11 U.S.C. § 101

Section 101(31) measures a Chapter 9 municipality’s insolvency by whether it can pay its debts as they come due.

In Re Villages at Castle Rock Metropolitan District No. 4 · filed 1990-05-11(31)

Section 109(c)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code requires that District 4 be insolvent. “Insolvent” is defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(31). For most bankruptcy purposes, insolvency is a balance sheet test. However, for Chapter 9 purpose insolvency is not a balance sheet test, but instead is a question of whether the debtor is unable to pay its debts as they come due.

Section 101(31) treats a debtor as insolvent when his debts exceed the fair value of his property.

Wolfdiam P.V.B.A. v. Wainsztein (In re Wainsztein) · filed 1990-08-10(31)

The evidence presented showed that, at the time of the transfer, the sum of the. debtor’s debts was greater than the fair value of his property, thus rendering the debtor insolvent.

Section 101(31)(A) uses going-concern value to assess an operating debtor’s inventory for insolvency, unless the business is on its deathbed.

In the Matter of Taxman Clothing Co., Inc., Debtor. Appeal of Arthur Winer, Inc. · filed 1990-08-07(31)(A)

No reason has been offered why going-concern value is not the correct value in a case such as this, and for the reasons explained we hold that it is.

Section 101(31) defines insolvency to include a debtor whose assets are insufficient to pay its creditors in full.

Mancuso v. Champion (In Re Dondi Financial Corp.) · filed 1990-08-28(31)

At all times since at least August 1, 1985, Debtor, in addition to the property transferred, has had an insufficient amount of assets to pay the claims of its creditors in full; Debtor was insolvent within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 101(31) from at least August 1, 1985 forward.

Section 101(31)(A) defines corporate insolvency by comparing the corporation’s debts with the fair value of its property, excluding exempt or fraudulently transferred property.

Bernstein v. Gailey (In Re Gailey, Inc.) · filed 1990-10-01(31)(A)

“Insolvency”, as it applies to Gailey, Inc., means that the fi ... nancial condition of Gailey, Inc. was such that the sum of its debts, exclusive of property exempted or fraudulently transferred, was greater than the value of all its property, at a fair valuation.

Section 101(31) defines insolvency by comparing an entity’s debts with the fair value of its property; another corporation’s debts do not make a collecting agent insolvent.

Buchanan v. Henderson · filed 1990-10-12(31)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 101(31) (1988), insolvency means “with reference to an entity other than a partnership ... financial condition such that the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation_” The liabilities of WWF were its operating expenses, and the assets of WWF were the five percent (5%) it retained for purposes of advertising. In short, the evidence established that WWF was a collecting and disbursing agent for USSL. The obligations were those of USSL, and WWF had no claim to any funds or property right in such funds. USSL was clearly insolvent, but the Menicuccis had no control or legal relationship to USSL. Therefore, the court concludes the bankruptcy court erred in finding WWF was insolvent.

Section 101(31) defines corporate insolvency by comparing the debtor’s debts with its property at fair valuation.

Miniscribe Corp. v. Keymarc, Inc. (In Re Miniscribe Corp.) · filed 1991-01-11(31)

The third element of Section 547(b) to be satisfied is that the transfer occurred while the debtor was insolvent. This is determined by comparing the debtor’s assets and liabilities on a balance sheet test.

Section 101(31) defines insolvency for preference purposes as liabilities exceeding the fair value of assets.

Pembroke Development Corp. v. Commonwealth Savings & Loan Ass'n (In Re Pembroke Development Corp.) · filed 1991-03-04(31)

A debtor is insolvent for preferential purposes when the fair value of his liabilities exceeds the fair value of his assets.

Section 101(31)(A) uses a balance sheet test for corporate insolvency: debts must exceed the fair value of property.

Friedman v. Ginsburg (In Re David Jones Builder, Inc.) · filed 1991-07-25(31)(A)

This is a balance sheet test inquiring into whether the debtor’s liabilities out-weighed its assets when the transfers were made during the one year prior to the filing of the petition. Insolvency must be established on the dates of each transfer or continuously for the periods of the transfers.

Section 101(31)(A) defines corporate insolvency as liabilities exceeding assets, excluding property fraudulently transferred.

Eagle Industrial Truck Manufacturing, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. (In Re Continental Airlines, Inc.) · filed 1991-08-25(31)(A)

Under the Bankruptcy Code, a corporation is insolvent if its liabilities are greater than its assets, exclusive of property fraudulently transferred. ... Since Continental has not presented any evidence refuting Eagle’s proof, the court finds that the Debtor was insolvent when it received the goods.

Section 101(31)(A) values assets at fair value when measuring insolvency; cost or book value alone does not establish solvency.

United States Lines (S.A.), Inc. v. United States (In Re McLean Industries, Inc.) · filed 1991-09-17(31)(A)

When determining solvency, section 101(31) provides that the value of the assets which is taken into account is the “fair value”. ... It stands to reason that the cost or book value is not presumptively the equivalent to fair value.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by comparing a debtor’s liabilities with the fair value of its property at the time of the transfer.

EECO Inc. v. Smedes (In Re EECO Inc.) · filed 1992-03-20(32)(A)

Insolvency exists where the debtor’s liabilities are greater than all of the debt- or’s property or assets, at a fair valuation, at the time of the alleged transfer. ... The Court therefore finds that the inconsistency between the debtor’s prepetition and postpetition balance sheets raises an issue of fact that must be determined at trial.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by a balance sheet test: an entity is insolvent when its debts exceed the fair market value of its property.

Lease-A-Fleet, Inc. v. Morse Operations, Inc. (In Re Lease-A-Fleet, Inc.) · filed 1992-06-09(32)

The meaning of “insolvency,” as employed in the Code, is set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 101(32). ... The bankruptcy test for insolvency is a balance sheet test; if the debtor’s liabilities exceed its assets, then it is insolvent.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by whether debts exceed the fair value of all property; cash-flow difficulty alone does not establish insolvency.

Hunter v. Mangold (In Re Mangold) · filed 1992-07-21(32)

Insolvency is defined by 11 U.S.C. § 101(32) as a, “financial condition such that the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation.” ... Consequently, rather than proving insolvency, he merely established that Debtor was experiencing cash-flow difficulty which is insufficient for the purpose of showing insolvency.

Section 101(31) calls for assets to be valued on a liquidation basis when a business is in precarious financial condition or on its deathbed.

Miller & Rhoads, Inc. Secured Creditors' Trust v. Robert Abbey, Inc. (In Re Miller & Rhoads, Inc.) · filed 1992-06-30(31)

“Fair valuation” for purposes of § 101(31) is generally defined as the going concern or fair market price “[ujnless a business is on its deathbed.” ... Where a business is in a precarious financial condition or on its deathbed, the assets should be valued on a liquidation rather than a going concern basis. ... This court therefore concludes that liquidation is the proper valuation standard for determining whether M & R was insolvent when it filed for bankruptcy and during the preceding ninety days.

Section 101(32) measures a person’s insolvency by comparing liabilities with assets, rather than expenses with income.

Citibank, N.A. v. Wiener (In Re Wiener) · filed 1992-08-26(32)

Solvency of a “person” is defined by comparing assets to liabilities, not by an ability to pay expenses from income. 11 U.S.C. § 101(32) (1992 Supp.). Since Citibank has provided no evidence that Wiener’s liabilities exceeded his assets through the period 1988 to 1990, Citibank has failed to meet its burden of proof.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by whether a debtor’s debts exceed the fair value of its property.

Maloney-Crawford, Inc. v. Huntco Steel, Inc. (In Re Maloney-Crawford, Inc.) · filed 1992-09-10(32)

Section 101(32) of the Bankruptcy Code defines insolvency as being when the debtor’s debts are greater than the fair value of its property.

Section 101(32) uses a balance sheet test for insolvency and generally values assets as a going concern unless the business is on its deathbed.

Coated Sales, Inc. v. First Eastern Bank, N.A. (In Re Coated Sales, Inc.) · filed 1992-09-16(32)

Section 101(32) of the Bankruptcy Code defines the term insolvent as a “financial condition such that the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation....” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32). ... Therefore, unless a business is on its deathbed, the fair valuation of its assets pursuant to 547(b) is the going concern value or the fair market price.

A contingent claim counts as a debt when calculating insolvency.

