Sie sind auf Seite 1von 22

Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for PATRON ACCESS,-

Date/Time of Request: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 13:08 Eastern


Client Identifier: PATRON ACCESS
Database: BKRFIND
Citation Text: 124 B.R. 465
Lines: 626
Documents: 1
Images: 0

Chapter 15 Secured Transaction. Priority creditors and perfected security interests

The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters,
West and their affiliates.
Page 1
124 B.R. 465, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,853, 14 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 920
(Cite as: 124 B.R. 465)

to perfect security interest; however, filing of finan-


cing statement under trade name of debtor is suffi-
United States Bankruptcy Court, cient to perfect security interest of creditor only in
D. Maryland. limited situations where legal name of debtor and
trade or other name under which financing state-
In re GREENBELT COOPERATIVE, INC., Debt-
ment is filed are sufficiently similar to subsequent
or.
creditor searching records with reference to debtor's
GREENBELT COOPERATIVE, INC., Plaintiff,
legal name would find financing statement or in-
v.
formation which would put creditor on notice that
WERRES CORPORATION and Raymond Leasing
more thorough search should be conducted.
Corporation, Defendants.
Md.Code, Commercial Law, §§ 9-401(1), 9-402,
Bankruptcy No. 88-5-3199-SD.
9-402(8), 9-402 comment.
Adv. No. A89-0186-SD.
[2] Secured Transactions 349A 92.1
Feb. 12, 1991.
349A Secured Transactions
Chapter 11 debtor filed complaint to avoid lien of
349AII Perfection of Security Interest
secured creditor and certain equipment and pro-
349Ak92 Financing Statement
ceeds. The Bankruptcy Court, E. Stephen Derby, J.,
349Ak92.1 k. In General. Most Cited
held that: (1) financing statements filed by secured
Cases
creditor under debtor's trade name were not suffi-
(Formerly 349Ak92)
cient to perfect its security interest in debtor's assets
Where filing of defective financing statement is not
against claims of others, and (2) debtor-
misleading, it may be effective to perfect security
in-possession's use of trustee's power to avoid cred-
interest under Maryland law. Md.Code, Commer-
itor's unperfected security interest, after confirma-
cial Law, § 9-402(8).
tion of Chapter 11 case, would promote success of
reorganization plan, rather than merely benefiting [3] Secured Transactions 349A 92.1
debtor, and thus, strong arm provision could be ap-
plied by debtor-in-possession postconfirmation. 349A Secured Transactions
349AII Perfection of Security Interest
So ordered. 349Ak92 Financing Statement
349Ak92.1 k. In General. Most Cited
West Headnotes
Cases
[1] Secured Transactions 349A 92.1 (Formerly 349Ak92)
Financing statements filed by secured creditor un-
349A Secured Transactions der debtor's trade name were not sufficient to per-
349AII Perfection of Security Interest fect its security interest in debtor's assets against
349Ak92 Financing Statement claims of others, under Maryland law; trade name
349Ak92.1 k. In General. Most Cited was not remotely similar to legal name, so that fil-
Cases ing under trade name would be found by those
(Formerly 349Ak92) looking for security interests in debtor's legal name.
No per se rule under Maryland law precludes filing Md.Code, Commercial Law, §§ 9-401(1), 9-402,
of financing statement under trade name of debtor, 9-402(8), 9-402 comment.
as opposed to its legal name, from being sufficient

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


Page 2
124 B.R. 465, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,853, 14 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 920
(Cite as: 124 B.R. 465)

[4] Bankruptcy 51 2705 Cases


(Formerly 349Ak92)
51 Bankruptcy Even if reservation of title in lease, which was in-
51V The Estate tended as security agreement, were security in-
51V(H) Avoidance Rights terest, financing statement would still be required in
51V(H)1 In General order to perfect creditor's security interest under
51k2705 k. Bona Fide Purchasers and Maryland law. Md.Code, Commercial Law, §§
Rights Thereof. Most Cited Cases 201(37), 9-402.
Chapter 11 debtor's actual knowledge of secured *466 James A. Vidmar, Jr., Silver Spring, Md.,
creditor's security interest, which was not perfected Lawrence D. Coppel, and Jonathan N. Portner, Gor-
under Maryland law because secured creditor filed don, Feinblatt, Rothman, Hoffberger & Hollander,
financing statement under debtor's trade name Baltimore, Md., for debtor.
rather than legal name, was not imputed to debtor-
in-possession so as to defeat avoidance power of Lawrence F. Regan, Jr., Garza and Regan, P.A.,
debtor-in-possession, as hypothetical judicial lien Rockville, Md., for defendants.
creditor. Bankr.Code, 11 U.S.C.A. § 544(a)(1);
Md.Code, Commercial Law, §§ 9-301(1)(b),
9-401(1), 9-402; § 9-301(1)(b) (1979). *467 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION
[5] Bankruptcy 51 2722 E. STEPHEN DERBY, Bankruptcy Judge.
51 Bankruptcy The issues raised by this adversary proceeding in-
51V The Estate volve the effect on perfection of a security interest
51V(H) Avoidance Rights in equipment, vis a vis the debtor-in-possession, of
51V(H)2 Proceedings a UCC financing statement filed under a trade name
51k2722 k. Time Limitations; Compu- of the debtor.
tation. Most Cited Cases
Debtor-in-possession's use of trustee's power to The Debtor, Greenbelt Cooperative, Inc., has filed a
avoid creditor's unperfected security interest, after complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 544(a) to avoid a lien
confirmation of Chapter 11 case, would promote of defendant Raymond Leasing Corporation
success of reorganization plan, rather than merely (“Raymond”) in certain equipment, and proceeds
benefiting debtor, and thus, strong arm provision thereof. Debtor contends the lien was not perfected
could be applied by debtor-in-possession postcon- prepetition and is therefore void against Debtor, as
firmation; recovery by debtor would improve debt- representative of its bankruptcy estate. Raymond
or's financial health to extent of recovery, increas- offers several defenses in the alternative:
ing likelihood that debtor's reorganization would be
successful and that debtor would be able to make First, the filing of a UCC financing statement under
deferred plan payments. Bankr.Code, 11 U.S.C.A. a principal trade name of the Debtor can operate to
§§ 544(a)(1), 1107(a). perfect a security interest under Maryland law;

[6] Secured Transactions 349A 92.1 Second, the Debtor's actual knowledge of the secur-
ity interest is imputed to the debtor-in-possession
349A Secured Transactions and defeats Debtor's avoidance power under 11
349AII Perfection of Security Interest U.S.C. § 544(a);
349Ak92 Financing Statement
349Ak92.1 k. In General. Most Cited Third, since Debtor's reorganization plan has been

