Reorganization Court

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

• In re Chicago
  658 F.2d 1149· 7th Cir.· 1981-08-17 ·cited 46×
  The court held that the modified Appendix B labor protective conditions, allowing ten days notice and deferral of traditional benefit payments, were statutorily permissible and did not erode the railroad's estate.
• In re Boston & Me. Corp.
  719 F.2d 493· 1st Cir.· 1983-09-30 ·cited 34×
  The court held that while a railroad reorganization court can defer payment of taxes, it is questionable whether it can impair a municipality's revenue interests by denying all interest on postpetition tax claims.
• Schmidt v. Esquire, Inc.
  210 F.2d 908· 7th Cir.· 1954-02-24 ·cited 32×
  A stockholder cannot maintain a derivative action for libel against a corporation in Chapter X reorganization without authorization from the reorganization court, and foreign corporations are not subject to suit in Indiana if their activities there are limited to those of indepen
• Reconstr. Fin. Corp. v. Kaplan
  185 F.2d 791· 1st Cir.· 1950-12-21 ·cited 28×
  A reorganization court under Chapter X has the power to order a secured creditor in possession of the debtor's property to turn over that property to the reorganization trustees, even if the creditor has a lien or pledge, provided the order does not impair the creditor's substant
• In re Penn Cent. Transp. Co.
  453 F.2d 520· 3d Cir.· 1971-12-23 ·cited 24×
  A railroad reorganization court has the equitable power to restrain banks from setting off their claims against the debtor's bank accounts, even if those accounts represent choses in action, to preserve the debtor's property for the benefit of all creditors.
• In re Erie Lackawanna Ry. Co.
  548 F.2d 621· 6th Cir.· 1977-01-18 ·cited 20×
  The court held that the retirees' claims for life insurance premiums do not have priority as an administrative expense under the Rail Act, even though they constitute valid contract rights.
• In re Imperial "400" Nat'l, Inc.
  429 F.2d 671· 3d Cir.· 1970-07-23 ·cited 20×
  A reorganization court has broad jurisdiction, including the power to enjoin proceedings in other courts that could interfere with the debtor's reorganization, even if the debtor does not hold direct title to the property involved.
• United States v. Duggan
  210 F.2d 926· 8th Cir.· 1954-03-09 ·cited 18×
  The court held that the Government's claim against the debtor contractor was not subject to dismissal for failure to obtain an administrative determination, as the contract did not mandate such a procedure for all claims and the court had jurisdiction to determine the claim judic
• In re Chicago Pac. Corp.
  773 F.2d 909· 7th Cir.· 1985-09-24 ·cited 16×
  The court held that the Organization of Minority Vendors' (OMVI) claim against the Chicago, Rock Island and Pacific Railroad Company (Rock Island) was untimely and barred by laches and estoppel, regardless of how the claim was characterized.
• In re S. Jersey Land Corp.
  361 F.2d 610· 3d Cir.· 1966-05-26 ·cited 13×
  The court held that a reorganization court has jurisdiction to order the reconveyance of fraudulently transferred property, even if it was the subject of a prior state court proceeding, and that the property of a subsidiary corporation is not automatically considered property of
• In re Penn Cent. Transp. Co.
  596 F.2d 1127· 3d Cir.· 1979-01-11 ·cited 12×
  The court affirmed the reorganization court's approval of the Plan of Reorganization, finding it fair and equitable to the appellants.
• Benton v. Callaway
  165 F.2d 877· 5th Cir.· 1948-01-13 ·cited 12×
  The bankruptcy court erred in enjoining a state court proceeding concerning the conveyance of a lessor railroad's property, as it lacked exclusive jurisdiction over the lessor's fee simple title.
• Amoco Pipeline Co. v. Admiral Crude OIL Corp.
  490 F.2d 114· 10th Cir.· 1974-01-08 ·cited 10×
  The New Mexico district court correctly exercised jurisdiction and denied the stay, as the oil in question was not in the debtor's possession or property when the bankruptcy stay order was issued.
• In re The NEW York
  457 F.2d 683· 2d Cir.· 1972-03-17 ·cited 10×
  The Connecticut reorganization court retains jurisdiction to review the fairness and equity of the consideration to be paid by Penn Central to the New Haven estate, alongside the Pennsylvania court.
• Austrian v. Harrison Williams
  216 F.2d 278· 2d Cir.· 1954-10-19 ·cited 10×
  The District Court lacked jurisdiction to determine allowances for expenses and attorneys' fees; such matters are exclusively within the purview of the Reorganization Court.
• In re Nat'l Aircraft Corp. Duggan v. Sansberry. Nat'l Aircraft Corp. V. Same
  149 F.2d 548· 7th Cir.· 1945-04-21 ·cited 10×
  The dissenting judge holds that the Missouri court had proper jurisdiction for reorganization and its findings are paramount, requiring the Indiana court to yield.
• In re Morrison v. Rocco Ferrera & Co.
