In re Resource Technology Corp.

662 F.3d 472 (2011)

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

In re Resource Technology Corp.

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
662 F.3d 472 (2011)

Facts

Congress Development Company (CDC) owned and operated a landfill near Chicago. In 1996, CDC hired Resource Technology Corporation (RTC) (debtor) to build a gas-collection-and-control system for the landfill. The system deteriorated over the years, but RTC had no money to fix it. In 1999, RTC entered Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. In 2002, Samuel Roti (creditor) bought a hotel next to CDC’s landfill. In September 2005, RTC’s Chapter 11 bankruptcy was converted to a Chapter 7 liquidation. A trustee was appointed and given operational control over RTC’s business until the liquidation was complete. Four days after the trustee received control, the gas-collection-and-control system at CDC’s landfill failed. Gas odors wafted into Roti’s hotel, causing guests and employees to become sick. Illinois’s state environmental-protection agency issued notices of violations to RTC and CDC, but RTC’s trustee responded that there was no money in RTC’s bankruptcy estate to repair the gas-collection-and-control system. CDC terminated its relationship with RTC in January 2006, and the trustee abandoned all of RTC’s assets at the landfill the following month. Roti eventually sold the hotel for $5 million but claimed that he could have sold the hotel for nearly $25 million without the gas odors. Roti asserted an administrative claim in RTC’s bankruptcy case for the difference between the sale price and the price that Roti allegedly could have obtained for the hotel. The bankruptcy court rejected Roti’s claim, and the district court affirmed. Roti appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Posner, 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 811,000 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 811,000 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 811,000 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