Legal Opinion

Cushman & Wakefield of Connecticut, Inc. v. Keren Ltd. Partnership

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided August 27, 1999No. Docket No. 98-5074PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Per curiam

Cushman & Wakefield of Connecticut, Inc., and Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. (collectively “C & W”) appeal from a judgment by Judge Parker affirming Bankruptcy Judge Hardin’s refusal to grant C & W’s motion to be retained nunc pro tunc as a professional or to classify its brokerage commission as a post-petition administrative expense. C & W contends that (i) the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in refusing to grant nunc pro tunc approval and (ii) it is entitled to administrative priority pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A). We affirm.

The background is set forth in the district court’s…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. National Labor Relations Board v. Bildisco & BildiscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. In Re Klein Sleep Products, Inc., Debtor. Nostas Associates v. Bernard W. Costich, Chapter 11 Trustee, and Official Committee of Unsecured CreditorsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
  3. In re JarvisCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
  4. In Re Keren Ltd. PartnershipDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1998

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Schwartz v. Aquatic Dev. Group, Inc. (In re Aquatic Dev. Group, Inc.) - concurrenceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
  2. In Re: Keren Limited PartnershipCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
  3. In Re Renaissance Residential of Countryside, LLCUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · 2010
  4. Schwartz v. Aquatic Dev. Group, Inc. (In re Aquatic Dev. Group, Inc.) - concurrenceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003

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

Powered by the Exa API