Legal Opinion · Concurrence

BNP Paribas v. Olsen's Mill, Inc.

Wisconsin Supreme Court

Decided July 8, 2011No. 2009AP1007Published

1ConcurrencePatience Drake Roggensack, J.

¶ 85. {concurring). Although I agree with the lead opinion that a reverse and remand is the proper disposition, I do not join the opinion. I write in concurrence to clarify that it is BNP Paribas's (Paribas) secured interest in the assets that the circuit court sold to Olsen's Mill Acquisition Company (OMAC) over Paribas's objection and the circuit court's approval of a sale that failed to pay Paribas anything on its unsecured claim while other unsecured creditors were paid that drive the result that we must reach in our review of the ch. 128 (2007-08)1 proceeding now before us.

¶ 86. Paribas…

2Cases cited11 opinions

  1. Kneeland v. American Loan & Trust Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1890
  2. DISH Network Corp. v. DBSD North America, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2011
  3. Gelatt v. DeDakisWisconsin Supreme Court · 1977
  4. Wisconsin Brick and Block Corp. v. VogelWisconsin Supreme Court · 1972
  5. Thomsen v. CullenWisconsin Supreme Court · 1928

6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API