In re Adamson Co., Inc.

9 Citing cases

  1. In re Center Wholesale, Inc.

    759 F.2d 1440 (9th Cir. 1985)   Cited 176 times
    Holding judgment void because aggrieved party had not received adequate notice of the proceedings

    See e.g., In re Sheehan, 38 B.R. 859 (Bankr.D.S.D. 1984); In re Adamson Co., Inc., 29 B.R. 937 (Bankr.E.D.Va. 1983); In re Anderson Walker Industries, Inc., 3 B.R. 551 (Bankr.C.D. Cal. 1980); In re Sullivan Ford Sales, 2 B.R. 350 (Bankr.D.Me. 1980). In the only case involving the issue of adequate protection, Anderson-Walker Industries, the creditor who was objecting to the use of cash collateral was vastly oversecured: its collateral was worth 7.3 times its secured claim.

  2. Matter of Ellingsen MacLean Oil Co., Inc.

    65 B.R. 358 (W.D. Mich. 1986)   Cited 7 times
    Applying section 364(e) to claim that cross-collateralization clause was illegal

    Because the interests of other creditors may be prejudiced through the granting of a section 364(c) priority, due process requires that such creditors receive notice and a chance to object to the priority at a hearing before the bankruptcy court. See Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank and Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950); In re Adamson Co., Inc., 29 B.R. 937 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Va. 1983). Of course, in emergency situations the appropriate notice and hearing are not subject to the strict requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 1002. In the instant case, the record is clear that the notice provided was short.

  3. In re Texaco Inc.

    81 B.R. 820 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that conclusory statements of irreparable harm, without more, do not suffice to grant relief

    In addition, because the Absent Class Members have not filed proofs of claim with the bankruptcy court, any unfiled claims may not be consolidated into a class claim. The movants merely assert that the Absent Class Members will not receive adequate notice of their rights or a fair opportunity for a hearing and cite Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 70 S.Ct. 652, 94 L.Ed. 865 (1950), International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) and In re Adamson Co., Inc., 29 B.R. 937, 941 (Bankr.E.D.Va. 1983) for this proposition. The so-called Absent Class Members will not be deprived of due process if a class certification is denied.

  4. In re Photo Promotion Associates, Inc.

    72 B.R. 606 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987)   Cited 7 times

    Under the present Bankruptcy Code the obtaining of credit authorization can only occur after creditors have been provided with notice and the court has entered an order authorizing the same. In re Adamson Co., Inc., 29 B.R. 937, 939 (Bankr.E.D.Va. 1983). Cf. also In re Sullivan Ford Sales, 2 B.R. 350 (Bankr.D.Me. 1980); In re Monarch Circuit Industries, Inc., 41 B.R. 859, 862 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 1984).

  5. In re Crouse Group, Inc.

    71 B.R. 544 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987)   Cited 17 times
    Holding that extension of secured credit under 11 U.S.C. § 364(c) must be "fair, or reasonable"

    1986), the Court indicates that the burdens of the Debtor are greater in a presentation of a § 364(c) Motion than they would be in a request by the Court to approve an order settling a controversy, which the Ellingsen court suggests would be the standard in a request to approve credit extended per 11 U.S.C. § 364(b). In In re Adamson Co., 29 B.R. 937, 940 (Bankr.E.D.Va. 1983), the court holds that, in an expedited proceeding, "the granting of a § 364(c) priority should carry at least the same if not a heavier burden of proof than that of a petitioner asking for a temporary restraining order must bear." We recognize, as we discussed at length in the Opinion approving a settlement agreement effected by the Debtors there with a particular creditor seeking relief from the Debtors, that, generally, a debtor-in-possession has significant latitude in making judgments about the operation of his business, and this principle carries over to assessment of settlement agreements made by debtors-in-possession.

  6. In re Blumer

    66 B.R. 109 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1986)   Cited 56 times
    Concluding order authorizing loan pursuant to § 364 was not moot when improper notice alleged

    Maine 1980). See In re Garland Corp., 6 B.R. 456, 458 n. 2 (1st Cir. BAP 1980); In re Adamson Co., Inc., 29 B.R. 937, 941 (Bkrtcy.E.Va. 1983). The Panel has held that under the Code an unsecured creditor has standing to appeal from an adverse decision of the trial court.

  7. In re J.L. Graphics, Inc.

    62 B.R. 750 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1986)   Cited 20 times
    Holding rationale for permitting retroactive validation orders no longer exist

    Under the present Bankruptcy Code the obtaining of credit authorization can only occur after creditors have been provided with notice and the court has entered an order authorizing the same. In re Adamson Co., Inc., 29 B.R. 937, 939 (Bankr.E.D.Va. 1983). Cf. also In re Sullivan Ford Sales, 2 B.R. 350 (Bankr.D.Me. 1980); In re Monarch Circuit Industries, Inc., 41 B.R. 859, 862 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 1984).

  8. In re Photo Promotion Associates, Inc.

    53 B.R. 759 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1985)   Cited 9 times

    Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2002(i), notice to the creditors' committee, as reflected by their presubmission consent, satisfied the notice requirement under 11 U.S.C. § 364(c). See In re Adamson Company, Inc., 29 B.R. 937 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Va. 1983); In re Sullivan Ford Sales, 2 B.R. 350 (Bkrtcy.D.Me. 1980). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

  9. In re Columbia Motor Exp., Inc.

    49 B.R. 216 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 1985)

    1980); In re Garland Corp., 6 B.R. 456, 3 COLLIER BANKR.CAS.2d (MB) 24 (Bankr. 1st Cir.1980); In re Adamson Co., 29 B.R. 937 (Bankr.E.D.Va.1983).          Notice and hearing as used in § 364(c) is defined by the Bankruptcy Code as follows: