Stein v. United Artists Corp.

168 Citing cases

  1. Donaldson v. Bernstein

    104 F.3d 547 (3d Cir. 1997)   Cited 282 times
    In Donaldson v. Bernstein, 104 F.3d 547, 554 n. 3 (3d Cir. 1997), the Third Circuit made this observation of the Stein decision in determining whether a bankruptcy trustee had standing to assert a claim against the debtor's shareholders after confirmation of a chapter 11 plan and after conversion to chapter 7: The court decided Stein under the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 rather than under the current Bankruptcy Code... but the principles in that case remain applicable.

    "Property of the bankrupt remains in custodia legis in the bankruptcy court during the period . . . after the discharge of the trustee . . . remain[ing] dormant, in the estate, until the bankruptcy court again appoints a trustee as enforcing guardian." Stein v. United Artists Corp., 691 F.2d 885, 893 (9th Cir. 1982) (holding that controlling shareholder of post-confirmation debtor could not pursue unlisted pre-confirmation claim on behalf of creditors). The bankruptcy court found that under Pennsylvania law creditors of an insolvent corporation have standing to sue the directors and the trustee has standing as their representative.

  2. Marchman v. NCNB Texas National Bank

    120 N.M. 74 (N.M. 1995)   Cited 88 times
    Holding that individual shareholders did not have standing to claim damages for injuries to a corporation because the corporation was the real party in interest as to such claims

    When a corporation is directly injured, shareholders, employees, and creditors of the corporation may suffer indirect injury. See Stein v. United Artists Corp., 691 F.2d 885, 896 (9th Cir. 1982). The corporation, having suffered the direct injury, has the right to bring an action against the wrongdoer, while other parties suffering indirect injuries cannot individually assert the corporate cause of action.

  3. Bowie v. Rose Shanis

    160 Md. App. 227 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2004)   Cited 13 times
    Affirming circuit court's dismissal of case where bankruptcy trustee had exclusive right to bring claim and therefore debtor lacked standing

    It is clear, moreover, that when a debtor, following his discharge from bankruptcy, claims that because the bankruptcy trustee failed to pursue a cause of action he thereby abandoned it, the burden of proving such an abandonment is allocated to the debtor. Stein v. United Artists Corp., 691 F.2d 885, 890-91 (9th Cir. 1982), was unequivocal in this regard: Unless property is abandoned or intentionally revested, title generally remains in the trustee.

  4. In re Napster, Inc. Copyright Litigation

    354 F. Supp. 2d 1113 (N.D. Cal. 2005)   Cited 16 times
    Granting motion to dismiss the defendant's UCL counterclaim because the defendant failed to allege that it suffered any ongoing injury from the plaintiffs' conduct

    Vinci II, 80 F.3d at 1375 (quoting Solinger v. A M Records, Inc. ("Solinger II"), 718 F.2d 298, 299 (9th Cir. 1983)) (original alterations omitted); see also Sherman v. British Leyland Motors, Ltd., 601 F.2d 429, 439 (9th Cir. 1979) (holding that injury to corporation does not confer antitrust standing on its sole shareholder). The discussion of shareholder standing in Stein v. United Artists Corp., 691 F.2d 885 (9th Cir. 1982), is particularly apposite here. In that case, the majority shareholder of a motion picture theater operator brought an antitrust action against various motion picture distributors, alleging that the distributors conspired to drive him out of the theater business.

  5. Pako Corp. v. Citytrust

    109 B.R. 368 (D. Minn. 1989)   Cited 30 times
    Finding that debtor knowingly concealed claim in light of pre-bankruptcy testimony of General Counsel/Chief Administrative Officer that he thought debtor had been wronged by defendant

    Under Auto West, if the cause of action continues, it remains subject to the claims of Pako's creditors. The treatment of undisclosed assets was also addressed in Stein v. United Artists Corp., 691 F.2d 885 (9th Cir. 1982), under the former Bankruptcy Act. In Stein, plaintiff sought to bring various antitrust claims which had not been disclosed in chapter 11 proceedings, even though the conduct giving rise to the claims occurred prior to the bankruptcy.

  6. SFC Valve Corp v. Wright Machine Corp.

    105 B.R. 720 (S.D. Fla. 1989)   Cited 3 times
    In SFC Valve Corp. v. Wright Machine Corp. (S.D. Fla., 1989), 105 B.R. 720, the court held that a successor in interest to a creditor of the debtor possessed standing and was entitled to a summary judgment in an action brought by a purchaser of the debtor's assets under a plan of reorganization on the ground that the action was an asset which had not vested in the debtor's successor because of the debtor's failure to list the chose in action as an asset during bankruptcy proceedings.

    Both parties rely on a single case decided in the Ninth Circuit by Judge Kennedy, now an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. In Stein v. United Artists Corp., 691 F.2d 885 (9th Cir. 1982), the court held that the assignee of a bankrupt could not subsequently assert an antitrust action against defendants without first seeking a reopening of bankruptcy proceedings or obtaining an order of abandonment. Judge Kennedy reasoned that the debtor's failure to list the antitrust claim in bankruptcy court prevented the asset from vesting in the assignee at the close of the bankruptcy proceedings.

  7. In re Phoenix Petroleum Co.

    Bankruptcy No. 00-17786F Chapter 11 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Jul. 9, 2001)

    Therefore, it was never administered and, according to them, remains property of the chapter 11 estate in that earlier case, subject solely to the claims of the 1991 creditors. In so arguing, the objectors refer to Stein v. United Artist Corp., 691 F.2d 885 (9th Cir. 1982). An analysis of the Stein decision will demonstrate the strength and weaknesses of the objectors' contentions.

  8. In re Phoenix Petroleum Co.

    278 B.R. 385 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2001)   Cited 26 times
    Noting that, in the Chapter 7 context, property a trustee fails to administer is abandoned back to the debtor when the case is closed, but only with respect to property of the estate which has been "scheduled" by the debtor

    Therefore, it was never administered and, according to them, remains property of the chapter 11 estate in that earlier case, subject solely to the claims of the 1991 creditors. In so arguing, the objectors refer to Stein v. United Artists Corp., 691 F.2d 885 (9th Cir. 1982). An analysis of the Stein decision will demonstrate the strength and weaknesses of the objectors' contentions.

  9. Rosnick v. Dinsmore

    235 Neb. 738 (Neb. 1990)   Cited 35 times
    Holding that the creditor lender-investor made a unilateral promise, bargaining for the company's expansion and a resulting return on his investment rather than for any contributions from the company's owner and president

    See Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95-598, 402 and 403, 92 Stat. 2549, 2682-83. See, also, Stein v. United Artists Corp., 691 F.2d 885 (9th Cir. 1982). The rearrangement plan, filed September 7, 1976, refers to specific provisions of the Bankruptcy Act.

  10. Munters Corp. v. Locher

    936 S.W.2d 494 (Tex. App. 1997)   Cited 7 times
    Recognizing that a claim that was never formally scheduled could not have been abandoned by the trustee

    Other courts have noted the difficulties spawned when a bankrupt attempts to pursue a cause of action on his own. In Stein v. United Artists Corp., 691 F.2d 885, 894 (9th Cir. 1982), the court noted the risk of tortfeasors going free because the improper plaintiff sued them. The court in Management Investors v. United Mine Workers, 610 F.2d 384, 392 (6th Cir. 1979), discussed the waste of judicial resources caused by the necessity of bringing a new action with the trustee as the plaintiff.