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


Page 3
124 B.R. 465, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,853, 14 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 920
(Cite as: 124 B.R. 465)

confirmed, avoidance of Raymond's security in- filed with the proper office, namely, the Maryland
terest would create a windfall for Debtor and would State Department of Assessments and Taxation, in
not benefit creditors. Therefore, Raymond's secur- favor of Werres as secured party and Raymond as
ity interest should be enforced as between Ray- assignee. Werres has duly assigned the contract to
mond and Debtor; and Raymond, and in fact originally entered into the
agreement for Raymond and with Raymond's ap-
Fourth, reservation of title in the lease agreement proval.
with Debtor was sufficient to establish an enforce-
able security interest. The contract forwarded to Debtor by Werres for ex-
ecution identified the lessee on the heading and sig-
nature line as Scan Furniture. Likewise, on the fin-
I.
ancing statement Scan Furniture was listed as the
debtor. When the signature lines on an addendum to
Findings of Fact the lease and on the financing statement were com-
pleted, it appears someone at Debtor's offices typed
in SCAN Furniture, Inc., since the type face is dif-
At all times in 1987 and 1988 prior to filing its peti-
ferent and these portions had not been completed
tion initiating this case, Debtor was a consumer
when the documents were forwarded to Debtor for
owned cooperative engaged in the retail furniture
signature.
business with 15 stores and 3 warehouses. It en-
gaged in business under the trade name of SCAN, Apparently, Raymond and then Werres became
and it was well known among consumers by the concerned about what entity was responsible for the
name SCAN. Debtor's written promotional material debt. Raymond's credit department reported intern-
identified it as SCAN, a division of Greenbelt Co- ally that it had no financial information other than
operative, Inc. Its order forms, stationery, and busi- sales *468 figures on Scan Furniture, and thus it
ness cards, as well as the name on its headquarters would require individual financials on Scan Fur-
building in Savage, Maryland, carried similar dual niture or a guarantee from Greenbelt Cooperative,
identification. Checks used to pay vendors carried which it described as the parent company. At the
the name Greenbelt Cooperative, Inc., and the tele- request of Werres, by letter dated June 16, 1987,
phones were answered by operators who recited Debtor confirmed to Werres “that Greenbelt Co-
Greenbelt Cooperative. Debtor's annual report for operative, Inc. is responsible for the obligations of
1987 identified it as Greenbelt Cooperative, Inc. Scan Furniture as related to the Raymond Leasing
and contained text references to SCAN's activities. Agreement”. Thereafter, the financing statement
This report was circulated to all 115,000 of Debt- was filed listing Scan Furniture as the debtor, and
or's members and any vendors who requested it. there was never an additional filing which in any
way identified Greenbelt Cooperative, Inc. as the
Under date of May 4, 1987, Debtor executed a con-
debtor.
tract denominated an equipment lease with defend-
ant Werres Corporation (“Werres”). At the conclu- Two gentlemen with extensive experience in equip-
sion of the lease term, Debtor could purchase the ment leasing, William Single, Esquire, for Debtor
equipment, which consisted of forklifts, racking and George L. Beck, for defendants, were in sub-
and related items, for $1.00. The court has previ- stantial agreement. Each testified that his practice
ously granted partial summary judgment for Debtor in searching liens was to obtain a debtor/lessee's
that this contract was intended as a security agree- legal name and to check both the legal name and
ment for the purchase price, and it was not a true known trade names. Mr. Single testified further that
lease. On July 6, 1987 a financing statement was his practice was to file financing statements under

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


Page 4
124 B.R. 465, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,853, 14 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 920
(Cite as: 124 B.R. 465)

both the legal and trade names of a lessee. Werres A.


and Raymond knew an entity known as Greenbelt
Cooperative, Inc. was involved in the subject trans-
[1] Greenbelt Cooperative, Inc. argues that a finan-
action and that Scan Furniture was lacking finan-
cing statement filed under the trade name of a debt-
cials. The court concludes that a careful lessor
or, as opposed to its legal name, can never be suffi-
would have inquired as to the legal name of the en-
cient to perfect a security interest under Maryland
tity with which it was dealing and would have filed
law. Such a conclusion would amount to a per se
a financing statement in that name. Defendants did
rule, and it is not accepted by this court as an accur-
not exercise the degree of care in documenting this
ate statement of the rule which Maryland courts
transaction which is recommended by experienced
would apply. This court envisions limited situations
equipment lessors.
in which the filing of a financing statement under
As between the parties, Greenbelt Cooperative, Inc. the trade name of a debtor may perfect the security
knew it had by agreement pledged the equipment to interest of a creditor. These occasions, however,
secure payment of a debt to Raymond. There were would be limited to situations where the legal name
no intervening claimants prepetition, and Raymond of a debtor and the trade or other name under which
could have enforced its security interest in the the financing statement is filed are sufficiently sim-
equipment as against a claim of Greenbelt Cooper- ilar that a subsequent creditor searching with refer-
ative, Inc. prior to the filing of the petition institut- ence to the debtor's legal name would find the fin-
ing this case. The questions raised here involve the ancing statement or information which would put
effect of the bankruptcy filing on Raymond's secur- the creditor on notice that a more thorough search
ity interest, which was perfected in the name of should be conducted.
Scan Furniture and not in the name of Greenbelt
The provision of the Uniform Commercial Code
Cooperative, Inc., the legal entity.
which describes financing statements is ambiguous
The Debtor filed this case on November 4, 1988. and left to the courts to construe. Maryland Com-
After filing Debtor and Raymond agreed to sell the mercial Law Code Ann. § 9-402 (1990 Cum.Supp.),
equipment at public auction and to hold the pro- which recites the formal requisites of a financing
ceeds in escrow. The sale was on February 22, statement and was in effect at all times applicable,
1989. Thereafter, on June 2, 1989 Debtor filed this states in part:
complaint under 11 U.S.C. § 544(a) seeking a de-
*469 (1) A financing statement is sufficient if it
termination, inter alia, that the recorded financing
gives the names of the debtor and the secured
statement in a trade name was not sufficient to cre-
party, is signed by the debtor, gives an address of
ate a perfected lien or security interest in the equip-
the secured party from which information con-
ment as against the debtor-in-possession, as trustee
cerning the security interest may be obtained,
of the bankruptcy estate. On November 20, 1989
gives a mailing address of the debtor and con-
Debtor's Second Amended Joint Plan, as interlin-
tains a statement indicating the types, or describ-
eated, which had been filed on September 26, 1989,
ing the items, of collateral.
was confirmed.
******
II.
(8) A financing statement substantially comply-
ing with the requirements of this section is effect-
Conclusions of Law ive even though it contains minor errors which
are not seriously misleading. (Emphasis sup-

