Matter of Saybrook Manufacturing Co.
United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
963 F.2d 1490 (1992)
Facts
Saybrook Manufacturing Co., Inc. and affiliated companies (collectively, Saybrook) (defendant) filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition on December 22, 1988. At the time of filing, Saybrook owed Manufacturers Hanover (Hanover) (defendant) approximately $34 million. The debt to Hanover was collateralized to an amount less than $10 million. Thus, approximately $24 million of the debt to Hanover was unsecured. On December 23, 1988, upon Saybrook’s motion, the bankruptcy court entered an emergency financing order that would allow Saybrook to take on additional, secured debt. The order provided that, in exchange for a $3 million postpetition loan to Saybrook, Hanover would receive a security interest in all of Saybrook’s prepetition and postpetition property. The security interest would also apply to Hanover’s prepetition debt. Thus, one effect of this “cross-collateralization” was to fully secure Hanover’s $24 million of prepetition debt that had previously been unsecured. Two unsecured creditors of Saybrook, Seymour and Jeffrey Shapiro (plaintiffs), objected to the financing order. The bankruptcy court overruled their objection and also refused to stay the order pending appeal. The district court held that the Shapiros’ appeal was moot pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 364(e). The Shapiros appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Cox, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 706,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 44,400 briefs, keyed to 983 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.
