TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Kirkland, 71-2953.
| Decision Date | 29 December 1972 |
| Docket Number | No. 71-2953.,71-2953. |
| Citation | 471 F.2d 10 |
| Parties | TMT TRAILER FERRY, INC., et al., Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc., Appellants, v. Thomas J. KIRKLAND, Trustee, et al., Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Irma S. Mason, Washington, D. C., Irwin L. Langbein, West Palm Beach, Fla., for appellants.
Irving M. Wolff, Miami, Fla., Ronald J. Offenkrantz, M. James Spitzer, New York City, Jackson Peters, Miami, Fla., for appellees.
Before THORNBERRY, COLEMAN and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges.
This is another of the numerous appeals which this panel of the Court has considered in this long-lasting and, hopefully, about-to-be-ended bankruptcy.
When the Supreme Court rejected the settlement and remanded this case in connection with the present Shaffer-Spitzer (Caplan mortgage) claim, it did so with the comment in its opinion (by Justice White): Protective Com. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 440-441, 88 S.Ct. 1157, 1171, 20 L.Ed.2d 1 (1968).
Accordingly, the District Court set about to comply with the Supreme Court decision and lengthy hearings were held before a Special Master resulting in a record of more than 4,000 pages of testimony and several hundred exhibits. The procedures for the hearings before the Special Master were established by the Trial Judge as well as the order of proof to be followed. All parties and their counsel attended the hearings, including counsel for the Protective Committee who raised numerous objections thereto and the Committee has now appealed from the order of the Trial Judge approving the settlement of the Shaffer-Spitzer claim.
In a lengthy opinion (more than 60 pages), the District Judge has carefully considered all of the facts relating to the claim, the objections and contentions of the parties, and has finally concluded that the proposed compromise of the claim be approved.
Appellant, Protective Committee, contends on appeal that the settlement of this major secured claim is unfair to the bankruptcy estate and the stockholders, and that it is...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc., Matter of
...20 L.Ed.2d 1 (1968), rehearing denied, 391 U.S. 909, 88 S.Ct. 1649, 20 L.Ed.2d 425 (1968), on remand sub nom. TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Kirkland, 5 Cir., 471 F.2d 10 (1972); Travelers Indemnity Company v. Anderson, 5 Cir., 394 F.2d 929 (1968); Protective Committee v. Kirkland, 5 Cir., 434 ......
-
Jackson Brewing Co., Matter of
...4,000 pages of testimony and several hundred exhibits. The Court then approved the compromise and we affirmed. TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Kirkland, 471 F.2d 10 (5th Cir. 1972). Hence, there must be a substantial factual basis for the approval of a compromise, but when there is such a basis ......
-
In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.
...for Independent Stockholders etc. v. Anderson, 391 U.S. 909, 88 S.Ct. 1649, 20 L.Ed.2d 425 (1968), on remand, TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Kirkland, 471 F.2d 10 (5th Cir.1972). The Court required that the Bankruptcy Court make an informed, independent judgment as to whether a settlement is "f......
-
In re Hunt, 73-3447.
...ample evidence to support a conclusion that the challenged findings are not clearly erroneous. See, e. g., TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Kirkland, 5 Cir., 1972, 471 F.2d 10; Williams v. Wirt, 5 Cir., 1971, 441 F.2d The petition filed herein contained allegations that SEW had a provable claim i......