Legal Opinion · Dissent

Baltimore County v. Hechinger Liquidation Trust

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided July 18, 2003No. 02-1917Published

1DissentNygaard, Circuit Judge

Although this all may at first appear-to be a “splitting of grammatical hairs,” I believe that the majority’s misinterpretation of 11 U.S.C. § 1146(c) “under a plan confirmed,” of sufficient significance to warrant separately expressing my views. Hence, I dissent. I do not think this phrase places a temporal restriction on the qualifying transactions. Instead, I read the phrase to be a description of eligible transfers-those under a plan confirmed-whether the transfer occurred before or after confirmation. As the Bankruptcy Court and District Court did in this case, I look to the structure…

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Michael Kapral v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
  2. Sorenson v. Secretary of the TreasurySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
  3. In Re JACOBY-BENDER, INC., Debtor. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. JACOBY-BENDER, INC., AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
  4. United States v. John DoeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
  5. City of New York v. Smoss Enterprises Corp. (In Re Smoss Enterprises Corp.)District Court, E.D. New York · 1985

7 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