Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

In re PTI Holding Corp. (Homestead Holdings, Inc. v. Broome & Wellington)

United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada
346 B.R. 820 (2006)


Facts

In a 2004 acquisition, Steven and David Greenstein obtained control of Homestead Holdings, Inc. (Homestead) (plaintiff) and ownership of the assets of London Fog Industries (London Fog). As part of the acquisition, Homestead purchased assets from Broome & Wellington (B&W) (defendant). The Greensteins, along with Greenco Enterprises Company, Inc. (Greenco), guaranteed the price paid to B&W. The agreement governing the acquisition designated English law under choice-of-law rules. Homestead later filed for bankruptcy. B&W filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy proceeding, seeking approximately $7 million still owed on the acquisition debt. Shortly thereafter, B&W notified the Greensteins and Greenco that B&W would file suit in England to enforce the guarantees. Homestead sought a preliminary injunction against B&W’s England suit in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada. Homestead argued that the England suit would damage its reorganization efforts by distracting the Greensteins from their significant responsibilities at Homestead. The Greensteins testified that they essentially “[were] Homestead,” and that they spent the majority of their time on Homestead’s and London Fog’s reorganization efforts. The Greensteins further testified that Homestead had recently become profitable and was growing, and that because the Greensteins’ personal wealth was largely consumed by London Fog, they could not pay any judgment obtained by B&W in England unless Homestead had the opportunity to reorganize.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Markell, 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, please start your free trial or log in.

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 223,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 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.