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


Page 5
124 B.R. 465, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,853, 14 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 920
(Cite as: 124 B.R. 465)

plied.) [2] Maryland's version of the Uniform Commercial


Code is consistent when it incorporates a substan-
Section 9-401(1) says explicitly only what is suffi- tial compliance test for financing statements.
cient, and not what is necessary, to perfect a secur- Md.Com.Law Code Ann. § 9-402(8), quoted above.
ity interest. See, e.g., Note, Trade Name Filing: Thus, where a filing is not misleading, it may be ef-
Should It Be Sufficient to Perfect A Security Interest fective to perfect a security interest. Cf., Plemens,
Under U.C.C. Section 9-402?, 35 Case 244 Md. at 566, 224 A.2d 464 (where Maryland's
W.Res.L.Rev. 51 (1984). This court is not aware of Court of Appeals, in rejecting the challenge of a
reported Maryland cases which have addressed the trustee for the benefit of creditors to a financing
specific issue presented here. statement claiming the signature was ineffective,
stated: “There is nothing in the evidence to indicate
In construing the statute, the court should be sensit-
that any one searching the records would be misled
ive to its intended purpose and administration. The
by the fact that the signature did not relate to the
purpose of the statute is to give notice to third
representative capacity of Mr. Slatkoff.”)
parties of a security interest held by a creditor in
the assets of a particular debtor. Official Comment While there is authority that where a business has
No. 2, Md.Com.Law Code Ann. § 9-402 (1975); been conducted in a community consistently under
Plemens v. Didde-Glaser, 244 Md. 556, 563, 224 a trade name for an extended period, a financing
A.2d 464 (1966). If a filing fails of this purpose, statement filed under that trade name is sufficient to
then it should not be effective. However, if a filing perfect a security interest, see In re McBee, 714
under a trade name actually would put a creditor on F.2d 1316 (5th Cir.1983), the weight of authority is
notice of a security interest in the assets of the debt- that a financing statement must be filed under the
or, then that filing, having fulfilled its purpose un- legal name of the debtor to be sufficient, unless the
der the statute, may be effective. Thus, courts have names are so close that a filing under the trade
held that a filing under a trade name, if sufficient to name of the debtor is a minor error. See In re
put a reasonably diligent creditor on notice of a se- Leichter, 471 F.2d 785 (2nd Cir.1972) (where the
curity interest, may be effective, although it other- court held that, since Leichter and not Landman
wise would not be. For example, in the case of In re was the legal debtor, omitting to file under Leichter
Platt, 257 F.Supp. 478 (E.D.Pa.1966), the legal was not simply a minor error within § 9-402(5));
name was the personal name of the debtor, Henry and In re Hill, 363 F.Supp. 1205 (N.D.Miss.1973)
Platt. Mr. Platt used two trade names, Platt Fur Co. (holding that although a store had been doing busi-
and Kenwell Fur Novelty Co. Id. at 482. The court ness under the same trade name in the same loca-
distinguished between the two trade names, noting tion for two years prior to bankruptcy, a financing
that: statement which was filed only *470 under the
debtor's trade name rendered the creditor's claim
The use of Kenwell as the debtor would clearly
unenforceable against the trustee).
have left F.C.A. without a perfected security in-
terest. However, the name Platt Fur Co. is suffi- Raymond urges the court to follow Matter of
ciently related to the name of the debtor, Henry Glasco, Inc., 642 F.2d 793 (5th Cir.1981). The
Platt, to require those who search the records to standard adopted by the court in Glasco was “...
make further investigation. Furthermore, the Ref- whether potential creditors would have been misled
eree found that the name was “not seriously mis- as a result of the name the debtor was listed by in
leading,” the criterion for effectiveness under § the bank's financing statement.” Id. at 796.
9-402(5). However, the court imposed a further requirement
that potential creditors also be reasonably prudent.
Id.

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


Page 6
124 B.R. 465, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,853, 14 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 920
(Cite as: 124 B.R. 465)

In Glasco, the court held that where a debtor held The conclusion here is consistent with dictum of
itself out to creditors as “Elite Boats, Division of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the
Glasco, Inc.” reasonably prudent creditors would be recent case of In re Bumper Sales, Inc., 907 F.2d
required to search under the trade name, “Elite 1430 (4th Cir.1990) where the court held under Vir-
Boats” in addition to its legal name, “Glasco, Inc.” ginia law that the secured creditor's use of its trade
Id. name on the financing statement was not seriously
misleading. Id. at 1435. After quoting from Sec-
A rule such as that articulated by the Fifth Circuit tions 9-402(1) and 9-402(8) of Virginia's Uniform
in Glasco, and followed in McBee, would introduce Commercial Code, which are worded identically to
uncertainty into commercial transactions. A secured the comparable Maryland sections quoted above, in
creditor, to be assured of protection for its security considering the name used by the secured party the
interest priority, would be at risk to identify and court explained:
search under all trade names by which a corporate
entity might be known. This is a particularly oner- The issue is “whether or not ‘a reasonably dili-
ous and unrealistic for nonlocal financial institu- gent searcher’ would be misled by the irregular-
tions, such as Raymond in this case, which are not ity.” In re Bosson, 432 F.Supp. 1013, 1017
familiar with the conduct of local businesses. (D.Conn.1977) (quoting J. White & R. Summers,
Handbook of the Law Under The Uniform Com-
Considering ease of administration of the statute, it mercial Code 839 (1972)). This is determined on
would appear much more efficient and certain to re- a case by case basis. The rationale for this min-
quire all concerned parties to operate with reference imal threshold is that the financing statement is
to the legal name of the debtor. If a creditor is al- designed to “indicate[ ] merely that the secured
lowed to file the financing statement under a trade party who has filed may have a security interest
name of the debtor, then each subsequent creditor in the collateral described. Further inquiry from
will need to determine and check under both the the parties concerned will be necessary to dis-
trade name, perhaps more than one, and the legal close the complete state of affairs.” Official
name of a debtor. It would be more straight forward Comment # 2, Va.Code § 8.9-402. See also In re
for the original creditor and each subsequent credit- Varney Wood Prods., Inc., 458 F.2d 435 (4th
or to determine the legal name of the debtor and file Cir.1972); Hixon v. Credit Alliance Corp., 235
and search under that one name. Va. 466, 369 S.E.2d 169 (1988).

