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
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 23, 1995
DocketNo. 94-55308
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 62 F.3d 1511 (Cho Hung Bank v. Kim (In re Kim)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
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).

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
62 F.3d 1511, 95 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6659, 95 Daily Journal DAR 11413, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 23923, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cho-hung-bank-v-kim-in-re-kim-ca9-1995.