Fishman v. Verlin

255 F.2d 682
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit·Decided May 13, 1958·No. No. 287, Docket 24791·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This appeal, arising upon stipulated facts, presents but one question, viz., whether a debtor is barred from a discharge under Section 14, sub. c(5) of the Bankruptcy Act,1 11 U.S.C.A. § 32, sub. c(5), where he was forced into involuntary bankruptcy within six years after entering into an extension arrange[683] ment under which only 13% of the debts had been paid. In a comprehensive, well-reasoned opinion, the Referee concluded that an extension arrangement did not fall within the statutory bar and granted the discharge. His action the district judge confirmed.

We too uphold the discharge. Especially significant is the distinction between extensions and compositions under § 14, sub. c(5) which is found in the legislative history of the Chandler Act. H.Rep. No. 3409 at p. 29, 75th Cong., 1st Sess.

Affirmed.

Footnotes

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

Fishman v. Verlin, 255 F.2d 682 (2d Cir. 1958).

255 F.2d 682 (Fishman v. Verlin) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related