In re Bedford Springs Hotel, Inc.

14 Citing cases

  1. In re Scotland Guard Serv., Inc.

    139 B.R. 264 (Bankr. D.P.R. 1991)   Cited 13 times
    Finding that plan which did not provide for any transfer of property was substantially consummated where debtor was operating the business and distributions under the plan had commenced

    All three elements must be present to warrant a finding of substantial consummation. United States v. Novak, 86 B.R. 625, 628 (D.S.D. 1988); In re Fansal Shoe Corp., 119 B.R. 28, 30 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1990); In re Bedford Springs Hotel, Inc., 99 B.R. 302, 303 (Bankr.W.D.Pa. 1989); In re Charterhouse, 84 B.R. 147, 152 (Bankr.D.Minn. 1988); In re Gene Dunavant and Son Dairy, 75 B.R. 328, 332 (Bankr.M.D.Tenn.

  2. In re Bullion Hollow Enterprises, Inc.

    185 B.R. 726 (W.D. Va. 1995)   Cited 15 times

    In re Dam Road Mini Storage, 156 B.R. 270, 271 (Bankr.S.D.Cal. 1993); In re Modern Steel Treating Co., 130 B.R. 60, 64 (Bankr. N.D.Ill. 1991). All of the requirements of the three subsections must be met in order to find substantial consummation. In re Bedford Springs Hotel, 99 B.R. 302, 303 (Bankr. W.D.Pa. 1989). The dispute in this matter arises over whether payments to creditors is governed by subsection (A) or subsection (C) of the definition of substantial consummation.

  3. Pamaco Partnership Mgmt. Corp. v. TMC Terraplan Mgmt. Corp.

    158 B.R. 61 (W.D. Va. 1993)   Cited 4 times
    Finding no bad faith or prejudice in failure to file timely designation of record and statement of issues

    All three elements must be proved to establish substantial consummation. See In re Bedford Springs Hotel, Inc., 99 B.R. 302, 303 (Bankr. W.D.Pa. 1989). This court finds Appellants' reliance on § 1127(b) misplaced.

  4. In re Stevenson

    148 B.R. 592 (D. Idaho 1992)   Cited 15 times
    Noting that § 1101(C) "requires only that such a distribution be commenced."

    First of all, based on the briefing, the only element of Section 1101(2) which the appellant appears to dispute the satisfaction of is element (C) which requires a finding of commencement of distribution under the plan. As noted in the case of In re Bedford Springs Hotel, Inc., 99 B.R. 302 (Bankr.W.D.Pa. 1989), which appellant himself as cited, "Subsection (C) [of Section 1101(2)] requires only that such a distribution be commenced." Id. at 303 (emphasis in original) (citations omitted).

  5. In re Dean Hardwoods, Inc.

    431 B.R. 387 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2010)   Cited 6 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Emphasizing that "unforseen changed circumstances in this case justify the modification as to [the creditor bank]"

    Bullion Hollow, 185 B.R. at 728. See In re Hayball Trucking, Inc., 67 B.R. 681 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1986);In re Earley, 74 B.R. 560 (Bankr. C.D. Ill. 1987); In re Bedford Springs Hotel, Inc., 99 B.R. 302 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1989); In re Burlingame, 123 B.R. 409 (Bankr. N.D. Okla. 1991). Instead, those courts have held "payments to creditors are not to be considered transferring property under subsection (A), but instead, fall under subsection (C) which only requires that the distribution of the payments to have commenced."

  6. In re Condere Corp.

    228 B.R. 615 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. 1998)   Cited 16 times
    Approving sale of all debtor's assets because debtor would otherwise run completely out of money in two to four weeks, and "the proposed sale in the instant case is a simple exchange of assets for cash. It is unlike the far reaching terms of the sale the Fifth Circuit objected to in Braniff"

    The First Circuit held that the bank's dual role did not affect its status as a good faith purchaser. Id. at 4. The same result was reached by the court in In re Bedford Springs Hotel, Inc., 99 B.R. 302 (Bankr.W.D.Pa. 1989). In a purchase of a debtor's assets through a plan, the court held that absent a showing of fraud, collusion or attempts at unfair advantage, an insider may be a good faith purchaser.

  7. In re Litton

    222 B.R. 788 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1998)   Cited 3 times

    In the case of In Re Bullion Hollow Enterprises, 185 B.R. 726 (W.D.Va. 1995), the Court emphasized that all of the requirements of the three subsections must be met in order to find substantial consummation. See also In re Bedford Springs Hotel, 99 B.R. 302, 303 (Bankr.W.D.Pa. 1989). The facts of this case show that the Debtor has only made one payment to Wachovia under the plan.

  8. In re H L Developers, Inc.

    178 B.R. 77 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1994)   Cited 7 times
    Stating that "the purpose of the substantial consummation requirement is to provide some finality to bankruptcy proceedings . . ."

    Whether a plan has been substantially consummated is a question of fact to be determined upon the circumstances of each case and the evidence provided by the parties. In re Stevenson, 148 B.R. 592, 596 (D.Idaho 1992); In re Jorgensen, 66 B.R. 104, 106 (9th Cir. BAP 1986); In re Bedford Springs Hotel, Inc., 99 B.R. 302, 303 (Bankr.W.D.Pa. 1989). The burden is on the proponent of modification to show that the plan has not been substantially consummated.

  9. In re Antiquities of Nevada, Inc.

    173 B.R. 926 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 1994)   Cited 21 times
    Holding that substantial consummation barred modification when the debtor had assumed management and control of the property administered under the plan, distributions had commenced under the plan, and the plan did not provide for any transfers of non-cash property

    In re Burnsbrooke Apartments of Athens, Ltd., 151 B.R. 455, 458 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1992) ("better reasoned approach is Hayball Trucking"); Scotland Guard, 139 B.R. at 266 (adopting Hayball analysis); In re Burlingame, 123 B.R. 409, 412 (Bankr.N.D.Okla. 1991) (rejecting Heatron); In re Bedford Springs Hotel, Inc., 99 B.R. 302, 303 (Bankr. W.D.Pa. 1989) (subsections (A) and (C) address very different items and require different treatment); United States v. Novak, 86 B.R. 625, 631 (D.S.D. 1988) (rejecting percentage of payment test under Heatron). The Supreme Court recently reiterated "the settled rule that a statute must, if possible, be construed in such fashion that every word has some operative effect."

  10. In re T.S. Note Co.

    140 B.R. 812 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1992)   Cited 14 times
    Conceding that "non-administered assets such as possible causes of action remaining" would be property of a Chapter 7 estate

    In this case, the stipulations and attachments to the motion and memoranda of the creditors and the two year time lag between confirmation and the creditors' motion allow the court to determine that substantial consummation has occurred in these cases, see In re Burlingame, 123 B.R. 409, 411-12 (Bankr.N.D.Okla. 1991) (substantial consummation found so no modification of plan allowed under § 1127); In re Fansal Shoe Corp., 119 B.R. 28, 30-31 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1990) (substantial consummation found so no modification of plan allowed under § 1127); In re Bedford Springs Hotel, Inc., 99 B.R. 302, 303-05 (Bankr.W.D.Pa. 1989) (in essence, granting declaratory judgment that substantial consummation had occurred); thus, conversion pursuant to § 1112(b)(7) would be inappropriate. However, the debtors have materially defaulted with respect to their confirmed plans, and thus, conversion pursuant to § 1112(b)(8) is appropriate.