This court concludes a Maryland court would apply Some courts have found that the use of the
a rule which requires, for it to be effective, that a debtor's trade name on the financing statement
financing statement be filed either under the legal is “seriously misleading” and not “minor er-
name of the debtor or under a name which is sub- ror.” See, e.g., Pearson v. Salina Coffee House,
stantially similar to the legal name of the debtor, so Inc., 831 F.2d 1531 (10th Cir.1987); In *471 re
that it would not mislead a reasonably diligent cred- Thomas, 466 F.2d 51 (9th Cir.1972); and Greg
itor searching the financing records. A creditor Restaurant Equipment & Supplies, Inc. v. Val-
should only be required to search under the legal way, 144 Vt. 59, 472 A.2d 1241 (1984).
name of a debtor to obtain notice of a security in- However, others have upheld the use of a debt-
terest or to be put on notice to inquire further. Such or's trade name. See, e.g., In re Glasco, Inc.,
a rule follows the weight of authority, it makes 642 F.2d 793 (5th Cir.1981). The court's con-
commercial sense, it promotes uniformity, and it is cern is understandable, because a prospective
sufficiently flexible to accommodate minor errors creditor checking to see if a financing state-
and oversights which are not misleading. ment has been filed may look only under the

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


Page 7
124 B.R. 465, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,853, 14 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 920
(Cite as: 124 B.R. 465)

debtor's real name, not the debtor's trade plied.)


name, and thereby miss the filing altogether.
However, the use of the secured party's (as op- Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a), the debtor-
posed to the debtor's) trade name is much less in-possession has all the rights and powers, and
troubling, in part because the financing state- shall perform all the functions and duties of a trust-
ment still gives notice that the debtor's assets ee, with certain exceptions not material here.
may be encumbered and that further inquiry is
Section 544(a) is often referred to as the strong arm
warranted.
clause. The reason for this term is that the trustee in
Id. at 1434-1435. (Emphasis supplied.) bankruptcy stands in the shoes of a hypothetical ju-
dicial lien creditor.
[3] Although courts, under Maryland law, may on
some occasions accept a filing under a variation on The reason for the trustee's enhanced position is
a debtor's legal name which would put a reasonably due to the trustee's unique position as the caretaker
diligent creditor on inquiry notice of a possible se- of the estate and the trustee's responsibility to pre-
curity interest, a filing under SCAN would not be serve the estate's assets for the benefit of all credit-
found by those looking for security interests in the ors. See In re Ozark Restaurant Equipment Co.,
assets of Greenbelt Cooperative, Inc. Consequently, Inc., 816 F.2d 1222 (8th Cir.1987), cert. denied sub
Raymond's financing statement was not sufficient nom. Jacoway v. Anderson, 484 U.S. 848, 108 S.Ct.
to perfect its security interest in Debtor's assets 147, 98 L.Ed.2d 102 (1987). The trustee is thus giv-
against the claims of others. en the power and ability to avoid all unperfected se-
curity interests. The trustee is an entity distinct
from the debtor, even where the debtor, as debtor-
B. in-possession, is acting as trustee and the debtor
had actual knowledge of an unperfected security in-
[4] The Debtor's actual knowledge of Raymond's
terest. If a case concludes unsuccessfully with a
security interest is not imputed to the debtor-
dismissal, so that the avoidance of a transfer is no
in-possession and does not defeat the avoidance
longer beneficial to creditors, but only to the debt-
power of Greenbelt Cooperative, Inc., as debtor-
or, a transfer avoided under Section 544(a) is rein-
in-possession, under 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(1). The
stated. 11 U.S.C. § 349(b)(1)(B). This prevents a
contrary position asserted by Raymond is squarely
windfall for a debtor outside a bankruptcy case.
in conflict with the language of Section 544(a):
Raymond's reliance on In re Hartman Paving, Inc.,
(a) The trustee shall have, as of the commence-
745 F.2d 307 (4th Cir.1984) (Winter, C.J., dissent-
ment of the case, and without regard to any
ing) is misplaced because the issues in Hartman in-
knowledge of the trustee or of any creditor, the
volved: (1) avoidance powers of a bona fide pur-
rights and powers of, or may avoid any transfer
chaser under Section 544(a)(3); and (2) intricacies
of property of the debtor or any obligation in-
of West Virginia real property conveyance law. See
curred by the debtor that is voidable by-
*472In re Millerburg, 61 B.R. 125, 127-28
(1) a creditor that extends credit to the debtor at (Bankr.E.D.N.C.1986). Contra Hartman Paving,
the time of the commencement of the case, and see In re Probasco, 839 F.2d 1352, 1354-55 n. 2
that obtains, at such time and with respect to (9th Cir.1988). This adversary proceeding was
such credit, a judicial lien on all property on brought pursuant to Section 544(a)(1), and it con-
which a creditor on a simple contract could cerns the status of a hypothetical judicial lien cred-
have obtained such a judicial lien, whether or itor on the petition date. Under Maryland law a ju-
not such a creditor exists; .... (Emphasis sup- dicial lien creditor would have priority over an un-

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


Page 8
124 B.R. 465, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,853, 14 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 920
(Cite as: 124 B.R. 465)

perfected security interest in personal property, and The court continued, quoting Clark, The Law of Se-
knowledge is not a factor. Md.Com.Law Code Ann. cured Transactions Under the Uniform Commercial
§ 9-301(1)(b) (1990 Cum.Supp.). Compare Code Paragraph 3.2[2], at 3-8 (1980): “ ‘The secur-
Md.Com.Law Code Ann. § 9-301(1)(b) (1975), be- ity interest need not be perfected to be enforceable
fore it was amended by Md.Laws 1980, Ch. 824 to against the debtor; perfection is important only in-
delete the phrase “without knowledge of the secur- sofar as adverse third parties have entered the pic-
ity interest.” ture.’ ” Id. at 742. The analysis of the court is set
forth below:

