11 U.S.C. § 101

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency as debts exceeding property at a fair valuation, excluding specified transferred and exempt property.

Luker v. Eubanks (In Re Eubanks) · filed 2010-12-29(32)(A)

[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 the intent to hinder, delay, or defraud such entity’s creditors[,] and (ii) property that may be exempted from the property of the estate under section 522 of this title. ... In this case, the Court finds that the Debtors were insolvent at the time of the transfer.

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

Barstow v. Ingaldson Maasen & Fitzgerald, P.C. (In re Avery) · filed 2011-03-31(32)

It fails to apply the balance sheet test for determining insolvency found in 11 U.S.C. § 101(32). I find that Security Aviation was insolvent in 2006 when the transfers were made from IMF’s trust account to pay for its legal fees.

Section 101(32)(A) requires fair valuation of a corporate debtor’s assets and liabilities when determining insolvency; book values alone do not establish solvency.

Ames Merchandising Corp. v. Cellmark Paper Inc. (In Re Ames Department Stores, Inc.) · filed 2011-03-28(32)(A)

As the statutory definition of insolvency makes clear, establishing solvency requires evidence of the value of Ames’ assets and liabilities (and especially the former) at a fair market value.

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

Rigby v. Mastro (In re Mastro) · filed 2011-11-15(32)

Pursuant to the Code, “insolvent” means 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). ... Prior to August 21, 2008, and continuing through August 21, 2009, the date of the court order granting the Chapter 7 petition, Mastro was insolvent.

Section 101(32)(A) measures insolvency by whether debts exceed property at a fair valuation; a going concern’s assets are valued at fair market value rather than forced-sale value.

In re BWP Transport, Inc. · filed 2011-12-23(32)(A)

Because the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of “insolvent” requires using the value of a debtor’s assets “at a fair valuation,” and because BWP clearly is a “going concern” rather than a business “on [its] deathbed,” the Court concludes that it should use the value of BWP’s assets at “Fair Market Value,” rather than under a forced-sale basis.

Section 101(32)(A) uses a balance sheet test for insolvency: the debtor’s liabilities must exceed its assets.

Wagner v. Cunningham (In re Vaughan Co., Realtors) · filed 2012-10-11(32)(A)

Insolvency requires a showing that the debtor is “balance sheet insolvent,” meaning that the debtor’s liabilities exceed the debtor’s assets.

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

Voiland v. Kimmell (In re Kimmell) · filed 2012-10-12(32)(A)(ii)

However, unlike a normal balance sheet, both the Bankruptcy Code and the Illinois Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act exclude from the calculation any asset to the extent it may be claimed as exempt under state or federal law. 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A)(ii) (excluding assets “that may be exempted from property of the estate under section 522”); 740 ILCS 160/2(b)(2) (excluding any asset “to the extent it is generally exempt under laws of this State”).

Section 101(32) measures insolvency using the fair market value of a debtor’s assets; book value alone ordinarily does not establish solvency.

Cellmark Paper Inc. v. Ames Merchandising Corp. (In Re Ames Department Stores, Inc.) · filed 2012-12-26(32)

As the bankruptcy court noted, evidence of the book value of Ames’s assets, without more, is ordinarily insufficient to establish solvency under the Code, which is a concept based on the fair market value of the debtor’s assets. See Roblin, 78 F.3d at 35–36 (citing 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)).

Section 101(32) requires a fair valuation of property and debts to determine insolvency.

Samson v. Western Capital Partners LLC (In re Blixseth) · filed 2013-03-18(32)

For purposes of the Balance Sheet Test, and under the plain language of §§ 548(a)(l)(B)(ii)(I) and 101(32), this Court must assign a value to Debtor’s assets and liabilities and then determine whether the value of Debtor’s assets exceeded her liabilities.

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

Callaway v. Cimarron Homeowners Ass'n (In re Roszkowski) · filed 2013-07-09(32)(A)

The court finds that the complaint contains sufficient allegations, including the inference to be drawn from the presumption of insolvency, that the debtor’s total liabilities exceeded her total nonexempt assets on the date of the condominium was transferred to the defendant.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by comparing debts with assets.

In re Petters Company, Inc. · filed 2013-07-12(32)(A)

Under statute, “insolvent” is a defined term in both MUFTA and the Bankruptcy Code. It contemplates a straightforward meaning: the “balance sheet” conception of insolvency, debts versus assets. Minn.Stat. § 513.42(a)-(b); ... 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A).

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

Smith v. SIPI, LLC (In re Smith) · filed 2013-07-30(32)

Under the Code, if the debtor’s debts outweigh the debtor’s assets when fairly valued, the debtor is considered insolvent. 11 U.S.C. § 101(32). ... Thus, the court finds that at the Debtors were rendered insolvent by the transfer.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by comparing debts with property at a fair valuation; an apparent deficit based on unreliable records may be insufficient to prove insolvency.

Ogle v. JT Miller, Inc. (In re HDD Rotary Sales, LLC) · filed 2013-10-15(32)

The Bankruptcy 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(32). ... Table 2 shows that HDD’s liabilities exceeded its assets by $19,238.35 on June 30, 2009. However, because this estimate is based on inherently unreliable and incomplete information, Mr. Ogle could not prove that HDD was insolvent on June 30, 2009.

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

Wagner v. Oliva (In re Vaughan Co. Realtors) · filed 2013-10-23(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.” ... Thus, in any given year between 2005 and 2009, VCR’s liabilities exceeded the value of its assets by at least $25 million.

Section 101(32)(A) measures insolvency by comparing an entity’s debts with the fair value of its property at the relevant time.

Paloian v. LaSalle Bank National Ass'n (In re Doctors Hospital of Hyde Park, Inc.) · filed 2013-10-04(32)(A)

Whether a debtor is insolvent under the balance sheet test is determined by analyzing what a willing buyer would have given for the debtor’s entire package of assets and liabilities at the relevant time.

Section 101(32) measures corporate insolvency by comparing debts with property at fair valuation; GAAP does not control that valuation.

Dye v. Communications Ventures III, LP (In re Flashcom, Inc.) · filed 2013-12-04(32)

For preference purposes, GAAP is not controlling in determining the fair market value of assets or the insolvency of the debtor, and the court must make its own determination of the fair market value of assets for purposes after considering all the evidence presented.

Section 101(32) defines an individual as insolvent when debts exceed the fair value of property, excluding exempt and fraudulently transferred property.

Henderson v. Legal Helpers Debt Resolution, L.L.C. (In re Huffman) · filed 2014-02-06(32)

Under the Code, an individual is “insolvent” when “the sum of such [person’s] debts is greater than all of such [person’s] property, at a fair valuation,” exclusive of property fraudulently transferred or property claimed as exempt under state or federal law. ... Therefore, Huffman’s debts of $39,265.00 clearly exceeded her assets. The Court thus concludes that she was insolvent at the time of the transfers.

Section 101(32)(A) excludes exempt property from a debtor’s assets when calculating insolvency.

Ahlgren v. Dailey (In re Schnoor) · filed 2014-05-16(32)(A)

However, the debtor claimed his remainder interest in his mother’s property, valued at $104,481, as exempt. Therefore, according to § 101(32)(A), the debtor’s remainder interest is excluded from the insolvency calculation.

