In Re Amfesco Industries, Inc. (1988)
green
· 54 citation events
across 22 courts.
Showing the 23 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
198820072026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Jeld-Wen, Inc. v. Van Brunt (In Re Grossman's Inc.) (2010)
Plating, Inc., 90 B.R. 277, 284 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.1988); Levy v. Bank of the Orient (In re Levy), 87 B.R. 107, 109 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.1988); In re Amfesco Indus., Inc., 81 B.R. 777, 781-83 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1988); Acevedo v. Van Dorn Plastic Mach.
Stores, Inc., 49 B.R. 462, 465 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1985); In re Amfesco Indus., Inc., 81 B.R. 777, 785-86 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1988); In re Jartran, Inc., 732 F.2d 584, 586 (7th Cir.1984); In re Mammoth Mart, Inc., 536 F.2d 950, 953 (1st Cir.1976).
green
In Re Mid-American Waste Systems, Inc. (1999)
Defense Comm. v. Silva (In re Christian Life Center), 821 F.2d 1370 , 1373 (9th Cir.1987) (“A corporation’s duty to indemnify its officer, whether conferred by statute or by contract, is a form of compensation for the officer’s services.”) (citing In re Baldwin-United Corp., 43 B.R. 443, 454-56 (S.D.Ohio 1984)); see also In re Philadelphia Mortgage Trust, 117 B.R. 820, 827 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 1990); In re Consolidated Oil & Gas, Inc., 110 B.R. 535, 537 (Bankr.D.Colo.1990); In re …
green
In Re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc. (1991)
(CCH) 11 69831 (7th Cir.1984); In re Mammoth Mart, Inc., 536 F.2d 950, 953 (1st Cir.1976); In re Amfesco Industries, Inc., 81 B.R. 777, 785-86 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1988).
green
In Re Standard Johnson Co., Inc. (1988)
In re Amfesco Industries, Inc., 81 B.R. 777, 783 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1988).
green
In Re Pulliam (1988)
In re Amfesco Industries, Inc., 81 B.R. 777, 783 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1988).
green
Sears Holdings Corporation (2023)
S.D.N.Y. 1991) (“The burden of establishing entitlement to priority rests with the claimant and ‘should only be granted under extraordinary circumstances . . . when the parties seeking priority have sustained their burden of demonstrating that their services are actual and necessary to preserve the estate.’”) (quoting In re Amfesco Indus., Inc., 81 B.R. 777, 785 (Bankr.
green
Ditech Holding Corporation (2020)
In this light, the Claimants’ own documents demonstrate that it is not possible that they accumulated almost $1 million interest on their Reverse Mortgage as they assert. extraordinary circumstances . . . when the parties seeking priority have sustained their burden of demonstrating that their services are actual and necessary to preserve the estate.” (citing In re Amfesco Indus., Inc., 81 B.R. 777, 785 (Bankr.
green
In Re Summit Metals, Inc. (2007)
Mortgage, 117 B.R. at 828-30 (finding that claims based upon pre-petition conduct cannot be afforded administrative expense priority because claims must arise post-petition); In re Amfesco Indus., Inc., 81 B.R. 777, 784 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1988) (same); cf. In re Heck’s Props., Inc., 151 B.R. 739, 767-68 (S.D.W.Va.1992) (awarding administrative cost priority to officers’ and directors’ indemnification claims that arose from a lawsuit based upon their post-petition conduct and ser…
green
In Re Pan American Hospital Corp. (2007)
Robins Co.), 839 F.2d 198 , 201 (4th Cir.1988) (“We have found no court outside the Third Circuit which has followed the reasoning and holding of Frenville.”)] Watson v. Parker (In re Parker), 264 B.R. 685, 696 (10th Cir. BAP 2001) (“Frenville is the minority view and has been heavily criticized by courts.”); Piper Aircraft, 162 B.R. at 624 (“The problem with the Fren-ville decision and its progeny is that exclusive reliance on the accrual of a state law cause of action igno…
green
Insurance Co. of North America v. Sullivan (2005)
“The granting of administrative priority under § 503(b)(1)(A) of Title 11 should only be granted under extraordinary circumstances, to wit, when the parties seeking priority have sustained their burden of demonstrating that their services are actual and necessary to preserve the estate.” First Brandon Nat’l Bank v. Kerwin-White, 109 B.R. 626, 633 (D.Vt.1990) (quoting In re Amfesco Indus., Inc., 81 B.R. 777, 785 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1988)).
