In Re Info. Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475 (8th Cir. 1981). · Go Syfert
Search
In Re Info. Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475 (8th Cir. 1981). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
88 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 28 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: In Re: Empire Generating Co, LLC (nysd, 2020-03-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1981 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1981 2003 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 33 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re: Empire Generating Co, LLC
S.D.N.Y. · 2020 · confidence medium
Dialogues, Inc.), 662 F.2d 475, 476 (8th Cir. 1981) (per curiam). 9 Appellees argued only that the Bid Procedures Order, which I am not reviewing in any event, is moot.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re: VeroBlue Farms USA, Inc, Debtor (2×)
N.D. Iowa · 2019 · confidence medium
Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d at 477.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) In re VOIP, Inc.
S.D. Fla. · 2011 · confidence medium
In the end, however, “[t]he test for mootness reflects a court’s concern for striking the proper balance between the equitable considerations of finality and good faith reliance on a judgment and the competing interests that underlie the right of a party to seek review of a bankruptcy court order adversely affecting him.” In re Club Assocs., 956 F.2d at 1069 citing In re Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475, 477 (8th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Carr v. King (In Re Carr)
E.D. Va. · 2005 · confidence medium
Dialogues), 662 F.2d 475, 476 (8th Cir.1981) ("The mootness concern arises when, as here, it may be impossible for a court to grant effective relief because the disputed assets have been transferred ....”); Credit Alliance Corp. v. Dunning-Ray Ins.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Berryman Products, Inc. (In Re Berryman Products, Inc.)
5th Cir. · 1998 · confidence medium
Co., 963 F.2d 469, 471-72 (1st Cir.) ("the equitable component [to the mootness doctrine] centers on the important public policy favoring orderly reorganization and settlement of debtor estates”), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 908 , 113 S.Ct. 304 , 121 L.Ed.2d 226 (1992); In re Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475, 476-77 (8th Cir.1981) (“[T]he mootness doctrine promotes an important policy of bankruptcy law — that court-appointed reorganizations be able to go forward in reliance on such approval unless a stay has been obtained.”). 11 .
examined Cited as authority (rule) In Re Continental Airlines (4×)
3rd Cir. · 1996 · confidence medium
Co. v. Information Dialogues, Inc. (In re Information Dialogues, Inc.), 662 F.2d 475, 477 (8th Cir. 1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) as Successor by Merger to Constellation Bank
unknown court · 1996 · confidence medium
Co. v. Information Dialogues, Inc. (In re Information Dialogues, Inc.), 662 F.2d 475, 477 (8th Cir.1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Noonan v. Jones (In Re Jones)
D.N.H. · 1994 · confidence medium
In re Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475, 476-77 (8th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Oakville Development v. FDIC
1st Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Ry., 915 F.2d 116, 118 (4th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. 4 Ct. 1312 (1991); In re Kahihikolo, 807 F.2d 1540, 1542 (11th Cir. 1987) (per curiam); Holloway v. United States, 789 F.2d 1372, 1374 (9th Cir. 1986); In re Combined Metals Reduction Co., 557 F.2d 179, 189 (9th Cir. 1977); In re Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475, 476 (8th Cir. 1981); In re Cantwell, 639 F.2d 1050, 1053-54 (3d Cir. 1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Oakville Development Corporation, Trustee of the 10-12 Lopez St. Trust v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation
1st Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Ry., 915 F.2d 116 , 118 (4th Cir.1990), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 111 S.Ct. 1312 , 113 L.Ed.2d 246 (1991); In re Kahihikolo, 807 F.2d 1540, 1542 (11th Cir.1987) (per cu *614 riam); Holloway v. United States, 789 F.2d 1372, 1374 (9th Cir.1986); In re Combined Metals Reduction Co., 557 F.2d 179 , 189 (9th Cir.1977); In re Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475, 476 (8th Cir. 1981); In re Cantwell, 639 F.2d 1050, 1053-54 (3d Cir.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Rochman v. Northeast Utilities Service Group (In re Public Service Co. of New Hampshire)
1st Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
See In re Roberts Farms, 652 F.2d at 798 (absent a stay, “such a comprehensive change of circumstances ... [may] occur as to render it inequitable for th[e] court to consider the merits of the appeal”); In re Crystal Oil Co., 854 F.2d 79, 82 (5th Cir.1988) (given failure to seek a stay and the resulting "comprehensive change of circumstances,” relief would be "plainly inequitable"); In re Information Dialogues, 662 F.2d at 477 (same). .
examined Cited as authority (rule) Bankr. L. Rep. P 74,609 in Re Public Service Company of New Hampshire, Debtor. Martin Rochman v. Northeast Utilities Service Group (3×)
1st Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
