What are some cases where a bankruptcy judge relied upon a debt that was not in the six months leading up to the petition?
British Columbia, Canada
The following excerpt is from Bankruptcy of Matthew Gray Knight, 2003 BCSC 205 (CanLII):
In Malmstrom v. Platt, the debts relied upon by the bankruptcy judge consisted of four judgments outside the six months immediately preceding the petition.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.
Other Questions
What are the leading cases in the history of causation in personal injury cases? (British Columbia, Canada)
Can a judge set aside an order of the judge ordering that damages be awarded in a personal injury case? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is there any case law where the requesting state does not rely upon impugned information obtained in Canada to establish a prima facie case? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is there any case law or case law in which the trial judge’s decision to accept or reject the evidence? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the case law on the re-opening of a plaintiff’s case in a civil case? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the case law in favour of the Court of Appeal in the case of the Supreme Court of Canada's most senior judge in the matter of personal injury? (British Columbia, Canada)
In a Workers’s Compensation Appeal Tribunal case, is there any case law that supports the argument that there is no case law in favour of a claim under the Employment Benefits Act? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is there any case law or case law that supports the argument that a trial judge has a duty to make a decision based on expert testimony? (British Columbia, Canada)
Is there any case law in which the Court of Appeal has found that there is no case law to be relied upon in the context of the doctrine of common law? (British Columbia, Canada)
What is the case law in which a judge improperly interpreted a restrictive covenant to protect views? (British Columbia, Canada)
