255 F.2d 682 - Fishman v. Verlin — 255 F.2d 682

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently September 1976

9 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

¶1Samuel L. Nadler, of Finkel & Nadler, New York City, for objecting-creditor-appellant.

¶2Paul H. Riess, of Genzer, Sachs, Marcus & Riess, New York City, for bankrupts-appellees.

¶3Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and HINCKS and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

¶4PER CURIAM.

¶5This appeal, arising upon stipulated facts, presents but one question, viz., whether a debtor is barred from a discharge under Section 14, sub. c(5) of the Bankruptcy Act,111 U.S.C.A. § 32, sub. c(5), where he was forced into involuntary bankruptcy within six years after entering into an extension arrange*683ment under which only 13% of the debts had been paid. In a comprehensive, well-reasoned opinion, the Referee concluded that an extension arrangement did not fall within the statutory bar and granted the discharge. His action the district judge confirmed.

¶6We too uphold the discharge. Especially significant is the distinction between extensions and compositions under § 14, sub. c(5) which is found in the legislative history of the Chandler Act. H.Rep. No. 3409 at p. 29, 75th Cong., 1st Sess.

¶7Affirmed.