Cushman & Wakefield of Connecticut, Inc. v. Keren Ltd. Partnership
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
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
- National Labor Relations Board v. Bildisco & BildiscoSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
- 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
- In re JarvisCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1995
- In Re Keren Ltd. PartnershipDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1998
3Cited by4 opinions
- Schwartz v. Aquatic Dev. Group, Inc. (In re Aquatic Dev. Group, Inc.) - concurrenceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003
- In Re: Keren Limited PartnershipCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1999
- In Re Renaissance Residential of Countryside, LLCUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · 2010
- Schwartz v. Aquatic Dev. Group, Inc. (In re Aquatic Dev. Group, Inc.) - concurrenceCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2003