In re Farmers Federation Cooperative, Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Matter of McElwaney

    40 B.R. 66 (Bankr. M.D. Ga. 1984)   Cited 24 times
    Allowing trustee to invoke marshaling would frustrate the Code's policy by enriching unsecured creditors over secured creditors

    The court then held that the trustee was entitled to a credit equal to the fair market value of the stock, reduced to its present value. Also, in In re Farmers Federation Cooperative, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 650 (W.D.N.C. 1965), vacated, 368 F.2d 934 (4th Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 992, 87 S.Ct. 1308, 18 L.Ed.2d 338 (1967), the bankrupt held stock issued under The Farm Credit Act of 1933. The issuing Federal land bank submitted a proof of claim, and the Referee in Bankruptcy allowed the claim after crediting the par value of the stock against it. The bank appealed the bankruptcy court's decision, and the district court affirmed the bankruptcy court.

  2. In re Great Plains Royalty Corporation

    471 F.2d 1261 (8th Cir. 1973)   Cited 7 times
    Agreeing that patronage dividends allocated cooperative patrons' accounts do not constitute an indebtedness of the cooperative unless the directors specifically authorize payment, but finding an abuse of discretion

    We agree that Evanenko stands for this proposition, but this appeal presents a question not controlled by Evanenko. In re Farmers Federation Coop., Inc., 243 F. Supp. 650 (D.N.C. 1965), vacated on other grounds sub nom. Columbia Bank for Coops. v. Lee, 368 F.2d 934 (4th Cir. 1966); Claassen v. Farmers Grain Coop., 208 Kan. 129, 490 P.2d 376 (Kan. 1971); Clarke County Coop. v. Read, 243 Miss. 879, 139 So.2d 639 (1962). We affirm the ruling of the bankruptcy court.

  3. In re Massengill

    73 B.R. 1008 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 1987)   Cited 20 times

    In the district court, the bankrupt conceded that the "setoff" was not a true setoff because there was no "mutual debt." Matter of Farmers Federation Cooperative, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 650, 651-652 (W.D.N.C. 1965). The issue of setoff under 11 U.S.C. ยง 553 and state "setoff" law is not considered in the present case as no evidence was introduced to show that the stock was in reality a mutual debt.