Davis v. Suderov (In Re Davis) · filed 1992-11-18(5)

According to the statutory definition, “debt” means liability on a “claim.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(12). A “claim” may be a contingent claim. 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). Therefore, contingent liabilities must be included in the computation of total indebtedness.

Section 101(32) values a debtor’s assets at open market prices when determining insolvency, without deducting hypothetical costs of sale.

Pioneer Home Builders, Inc. v. International Bank of Commerce (In Re Pioneer Home Builders, Inc.) · filed 1992-11-20(32)

“A fair valuation” of a debtor’s assets, therefore, must concern itself with the price a debtor could obtain at open market, not the net proceeds of the sale.

Section 101(32) requires contingent liabilities to be included when determining insolvency.

Hunter v. Society Bank & Trust (In Re Parker Steel Co.) · filed 1992-12-10(32)

The court concludes that because the Sharon liability was contingent, this liability is included within the insolvency determination.

Section 101(32)(A)(i) excludes property transferred with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors from the assets counted when determining insolvency.

OEM Industrial Corp. v. Birmingham Square (In re OEM Industrial Corp.) · filed 1992-12-23(32)(A)(i)

The Code contains no exception to the operation of the exclusionary clause when the issue of solvency is raised by creditors. Thus, Birmingham Square’s argument that the transfers allegedly made by OEM with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors must be added back into the assets side of the balance sheet insolvency test must fail. The definition of insolvency in § 101(32) specifically excludes such assets from the calculation.

Section 101(32)(A) counts a corporation’s actual debt to its parent when determining insolvency, even if the parent’s claim might be subordinated.

Marquis Products, Inc. v. Conquest Carpet Mills, Inc. (In Re Marquis Products, Inc.) · filed 1993-02-10(32)(A)

Although Conquest has contended that Marquis’ debt to NRF should "not count" or be subordinated in connection with the insolvency analysis, the evidence establishes beyond doubt that Marquis was, indeed, actually indebted to NRF in substantial amounts. Whether NRF's claims might be subordinated to other claims against Marquis, they count in the insolvency analysis.

Section 101’s insolvency definition counts contingent as well as fixed liabilities, using the full amount of contingent liabilities.

Nickless v. Golub (In Re Worcester Quality Foods, Inc.) · filed 1993-03-29(32)

Contingent as well as fixed liabilities are taken into account in the determination of insolvency. 11 U.S.C. §§ 101(32), 101(12), 101(5) (1988); Mass.Ann.Laws. ch. 109A, §§ 1, 2 (Law. Co-op.1985). Indeed, the statutes require the full amount of contingent liabilities to be employed, not just the present “value” of the liability.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by a balance sheet test: an entity is insolvent when its debts exceed its property.

Enwotwen Industries, Inc. v. Brookstone Ltd. Partnership (In Re Newtowne, Inc.) · filed 1993-06-25(32)(A)

“Insolvency” is defined as a “financial condition such that the sum of [an] entity’s debt is greater than all of such entity’s property.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). This definition adopts a balance sheet analysis. ... The Court finds that no genuine issue of material fact exists as to Enwotwen’s insolvency as a result of the transfer of its property to Brookstone.

Section 101(32)(A)(ii) excludes property that may be exempted from the bankruptcy estate when determining insolvency.

In Re Maylin · filed 1993-06-09(32)(A)(ii)

In any event, exempt assets are not counted in determining solvency. The Code’s definition of “insolvent,” § 101(32)(A)(ii) excludes “property that may be exempted from property of the estate under section 522 of this title....” See Lewis v. Maloon (In re Lewis), 94 B.R. 789, 793 (Bankr.D.Mass.1988). Even if one were to ignore Maylin's disputed $7,500 exemption claim, in light of other exempt assets, he indisputably was insolvent when he filed his petition.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by comparing a debtor’s debts with its property at fair valuation, excluding property transferred, concealed, or removed with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors.

Mayka v. Dollar Bank, Federal Savings Bank (In Re Biggs, Inc.) · filed 1993-10-20(32)

“Insolvent” means, for purposes of this action, that the sum of debtor’s debts is greater than all of its property at fair valuation, exclusive of property transferred, concealed, or removed with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud debtor’s creditors. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(32).

Section 101(32)(A) includes debt secured by an individual debtor’s assets in the insolvency calculation even when the debt is nonrecourse.

Mancuso v. T. Ishida USA, Inc. (In Re Sullivan) · filed 1993-12-27(32)(A)

Finally, nonrecourse debt should be included in an individual’s balance sheet for purposes of 11 U.S.C. §§ 548(a)(2)(B)(i) and 101(32). The business reality is that nonrecourse debt, if secured by the debtor’s assets, offsets the realizable values of those assets and therefore directly affects solvency.

Section 101(32)(B) includes general partners’ nonpartnership assets in determining whether a partnership is insolvent, even when the creditor’s debt is nonrecourse.

Union Meeting Partners v. Lincoln National Life Insurance (In Re Union Meeting Partners) · filed 1994-01-06(32)(B)

The Debtor argues that the General Partners’ nonpartnership assets should not be included in the insolvency calculation because Lincoln’s debt is nonrecourse and Lincoln would not have access to the General Partners’ assets to ensure repayment of its debt. ... Although the Debtor’s argument is not without logical and equitable appeal, 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(B) is not ambiguous, and we are thus not at liberty to create conditions which do not appear in the text of the statute.

Section 101(32) allowed the court to find the debtor continuously insolvent on unrebutted expert evidence.

In Re Taubman · filed 1993-11-16(32)

The burden of proof on the issue of insolvency in connection with this common issue rests with the Trustee. Based on the documents submitted by the Trustee, particularly the Waite Affidavit, which contains expert opinion that it is more likely than not that the Debtor was continuously insolvent from at least January 1,1978 through May 3,1989, to which no contrary evidence, nor any contrary expert opinion was presented, the court concludes that the Debtor was, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 101(32) and O.R.C. § 1336.02, continuously insolvent from at least January 1, 1978 through May 3, 1989.

Section 101(32)(A) uses a balance sheet test for insolvency, comparing the fair value of a debtor’s assets with its liabilities.

Thompson v. Ivan (In Re Food & Fibre Protection, Ltd.) · filed 1994-05-13(32)(A)

Insolvency in a preference setting is determined by a balance sheet test, comparing the fair value of the Debtor’s assets at the time of the transaction with the Debtor’s liabilities of the same date.

Section 101(32)(A)(ii) measures insolvency by comparing a debtor’s debts with the fair market value of the debtor’s non-exempt property.

Davis v. Suderov (In Re Davis) · filed 1994-05-31(32)(A)(ii)

In order to determine whether the Davises were insolvent, their debts must be compared to the fair market value of their non-exempt property.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency through a balance-sheet test comparing an entity’s debts with its property.

Pajaro Dunes Rental Agency, Inc. v. Spitters (In Re Pajaro Dunes Rental Agency, Inc.) · filed 1994-10-19(32)(A)

Insolvency is defined in the Bankruptcy Code as the "financial condition such that the sum of such entity's debts is greater than all of such entity's property ..." 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). This is a “balance-sheet” test.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed its property at a fair valuation.

Pereira v. Lehigh Savings Bank, SLA (In Re Artha Management, Inc.) · filed 1994-11-18(32)

Insolvency is defined under 11 U.S.C. § 101(32) as “a financial condition such that the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation ... ”. ... Proving valuation for purposes of insolvency at the time of a transfer is a fact-specific inquiry such that summary judgment on the issue is inappropriate.

For corporate insolvency, debts count at their face amount rather than the discounted amount creditors expect to recover.

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Travellers International AG. (In Re Trans World Airlines, Inc.) · filed 1994-11-30(32)(A)

The short answer is that it does not make any difference what the creditors believe they can recover. They initially bargained with the debtor to recover the face amount of their claim and I believe that is what § 101(32) contemplates.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency through a balance sheet test comparing debts with property at fair value near the transfer date.

Bancorporation v. Hodges (In Re Washington Bancorporation) · filed 1995-01-10(32)

Section 101(32) requires a “balance sheet test focuss[ing] on the fair market value of the debtor’s assets and liabilities within a reasonable time of the transfer.” ... Accordingly, the court concludes that the plaintiffs evidence of insolvency is insufficient to support a jury adopting the inference that WBC was insolvent when the Payment was made.

Section 101(32)(A) measures corporate insolvency by comparing debts with the fair value of property, which may differ from its book value.

