Logourl black
From our private database of 13,800+ case briefs...

In re Piper Aircraft

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
58 F.3d 1573 (1995)


Facts

In 1991, Piper Aircraft Corporation (Piper) (defendant), which had been in business since 1937, filed for reorganization under Chapter 11. In April 1993, in accordance with Piper’s proposed reorganization plan, Piper and Pilatus Aircraft Limited (Pilatus) executed a letter of intent setting forth Pilatus’s purchase of Piper’s assets. Among other things, the deal required Piper to request the appointment of a representative of future claimants (the Future Claimants) in order to establish a bucket of funds for the payment of future product liability claims. The bankruptcy court appointed David Epstein (plaintiff) as the representative for Future Claimants, which the court broadly defined to include all persons, whether identified or not, who would assert post–plan confirmation claims based upon or related to products made, sold, designed, or distributed by Piper prior to plan confirmation. The court’s definition of Future Claimants expressly stated that it was not a determination of whether such claimants could hold “claims” against Piper under 11 U.S.C. § 101(5). On behalf of the Future Claimants, Epstein filed a proof of claim in an amount close to $100 million. The size of the claim was predicated upon statistical assumptions. Piper and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (defendant) objected. The bankruptcy court disallowed the proof of claim because no prepetition relationship between the Future Claimants and Piper was established. The district court affirmed. Epstein appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

Holding and Reasoning (Black, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, start your 7-day free trial of Quimbee for Law Students.

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 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.

  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. 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.