In bankruptcy proceedings, the equitable component centers on the important public policy favoring orderly reorganization and settlement of debtor estates by *472 “affording finality to the judgments of the bankruptcy court.” Id. (quoting In re Revere Copper & Brass, Inc., 78 B.R. 17, 23 (S.D.N.Y.1987)); In re Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475, 477 (“mootness doctrine promotes an important policy of bankruptcy law — that court-approved reorganizations be able to go forward in reliance on such approval unless a stay has been obtained”); Algeran, Inc. v. Advance Ross Corp., 759…
cited Cited as authority (rule) In Re Club Associates, Debtor. First Union Real Estate Equity and Mortgage Investments v. Club Associates, a Georgia Limited Partnership
1st Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
In re Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475, 477 (8th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Bank of New England v. BWL, INC.
D. Me. · 1990 · confidence medium
Partnership v. Bank of New York, 838 F.2d 1547, 1554, 1556 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 823 , 109 S.Ct. 69 , 102 L.Ed.2d 46 (1988); In re Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475, 476 (8th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Quality Spice Corp. (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
D.N.J. · 1989 · confidence medium
See Miami Center Limited Partnership v. Bank of New York, 838 F.2d 1547 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 109 S.Ct. 69 , 102 L.Ed.2d 46 (1988) (Where debtors failed to post a bond and title to land had changed hands, a judgment lien given up, and over $13.5 million in cash had been paid along with the release of $30 million cash collateral, mootness found); In re Roberts Farms, Inc., 652 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. 1981) (where no stay obtained and plan of arrangement substantially underway appeal was moot); In re Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475, 476-77 (8th Cir. 1981) (where no atte…
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Clarke v. Duck (In Re Clarke)
9th Cir. BAP · 1989 · confidence medium
In re Roberts Farms, Inc., 652 F.2d 793, 797-98 (9th Cir.1981); Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central Transport, Inc., 841 F.2d 92, 96 (4th Cir.1988); In re Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475, 477 (8th Cir.1981); In re Revere Copper and Brass, Inc., 78 B.R. 17 (S.D.N.Y.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Texaco, Inc. (In Re Texaco, Inc.) (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
S.D.N.Y. · 1988 · confidence medium
Partnership v. Bank of New York, 838 F.2d 1547, 1554, 1556 (11th Cir.1988) (holding mootness appropriate in bankruptcy appeal when court cannot fashion effective relief); Metro Property Management Co. v. Information Dialogues, Inc. (In re Information Dialogues, Inc.), 662 F.2d 475, 476 (8th Cir.1981) (holding “mootness concern arises when, as here, it may be impossible for a court to grant effective relief because the disputed assets have been transferred pursuant to the reorganization plan”).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,627 in the Matter Of: Crystal Oil Company, Debtor. Halliburton Service, a Division of Halliburton Company v. Crystal Oil Company
5th Cir. · 1988 · confidence medium
In re Roberts Farms, 652 F.2d 793, 798 (9th Cir.1981); see also In re AOV Industries, Inc., 792 F.2d at 1147-48 ; In re Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475, 476-77 (8th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Commodore Corp.
N.D. Ind. · 1988 · confidence medium
Miami Center Limited Partnership v. Bank of New York, 820 F.2d 376 (11th Cir.1987), reh. denied, 838 F.2d 1547 (1988); In re AOV Industries, Inc., 792 F.2d 1140, 1146 (D.C.Cir.1986); Matter of Sun Country Development, Inc., 764 F.2d 406 , 407 n. 1 (5th Cir.1985); In re Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475, 476 (8th Cir.1981).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Lawrence v. Revere Copper & Brass Inc. (In Re Revere Copper & Brass Inc.) (4×) also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
S.D.N.Y. · 1987 · confidence medium
See, e.g., In re *21 AOV Industries, Inc., 792 F.2d 1140, 1146-50 (D.C.Cir.1986); In re Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475, 477 (8th Cir.1981); In re Roberts Farms, Inc., 652 F.2d 793, 797-98 (9th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Central States, Southeast & Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Central Transport, Inc.
M.D.N.C. · 1986 · confidence medium
See Matter of Sun Country Development, Inc., 764 F.2d 406 , 407 n. 1 (5th Cir.1985), State of Ohio v. Madeline Marie Nursing Homes, 694 F.2d 449, 464 (6th Cir.1982); In re Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475, 476 (8th Cir.1981); In re Matter of King Resources Co., 651 F.2d 1326, 1332 (10th Cir.1980).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Zirpel v. First Bank of South Dakota (In Re Zirpel)
Bankr. D.S.D. · 1985 · confidence medium
Metro Property Management Co. v. Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475, 477 (8th Cir.1981).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Astroglass Boat Co. v. Eldridge (In Re Astroglass Boat Co.)
Bankr. M.D. Tenn. · 1983 · confidence medium
Metro Property Management Co. v. Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475, 477 (8th Cir.1981); Tr one v. Roberts Farms, Inc., 652 F.2d 793, 796 (9th Cir.1981).
