Legal Opinion · Dissent

Creditors Comm Adamson Apparel v. Arnold Simon

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Decided May 6, 2015No. 12-57059Published

1DissentGraber, Circuit Judge

I respectfully dissent. The majority’s conclusion that Arnold Simon is not a “creditor” for purposes of the Bankruptcy Code is wrong for two independent reasons. First, I would follow every bankruptcy court to have decided the issue and hold that insider-guarantors such as Simon are “creditors.” The majority errs by looking to extraneous facts to decide whether the waiver is valid. Second, even if we were to look to additional facts, the majority’s analysis depends heavily on a “fact” that the bankruptcy court expressly declined to find.

A. Insiders and the Right to Indemnity

As its president…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Sicor Ltd. v. Cetus Corp.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
  2. Gary Lee Fisher v. Ernest C. Roe, Warden Attorney General of the State of California, Michael Collins v. Theo White, WardenCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2001
  3. Jonibach Management Trust v. Wartburg Enterprises, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 2014
  4. Miller v. Greystone Business Credit II, LLC (In re USA Detergents, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Delaware · 2009
  5. Telesphere Liquidating Trust v. Galesi (In Re Telesphere Communications, Inc.)United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Illinois · 1999

3 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