  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
between the debtor and the claimant involved the sale of inventory rather than the advance of funds did not prohibit the recharacterization of the claim.)
In re American Wagering, 465 F.3d 1048 (9th Cir. Oct. 6, 2006) (A claim for nonpayment of services provided to the debtor could not be subordinated as a claim for damages arising from a purchase or sale of security pursuant to § 510(b), even though the compensation for the services was based on the debtor's stock price. The claimant had obtained a money judgment for the nonpayment long before the bankruptcy case was filed, and the claim was not based on the issuance or nonissuance of stock, but rather the failure to pay for services provided.)
Rombro v. Dufrayne (In re Med Diversified, Inc.), 461 F.3d 251 (2d Cir. Aug. 25, 2006) (Claim that debtor failed to issue its common stock in exchange for claimant's stock in another company as required by pre-petition agreement was properly subordinated under § 510(b). Section 510(b) mandates subordination of a claim for damages arising from the purchase or sale of a security of the debtor. Although the claimant never actually received any shares in the debtor, claim was properly subordinated because claimant bargained to become a shareholder, not a creditor.)
Stallings v. Hussmann Corp., 447 F.3d 1041 (8th Cir. May 12, 2006) (District Court abused discretion in applying judicial estoppel to bar debtor's Family Medical Leave Act claim against employer. First, even though the debtor's failure to list the claim in his Chapter 13 bankruptcy schedules was inconsistent with his later assertion of the claim, there was no judicial acceptance of that position, because the bankruptcy case was dismissed and no discharge occurred. Second, the debtor did not knowingly omit the claim from the schedules, because the claim had not yet accrued when he filed his bankruptcy petition, and during the bankruptcy case he was ruled against by the U.S. Department of Labor.)
In re Brannon, 476 F.3d 170 (3rd Cir. Feb. 7, 2007) (Where married debtors held exempt property as tenants by the entirety pursuant to Pennsylvania law, wife could claim exemption up to full value not claimed as exempt by husband; she was not limited to claiming only 50% of the value of the property. A spouse's "aggregate interest" in property pursuant to § 522(d)(5) turns on state law, and under Pennsylvania law "a tenant may act on behalf of both spouses with respect to the whole of the entireties property.")
522(f) Exemptions -- Avoidance of Judicial Liens
In re Wilding, 475 F.3d 428 (1st Cir. Jan. 30, 2007) (Bankruptcy court has
