Legal Opinion
In re Kmart Corp.
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Decided February 24, 2004No. Nos. 03-1956, 03-1999, 03-2000, 03-2001, 03-2035, 03-2262, 03-2346, 03-2347, 03-2348PublishedCited by 86 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
EASTERBROOK, Circuit Judge.
On the first day of its bankruptcy, Kmart sought permission to pay immediately, and in full, the pre-petition claims of all “critical vendors.” (Technically there are 38 debtors: Kmart Corporation plus 37 of its affiliates and subsidiaries. We call them all Kmart.) The theory behind the request is that some suppliers may be unwilling to do business with a customer that is behind in payment, and, if it cannot obtain the merchandise that its own customers have come to expect, a firm such as Kmart may be unable to carry on, injuring all of its creditors. Full payment…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
- Lamie v. United States TrusteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2004
- Norwest Bank Worthington v. AhlersSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Fosdick v. SchallSupreme Court of the United States · 1879
- Bank of America National Trust & Savings Ass'n v. 203 North LaSalle Street PartnershipSupreme Court of the United States · 1999
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by86 opinions
- Czyzewski v. Jevic Holding Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 2017
- In re Owens CorningCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2005
- Bank of New York Trust Co. v. Official Unsecured Creditors' CommitteeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2009
- Robert E. Disch v. Faye F. RasmussenCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 2005
- Procel v. United States Trustee (In Re Procel)District Court, S.D. New York · 2012
81 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.