Cho Hung Bank v. Kim (In re Kim)
62 F.3d 1511, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6659, 95 Daily Journal DAR 11413, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23923
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided August 23, 1995·No. No. 94-55308·Published·Cited by 3 cases
Opinion
ORDER
The Bankruptcy Appellate Panel held that fraudulently inducing a creditor’s extension of the due date for repayment of a loan was sufficient under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2) to support a claim of nondischargeability against a debtor in bankruptcy, and it was not necessary for the creditor to show that “new money” was lent to the debtor. We agree. The opinion of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel in In re Kim, 163 B.R. 157 (9th Cir. BAP 1994) is hereby adopted as the opinion of this Court.
AFFIRMED.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cho Hung Bank v. Kim (In re Kim), 62 F.3d 1511, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6659, 95 Daily Journal DAR 11413, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23923 (9th Cir. 1995).
62 F.3d 1511 (Cho Hung Bank v. Kim (In re Kim)) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Larpar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling (In re Appling)
527 B.R. 545 (M.D. Georgia, 2015)
Lamar, Archer & Cofrin, LLP v. Appling (In re Appling)
500 B.R. 246 (M.D. Georgia, 2013)