Century Glove v. First American Bank of New York
United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
860 F.2d 94 (1988)
In November 1985, Century Glove, Inc. (Century) (plaintiff) filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. On August 1, 1986, Century submitted a plan of reorganization and a draft disclosure statement. At a meeting of the unsecured creditors committee, First American Bank of New York (FAB) (defendant) argued against approval of Century’s plan and submitted a draft plan of its own. The creditors committee supported Century’s plan over FAB’s. On December 2, 1986, the bankruptcy court approved Century’s disclosure statement. Copies of the plan, the statement, and a proposed ballot were submitted to Century’s creditors. In mid-December, FAB contacted other creditors of Century, including Latham Four Partnerships (Latham Four) (defendant) and Bankers Trust New York Corporation (BTNY) (defendant). FAB sought to persuade those creditors to vote against the plan. In doing so, it sent them copies of FAB’s plan, in draft form, for their comments. FAB also gave to Latham Four a copy of a privileged communication from counsel for the unsecured creditors committee to the committee, in which counsel questioned the committee’s support for Century’s plan. After being contacted by FAB, Latham Four voted against Century’s plan. BTNY had already decided, in September 1986, to reject the plan. It formally did so on December 17, the same day that FAB sent it a draft copy of its alternative plan and a day after FAB counsel spoke with BTNY’s counsel about the vote. Century petitioned the bankruptcy court to designate, meaning to disqualify, the votes of FAB, Latham Four, and BTNY on the grounds that FAB unlawfully, and in bad faith, solicited the votes of the other creditors. The bankruptcy court ruled in favor of Century except with respect to BTNY’s vote. The court also imposed monetary sanctions upon FAB. Upon appeal, the district court affirmed the decision as to BTNY but reversed the decisions as to Latham Four and FAB, including the sanctions. Century appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Hunter, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.