Equity Receivership

49 Florida cases classified under this topic · sorted by citation count · browse and sort

• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Lincoln Thrift Ass'n
  577 F.2d 600· 9th Cir.· 1978-06-28 ·cited 40×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying creditors' motions to transfer an SEC-initiated receivership to bankruptcy court or to appoint a new board of trustees and creditors' committee, given the advanced stage of liquidation.
• Esbitt v. Dutch-American Mercantile Corp.
  335 F.2d 141· 2d Cir.· 1964-07-14 ·cited 38×
  The court held that the district court had ancillary jurisdiction over the receiver's suit to collect debts and properly denied the defendant's claim for set-off against a potential future liability.
• In re Lustron Corp. Reconstr. Fin. Corp. v. Lustron Corp.
  184 F.2d 789· 7th Cir.· 1950-10-23 ·cited 36×
  The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction to issue a restraining order to preserve the estate and prevent irreparable harm, and it did not err in refusing to transfer the case to a district where no bankruptcy petition was pending.
• New England Coal & Coke Co. v. Rutland R. Co.
  143 F.2d 179· 2d Cir.· 1944-04-26 ·cited 30×
  An equity receivership initiated by a consent bill, after the enactment of Section 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, is an irregular proceeding that should be transitioned to a Section 77 reorganization when a petition is filed.
• In re Am. Fuel & Power Co. v. Vanston Bondholders Protective Comm.
  151 F.2d 470· 6th Cir.· 1945-10-09 ·cited 26×
  The court held that under New York law, a covenant to pay interest on defaulted, un-negotiated coupons made before interest accrues is void as against public policy, and thus such coupons do not bear simple interest from their due dates. The court also affirmed the lower court's
• Nunn v. Feltinton
  294 F.2d 450· 5th Cir.· 1961-09-15 ·cited 25×
  The joinder of formal or unnecessary parties, such as Illinois stockholders, does not defeat federal diversity jurisdiction when a receiver, whose citizenship is diverse from the opposing party, is the real party in interest representing the dissolved corporation's assets.
• In re Chicago
  611 F.2d 662· 7th Cir.· 1979-10-02 ·cited 24×
  The court held that while a railroad cannot be forced to operate indefinitely at a loss, it may be ordered to continue service for a reasonable time, and priority borrowings are permissible to avoid cashlessness and allow for reorganization planning, even if it impacts creditors.
• The Platt & Munk Co., Inc. v. Republic Graphics, Inc.
  315 F.2d 847· 2d Cir.· 1963-03-21 ·cited 18×
  A manufacturer's right to resell copyrighted goods for non-payment does not override copyright protection without a prior adjudication of the buyer's default, especially when the buyer makes a good faith claim of justification for non-payment.
• S. Ry. Co. & Morgan Guar. Tr. Co. of N.Y. v. United States
  306 F.2d 119· 5th Cir.· 1962-07-19 ·cited 18×
  The court held that tax claims are allowable as operational costs of a receivership, not based on statutory priority, and that a creditor's claim for diverted funds is not entitled to preference over tax claims. The court also affirmed the allowance of a fee to counsel who contri
• Bailey v. Proctor
  160 F.2d 78· 1st Cir.· 1947-02-24 ·cited 16×
  A court of equity has inherent power to appoint a receiver to liquidate an investment trust due to fraud or mismanagement, even if the trust becomes solvent, and the denial of a shareholder meeting motion is moot if liquidation is ordered.
• Badenhausen v. Guar. Tr. Co. of N.Y.
  145 F.2d 40· 4th Cir.· 1944-08-02 ·cited 16×
  The court affirmed the district court's approval of a railway reorganization plan, finding the master's allocation of new securities to creditors was equitable and supported by evidence.
• United States v. Nat'l Furniture Co., Inc.
  348 F.2d 390· 8th Cir.· 1965-07-23 ·cited 14×
  The Small Business Administration (SBA) is entitled to participate as an unsecured creditor in a Chapter XI arrangement proceeding to the extent its debt exceeds the value of its security, but it does not have priority status under 31 U.S.C. § 191.
• United Shipyards, Inc. v. Hoey
  131 F.2d 525· 2d Cir.· 1942-11-30 ·cited 14×
  A corporation in reorganization under § 77B, continuing to operate its business, is subject to the Capital Stock Tax Act, even if its operations are restricted.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Ark. Loan & Thrift Corp.
