80 Nassau Associates v. Crossland Federal Savings Bank (In Re 80 Nassau Associates)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the third prong of the Mobile Steel test is \likely to be moot\
• creditor did not engage in misconduct when it extracted payment concessions from debtor and then withdrew from negotiations
• “the cases that enunciate the ‘gross and egregious’ or similar standard uniformly fail to find conduct that meets the standard, and deny equitable subordination”
• “The filing of a bankruptcy petition, without more, is a legally insufficient allegation of injury to satisfy the requirements of equitable subordination.”
• “The cases that enunciate the ‘gross and egregious’ or similar standard uniformly fail to find conduct that meets the standard, and deny equitable subordination.”
• once the first two prongs of Mobile Steel are met it is difficult to imagine a situation when equitable subordination would not apply

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).