Lubman v. C.A. Guard Masonry Contractor, Inc. (In Re Gem Construction Corp. of Virginia)

262 B.R. 638 | United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia | 2000

modifiedCited 16 timesSTANDARDTexas
View on Court Website

Holding Summary

A subcontractor's release of mechanics' liens in exchange for payment constitutes new value under bankruptcy law only if the liens were actually secured by estate assets at the time of transfer; here, C.A. Guard failed to prove lien value while Stovall succeeded by releasing a fully-secured surety bond claim.

The time for judging new value is when the transfer occurred.

United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Virginia, 2000

Related Cases

Fitzgerald v. Advanced Spine Fixation Systems, Inc.

1999enforced

A manufacturer must indemnify an innocent seller for products liability litigation costs under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 82.002(a), even if the seller did not sell the particular defective product that injured the plaintiff, provided the seller qualifies as a 'seller' under the statute.

Green International, Inc. v. Solis

1997modified

No-damages-for-delay clauses in construction contracts need not meet the conspicuousness requirement established in Dresser for exculpatory negligence clauses, and such clauses are enforceable to bar delay damages absent specific exceptions.

Associated Indemnity Corp. v. CAT Contracting, Inc.

1998modified

A surety does not owe a common law duty of good faith to its principal, but good faith is a contractual condition precedent to indemnification, requiring proof of improper motive or willful ignorance rather than mere negligence.

Entergy Gulf States, Inc. v. Summers

2009enforced

A premises owner that contracts for work performance and provides workers' compensation insurance to contractors' employees qualifies as a statutory employer entitled to the exclusive remedy defense under the Texas Workers' Compensation Act.

Italian Cowboy Partners, Ltd. v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

2011remanded

A standard merger clause without clear and unequivocal language expressly disclaiming reliance does not bar a fraud claim, even in a commercial lease agreement between parties.

Gould Electronics Inc., F/k/a Gould Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc. v. United States of America Gould Electronics Inc. American Premier Underwriters, Inc.

2000remanded

Under the FTCA, Ohio law governs the jurisdictional inquiry for contribution and indemnity claims arising from a toxic tort settlement, and the United States would be liable for contribution but not indemnity under Ohio law.