C. Vintero was given the right to avoid CVF's secur-


ity interest in order to protect such third parties,
[5] Raymond's third argument is that the trustee's
not to create a windfall for Vintero itself. See
power of avoidance may not be used by a debtor-
Whiteford Plastics Co. v. Chase Nat'l Bank, 179
in-possession under 11 U.S.C. § 1107(a) to glean a
F.2d 582, 584 (2d. Cir.1950). Vintero suffered no
windfall for the debtor, but it should only be used
prejudice because of the lapse in filing, and we
in furtherance of equitable distribution of the debt-
see no reason why it should benefit from such
or's assets among creditors. A leading case support-
lapse. See In re Fried Furniture Corp., 293
ing this proposition is Matter of Vintero Corp., 735
F.Supp. 92, 93 (E.D.N.Y.1968), aff'd, 407 F.2d
F.2d 740 (2nd Cir.1984), cert. denied 469 U.S.
360 (2d. Cir.1969) (per curiam). To the extent
1087, 105 S.Ct. 592, 83 L.Ed.2d 702 (1984), which
that other creditors of Vintero are not affected ad-
involved a filing lapse under Maryland law of a
versely by enforcement of CVF's security in-
creditor's security interest in a ship.
terest, there is no reason why such interest should
In Vintero, the court began with the premise that a not be enforced. Whiteford Plastics Co. v. Chase
debtor-in-possession under the former Bankruptcy Nat'l Bank, supra, 179 F.2d at 584.
Act was given the right of an ideal judicial lien
******
creditor to avoid an unperfected security interest.
Id. at 741-42. However, the purpose of this power A bankruptcy court has broad equitable powers
was to benefit third party creditors, not to create a which may be invoked to see “that substance will
windfall for the debtor itself. Id. at 742. The Second not give way to form, that technical considera-
Circuit held that a nonrecourse secured creditor's tions will not prevent substantial justice from be-
failure to file a financing statement in Maryland, ing done.”
after the debtor, Vintero, moved a ship in which the
creditor had a security interest to Maryland, did not Id. If the lien was avoided, the claim against Vin-
preclude the creditor from making a claim in the es- tero would have been extinguished in its entirety
tate of the Chapter XI debtor. Although “[w]hen because of its nonrecourse nature. Therefore, while
Vintero assumed the status of a debtor- Vintero could assert the rights of an ideal judicial
in-possession, it became vested with the rights and lien creditor to prevent the secured creditor from
powers of a trustee,” and “had all the rights that an obtaining priority of payment over other, unsecured
ideal judicial lien creditor would have as of the fil- creditors, the unperfected secured creditor was en-
ing of Vintero's petition,” Vintero was not itself an titled to share pro rata with them and the creditor's
ideal judicial lien creditor, although it could exer- claim was *473 recognized to “... preclude the pos-
cise the rights of one. 735 F.2d at 741-742. The sibility of Vintero reaping an undeserved windfall.”
court reasoned that “[f]iling requirements are for Id. at 743.
the benefit of third parties, not the debtor. U.C.C. §
9-301.” Id. at 742. While the equitable principles enunciated in Vin-

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


Page 9
124 B.R. 465, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,853, 14 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 920
(Cite as: 124 B.R. 465)

tero have not been altered by the Bankruptcy Code, be able to make its deferred plan payments.
the court does not find them applicable in this case.
The controlling standard is not, as Raymond con- Further, the possibility of recovery in this proceed-
tends, whether the avoidance of Raymond's lien ing was a factor available to creditors in negotiating
either will result in a greater promised payment to or eliciting more favorable plan terms than Debtor
other creditors or is necessary to make promised might otherwise have proposed. There was an act-
plan payments. Rather, the controlling standard is ive committee of creditors, and Debtor's complaint
whether there will be some benefit to creditors from was filed before the confirmation hearing. The
the avoidance. The latter standard has been satisfied postpetition timing of the hearing and decision in
here. this case should not affect the merits of Debtor's
avoidance claim. It is benefit to Debtor's successful
This is a case under Chapter 11, where the acknow- reorganization which is the determinative element.
ledged purpose is a successful reorganization. As
stated in the House Report for the Bankruptcy Re- A case which contains many similarities to the in-
form Act of 1978: stant proceeding is In re Funding Systems Asset
Management Corp., 111 B.R. 500
The purpose of a business reorganization case, (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1990). In Funding Systems, the
unlike a liquidation case, is to restructure a busi- debtor equipment lessor sought, under 11 U.S.C. §
ness's finances so that it may continue to operate, 544(a)(1), to avoid security interests it had granted
provide its employees with jobs, pay its creditors, to Chemical in several computer leases because
and produce a return for its stockholders. The Chemical had failed to perfect its security interests
premise of a business reorganization is that assets as of the petition date. Id. at 502. The adversary
that are used for production in the industry for proceeding was commenced before confirmation of
which they were designed are more valuable than Funding Systems' plan, but it was decided after
those same assets sold for scrap. Often, the return confirmation. The court found Chemical had failed
on assets that a business can produce is inad- to perfect its security interest in most of the leases
equate to compensate those who have invested in prepetition. Therefore, the court held, inter alia,
the business. Cash flow problems may develop, that Chemical became an unsecured creditor as to
and require creditors of the business, both trade those leases on the petition date because of its fail-
creditors and long-term lenders, to wait for pay- ure to perfect; its rights in the leases became subor-
ment of their claims. If the business can extend or dinate to those of Funding Systems; and its security
reduce its debts, it often can be returned to a vi- interests could be avoided under Section 544(a)(1).
able state. It is more economically efficient to re- Id. at 522.
organize than to liquidate, because it preserves
jobs and assets. Chemical maintained, nevertheless, that lien avoid-
ance should not be permitted where it benefited
H.R.Rep. No. 95-595, 95th Cong. 1st Sess., Ch. 5, only the debtor and was not necessary for the debt-
Pt. I at 220. (1977), U.S.Code Cong. & Ad- or to meet its obligations to other creditors. Id. at
min.News 1978, pp. 5787, 6179. Debtor's plan re- 523. The court in Funding Systems rejected Chem-
quires deferred payments to certain classes of cred- ical's contention. Id. Its explanation is applicable in
itors. It also provided substantial cash payments to the instant situation.
creditors on its effective date. A recovery by Debt-
or in this proceeding will improve Debtor's finan- This is not the appropriate standard for determ-
cial health to the extent of the recovery. It will ining whether recovery by *474 Debtor in this in-
thereby increase the likelihood that Debtor's reor- stance would benefit its unsecured creditors. The
ganization will be successful and that Debtor will necessity of such recovery in order for Debtor to

