Legal Opinion
In Re Handy & Harman Refining Group, Inc.
District Court, D. Connecticut
Decided January 22, 2004No. 00-20845PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
RULING DENYING MOTION TO ENFORCE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND COMPEL DISTRIBUTION
ROBERT L. KRECHEVSKY, Bankruptcy Judge.
I
Handy & Harman, Inc., Handy & Har-man of Canada, Ltd., Sumco, Inc., Handy & Harman Electronic Materials Corp. (“HHEM”) and Lucas Milhaupt, Inc. (collectively “the movants”), all creditors in this Chapter 11 case who have filed proofs of claim, on December 19, 2003, filed a motion entitled “Motion to Enforce Settlement Agreement and Compel Distribution” (“the motion”). Handy & Harman Refining Group, Inc. (“the debtor”), on December 23, 2003, filed an objection to the granting of…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Katchen v. LandySupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. AndersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Saccurato Inc. v. Masters, Inc. (In Re Masters, Inc.)District Court, E.D. New York · 1992
- In Re Handy & Harman Refining Group, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · 2001
- Goldin Associates, L.L.C. v. Shared Technologies Cellular, Inc. (In Re Shared Technologies Cellular, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Connecticut · 2002
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- In Re Cyberco Holdings, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · 2010
- In re: Cyberco Holdings, Inc.; In re: Teleservices Group, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · 2010
- In re: Cyberco Holdings, Inc.; In re: Teleservices Group, Inc.United States Bankruptcy Court, W.D. Michigan · 2010