11 U.S.C. § 762
Notice to the Commission and right to be heard
Section 762 provides that the Commission shall be given such notice as is appropriate of an order for relief in a bankruptcy case and that the Commission may raise and may appear and may be heard on any issue in case involving a commodity broker liquidation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30
cases, 1940–2016 · leading case: Oxford Organisation, Ltd. v. Peterson (In Re Stotler & Co.), 144 B.R. 385 (N.D. Ill. 1992).
Oxford Organisation, Ltd. v. Peterson (In Re Stotler & Co.), 144 B.R. 385 (N.D. Ill. 1992). “” 11 U.S.C. § 762 (b) (1988). The CFTC filed a brief in this case regarding the cross motions for summary judgment.”
In Re Pure Penn Petroleum Co., Inc. In Re Sheehan, 188 F.2d 851 (2d Cir. 1951). “That subordination of those salary claims, with the result that they cannot be paid in full, would have been invalid without their consent, either in ordinary bankruptcy or under Chapter XI, at least without the consent of a majority in number and amount of that class, § 362, 11…”
Secure Leverage Grp., Inc. v. Bodenstein, 558 B.R. 226 (N.D. Ill. 2016). “See 11 U.S.C. § 762 (b) (entitling the CFTC to appear and be heard in any commodity broker liquidation case covered by 11 U.”
In the Matter of Jerry Wolman & Anne Wolman, Debtors. Jerry Wolman & Anne Wolman v. Leonard H. Tose, 467 F.2d 29 (4th Cir. 1972). “Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 762 , this first Plan of Arrangement, with minor modifications, was approved by a majority of the unsecured creditors.”
In Re Co Petro Mktg. Grp., Inc., 6 B.R. 119 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 1980). “02[1] and [3], However, in this case the Commodity Futures Trading Commission has a special interest in the issue of whether Co Petro is a commodity broker within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 109 (d). If Co Petro is a commodity broker, this Chapter 11 proceeding is unauthorized,…”
In Re Designaire Modular Home Corp.. Appeal of Levi, Mandel & Miller (Now Jenkins, Miller & Jenkins, p.c.), 517 F.2d 1015 (3rd Cir. 1975). “§ 362, 11 U.S.C. § 762 . Obviously then, the first task of an attorney for a debtor is to negotiate with representatives of unsecured creditors in an adversarial posture for such settlement, satisfaction or extension as will afford his client, the debtor, the greatest…”
In re Graco, Inc., 267 F. Supp. 952 (D. Conn. 1967). “Section 362(1) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C. § 762 , requires acceptance of the proposed arrangement by “a majority in number of all creditors of each class, affected by the arrangement, whose claims have been proved and allowed before the conclusion of the meeting.”
Wright v. Heizer Corp., 503 F. Supp. 802 (N.D. Ill. 1980). “911 , § 1 (formerly at 11 U.S.C. § 762 ). Heizer, which held the majority of the amount of claims against IDC, thus could have blocked any plan proposed by IDC.”
Cooper v. Kramer (In Re Cooper), 139 B.R. 736 (D. Colo. 1992). “” 11 U.S.C. § 762 (a)(2); In re Glick, 136 B.”
In Re Washington Funding Corp., 13 B.R. 216 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1981). “Bankruptcy Act § 362, 11 U.S.C. § 762 (repealed 1978). 12 . Under the Bankruptcy Code, applications for relief from stay are governed by § 362, which replaces Bankruptcy Rule 11-44.”
In re Graco, Inc., 249 F. Supp. 405 (D. Conn. 1965). “1 11 U.S.C. § 762 (1). On June 22, 1965, an application for confirmation was filed by the debtor, and on the same date objections to confirmation were filed on behalf of several creditors.”
In the Matter of Graco, Inc. D/B/A Furmiture World in Proceedings for an Arrangement Under Chapter Xi, 364 F.2d 257 (2d Cir. 1966). “After the hearing, the referee found the plan to be accepted by the requisite number of creditors under section 362 of the Act, 11 U.S.C. § 762 . On June 22, 1965, the debtor filed an application for confirmation of the plan, and several creditors filed objections thereto.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.