Alcom America Corporation v. Arab Banking Corporation

48 F.3d 539, 310 U.S. App. D.C. 363, 1995 WL 84912
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedMay 8, 1995
Docket93-7234
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 48 F.3d 539 (Alcom America Corporation v. Arab Banking Corporation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Alcom America Corporation v. Arab Banking Corporation, 48 F.3d 539, 310 U.S. App. D.C. 363, 1995 WL 84912 (D.C. Cir. 1995).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is an appeal from the order of the district court affirming the bankruptcy court’s grant of summary judgment to Arab Banking Corporation (“the bank”) against ALCOM America Corporation (“ALCOM”). See In re ALCOM America Corp., 156 B.R. 873, 879-82 (Bankr.D.D.C.1993). ALCOM contends that both courts erred in ruling that the bank had a valid security interest in the ethanol before its sale, and that ALCOM had no interest in the ethanol at the time it filed its petition in bankruptcy. Our review of the bankruptcy court’s conclusions of law is de novo. E.g., In re Weisman, 5 F.3d 417, 419 (9th Cir.1993); In re Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc., 999 F.2d 969, 972 (6th Cir.1993).

We affirm the grant of summary judgment to the bank against ALCOM on the basis of the January 5, 1984, security agreement. See In re ALCOM America Corp., 156 B.R. at 879-82 (finding that the January 5, 1984, agreement gave the bank an enforceable security interest in ALCOM’s inventory); id. at 882-84 (finding that the sale to Staley was completed before ALCOM filed for bankruptcy protection and divested ALCOM of any interest in the ethanol); In re ALCOM America Corp., 154 B.R. 97, 109-14 (Bankr. D.D.C.1993) (same). We express no view as to the other grounds upon which courts below entered judgment.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

HOWELL-ROBINSON v. Albert
384 B.R. 19 (District of Columbia, 2008)
Webster v. Harris Corp. (In Re NETtel Corp.)
319 B.R. 290 (District of Columbia, 2004)
McCarthy v. Imported Cars of Maryland, Inc. (In Re Johnson)
230 B.R. 466 (District of Columbia, 1999)
Speleos v. McCarthy
201 B.R. 325 (District of Columbia, 1996)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
48 F.3d 539, 310 U.S. App. D.C. 363, 1995 WL 84912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alcom-america-corporation-v-arab-banking-corporation-cadc-1995.