Filed: Jun. 25, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 25, 2012
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge. This case is before the Court following an appeal by defendant-appellant, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), as Receiver for NetBank, f.s.b., of a Judgment entered on September 30, 2010, and amended on November 30, 2010 by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, in favor of Clifford Zucker, in his capacity as Liquidating Supervisor for debtor NetBank, Inc. The Court heard oral argument on June 5, 2012, the
Summary: ORDER TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge. This case is before the Court following an appeal by defendant-appellant, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), as Receiver for NetBank, f.s.b., of a Judgment entered on September 30, 2010, and amended on November 30, 2010 by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, in favor of Clifford Zucker, in his capacity as Liquidating Supervisor for debtor NetBank, Inc. The Court heard oral argument on June 5, 2012, the t..
More
ORDER
TIMOTHY J. CORRIGAN, District Judge.
This case is before the Court following an appeal by defendant-appellant, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"), as Receiver for NetBank, f.s.b., of a Judgment entered on September 30, 2010, and amended on November 30, 2010 by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida, in favor of Clifford Zucker, in his capacity as Liquidating Supervisor for debtor NetBank, Inc. The Court heard oral argument on June 5, 2012, the transcript of which is incorporated by reference.
This Court is sitting in an appellate capacity. It therefore must review the bankruptcy court's legal conclusions de novo and must accept the bankruptcy court's factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. See e.g., In re Englander, 95 F.3d 1028, 1030 (11th Cir. 1996).
The issue presented by this appeal— the proper bankruptcy treatment of tax refunds in light of a tax sharing agreement between the debtor and its subsidiary bank— has been the subject of much litigation around the country. Appellant has not shown that the bankruptcy court's comprehensive opinion, which is in accord with the strong majority view, is factually or legally erroneous.1 Indeed, after the bankruptcy court entered judgment, at least one other district court has considered and rejected some of the same arguments advanced by the FDIC in this case. See In re IndyMac Bancorp, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-02967-RGK, 2012 WL 1951474 (C.D. Cal. May 30, 2012).
Accordingly, the Judgment, as amended, is AFFIRMED. The Clerk is directed to close the file.
DONE AND ORDERED.