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

Angell v. Montague Farms, Inc. (In re Tanglewood Farms, Inc.) · filed 2014-08-04(32)(A)

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)(A). ... The Court is unable to ascertain an accurate picture of the Debtor’s assets and liabilities as of the dates in questions upon a review of the Trustee’s affidavits and documents.

Section 101(32)(A) measures insolvency by comparing debts with property; an unstayed judgment counts as a noncontingent debt at its full amount even if the debtor appeals it.

In re: Imagine Fulfillment Services, LLC · filed 2014-08-06(32)(A)

Based on the foregoing statutory provisions, to the extent GAAP financial reporting omits any type of collectible debt from a debtor’s balance sheet – whether contingent or noncontingent – the resulting financial statement is not dispositive as to the debtor’s solvency or insolvency.

Section 101(32)(A) measures insolvency by comparing debts with property at fair valuation; property the debtor cannot control or liquidate may be excluded from that calculation.

Samson v. Western Capital Partners LLC (In re Blixseth) · filed 2014-08-12(32)(A)

Thus, when conducting the Balance Sheet Test, a court must assign a value to a debtor’s assets and liabilities and then determine whether the value of the assets exceeds the value of the debtor’s liabilities. ... Applying this framework, Karas properly excluded the community property in his analysis because Edra did not control it.

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

Investors Group, LLC v. Pottorff · filed 2014-09-30(32)(A)

The bankruptcy court properly determined Appellant’s solvency based on the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of solvency. Although the court acknowledges that there are multiple ways to determine solvency, Appellant does not state why it is error for the bankruptcy court to calculate solvency according to the Bankruptcy Code’s definition of solvency or why the court must consider other statutory definitions for insolvency.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency through a balance sheet comparison of debts with the fair value of property.

O'Cheskey v. Herring National Bank (In re American Housing Foundation) · filed 2014-09-30(32)(A)

The Code adopts a traditional balance sheet test that looks at the sum of the debtor’s debts relative to the value of all of the debtor’s property, at a fair valuation. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A).

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

Canandaigua Land Development, LLC v. County of Ontario (In re Canandaigua Land Development, LLC) · filed 2014-11-05(32)(A)

In this case, the insolvency analysis turns on whether the sum of Canandaigua’s debts is greater than the sum of its property at fair valuation.

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

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Cox & Schepp, Inc. v. Palmer Electric Co. (In re Cox & Schepp, Inc.) · filed 2014-12-08(32)(A)

The 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)(A). ... The Committee presented evidence that Cox & Schepp had debt exceeding $9,000,000 and assets of just under $8,000,000.

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

Paris v. Walker (In re Walker) · filed 2015-05-08(32)(A)

When the asset value is compared to liabilities without FirstBank of $7,098,840.47, Mrs. Walker’s joint and individual liabilities are approximately $1,500,000 more than the assets. ... After viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the Defendant, the court does not find that there is any genuine dispute of material fact regarding Mrs. Rhonda Walker’s insolvency.

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

Sikirica v. Midtown Niki Group (In re Dressel Associates, Inc.) · filed 2015-08-19(32)(A)

Insolvency is defined 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). ... The undisputed evidence adduced by the Trustee at trial is insufficient, as matter of law, to demonstrate Debtor’s insolvency at the time the allegedly constructively fraudulent transfer was made on July 16, 2010.

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

Everett v. Darrow Family Partners (In re Pacific Thomas Corp.) · filed 2015-12-08(32)

This correlates with the definition of' “insolvent” in §' 101(32) that a corporation is insolvent if the sum of the entity’s debts is greater than all of the entity’s property at a fair valuation. ... Thus, under the balance sheet test, PTC was insolvent in 2010.

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

Everett v. Thomas Capital Investments (In re Pacific Thomas Corp.) · filed 2015-12-08(32)(B)

This correlates with the definition of “insolvent” in § 101(32) that a corporation is insolvent if the sum of the entity’s debts is. greater than all of the entity’s property at a fair valuation. ... Thus, under the balance sheet test, PTC was insolvent in 2010.

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

Crampton v. Immediato (In re Persinger) · filed 2016-02-12(32)(A)

The Code defines “insolvent” as 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, exclusive of ... property that may be exempted from property of the estate ...” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). ... Because the Petition was filed just three months after the Transfer, the court finds this sufficient evidence that the Debtor was insolvent on the date of the Transfer or became insolvent as a result of the Transfer.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed its property, a determination that requires evidence of its assets.

Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Global Arena Capital Corp. · filed 2016-02-11(32)(A)

Because there is no evidence before the Court regarding Global Arena’s current assets, if any, there is no basis to conclude that its financial situation meets the definition of insolvency in 11 U.S.C.§ 101(32)(A).

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed the fair value of its property, subject to exclusions for certain transferred property and exempt property.

Wilkins v. AmeriCorp Inc. (In re Allegro Law LLC) · filed 2016-02-16(32)(A)

The term “insolvent” means “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). With each transfer of money made to Am-ericorp and Seton instead of to the creditors of the customers of Allegro Law— $95,140,576.67 of which remains unaccounted for and $15,372,894.58 of which was paid to Defendants in fees—Allegro sank deeper into insolvency.

Section 101(32) uses a fair-value balance sheet test for insolvency, so balance sheet figures may need valuation adjustments.

Sklar v. Susquehanna Bank (In re Global Protection USA, Inc.) · filed 2016-02-26(32)

While a balance sheet test is indeed what section 101(32)’s definition of insolvent calls for, In re Showtime Enterprises, Inc., 05-11089 JHW, 2007 WL 4264516, at *2; 5-547 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 547.03 (Matthew Bender 16th ed.) (“A rough ‘balance sheet’ test determines insolvency[.]”), that is an oversimplification, as bal- *611 anee sheet numbers do not necessarily reflect the fair value of assets. TWA v. Travellers Int’l AG. (In re Trans World Airlines, Inc.), 180 B.R. 389, 405 (Bankr.D.Del.1994), aff 'd in part, rev’d in part on other grnds, 203 B.R. 890 (D.Del.1996), rev’d, 134 F.3d 188 (3d Cir.1998). Rather, it is a starting point from which the parties can then make adjustments based on the testimony of their expert appraisers and accountants.

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

Chatz v. Stepaniants (In re Fatoorehci) · filed 2016-03-09(32)(A)

According to the Bankruptcy Code, an entity (other than a partnership and a municipality) is insolvent when “the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). ... But no evidence was submitted to support a finding that the sum of all of these debts was greater than the value of all of Fatoorehchi’s property at the time of the transfers, or that any of the transfers rendered Fatoorehchi insolvent.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether debts exceed fairly valued property, excluding certain transferred property and property that may be exempted from the estate.

Agin v. Resendes (In re Borba) · filed 2016-04-07(32)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code defines “insolvent” as the “financial condition such that the sum of [an] 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....” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A)).

Section 101(32) measures insolvency by comparing a debtor’s debts with the fair value of its property; balance-sheet book value does not ordinarily establish that value.

In re SunEdison, Inc. · filed 2016-08-12(32)

Third, the test for insolvency turns on a comparison between the debt- or’s debts and the “fair valuation” of its property. 11 U.S.C. § 101(32). ... Balance sheets, on the other hand, reflect book value, which does not ordinarily equate to market value.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency, as relevant here, as debts exceeding the fair value of all property.

