J. HOWARD ARNOLD, DEBTOR IN POSSESSION, APPELLANT,
v.
FRANCES K. ARNOLD, APPELLEE
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.
The court held that the amended plan of arrangement, being substantially similar to the original plan previously found fraudulent, could not be confirmed.
The debtor's initial Chapter XI arrangement was set aside due to fraud. After being permitted to amend the plan, the debtor filed an amended plan that…
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.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Arrangement Proceedings cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
On a former appeal, this court upheld the order of the referee in bankruptcy setting aside his order confirming the arrangement which the debtor, Arnold, had proposed under Chapter XI of the Bankruptcy Act. (326 F. 2d 960).
The referee grounded his ruling upon a finding that the arrangement was tainted by fraud. This court, declaring that there was “ample evidence” to support that conclusion, affirmed. (326 F. 2d 960 at 962).
Thereafter, Arnold, pursuant to leave granted by the referee “to propose * * * alterations or modifications of the arrangement for the purpose of correcting the fraud” [11 U.S.C. 786(2)], filed the present “Amended Plan of Arrangement.” The referee denied confirmation on the basis of his prior determination and this court’s opinion. The district court affirmed and this appeal followed.
The “Amended Plan” was, as Arnold himself asserts in the accompanying petition, “essentially similar” in all material respects to the initial plan, the invalidity of which was finally adjudicated on the former appeal. That determination became and was the law of this case and of course precluded relitigation of the issue. In re Tinkoff, 156 F. 2d 405 (7th Cir. 1946).
The judgment is affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Seattle First Nat'l Bank v. Hilltop Realty, 383 F.2d 309 (9th Cir. 1967)
-
Arnold v. Arnold, 397 F.2d 810 (9th Cir. 1968)
Authorities Cited
- In re Tinkoff. Tinkoff v. Gold, 156 F.2d 405 (7th Cir. 1946)
- Arnold v. Arnold, 326 F.2d 960 (9th Cir. 1964)