Gibson Group Inc Canadian Pacific Forest Products Limited v. Jd Irving Limited’s Empirical Analysis
66 F.3d 1436 · 1995
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2019 · most notably Official Committee of Unsecureds of Cybergenics Corporation Cybergenics Corporation v. Chinery L&s Lp, Richard M. Fogel, as Trustee for the Estate of Madison Management Group, Inc. v. Samuel Zell, Appeal of City and County of Denver (2000)
32 federal appellate · 4 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.
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 1103 · 11 U.S.C. § 1104 · 11 U.S.C. § 1107 · 11 U.S.C. § 1109 · 11 U.S.C. § 506 · 11 U.S.C. § 547 · 11 U.S.C. § 548 · 28 U.S.C. § 1334
Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Estate of Cowart v. Nicklos Drilling Co. · Nishiyama v. Dickson County · White Motor Corporation, Debtor and Debtor in Possession v. Citibank, N.A. And the Other Bank Creditors Listed on Exhibit 1 · Coral Petroleum, Inc. v. Banque Paribas-London
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] bankruptcy court may permit a single creditor in a Chapter 11 case to initiate an action to avoid a preferential or fraudulent transfer instead of the debtor-in-possession if the creditor: 1) has alleged a colorable claim that would benefit the estate, if successful, based on a cost-benefit analysis performed by the bankruptcy court; 2) has made a demand on the debtor-in-possession to file the avoidance action; 3) the demand has been refused; and, 4) the refusal is unjustified in light of the statutory obligations and fiduciary duties of the debtor-in-possession in a Chapter 11 reorganization. We also hold that, while the creditor has the initial burden to allege facts showing that the refusal to file suit is “unjustified,” the debtor-in-possession must rebut the presumption if the creditor carries its initial burden. Contrary to the district court’s view, we believe that a creditor need not plead facts alleging the debtor-in-possession’s reason or motive for the inaction, but may meet its burden to allege unjustified inaction through notice pleading by alleging the existence of an unpursued colorable claim that would benefit the estate. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8; Fed.R.Bankr.P. 7008 (making Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 applicable in bankruptcy adversary proceedings). If the debtor-in-possession gives no reason for its inaction when a demand is made, the bankruptcy court may presume that its inaction is an abuse of discretion (“unjustified”) if the complaint alleges a colorable claim.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“often acts under the influence of conflicts of interest.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a creditor may have standing to file an avoidance action if the bankruptcy court determines that certain conditions exist and certain prerequisites are met”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.