Pantazelos v. Benjamin (In re Pantazelos) · filed 2016-12-27(32)

As relevant in this case, insolvency means 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(32).

Section 101(32)(A) defines an individual as insolvent when debts exceed the fair value of property, excluding certain property transferred to hinder creditors and property that may be exempted.

Roach v. Skidmore College (In re Dunston) · filed 2017-02-07(32)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code defines "insolvent” as a "financial condition such that the sum of [an individual’s] debts is greater than all of such [individual’s] property, at a fair valuation, 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 under section 522 of ' this title.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). ... The Court finds that the Debtor’s bankruptcy schedules, which indicate that her liabilities exceeded her assets, provide sufficient evidence to create a genuine dispute regarding the Debtor’s insolvency at the time of the September 2, 2014 Transfer.

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

Redmond v. NCMIC Finance Corp. (In re Brooke Corp.) · filed 2017-05-15(32)

Insolvency under both the Code and the KUF-TA is therefore determined using what is commonly called a “balance sheet test.”

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by comparing debts with property at a fair valuation; the appropriate valuation method depends on the circumstances of the case.

Newman v. Associated Bank, National Ass'n (In re World Marketing Chicago, LLC) · filed 2017-07-31(32)(A)

It remains for the court to determine which valuation method is appropriate under the circumstances of each case, and this determination is, as discussed below, a question for trial.

Section 101(32)(A) uses a balance sheet test for insolvency: debts exceed assets, excluding assets transferred, concealed or removed with intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors.

Brookview Apartments, L.L.C. v. Bronson Family Trust (In re Know Weigh, L.L.C.) · filed 2017-08-31(32)(A)

The Court concludes that they have. A debtor may be considered “insolvent” when its debts exceed its assets (excluding assets that have been transferred, concealed or removed with intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors). This is known as the “balance sheet” test.

Section 101(32)(A) defines a debtor as insolvent when its liabilities exceed its assets at fair valuation.

Burtch v. Opus LLC · filed 2017-09-28(32)(A)

Under the balance sheet test, a debtor is insolvent if the sum of its liabilities is greater than the sum of its assets, at fair valuation.

Section 101(32) uses a balance-sheet test for insolvency that compares the fair value of a debtor's assets with the fair value of its liabilities.

Weisfelner v. Blavatnik (In re Lyondell Chem. Co.) · filed 2018-01-24(32)

To determine whether a company is insolvent for the purposes of an avoidable preference claim, courts apply the "balance-sheet insolvency" test. ... Under the "balance-sheet insolvency" test, a court considers whether the fair value of the debtor's assets is greater than the fair value of the debtor's liabilities.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed its property at a fair valuation, excluding specified transferred property and exempt property.

In re: Isabel Tenorio · filed 2018-02-08(32)(A)

The undisputed facts show that the transfer of the Property made the Debtor insolvent. Under the “balance sheet” test, her debts outweighed her assets. 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 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[.]” § 101(32)(A).

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by comparing a debtor’s debts with its property.

GGI Props., LLC v. City of Millville (In re GGI Props., LLC) · filed 2018-06-06(32)

Moreover, GGI's schedules reflect that at the time of the transfer, its debts were greater than all of its property. Again, the City did not present any evidence to rebut this. Finally, if not already insolvent, certainly the transfer of arguably its only asset left GGI insolvent. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(32).

Section 101(32) supplies the insolvency definition used to determine whether a debtor was insolvent on the dates of challenged transfers.

Limor v. Anderson (In re Scarbrough) · filed 2018-06-28(32)

The pertinent part of the definition of "insolvent" is found under 11 U.S.C. § 101(32) : ... Accordingly, the Court finds that the Debtor was insolvent on the dates of the Transfers or became insolvent as a result of the Transfers.

Section 101(32)(A) uses a fair value balance sheet test to determine an individual's insolvency.

Weinman v. Crowley (In re Blair) · filed 2018-08-02(32)(A)

Thus, under both Colorado law and the Bankruptcy Code, the fair value balance sheet method is essentially mandated for individuals.

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

Slobodian v. Whiteley (In re Mechanicsburg Fitness, Inc.) · filed 2019-01-07(32)(A)

Determining whether a Debtor was insolvent for purposes of section 548(a)(1)(B)(ii)(I) requires an analysis of the Debtor's liabilities as compared to the fair value of the Debtor's assets at or around the time of the Transfer. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A) (defining "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"). ... Viewing these factual averments in the light most favorable to the Trustee, this court finds that the language of paragraph 30 is sufficient to allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the Debtor's liabilities were greater than the value of the Debtor's assets at or around the time of the Transfer.

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

Moriarty v. McCormick (In re Postrock Energy Corp.) · filed 2019-01-08(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 fair valuation." ... Trustee has plausibly stated that PostRock was insolvent at the relevant times.

Section 101(32)(A)(ii) excludes exempt property from the insolvency calculation.

Shubert v. Foulkrod (In re Bentivegna) · filed 2019-02-13(32)(A)(ii)

With regard to the Defendant's claim that the Norristown property is worth more than twice the value stated on the schedules (Resp. 6), the Debtor's claim of exemption of the entire amount of that property excludes it from the insolvency calculation (see 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A)(ii) ).

Section 101(32)(A)’s balance sheet definition requires proof of the debtor’s assets and liabilities at the time of a challenged transfer.

In re Scarbrough · filed 2019-03-28(32)(A)

Using the definition of insolvency under 11 U.S.C. § 101(32), also known as the “balance sheet” approach as stated by the bankruptcy court, the Trustee would have to show the value of all the Debtor’s assets and the extent of her liabilities at the time of the Brentmeade Transfer.

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

45 John Lofts, LLC v. Meridian Capital Grp. LLC (In re 45 John Lofts, LLC) · filed 2019-04-24(32)(A)

Under either description, this test is a mathematical calculation of assets minus liabilities; where the result of that calculation is negative, a debtor is insolvent.

Section 101(32)(A) defines an individual as insolvent when the individual's debts exceed the individual's assets.

Rodriguez v. Cyr (In re Cyr) · filed 2019-04-01(32)(A)

Section 101(32)(A) describes an individual as insolvent when the sum of the individual's debts is greater than the individual's assets.

Section 101(32)(A)'s balance sheet definition of insolvency governs preferential transfer claims.

Cruickshank v. George R. Roberts Co. (In re Bos. Grand Prix, LLC) · filed 2019-05-10(32)(A)

Moreover, for purposes of avoiding preferential transfers, "the only measure of insolvency is balance sheet insolvency.

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

Fox v. Hathaway (In Re Chi. Mgmt. Consulting Grp., Inc.) · filed 2019-07-10(32)(A)

Under federal and state fraudulent-transfer law, a debtor is insolvent if it has “a balance sheet on which liabilities exceed assets.”

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

Fox v. Hathaway · filed 2019-07-10(32)(A)

Under federal and state fraudulent-transfer law, a debtor is insolvent if it has “a balance sheet on which liabilities exceed assets.”

Section 101(32)(A) defines an individual debtor’s insolvency by comparing debts with property at a fair valuation; difficulty paying ongoing expenses does not establish insolvency.

