Cricket Communications, Inc. v. Trillium Industries, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that appellees conclusively established that Cricket failed to disclose his claim to the bankruptcy court, “which is the equivalent of an affirmative representation that no such claim existed”
• rejecting Cricket’s argument that applying judicial estoppel would be inequitable because it would prejudice his creditors
• rejecting argument that judicial estoppel should not apply because the non-disclosure was later corrected where the 41 correction occurred almost two months after the reorganization plan was confirmed by the bankruptcy court.
• “the law of judicial estoppel in a bankruptcy context is to protect the integrity of courts, not to punish adversaries or protect litigants”
• financial impact on creditors is a circumstance to be considered when determining whether motive to conceal existed
• debtor’s duty to disclose 18 potential claims continues for the duration of the bankruptcy proceedings

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).