Matter of Lamar Haddox Contractor, Inc. · filed 1994-12-19(32)(A)

Needless to say, a fair valuation may not be equivalent to the values assigned on a balance sheet.

Section 101(32)(A)(ii) excludes property that may be exempted from the estate when calculating whether a debtor is insolvent.

Babiker v. Citizens Contracting Co. (In Re Babiker) · filed 1995-04-11(32)(A)(ii)

The plain language of § 101 requires that we compare the sum of the debts with the amount of property “exclusive of ... property that may be exempted from property of the estate under section 522 of this title.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A)(ii) (emphasis added).

Section 101(32)(A) allows going concern valuation only when the debtor has a realistic capacity to continue its business.

In Re Mama D'angelo, Inc., Debtor. Duane H. Gillman, Trustee v. Scientific Research Products Inc. Of Delaware · filed 1995-05-25(32)(A)

However, it must have had a realistic capacity to manufacture and sell its product; a going concern valuation is appropriate only if it is believed that the enterprise will continue as a going concern.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether debts exceed property at a fair valuation; later events may inform the value of assets at the relevant date.

In Re RML, Inc. · filed 1995-06-29(32)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code defines insolvency as a "financial condition such that the sum of such entity's debts is greater than all of such entity's property, at a fair valuation." 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). ... Even in absence of the testimony that adjustments were warranted by GAAP and GAAS, based upon the evidence, I find it entirely appropriate to make downward adjustments to Intershoe's then-value to write off these alleged assets. ... On the basis of the audited financial statement for August 31, 1991, and the associated testimony, the Committee established by a preponderance of the evidence that Intershoe was insolvent from that date forward.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency as debts exceeding the fair value of an entity’s property, measured at the time of the transfer.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors ex rel. R.M.L., Inc. v. Mellon Bank, N.A. (In re R.M.L., Inc.) · filed 1995-06-29(32)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code defines insolvency as a “financial condition such that the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). This test is frequently referred to as the balance sheet test. The relevant date for determining the value of a company’s assets is the time of the alleged transfer. ... On the basis of the audited financial statement for August 31,1991, and the associated testimony, the Committee established by a preponderance of the evidence that Intershoe was insolvent from that date forward.

Section 101(32)(A) treats a debtor as insolvent when liabilities exceed assets.

In re Thaut · filed 1995-08-16(32)(A)

Under BAS' valuation of the truck, Thaut's liabilities would still exceed his assets, and he would be insolvent under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 101(32)(A).

Section 101(32)(A) defines a corporation as insolvent when its debts exceed the fair value of its property, excluding concealed and exempt property.

Schlant v. Schueler (In Re Buffalo Auto Glass) · filed 1995-09-18(32)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code deems a corporation to be “insolvent” if “the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation, exclusive of [property concealed to defraud creditors and exempt property.]” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). The Trustee has provided a copy of the Debtor’s corporate tax return for the time period in question, which shows negative retained earnings. There being no evidence offered by the Defendant under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e) as to why that does not establish the corporation’s insolvency at that time, the Court finds that the tax return establishes the Debtor’s insolvency at the time of the transfers by a preponderance of the evidence.

Section 101(32) measures insolvency by comparing debts with the fair value of nonexempt property; inability to pay debts as they come due does not establish insolvency for preference avoidance.

Fokkena v. Winston (In Re Johnson) · filed 1995-12-06(32)

The test for a person’s insolvency is whether “the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at fair valuation, exclusive of’ property that may be exempted and property that debtor has transferred, concealed or removed to defraud creditors. 11 U.S.C. § 101(32).

Section 101(32) calls for valuing a corporate debtor as a going concern when determining insolvency, unless the business is on its deathbed or liquidation is clearly imminent.

Wolkowitz v. American Research Corporation (In Re DAK Industries, Incorporated) · filed 1996-01-18(32)

The overwhelming consensus in the case law is that the valuation should be made from the vantage of a going concern. ... The going-concern value is not the proper standard, however, if the business was “on its deathbed” or if its liquidation was clearly imminent when the transfers were made.

Section 101(32) uses liquidation value to assess insolvency when a business is in precarious financial condition or on its financial deathbed.

Schwinn Plan Committee v. AFS Cycle & Co. (In Re Schwinn Bicycle Co.) · filed 1996-02-08(32)

When a business is in a precarious financial condition or on its financial deathbed, a liquidation value should be used to value the assets.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency as a financial condition in which an entity’s debts exceed its property.

Torgenrud v. Benson (In Re Wolcott) · filed 1996-04-05(32)

Moreover, the Bankruptcy Code defines insolvency as a “financial condition such that the sum of [an] entity’s debts is greater that all of [an] entity’s property.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32). ... Upon the last seven transfers to Benson by Wolcott of the mobile homes and automobiles, Wolcott’s liabilities exceeded Wolcott’s assets by some $41,000. Thus the transfers rendered Wol-cott insolvent.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed the fair value of its property; for a going concern, fair value reflects what its assets could fetch in a prudent sale within a reasonable time.

In Re Roblin Industries, Inc., Debtor. William E. Lawson, Trustee, in Bankruptcy of Roblin Industries, Inc. v. Ford Moto · filed 1996-02-26(32)

“Insolvent” is defined by the Code as a “financial condition such that the sum of [the] entity’s debts is greater than all of [the] entity’s property, at a fair valuation.... ” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32). Fair value, in the context of a going concern, is determined by the fair market price of the debtor’s assets that could be obtained if sold in a prudent manner within a reasonable period of time to pay the debtor’s debts.

For a corporate debtor, § 101(32)(A) measures insolvency by whether debts exceed assets at fair valuation; book value alone does not establish that valuation.

Hunter v. Sylvester Material Co. (In re Turkeyfoot Concrete Inc.) · filed 1996-04-03(32)(A)

Section 101(32) of the Bankruptcy Code clearly states that the debtor is “insolvent” when its assets, at fair market value, exceed it liabilities. ... The valuation of these assets, however, is not shown to be at fair market value, but rather at book value.

Section 101(32)(B)’s definition of partnership insolvency does not apply to § 726, which does not use the terms “solvent” or “insolvent.”

Williamson v. Kay (In Re Villa West Associates) · filed 1996-03-04(32)(B)

We agree with the bankruptcy court that the definition section relied upon by MN Associates must not be applied to § 726 because § 726 does not use the term “solvent” or “insolvent.”

Section 101(32) defines insolvency as debts exceeding the fair value of the debtor’s property.

Jones Truck Lines v. Full Service Leasing · filed 1996-05-09(32)

The district court properly instructed the jury (i) that a debtor is insolvent if the sum of its debts is greater than all of its property, fairly valued, see 11 U.S.C. § 101(32), and (ii) that Jones's assets "should be valued as an active unit" if Jones was a going concern at the time of an alleged preferential transfer, see In re Taxman Clothing Co., 905 F.2d 166, 170 (7th Cir. 1990).

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether an entity's debts exceed the fair value of its property.

In Re RML, Inc. · filed 1996-05-09(32)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code defines "insolvent" as a "financial condition such that the sum of [the] entity's debts is greater than all of [the] entity's property, at a fair valuation. . . ." 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). This test is frequently referred to as the balance sheet test.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed the fair value of its property.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of R.M.L., Inc. v. Sabrina (In re R.M.L., Inc.) · filed 1996-05-09(32)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code defines “insolvent” as a “financial condition such that the sum of [the] entity’s debts is greater than all of [the] entity’s property, at a fair valuation. ...” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). This test is frequently referred to as the balance sheet test.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by comparing debts with property at fair valuation; a contingent asset must be valued according to the objective likelihood that the contingency will occur.

In Re Inc. · filed 1996-08-01(32)(A)

Furthermore, if a debtor's treatment of an item as an "asset" depends for its propriety on the occurrence of a contingent event, a court must take into consideration the likelihood of that event occurring from an objective standpoint.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency as debts exceeding the fair value of the debtor’s property.

Jones Truck Lines, Inc., Plaintiff-Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Full Service Leasing Corporation, Defendant-Appellant/cro · filed 1996-06-12(32)

The district court properly instructed the jury (i) that a debtor is insolvent if the sum of its debts is greater than all of its property, fairly valued, see 11 U.S.C. § 101(32), and (ii) that Jones’s assets “should be valued as an active unit” if Jones was a going concern at the time of an alleged preferential transfer, see In re Taxman Clothing Co., 905 F.2d 166, 170 (7th Cir.1990).