  427 F.2d 1171· 8th Cir.· 1970-06-08 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in approving the receiver's settlement of a claim against the fidelity bond carrier.
• In re Colo. Tr. Deed Funds, Inc.
  311 F.2d 288· 10th Cir.· 1962-11-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that the trial court did not err in dismissing the petition for reorganization under Chapter 10 for lack of good faith, as the debtor failed to demonstrate that the prior receivership proceedings would not best serve the interests of creditors and stockholders.
• Gen. Stores Corp. v. Shlensky
  222 F.2d 234· 2d Cir.· 1955-04-14 ·cited 12×
• In re Eng'rs Pub. Serv. Co.
  168 F.2d 722· 3d Cir.· 1948-03-19 ·cited 12×
  The court held that neither the Commission, the District Court, nor the appellate court possesses the power to waive the statutory provision requiring approval of a reorganization plan by both the Commission and the District Court.
• In re Inland GAS Corp.
  241 F.2d 374· 6th Cir.· 1957-02-14 ·cited 10×
  The court held that post-bankruptcy interest should not be allowed on unsecured claims, and federal courts lack jurisdiction to adjudicate tax matters prematurely under the Declaratory Judgments Act.
• In re Lustron Corp. la Fayette Steel Co. v. Lustron Corp.
  184 F.2d 798· 7th Cir.· 1950-10-23 ·cited 9×
  The bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over general assets in an equity receivership is paramount and exclusive, precluding confirmation of a sale not yet confirmed before bankruptcy. A bidder at such a sale is not a bona fide purchaser with title until confirmation.
• Goldie v. COX
  130 F.2d 690· 8th Cir.· 1942-09-08 ·cited 8×
  The court held that expenses and services incurred before bankruptcy, or during a collusive receivership, or without authorization and benefit to the estate during bankruptcy, are not compensable as administrative expenses.
• Emil v. Hanley
  130 F.2d 369· 2d Cir.· 1942-07-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the Bankruptcy Act amendments of 1938 did not grant bankruptcy courts exclusive jurisdiction over the accounts of a receiver appointed in a state court foreclosure action that commenced before the bankruptcy petition.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Hardy
  803 F.2d 1034· 9th Cir.· 1986-10-31 ·cited 7×
  The majority affirmed the district court's denial of motions to file late claims and late classification objections, finding no abuse of discretion. The dissenting judge disagreed regarding the late claims.
• In re Chicago
  713 F.2d 274· 7th Cir.· 1983-07-15 ·cited 7×
  The court held that the reorganization court had jurisdiction to interpret the labor protection agreement and that the March 4, 1980 agreement was intended to be exclusive, barring claims for statutory benefits by Burlington employees not covered by the agreement. The court also
• Atlanta Flooring & Insulation Co., Inc. v. Russell
  146 F.2d 884· 5th Cir.· 1945-01-30 ·cited 7×
  The bankruptcy court has summary jurisdiction to inquire into the nature of state court proceedings and claims, but must decline to adjudicate substantial adverse claims, remitting such matters to plenary proceedings.
• Coskery v. Roberts & Mander Corp.
  189 F.2d 234· 3d Cir.· 1951-05-09 ·cited 6×
  The court held that an order denying a petition to vacate an equity receivership is not an appealable interlocutory order under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(2), absent exceptional circumstances not present here. The court also found that the district court had jurisdiction over the underlyin
• In re Fonda v. N.Y. State Tax Comm'n
  126 F.2d 604· 2d Cir.· 1942-03-10 ·cited 6×
  Franchise taxes assessed against a railroad company undergoing reorganization are proper expenses of administration, payable by the trustee.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Quiros
  966 F.3d 1195· 11th Cir.· 2020-07-20 ·cited 5×
  A bar order entered to facilitate a settlement is essential only if it is necessary to resolve the settling parties' litigation; if the parties would have settled without the order, it is not essential.
• In the Matter of: B & W Enters., Inc. v. Goodman OIL Co.
  713 F.2d 534· 9th Cir.· 1983-08-19 ·cited 4×
  The court held that the Six Months Rule and the Necessity of Payment Rule do not apply to non-railroad reorganizations under the Bankruptcy Code.
