In re Charter Co.

48 Citing cases

  1. In re Canopy Fin., Inc.

    Case No. 09 B 44943 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Dec. 16, 2014)

    In re Pettibone, 74 B R 293 301 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1987)("A proper fee application must list each activity, its date, th attorney who performed the work, a Receods which give no explanation of the activities performed are not compensable."); In re Wildman, 72 B.R. 70, 708-9 (Bankr, N.D. Ill. 1987) (same). (5) Duplication of Services

  2. In re F.G. Metals, Inc.

    390 B.R. 467 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 2008)   Cited 26 times
    Stating that to show a likelihood of success on the merits, requires a showing that the bankruptcy court was clearly erroneous

    The movant must clearly establish: (i) that the movant is likely to prevail on the merits of its appeal, (ii) that the movant will suffer irreparable injury if a stay or other injunctive relief is not granted, (in) that other parties will suffer no substantial harm if a stay or other injunctive relief is granted, and (iv) in circumstances where the public interest is implicated, that the issuance of a stay or other injunctive relief will serve, rather than disserve, such public interest. In re Jet 1 Center, Inc., 2006 WL 449252, at *1 (M.D.Fla.2006)(quoting Tooke v. Sunshine Trust Mortgage Trust, 149 B.R. 687, 689 (M.D.Fla.1992)) (quoting In re Charter Co., 72 B.R. 70, 71-72 (Bankr. M.D.Fla.1987)). The party requesting the stay must show satisfactory evidence on all four criteria.

  3. In re Public Service Co. of New Hampshire

    116 B.R. 347 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1990)   Cited 36 times
    Denying stay pending appeal of confirmation order when stay would jeopardize $1.5 billion in financing under negotiation

    , In re Great Barrington Fair and Amusement, Inc., 53 B.R. 237 (Bankr.D.Mass. 1985); In re Roth American, Inc., 90 B.R. 94, 95 (Bankr.M.D.Pa. 1988); In re The Charter Co., 72 B.R. 70, 71-72 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1987); In re Porter, 54 B.R. 81 (Bankr.N.D.Okla. 1985); In re Barrup, 53 B.R. 215 (Bankr.D.Vt. 1985); Matter of Baldwin United Corp., 45 B.R. 385 (Bankr.S.D.Ohio 1984); In re Howley, 38 B.R. 314 (Bankr.D.Minn.

  4. In re Shenandoah Realty Partners

    248 B.R. 505 (W.D. Va. 2000)   Cited 28 times
    Articulating same standard

    The party moving to stay has the burden on each of these elements. See In re Charter Co., 72 B.R. 70, 72 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1987). As the court emphasized during the hearing, the test to determine whether a stay is proper is substantially similar, though not exactly the same, to the test for preliminary injunction.

  5. In re Kent

    145 B.R. 843 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1991)   Cited 25 times
    Finding no irreparable harm, because "this court has found no equity in the property and no likelihood that a confirmable plan will be presented"

    As a general rule, these factors are to be treated as interests to be considered and balanced in deciding whether to grant a stay rather than as absolute prerequisites for a stay. In re Charter Co., 72 B.R. 70, 72 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1987). Nevertheless, after considering these four factors this court concludes it must deny the debtors motion.

  6. In re Dakota Rail, Inc.

    111 B.R. 818 (Bankr. D. Minn. 1990)   Cited 27 times

    In most situations, however, the Court will treat these factors as interests to be considered and balanced in deciding whether to grant a stay rather than as absolute prerequisites for a stay. In re Charter Co., 72 B.R. 70, 72 (Bktcy.M.D.Fla. 1987). After considering these four factors, I conclude that staying the Confirmation Order would be inappropriate.

  7. In re Charles Lillian Brown's Hotel

    93 B.R. 49 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988)   Cited 43 times
    Mentioning that 105 has been held to allow bankruptcy courts to continue the stay after automatic stay period has run under § 362(e)

    (4) the harm to the public interest, if implicated.Sandra Cotton, Inc. v. Bank of New York, 64 B.R. 262 (W.D.N.Y. 1986); In re The Charter Co., 72 B.R. 70 (Bankr.M.D.Fla. 1987); In re Smoldt, 68 B.R. 533 (Bankr.N.D.Iowa 1986); In re VVF Communications Corp., 41 B.R. 546 (Bankr.D.C. 1984); In re Candor Diamond Corp., 26 B.R. 844 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. 1983); In re East Redley Corp., 20 B.R. 612 (Bankr.E.D.Pa. 1982); In re Tolco Properties, Inc., 6 B.R. 490 (Bankr.E.D.Va. 1980); In re Parr, 1 B.R. 453 (Bankr.E.D.N.Y. 1979). All four criteria must be satisfied by the movant before relief under FRBP 8005 can be granted.

  8. Southstar Capital Grp., I, LLC v. 1662 Multifamily LLC

    Case No: 6:18-cv-1453-Orl-40DCI (M.D. Fla. Aug. 8, 2019)   Cited 2 times

    [T]he movant must clearly establish: (i) that the movant is likely to prevail on the merits of its appeal, (ii) that the movant will suffer irreparable injury if a stay or other injunctive relief is not granted, (iii) that other parties will suffer no substantial harm if a stay or other injunctive relief is granted, and (iv) in circumstances where the public interest is implicated, that the issuance of a stay or other injunctive relief will serve, rather than disserve, such public interest.The Charter Co., 72 B.R. 70, 71-72 (M.D. Fla. 1987). As the above discussion makes clear, Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on the merits of this appeal, at least with respect to the 28 U.S.C. § 1412 transfer challenge.

  9. Waid v. Mission Coal Co.

    Case No. 2:19-CV-00647-KOB (N.D. Ala. Jul. 24, 2019)   Cited 1 times

    The court recognizes, without deciding, that the Waid Claimants may have suffered some loss of contractual rights, based on the Supreme Court's recent ruling in Mission Product Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, 139 S. Ct. 1652 (2019), although any such loss is insufficient on its own to overcome the Waid Claimants' failure to establish a substantial likelihood of success on the merits. As for the Waid Claimants' argument that they will lose their appellate rights, "the overwhelming majority of courts, including those within the Eleventh Circuit, have recognized that possibility of mootness of an appeal 'is insufficient by itself to establish irreparable injury.'" United Mine Workers of Am. Combined Benefit Fund v. Walter Energy, Inc., No. 2:16-cv-00064-RDP, 2016 WL 470815, at *9 (N.D. Ala. Feb. 8, 2016) (quoting In re Charter Co., 72 B.R. 70, 72 (M.D. Fla. 1987), aff'd 829 F.2d 1054 (11th Cir. 1987)). So, the Waid Claimants failed to establish that they would suffer irreparable harm if the court denies the stay.

  10. United Mine Workers of Am. Combined Benefit Fund v. Walter Energy, Inc.

    Case No.: 2:16-cv-00064-RDP (N.D. Ala. Feb. 8, 2016)   Cited 1 times

    And, the overwhelming majority of courts, including those within the Eleventh Circuit, have recognized that possibility of mootness of an appeal "is insufficient by itself to establish irreparable injury." In re Charter Co., 72 B.R. 70, 72 (M.D. Fla. 1987), aff'd 829 F.2d 1054 (11th Cir. 1987). Appellants argue that a stay pending appeal is necessary to protect their right and ability to appeal, because, without a stay, Section 363(m) will likely moot the appeal—if not outright, then at least equitably.