Section 101(32)(A) requires a court valuing a contingent asset for insolvency purposes to consider objectively how likely the necessary event is to occur.

In Re: RML Inc · filed 1996-08-01(32)(A)

Furthermore, if a debtor's treatment of an item as an "asset" depends for its propriety on the occurrence of a contingent event, a court must take into consideration the likelihood of that event occurring from an objective standpoint.

Section 101(32)(A) requires courts to account for the likelihood of a contingent event when valuing an asset for insolvency.

Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of R.M.L., Inc. (In re R.M.L. Inc.) · filed 1996-08-01(32)(A)

Furthermore, if a debtor’s treatment of an item as an “asset” depends for its propriety on the occurrence of a contingent event, a court must take into consideration the likelihood of that event occurring from an objective standpoint.

Section 101(32)(A) treats a debtor as insolvent when debts exceed the fair value of assets, excluding exempt assets.

Fitzgerald v. Magic Valley Evangelical Free Church, Inc. (In Re Hodge) · filed 1996-09-26(32)(A)

For purposes of Section 548(a), a debtor is insolvent at the time of a transfer if the sum of its debts is greater than its assets, excluding exempt assets, at fair valuation. 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). ... Therefore, the Court concludes that in the one year prior to the filing of the petition, Debtors were insolvent as defined by 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A).

Section 101(32) requires both assets and liabilities to be tallied at fair valuation when determining insolvency.

Travellers International AG v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (In Re Trans World Airlines, Inc.) · filed 1996-12-30(32)

Because both sections contain an insolvency prong, they both implicate Section 101(32) and its balance sheet test. To ensure consistent application of defined terms to related portions of the Code, the same definition of insolvency should apply to both Section 547 and 548. Therefore, as the Third Circuit has stated in interpreting insolvency, the Court concludes that liabilities, as well as assets, should be tallied at fair valuation.

Section 101(32) uses a balance sheet test for insolvency; consolidated schedules may be needed to eliminate valueless intercompany transactions when valuing assets and liabilities.

Schwinn Plan Committee v. AFS Cycle & Co. (In Re Schwinn Bicycle Co.) · filed 1997-03-07(32)

The Code uses a “balance sheet” test for the purpose of establishing insolvency in a preference action. Common Issues Opinion, 192 B.R. at 486, 11 U.S.C. § 101(32). In order to apply the balance sheet test in this case, the Committee and the Court had to consolidate the Debtors’ schedules in order to eliminate intercom-pany transactions which had no real value and to determine the accurate value of Debtors’ assets and liabilities.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed the fair value of its property, excluding property that may be exempted or has been fraudulently concealed or transferred.

Carter v. H & B Jewelry & Loan Co. (In Re Carter) · filed 1997-09-05(32)

“Insolvent” means “financial condition such that the sum of [an] entity’s debts is greater than all of [an] entity’s property, at a fair valuation, exclusive of’ property that may be exempted and property that has been fraudulently concealed or transferred. 11 U.S.C. § 101(32). Thus, debtor was insolvent if her liabilities exceeded her assets.

Section 101(32)(C)(ii) uses a prospective test of whether a municipality can pay its debts as they become due.

In Re Town of Westlake, Texas · filed 1997-07-25(32)(C)(ii)

Westlake alternatively contends that it is insolvent under § 101 (32)(C)(ii) because it is unable to pay its debts as they become due. There was insufficient credible proof of such insolvency. This is a prospective test of inability to pay, not a retrospective test.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by comparing the sum of an entity’s debts with the fair value of its property.

In Re Golden Mane Acquisitions, Inc. · filed 1997-12-19(32)

For purposes of the limited application of the solvency factor in 11 U.S.C. § 547(b)(3), the Court finds, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 101(32) that the debtor was solvent at the time the claimant recorded his judgment.

Section 101(32)(A) values a going concern’s assets over a reasonable sale period measured by creditors’ financial interests.

Travellers International AG v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. (In Re Trans World Airlines, Inc.) · filed 1998-01-20(32)(A)

We believe that the proper point of reference for determining a "reasonable" time period in the case of S 101(32)(A) should begin with the financial interests of the creditors.

Section 101(32)(A) values a going concern's publicly traded debt at face value without discounting it for the risk of nonpayment.

In Re Trans World Airlines, Incorporated · filed 1998-01-20(32)(A)

Because our going concern methodology precludes us from devaluing TWA's debt based on creditors' perceptions of TWA's viability, a fair valuation of TWA's public debt is the face value of that debt.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency as debts exceeding the value of one's property.

Martin v. State · filed 1998-04-29(32)

Under the Bankruptcy Code, insolvency means that one's debts exceed the value of one's property.

Section 101(32)(C) treats a municipal debt as due only when payment is unconditionally owing and enforceable; payments contingent on available funds do not establish insolvency.

Hamilton Creek Metropolitan District v. Bondholders Colorado Bondshares (In Re Hamilton Creek Metropolitan District) · filed 1998-05-15(32)(C)

As “due” is unqualified in § 101(32)(C), combining these definitions yields: presently, unconditionally owing and presently enforceable. The District’s interest payments are neither presently, unconditionally owing, nor presently enforceable because they are indefinitely contingent on the availability of certain Plan-defined funds.

Section 101(32)(A) values assets for the insolvency test at the price obtainable through an orderly sale in an open market within a reasonable time.

Beckman v. Von Christierson (In Re CSI Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1998-05-19(32)(A)

That value is to reflect the amount that the assets could have been sold for, not in liquidation or distress sale, but an orderly sale conducted in a reasonable amount of time in an open market.

Section 101(32)(A) permits adjusted later sale prices to establish fair value when they reflect an asset’s value at the relevant time.

Payne v. Clarendon National Insurance (In Re Sunset Sales, Inc.) · filed 1998-06-04(32)(A)

Thus, it was not “improper hindsight” for the bankruptcy court to take into account the sales price of the assets plus an adjustment for depreciation, as opposed to the Debtor’s book value, in determining the Debtor’s insolvency under § 101(32)(A).

Section 101(32)(A) measures an individual debtor’s insolvency by comparing liabilities with assets.

In Re Brown · filed 1998-09-15(32)(A)

To rebut the presumption, a creditor must present competent evidence that a debtor's assets are greater than a debtor's liabilities at the time of the transfer. [5] ... I, therefore, find that Mr. and Mrs. Brown's liabilities exceeded their assets at the time of the transfer, and that they were insolvent for purposes of section 547(b)(3) on the date of the transfer.

Section 101(32) does not permit a going concern’s entire future rent obligation to be counted as a present liability when determining insolvency.

Official Committee of Former Partners v. Brennan (In Re Labrum & Doak, LLP) · filed 1998-11-19(32)

Rather, it is logical not to include all of the future rents as liabilities because this calculation miscategorizes the future rent liability as an obligation presently due in full, while, if the Debtor remained a going concern, would have consisted of making installment payments in the future during the tenancy.

Section 101(32) uses a balance sheet test for insolvency, excluding exempt and fraudulently transferred assets.

Taylor v. Riverside-Franklin Properties, Inc. (In Re Taylor) · filed 1998-12-01(32)

Thus, the balance sheet test is used under which a debtor will be declared insolvent if its debts exceed its assets (exclusive of exempt and fraudulently transferred assets).

Section 101(32)(A) uses a balance-sheet test to determine insolvency.

Leonard v. Mountainwest Financial Corp. (In Re Whaley) · filed 1999-01-29(32)(A)

11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A) imposes a “balance sheet” test for insolvency. Without substantial controversy from the Defendant, the Plaintiff proved that the Debtor was insolvent on June 20, 1995, under it.

Section 101(32)(A) measures corporate insolvency using the fair value of assets and all debts, including contingent liabilities.

Devan v. CIT Group/Commercial Services, Inc. (In Re Merry-Go-Round Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 1999-01-15(32)(A)

The balance sheets do not satisfy CIT’s burden for two reasons, each of which is fatal to CIT’s motion. First, the balance sheets do nor purport to value the Debtors’ assets according to the fair valuation standard required by 11 U.S.C. 101(32)(A). Second, the balance sheets do not value all of the Debtors’ debts to the extent that some of the Debtors’ contingent liabilities are not assigned a dollar value.

For corporate insolvency under § 101(32), fair valuation begins by determining whether the debtor is a going concern and ends with a balance sheet test.

