Bankwest, N.A. v. Todd

6 Citing cases

  1. Carranza v. PCT Int'l

    No. CV-20-01307-PHX-DJH (D. Ariz. Sep. 7, 2021)   Cited 1 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Other courts throughout the country have similarly held that appeals are moot where the cash has already been spent, and where the matter was not stayed pending an appeal. See Dahlquist v. First Nat'l Bank, 737 F.2d 733, 735 (8th Cir. 1984) (appeal of a cash collateral order is moot once the funds have been spent); Congress Fin. Corp. v. Shepard Clothing Co., 2002 WL 1739021, at *1 (D. Mass. July 26, 2002) (appeal moot where the cash collateral authorized to be spent had been used); Bankwest, N.A. v. Todd, 49 B.R. 633, 637-38 (D.S.D. 1985) (appeal equitably moot as to both spent and unspent funds because it would be both “economically unwise and inequitable” to reverse the cash collateral order). Here, it is undisputed that the PPP funds have been spent on a number of third parties not before this Court.

  2. Matter of Plaza Family Partnership

    95 B.R. 166 (E.D. Cal. 1989)   Cited 12 times
    Reviewing a bankruptcy court's implicit factual findings for clear error in the absence of formal findings of fact

    The debtor-partnership contends that this appeal is moot because at no time did Travelers seek a stay of the bankruptcy court's order authorizing use of cash collateral. It cites to an Eighth Circuit case, Dahlquist v. First National Bank of Sioux City, Iowa, 737 F.2d 733 (1984), where the Appellate court dismissed an appeal of a bankruptcy court's order authorizing the use of cash collateral because the funds were already spent by the debtor. The partnership also relies Bankwest v. Tott, 49 B.R. 633, 637 (D.C.S.D. 1985) where the court similarly held that the issue of cash collateral is moot to the extent the amounts were already expended. The court finds the present appeal is not moot because the debtor-partnership has already spent the authorized funds.

  3. Samuel v. JPMorgan Chase Bank (In re Samuel)

    BAP No. EC-17-1036-BHKu (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Jul. 31, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    Accordingly, the appeal of the Fourth Cash Collateral Order is DISMISSED as MOOT. See Dahlquist v. First Nat'l Bank, 737 F.2d 733, 735 (8th Cir. 1984) (holding that an appeal of a cash collateral order is moot if the funds have been spent); Congress Fin. Corp. v. Shepard Clothing Co. (In re Shepard Clothing Co.), 2002 WL 1739021, at *1 (D. Mass. July 26, 2002) (appeal moot where the time period covered by the cash collateral order has expired and the collateral authorized to be spent has been used); Bankwest, N.A. v. Todd, 49 B.R. 633, 637-38 (D.S.D. 1985) (court finding cash collateral order moot to the extent of the amounts already expended by debtors, but finding appeal still equitably moot as to the unspent funds because it would be both "economially unwise and inequitable" to reverse the cash collateral order). Notwithstanding the mootness of this appeal, we note that Hoda's opening brief fails to articulate any argument whatsoever for how the bankruptcy court erred by entering the Fourth Cash Collateral Order.

  4. In re Gyro-Trac (Usa), Inc.

    C/A No. 10-01908-DD (Bankr. D.S.C. Mar. 30, 2010)

    Id. During the initial stages of a bankruptcy, the use of cash collateral should be limited to emergency matters. See Bankwest N.A. v. Todd, 49 B.R. 633, 635 (D.C.S.D. 1985) (holding that by keeping debtors on a shorter tether, the risks associated with the use of cash collateral are reduced because the amount of money at stake is reduced). In determining whether to allow the use of cash collateral, there is a presumption in favor of reorganization.

  5. In re Cann & Saul Steel Co.

    76 B.R. 479 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987)   Cited 12 times

    We shall continue in effect all aspects of the Order of March 12, 1987, which include a restriction on the Debtor's use of Cash Collateral to operations in its ordinary course of business and supplying of financial data on a regular basis to the Bank's accountants. See Bankwest, N.A. v. Todd, 49 B.R. 633, 634-35, 636 (D.S.D. 1985); All-Way, supra, 73 B.R. 577, 578; and Grant Broadcasting, 71 B.R. at 389, 390. Unlike Grant Broadcasting, where the need to do so was lessened by our finding of an equity cushion, we shall also require the Debtor to make certain periodic payments to the Bank.

  6. In re Grant Broadcasting of Philadelphia

    71 B.R. 376 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987)   Cited 35 times
    Concluding that 27.5% equity cushion, which was increasing, was adequate protection

    Finally, we are adding the conditions that the Debtor stations must produce, as best they are able given the potential of lack of cooperation from all major creditors except Viacom, a tentative Plan and are requiring them to establish, within 120 days, that they are performing per their Cash Flow Projections and are achieving the goal of a twenty-five (25%) percent reduction in programming costs which was the underlying assumption of Mr. Cheen in his crucial evaluation. Compare Bankwest, N.A. v. Todd, 49 B.R. 633, 634-35, 636 (D.S.D. 1985) (use of cash collateral on conditions of allowing secured creditor to have full financial disclosure, to operate within a given budget, and to give bank a lien on bank accounts approved). With these caveats, we therefore launch the Debtors on their maiden voyage over untested and obviously troubled waters, without adding to their burdens the albatross of the result in American Mariner.