  554 F.2d 290· 6th Cir.· 1977-05-06 ·cited 8×
  The bankruptcy judge retained jurisdiction over the accounts receivable matter even after the Chapter X proceeding terminated and the debtor was adjudicated a bankrupt, because the jurisdiction was properly established through court referrals and the defendant's failure to timely
• In re Pittsburgh-Duquesne Dev. Co.
  482 F.2d 243· 3d Cir.· 1973-06-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that a mortgagee's lien on rents collected after default persists during a Chapter XII reorganization, and a trustee's diversion of these rents to other expenses deprives the mortgagee of its security.
• In re Penn Cent. Transp. Co.
  477 F.2d 841· 3d Cir.· 1973-04-27 ·cited 8×
  A reorganization court has summary jurisdiction to enjoin non-judicial set-offs of shippers' claims against freight charges incurred before reorganization, as such claims are not defenses to the carrier's claim for charges under the Interstate Commerce Act.
• In re Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. Penn Cent. Transp. Co.
  457 F.2d 381· 3d Cir.· 1972-03-17 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a preliminary injunction to continue operating the New York-Chatham passenger trains.
• United States v. NEW York
  348 F.2d 151· 1st Cir.· 1965-07-15 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the reorganization court's exclusive jurisdiction does not deprive a district court of jurisdiction over a federal condemnation suit for land located within its district, even without the reorganization court's consent.
• In re New York
  169 F.2d 337· 2d Cir.· 1948-06-29 ·cited 8×
  The court held that the reorganized New Haven may operate the B&P lines until the ICC orders otherwise, and the lower court properly retained jurisdiction over claims against the Bankruptcy Trustees.
• 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
• In re Boston & Me. Corp. v. Moore
  776 F.2d 2· 1st Cir.· 1985-11-04 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by unduly reducing the attorney fees awarded to counsel for the debtor railroad, finding the fees sought were reasonable given the complexity, importance, and successful outcomes of the legal services rendered.
• In re Chicago
  739 F.2d 1169· 7th Cir.· 1984-06-28 ·cited 6×
  The court held that the district court abused its discretion by denying the state leave to condemn the abandoned rail line and by declaring the state could not exercise eminent domain power. The court vacated an order regarding the trustee's duty to remove bridges and crossings.
• In re Penn Cent. Transp. Co.
  560 F.2d 169· 3d Cir.· 1977-07-25 ·cited 6×
  The court vacated the first sentence of paragraph 2 of Order 2569, affirming the rest, because the reorganization court's order was too sweeping in enjoining Amtrak from asserting claims for pre-conveyance breaches.
• Nat'l R.R. Passenger Corp. v. Blanchette
  551 F.2d 127· 7th Cir.· 1977-02-15 ·cited 6×
  The Court of Appeals held that the Indiana District Court lacked jurisdiction to issue a declaratory judgment that circumscribed the exclusive jurisdiction of the Pennsylvania Reorganization Court over matters concerning the debtor's estate, and that its confirmation of the arbit
• In re Chicago
  974 F.2d 775· 7th Cir.· 1992-08-18 ·cited 4×
  The court held that Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) had a claim or contingent claim that should have been filed before the bankruptcy bar date, and thus its CERCLA claim against Milwaukee Road's successor was discharged.
• In re Chicago
  882 F.2d 1188· 7th Cir.· 1989-08-14 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the Escanaba, by exercising its right of first refusal, stepped into the shoes of the Soo and assumed the labor protection obligations under Order No. 809 and the MRRA, and the reorganization court retained jurisdiction to impose these obligations.
• In re the Cent. R.R. Co. OF NEW Jersey
  486 F.2d 1124· 3d Cir.· 1973-09-20 ·cited 2×
  A reorganization court has the authority to protect its jurisdiction by precluding review of abandonment orders in any other district court, especially when the affected party failed to appeal prior relevant orders.
• In re the NEW York v. Smith
  447 F.2d 428· 2d Cir.· 1971-06-04 ·cited 2×
  The reorganization court had jurisdiction to enjoin the City's condemnation proceeding against the debtor's property, and its order voiding the condemnation was proper.
• In re Imperial "400" Nat'l, Inc.
  429 F.2d 680· 3d Cir.· 1970-07-23 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the reorganization court properly enjoined the appellant from terminating the lease and initiating proceedings elsewhere, but remanded for modification of the order to condition it upon the trustee's payment of obligations.
• In re Dilbert's Quality Supermarkets, Inc.
  368 F.2d 922· 2d Cir.· 1966-11-28 ·cited 2×
  The court held that the reorganization court had jurisdiction to enjoin a foreclosure action on a leasehold that was an asset of the debtor, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in doing so.
• In re Westec Corp. v. Carpenter
  449 F.2d 243· 5th Cir.· 1971-09-17
  The court held that the district court had jurisdiction and its findings were not clearly erroneous in ordering the repayment of escrowed funds.
• In re ST. Charles Hotel Co.
  157 F.2d 317· 3d Cir.· 1946-08-29
  The court held that a bankruptcy court can receive an involuntary petition even if a reorganization proceeding was pending, especially when the reorganization court has dismissed its petition.