Wolkowitz v. American Research Corp. · filed 1999-03-19(32)

We agree that a "fair valuation" of a debtor's assets must begin with a determination of whether ... a debtor is "a going concern" and end with the application of a balance sheet test to determine solvency.

Section 101(32)(B) includes each general partner’s net nonpartnership assets when determining whether a partnership is insolvent, regardless of whether its debts are recourse or nonrecourse.

Venice-Oxford Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Multifamily Mortgage Trust 1996-1 (In Re Venice-Oxford Associates Ltd. Part · filed 1999-06-07(32)(B)

To determine whether a debtor partnership is insolvent, therefore, the Court concludes that the net nonpartnership assets of each general partner of the partnership are taken into account, together with all of the partnership’s assets. For purposes of the insolvency calculation under § 101(32) and § 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court further finds that such partners’ assets are included, regardless of whether the partnership debts are recourse or nonrecourse.

Section 101(32)(B) includes each general partner’s net nonpartnership assets when determining whether a partnership is insolvent, even if the partnership’s debts are nonrecourse.

Villamont-Oxford Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Multifamily Mortgage Trust 1996-1 (In Re Villamont-Oxford Associates Ltd · filed 1999-06-08(32)(B)

To determine whether a debtor partnership is insolvent, therefore, the Court concludes that the net nonpartnership assets of each general partner of the partnership are taken into account, together with all of the partnership’s assets. For purposes of the insolvency calculation under § 101(32) and § 547(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court further finds that such partners’ assets are included, regardless of whether the partnership debts are recourse or non-recourse.

Section 101(32)(A)(ii) excludes exempt property from the assets counted when determining whether a debtor is insolvent.

Kelley v. Chevy Chase Bank (In Re Smith) · filed 1999-06-21(32)(A)(ii)

However, this analysis does not recognize that exempt assets are excluded from the total assets calculation for purposes of insolvency analysis.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency as debts exceeding the fair value of an entity’s property.

Miller v. Blatstein (In Re Main, Inc.) · filed 1999-09-22(32)

Insolvency is defined in the Bankruptcy Code as the “financial condition such that the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation.” See 11 U.S.C. § 101(32). ... Application of this aspect of the “law of the case doctrine” and the absence of any allegation of fact suggesting that a contrary conclusion as to Main’s insolvency might exist, cause us to rely on our tentative Main V conclusion that, at all times since November 4, 1993, Main has been insolvent.

Section 101(32)(A) counts property transferred as a preference when determining a debtor’s solvency.

In Re FIBSA Forwarding, Inc. · filed 1999-09-15(32)(A)

The inescapable inference is that property that has been transferred as part of a preferential transfer is included in a debtor’s estate for purposes of determining solvency.

Section 101’s insolvency definition counts contingent liabilities as debts when determining whether a debtor was insolvent at the time of a transfer.

Tavenner v. Smoot (In Re Smoot) · filed 1999-09-30(32)(A)

When the definitions of § 101 are applied to the insolvency provisions of § 548, the inescapable conclusion is that all liabilities contingent or otherwise must be considered in determining whether a debt- or was insolvent at the time of the transfer in question.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by comparing a debtor’s debts with the fair value of its non-exempt property.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Crystal Medical Products, Inc. v. Houpt (In Re Crystal Medical Products, In · filed 1999-10-29(32)(A)

This Court further finds that CMP was insolvent at the time of the transfer. Insolvency, as defined in the Bankruptcy Code, is where the sum of the debtor’s debts is greater than all of the debtor’s non-exempt property at fair valuation. § 101(32)(A).

Section 101(32)(C) defines municipal insolvency by the municipality’s inability to pay its debts as they come due.

In Re Mount Carbon Metropolitan District · filed 1999-11-01(32)(C)

... to be insolvent, a municipality either is not paying its debts as they come due or will be unable to do so.

Section 101(32)(A) measures insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed its property; a final judgment against the entity counts as a debt in that calculation.

Flegel v. Burt & Associates, P.C. (In Re Kallmeyer) · filed 1999-12-03(32)(A)

The Code defines “insolvent” as a “financial condition such that the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). ... Although Debtor may have disputed her personal liability for the Judgment, the Judgment against NIM was final and undisputed. Therefore, the bankruptcy court properly included the Judgment when calculating NIM’s insolvency.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by comparing debts with property at fair valuation; a company on its deathbed has its assets valued at liquidation value.

Mishkin Ex Rel. Liquidation of the Business of Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp. v. Ensminger (In Re Adler, Coleman Clearing · filed 1999-12-15(32)(A)

A company is insolvent when “the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A); R.M.L., 92 F.3d at 154-55 (a company is insolvent when its debts exceed its assets). ... However, where a company is on its “deathbed”, we will value its assets according to what could be obtained at a liquidation sale and not give them a “going concern value.”

Section 101(32) defines insolvency for an entity other than a partnership or municipality by comparing its debts with the fair value of its property, subject to specified exclusions.

Ackerman v. Schultz (In Re Schultz) · filed 2000-06-20(32)

Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 101(32), an entity other than a partnership and a municipality is insolvent when the sum of its debts is greater than all of its property, at fair valuation, exclusive of any property transferred, concealed, or removed with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors, and property that may be exempted from property of the estate. The Debtor testified that he had insufficient assets in April 1997 to meet his debts, which amounted to over $200,000 (Tr. 1/10/2000 Hrg., at 215-16). Consequently, under the Code's definition, the Debtor was insolvent as of April 1997.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether a debtor's debts exceed the fair value of its property, subject to specified exclusions.

Arrow Electronics, Inc. v. Justus · filed 2000-07-13(32)(A)

See also 11 U.S.C. S 101(32)(A) (defining insolvency as a "financial condition such that the sum of[the debtor's] debts is greater than all of [its] property, at a fair valuation" exclusive of certain exempted or fraudulently transferred property). ... The bankruptcy court's finding of insolvency as of that date was not clear error.

Section 101(32) does not exclude assets from the insolvency calculation merely because they cannot be sold.

Burdick v. Lee · filed 2001-01-11(32)

There is no basis, however, for discounting the capital leases as assets because the Bankruptcy Code does not exclude such non-salable assets for the purpose of defining insolvency. 11 U.S.C. § 101(32).

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed the fair value of its property.

Jackson v. Mishkin (In Re Adler, Coleman Clearing Corp.) · filed 2001-06-11(32)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code provides that a debtor is insolvent when “the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A).

Section 101(32)(ii) excludes property that may be exempted from the bankruptcy estate when determining whether an individual is insolvent.

Tavenner v. Smoot · filed 2001-07-16(32)(ii)

For the purposes of the insolvency determination, we exclude the pro- ceeds from the Settlement Agreement with CSX. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(ii).

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed its property at fair valuation, excluding exempt property and certain fraudulent transfers.

Sherman v. Rose · filed 2001-08-31(32)

The Bankruptcy Code defines insolvency as a “financial condition such that the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at fair valuation,” exclusive of exempt property and fraudulent transfers of a type not at issue here. 11 U.S.C. § 101(32).

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed the fair value of its property; the trustee must prove that condition with reliable evidence.

Barber v. Production Credit Services of West Central Illinois (In Re KZK Livestock, Inc.) · filed 2002-05-31(32)(A)

Section 101(32) of the Bankruptcy Code employs a “balance sheet” test for insolvency, defined as a financial condition such that “the sum of [the] entity’s debts is greater than all of [the] entity’s property, at a fair valuation,” exclusive of exempt and fraudulently transferred assets. ... As the ultimate finder of fact, this Court cannot hold that TRUSTEE met his burden of proof on the issue of the DEBTOR’S insolvency at the time the transfers were made to the DEFENDANTS.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by whether a debtor’s liabilities exceed its assets; the ability to pay current obligations does not establish solvency.

Peltz Ex Rel. USN Communications Liquidating Trust v. Worldnet Corp. (In Re USN Communications, Inc.) · filed 2002-06-27(32)

In addition, for ... the purposes of bankruptcy, a debtor is “insolvent” when the sum of its liabilities exceeds the sum of its assets.

Section 101(32)(A) measures insolvency by comparing debts with the fair value of property, including assets omitted from the balance sheet.