• Modart, Inc. v. Penrose Indus. Corp. (a
  404 F.2d 72· 3d Cir.· 1968-10-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that a judgment creditor, whose judgment was obtained in another state and not docketed until after a conservator was appointed, has no lien or vested right to funds held by the conservator.
• In re Chicago v. Fleming
  149 F.2d 529· 7th Cir.· 1945-06-06 ·cited 4×
  A stockholder cannot prosecute a claim belonging to a corporation when a trustee has been appointed in reorganization proceedings under § 77 of the Bankruptcy Act, as the right of action vests exclusively in the trustee.
• In re the Lehigh & NEW England Ry. Co.
  657 F.2d 570· 3d Cir.· 1981-08-03 ·cited 2×
  The Third Circuit reversed the district court's order granting priority to interline claimants over a mortgage bondholder in the proceeds of a railroad's valuation proceedings. The court held that federal law governs such disputes due to the national interest in railroad regulati
• In re Armstrong Glass Co., Inc. v. Luedeka
  502 F.2d 159· 6th Cir.· 1974-08-29 ·cited 2×
  Services rendered to a prior equity receiver, even if not incurred after bankruptcy filing, are entitled to priority status in a superseding bankruptcy to the extent they benefited the estate, and the bankrupt was not denied due process.
• Atl. Coast Line R.R. Co. v. ST. JOE Paper Co.
  216 F.2d 832· 5th Cir.· 1954-11-05 ·cited 2×
  The court held that an illegal plan of reorganization cannot be considered fair and equitable, especially when opposed by the equitable owners of the property.
• Stevens v. Stages
  208 F.2d 332· 4th Cir.· 1953-11-09 ·cited 2×
  A bankruptcy court cannot order a state court receiver, who has held property for more than four months, to turn over that property to a debtor in a Chapter XI arrangement proceeding.
• Purdum v. Durrance
  S.D. Fla.· 1925-10-09 ·cited 1×
  Landowners brought suit against real estate brokers and purchasers for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud, alleging that brokers Durrance and Rainey secretly arranged for a $10-per-acre profit through an undisclosed contract with Hanna and Farr while acting as agents for the sale
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Davison
  M.D. Fla.· 2025-08-20
  The court recommended granting the Receiver's unopposed fee application, finding the requested fees and costs for the specified period to be reasonable and properly incurred.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Davison
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-09-25
  A receiver appointed in an SEC civil fraud action is entitled to reasonable compensation for fees and costs incurred in performing receivership duties, provided the receiver demonstrates diligent performance and the fees are supported by specific and detailed evidence of hours ex
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Kapoor
  S.D. Fla.· 2024-06-17
  The Court granted in part and denied in part the Receiver's motion, approving the sale of the Stewart Property free and clear of liens, with liens attaching to the sale proceeds, and approving the settlement with the primary lender.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Davison
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-20
  The court recommended granting the Receiver's unopposed Sixteenth Quarterly Fee Application, finding the requested fees and costs for the Receiver and his professionals to be reasonable and diligently incurred.
• Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Davison
  M.D. Fla.· 2024-05-17
  The court recommends granting the Special Counsel's motions for attorney's fees and costs, including interest, based on the approved contingency fee agreement and reasonable expenses incurred in recovering a common fund.
• Ccur Aviation Fin., LLC v. Machado
  S.D. Fla.· 2021-05-03
  The court granted the motion in part, ordering the aircraft grounded and restrained pending further order, but denied expansion to include the owning entity without notice.
• Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Mobe Ltd.
  M.D. Fla.· 2021-01-06
  The court adopts the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, establishing procedures for Non-Consumer Creditors to file claims against receivership assets.
• Harry C. Steigman Equip. Co., Inc. v. Atl. Hotel Co.
  224 F.2d 786· 3d Cir.· 1955-08-11
  The court held that the "general assignment" did not grant a security interest in the proceeds from the sale of the hotel's capital assets.
• Bondholders, Inc. v. Powell
  190 F.2d 74· 4th Cir.· 1951-06-01
  The court held that the Adjustment Bondholders' attempt to modify the confirmed reorganization plan was without merit, as their claims were subordinate, previously adjudicated, and barred by the foreclosure decree.
• Scherck v. Dysart
  123 F.2d 364· 8th Cir.· 1941-11-17
  The court held that the approved reorganization plan was fair and equitable, and did not abuse its discretion in approving it over an alternative proposal.