Certification of Direct Appeal of OrderSkip carouselPerkins v. Haines - Answer BriefPerkins v. Haines - Initial BriefPerkins v. Haines - S.E.C.'s Amicus BriefPerkins v. Haines - Reply BriefPerkins v. Haines - OpinionIn re International Management Associates - Order Denying Trustees Motion for Summary JudgmentPerkins v. Haines - Bronner Answer BriefCombined 5533 APPEX Vol II32383842 Law of Distressed Real EstateMadoff OrderUnited States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, 105 F.3d 822, 2d Cir. (1997)10000016708Affidavit in Support Declaration of Hobart G Truesdell10000005924Exhibit a Proposed Interim Order1000002428410000001830100000200471000000512410000004975100000004181000001619910000010630Ahm_wfpoc9236 - A8.12.14 Syncora Second Supplemental Objection10000000613B.D.W. Associates, Inc., Debtor v. Busy Beaver Building Centers, Inc., Fagen's, Inc. And Jackel Development Co., 865 F.2d 65, 3rd Cir. (1989)10000005132In re10000004011Documents About Bankruptcy In The United StatesSkip carouselGT Advanced Technologies Request to Void Apple AgreementsLawsuit Against Ruth Madoff (Irving Picard)Arcapita Bank Chapter 11 petitionLehman's Chapter 11 Reorganization PlanU.S. Trustee's Objection to AlixPartners's G.M. FeesHostess Brands' Motion to LiquidatePicower's Response to Madoff Trustee, Seeking Dismissal of Case Coach America Bankruptcy AffidavitHarry & David's Chapter 11 petitionCengage Learning's Chapter 11 petitionIn Re Major Dynamics, Inc., a California Corporation, Debtor. Official Creditors Committee v. Herbert Tuchinsky, Defendant-Third-Party v. Martin Goldberg, Trustee of the Estate of Major Dynamics, Inc., Debtor, Third-Party, 897 F.2d 433, 3rd Cir. (1990)G. F. Wertime, Inc. v. Alexander Turchick, Trustee of Kinne Equipment Co., Inc., in Reorganization Pursuant to Chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act, 358 F.2d 802, 2d Cir. (1966)In Re Michael D. McKay and Eileen P. McKay Appeal of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare. In Re Arthur Graham. Appeal of Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Public Welfare, 732 F.2d 44, 3rd Cir. (1984)Central Va. Community College v. Katz, 546 U.S. 356 (2006)In Re Enercons Virginia, Inc., Debtor. Banca Emiliana Banca Di Sondrio Banca Agricola Mantovana and Banco Di Santo Spirito v. Davide Farinacci, W. Alan Smith, Jr., 812 F.2d 1469, 4th Cir. (1987)Gloria Manufacturing Corporation and Edward G. Grant, Trustee v. International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union Upper South Department, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union and Local 563, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, 734 F.2d 1020, 4th Cir. (1984)In the Matter of Imants Seperis, Individually and T/a Shore Drywall, Bankrupt. Campbell's Supply Co., Inc., 454 F.2d 195, 3rd Cir. (1972)In Re Kenneth Zinchiak, D/B/A Zinchiak Manufacturing Co., Debtor, Kenneth A. Zinchiak & Kathleen K. Zinchiak, Husband and Wife v. Cit Small Business Lending Corporation, as Successor to Newcourt Small Business Lending Corporation F/k/a at & T Small Business Lending Corporation, 406 F.3d 214, 3rd Cir. (2005)In Re Baltimore Marine Industries, Incorporated, Debtor. Alan M. Grochal, and Maersk Line, Limited Military Sealift Command v. Ocean Technical Services Corporation McAllister Towing of Baltimore, Incorporated, in Re Baltimore Marine Industries, Incorporated, Debtor. Alan M. Grochal, Liquidating Agent v. Ocean Technical Services Corporation McAllister Towing of Baltimore, Incorporated, 476 F.3d 238, 4th Cir. (2007)Gelson v. Rudin, 200 F.2d 31, 2d Cir. (1952)United States v. Myers, 362 F.3d 667, 10th Cir. (2004)In Re Raymond