Corporate Assets, Inc. v. Paloian

68 Citing cases

  1. In re Sunland, Inc.

    Case No. 7-13-13301 TR (Bankr. D.N.M. Mar. 25, 2014)

    In considering this issue, other circuits typically weigh two competing considerations: the best interests of creditors and the integrity and finality of judicial auctions. See, e.g., Corporate Assets, Inc. v. Paloian, 368 F.3d 761, 767 (7th Cir. 2004); In re Food Barn Stores, Inc., 107 F.3d 558, 562 (8th Cir.1997); In re Financial News Network Inc., 980 F.2d 165, 166 (2nd Cir. 1992); First Nat'l Bank v. M/V Lightning Power, 776 F.2d 1258, 1259 (5th Cir.1985); cf Charter Co. v. Charter Int'l Oil Co. (In re Charter Co.), 829 F.2d 1054, 1055 n. 1 (11th Cir. 1987).

  2. In re Sunland, Inc.

    507 B.R. 753 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2014)   Cited 6 times
    Entering stay appropriate where stay would halt the sale of specific property that the Bankruptcy Code specifically said could not be reversed even where the decision allowing the sale has been reversed on appeal

    In considering this issue, other circuits typically weigh two competing considerations: the best interests of creditors and the integrity and finality of judicial auctions. See, e.g., Corporate Assets, Inc. v. Paloian, 368 F.3d 761, 767 (7th Cir.2004); In re Food Barn Stores, Inc., 107 F.3d 558, 562 (8th Cir.1997); In re Financial News Network Inc., 980 F.2d 165, 166 (2nd Cir.1992); First Nat'l Bank v. M/V Lightning Power, 776 F.2d 1258, 1259 (5th Cir.1985); cf. Cargill Inc. v. Charter Int'l Oil Co. (In re Charter Co.), 829 F.2d 1054, 1055 n. 1 (11th Cir.1987).

  3. Wiese v. Community Bank of Cent

    552 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 2009)   Cited 97 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in determining specified sections of the confirmed plan remained binding on the parties notwithstanding dismissal

    II. Analysis In reviewing the district court's decision to reverse the bankruptcy court, we employ the same standard of review that the district court itself used. Corporate Assets, Inc. v. Paloian, 368 F.3d 761, 767 (7th Cir. 2004). Therefore, we review the bankruptcy court's determinations of law de novo and findings of fact for clear error.

  4. In re Hart's Manufacturing Company, Inc.

    383 B.R. 720 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 2008)   Cited 1 times

    This goal must be balanced, however, against the need for finality in judicial sales. In re Webcor, Inc., 392 F.2d 893, 899 (7th Cir. 1968) ("If parties are to be encouraged to bid at judicial sales[,] there must be stability in such sales and a time must come when a fair bid is accepted and the proceedings are ended") (citations omitted); Chung King, 753 F.2d at 550; In re Food Barn Stores, Inc., 107 F.3d 558, 564 (8th Cir. 1997); Corporate Assets, Inc. v. Paloian, 368 F.3d 761, 767-768 (7th Cir. 2004). In the instant case, such finality becomes particularly important because the auction was held pursuant to a previously confirmed plan.

  5. In re Kmart Corp.

    381 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 2004)   Cited 122 times
    Holding that this factor was "inconclusive" where claimant waited until the "eleventh hour" to file proof of claim and failed to act diligently after filing

    II. Analysis Our de novo review of the district court's decision to affirm the bankruptcy court allows us to assess the bankruptcy court's judgment anew, employing the same standard of review the district court itself used. Corporate Assets, Inc. v. Paloian, 368 F.3d 761, 767 (7th Cir. 2004) (citing Frierdich v. Mottaz, 294 F.3d 864, 867 (7th Cir. 2002)). The bankruptcy court's refusal to deem Simmons's claim timely filed will be overturned only in extreme cases, when the bankruptcy court has abused its discretion.

  6. Caiarelli v. Taylor (In re Taylor)

    526 B.R. 719 (N.D. Ill. 2014)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that a creditor seeking a state court declaratory judgment regarding her rights so as to be able to proceed in an adversary proceeding in bankruptcy court did not violate the discharge injunction

    “[A] court abuses its discretion when its decision is premised on an incorrect legal principle or a clearly erroneous factual finding, or when the record contains no evidence on which the court rationally could have relied.” Corporate Assets, Inc. v. Paloian, 368 F.3d 761, 767 (7th Cir.2004). III. Analysis

  7. In re Sebert

    Civil Case No. 07-15509 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 11, 2008)

    "The bankruptcy court's confirmation of an asset sale will only be overturned in extreme cases, when the bankruptcy court has abused its discretion." Corporate Assets, Inc. v. Paloian, 368 F.3d 761, 767 (2004) (citing In re Chung King, Inc., 753 F.2d 547, 549 (7th Cir. 1985). In determining whether the bankruptcy court abused its discretion, "[t]he question is not how the reviewing court would have ruled, but rather whether a reasonable person could agree with the bankruptcy court's decision; if reasonable persons could differ as to the issue, then there is no abuse of discretion."

  8. Famous v. Fuchs

    38 F.4th 625 (7th Cir. 2022)   Cited 18 times

    A court abuses its discretion "when its decision is premised on an incorrect legal principle or a clearly erroneous factual finding, or when the record contains no evidence on which the court rationally could have relied." Corp. Assets, Inc. v. Paloian , 368 F.3d 761, 767 (7th Cir. 2004).

  9. In re Knight-Celotex, LLC

    695 F.3d 714 (7th Cir. 2012)   Cited 76 times
    Rejecting application of judicial estoppel because it is not unfair to require a defendant to defend against potentially valid claims

    “[A] court abuses its discretion when its decision is premised on an incorrect legal principle or a clearly erroneous factual finding, or when the record contains no evidence on which the court rationally could have relied.” Corporate Assets, Inc. v. Paloian, 368 F.3d 761, 767 (7th Cir.2004). We find that the bankruptcy court properly exercised its discretion in rejecting Knight's theory and in refusing to invoke the doctrine of judicial estoppel to preclude assignment of the D & O claims against Knight to the Bank.

  10. In re River West Plaza-Chicago, LLC

    664 F.3d 668 (7th Cir. 2011)   Cited 20 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Finding that only where the purchase was not made in good faith can the Court disturb the bankruptcy court's decision in contravention of Section 363(m)

    “A central purpose of bankruptcy ... is to maximize creditor recovery.” Corporate Assets, Inc. v. Paloian, 368 F.3d 761, 767 (7th Cir.2004). Because “purchasers are likely to demand a steep discount” when purchasing a bankruptcy debtor's property if the sale can later be disturbed, In re Sax, 796 F.2d 994, 998 (7th Cir.1986) (citation omitted), Congress has decided that bankruptcy sales are usually final.