GOTTFRIED BAKING COMPANY, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
KATHRYN GOTTFRIED, NATIONAL YEAST CORP. AND STANDARD BRANDS CORP., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the District Court did not err in sustaining the referee's adjudication of bankruptcy.
Gottfried Baking Company filed for an arrangement under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act but incurred substantial losses. The referee ordered the debt…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Indemnity Against Loss cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
The appellant, Gottfried Baking Company, Inc., was adjudicated a bankrupt on August 31, 1966 by the referee in bankruptcy. This appeal is from an order of the District Court which sustained the referee’s action.
The debtor filed a petition for an arrangement under Chapter XI, § 322 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 722, on November 1, 1965 and since that time has operated its business as debtor in possession. Losses substantially in excess of $200,000 were incurred and on July 28, 1966 the referee, acting pursuant to § 326 of the Bankruptcy Act, ordered that the debtor “deposit the sum of $50,000.00 indemnity against further loss or diminution to this estate or in the alternative it may deposit $50,000.00 on deposit toward the plan * * Gott fried was adjudicated a bankrupt when it failed to comply with this order. On this appeal it is asserted that the referee erred by failing to make sufficient findings of fact or conclusions of law and that he abused his discretion by requiring the indemnity bond, refusing to permit the sale of certain real estate, and giving insufficient weight to the recommendations of the creditors’ committee. The District Court rejected each of these contentions in upholding the referee’s determination.
We find no reason to disturb the conclusion of the District Court.
Affirmed.