Johnson v. 408 Richwood, LLC · filed 2019-09-20(32)(A)

The determination of whether a debtor is “insolvent” is an assets-and-liabilities test and the term “insolvent” does not mean insufficient cash flow to meet the debtor’s ongoing debts.

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

Pierluigi Mancini - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2019-09-26(32)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code provides that 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). ... Given those circumstances, the Trustee has plausibly alleged that Debtor was insolvent on the date of the Transfers.

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

Coan v. Pearsall · filed 2019-11-13(32)(A)

Section 101 of 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. ... The Court therefore concludes that the Debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfers to the Defendant.

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

Coan v. Madstar Mobile, LLC · filed 2019-11-13(32)

Section 101 of 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. ... The Court therefore concludes that the Debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfers to the Defendant.

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

Coan v. Orlando Predators Sports Group, LLC · filed 2019-11-13(32)

Section 101 of 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). Insolvency is determined by a “balance sheet test”; in other words, whether a debtor’s assets were exceeded by her liabilities at the time of the transfer. ... The Court therefore concludes that the Debtor was insolvent at the time of the transfers to the Defendant.

Section 101(32)(A) defines corporate insolvency by whether debts exceed the fair value of the corporation’s property, subject to specified exclusions.

Irving H. Picard trustee for the liquidation of Be v. Nelson · filed 2019-11-21(32)(A)

Under the Bankruptcy Code, “insolvency” means balance sheet insolvency.

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

Securities Investor Protection Corporation v. Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC. et a · filed 2019-11-21(32)(A)

Under the Bankruptcy Code, “insolvency” means balance sheet insolvency.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed the fair value of its property; applying that standard requires evidence of its assets and liabilities.

Kapitus Servicing, Inc. v. Polk · filed 2019-12-19(32)

Under the Bankruptcy Code, the term “insolvent” means “...financial conditions 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). ... Without evidence of all of AgForest’s assets and all of its liabilities as they existed on the date each contract was signed, it is impossible to determine whether or not AgForest was “balance sheet” insolvent on the day each solvency representation was made.

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

Donghee Choi - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2019-12-20(32)(A)

Without any evidence of Northfield’s going concern value or the value of its other assets, the proof is lacking that Northfield’s debts were greater than all of its assets at the time the funding was made or when Debtor diverted the funds for his personal use. See In re Bruno Mach. Corp., 435 B.R. 819, 837-38 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A)).

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed the fair value of its property, excluding fraudulently transferred and exempt property.

Sama v. Mullaney · filed 2020-01-17(32)(A)

Insolvency means 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” property that has been fraudulently transferred with intent to hinder, delay or defraud creditors and exempt property. ... Clearly, the Debtor’s liabilities exceeded the assets it could use to pay those liabilities as of the Petition Date, and the facts imply that this situation existed during the year preceding the Petition Date.

Section 101(32)(A)(ii) excludes exempt property from a debtor’s assets when calculating insolvency.

Hampton v. Ontario County of New York · filed 2020-02-19(32)(A)(ii)

The County incorrectly includes the full balance of the Hamptons’ checking account in its asset analysis, contrary to the formula set out in 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). The checking account was, in fact, partially exempted under 11 U.S.C. § 522.

Section 101(32)(A) excludes fully exempt assets when calculating a debtor’s assets for insolvency purposes.

Gliee V. Gunsalus and Brian L. Gunsalus, Sr. - Adversary Proceeding · filed 2020-02-19(32)(A)

The County incorrectly includes, in its tally of assets, those assets that were fully exempt, contrary to the formula set out in 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A).

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

Maples v. Klein · filed 2020-03-27(32)(A)

Chapter 11 defines insolvency as “the sum of [an] entity’s debts [being] greater than all of such entity’s property, at fair valuation.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A).

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by whether a person's debts exceed their property; filing for bankruptcy alone does not establish insolvency.

Kevin R. Idell and Kostadea Baldounis · filed 2020-06-23(32)

Under the Bankruptcy Code a person is insolvent when “the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property.”27 ... There is thus no statutory or other basis for presuming the Debtors are insolvent simply because they filed for bankruptcy.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by whether a debtor’s liabilities exceed its assets at a fair valuation.

Lowe v. American Student Financial Group, Inc. · filed 2020-06-23(32)

“Under both Texas law and the Bankruptcy Code, a debtor is insolvent if the sum of its liabilities is greater than the sum of its assets at a fair valuation.” ... After adjusting assets to exclude worthless receivables and inter-company transfers, Debtor’s liabilities exceeded its assets every year from 2012 through 2016, usually by millions of dollars. Debtor was insolvent when the TLPA was signed and when each repurchase transfer was made; accordingly, the Trustee has satisfied this element as to all claims that require a showing that Debtor was insolvent at the time the transfer was made.

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

Itria Ventures LLC v. O'Keefe · filed 2020-09-11(32)(A)

Though the state definition of insolvency controls for the purpose of Section 523(a)(4), there is similarly insufficient evidence to establish insolvency under the federal definition, which requires that an entity’s liabilities exceed its assets.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed its property, excluding fraudulently transferred or exempt property.

Lentz v. National Debt Relief, LLC · filed 2020-09-24(32)

And third, Walls’s bankruptcy schedules show that on the date of filing, her debts exceeded her assets, satisfying the requirement that Walls was either insolvent on the dates the transfers were made or became insolvent as a result of the transfers. See No. 19-51191-KMS, ECF No. 3 at 1 (Official Form 106SUM summarizing assets and liabilities); 11 U.S.C. § 101(32) (defining “insolvent” to mean an entity’s financial condition in which the sum of debts is greater than all the entity’s property, exclusive of property fraudulently transferred or claimed as exempt under state or federal law); 11 U.S.C. § 101(15) (defining “entity” to include “person”).

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

George v. Anderson · filed 2020-07-31(32)(A)(ii)

Notably, under section 101(32)(A)(ii), exemptible assets are not part of this calculation.

Section 101(32) measures insolvency by the fair value of a debtor’s assets and liabilities, rather than by whether the debtor pays its obligations as they come due.

Englander v. Blunt, Sr. · filed 2020-09-30(32)

The test for solvency under §101(32) is based on a fair valuation of a debtor’s assets and liabilities, rather than whether a debtor is paying its obligations as they come due.

Section 101(32)(A)(ii) excludes exempt property from a debtor’s assets when calculating insolvency.

DuVall v. County of Ontario, New York · filed 2020-09-29(32)(A)(ii)

As a consequence, the value of that annuity will be excluded from the insolvency calculation under § 101(32).

Section 101(32) excludes exempt property from a debtor’s assets when determining insolvency.

Kopec v. Tower DBW REO VI, LLC · filed 2020-11-30(32)

It does not acknowledge that the statutory definition of insolvency provides an exclusion for exempt property. Kopec has exempted all her personal property in this case, leaving a value of zero for assets to be used in the formula for determining insolvency pursuant to the U.S. Bankruptcy Code definition at § 101(32).

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

Redeye II LLC v. MorrisAnderson & Associates Limited · filed 2020-12-02(32)(A)

A company is considered insolvent if, “the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at a fair valuation, exclusive of [exempted property].” Id. § 101(32)(A). ... After considering the parties’ submissions and a de novo review of the legal conclusions of the Bankruptcy Court, the Court finds that the Trustee affirmatively proved that Swift was insolvent on a going concern basis at the time of the Transfers.

