In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc.

22 Citing cases

  1. In re Americana Expressways

    177 B.R. 960 (D. Utah 1995)   Cited 6 times
    Adopting this view

    In re Lifschultz Fast Freight Corp., 174 B.R. 271, 278 (N.D.Ill. 1994). The bankruptcy court did not address this question but noted that one other case held the NRA inapplicable to a trustee's undercharge claims: In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 173 B.R. 517 (W.D.N.C. 1994). There, the bankruptcy court reasoned that §§ 2(a)-(c) and (e)-(g) of the NRA are conditioned on the financial condition of the debtor because they apply only to a motor carrier that "is no longer transporting property, or is transporting property for the purpose of avoiding the application" of the NRA. 173 B.R. at 535-36.

  2. In re Lifschultz Fast Freight Corp.

    174 B.R. 271 (N.D. Ill. 1994)   Cited 11 times

    On the other hand, only one court has adopted the plaintiff's position. See In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 173 B.R. 517, 525 (W.D.N.C. 1994). This court agrees with the bankruptcy court's reading of the statute.

  3. Matter of Lifschultz Fast Freight Corp.

    63 F.3d 621 (7th Cir. 1995)   Cited 51 times
    Holding that more specific statutory provisions reflect congressional intent more clearly than general provisions

    The origin of the NRA has been described at length by other courts, so we will not recite all of the details here. See generally Maislin Industries, U.S. v. Primary Steel, Inc., 497 U.S. 116, 110 S.Ct. 2759 (1990); Reiter v. Cooper, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 1213 (1993); H.R. Rep. No. 103-359, 103 Cong., 1st Sess., p. 8 (1993), reprinted at 1993 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2534, 2537; S.Rep. No. 103-79, 103d Cong., 1st Sess. (1993); In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 173 B.R. 517, 526-530 (W.D.N.C. 1994). Suffice it to say that the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 significantly deregulated the trucking industry, causing an increase in competition.

  4. In re Jones Truck Lines, Inc.

    172 B.R. 602 (Bankr. W.D. Ark. 1994)   Cited 12 times
    Applying NRA to undercharge claims made by bankrupt carriers does not violate Section 9 but does violate the antiforfeiture provisions of the Bankruptcy Code

    However, Section 9 of the NRA has additional legislative history that supports the argument advanced by Jones. A portion of this history was discussed by the bankruptcy court in Cooper v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours Co. ( In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc.), No. 92-3100, 1994 WL 197420 (Bankr.W.D.N.C. Feb. 18, 1994), recommendations adopted, 173 B.R. 517 (W.D.N.C. 1994) as follows: On November 10, 1993 Chairman Jack Brooks of the House Committee on the Judiciary requested a sequential referral of H.R. 2121 for review by the Judiciary Committee.

  5. In re Jones Truck Lines, Inc.

    57 F.3d 642 (8th Cir. 1995)   Cited 19 times
    Finding that economic impact was too speculative to support a takings claims

    See, e.g., In re Americana Expressways, Inc., 177 B.R. 960, 963-65 (D .Utah 1995), rev'g., 172 B.R. 99, 101 (Bankr.D. Utah 1994); In re American Freight System, Inc., 179 B.R. 952, 957-59 (Bankr.D.Kan. 1995); but see In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 173 B.R. 517 (W.D.N.C. 1994). B.

