Debentureholders Protective Committee of Continental Investment Corp. v. Continental Investment Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
679 F.2d 264 · 1982
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably Chicago Milwaukee St Paul and Pacific Railroad Company Chicago Milwaukee St Paul and Pacific Railroad Company (1986), 1377 69412 Boston and Maine Corporation City of Cambridge (1983)
10 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Vanston Bondholders Protective Committee v. Green · Consolidated Rock Products Co. v. Du Bois · Lawrence E. Sexton v. Leopold Louis Dreyfus · City of New York v. Saper · American Iron Steel Manufacturing Company v. Seaboard Air Line Railway
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]here the debtor’s estate is sufficient to pay the interest which accrues after the filing date, ‘it would seem inappropriate to return to the debtor a surplus of his assets after accommodation of all claims without a distribution to the creditors of accrued interest to the date of payment of the claims by the trustee.’ Therefore, where the debtor is solvent, the bankruptcy rule is that post-petition interest which accrues on unsecured claims which are allowable against the debtor’s estate will be paid in full before any money is allowed to revert back to the debtor or its shareholders.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[T]he rule is in harmony with the settled English and American law that when an alleged bankrupt is proved solvent, the creditors are entitled to receive post-petition interest before any surplus reverts to the debtor.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“When and under what circumstances federal courts will allow interest on claims against debtors’ estates being administered by them has long been decided by federal law.... The general rule in bankruptcy ... has been that interest on the debtors’ obligations ceases to accrue at the beginning of proceedings. Exaction of interest, where the power of a debtor to pay even his contractual obligations is suspended by law, has been prohibited because it was considered in the nature of a penalty imposed because of delay in prompt payment — a delay necessitated by law if the courts are properly to preserve and protect the estate for the benefit of all interests involved.... As a general rule, after property of an insolvent passes into the hands of a receiver or of an assignee in insolvency, interest is not allowed on the claims against the funds. The delay in distribution is the act of the law; it is a necessary incident to the settlement of the estate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.