Peltz v. Hatten · filed 2002-06-05(32)(A)

While the inquiry is labeled a “balance sheet” test, the court’s insolvency analysis is not literally limited to or constrained by the debtor’s balance sheet. Instead, it is appropriate to adjust items on the balance sheet that are shown at a higher or lower value than their going concern value and to examine whether assets of a company that are not found on its balance sheet should be included in its fair value.

Section 101(32)(A) compares the fair market value of a debtor’s assets with the face value of its liabilities, including contingent liabilities, to determine insolvency.

Lids Corp. v. Marathon Investment Partners, L.P. (In Re Lids Corp.) · filed 2002-08-06(32)(A)

Therefore, when conducting a balance sheet analysis, the fair market value of the assets is compared to the face value of the liabilities, including contingent liabilities.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by comparing debts with property at fair value; a going concern’s property must be valued using current market conditions.

Sherman v. FSC Realty LLC (In Re Brentwood Lexford Partners, LLC) · filed 2003-02-12(32)

The Code defines insolvency as a “financial condition such that the sum of [the] entity’s debts is greater than all of [its] property, at a fair valuation ...” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32X2002). ... The court must determine the value of a going concern’s property based on the current market, involving a prudent sale within a reasonable time, whether the sale be on an asset or business unit basis.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether a debtor’s liabilities exceed the fair value of its assets.

Zeta Consumer Products Corp. v. Equistar Chemical, LP (In Re Zeta Consumer Products Corp.) · filed 2003-04-10(32)(A)

A debtor is “insolvent” when its liabilities exceed its assets, based on a fair valuation. ... Guided by the authority set forth above, the Court finds that a genuine issue of fact exists as to the insolvency of Zeta at the time of the transfers.

In determining insolvency under § 101(32)(A), liquidation value is appropriate when a debtor is so close to shutting down that going concern valuation is unrealistic.

Silverman Consulting, Inc. v. Hitachi Power Tools, U.S.A., Ltd. (In Re Payless Cashways, Inc.) · filed 2003-03-14(32)(A)

On the other hand, liquidation value is appropriate if, at the time of the transfer, the company is “ ‘so close to shutting its doors that a going concern standard is unrealistic.’ ” ... I, therefore, find that Payless was a going concern, and solvent, until May 13, 2001. From then until June 4, 2001, Pay-less was insolvent.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency for an entity other than a partnership or municipality by whether its debts exceed the fair value of its property.

Bohm v. Golden Knitting Mills, Inc. (In Re Forman Enterprises, Inc.) · filed 2003-06-03(32)

An entity other than a partnership or a municipality is “insolvent” for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code when its financial condition is such that the sum of its debts is greater than all of its property at fair valuation. 11 U.S.C. § 101(32). ... Debtor, in other words, was insolvent on December 17, 1999, as well as on January 26, 2000.

Section 101(26), as applied by the court, defines insolvency as debts exceeding the fair value of property.

Heavrin v. Schilling (In Re Triple S Restaurants, Inc.) · filed 2004-02-25(26)

The term “insolvent” is defined at 11 U.S.C. § 101(26) to mean, generally stated, that the sum of one’s debts is greater than the value of his property in a fair evaluation. Even though actual bankruptcy filing was still several months away, no one would seem to dispute that even in June TSR’s debts greatly exceeded its assets. TSR appears to have been insolvent at the time of the transfer.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed the fair value of its property; an operating business is valued as a going concern.

Diamond v. Osborne · filed 2004-06-17(32)(A)

Insolvency is a “financial condition such that the sum of [an] entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). ... Since ADF was a going concern, it must be valued from the standpoint of the debt- or and as an active entity rather than as an entity on its deathbed.

Section 101(32)(A) measures a going concern’s insolvency by comparing its assets at fair valuation with its liabilities.

Hoffinger Industries, Inc. v. Bunch (In Re Hoffinger Industries, Inc.) · filed 2004-08-27(32)(A)

As a going concern, the balance sheet test, based on the assets at fair valuation, is the appropriate method of valuation.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency through a balance sheet comparison using fair valuation, which may differ from book value.

Official Employment-Related Issues Committee of Enron Corp. v. Arnold (In Re Enron Corp.) · filed 2004-11-23(32)

The Code’s definition of insolvency applies a balance sheet test, which requires the court to engage in the “fair valuation” of the debts and property shown on the debt- or’s balance sheet. But a fair value might not be reflected by what the debtor reports on its books.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed the fair value of its property.

Heilig-Meyers Co. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. (In Re Wachovia Bank, N.A.) · filed 2004-12-21(32)(A)

Section 101(32)(A) establishes that the insolvency analysis under § 547(b)(3) is no more than a debts versus assets analysis, and for the court to find that a preferential transfer occurred the court must determine that the dollar sum of the debtor’s debts are greater than the dollar sum of the debtor’s assets “at fair valuation.”

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by comparing an entity’s debts with the fair value of its property, excluding property transferred to defraud creditors and property exemptible under section 522.

Whitaker v. Volvo Commercial Finance, LLC (In Re Gulf Northern Transport, Inc.) · filed 2005-03-11(32)

The Bankruptcy Code defines insolvency as “a financial condition such that the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair evaluation, exclusive of — (i) property transferred, concealed, or removed with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud such entity’s creditors; and (ii) property that may be exempted from property of the estate under section 522 of this title.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32). ... The Court finds that Dave Crumpton’s testimony establishes that Debtor was insolvent at the time of the Transfers.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by comparing debts with property at fair valuation; book value does not establish fair value.

Intercontinental Polymers, Inc. v. Equistar Chemicals, LP (In Re Intercontinental Polymers, Inc.) · filed 2005-03-31(32)

Under the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor is insolvent when the sum of its debts exceeds its property, “at a fair valuation.” ... Because book value is not probative of the issue of fair market valuation, the schedules are insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of insolvency.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency for a debtor other than a partnership or municipality by whether its debts exceed its property at a fair valuation.

Matthews Studio Equipment Group v. Matthews Studio Equipment Group · filed 2005-04-26(32)(A)

As noted above, a debtor, such as Matthews, that is neither a partnership nor a municipality is insolvent when “the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation....” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). Here, Chase Manhattan Bank (as agent for a group of banks) asserted a deficiency claim in the underlying bankruptcy proceeding in excess of $70 million. Philips disputes neither the “existence” of this claim nor, apparently, that it would have rendered Matthews insolvent at the time of the transfer had Matthews been solely responsible for paying it.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed the fair value of its property.

In Re Waccamaw's HomePlace · filed 2005-05-31(32)(A)

In relevant part, the Code defines insolvent as a "financial condition such that the sum of such entity's debts is greater than all of such entity's property, at a fair valuation. . . ." 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). ... I conclude that HomePlace was insolvent at the time of the subject transfers.

For a corporate debtor, § 101(32)(A) measures insolvency by whether debts exceed property; operating results alone do not show that balance.

Baker Hughes Oilfield Operations, Inc. v. Cage (In Re Ramba, Inc.) · filed 2005-07-07(32)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code defines insolvency as the financial condition in which “the sum of [an] entity's debts is greater than all of such entity's property”. 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). Two of the documents proffered by Baker Hughes –- the income statement from September 2000 and the “revenues and expenditures summary” from August 2000 –- show only that Ramba had a small net operating loss over the first nine months of 2000. They do not address Ramba’s overall balance of debts and assets, and thus, do not raise genuine questions of fact as to Ramba’s solvency.

Section 101(32)(A) requires a debtor’s prepetition contingent and unliquidated causes of action to be valued as assets when determining insolvency.

U.S. Aeroteam, Inc. v. Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC (In Re U.S. Aeroteam, Inc.) · filed 2005-08-01(32)(A)

Contingent and unliquidated causes of action that the debtor accrued prepetition should be estimated for purposes of determining their value as an asset.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency as a financial condition in which an entity’s debts exceed the fair value of its property.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. DVI Business Credit, Inc. (In Re DVI, Inc.) · filed 2005-06-30(32)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code defines insolvency as a “financial condition such that the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation. ...” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). Under that standard, the Court concludes that ... the Committee has sufficiently pled the insolvency of REC III.

Section 101(32) calls for fair valuation of a going concern’s assets as part of an operating business rather than at liquidation values.

