In re Braniff Airways, Inc.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
700 F.2d 935 (1983)
- Written by Heather Whittemore, JD
Facts
Braniff Airways, Inc. (Braniff) (debtor) filed for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. Braniff remained the debtor-in-possession, continuing its management of its business. Braniff and Pacific Southwest Airlines (PSA) proposed a sale under which Braniff would sell its assets—including its cash, airplanes and equipment, and airport contracts—to PSA. The PSA sale would restructure the rights of Braniff’s creditors and included terms that applied to future reorganization plans. The bankruptcy court approved the PSA sale. A federal district court conducted a de novo review and also approved the PSA sale. Both courts approved the PSA sale pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(b), which allowed a bankruptcy trustee or debtor-in-possessor to use, sell, or lease the debtor’s assets in a manner outside the ordinary course of business after notice and a hearing. Several of Braniff’s creditors (the opposing creditors) (creditors) appealed, arguing that the district court did not have authority to authorize the PSA sale under § 363(b). The opposing creditors argued that § 363(b) did not apply to the sale of all the assets of a debtor, asserting instead that such a sale was a reorganization that had to meet all reorganization requirements imposed by the Bankruptcy Code.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gee, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 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.