Wt Grant Company Cosoff v. G Rodman Wt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

4 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 state decisions

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 228 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[I]t is not necessary for a bankruptcy court to conclusively determine claims subject to a compromise, nor must the court have all of the information necessary to resolve the factual dispute, for by so doing, there would be no need of settlement. [Cite omitted.] Neither must the court find that the settlement constitutes the best result obtainable. Rather, the court need only canvass the issues to determine that the settlement does not fall “ ‘below the lowest point in the range of reasonableness.’ ””

   13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Infotechnology, Inc. · In the Matter of Energy Cooperative, Inc., Debtor. Appeals of Koch Refining Co., Koch Fuels, Inc., Wood River Oil & Refining Co., Conoco Inc., Mobil Oil Corporation, Chevron U.S.A. Inc., Gulf Oil Corporation, Socap International, Ltd., U.S.A. Rookwood, Inc., Kerr-Mcgee Refining Corp., Triangle Refineries, Peerless Distributing, Valero Refining F/k/a Saber Refining, Union Oil Company of Calif., Tenneco Oil Company, Oils, Inc., Bell Fuels, Inc., Moore McCormack Enron Oil Trading & Transportation Company, and Societe Nationale Pour La Recherche, La Production, Le Transport, La Transformation Commercialisation Des Hydrocarbures ("Sonatrach"), 1

2. “A creditor is under no fiduciary obligation to its debtor or to other creditors of the debtor in the collection of its claim... The permissible parameters of a creditor’s efforts to seek collection from a debtor are generally those with respect to voidable preferences and fraudulent conveyances proscribed by the Bankruptcy Act; apart from these there is generally no objection to a creditor’s using his bargaining position, including his ability to refuse to make future loans needed by the debtor, to improve the status of his existing claims.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Boyd v. Sachs (In Re Auto Specialties Manufacturing Co.) · 80 Nassau Associates v. Crossland Federal Savings Bank (In Re 80 Nassau Associates)

3. “There is no doubt that, at least from March of 1974, the banks kept careful watch on what was going on at Grant [the debtor]; they would have been derelict in their duty to their own creditors and stockholders if they had not. It is not uncommon in such situations for officers whose companies have been brought to the verge of disaster to think that they still have better answers than do outsiders. In order to establish their claims the appellants must show not simply that the banks proffered advice to Grant that was unpalatable to management, even advice gloved with an implicit threat that, unless taken, further loans would not be forthcoming. They must show at least that the banks acted solely for their own benefit ..., and adversely to the interest of others.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Boyd v. Sachs (In Re Auto Specialties Manufacturing Co.) · Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Austin Financial Services, Inc. (In Re KDI Holdings, Inc.)