White, Barbara White, Debtors. John D. Phillips, in His Capacity as Successor Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Raymond White and Barbara White, D/B/A White Farms v. Raymond White, Barbara White, Doing Business as White Farms, 25 F.3d 931, 10th Cir. (1994)FCC v. NextWave Personal Communications Inc., 537 U.S. 293 (2003)In the Matter of General Steel Tank Company, Inc., Bankrupt. Merritt-Holland Welding Suplies, Inc. v. General Steel Tank Company, Inc., 478 F.2d 294, 4th Cir. (1973)In reIn Re Daniel A. Welzel, Debtor. Daniel A. Welzel v. Advocate Realty Investments, Llc, in Re Daniel A. Welzel, Debtor. Advocate Realty Investments, LLC v. Daniel A. Welzel, 245 F.3d 1283, 11th Cir. (2001)Ohio v. Kovacs, 469 U.S. 274 (1985)Raymark Industries, Inc., Debtor-Appellant v. George Q. Lai, 973 F.2d 1125, 3rd Cir. (1992)Lockwood v. Exchange Bank, 190 U.S. 294 (1903)In Re Yobe Electric, Inc., Debtor. Yobe Electric, Inc. v. Graybar Electric Co., Inc, 728 F.2d 207, 3rd Cir. (1984)More From FloridaLegalBlogSkip carouselBalch v. LaSalle Bank, N.A., 4D14-2057, 2015 WL 3759716 (Fla. 4th DCA June 17, 2015)Balch v. LaSalle Bank, N.A., - So. 3d - (Fla. 4th DCA 2015)Ames v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., - Fed. Appx. - (11th Cir. 2015)In Re TOUSA, Inc., 598 Fed. Appx. 761 (11th Cir. 2015)NBHD - Coral Springs (4D14-2351) - OpinionVazza v. Estate of Vazza, 144 So. 3d 698 (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)Smith v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., - So. 3d - (Fla. 4th DCA Nov. 13, 2014)US Bank v. Farhood, - So. 3d - (Fla. 1st DCA 2014)In Re Brown, 572 Fed. Appx. 849 (11th Cir. 2014)Arthur v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, NA, 569 Fed. Appx. 669 (11th Cir. 2014)Ames v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.a., 13-CV-806-T-23TGW, 2014 WL 585653 (M.D. Fla. Feb. 14, 2014)Nascimiento v. Martin C. Boire, P.A., 149 So. 3d 690 (Fla. 3d DCA 2014)Apothecary Dev. Corp. v. City of Marco Island Florida, - F.supp.2d - (M.D. Fla. 2014)Medicomp, Inc. v. United Healthcare Ins. Co., 13-13849, 2014 WL 1284762 (11th Cir. April 1, 2014)Apothecary Development Corp. Et Al. v. City of Marco Island Florida, Et Al, 10-Cv-00392-SPC-DNF, - (M.D. Fla. Jan. 22, 2014)US Bank v. Rivera, 128 So. 3d 907 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)Fed. Contracting v. Bimini Shipping, 128 So. 3d 904 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)JPMorgan Chase Bank v. Neu, - So. 3d - (Fla. 4th DCA 2014)Rooney v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., 102 So. 3d 734 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)Williams v. Bank Of Am., N.A., 101 So. 3d 1288 (Fla. 4th DCA 2012)Sanctuary Surgical Ctr., Inc. v. UnitedHealth Group, Inc., 10-81589-CIV, 2013 WL 149356 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 14, 2013)JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Garcia, 116 So. 3d 639 (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)Roberts-Dude v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 498 B.R. 348 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2013)Beyer v. City of Marathon, - So. 3d - (Fla. 3d DCA 2013)In Re Code for Resolving Professionalism Complaints (SC13-688)Apothecary Development Corp. v. City of Marco Island, 12-12616, 2013 WL 1789549 (11th Cir. Apr. 29, 2013)DuChateau v. Camp, Dresser, McKee, Inc., 713 F. 3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2013)Frantz v. Walled, 12-12185, 2013 WL 1104148 (11th Cir. 2013)Vargas v. Washington Mutual Bank, 89 So. 3d 262 (Fla. 3d DCA 2012)Pantoja v. Edward Zengel & Son Express, Inc.,500 Fed.Appx. 892 (11th Cir. 2012)