In re Featherworks Corp.

25 B.R. 634 (1982)

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

In re Featherworks Corp.

United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York
25 B.R. 634 (1982)

Facts

Arthur Puro’s wife and daughter owned Windsor Trading Corporation (Windsor) and Hudson Feather & Down Products, Inc. (Hudson), which owned Featherworks Corporation (Featherworks) (debtor). Puro was president and chief executive officer of Windsor and Hudson and controlled Featherworks. Featherworks filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy after a judgment was entered against Featherworks in a litigation with Far West Garments, Inc. (Far West) (creditor). Walter E. Heller & Co. (Heller) (creditor) had a $5 million secured claim against Featherworks and obtained relief from the automatic stay to collect Featherworks’ accounts receivable and foreclose on Featherworks’ inventory. However, Heller received only $3.5 million from those efforts, leaving Heller with a $1.5 million unsecured claim. Featherworks’ other creditors were Windsor, Hudson, Far West, and the attorneys who represented Featherworks in the Far West litigation. Featherworks filed a proposed reorganization plan that, among other things, provided for Featherworks’ unsecured creditors to receive a pro rata share of $40,000 contributed by Windsor. When the creditors voted on Featherworks’ proposed plan, Heller voted to reject the plan. Excluding the votes of insiders Hudson and Windsor, no impaired class of creditors voted to accept the plan, which meant the plan could not be confirmed. Following the vote, Windsor paid Heller $25,000. Heller then sought permission to change its vote and accept Featherworks’ plan. Far West asked the bankruptcy court to disqualify Heller’s acceptance and notify the United States Attorney of a potential violation of 18 U.S.C. § 152, which criminalizes fraudulently and willfully giving or receiving money for taking any action in connection with a bankruptcy proceeding. Heller asserted that it had wanted to accept the plan but had subsequently realized that the inventory received from Featherworks was of a lesser quality than had been represented, so Heller decided to reject the plan and threatened to sue Featherworks, Windsor, and Puro. Puro allegedly paid Heller the $25,000 to release Puro and Windsor from the threat of litigation, and Heller then notified Featherworks that Heller would accept the plan.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Goetz, 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