green
In Re AppliedTheory Corp. (2004)
Macy & Co., 170 B.R. 69, 76 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1994); In re Finley, Kumble, Wagner, Heine, Underberg, Manley, Myerson & Casey, 160 B.R. 882, 889 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1993); In re CIS Corp., 142 B.R. 640, 643 (S.D.N.Y.1992); In re New York Trap Rock Corp., 137 B.R. 568, 572 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1992); In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc., 134 B.R. 482, 487-88 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1991); In re Chateaugay Corp., 102 B.R. 335, 353 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1989); In re Amfesco Industries, Inc., 81 B.R. 777, …
green
Sorenson v. Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. (In Re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.) (1992)
See In re New York Trap Rock Corp., 137 B.R. 568, 573 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1992) (holding a “contingent claim for indemnification constitutes a right to payment under 11 U.S.C. § 101 (4)(A) [now § 101(5)(A) ]”); In re Amfesco Indus., Inc., 81 B.R. 777, 781 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1988) (same).
green
O'Neil v. Shipman (In re Pratt & Whitney Co.) (1992)
Frenville Co., Inc., 744 F.2d 332, 336 (3rd Cir.1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1160 , 105 S.Ct. 911 , 83 L.Ed.2d 925 (1985) (“When parties agree in advance that one party will indemnify the other party in the event of a certain occurrence, there exists a right to payment, albeit contingent, upon the signing of the agreement.”), or at the time when the acts occurred giving rise to a reasonable likelihood of indemnification causes of action- cf., e.g., In re Amfesco Industries,…
green
In Re CIS Corp. (1992)
In re Chateaugay Corp., 102 B.R. 335, 353-54 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1989); In re Amfesco Indus., Inc., 81 B.R. 777, 785 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1988) (administrative expense priority “should only be granted under extraordinary circumstances, to wit, when the parties seeking priority have sustained their burden of demonstrating that their services are actual and necessary to preserving the estate”); In re O.P.M.
green
In Re Heck's Properties, Inc. (1992)
Inc., 90 B.R. 461, 462-63 (D.Kan.1988); Matter of Baldwin-United Corp., 43 B.R. 443 (S.D.Ohio 1984); In re Consolidated Oil & Gas, Inc., 110 B.R. 535 (Bkrtcy.D.Colo.1990); and In re Amfesco Industries, Inc., 81 B.R. 777, 780-85 (Bkrtcy.E.D.N.Y.1988).
green
In Re New York Trap Rock Corp. (1992)
In re Amfesco Industries, Inc., 81 B.R. 777, 781 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1988).
green
In Re Philadelphia Mortgage Trust (1990)
See Amarex, supra, 853 F.2d at 1531 ; Christian Life, supra, 821 F.2d at 1374 ; Guaranty National, supra, 90 B.R. at 464; Baldwin-United, supra, 43 B.R. at 454-55 ; Consolidated Oil & Gas, supra, 110 B.R. at 538 ; and In re Amfesco Industries, Inc., 81 B.R. 777, 780-85 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1988).
green
First Brandon National Bank v. Kerwin-White (1990)
That provision allows administrative expenses “including the actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate.” It has been said that “[t]he granting of administrative priority under § 503(b)(1)(A) of Title 11 should only be granted under extraordinary circumstances, to wit, when the parties seeking priority have sustained their burden of demonstrating that their services are actual and necessary to preserve the estate.” In re AMFESCO Indus., Inc., 81 B.R. 777, …
green
Matter of D'Lites of America, Inc. (1989)
Restaurants, Inc., 84 B.R. 684, 689 (Bankr.S.D.Cal.1988), In re Amfesco Industries, Inc., 81 B.R. 777, 780 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1988), administrative expense claims must be given strict scrutiny, In re Patch Graphics, 58 B.R. 743, 745 (Bankr.W.D.Wisc.1986).
green
Watson v. Parker (In Re Parker) (2001)
See, e.g., In re Amfesco Industries, Inc., 81 B.R. 777 , 782 n. 3 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y.1988) (observing that the Frenville court’s "focus on the 'right to payment’ as defined by applicable state law limits the definition of a claim to be a matured right to payment ... and is there-. fore inapposite to the meaning of 'claim’ intended by Congress.
green
In Re Chateaugay Corp. (1989)
Once the contingency occurs, even if it occurs post-petition, “the contingent claim simply becomes a liquidated one; it, however, is not thereby elevated to the status of a post-petition claim.” In re Chateaugay Corp., 87 B.R. at 797 ; see also, In re Amfesco Indus., Inc., 81 B.R. 777 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y. 1988) (indemnity claims triggered post-petition are still pre-petition claims and are not entitled to administrative expense priority).
indemnity claims triggered post-petition are still pre-petition claims and are not entitled to administrative expense priority
green
Levy v. Bank of the Orient (In Re Levy) (1988)
See In re Amfesco Industries, Inc. (Bkrtcy.E.D.N.Y. 1988) 81 B.R. 777, 782 .