11 U.S.C. § 767
Commodity broker liquidation and forward contract merchants, commodity brokers, stockbrokers, financial institutions, financial participants, securities clearing agencies, swap participants, repo participants, and master netting agreement participants
Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, the exercise of rights by a forward contract merchant, commodity broker, stockbroker, financial institution, financial participant, securities clearing agency, swap participant, repo participant, or master netting agreement participant under this title shall not affect the priority of any unsecured claim it may have after the exercise of such rights.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 35
cases, 1950–2008 · leading case: Giles E. Miller v. Meinhard-Com. Corp., 462 F.2d 358 (5th Cir. 1972).
Giles E. Miller v. Meinhard-Com. Corp., 462 F.2d 358 (5th Cir. 1972). “Section 367(1) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S.C.A. § 767 (1), provides: Upon confirmation of an arrangement * * * the arrangement and its provisions shall be binding upon the debtor, upon any person issuing securities or acquiring property under the arrangement and upon all…”
Padilla v. GMAC Mortg. Corp. (In Re Padilla), 389 B.R. 409 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2008). “§ 624 (1) (repealed); former Bankruptcy Act § 367(1); 11 U.S.C. § 767 (1) (repealed). There do not appear to be a multitude of reported decisions under the Act on the subject, but there are cases in which courts granted post-confirmation relief to enforce the terms of confirmed…”
Levy v. Cohen, 561 P.2d 252 (Cal. 1977). “See also 11 U.S.C. §§ 767 (1), 873 (l).) 5 As an unsecured creditor of the limited partnership, plaintiff (against whom the plea of res judicata is here asserted) was a party to the consolidated proceeding in the bankruptcy court.”
Am. Guar. Corp. & Harry H. Burton, Receiver v. The United States, 401 F.2d 1004 (Ct. Cl. 1968). “] The Bankruptcy Act itself states that “Upon confirmation of an arrangement —(1) the arrangement and its provisions shall be binding upon the debtor * ( 11 U.S.C. § 767 ) [Emphasis supplied.] With regard to this section it is said in 9 Collier on Bankruptcy, [[ 9.”
Holly's, Inc. v. City of Kentwood (In Re Holly's, Inc.), 172 B.R. 545 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 1994). “See 11 U.S.C. § 767 (4) (repealed 1978) (on confirmation, the “case shall be dismissed”), 757(7) (repealed 1978) (plan may include “provisions for retention of jurisdiction by the court until provisions of the arrangement, after its confirmation, have been performed”), 768…”
Am. Anthracite & Bituminous Coal Corp. v. Leonardo Arrivabene, S.A., Tramp Tankers Corp. of Liberia & Est. of Hector C. Dracoulis, 280 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1960). “They point out that under *122 § 367(3) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S. C.A. § 767(3), none of the $2,000,000 deposited by the debtor for distribution to its creditors may be returned to it under any circumstances and argue that the debtor is therefore not a “part[y] in interest”…”
Harry L. Bizzell, Jr. v. Clifford E. Hemingway, A/K/A C. E. Hemingway, & Fairco Drugs, Inc., 548 F.2d 505 (4th Cir. 1977). “We also find the court had jurisdiction to grant Bizzell relief against Fairco in the exercise of its equitable powers. Since confirmation of an arrangement is tantamount to a judgment, equitable relief is appropriate only if the same circumstances would warrant relief from a…”
Kalso Systemet, Inc. v. Jacobs, 474 F. Supp. 666 (S.D.N.Y. 1979). “11 U.S.C. § 767 ; Bankruptcy Rule 11-33(b)(2); in re Super Electric Prods.”
Fed.'s, Inc. v. Edmonton Inv. Co., 404 F. Supp. 68 (E.D. Mich. 1975). “11 U.S.C. § 767 (1). It discharges all unsecured debts and liabilities as provided in the plan of arrangement, except debts not dischargeable under section 35 of 11 U.”
Texas Consum. Fin. Corp. v. First Nat'l City Bank, 365 F. Supp. 427 (S.D.N.Y. 1973). “” Bankruptcy Act § 467 ( 11 U.S.C. § 767 ). It is suggested that, except for the provisions in Sections 769 and 770, the case is over, and that, even if jurisdiction is retained, the retention may be only for •limited purposes, and the court does not continue to have all the…”
Bohack Corp. v. Iowa Beef Processors, Inc., 715 F.2d 703 (2d Cir. 1983). “§ 771 , provides as follows: The confirmation of an arrangement shall discharge a debtor from all his unsecured debts and liabilities provided for by the arrangement, except as provided in the arrangement or the order confirming the arrangement, but excluding such debts as,…”
TGX Corp. v. Templeton (In Re TGX Corp.), 168 B.R. 122 (W.D. La. 1994). “See 11 U.S.C. §§ 767 (4) (repealed 1978) (on confirmation, "the case shall be dismissed”), 757(7) (repealed 1978) (plan may include "provisions for retention of jurisdiction by the court until provisions of the arrangement, after its confirmation, have been performed"), 768…”
— 11 U.S.C. § 767(3) — 1 case
Am. Anthracite & Bituminous Coal Corp. v. Leonardo Arrivabene, S.A., Tramp Tankers Corp. of Liberia & Est. of Hector C. Dracoulis, 280 F.2d 119 (2d Cir. 1960). “They point out that under *122 § 367(3) of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S. C.A. § 767(3), none of the $2,000,000 deposited by the debtor for distribution to its creditors may be returned to it under any circumstances and argue that the debtor is therefore not a “part[y] in interest”…”
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.