Legal Opinion · Dissent

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Cybergenics Corp. Ex Rel. Cybergenics Corp. v. Chinery

Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Decided May 29, 2003No. 01-3805Published

1Dissent

■ FUENTES, Circuit Judge,

with whom Circuit Judges Sloviter, Alito and Smith join, dissenting.

In this case, the majority interprets the phrase “the trustee may,” in § 544(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, to mean that the trustee and a creditors’ committee may seek recovery under the statute. Although the majority does not conclude that the phrase is ambiguous or that its meaning is in any way obscure, it has, nonetheless, broadened the statute to add a party that Congress specifically omitted. The majority reasons that, while no specific statutory authority grants a creditors’ committee standing,…

2Cases cited31 opinions

  1. Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
  2. United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1989
  3. Connecticut National Bank v. GermainSupreme Court of the United States · 1992
  4. Duncan v. WalkerSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  5. Caminetti v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1917

26 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