Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status
From our private database of 16,400+ case briefs...

Precision Industries v. Qualitech Steel SBQ

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
327 F.3d 537 (2003)


In June 1998, Precision Industries, Inc. and Circo Leasing Co., LLC (collectively, Precision) (plaintiff) entered into two agreements with Qualitech Steel Corporation and Qualitech Steel Holdings Corporation (collectively, Qualitech). A supply agreement provided that Precision would build a supply warehouse on Qualitech’s property in Pittsboro, Indiana and operate it for 10 years. A related lease agreement provided that Qualitech would lease the property for the warehouse to Precision for 10 years. In March 1999, Qualitech filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition and assumed debtor-in-possession status. In June 1999, Qualitech sold substantially all of its assets to prepetition lenders who held the primary mortgage on the Pittsboro property. After a noticed hearing, the bankruptcy court entered a sale order, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 363(f) and other provisions, that instructed Qualitech to transfer its assets to the buyers free of all liens, claims, encumbrances, and interests apart from those specifically carved out. Precision’s leasehold interest was not expressly preserved by the order. Precision submitted no objections. The buyers of Qualitech’s assets transferred them to the newly created Qualitech Steel SBQ, LLC (New Qualitech) (defendant). Negotiations for assumption of the Precision supply and lease agreements were held but never successfully concluded. As a result, the agreements were de facto rejected. When New Qualitech took possession of the Pittsboro warehouse, Precision filed a lawsuit against it in federal district court. The matter was referred to the bankruptcy court, which held that Precision’s possessory interest in the property had been extinguished by the earlier sale order and pursuant to § 363(f). The district court reversed on the grounds that the protection of leasehold interests set forth at § 365(h) were controlling. New Qualitech appealed.

Rule of Law


Holding and Reasoning (Ilana Diamond Rovner, 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 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 372,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 16,400 briefs, keyed to 223 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.

Questions & Answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Sign up for a FREE 7-day trial