Heilig-Meyers Co. v. Wachovia Bank, N.A. (In Re Heilig-Meyers Co.) · filed 2005-08-15(32)

The Court agrees with the lenders that the Bankruptcy Court’s approach to valuing the debtors assets represents a painstaking model of the balance sheet test under the “fair valuation” standard of 11 U.S.C. § 101(32). The Bankruptcy Court drew on the best elements of each experts’ report and relied on Greenspan’s business enterprise valuation to corroborate its balance sheet test. Moreover, the debtors failed to carry their burden of proving insolvency because Cleveland improperly based his valuation on liquidation values which ran counter to the requirement to treat the debtors as a going concern. The bankruptcy court properly assessed each asset’s value as though is was part of an operating economic unit.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by comparing an entity’s debts with its property at a fair valuation, excluding property that may be exempted from the estate.

Lindquist v. JNG Corp. (In Re Lindell) · filed 2005-09-29(32)(A)

financial condition such that the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property at a fair valuation, exclusive of (i) property transferred, concealed, or removed with intent to hinder, delay or defraud such entity’s creditors; and (ii) property that may be exempted from property of the estate under section 522 of this title. 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). ... The debtors’ schedules combined with Michael Lindell’s testimony indicate that the debtors were insolvent in December 2003 at the time of the transfer of the notes.

Section 101(32) measures insolvency by comparing the fair value of a debtor’s assets with the face value of its liabilities.

Shubert v. Lucent Technologies Inc. (In Re Winstar Communications, Inc.) · filed 2005-12-21(32)

This test of insolvency, the so-called “balance sheet” insolvency, compares the “fair value” of all of the debtor’s assets with the face or “stated” value of its liabilities on the relevant date. ... Based upon the valuation of the assets and liabilities, Winstar was insolvent on December 7, 2000, the date of the Transfer.

For insolvency under § 101(32), assets are generally valued at their going concern or fair market price unless the business is on its deathbed.

Fisher v. Enterprise Truck Line, Inc. (In Re CXM, Inc.) · filed 2006-01-17(32)

“Fair valuation” for purposes of § 101(32) is generally defined as the going concern or fair market price “[u]nless a business is on its deathbed.”

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by comparing debts with the fair market value of assets after subtracting fraudulently conveyed and potentially exempt property.

Ivey v. Graham (In Re Johnson) · filed 2006-01-27(32)

Insolvency is a defined term under Section 101(32), which provides that insolvency exists when the sum of all of the debtor’s debts is greater than the fair market value of the debtor’s assets minus the value of any property fraudulently conveyed by the debtor and minus the fair market value of any property that may be exempted from the property of the estate.

Section 101(32)(A) uses a balance sheet test for insolvency: the debtor’s liabilities must exceed her assets at the time of the transfer.

The Universal Church v. Robert L. Geltzer, as Trustee of the Estate of Darnelle Boisrond · filed 2006-07-26(32)(A)

For this purpose, insolvency is determined by the “balance sheet test,” in other words whether the debtor’s assets were exceeded by her liabilities at the time of the transfer.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by a balance sheet test: an entity is insolvent when its debts exceed its assets.

In Re Art Unlimited, LLC · filed 2006-12-06(32)

Whether an entity is insolvent at the time of a challenged transfer under 11 U.S.C. § 548(b), or becomes insolvent as a result of the transfer, is a balance sheet determination; that is, whether the entity's debts exceed its assets. 11 U.S.C. § 101(32).

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed its assets.

McKloskey v. Galva Foundry Co. · filed 2006-12-06(32)

Whether an entity is insolvent at the time of a challenged transfer under 11 U.S.C. § 548(b), or becomes insolvent as a result of the transfer, is a balance sheet determination; that is, whether the entity’s debts exceed its assets. 11 U.S.C. § 101(32).

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency as a condition in which an entity’s debts exceed the fair value of its property.

EBC I, Inc. v. America Online, Inc. · filed 2006-12-07(32)(A)

The term insolvent is defined in the Bankruptcy Code generally to mean a “financial condition such that the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). ... Consequently, the Court concludes that there is a genuine issue of material fact whether the Debtor was insolvent on November 15, 2000.

Section 101(32)(A) measures insolvency by whether debts exceed the fair value of property, excluding exempt property and property transferred or concealed to defraud creditors.

Grochocinski v. Knippen (In Re Knippen) · filed 2006-12-12(32)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code employs a balance sheet approach to the question of insolvency. ... Hence, the Court concludes that the Debtor was balance-sheet insolvent when the transfer of the Aurora Property was made to Jodi in September 2004, or he was rendered insolvent thereby.

Section 101(32) defines corporate insolvency by comparing debts with the fair value of property; a debtor still operating as a going concern is valued on that basis.

American Classic Voyages Co. v. JP Morgan Chase Bank (In Re American Classic Voyages Co.) · filed 2007-04-27(32)

Pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 101(32), a corporation is “insolvent” when the “the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at fair valuation.... ” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32). In determining a “fair valuation” of the entity’s assets, an initial decision to be made is whether to value the assets on a going concern basis or a liquidation basis. ... The evidence in this case supports the conclusion that the Debtors were operating as a going concern on the Transfer Date. AMCV and DQSC should be valued, for present purposes, on a going concern basis.

Section 101(32)(A) defines corporate insolvency by whether debts exceed property at fair valuation.

Killips v. Schropp (In Re Prime Realty, Inc.) · filed 2007-06-14(32)(A)

The trustee bears the burden of demonstrating insolvency under the statutory standard of “fair valuation.” ... Neither of those exhibits prove that the debtor was insolvent on the date any of the checks were drawn or delivered.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed the fair value of its property.

Statutory Committee of Unsecured Creditors Ex Rel. Iridium Operating LLC v. Motorola, Inc. (In Re Iridium Operating LLC) · filed 2007-08-31(32)(A)

To prove insolvency, the Committee must demonstrate that the sum of Iridium’s debts exceeded the value of all of its assets, at a fair valuation, from August 13, 1995 through August 13, 1999.

Section 101(32)(A)(ii) excludes exempt property from the assets counted when assessing insolvency.

Wolkowitz v. Beverly (In Re Beverly) · filed 2007-07-24(32)(A)(ii)

The Bankruptcy Code reaches the same result by defining "insolvent” to exclude exempt property from the asset side of the balance sheet.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by comparing a debtor’s debts with the fair value of its assets.

Womack v. Horob Livestock Inc. (In Re Horob Livestock Inc.) · filed 2007-12-17(32)

As far as insolvency, it is apparent from the summary of assets and liabilities filed by Todd and Horob Livestock, Inc., that both were insolvent in March of 2006 because the sum of their debts was greater than the fair market value of all their assets. 11 U.S.C. § 101(32).

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by comparing debts with property at a fair valuation; the appropriate valuation may use a going concern premise.

EBC I, Inc. v. America Online, Inc. (In Re EEC I, Inc.) · filed 2008-01-10(32)(A)

The term insolvent is defined in the Bankruptcy Code generally to mean a “financial condition such that the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). ... The Court concludes that it was appropriate to use the going concern premise of value in analyzing eToys’ solvency as of November 15, 2000.

Section 101(32)(A) defines an individual’s insolvency by whether debts exceed property at fair valuation; missed mortgage payments alone do not establish insolvency.

Fulmer v. Norris (In Re Gustafson) · filed 2008-01-30(32)(A)

Norris’s testimony that the debtors ceased making the mortgage payments after 14 months is not evidence under §§ 548(a)(l)(B)(ii)(I) and 101(32)(A) that the Debtors were “insolvent” on the date of transfer. “Insolvency,” with respect to an individual, means “financial condition such that the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than the sum of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation. ...” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A).

Section 101(32)(A) measures insolvency by comparing liabilities with assets at fair valuation.

O'Connell v. Arthur Andersen LLP (In Re AlphaStar Insurance Group Ltd.) · filed 2008-02-19(32)(A)

The entire thrust of the Amended Complaint is that the “fair valuation” of Receivables was substantially less than the book value of $800 million, and AlphaStar’s liabilities actually exceeded its assets (at fair valuation). This meets the Bankruptcy Code definition of “insolvent.”

Section 101(32)(A) defines an entity as insolvent when its debts exceed the fair value of its property.

Joseph v. Frank (In Re Troll Communications, LLC) · filed 2008-04-02(32)(A)

An entity is insolvent when “the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation....” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). ... Although the Quad Defendants take issue with these allegations, the Trustee has adequately pled facts supporting allegations of insolvency and will be permitted to proceed with discovery.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency as debts exceeding the fair value of an entity’s property.