In applying § 101(32)(A), the court required evidence of the debtor’s assets and liabilities at the transfer date; conflicting affidavits were insufficient for summary judgment.

Allred v. Nelson · filed 2020-12-08(32)(A)

Because the record consists only of Debtor's incongruent affidavits and is otherwise devoid of relevant facts establishing Debtor's assets and liabilities on the date she paid the legal fees to Attorney Nelson, this element of § 548(a)(1)(B) will need to be tried.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by comparing an entity’s debts with the fair value of its property, subject to specified exclusions.

Gold v. Shelton · filed 2021-02-23(32)

Based on the schedules filed in Ms. Thompson’s bankruptcy–that Attorney Warr presumably helped prepare–and the proof of claims that were filed, Ms. Thompson was insolvent on the petition date.

For an individual debtor, insolvency means liabilities exceed the fair value of the debtor’s assets.

Kelley v. Midsouth Community Federal Credit Union · filed 2021-03-01(32)(A)

As to individual debtors, “insolvency”, for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code, means the debtor’s liabilities exceed the fair value of the debtor’s assets.

Section 101(32)(A) measures insolvency by comparing debts with the fair value of property, excluding property that may be exempted from the estate.

Heidt v. BVOO1 Reo Blocker LLC · filed 2021-03-09(32)(A)

Upon the transfer of the subject Property, Debtor alleges his assets (less exemptions) were less than the amount of his debts. Therefore, the insolvency requirement under § 548 is satisfied so long as there is one facially valid claim of a debt.

Section 101(32)(A)(ii) excludes property that may be exempted under § 522 from an individual debtor’s assets when measuring insolvency.

DuVall v. County of Ontario, New York · filed 2021-02-18(32)(A)(ii)

The analysis under this “balance sheet test” excludes “property that may be exempted from property of the estate under section 522.” ... For purposes of the balance sheet test, Ms. DuVall has demonstrated that the full amount of her M&T checking account “may be exempted.”

Section 101(32) defines insolvency for purposes of determining whether a transfer was constructively fraudulent.

Crampton, Trustee v. Scott · filed 2021-08-27(32)

The Debtor’s Schedules evidence that she was insolvent at the time of the Petition within the meaning of § 101(32), and given the short amount of time between the Transfer and the Petition, the court can only conclude that she was insolvent at the time of the Transfer or became insolvent as a result of the Transfer.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed its property at fair valuation; valuing a going concern can include goodwill and other intangible assets.

Yaquinto v. Thompson Street Capital Partners III, L.P. · filed 2021-09-27(32)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code defines insolvent, with regard to an entity other than a partnership or a municipality, 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). ... The Court concludes that the Trustee has not shown that SPI was insolvent on the date of the Thompson Street Cash Transfer or that it became insolvent as a result of that transfer.

Section 101(32) measures insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed its property at fair valuation; late payments do not directly establish insolvency under that definition.

Palmer v. Menser · filed 2021-09-30(32)

While this allegation does not directly implicate Menser’s “insolvency,” as defined in § 101(32), it does support a conclusion that Debtor was not satisfying his obligations as they came due at some point in 2016.

Section 101(32)(A)(ii) excludes exempt property when calculating an individual debtor’s insolvency.

Duvall v. County of Ontario, New York · filed 2021-11-09(32)(A)(ii)

Exempt property is excluded from an insolvency analysis pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §101(32)(A)(ii), and as discussed above, the County’s failure to object to the exemption of the Property meant that the property “[wa]s exempt” by operation of Section 522(l).

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

Western Robidoux, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Animal Health USA Inc. · filed 2022-01-27(32)

For purposes of both § 548 and the MUFTA, a debtor is insolvent if the sum of the debtor’s debts exceeds the fair value of its assets.

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

All Texas Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. NSPS Metals LLC · filed 2022-01-18(32)(A)

A corporate debtor is insolvent when the “sum of its debts is greater than all of its property, at a fair valuation . . . .”

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

LATAM Airlines Group S.A., et al. · filed 2022-07-07(32)

As discussed below, the Court finds that TLA is insolvent because: (a) the TLA Claimholders have failed to satisfy their burden to demonstrate that the sum of TLA’s property at a fair valuation exceeds the sum of its liabilities, see 11 U.S.C. § 101(32), and (b) in any event, the Debtors have set forth affirmative evidence demonstrating that TLA is insolvent under section 101(32) of the Bankruptcy Code.

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

Louis E. Robichaux, IV, as Liquidation Trustee of v. The Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital Operating Corp · filed 2022-08-05(32)(A)

Under 11 U.S.C. § 101, 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). ... The Court finds the Plaintiff has failed to adequately plead that Randolph Health was insolvent before the 90-day presumptive period.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency for an entity that is neither a partnership nor a municipality by whether its debts exceed the fair value of its property.

Pacific Links US Holdings, Inc. v. Tianjin Dinghui Hongjun Equity Investment Partners · filed 2022-08-08(32)

An entity that is not a partnership or municipality is “insolvent” if the sum of its debts is greater than all of its property, at a fair valuation.

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

Mangan, Chapter 7 Trustee v. 376 NM South, LLC · filed 2022-08-12(32)

Under the Bankruptcy Code, “insolvency” is defined as the “financial condition such that the sum of [an] entity’s debts is greater than all of [the] entity’s property, at fair valuation. . . .” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32). ... When construing these facts and drawing all reasonable inferences therefrom in the favor of the Trustee, the Court concludes that the Defendants, through these conflicting contentions, have established, in contravention of their burden as the movant on summary judgment, that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to the Debtor’s solvency at the time of the Transfer.

Section 101(32)(A) uses a fair-valuation balance sheet test for insolvency; the test is not a simple comparison of recorded assets and liabilities.

Good Gateway, LLC v. NRCT, LLC · filed 2022-08-23(32)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code defines “insolvent” in section 101(32)(A) to mean “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, commonly referred to as the balance sheet test, does not involve a simple comparison of balance sheet assets and liabilities.

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

RPA Asset Management Services, LLC v. Siffin · filed 2022-08-24(32)(A)

“Insolvent” is defined in the Bankruptcy Code on a balance sheet basis – when “the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property, at fair valuation.”

An entity is insolvent when its debts exceed the fair value of its property; for a going concern, the fair market value of its assets may be assessed through a prudent sale within a reasonable time.

In Re: LATAM Airlines Group S.A. · filed 2022-08-31(32)

As the Bankruptcy Court reasoned, only the methods presented by the Plan proponents -- the liquidation analysis and the balance sheet test -- properly measured TLA’s assets for the purposes of determining solvency under the agreed-upon standard. These methods each evaluated TLA’s assets on an asset-by-asset basis. Since “fair value” must be determined with reference to the fair market price that could be obtained by selling the assets in a prudent manner and a reasonable period of time, see Roblin Indus., 78 F.3d at 35, such asset-by-asset valuation is appropriate.

Section 101(32)(A) excludes fraudulently transferred assets when determining balance sheet insolvency.

Montoya v. Ferguson · filed 2022-10-07(32)(A)

For this finding, any fraudulently transferred assets are not considered. See 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A).

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by comparing an entity’s debts with the fair value of its property; assigned asset values alone do not establish fair value.

