Texas Research, Inc., Matter of, 88-5540
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit) |
| Citation | 862 F.2d 1161 |
| Docket Number | No. 88-5540,88-5540 |
| Parties | , Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,581, 8 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 532 In the Matter of TEXAS RESEARCH, INC., Debtor. OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS, Appellant, v. UNION BANK, Appellee. |
| Decision Date | 09 January 1989 |
Page 1161
8 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 532
OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF CREDITORS, Appellant,
v.
UNION BANK, Appellee.
Fifth Circuit.
Lawrence Alan Beck, Helen G. Schwartz, San Antonio, Tex., for appellant.
David W. Elmquist, Dallas, Tex., Robert Michael Kunczt, San Antonio, Tex., for appellee.
Page 1162
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas.
Before GEE, SNEED, * and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
SNEED, Circuit Judge:
The Official Committee of Creditors of the debtor, Texas Research, Inc., appeals the decision of a district court in a bankruptcy case. The Committee seeks to avoid a post-petition security interest that the debtor gave to one of its creditors, Union Bank. The bankruptcy court denied relief on grounds that Union Bank had surrendered an equivalent value in exchange for the security interest. The district court upheld the denial and we affirm.
I.
Texas Research licensed Healthdyne, Inc., to use its technology in exchange for a $300,000 promissory note. Texas Research then pledged the promissory note to Union Bank as security for a $200,000 loan. When Healthdyne, on May 1, 1984, did not make its first payment on the note, Texas Research, on May 2, 1984, notified Healthdyne that it was rescinding the license. Healthdyne then tendered a $100,000 check to Union Bank, representing the payment that it had missed. Healthdyne made the check payable to Union Bank and Texas Research, but Texas Research refused to indorse it.
Creditors filed an involuntary bankruptcy petition against Texas Research on May 29, 1984. In the bankruptcy court, Texas Research moved to establish either that Healthdyne's failure to make a timely payment on the promissory note had given Texas Research the right to terminate the license or, alternatively, that Texas Research could reject the license as an executory contract. When Union Bank quite understandably objected to the motion, the parties settled the dispute.
Their settlement agreement provided that Union Bank would receive a so-called "replacement lien" on any consideration that Texas Research obtained by reselling the technology that it had licensed to Healthdyne. Union Bank, in exchange, made three promises. First, Union Bank promised to drop its objection to Texas Research's motion and thus forego its interest in the Healthdyne note. Second, Union Bank promised to return Healthdyne's check. Third, Union Bank promised to lend an additional $50,000 to Texas Research.
After the settlement agreement took effect, Texas Research resold its technology. Banner Electric, Inc., a member of the Creditors' Committee, then brought an adversary proceeding pursuant to Bankr.R. 7001(2) to determine the extent, the validity, and the priority of Union Bank's replacement lien. The Creditor's Committee intervened, seeking to avoid the lien pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Secs. 544, 547, & 548 (1982 & Supp. IV 1986). Finding that 11 U.S.C. Sec. 549(b) (1982) governed the transaction, the bankruptcy court ruled that the replacement lien was valid because Union Bank had given a "fair and reasonably equivalent value" in exchange for it. Excerpts of Record at 131.
The district court agreed. Although the district court found that Union Bank's promise to return the $100,000 check was worthless because Union Bank could not negotiate the check without Texas Research's indorsement, the court agreed that Union Bank had given an equivalent value in exchange for the replacement lien by dropping its objection to Texas Research's motion and by offering the $50,000 line of credit to Texas Research. The Committee appealed to this court.
II.
The bankruptcy court had jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Secs. 157 & 1471. The district court had jurisdiction under Sec. 158. This court has jurisdiction under Sec. 1291.
Page 1163
III.
This court accepts a bankruptcy court's findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous, but decides issues of law de novo. See Pierson & Gaylen v. Creel & Atwool (In re Consolidated Bancshares, Inc.), 785 F.2d 1249, 1252 (5th Cir.1986).
IV.
We agree with the district court that Sec. 549(b) of the Bankruptcy Code governs the principal issue in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dyke, Matter of, s. 90-2421
...the Texas Property Code. Because these are legal issues, we review them under the de novo standard of review. In re Texas Research, Inc., 862 F.2d 1161, 1163 (5th Cir.1989); Richmond Leasing Co. v. Capital Bank, N.A., 762 F.2d 1303, 1307-08 (5th Page 1441 A. The Section 541(c)(2) Exclusion-......
-
Topco, Inc., Matter of, 88-2986
...error in findings of fact and review de novo issues of law. In re Killebrew, 888 F.2d 1516, 1519 (5th Cir.1989); In re Texas Research, 862 F.2d 1161, 1163 (5th Cir.1989). 4 We find clear error when a review of the entire evidence leaves us "with the definite and firm conviction that a mista......
-
Total E&P United States, Inc. v. Marubeni Oil & Gas (Usa), Inc., CIVIL ACTION NO. H-16-2671
...in the bankruptcy settlement should be valued at the time the agreement was reached. ECF No. 132 at 13; see In re Texas Research, Inc. , 862 F.2d 1161, 1163 (5th Cir. 1989) ("the value of ... transfers should be measured at the time they occur."); ASARCO LLC v. Ams. Mining Corp. , 396 B.R. ......
-
In re El Paso Refinery, LP, Civ. No. A-93-CA-569 JN.
...fact in this case, therefore, the Court reviews the bankruptcy Court's legal conclusions on a de novo basis. In re Texas Research, Inc., 862 F.2d 1161 (5th The issue before the Court is whether the Bankruptcy Court has statutory and constitutional authority to conduct trials in core proceed......