In re Revere Copper and Brass, Inc.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York
58 B.R. 1 (1985)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Revere Copper and Brass, Inc. (Revere) (debtor) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in October 1982. Revere had not filed a formal reorganization plan, but on November 30, 1984, The Wall Street Journal published an article with the details of Revere’s proposed reorganization plan. The article stated that the plan would give Revere’s general unsecured creditors three options with respect to their claims, including choosing to receive 65 percent of the claim’s value in cash. However, between November 5 and November 29, 1984, Phoenix Capital Corporation (Phoenix) had sent letters to 19 of Revere’s creditors, offering to pay the creditors 20 percent of their claim’s value in cash. Phoenix had no relationship to Revere and was not a member of Revere’s creditors’ committee or equity securityholders’ committee. Phoenix sent the same solicitation letters to nine more creditors on December 6, 1984. All 28 solicited creditors accepted Phoenix’s offer and assigned their claims to Phoenix in return for the promised payment. Phoenix then asked the bankruptcy to approve Phoenix’s subrogation (i.e., substitution) with respect to the rights of the 28 claimants. The bankruptcy court clerk sent notices of the proposed subrogation to the assignor-claimants and received no objections. The clerk thus presented the bankruptcy court with 28 proposed orders approving Phoenix’s subrogation as assignee-claimant.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Abram, J.)
What to do next…
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.