In re Baldwin-United Corp.
| Decision Date | 16 August 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. C-1-84-1139.,C-1-84-1139. |
| Citation | 47 BR 898 |
| Parties | In re BALDWIN-UNITED CORPORATION et al., Debtors and Debtors in Possession. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING MOTION TO WITHDRAW REFERENCE; DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING MOTION TO STAY
This case is before the Court on a motion of the Common Stockholders' Committee, made pursuant to § 157(d) of the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal Judgeship Act of 1984, 98 Stat. 341, for withdrawal of the reference of the motion of the debtors to authorize the disposition of partnership assets in the Central Colorado Company, and for an order staying the related Bankruptcy Court proceedings pending resolution of said motion.
In relevant part, § 157(d) provides:
The District Court shall, on timely motion of a party ... withdraw a proceeding from the Bankruptcy Court if the Court determines that resolution of the proceeding requires consideration of both Title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce. (emphasis added)
In the present case, movants argue that resolution of the matter before the Bankruptcy Court will require consideration of both Title 11 and the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956, 12 U.S.C. § 1841 et seq.
In order to come within the ambit of this provision of § 157(d), a movant must establish three predicates: First, the movant must be a party. Second, the motion must be timely. Third, resolution of the proceeding before the Bankruptcy Court must require consideration of both Title 11 and other laws of the United States regulating organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce.
The Common Stockholders' Committee is a party. Accordingly, the Court concludes that this first predicate has been met. Second, as to "timeliness", § 157(d) does not contain a definition of that term. In addition, regardless of which definition should ultimately be utilized, the Court is unable to conclude, based upon the present state of the record, whether the present motion is or is not timely. Accordingly, the Court will direct the Bankruptcy Judge to hold a hearing on this issue, and to make findings of fact and conclusions of law on whether the present motion was filed in timely fashion. Parenthetically, the Court does not consider it necessary, at present, to resolve this question, because the Court concludes below that resolution of the proceedings before the Bankruptcy Court do not require consideration of both Title 11 and other laws of the United States which regulate organizations or activities affecting interstate commerce. The Bankruptcy Judge's findings and conclusions on the issue of timeliness can be utilized in any ultimate appeal, either to Judge Porter or to the Sixth Circuit, on the propriety of the disposition of partnership assets in the Central Colorado Company and/or on the question of whether the Bankruptcy Judge had jurisdiction to render such a decision.
As stated above, the third predicate for § 157(d) withdrawal is that...
To continue reading
Request your trial