Baltimore County v. Hechinger Liquidation Trust
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
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
- Michael Kapral v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1999
- Sorenson v. Secretary of the TreasurySupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- In Re JACOBY-BENDER, INC., Debtor. CITY OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. JACOBY-BENDER, INC., AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- United States v. John DoeCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1992
- 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.