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


Page 10
124 B.R. 465, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,853, 14 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 920
(Cite as: 124 B.R. 465)

be able to meet its obligation to unsecured credit- plicable in the instant proceeding. Rather, permit-
ors is not relevant. What matters is whether unse- ting debtor to exercise its avoidance powers will
cured creditors will receive “... some benefit from promote the success of the reorganization plan.
the recovery of the preferences, even if it is not
an increase in the amount the creditors will re-
D.
ceive.” In re Centennial Industries, Inc., 12 B.R.
99, 102 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1981). All that is re- [6] Raymond argues finally that a reservation of
quired is that recovery by Debtor will increase its title under a lease is a security interest. Maryland
assets and improve its financial health to the ex- Commercial Law Code Ann. § 1-201(37)
tent that the likelihood is improved of its being (Supp.1990) defines the term “security interest” in
able to satisfy its obligations to its creditors un- part as:
der the Plan. In re Tennesse Wheel & Rubber Co.,
64 B.R. 721, 724 (Bankr.M.D.Tenn.1986), aff'd [A]n agreement that upon compliance with the
mem., 75 B.R. 1 (M.D.Tenn.1987), citing, In re terms of the lease the lessee shall become or has
Southern Indus. Banking Corp., 59 B.R. 638 the option to become the owner of the property
(Bankr.E.D.Tenn.1986). for no additional consideration or for a nominal
consideration does make the lease one intended
Id. for security.
The equitable principles applied in the Vintero case The argument that the lease created a security in-
were followed in In re Chapman, 51 B.R. 663 terest does not bolster Raymond's position. What
(Bankr.D.C.1985) where a Chapter 13 debtor was the cases cited by Raymond do not contradict is that
not allowed to apply the strong arm clause of 11 where a lease is intended as a security agreement, a
U.S.C. § 544(a)(3) to avoid a third trust lien on the financing statement still must be filed in order to
debtor's residence. The debtor's plan proposed to perfect the creditor's security interest.
pay the only unsecured creditor just $1.00; but be- Md.Com.Law Code Ann. § 9-402. Consequently,
cause the unsecured creditor had not filed a claim the question still remains whether Raymond's se-
before the bar date, it in fact would receive nothing. curity interest was perfected, and for the reasons
Id. at 665. Since debtor's plan provided only de previously set forth, the court finds it was not.
minimis benefit, if any, to only one general creditor,
and since avoidance of the lien would benefit only
the debtor, the court found Section 544(a)(3) should III.
not be applied to invalidate the third trust. Id. at
666. Further, in Chapman, and as the court stated in Summary
Vintero, 735 F.2d at 742, no creditor would be ad-
versely affected by enforcement of the unperfected
lien against the debtor. Chapman, 51 B.R. at 666. In summary, Raymond's security interest in the
Another situation where Vintero's equitable prin- equipment under lease to Greenbelt Cooperative,
ciples might be applicable suggested in In re Inc. is valid against that company, but it was not
Howard's Appliance Corp., 874 F.2d 88, 95 (2nd perfected under Maryland law against third party
Cir.1989) is where the debtor is estopped by its creditors. Therefore, it may be avoided by Debtor,
own misconduct from seeking lien avoidance for its in its capacity as debtor-in-possession, under 11
own benefit. U.S.C. § 544(a)(1). Since avoidance of Raymond's
security interest will enhance the likelihood of
None of these considerations for not applying the Debtor's successful reorganization, avoidance does
strong arm clause of 11 U.S.C. § 544(a)(1) are ap- not constitute a windfall to Debtor without benefit

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


Page 11
124 B.R. 465, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,853, 14 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 920
(Cite as: 124 B.R. 465)

to creditors, and equitable principles do not bar


avoidance. As the assets in which Raymond had an
unperfected security interest were sold and the pro-
ceeds put in escrow, *475 the proceeds of the es-
crow account should be distributed to Debtor.

Counsel for Debtor is requested to submit a form of


order to implement this decision.

Bkrtcy.D.Md.,1991.
In re Greenbelt Co-op., Inc.
124 B.R. 465, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,853, 14 UCC
Rep.Serv.2d 920

END OF DOCUMENT

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works.


Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for PATRON ACCESS,-

Date/Time of Request: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 13:08 Eastern


Client Identifier: PATRON ACCESS
Database: KEYCITE-HIST
Citation Text: 124 B.R. 465
Service: KeyCite
Lines: 22
Documents: 1
Images: 0

Chapter 15 Secured Transaction. Priority creditors and perfected security interests

The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters,
West and their affiliates.
Date of Printing: Oct 26, 2010

KEYCITE

In re Greenbelt Co-op., Inc., 124 B.R. 465, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,853, 14 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 920
(Bankr.D.Md.,Feb 12, 1991) (NO. 88-5-3199-SD, A89-0186-SD)
History

Direct History

=> 1 In re Greenbelt Co-op., Inc., 124 B.R. 465, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,853, 14 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 920
(Bankr.D.Md. Feb 12, 1991) (NO. 88-5-3199-SD, A89-0186-SD)

Negative Citing References (U.S.A.)

Declined to Extend by
2 Rinn v. First Union Nat. Bank of Maryland, 176 B.R. 401, 25 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1057 (D.Md. Jan
05, 1995) (NO. CIV. A. MJG-94-2030) HN: 4 (B.R.)
3 In re Coleman, 285 B.R. 892, 90 A.F.T.R.2d 2002-6819 (Bankr.W.D.Va. Sep 17, 2002) (NO.
7-01-00047, 7-01-01199-WSB-11) HN: 5 (B.R.)
Distinguished by
4 Dunes Hotel Associates v. Hyatt Corp., 245 B.R. 492 (D.S.C. Feb 18, 2000) (NO. C/A
2:98-535-18) HN: 5 (B.R.)
5 In re Levitsky, 401 B.R. 695 (Bankr.D.Md. Sep 30, 2008) (NO. 04-16203-JS, ADV. 04-2024,
ADV.05-1254) HN: 1,3,4 (B.R.)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.


Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for PATRON ACCESS,-

Date/Time of Request: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 13:08 Eastern


Client Identifier: PATRON ACCESS
Database: KEYCITE-HIST-IMG
Citation Text: 124 B.R. 465
Service: KeyCite
Lines: 1
Documents: 1
Images: 1

Chapter 15 Secured Transaction. Priority creditors and perfected security interests

The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters,
West and their affiliates.
Date of Printing: Oct 26, 2010

KEYCITE

In re Greenbelt Co-op., Inc., 124 B.R. 465, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,853, 14 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 920
(Bankr.D.Md., Feb 12, 1991) (NO. 88-5-3199-SD, A89-0186-SD)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.


