English-Speaking Union v. Johnson

D.C. Circuit

English-Speaking Union v. Johnson

321 F. App'x 4

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedMarch 26, 2009

DocketNo. 08-7032

StatusPublished

This text of 321 F. App'x 4 (English-Speaking Union v. Johnson) 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

English-Speaking Union v. Johnson, 321 F. App'x 4 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed January 15, 2008, 2008 WL 141490, be affirmed. The bankruptcy court properly overruled appellant’s objections to the proposed settlement agreement because the allowed claims of the two secured creditors with priority higher than appellant would have consumed the entire sales proceeds had the matter been fully litigated. Thus, no [5]*5inequity existed to make equitable subordination appropriate, and no basis existed for the bankruptcy court to disallow any inflated claims. See 11 U.S.C. § 510(c); U.S. v. Noland, 517 U.S. 535, 538-39, 116 S.Ct. 1524, 134 L.Ed.2d 748 (1996).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

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

JUDGMENT

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed January 15, 2008, 2008 WL 141490, be affirmed. The bankruptcy court properly overruled appellant’s objections to the proposed settlement agreement because the allowed claims of the two secured creditors with priority higher than appellant would have consumed the entire sales proceeds had the matter been fully litigated. Thus, no [5]*5inequity existed to make equitable subordination appropriate, and no basis existed for the bankruptcy court to disallow any inflated claims. See 11 U.S.C. § 510(c); U.S. v. Noland, 517 U.S. 535, 538-39, 116 S.Ct. 1524, 134 L.Ed.2d 748 (1996).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

321 F. App'x 4, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/english-speaking-union-v-johnson-cadc-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack