In re Daig Corp.

17 B.R. 41 (1981)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

In re Daig Corp.

United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Minnesota
17 B.R. 41 (1981)

Facts

Daig Corporation (debtor) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The United States bankruptcy trustee appointed INCO Electro Energy Corporation (INCO) (creditor) and Lake Region Manufacturing Company (Lake Region) (creditor) to Daig’s creditors’ committee. INCO held an unsecured claim against DAIG that was worth more than all other secured and unsecured claims combined. Lake Region held the largest claim of any of Daig’s suppliers. After appointing Lake Region to the committee, the trustee discovered that Lake Region’s representative on the committee and principal operating officer, Joseph Fleischacker, was the father of Daig’s chairman. The trustee removed Lake Region from the committee based on Fleischacker’s personal, insider relationship with Daig. Daig filed a motion asking the bankruptcy court to restore Lake Region to the committee, asserting that Lake Region’s presence on the committee was important because Lake Region could help Daig deal with other supplying creditors. Daig asserted that another Lake Region representative, such as Lake Region’s counsel, could take Fleischacker’s place as representative to the committee. Daig’s motion also asked the bankruptcy court to remove INCO from the committee because Daig disputed INCO’s claim and because the size and nature of the claim—a stock purchase from INCO—warranted negotiating separately with INCO. Daig asserted that INCO had different interests from Daig’s other unsecured creditors, but there was no indication that INCO’s interests actually diverged from the interests of other general unsecured claimants.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Owens, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 805,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. 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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 805,000 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership