SOMA PETO

v.

HOWELL

Citator

Cited By

• In re Multiponics v. Herpel, 622 F.2d 709 (5th Cir. 1980)
  …emise.” Master’s Conclusion of Law 17; 436 F.Supp. at 1067-69. Moreover, the brief three-year life of the Company draws further into question the bona fides of the “loan” arrangements. See Arnold v. Phillips, 117 F. 2d 497 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 313 U.S. 583, 61 S.Ct. 1102, 85 L.Ed. 1539 (1941) (suggesting the converse principle that the longer a corporation functions financially on its initial capital prior to advances, the greater the probability the advances will be held to be valid loans); Herzog &…
• In re Mobile Steel Co. v. Lester Y. Diamond in Bankr. for Mobile Steel, Inc., 563 F.2d 692 (5th Cir. 1977)
  …t interested in a corporation from attempting to salvage it through an infusion of capital — we have steadfastly refused to endorse such a principle. Spach v. Bryant, 309 F. 2d at 889; Arnold v. Phillips, 117 F. 2d 497, 503 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 313 U.S. 583, 61 S.Ct. 1162, 85 L.Ed. 1539 (1941); In re Branding Iron Steak House, 536 F. 2d at 301; Herzog & Zweibel, The Equitable Subordination of Claims in Bankruptcy, 15 Vand.L.Rev. 83, 102 (1961). The proper rule is that the claimant’s verified proof o…

  ← 1 / 3 →
• DeWITT Truck Brokers, Inc. v. W. RAY Flemming Fruit Co. & W. Ray Flemming, 540 F.2d 681 (4th Cir. 1976)
  …o. (4th Cir. 1920), 267 F. 676, 681, cert. denied, 254 U.S. 644, 41 S.Ct. 14, 65 L.Ed. 454 (1920); Francis O. Day Co. v. Shapiro (1959), 105 U.S. App.D.C. 392, 267 F. 2d 669, 673; Arnold v. Phillips (5th Cir. 1941), 117 F. 2d 497, 502, cert. denied, 313 U.S. 583, 61 S.Ct. 1102, 85 L.Ed. 1539 (1940); Puamier v. Barge BT 1793, supra, 395 F.Supp. at 1039, n. 10; Mull v. Colt Co. (S.D.N.Y.1962), 31 F.R.D. 154, 163; Kilpatrick Bros., Inc. v. Poynter (1970), 205 Kan. 787, 473 P. 2d 33, 40; North [*686] Arlington…