In re Raejean Bonham’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 district · 3 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(1) the degree of difficulty in segregating and ascertaining individual assets and liability; (2) the presence or absence of consolidated financial statements; (3) the profitability of consolidation at a single physical location; (4) the commingling of assets and business functions; (5) the unity of interests and ownership between the various corporate entities; (6) the existence of parent and inter-corporate guarantees on loans; and (7) the transfer of assets without formal observance of corporate formalities.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Falls Event Ctr. LLC · Bli Farms v. GreenStone Farm Credit Services (In Re Bli Farms)

2. “'[A] Ponzi scheme is a phony investment plan in which monies paid by later investors are used to pay artificially high returns to the initial investors, with the goal of attracting more investors.' ” United States v. Silvestri, 409 F.3d 1311 , 1317 n. 6 (11th Cir.2005) (quoting In re Bonham, 229 F.3d 750 , 759 n. 1 (9th Cir.2000)).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ralph S. Janvey, in His Capacity as Court-Appointed Receiver for the Stanford International Bank, Limited Official Stanford Investors Committee v. the Golf Channel, Incorporated Tgc, L.L.C., Doing Business as Golf Channel · Stanfield v. Neubaum

3. “Before ordering consolidation, a court must conduct a searching inquiry to ensure that consolidation yields benefits offsetting the harm it inflicts on objecting parties.... The proponent must show not only a substantial identity between the entities to be consolidated, but also that consolidation is necessary to avoid some harm or to realize some benefit.... At this point, a creditor may object on the grounds that it relied on the separate credit of one of the entities and that it will be prejudiced by the consolidation.... If a creditor makes such a showing, the court may order consolidation only if it determines that the demonstrated benefits of consolidation “heavily” outweigh the harm.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Petters Co. · In re Archdiocese of Milwaukee