Gray v. Polar Molecular Corp. (In re Polar Molecular Corp.)
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts
195 B.R. 548 (1996)
- Written by Solveig Singleton, JD
Facts
In 1993, Polar Molecular Corporation (Polar) (debtor) filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. The bankruptcy court replaced Polar’s management with a trustee. Polar’s reorganization plan (plan) was confirmed in 1994. The plan required Polar to make distributions to general unsecured creditors. The distribution amounts depended on Polar’s income, the calculation of which was based on Polar’s gross margin. The plan called for the bankruptcy court to keep jurisdiction over the case in order to interpret the plan, rule on motions and litigated matters filed on or after the plan’s confirmation date, and facilitate payments and performance under the plan. Polar began making payments under the plan. In 1995, Polar asked the bankruptcy court to enter a decree finalizing the bankruptcy proceeding (final decree). On the same day, the trustee filed a complaint alleging that Polar had miscalculated its gross margin and ought to have paid creditors an additional $11,000. Polar asserted that the bankruptcy court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case because the plan had been substantially consummated, meaning that the trustee’s dispute arose under state contract law rather than Title 11.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Feeney, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 807,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.