H. MARSHALL SCOLNICK, APPELLANT,
v.
CONNECTICUT TELEPHONE & ELECTRIC CORPORATION, DEBTOR, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, EDWARD M. ROSENTHAL, TRUSTEE OF DEBTOR, CONNECTICUT TELEPHONE & ELECTRIC CORPORATION OF MERIDEN, C. A. AUFFMORDT & CO., NATIONAL PNEUMATIC CO., INC., APPELLEES

2d Cir. | 1959-05-11
Nos. 110, Docket 25269
Before CLARK, Chief Judge, MOORE, Circuit Judge, and GIBSON, District Judge.
266 F.2d 821 United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (1959)

AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.


Holding

The court denied the petition for rehearing, finding no merit in the petitioner's arguments.


Facts & Procedural History

Petitioner sought rehearing after an appeal was denied. The petition raised claims of prejudice due to a pending bankruptcy proceeding and asserted th…

The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.


Opinion of the Court
PER CURIAM.

PER CURIAM.

There is no more merit to this petition for rehearing than there was to the original appeal. In this petition the first claim is that petitioner was severely prejudiced by being forced to argue his appeal before a final ruling had been rendered on a proceeding he had instituted before the Bankruptcy Referee pursuant to § 386 of the Bankruptcy Act, 11 U.S. C.A. § 786. The decision of this Court— in holding there was no merit in petitioner’s appeal — in no way precluded the petitioner from proceeding with his claim filed under § 386 of the Bankruptcy Act.

Nor is the claim, made by affidavit, that the plant of the reorganized corporation is not carrying on substantial operation and may be in the process of liquidation, material or relevant. The affidavit making this assertion is strongly attacked by counteraffidavits and appears of dubious quality. The truth or falsity of its assertions can be tested in the § 386 proceeding. And these facts, if so found, would be pertinent and relevant only if fraud were found in the valuation of the assets that led to the conclusion that the corporation was hopelessly insolvent.

Apart from these points the petition raises nothing not already considered. The petition is denied, with costs to the appellees.


Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus


Citator

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw