468 B.R. 431 (2012) In re Lynne Ann LARKIN, Debtor. No. 11-29628-EPK. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida, West Palm Beach Division. March 30, 2012. *432 Barry S. Balmuth, Esq., West Palm Beach, FL, for Debtor. Michael R. Bakst, West Palm Beach, FL, for Trustee. Office of the U.S. Trustee, Miami, FL. ORDER DENYING MOTION TO APPROVE STIPULATION TO COMPROMISE CONTROVERSY ERIK P. KIMBALL, Bankruptcy Judge. In this case, the chapter 7 trustee seeks an order approving a settlement with the mo..

31 B.R. 905 (1983) In the Matter of Michael J. DeMEO, Jr., Debtor, PHILLIPS PETROLEUM COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. Michael J. DeMEO, Jr., Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 83-00761-BKC-SMW, Adv. No. 83-0524-BKC-SMW-A. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. July 25, 1983. *906 Arthur Neiwirth, Miami, Fla., for defendant. Harry S. Raliegh, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, Fla., Stephen G. Penuel, Bartlesville, Okl., for plaintiff. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW SIDNEY M. WEAVER, Bankruptcy Judge. This cause..

369 B.R. 689 (2007) In re SOPHISTICATED COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Debtor. James Feltman, as Trustee for the Estate of Sophisticated Communications, Inc., Plaintiff, v. City National Bank of Florida, Defendant. Bankruptcy No. 00-17635-BKC-RAM, Adversary No. 02-1526-BKC-RAM-A. United States Bankruptcy Court, S.D. Florida. May 25, 2007. Order Denying Rehearing August 1, 2007. *690 *691 *692 Robert J. Edwards, Esquire, Behar, Gutt & Glazer, P.A., Aventura, FL, for Plaintiff. Robert P. Frankel, Esq., Robe..

The issue for determination is whether the School Board of Broward County, Florida (“SBBC”) improperly awarded a contract pursuant to Invitation to Bid No. 21-244H for “Photo ID Card and Printing System Supplies” (“ITB”) to Intervenor, Identicard Systems, Inc. (“Identicard"). Petitioner Plasco, Inc. ("Plasco") contends that the recommended award to Identicard is clearly erroneous, contrary to competition, arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the specifications of the ITB. The resolution of the ultimate issue turns on whether the uninitialed corrected figures contained within Plasco’s bid response for both the unit price and the total cost of Item 1(N) were a material deviation from the bid specifications requiring rejection of the bid.Agency acted arbitrarily in failing to award a contract for photo identification cards to lowest responsible bidder.

509 F. Supp. 2d 1247 (2007) HIDALGO CORP., Plaintiff, v. J. KUGEL DESIGNS, INC.; Julie Sabin a/k/a Julie Kugel a/k/a Julie K. Moskowitz; and Robert Sabin a/k/a Roberto Sabatino, Defendants. J. Kugel Designs, Inc., Counter-Plaintiff, v. Hidalgo Corp., and Silvio Hidalgo, individually, Counter-Defendants. No. 05-20476-CIV. United States District Court, S.D. Florida, Miami Division. May 23, 2007. *1248 *1249 *1250 John Galardi Gale, Miami, FL, Lead Attorney, Attorney to be Noticed, for Hidalgo Corp...

The basic issue in this case is whether the School Board of Broward County, Florida, acted in a fraudulent, arbitrary, illegal, or dishonest manner in determining to award the Group Vision Care contract under RFP 96-029S to Vision Care, Inc., d/b/a Vision Service Plan. The Petitioner described the following subsidiary issues in its unilateral Proposed Pretrial Stipulation: That the School Board's and the Insurance Committee's scoring of the cost, willing and able, and M/WBE sections of RFP No. 96-029S was illegal, arbitrary, and capricious, for reasons including, but not limited to, the fact that the scoring was conducted based upon VSP's proposed rate which is inadequate under Florida law governing prepaid limited health organizations. That Vision Service Plan's ("VSP") response to RFP No. 96-029S without making a rate filing with the Florida Department of Insurance ("DOI") and without DOI's approval of the proposed rate was illegal, fraudulent, and dishonest. RFP No. 96-029S is illegal insofar as it relies upon minority based classifications in violation of the Florida and United States Constitutions, and that the RFP is fraudulent and illegal insofar as it does not disclose that union or collective bargaining agent participants on the Insurance Committee could overrule the Insurance Committee's scoring and choice of a vision care provider by demanding impact bargaining.Evidence was insufficent to show that agency award of contract was arbitrary illegal, fraudulent or dishonest.