Desmond v. Taxi Affiliation Services LLC · filed 2022-10-12(32)

Under both the federal and state bankruptcy codes, an entity is insolvent if “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); 740 Ill. Comp. Stat. 160/3(a). ... Because O’Malley accepted the value YCA assigned to its assets rather than assessing their fair market value, the methodology O’Malley employed in reaching his conclusion that YCA was insolvent as of 2007 was flawed.

Section 101(32)(A)’s insolvency test counts fraudulently induced investors’ tort claims as debts even when the claims are contingent or unliquidated.

Drivetrain, LLC v. X.commerce, Inc. · filed 2023-02-07(32)(A)

These claims, even if ... contingent or unliquidated, are nevertheless “debt” that is properly considered when determining insolvency.

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

Pryor v. Nelson & Sons Formals Ltd. · filed 2023-03-21(32)

Section 101 of 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.”

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency through a balance sheet test that includes noncash assets at fair valuation.

Valk v. Escoffie · filed 2023-03-31(32)(A)

The term “insolvent” is defined in § 101(32)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code as meaning “financial condition such that the sum of [the debtor’s] debts is greater than all of such [debtor’s] property, at a fair valuation” exclusive of property fraudulently transferred, concealed, or removed, and exclusive of property that may be exempted. 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). ... The Valks’ argument, which only included assets in bank accounts and excluded non-cash assets such as receivables and the Debtor’s interest in TV Arrowhead, is incomplete and insufficient to meet the balance sheet test for insolvency.

Section 101(32) uses a balance sheet test for insolvency that excludes later capital gains taxes and selling expenses from the debtor’s liabilities.

H. Jason Gold, in his capacity as chapter 7 truste v. DeAngelo · filed 2023-09-19(32)

The Court ruled at trial that: (a) capital gains taxes that the bankruptcy estate incurred when the Trustee sold the Beach House were not liabilities at the time of the sale and, therefore, could not be counted on the liabilities side of the Debtor’s balance sheet; and (b) selling expenses (real estate commissions, etc.) also could not be deducted because that would employ a liquidation test, not a balance sheet test.

Section 101(32)(A) uses a balance sheet test for corporate insolvency: debts must exceed the fair value of all property. A cash flow test does not apply.

United States v. Sandwich Isles Communications, Inc. · filed 2023-08-31(32)(A)

By its plain terms, a cash flow test (or “equity test”) is inapplicable to a corporation under the Bankruptcy Code’s definition in 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A), and thus is inapplicable under the Priority Statute.

Section 101’s insolvency calculation excludes property claimed as exempt under Section 522 when no timely objection is made, even if the exemption lacks a good faith basis.

DuVall v. County of Ontario · filed 2023-09-29(32)(A)(ii)

But Section 101 plainly states that any property that is claimed as exempt and not objected to “may be exempted . . . under section 522,” 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A)(ii) – even if no good faith basis for claiming such an exemption exists.

Section 101(32)(A) defines an individual's insolvency by comparing debts with fairly valued property, excluding transferred property and property the individual may exempt.

Richardson v. Reyes · filed 2023-11-30(32)(A)

An individual is insolvent when the sum of their debts is greater than the sum of their property valued fairly. 11 U.S.C. §101(32)(A). In determining that value, the property transferred and property that may be exempted by the individual are excluded from the calculation. 11 U.S.C. §101(32)(A)(i), (ii).

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

Kapila v. Warburg Pincus, LLC · filed 2024-03-28(32)

In general, under the Bankruptcy Code, insolvency means “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). No fact or expert witness has offered testimony that the Wise redemption resulted in Universal’s insolvency as defined under the Bankruptcy Code.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by comparing an entity’s debts with the fair value of its property, subject to specified exclusions.

Ahlgren, Trustee v. Landin · filed 2024-06-11(32)(A)

Third, Debtor was insolvent at the time of the Transfer. The term “insolvency” is defined in the Bankruptcy Code as: ... 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). Debtor filed for bankruptcy about two weeks after the Transfer with debts that exceeded his assets by more than $25,000.

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

O'Toole v. Heinemann · filed 2025-01-06(32)

The Bankruptcy Code provides that 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). ... Based on foregoing, the Debtor was insolvent when the Transfers were made.

Section 101(32) does not let a potential recovery of the challenged transfer defeat a finding that the transfer rendered the debtor insolvent.

Miranda v. TLB 2019 LLC · filed 2025-01-17(32)

This argument must fail. If a transfer that is the subject of a fraudulent conveyance action rendered a debtor insolvent, the unwinding of that transfer would then again render a debtor solvent. Following TLB’s theory would mean that an avoidable transfer could never render a debtor insolvent under the meaning of sections 548(a) and 101(32) if recovering the property transferred or its value would render a debtor once again solvent.

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

Acis Capital Management, L.P. v. Simek · filed 2025-04-24(32)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code and TUFTA define insolvency as the financial condition in which “the sum of [an] entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property”.

Section 101(32)(A) defines an individual as insolvent when debts exceed property at a fair valuation.

Burns v. Broder · filed 2025-06-06(32)(A)

A person is insolvent under the Bankruptcy Code if the sum of his debts “is greater than all” of his “property at a fair valuation.”58 ... Based on his bankruptcy schedules, Ismail was solvent without the debt created by the Guaranty.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by comparing an entity’s debts with its property at fair valuation; the proper valuation may be based on going concern or liquidation value, depending on the business’s condition.

FELDMAN v. Lynch, Jr. · filed 2025-05-16(32)(A)

The 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). ... The proper method of valuation is context dependent, and the “fair value” of a business’ assets might be its going concern value or liquidation value.

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

Suazo v. Meiburger · filed 2025-06-20(32)(A)

Despite the imprecision in the calculation, the result is the same. Debtor was likely rendered insolvent by the transfer because her liabilities likely exceeded her assets.

Section 101(32)(A) treats a person as insolvent when debts exceed property at fair valuation.

Burns, Chapter 7 Trustee v. GRANDSTAY HOSPITALITY, LLC · filed 2025-07-14(32)(A)

A person is insolvent under the Bankruptcy Code if the sum of his debts “is greater than all” of his “property at a fair valuation.” ... Based on his bankruptcy schedules, Ismail was solvent without the debt created by the Guaranty.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by comparing debts with the fair value of property, excluding specified property.

Reynolds v. County Of Suffolk · filed 2025-08-20(32)

As such, the Transfer rendered Debtor insolvent as a matter of law.

An entity is insolvent when its debts exceed its property at fair value; contingent liabilities are valued according to the likelihood that they will become actual liabilities.

Eric R. Schwartz, as Trustee dated 3/4/2019 v. Halwani · filed 2025-07-18(32)(A)

After the transfer, 274 Atlantic no longer had any assets but the value of its remaining debt was zero. Because after the transfer the value of 274 Atlantic’s debts did not exceed the value of its assets, 274 Atlantic was not rendered insolvent when the Deed was recorded.

Section 101(32) defines insolvency by comparing a person’s debts with the fair value of their property, excluding property that may be exempted from the bankruptcy estate.

Harry Monroe Ashwood, V and Stacie Marie Ashwood · filed 2025-09-30(32)

After the purchase of the Homestead, Debtors were once again insolvent, as that term is defined in the Bankruptcy Code.

