Adelphia liquidating trust gridview rowupdating code in c

The facts underpinning the avoidance action arose from a multi-million margin loan that Goldman had extended to an entity owned by the Rigas family unconnected to Adelphia.

Given the “importance to bankruptcy proceedings of determining with finality a debtor’s ownership of particular assets,” the Second Circuit affirmed the lower court’s ruling, relying upon the doctrine of judicial estoppel.Ultimately, the trust could not plead around the facts settled in the chapter 11 cases — that the payments to Goldman were made in the name of a subsidiary and that the debtors’ schedules of assets and supporting documentation for the chapter 11 plan identified the relevant account as property of the subsidiary.Accordingly, the District Court held that the trust lacked standing to pursue its avoidance claim against Goldman.Judicial estoppel prevents a party from contradicting previous declarations made, or actions taken, during the same or a later proceeding if the change in position would adversely affect the proceeding or constitute a fraud on the court.The Supreme Court of the United States has explained that, while the “circumstances under which it can be invoked are likely not reducible to any general formulation or principle,” there are several factors that inform the decision whether to apply the doctrine in a particular case: First, a party’s later position must be clearly inconsistent with its earlier position.

Search for adelphia liquidating trust:

adelphia liquidating trust-77adelphia liquidating trust-71

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

One thought on “adelphia liquidating trust”