  6. Jones Truck Lines v. Polyflex Film Conver.

    173 B.R. 576 (S.D. Miss. 1994)   Cited 9 times

    Logic precludes the court's ascribing to Congress such an irrational intention. Further, the court would observe that while one bankruptcy court has held that the NRA cannot be applied to bankrupt debtors, or at least those which have ceased operating, see In re Bulldog Trucking of Georgia, Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours Co., 173 B.R. 517 (W.D.N.C. 1994), every other court to address this issue has given effect to Congress' clear intent that the Act apply in such cases. See Jones Truck Lines, Inc. v. Grinnell Corp. Anvil Prods Div., 167 B.R. 488 (N.D.Ill. 1994) ("After a review of the plain language of the NRA and its legislative history, it is the opinion of the Court that Congress intended the NRA to apply to bankrupt debtors."); Hoarty v. Midwest Carriers Corp., 168 B.R. 978 (Bankr.D.Neb. 1994) ("There is nothing in any legislative history materials and, more importantly, in the language of the statute to suggest that Section 9 was added to exempt bankrupt carriers from the NRA, or that it was ever even suggested by any member of Congress that the NRA would not apply to bankrupt carriers."); Jones Truck Lines, Inc. v. United States Brass Corp., No. 3:93-CV-1318-T, 1994 WL 395667 (N.D.Tex. Apr. 7, 1994) (rejecting Jones' contention that NRA was inapplicable to bankrupt carriers); Jones Truck Lines, Inc. v. Madix Store Fixtures, No.

  7. In re American Freight System, Inc.

    179 B.R. 952 (Bankr. D. Kan. 1995)   Cited 23 times
    Rejecting a claim by a freight carrier that under § 1142 it may pursue certain post-confirmation claims prohibited by federal law

    As addressed later in this opinion, there is no conflict among the NRA and various provisions in the Bankruptcy Code, such as 11 U.S.C. § 541 and 1142. AFS relies on two cases, In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 173 B.R. 517 (W.D.N.C. 1994), and In re Americana Expressways, Inc., 172 B.R. 99, 101 (Bankr.D.Utah 1994), report and recommendation denied, 177 B.R. 960 (D.Utah 1995). However, the Bulldog decision notes that the NRA is "applicable nonbankruptcy law" because by its own terms it provides in Section 9 that it does not amend Title 11.

  8. In re Parker Refrigerated Serv., Inc.

    173 B.R. 704 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 1994)   Cited 6 times
    Finding violation of section 541(c) but holding that NRA prevails over Bankruptcy Code

    In Reiter v. Cooper, 507 U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 1213, 122 L.Ed.2d 604 (1993), the Supreme Court held that, where the plaintiff seeking to collect under the filed rate doctrine was the bankruptcy trustee of an insolvent carrier, the ordinary rules governing counterclaims applied to the shipper's "unreasonable rate" defense, and reversed the Circuit Court's holding that the shipper must pay the filed rates and later seek damages if the ICC finds the rates unreasonable. A. NRA: It is clear from the legislative history, extensively recounted in Cooper, Trustee v. E.I. Du Pont de Nemours Co. (In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc.), 173 B.R. 517 (W.D.N.C. 1994), that Congress's central purpose in enacting the NRA was to address undercharge claims brought by bankruptcy trustees. The District Court has granted summary judgment in favor of the trustee, on the Bankruptcy Court's recommendation, in this case.

  9. In re Transcon Lines

    58 F.3d 1432 (9th Cir. 1995)   Cited 22 times
    Noting that "nonbankruptcy law defines the nature, scope, and extent of the property rights that come into the hands of the bankruptcy estate"

    Similarly, another bankruptcy court has shared Transcon's concern that "every creditor and governmental entity would seek to enforce ipso facto forfeitures against debtors in bankruptcy on the ground that they no longer have revenues and/or income and/or business operations." Cooper v. E.I. Du. Pont de Nemours Co. (In re Bulldog Trucking), 173 B.R. 517, 537 (W.D.N.C. 1994) (emphasis in original). We are not swayed by these concerns, however, because we do not hold that conditioning a default on a debtor's operational status is never prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code's antiforfeiture provisions.

  10. Offshore Marine, Inc. v. Associated Gas & Oil Co.

    CIVIL ACTION NO.: 11-775 (W.D. La. Sep. 27, 2011)

    See, Masson v. New Yorker Mag., Inc., 832 F.Supp 1350, 1376-77 (N.D. Cal. 1993), aff d, 85 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1996). Other cases have followed the Supreme Court's suggestion. See, Pereira, 275 B.R. at 475-76; In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc. v. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co., 173 B.R. 517 (W.D. N.C. 1994). Rule 62(h) allows a court certifying a judgment under Rule 54(b) to stay its enforcement until the entering of a. subsequent judgment.