Westlaw Delivery Summary Report for PATRON ACCESS,-

Date/Time of Request: Tuesday, October 26, 2010 13:08 Eastern


Client Identifier: PATRON ACCESS
Database: KEYCITE-REFS
Citation Text: 124 B.R. 465
Service: KeyCite
Lines: 219
Documents: 1
Images: 0

Chapter 15 Secured Transaction. Priority creditors and perfected security interests

The material accompanying this summary is subject to copyright. Usage is governed by contract with Thomson Reuters,
West and their affiliates.
Date of Printing: Oct 26, 2010

KEYCITE

In re Greenbelt Co-op., Inc., 124 B.R. 465, Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,853, 14 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 920
(Bankr.D.Md. Feb 12, 1991) (NO. 88-5-3199-SD, A89-0186-SD)
Citing References

Negative Cases (U.S.A.)

Declined to Extend by
1 In re Coleman, 285 B.R. 892, 911+, 90 A.F.T.R.2d 2002-6819, 2002-6819+ (Bankr.W.D.Va. Sep
17, 2002) (NO. 7-01-00047, 7-01-01199-WSB-11) HN: 5 (B.R.)
2 Rinn v. First Union Nat. Bank of Maryland, 176 B.R. 401, 411, 25 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1057, 1057
(D.Md. Jan 05, 1995) (NO. CIV. A. MJG-94-2030) HN: 4 (B.R.)

Distinguished by
3 In re Levitsky, 401 B.R. 695, 717+ (Bankr.D.Md. Sep 30, 2008) (NO. 04-16203-JS, ADV.
04-2024, ADV.05-1254) HN: 1,3,4 (B.R.)
4 Dunes Hotel Associates v. Hyatt Corp., 245 B.R. 492, 508+ (D.S.C. Feb 18, 2000) (NO. C/A
2:98-535-18) " HN: 5 (B.R.)

Positive Cases (U.S.A.)

Examined
5 In re Glanz, 205 B.R. 750, 753+, 30 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 618, 618+ (Bankr.D.Md. Feb 26, 1997) (NO.
95-1-6794-DK, 96-1-A198-DK) " HN: 4,5 (B.R.)

Discussed
6 In re Derrick, 190 B.R. 346, 351+, 34 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1429, 1429+ (Bankr.W.D.Wis. Oct
13, 1995) (NO. 93-10404-12, A93-1028-12) " HN: 4 (B.R.)
7 In re Smith, 155 B.R. 145, 148+ (Bankr.S.D.W.Va. Jun 01, 1993) (NO. 92-0114, 92-20159) "
HN: 4,5 (B.R.)

Cited
8 In re CL Furniture Galleries, Inc., 1995 WL 756853, *5 (N.D.Ill. Dec 20, 1995) (NO. 95 C
50103) HN: 1 (B.R.)
9 In re Harstad, 1994 WL 526013, *1 (D.Minn. Jan 20, 1994) (NO. BKY 4-90-869, CIV. 3-93-512)
HN: 5 (B.R.)
10 In re Thriftway Auto Supply, Inc., 159 B.R. 948, 952, 22 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 605, 605 (W.D.Okla.
Oct 19, 1993) (NO. BK-93-1054-BH, CIV-93-1560-A) HN: 1 (B.R.)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.


11 In re Wilkinson, 186 B.R. 186, 192+, 8 Fourth Cir. & D.C. Bankr. 134, 134+ (Bankr.D.Md. Jul
12, 1995) (NO. 94-1-3079-DK, 94-1A-794-DK) HN: 4 (B.R.)
12 In re Cumberland Management Group, Inc., 276 B.R. 127, 132 (Bankr.N.D.Miss. Dec 28, 2000)
(NO. 00-1072) HN: 4 (B.R.)
13 In re Kennedy Inn Associates, 221 B.R. 704, 712 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y. Jun 12, 1998) (NO. 97 B
40148 (TLB), 97-8646A) HN: 4 (B.R.)
14 In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc., 203 B.R. 30, 36, 32 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 331, 331
(Bankr.N.D.N.Y. Oct 22, 1996) (NO. 96-61376, 96-61377, 96-61378, 96-61379)
15 In re Dunes Hotel Associates, 194 B.R. 967, 980 (Bankr.D.S.C. Aug 25, 1995) (NO. 95-8042,
CIV. A. 94-75715) HN: 4 (B.R.)
16 In re Wellington Apartment, LLC, 350 B.R. 213, 243+ (Bankr.E.D.Va. Aug 24, 2006) (NO.
04-50301-DHA, 05-5029) " HN: 4 (B.R.)

Mentioned
17 In re Chama, Inc., 265 B.R. 662, 668, 46 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 278, 278 (Bankr.D.Del. Apr 26,
2000) (NO. 98-2252 (MFW), A-99-301 (MFW)) HN: 5 (B.R.)

Secondary Sources (U.S.A.)


18 Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition s 31:67, In Chapter 11 (2010) HN: 5 (B.R.)
19 Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition s 31:73, Actual notice or knowledge--Imputation of notice
or knowledge (2010)
20 Bankruptcy Service Lawyers Edition s 42:338, Rights as bona fide purchaser and hypothetical li-
en creditor; strong-arm clause of Code s544(a), generally--Standards pursuant to which avoid-
ance power may be utilized (2010) HN: 4 (B.R.)
21 Chapter 11: Reorganizations, Second Edition s 9:18, Avoidance powers--Trustee as hypothetical
creditor or purchaser (2010) HN: 4 (B.R.)
22 Commercial Bankruptcy Litigation s 11:5, Trustee's status as a hypothetical judicial lien creditor
(2010) HN: 4 (B.R.)
23 Corporate Counsel's Guide to Uniform Commercial Code s 24:27, Financing statements--Debtor's
name (2009) HN: 1,3 (B.R.)
24 Documenting Secured Transactions s 9:3.2, Prior Law (2010) HN: 1,3,4 (B.R.)
25 1992 Norton Annual Survey of Bankruptcy Law 19, SECTIONS 544, 545, 546, 547, 549 AND
550-THE AVOIDANCE POWERS (1992)
26 Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice 3d s 63:4, Standing to bring Code s544 avoidance action
(2010) HN: 4 (B.R.)
27 Norton Bankruptcy Law and Practice 3d s 63:5, Hypothetical lien creditor (Code s544(a)) (2010)
HN: 5 (B.R.)
28 Maryland Law Encyclopedia Secured Transactions s 11, Filing and perfection -- Filing under
trade name of debtor (2010)
29 U.C.C. ARTICLE 9-PERSONAL PROPERTY SECURED TRANSACTIONS, 47 Bus. Law.

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.


