Legal Opinion · Dissent

In the Matter of Yale Express System, Inc., Debter. Fruehauf Corporation v. Yale Express System

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided December 16, 1966No. 30707_1Published

1DissentLumbard, Chief Judge

(dissenting) :

I dissent and vote to affirm Judge Tyler’s order.

Section 116(4) of the Bankruptcy Act, 52 Stat. 885 (1938), 11 U.S.C. § 516(4), empowers the district court in a Chapter X reorganization to stay the enforcement of a “lien upon the property of the debtor,” and it should do so if such enforcement would jeopardize the reorganization and if there is “some reasonable assurance that a suitable substitute will be offered” by the plan of reorganization. In re Murel Holding Corp., 75 F.2d 941, 943 (2 Cir. 1935); 2 Gerdes, Corporate Reorganizations 1451-52 (1936); see In re Prudence Co.,…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Metropolitan Life Ins. v. Murel Holding Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935
  2. Foust v. Munson Steamship LinesSupreme Court of the United States · 1936
  3. In Re Lake's Laundry, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1935
  4. In Re New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1945
  5. Barth Equipment Co. v. PerlsteinCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1942

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