Mendelsohn v. Jacobowitz (In Re Jacobs) · filed 2008-08-26(32)

The Bankruptcy Code defines insolvency as the “financial condition such that the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation,_” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32).

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether liabilities exceed assets; contingent liabilities must be valued according to the probability that they will arise.

Baldi v. Samuel Son & Co., Ltd. · filed 2008-11-24(32)(A)

Insolvency is defined by both statutes as having a balance sheet on which liabilities exceed assets. 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A); 740 ILCS 160/3(a). ... Myhran treated Longview’s contingent liabilities as certainties. That invalidated his expert opinion.

Section 101(32)(A) defines an individual as insolvent when debts exceed the fair market value of the individual's property, subject to the stated exclusions.

Riske v. David Austin Seitz Irrevocable Trust (In Re Seitz) · filed 2008-10-30(32)(A)

An individual is “insolvent” for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code if his “financial condition [is] such that the sum of [his] debts is greater than all of [his] property, at a fair market value, exclusive of — (i) property transferred, concealed, or removed with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud such [individual’s] creditors; and (ii) property that may be exempted from property of the estate ...” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). ... Accordingly, the Court is satisfied that the insolvency prong has been met.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed its assets at a fair valuation; contemporaneous market evidence need not control that valuation.

LaSALLE NAT. BANK ASS'N v. Paloian · filed 2009-03-17(32)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code and the Illinois Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act ("IUFTA") both define "insolvent" as the condition in which the sum of an entity's debts is greater than all the entity's assets at a fair valuation. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(32); 740 ILCS 160/3. Generally, a fair valuation is the price a willing buyer would pay a willing seller, assuming reasonable knowledge of the facts on both sides. ... Nevertheless, a preference for contemporaneous market evidence is by no means a requirement, and even where available, contemporaneous data does not preclude a court from assigning greater weight to expert testimony, particularly where, for example, the methodology employed at the time was itself faulty or biased.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed the value of its property.

Jones v. Burdette · filed 2009-04-03(32)(A)

Because the Princes’ liabilities were greater than the value of the Princes’ home and personal property at the time of the transfer, the bankruptcy court did not clearly err in finding that the Princes were insolvent.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by comparing debts with fairly valued property, excluding property transferred, concealed, or removed with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors.

Birdsell v. Roca (In Re Roca) · filed 2009-04-17(32)

A person is insolvent when the person’s debts are greater than that person’s property “at a fair valuation, exclusive of property transferred, concealed, or removed with intent to hinder, delay or defraud such [person’s] creditors.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32).

Section 101(32)(A) measures insolvency by comparing the fair value of a debtor’s property with its debts; book value alone does not establish fair value.

Faulkner v. Kornman (In Re Heritage Organization, L.L.C.) · filed 2009-05-11(32)(A)

Specifically, there is no evidence that the book value of Heritage’s “Total Assets” as shown on QuickBooks reflects the “fair” value of those assets. And, as noted previously, to determine whether Heritage was solvent, the Bankruptcy Code requires that the “fair” value of Heritage’s property exceed its debts.

Section 101(32)(A)(ii) excludes exempt property when determining whether a debtor is insolvent.

Villarreal v. Showalter (In Re Villarreal) · filed 2009-08-06(32)(A)(ii)

In determining whether the Villarreals were insolvent, the Court excludes consideration of the Villarreal’s exempt property. 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A)(ii).

Section 101(32) defines insolvency as a condition in which an entity’s debts exceed the fair value of its property.

Betty's Homes, Inc. v. Cooper Homes, Inc. · filed 2009-08-27(32)

The fact that a debtor is insolvent means it cannot pay its debts in full: the Bankruptcy Code defines insolvent as a “financial condition such that the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at fair valuation.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32).

Section 101(32)(A) uses a balance sheet test for insolvency, comparing debts with nonexempt property at a fair valuation.

In Re McLaughlin · filed 2009-09-03(32)(A)

However, Charles and Charletta McLaughlin’s claim that they are unable to pay debts on a regular basis is not the test for insolvency in a preference action. ... The proper test to evaluate solvency is the “balance sheet” test.

Section 101(32) defines a corporate debtor as insolvent when its debts exceed the fair value of its property.

West v. Hsu (In Re Advanced Modular Power Systems, Inc.) · filed 2009-09-16(32)

Under the Bankruptcy Code, a corporate debtor is “insolvent” when “the sum of such entity’s debt is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32). ... Accordingly, the Court concludes that the Debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfers of the Debtor’s property effectuated by Hsu.

Section 101(32)(B)(ii) adds the personal assets of general partners when measuring partnership insolvency, but partners in a New York registered limited liability partnership are not general partners for this purpose.

Wallach v. Douglas (In Re Promedicus Health Group, LLP) · filed 2009-10-14(32)(B)(ii)

The Defendants here being of the last type, § 101(32)(B)(ii) cannot avail them, because that calls only for the addition of the personal assets of each “general partner.”

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed its fairly valued property, excluding exempt property and property transferred to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors.

Menotte v. Leonard (In Re Leonard) · filed 2009-10-28(32)(A)

The term “insolvent” means— ... (A) with reference to an entity other than a partnership and a municipality, financial condition such that the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation, exclusive of— ... (i) property transferred, concealed, or removed with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud such entity’s creditors; and ... (ii) property that may be exempted from property of the estate under section 522 of this title. ... The Court concludes, based on the evidence the Trustee points to, that the Debtor’s financial condition did not change during the short period from the date of transfer of the North Carolina Property to the Petition Date, and the Debtor was in fact insolvent on February 19, 2008.

Section 101(32) treats a corporation as insolvent when the fair market value of its assets is less than its liabilities.

In Re Spansion, Inc. · filed 2009-12-18(32)

Under the balance sheet test, a corporation is insolvent if the fair market value of its assets is less than its liabilities.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency as debts exceeding the fair value of the debtor’s property, excluding exempt property and property transferred with actual fraudulent intent.

Martyak v. Tioga County (In Re Martyak) · filed 2010-02-05(32)(A)

A debtor is “insolvent” when the sum of the debtor’s debts is greater than the sum of the debtor’s property at a fair valuation, exclusive of property transferred with actual fraudulent intent and property that may be exempted from the estate.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by comparing an individual debtor’s debts with the value of the debtor’s property.

Hagan v. Goldstein (In Re Goldstein) · filed 2010-05-14(32)(A)

Based upon the Debtor’s schedules and his testimony that his financial situation as reflected in the schedules was substantially comparable to his financial situation at the time of the Transfers, it is not disputed that Mr. Gold-stein was insolvent on the date of the Transfers. Indeed, the schedules reflect debts in an amount exceeding $8.1 million and property valued at less than $2.5 million. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A).

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency as an entity having debts greater than its property.

Bruno MacHinery Corp. v. Troy Die Cutting Co. (In Re Bruno MacHinery Corp.) · filed 2010-06-09(32)(A)

The Code defines insolvency as the financial condition in which “the sum of [an] entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). ... After review of the testimony, balance sheets, and other financial documents, the court finds that in the years leading to the Petition Date, BMC’s liabilities exceeded its assets by substantial amounts.

Section 101(32)(A) measures insolvency by comparing a debtor’s assets with its liabilities.

Christian Bros. High School Endowment v. Bayou No Leverage Fund, LLC (In Re Bayou Group, LLC) · filed 2010-09-17(32)(A)

Insolvency is generally analyzed using the “ ‘balance sheet test,’ [which focuses on] whether the debtor’s assets were exceeded by [its] liabilities at the time of the transfer.”

Section 101(32)(A) uses a balance sheet test for insolvency; a debtor’s inability to pay debts as they become due does not alone establish insolvency.

Premier Entertainment Biloxi LLC v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n (In Re Premier Entertainment Biloxi LLC) · filed 2010-09-03(32)(A)

The Claimants, on the other hand, propose an adjusted balance sheet test based on the definition of “insolvent” set out in § 101(32). The distinction is important. A debtor may not be paying his debts as they become due, yet may be solvent under a balance sheet analysis because it has the ability to pay its debts by, for example, liquidating assets. Conversely, a debtor may be insolvent under a balance sheet analysis but may be paying its debts as they become due.

A debtor is insolvent when its debts exceed the fair value of its property.

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Dow Chemical Co. (In Re Erie County Plastics Corp.) · filed 2010-11-03(32)(A)

A debtor is insolvent when “the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation.”