cited Cited "see" Forbes v. Forbes (In Re Forbes)
8th Cir. BAP · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Metro Property Management Co. v. Information Dialogues, Inc. (In re Information Dialogues), 662 F.2d 475, 477 (8th Cir.1981); Van Iperen v. Production Credit Assoc.
cited Cited "see" Grace M. Forbes v. Russell C. Forbes
8th Cir. · 1997 · signal: see · confidence high
See Metro Property Management Co. v. Information Dialogues, Inc. (In re Information Dialogues), 662 F.2d 475, 477-78 (8th Cir. 1981); Van Iperen v. Production Credit Assoc.
discussed Cited "see" In Re Davis
Bankr. E.D. Tenn. · 1993 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Metro Property Management Co. v. Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475, 476 (8th Cir.1981) (“The mootness concern arises when ... it may be impossible for a court to grant effective relief....); Bennett v. Gemmill (Matter of Combined Metals Reduction Co.), 557 F.2d 179, 187 (9th Cir.1977) (“Generally an appeal will be dismissed as moot when events occur which prevent the appellate court from granting any effective relief, even if the dispute is decided in favor of the appellant.”).
discussed Cited "see" Bankr. L. Rep. P 71,885 Miami Center Limited Partnership, Miami Center Corporation, Theodore B. Gould, Chopin Associates, and Holywell Corporation v. Bank of New York, Miami Center Corporation and Chopin Associates v. The Bank of New York
11th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d at 476 (effective relief impossible where all undisputed creditor claims have been paid and funds reserved for all disputed creditor claims). 13 Debtors' reliance on In re AOV Indus., 792 F.2d 1140 (D.C.Cir.1986) is misplaced.
discussed Cited "see" Miami Center Ltd. Partnership v. Bank of New York
11th Cir. · 1987 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d at 476 (effective relief impossible where all undisputed creditor claims have been paid and funds reserved for all disputed creditor claims).
discussed Cited "see" In Re AOV Industries, Inc. (2×)
D.D.C. · 1984 · signal: see · confidence high
See In re Information Dialogues, 662 F.2d 475, 476-77 (8th Cir.1981) (“absent a stay, court-approved transfers are final in that transferees are protected against subsequent reversal.”) Therefore, that Steag and Sleigh are using the Plan to extract releases, and that they are architects of the Plan, are facts now made irrelevant by Court Orders.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In Re Roller
8th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
See In re Van Iperen, 819 F.2d 189 , 191 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam) ("Once collateral is taken and converted into cash, no court is able to formulate adequate relief to the debtor."); see also In re Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475 , 476 (8th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (mootness concern arises when it may be impossible for court to grant effective relief because disputed assets have been transferred pursuant to reorganization plan). 4 Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 1 The Honorable H.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Roller v. Worthen National Bank of Northwest Arkansas (In re Roller)
8th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See In re Van Iperen, 819 F.2d 189, 191 (8th Cir.1987) (per curiam) (“Once collateral is taken and converted into cash, no court is able to formulate adequate relief to the debt- or.”); see also In re Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475, 476 (8th Cir.1981) (per curiam) (mootness concern arises when it may be impossible for court to grant effective relief because disputed assets have been transferred pursuant to reorganization plan).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." New York City Department of Finance v. 1515 Broadway Associates, L.P. (In Re 1515 Broadway Associates, L.P.)
S.D.N.Y. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence medium
In the bankruptcy context, these equitable principles retain an important role, and the case may be moot in situations where the court has jurisdiction under Article III but reversing on appeal would destroy the work of the bankruptcy court. “[I]t may be incumbent upon a party appealing a bankruptcy court’s ruling to seek a stay lest the appeal in question be rendered moot by constitutional or related equitable/jurisprudential considerations.” In re Texaco, 92 B.R. at 45 ; see also In re Information Dialogues, 662 F.2d 475, 477 (8th Cir.1981).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Eastern Co. v. Whirlpool Corp. (In re Eastern Co.)
D. Mass. · 1992 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Co., 963 F.2d at 471 -72 (quoting In re Revere Copper & Brass, Inc., 78 B.R. 17, 23 (S.D.N.Y.1987)); see also In re Information Dialogues, Inc., 662 F.2d 475, 477 (8th Cir.1981) (“the mootness doctrine promotes an important policy of bankruptcy law— that court-approved reorganizations be able to go forward in reliance on such approval unless a stay fias been obtained”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Information Dialogues, Inc., F/k/a Mustang Investment Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation, Debtor. Metro Property Management Company
v.
Information Dialogues, Inc., F/k/a Mustang Investment Corporation, a Minnesota Corporation, Debtor
81-1572.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Oct 27, 1981.
662 F.2d 475
Cited by 31 opinions  |  Published

