Locke v. Levy & Rosenberg, a Medical corporation et al

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
In re
MARK I. LEVY, No. 05-12127
Debtor(s).
______________________________________/
JEFFRY G. LOCKE, Trustee,
Plaintiff(s),
v. A.P. No. 06-1166
LEVY & ROSENBERG, et al.,
Defendant(s).
_______________________________________/
Memorandum After Trial
_________________
Defendant Levy & Rosenberg is a medical corporation owned 51% by Chapter 7 debtor Mark Levy
and 49% by defendant Saul Rosenberg. The complaint in this matter, brought by Chapter 7 trustee Jeffry
Locke, has two claims: for involuntary dissolution of the corporation, and for turnover by the corporation of
Levy’s share of all assets. There is no opposition to dissolution. Locke argues, very confusingly, that he is
entitled to some sort of money judgment against Levy, although complaint seeks no such recovery.
In his proposed findings and conclusions, Locke asks the court to find that the corporation paid Levy
Entered on Docket
December 06, 2007
GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case: 06-01166 Doc# 32 Filed: 12/06/07 Entered: 12/06/07 13:41:41 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
about $395,000.00 after the filing which was property of the bankruptcy estate. The evidence did not clearly
establish that the corporation paid anything to Levy postpetition, let alone payments which belonged to the
bankruptcy estate.
After the court had heard all evidence, Locke sought (sort of) to amend his complaint to seek
recovery from Levy of about $239,000.00 paid by the corporation postpetition to the corporate pension plan.
There was no comprehensible evidence of any such payment. Even if there were such a payment, Locke did
not establish why Levy, as opposed to the pension plan, would be liable. Locke also did not establish that the
payment, if made, was wrongful or was property of the bankruptcy estate.
For the foregoing reasons, Locke shall have no relief beyond dissolution of the corporation. Each
party shall bear its own costs.
This memorandum constitutes the court’s findings and conclusions pursuant to FRCP 52(a) and
FRBP 7052. Counsel for Locke shall submit an appropriate form of judgment which counsel for Levy and
for Rosenberg have approved as conforming to this memorandum.
Dated: December 6, 2007
SAlan Jaroslovsky
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
Case: 06-01166 Doc# 32 Filed: 12/06/07 Entered: 12/06/07 13:41:41 Page 2 of 2