Bevill Bresler Schulman Asset Management Corporation v. Spencer Savings & Loan Association 88-6020 Bevill Bresler & Schulman Asset Management Corporation a’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently September 2014 · most notably 17 F. Supp. 2d 275 - Granite Partners, LP v. Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc. (1998), Lowenschuss v. Resorts International, Inc. (1999)
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 546
Relies on Blum v. Stenson · Pilot Life Insurance v. Dedeaux · Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Markham v. Cabell · Towne v. Eisner
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(8) “settlement payment” means a preliminary settlement payment, a partial settlement payment, an interim settlement payment, a settlement payment on account, a final settlement payment, or any other similar payment commonly used in the securities trade.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] 'settlement payment' may be the deposit of cash by the purchaser or the deposit or transfer of the securities by the dealer, and ... includes transfers which are normally part of the settlement process, whether they occur on the trade date, the scheduled settlement day, or any other date in the settlement process for the particular type of transaction at hand.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“HIC”) repo in which the dealer retains the securities for the account of the purchaser by placing the securities in a segregated safe-keeping account or otherwise holding the securities for the purchaser’s benefit. 7 . If the transfers involved physical securities, they were accomplished by the delivery of the securities to Comark's trading partner or to its custodial bank. The majority of the trades, however, were accomplished through electronic "book entry” procedures. 8 . Although Comark represented that the securities would be placed into a safekeeping account, Comark did not have such an account. Instead the securities at issue remained in Comark’s clearing account with FBC's interest being noted on Comark's internal documents and on the confirmation slips sent to FBC. 9 . As will be discussed more fully below, the Trustee disputes that these transactions were repos and that these transactions involved the purchase and sale of securities. Rather, the Trustee contends that these transactions were, in substance and reality, unsecured loans. For ease of reference, we will refer to the transactions as repos and use corresponding terms of purchase and sale. 10 . Section 546(e) provides, in pertinent part, that "the trustee may not avoid a' transfer that is a ... settlement payment, as defined in section 741(8) of this title, made by or to a ... stockbroker ..., that is made before the commencement of the case, except under section 548(a)(1) of this title.”
5 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.