Leatherhide Indus., Inc., Debtor-Appellant v. Sidney Lieberman, Objecting Creditor-Appellee, 268 F.2d 206 (2d Cir. 1959). · Go Syfert
Leatherhide Indus., Inc., Debtor-Appellant v. Sidney Lieberman, Objecting Creditor-Appellee, 268 F.2d 206 (2d Cir. 1959). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: John M. Bennett v. Lawrence C. Gutman, Trustee and Evans-Johnson Company, Purchaser (ca2, 1963-03-25)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited "see" John M. Bennett v. Lawrence C. Gutman, Trustee and Evans-Johnson Company, Purchaser
2d Cir. · 1963 · signal: see · confidence high
See Leatherhide Industries, Inc. v. Lieberman, 268 F.2d 206 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 896 , 80 S.Ct. 200 , 4 L.Ed.2d 152 (1959).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
LEATHERHIDE INDUSTRIES, INC., Debtor-Appellant,
v.
Sidney LIEBERMAN, Objecting Creditor-Appellee
320, Docket 25590.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Jun 29, 1959.
268 F.2d 206
Bernard J. Coven, New York City, for appellant., Louis P. Rosenberg, Brooklyn, N. Y. (Alfred A. Rosenberg, Brooklyn, N. Y., of counsel), for appellee.
Hincks, Lumbard, Per Curiam, Waterman.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM.

On April 8, 1958 debtor filed a petition for an arrangement under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 701 et seq. A proposed arrangement was not accepted at a duly notified meeting of creditors, and, after the Referee on August 29 adjudged debtor bankrupt and directed it to proceed in bankruptcy, debtor then, within a month, filed a petition under Chapter X, 11 U.S.C.A. § 501 et seq., seeking a corporate reorganization. This Chapter X petition having been dismissed by the district court, debtor appealed to us. We remanded the action because at that time the record disclosed that the court below had not made adequate findings to support its dismissal order, Leatherhide Industries, Inc. v. Lieberman, 2 Cir., 1958, 261 F.2d 560. The case is now once more before us. Upon remand the district court adhered to its former disposition. This time it spelled out its findings that debtor had proposed no plan of reorganization that was either possible or feasible, and it also found that the Chapter X petition was not filed by the debtor in good faith.

The findings of fact upon which the court below predicated its present order of dismissal are clearly correct. There is no evidence or assurance of any commitment by anyone that any additional capital funds are legitimately available to justify a court’s certificate of approval of a reorganization. The pending bankruptcy proceedings initiated by the Chapter XI petition should go forward without further delay.

Affirmed.