Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealmotionbankruptcymotion to dismiss
appealmotionbankruptcymotion to dismiss

Related Cases

In re Eastman Kodak Co., Not Reported in B.R., 2012 WL 2255719, 67 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1861
View Case »
U.S. Bank National Association v. T.D. Bank, N.A., 569 B.R. 12
View Case »
Brunswick Associates Ltd. Partnership v. Pioneer Inv. Services Co., 902 F.2d 32 (Table)
View Case »
Kane v. Johns-Manville Corp., 843 F.2d 636, 56 USLW 2616, 17 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 695, Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,264
View Case »
In re Continental Air Lines, Inc., 780 F.2d 1223, 13 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1433, 13 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1371, Bankr. L. Rep. P 70,945
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

First American Bank of New York v. Century Glove, Inc., 64 B.R. 958

Facts

Century Glove, Inc. sought an extension of the exclusivity period to file a plan of reorganization under 11 U.S.C. § 1121(d), which the Bankruptcy Court granted. First American Bank of New York (FAB) appealed this order, arguing that it was a final determination and that the delay would cause irreparable harm. The court had to determine whether the order was final or interlocutory and whether it met the criteria for an appeal.

Century Glove, Inc. sought an extension of the exclusivity period to file a plan of reorganization under 11 U.S.C. § 1121(d), which the Bankruptcy Court granted. First American Bank of New York (FAB) appealed this order, arguing that it was a final determination and that the delay would cause irreparable harm.

Issue

Whether the Bankruptcy Court's order extending the exclusivity period for Century Glove to file a plan of reorganization was a final order under the collateral order doctrine or an appealable interlocutory order.

Whether the Bankruptcy Court's order extending the exclusivity period for Century Glove to file a plan of reorganization was a final order under the collateral order doctrine or an appealable interlocutory order.

Rule

An order must meet three requirements to be appealable under the collateral order doctrine: it must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important question completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment.

An order must meet three requirements to be appealable under the collateral order doctrine: it must conclusively determine the disputed question, resolve an important question completely separate from the merits of the action, and be effectively unreviewable on appeal from final judgment.

Analysis

The court found that the order did not conclusively determine the disputed question as it merely postponed creditors' rights rather than foreclosing them. Additionally, the issue was not completely separate from the merits of the action, as it was intertwined with the ability of creditors to file a reorganization plan. The court concluded that the delay in review would not cause an injustice, as FAB would still have opportunities to present a plan if Century Glove's plan was not accepted.

The court found that the order did not conclusively determine the disputed question as it merely postponed creditors' rights rather than foreclosing them. Additionally, the issue was not completely separate from the merits of the action, as it was intertwined with the ability of creditors to file a reorganization plan.

Conclusion

The court granted Century Glove's motion to dismiss FAB's appeal, concluding that the order was not final and did not meet the criteria for an interlocutory appeal.

The court granted Century Glove's motion to dismiss FAB's appeal, concluding that the order was not final and did not meet the criteria for an interlocutory appeal.

Who won?

Century Glove prevailed in the case because the court found that the order extending the exclusivity period was not a final order and did not meet the criteria for an interlocutory appeal.

Century Glove prevailed in the case because the court found that the order extending the exclusivity period was not a final order and did not meet the criteria for an interlocutory appeal.

You must be