662 F.2d 475

8 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 334, Bankr. L. Rep. P 68,388

In re INFORMATION DIALOGUES, INC., f/k/a Mustang Investment
Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, debtor.
METRO PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
INFORMATION DIALOGUES, INC., f/k/a Mustang Investment
Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, debtor, Appellee.

No. 81-1572.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 20, 1981.
Decided Oct. 27, 1981.

James P. Miley, Michael D. Schwartz, for Larkin, Hoffman, Daly & Lindgren, Ltd., Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.

James H. Levy, Michaela Maenner, St. Paul, Minn., for appellee.

Before HEANEY, HENLEY and McMILLIAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

[*~475]1

This matter arises from an appeal of a bankruptcy court order which was dismissed by the district court[1] below. We dismiss this action as moot.

2

The unchallenged facts are as follows:[2] On January 9, 1981, the bankruptcy court[3] entered an order confirming the Plan of Reorganization submitted by Information Dialogues, Inc. (IDI). Metro Property Management Company (Metro) appealed to the district court but did not attempt to obtain a stay of the confirmation order from either the bankruptcy or district court and did not apply for or obtain a supersedeas bond. The confirmation order remains in effect at the present time.

3

IDI has taken substantial steps to implement the reorganization plan in reliance on the confirmation order. Specifically, IDI has (1) paid in full all priority wage claims;[4] (2) paid in full all claims allowed in Class 3;[5] (3) issued 566,019 shares of its common stock to Class 4 creditors and debenture holders in satisfaction of debts totaling approximately $2,465,944[6] (only disputed Class 4 claims await resolution and payment by the issuance of common stock); (4) obtained an investment of $400,000 by four new investors based on confirmation of the Plan of Reorganization; and (5) filed Forms 10-K and 10-Q with the SEC reflecting the changes in its financial and equity positions resulting from implementation of the Plan of Reorganization. On April 20, 1981, the district court dismissed Metro's appeal, apparently for lack of diligent prosecution. Metro appeals that dismissal to this Court and IDI has moved to dismiss the appeal as moot.

4

The mootness concern arises when, as here, it may be impossible for a court to grant effective relief because the disputed assets have been transferred pursuant to the reorganization plan. Bankruptcy Rule 805 addresses this concern with a procedure for creditors to request a stay pending appeal from the bankruptcy court's order. Rule 805 also provides that, absent a stay, court-approved transfers are final in that transferees are protected against subsequent reversal. In this situation, the mootness doctrine promotes an important policy of bankruptcy law that court-approved reorganizations be able to go forward in reliance on such approval unless a stay has been obtained. Accord, In Re Roberts Farms, Inc., 652 F.2d 793 (9th Cir. July 23, 1981).

5

A strong competing policy is the equitable interest of a creditor in securing review of a bankruptcy court order which adversely affects the creditor. This interest, for example, mandates that bankruptcy courts and district courts give careful attention to stay applications with full appreciation of the possibility that meaningful appeal may be foreclosed if the reorganization plan is substantially implemented.

6

Competing policies of mootness and equity may present difficult decisions in some circumstances. Here, however, their application is clear. IDI has implemented substantial elements of the reorganization plan and it is very doubtful that effective relief could be afforded even if Metro prevailed on the merits. Moreover, Metro presents no equitable claim because it has not at any stage requested a stay of the confirmation order pursuant to which the transfers have been made.

[*~476]7

We, therefore, dismiss the appeal as moot.

1

The Honorable Edward J. Devitt, United States Senior District Judge for the District of Minnesota

2

Metro did not file a response to the motion to dismiss brought by Information Dialogues, Inc. The facts are drawn from the record on appeal

3

The Honorable Hartley Nordin, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the District of Minnesota

4

Priority creditors consist primarily of wage claimants who were paid 100% of amounts owed to them up to a maximum of $2,000 per claimant

5

Class 3 creditors consist of holders of unsecured claims allowed in an amount of $1,000 or less. However, any unsecured creditor could reduce his claim to $1,000 and become part of this class

6

Class 4 creditors consist of holders of unsecured claims allowed in excess of $1,000 and those not electing to become part of Class 3. See also n.5, supra