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

In re Animo Services, LLC · filed 2026-03-11(32)

As this Court held in With Purpose, a corporate debtor is insolvent when its financial condition is such that the sum of its debts is greater than all of its property, at a fair valuation. 2025 WL 1698694, at *14 (relying on 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)).

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether debts exceed property at fair valuation; a later settlement may support the valuation of a disputed claim on the transfer date.

Allonhill LLC v. · filed 2026-03-16(32)(A)

Under the Bankruptcy Code, insolvency is 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)(A). ... Furthermore, the Bankruptcy Court did not commit clear error in relying on the Settlement Amount as a factual basis to conclude both that the value of the disputed claim was $2.05 million and, given Allonhill’s assets on the Transfer Dates, Allonhill was solvent when the transfers were made.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by comparing an individual debtor’s liabilities with the fair value of the debtor’s assets, excluding exempt and fraudulently transferred property.

In re Mendinghall · filed 2026-03-24(32)(A)

A debtor is insolvent if the sum of his liabilities is greater than the sum of his assets, “at a fair valuation, exclusive of property exempted under section 522 or fraudulently transferred.” 2 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 101.32 (16th ed. 2026); 11 U.S.C. § 101(32)(A). ... To state the obvious, the value of the Debtor’s Unpaid Wage Judgment exceeds the debt owed to SUNY Orange, and thus, the Debtor is solvent.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether an entity’s debts exceed its property at a fair valuation; a disputed claim is valued when determining solvency.

Allonhill LLC v. · filed 2026-05-22(32)(A)

Under the Bankruptcy Code, insolvency is 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)(A). ... Thus, the Bankruptcy Court had a basis to find that Allonhill did not satisfy its burden of proof and thus the Court did not clearly err in concluding both that the value of the disputed claim was $2.05 million and that Allonhill was solvent when the transfers were made.

Section 101(32)(A) defines an individual as insolvent when debts exceed the fair value of nonexempt property, subject to exclusions for certain transfers and concealments.

Keithahn · filed 2026-05-13(32)(A)

Setting aside fraudulent and similar property transfers and concealments, an individual debtor is “insolvent” if the sum of his debts is greater than all of his property, at a fair valuation, exclusive of exempt property. 11 U.S.C. §101(32)(A).

Section 101’s insolvency definition excludes assets transferred with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors; an allegation of fraud alone does not justify deducting them.

EPIC Companies Midwest 2023, LLC v. Sheyenne 32 North · filed 2026-06-03(32)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code only excludes “actual” fraudulent transfers (transfers made with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors), but the North Dakota statute excludes both actual fraudulent transfers and transfers that are otherwise voidable.

Section 101(32)(A) excludes transfers made with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors from assets used to assess insolvency; an alleged fraudulent transfer cannot be deducted on the allegation alone.

EPIC Companies Midwest, LLC v. EPIC Gateway LLC · filed 2026-06-03(32)(A)

The Bankruptcy Code only excludes “actual” fraudulent transfers (transfers made with intent to hinder, delay, or defraud creditors), but the North Dakota statute excludes both actual fraudulent transfers and transfers that are otherwise voidable. ... Neither statute permits Finn to deduct those transfers from EPIC 2023’s assets based on the Plaintiffs’ allegations that the transfer was fraudulent or otherwise voidable.

Section 101(29)(A) defines insolvency by whether a debtor's liabilities exceed its assets.

In Re Colonial Discount Corporation · filed 1986-12-05(29)(A)

Any reliance by McNeal is simply irrelevant. Section 547(b)(3) is concerned solely with an objective question: whether the debtor's liabilities exceeded its assets on the date of the transfer sought to be avoided. 11 U.S.C. Sec. 101(29)(A) (defining insolvency); see Barash v. Public Finance Corp., 658 F.2d 504, 510 (7th Cir.1981) (legislative history of Sec. 547 supports view that preferential nature of transaction is determined by objective criteria).

Section 101(29) defines a corporation as insolvent when its debts exceed its property.

Michalski v. Singer (In Re Sin-Ko, Inc.) · filed 1987-02-20(29)

Pursuant to a letter from Geraldine Singer, president and sole shareholder of Debtor, to Marvin K. Jacobs, dated April 1, 1982, Ms. Singer acknowledged that the corporate debts were greater than its property thus acknowledging the insolvency of the corporation as defined by 11 U.S.C. § 101(29).

Section 101’s definition of insolvency does not require a Chapter 7 debtor to be insolvent to obtain a discharge.

Rea v. Hogard (In Re Hogard) · filed 1984-10-09(26)

Plaintiff cites no statutory or case authority, nor can the Court find or conceive of any, that would support the proposition ... that a chapter 7 debtor must satisfy the section 101 bankruptcy definition. In fact no such requirement exists.

For an entity other than a partnership or municipality, § 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by whether debts exceed the fair value of property, excluding exempt property.

Simione v. Nationsbank of Delaware, N.A. (In Re Simione) · filed 1999-01-26(32)(A)

There is no question that the Transfer caused the Debtor to become insolvent. 11 U.S.C. § 101(32) defines insolvency as: ... (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 Transfer caused the Debtor to become insolvent and no reasonably equivalent value was given to the Debtor in exchange for the Transfer.

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

Manning v. Wallace (In Re First Financial Associates, Inc.) · filed 2007-07-20(32)

... the Court finds that the Debtor was "insolvent” within the definition provided by 11 U.S.C. § 101(32) at all times relevant to this decision during the years 1997, 1998 and 1999.

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

Wolkowitz v. Breath of Life Seventh Day Adventist Church (In Re Lewis) · filed 2009-02-17(32)

Section 101(32) defines “insolvent” to generally mean the ... In this case, because the amount of debt of $495,110.96 ... was greater than their nonexempt assets of $61,668.00, ... it appears Debtors were insolvent at the time of the Transfers. ... Thus, this Court finds that Debtors were insolvent at the time the Transfers were made.

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

Portland Injury Institute LLC · filed 2023-03-31(32)(A)

Thus, without considering any other debt owed by PII, PII was balance-sheet insolvent at the time of each of the challenged transfers.

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

Platinum Management, Inc v. Do · filed 2023-03-31(32)(A)

Thus, without considering any other debt owed by PII, PII was balance-sheet insolvent at the time of each of the challenged transfers.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency by comparing a debtor’s debts with the fair value of the debtor’s property, excluding transferred and exempt property.

Erickson v. McCaw · filed 2024-02-02(32)(A)

On March 16, 2023, the sum of Ms. Hodel’s debts was far greater than the fair value of her property, excluding property transferred and property exempted. See 11 U.S.C. §101(32)(A).

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

Weinman · filed 2026-06-02(32)

The term “insolvent” is defined in the Code as a “financial condition such that the sum of such entity’s debts is greater than all of such entity’s property . . . .”70 ... The Court therefore concludes the Trustee has established that the Debtor was insolvent as of February 10, 2023, and was therefore, insolvent when the Debtor paid rent for February 2023 ($16,900), April 2023 ($45,000), and caused the $57,500 down payment to be paid to TLC.

Section 101(32)(A) defines insolvency for an entity other than a partnership or municipality by whether its debts exceed its property at fair valuation, subject to specified exclusions.

