In Re Harnischfeger Industries, Inc.
United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
PETER J. WALSH, Chief Judge.
Pending before the Court are cross-motions for summary judgment. Dr. Erhard Haekl, the Receiver (the “Receiver”) of Beloit Austria GmbH (“Beloit Austria”) seeks judgment as a matter of law allowing an administrative expense claim totaling $3,445,605.46 (the “Receiver’s Claim”) (Doc.# 11951). 1 The Beloit Liquidating Trust (the “BLT”) seeks summary judgment denying the Receiver’s Claim or, in the alternative, partial summary judgment that § 558 of the Bankruptcy Code 2 applies to permit setoff of the amount of the Receiver’s Claim with amounts…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- The Bremen v. Zapata Off-Shore Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
- National Labor Relations Board v. Bildisco & BildiscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- BFP v. Resolution Trust CorporationSupreme Court of the United States · 1994
- Edgar v. Mite Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Miree v. DeKalb CountySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Superior CourtCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2003
- In Re HackneyUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Alabama · 2006
- Patriot Scientific Corp. v. KorodiDistrict Court, S.D. California · 2007
- LaPlant v. Northwestern Mutual Life InsuranceDistrict Court, E.D. Wisconsin · 2012
- Mancinelli v. Momentum Research, Inc.North Carolina Business Court · 2012
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.