Ira Haupt & Co. v. Klebanow
| Decision Date | 24 June 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 377,Docket 29454.,377 |
| Parties | IRA HAUPT & CO., Respondent-Appellant, v. Bernard KLEBANOW, George Lewis and Michael Sloan, Petitioners-Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Krause, Hirsch, Gross & Heilpern, and Delson & Gordon, New York City (Sydney Krause, Charles Singer, and Norman Moloshok, New York City, of counsel), for respondent-appellant.
Rosenman, Colin, Kaye, Petschek & Freund, New York City (Max Freund and Jerome E. Sharfman, New York City, of counsel), for petitioners-appellees.
Before MOORE, FRIENDLY and MARSHALL, Circuit Judges.*
As recounted in In re Ira Haupt & Co., 343 F.2d 726 (2 Cir. 1965), Klebanow, Lewis and Sloan, limited partners, filed an involuntary petition in bankruptcy against the partnership, and the six general partners countered with a Chapter XI petition, as permitted by § 321. The limited partners moved to dismiss the Chapter XI petition, and the partnership moved for a stay of adjudication under § 325 Judge Palmieri upheld the referee's grant of the former motion and denial of the latter; the partnership, which has been adjudicated a bankrupt and is being administered as such, appeals from this action.
The same principles by which a court of bankruptcy was held to have inherent power to dismiss a Chapter XI petition where relief was properly to be had under Chapter X, without benefit of the express authority now contained in § 328, SEC v. United States Realty & Improvement Co., 310 U.S. 434, 60 S.Ct. 1044, 84 L.Ed. 1293 (1940), authorize it to dismiss a Chapter XI petition when it finds that there is no prospect of rehabilitation and that ordinary bankruptcy is the appropriate vehicle. This is obviously true of a Chapter XI petition filed in a pending bankruptcy since § 325 makes the grant of a stay of adjudication discretionary. The circumstances here abundantly justified the conclusion that there was no prospect of rehabilitating the partnership. Upholding Judge Palmieri's order on this ground we have no occasion to consider other arguments advanced by appellees in its support, or their motion to dismiss the appeal for alleged lack of authority to take it.
Affirmed.
* The appeal was initially heard by a panel consisting of Chief Judge Lumbard and Judges Moore and Marshall. Chief Judge Lumbard having later determined that he preferred not to participate, Judge Friendly was designated to act in his stead and the parties...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
In re Victory Const. Co., Inc.
...have reacted to Bolton Hall, 432 F.Supp. 528 (D.C.Mass. 1977), Mallard Associates, 403 F.Supp. 1259 (S.D.N.Y.1979), or Ira Haupt v. Klebanow, 348 F.2d 907 (2d Cir. 1965) is a matter over which lawyers may disagree. In fact, the failure of the bankruptcy court to comply with the basic proced......
-
In re The Bible Speaks
...arrangement under Chapter XI. E.g., In re Ware Metal Products, Inc., 42 F.Supp. 538 (D.Mass.1941) (Chapter X); see Ira Haupt & Co. v. Klebanow, 348 F.2d 907 (2d Cir.1965) (Chapter XI); Cf. SEC v. U.S. Realty & Improvement Co., 310 U.S. 434, 60 S.Ct. 1044, 84 L.Ed. 1293 (1940) (Challenge by ......
-
In re Ira Haupt & Company
...Palmieri, J., In re Ira Haupt and Company, 234 F.Supp. 167 (S.D.N.Y.1964), aff'd 343 F.2d 726 (2nd Cir. 1965) and Ira Haupt & Co. v. Klebanow, 348 F.2d 907 (2nd Cir. 1965), Haupt was a limited partnership with 16 general partners and 13 limited partners. It engaged in a general brokerage an......
-
Miller v. New York Produce Exchange
...234 F.Supp. 167 (S.D.N.Y. 1964), aff'd, 343 F.2d 726 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 890, 86 S.Ct. 182, 15 L.Ed.2d 148 (1965) & 348 F.2d 907 (2d Cir. 1965). As so often happens in situations of this nature, the victim is forced to seek financial solace from other than the fraudulent miscr......