In re Central Foundry Co.

5 Citing cases

  1. In re Kearing

    170 B.R. 1 (Bankr. D.D.C. 1994)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that disgorgement by debtor's counsel was appropriate if there was an administrative deficiency and debtor's counsel had received more than its pro rata share of any distribution to Chapter 11 administrative claimants

    The court agrees that the statute of limitations defense asserted by Toombs is without merit. The cause of action brought by the trustee in this case is similar to that brought by the trustee in In re Central Foundry Co., 62 B.R. 52, 54 (Bankr.N.D.Ala. 1985), where the trustee brought an action against the Alabama Gas Corporation for the recovery of minimum service charges paid by the debtor during a period in which no gas was consumed. The court held that the minimum charges were not costs of administration, and that the trustee was entitled to recover the amount paid by the debtor.

  2. In re Sharon Steel Corp.

    79 B.R. 627 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 1987)   Cited 7 times
    In Sharon Steel a provider of natural gas (National Fuel) argued that the bankruptcy court erred when it applied a lower rate than that of the rejected executory contract in valuing National Fuel's administrative claim for fuel provided the debtor post-petition.

    See Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp. v. West Penn Power Co. (In re Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp.), 72 B.R. 845 (Bankr.W.D.Pa. 1987); Peoples Gas System, Inc. v. Thatcher Glass Corp. (In re Thatcher Glass Corp.), 59 B.R. 797 (Bankr.D.Conn. 1986); Crownover v. Alabama Gas Corp. (In re Central Foundry Co.), 62 B.R. 52 (Bankr.N.D.Ala. 1985); and In re California Steel Co., 24 B.R. 185 (Bankr.N.D.Ill. 1982). In Wheeling-Pittsburgh, the utility company did not dispute that the contract was an executory contract for purposes of assumption or rejection under § 365.

  3. Wolf Creek Collieries Co. v. Gex Kentucky, Inc.

    127 B.R. 374 (N.D. Ohio 1991)   Cited 15 times
    Applying analysis of the self-motivation of claimant found under § 503(b) into requirement for substantial benefit to estate under § 503(b)

    1989); In re Butcher, 108 B.R. 634, 637 (Bkrtcy.E.D.Tenn. 1989); Matter of D'Lites of America, Inc., 108 B.R. 352, 357 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ga. 1989); In re U.S. Lines, Inc., 103 B.R. 427, 430 (Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y. 1989); In re GilletteAssociates, Ltd., 101 B.R. 866, 881 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ohio 1989); Grantham v. Eastern Marine, Inc., 93 B.R. 752, 754 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Fla. 1988); In re C.E.N., Inc., 86 B.R. 303, 306 (Bkrtcy.D.Maine 1988); In re D.W.G.K. Restaurants, Inc., 84 B.R. 684, 689 (Bkrtcy.S.D.Cal. 1988); In re SMB Holdings, Inc., 77 B.R. 29, 32 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Pa. 1987); In re Central Foundry Company, 62 B.R. 52, 54 (Bkrtcy.N.D.Ala. 1985); Matter of Patch Graphics, 58 B.R. 743, 746 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Wis. 1986); In re O.P.M. Leasing Services, Inc., 56 B.R. 678, 683 (Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y. 1986); In re Charter Company, 52 B.R. 267, 270 (Bkrtcy.M.D.Fla. 1985); In re United Department Stores, 49 B.R. 462, 466 (Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y. 1985); In re Coast Carloading Company, 34 B.R. 855, 860 (Bkrtcy.C.D.Cal. 1983); In re O.P.M. Leasing Services, Inc., 23 B.R. 104, 121 (Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y. 1982); In re Hayes, 20 B.R. 469, 472 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Wis. 1982); In re McK, Ltd., 14 B.R. 518, 520 (Bkrtcy.Colo. 1981).

  4. In re Stoecker

    143 B.R. 118 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1992)   Cited 39 times

    Moreover, a majority of the courts confronting the scope of section 546(a) have steadfastly refused to expand section 546(a) to actions outside the Code sections enumerated therein. See In re Lyons, 130 B.R. 272, 276 (Bankr.N.D.Ill. 1991); In re Minichello, 120 B.R. 17, 19-20 (Bankr.M.D.Pa. 1990); In re Ollada, 114 B.R. 654, 655 (Bankr.E.D.Mo. 1990); In re Coan, 96 B.R. 828, 831 (Bankr.N.D.Ill. 1989); In re Missouri River Sand Gravel, Inc., 88 B.R. 1006, 1012 (Bankr.D.N.D. 1988); In re Central Foundry Co., 62 B.R. 52, 56 (Bankr.N.D.Ala. 1985). As Judge Sonderby explained in Coan:

  5. In re Washington-St. Tammany Electric Cooperative, Inc.

    111 B.R. 555 (Bankr. E.D. La. 1989)   Cited 8 times

    Ultimately, what is most important is whether and to what extent the goods or services provided benefitted the estate. Matter of Braniff, supra at 1285; In re Central Foundry Co., 62 B.R. 52 (Bankr.N.D.Ala. 1985); and In re California Steel, 24 B.R. 185 (Bankr.N.D.Ill. 1982). 5. Debtor relies mainly on In re Central Foundry and In re California Steel to support its primary position that Cajun is entitled to receive as an administrative expense only the energy charges which represent its variable costs.