Reynolds v. Axos Bank · filed 2024-11-21(32)(A)

Thus, according to both the “balance sheet” test, and to the Bankruptcy Code’s own definition of insolvency, the Stanfords were insolvent at the time of their bankruptcy filing. ... The Court concludes that the Trustee has met his burden of proving the Stanfords were insolvent at the time of the loan transaction.

Section 101(5) defines commodity broker to include a futures commission merchant; an entity whose futures contracts were not subject to any contract market’s rules did not qualify on that basis.

In Re Co Petro Marketing Group, Inc. · filed 1980-09-10(5)

11 U.S.C. § 101(5) defines a “commodity broker” as follows: ... It is the view of this court that the commodity futures contracts entered into by Co Petro were not “on or subject to the rules of any contract market” and that Co Petro was not a futures commission merchant under the above-quoted definition. This court further concludes that Co Petro was not and is not a commodity broker within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 109(d) and therefore is not precluded from being a debtor in a Chapter 11 proceeding.

Section 101(39)(B) excludes institutional or financially sophisticated investors trading in an unregulated securities market from “members of the general public” in its stockbroker definition.

Matter of SSIW Corp. · filed 1980-12-16(39)(B)

Thus, although the term “public” may be interpreted either broadly ... or narrowly ... depending upon the circumstances in which it is applied, the legislative framework, within which the 1978 Act stockbroker provisions have been constructed, demonstrates that the movant (as well as the other entities that deal with SSIW in “Gin-nie Maes”), to wit, institutional or financially sophisticated investors, ... trading in an unregulated securities industry, are not within the class the 1978 Act deemed to be within the ambit of its protection under the designation, “members of the general pub-lie.”

Section 101(5) defines a commodity broker to include a futures commission merchant, which must deal in futures contracts on or subject to the rules of a contract market.

In Re Co Petro Marketing Group, Inc. · filed 1982-06-28(5)

In order, then, for Co Petro to be a commodity broker under the Bankruptcy Code, it first must be a futures commission merchant under the Commodity Exchange Act. According to the plain language of the Commodity Exchange Act, denomination as a futures commission merchant requires two conditions: 1) the individual, association, partnership, corporation, or trust must be dealing in orders for the purchase or sale of a commodity for future delivery, and 2) the commodity for future delivery dealt in must be on or subject to the rules of a contract market.

Section 101(39) does not treat a brokerage employee as a stockbroker when the employee has no customers of his own.

In Re Berry · filed 1982-09-10(39)

Although a person may effect transactions in securities, if that person is an employee, he cannot be a stockbroker as he can have no customers.

Section 101(46) defines a stockbroker as a person with at least one customer who engages in securities transactions as a broker or dealer.

In Re ESM Government Securities, Inc. · filed 1985-06-19(46)

First, there must be a customer. As previously discussed, United was a customer. Second, a person must engage in business effecting securities transactions as either a broker or as a dealer. In its transactions with United, ESM clearly effected securities transactions as a broker. Thus, no further discussion is necessary as ESM falls squarely within the statutory definition of “stockbroker”.

Section 101(5) defines a commodity broker by specified broker categories and a customer relationship; selling precious metals to buyers does not alone make a dealer a commodity broker.

Faircloth v. Bouchard (In Re the International Gold Bullion Exchange, Inc.) · filed 1985-09-30(5)

The foregoing definitions make it unequivocably clear that the Defendants considered the Debtor to be a precious metals dealer and not a broker or commodities clearing house dealing in investment securities or commodity contracts.

Section 101(5)’s definition of commodity broker excludes a grain elevator that buys futures for farmers without a commission.

State Bank of Spring Hill v. Bucyrus Grain Co. (In Re Bucyrus Grain Co.) · filed 1986-11-20(5)

Section 101(5) of the Code defines a commodity broker to include a “futures commissions merchant.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). ... This Court agrees. A close reading of the statute supports this conclusion. The phrase “futures commission merchant” itself suggests that the broker is in the business of soliciting customers to invest on a commission basis. Bucyrus Grain did not deal in the futures market on behalf of the Anderson Brothers for a commission.

Section 101(5)’s definition of commodity broker does not include a manufacturer merely because it uses a dairy by-product or makes products used for fertilizer and animal feed.

Official Creditors' Committee of James B. Downing & Co. v. Agri Dairy Products, Inc. (In Re James B. Downing & Co.) · filed 1987-06-12(5)

Downing was a manufacturer. It was obviously neither a commodity broker nor a grain storage facility under 11 U.S.C. § 556 or § 557. See also 11 U.S.C. § 101(5) and § 557(b). The fact that the debtor uses a dairy by-product in its manufacturing process or that its products are used for fertilizer and animal feed among other things does not make it into either a commodity broker or a grain storage facility.

Under § 101(46), a debtor is not a stockbroker with respect to transactions with creditors who are not securities customers.

Langenkamp v. Moore (In Re Republic Financial Corp.) · filed 1987-07-06(46)

RFC was not a stockbroker or stockbroking entity, and RFC’s payments to its creditors under RFC thrift certificates were not made from or for a securities account or securities accounts. ... The defendants therefore were not securities “customers” under the Bankruptcy Code or the SIPA. ... If an individual RFC creditor was not a “customer,” then the debtor, RFC, would not be a stockbroker as defined by 11 U.S.C. § 101(46) with regard to its transactions with its creditors.

Section 101(5) includes a futures commission merchant with a customer in the definition of a commodity broker, even if the merchant does not charge a commission.

State Bank of Spring Hill v. Bucyrus Grain Co. (In Re Bucyrus Grain Co.) · filed 1988-06-13(5)

Thus, the Anderson Brothers were a customer, and Bucyrus was a commodity broker.

Section 101(48) does not define a securities firm’s salesperson as a stockbroker when the salesperson acts for the firm and has no customers of his own.

In re Schave · filed 1988-09-22(48)

This Court finds that Debtor is not a stockbroker as that term is defined in 11 U.S.C. § 101(48) and is not excluded from eligibility to be a Chapter 13 debtor.

Section 101(51) defines a security interest as a lien created by an agreement.

Dots, LLC v. Milberg Factors, Inc. (In re Dots, LLC.) · filed 2017-01-10(51)

As an initial matter, the Bankruptcy Code defines “security interest” as a “lien created by an agreement.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(51). However, in this case no such agreement exists between Dots and the Factors.

Section 101(36) defines a security agreement as an agreement that creates or provides for a security interest; a lease securing no debt does not qualify.

Trax, Inc. v. Pledger Roy Wood (In Re Pledger Roy Wood) · filed 1980-09-19(36)

For purposes of bankruptcy law, the term security agreement is defined as an “agreement that creates or provides for a security interest.” 11 U.S.C. § 101(36). ... Because there is no debt which could be secured, it is clear that the contract in question cannot be a security agreement.

Section 101(37) defines a security interest as a lien created by agreement; whether a lease qualifies depends on applicable state law.

In Re Peacock · filed 1980-11-14(37)

It does define “security interest” to be a lien created by agreement, 11 U.S.C. § 101(37). The legislative history states, “Whether a consignment or a lease constitutes a security interest under the bankruptcy code will depend' on whether it constitutes a security interest under applicable state or local law.” ... I hold that the cow leases are intended as a security device.