1593, 1644+ (1992) HN: 1,3,4 (B.R.)
30 RECOVERING AVOIDABLE TRANSFERS UNDER SECTION 550 OF THE BANKRUPTCY
CODE: DEFINING "FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ESTATE", 72 Chi.-Kent L. Rev. 591, 610+
(1996) HN: 5 (B.R.)
31 BANKRUPTCY'S ORGANIZING PRINCIPLE, 26 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 549, 623 (1999) HN: 5
(B.R.)
32 Lien Avoidance "for the Benefit of the Estate": Textualism, Equitable Powers, and Code Com-
mon Law, 26 Bankruptcy Law Letter 1+ (2006) HN: 4,5 (B.R.)
33 207 BNA Daily Report for Executives K-6, 2002, BANKRUPTCY: FACTS. (2002) HN: 5
(B.R.)
34 207 BNA Daily Tax Report K-6, 2002, BANKRUPTCY: FACTS. (2002) HN: 5 (B.R.)
35 GOMF MD. Inst. for Contin. Prof. Educ. of Lawyers 1079, EXCEPTIONS (2004) HN: 4 (B.R.)
36 BKR MD. Inst. for Contin. Prof. Educ. of Lawyers S-259, PART 6 TRUSTEE IN BANK-
RUPTCY (1999) HN: 4 (B.R.)
37 GOMF MD. Inst. for Contin. Prof. Educ. of Lawyers S-261, EXCEPTIONS (1999) HN: 4 (B.R.)
38 PERFECTION OF SECURITY INTERESTS UNDER ARTICLE 9 OF THE UNIFORM COM-
MERCIAL CODE, 665 Practising Law Institute Commercial Law and Practice 65 (1993) HN:
1,3 (B.R.)

Court Documents

Appellate Court Documents (U.S.A.)

Appellate Briefs
39 In Re: Molly Jane COLEMAN, Debtor; Roger Coleman, Plaintiff, Molly Jane Coleman, Debtor-
Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Community Trust Bank dba Pikeville National Bank & Trust, De-
fendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Internal Revenue Service, Claimant-Appellee, United States
Trustee for the District of Maryland, Trustee., 2004 WL 3489016, *3489016+ (Appellate Brief)
(4th Cir. Sep 29, 2004) Brief of Appellee/Cross-Appellant (NO. 03-2328(L)) HN: 4,5
(B.R.)
40 In Re: Molly Jane COLEMAN, Debtor; Roger Coleman, Plaintiff, Molly Jane Coleman, Debtor-
Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Community Trust Bank dba Pikeville National Bank & Trust, De-
fendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, Internal Revenue Service, Claimant-Appellee, United States
Trustee for the District of Maryland, Trustee., 2004 WL 3489017, *3489017+ (Appellate Brief)
(4th Cir. Aug 27, 2004) Brief Of Appellant/Cross-Appellee Molly Jane Coleman (NO.
03-2328(L)03-2347) HN: 5 (B.R.)
41 DUNES HOTEL ASSOCIATES a South Carolina general partnership, in its capacity as the Debt-
or-in-Possession, representative of its Estate, Appellant, v. HYATT CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation; and S.C. Hyatt Corporation, a South Carolina corporation, Appellees.,
1997 WL 33619042, *33619042+ (Appellate Brief) (4th Cir. Sep 15, 1997) Appellees' Respons-
ive Brief on Appeal Submitted by Hyatt Corporation and S.C. Hyatt Corporation (NO.
97-1774(L), 97-1943) " HN: 5 (B.R.)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.


42 DUNES HOTEL ASSOCIATES, a South Carolina general partnership, Debtor and Debtor-
In-Possession, Appellant, v. HYATT CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation, and S.C. Hyatt
Corporation, a South Carolina corporation, Appellees., 1997 WL 33618988, *33618988+
(Appellate Brief) (4th Cir. Aug 11, 1997) Opening Brief Submitted by the Appellant Dunes
Hotel Associates (NO. 97-1774/97-1943) HN: 5 (B.R.)
43 Michael G. RINN, Trustee, Appellant, v. FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF MARYLAND,
Appellee., 1995 WL 17063737, *17063737+ (Appellate Brief) (4th Cir. Apr 20, 1995) Reply
Brief of Appellant (NO. 95-1197) HN: 5 (B.R.)
44 Michael G. RINN, Trustee, Appellant, v. FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF MARYLAND,
Appellee., 1995 WL 17169141, *17169141+ (Appellate Brief) (4th Cir. 1995) Brief of Appel-
lant (NO. 95-1197) HN: 4 (B.R.)
45 Stanley F. BOYDSTUN d/b/a Max'S, Ltd., Appellant, v. Hossam MAKKAR, Appellee., 2000
WL 34522071, *34522071+ (Appellate Brief) (Md.App. May 12, 2000) Brief of Appellee (NO.
2262)
46 Stanley F. BOYDSTUN d/b/a Max's, Ltd., Appellant, v. Hossam MAKKAR, Appellee., 2000 WL
34522073, *34522073+ (Appellate Brief) (Md.App. May 12, 2000) Brief of Appellee (NO.
2262)

Trial Court Documents (U.S.A.)

Trial Motions, Memoranda and Affidavits


47 MECCO, INC., Plaintiff, v. CAPITAL HARDWARE SUPPLY, INC. et al., Defendants., 2005
WL 2097061, *2097061 (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affidavit) (D.Md. Jul 06, 2005)
Mecco Inc's Opposition to Colombo Bank's Motion for Summary Judgment and Request
for Discovery to Be Obtained Pursuant to Fed. Civ. R. 56(f) (NO. 105-CV-540)
48 In Re: FURLEY'S TRANSPORT, INC., Debtor, Zvi Guttman, Chapter 7 Trustee, Plaintiff/Ap-
pellee, v. CitiCapital Commercial Corporation f/k/a Associates Commercial Corporation, De-
fendant/Appellant., 2001 WL 34882746, *34882746+ (Trial Motion, Memorandum and Affi-
davit) (D.Md. Nov 13, 2001) Brief of Zvi Guttman, Trustee, Appellee (NO. L01-2963)
49 In Re: FURLEY'S TRANSPORT, INC., Debtor(s), Zvi Guttman, Trustee, Plaintiff, v. Associates
Commercial Corp., Defendant., 2001 WL 34883242, *34883242 (Trial Motion, Memorandum
and Affidavit) (D.Md. Oct 05, 2001) Trustee's Memorandum in Support of Motion for Sum-
mary Judgment (NO. 01-CV-02963)

© 2010 Thomson Reuters. All rights reserved.