In Re Eastern Consolidated Utilities, Inc.

3 B.R. 591, 1 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 937, 1980 Bankr. LEXIS 5273, 6 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 255
United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Pennsylvania·Decided April 17, 1980·No. 19-10545·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

THOMAS M. TWARDOWSKI, Bankruptcy Judge. 1

On March 19, 1980, First Valley Bank, a creditor of the debtor, filed an application for the appointment of a trustee pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1104 (1979). 2 On March 25, *592 1980, a hearing on the application was held, after which I. Cyrus Gutman, was appointed trustee. 3

On April 7, 1980, the debtor, through newly-employed counsel, filed a motion pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 923 of the Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure for reconsideration of the Court’s order appointing the trustee, and, in the alternative, the debtor applied for termination of the trustee’s appointment pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1105 (1979). 4 A hearing on the debtor’s alternative prayers for relief was held on April 10, 1980, at which First Valley Bank, the original applicant for appointment of trustee, did not appear. 5 Commercial Credit was represented by counsel at the hearing, but offered no evidence in opposition to the debtor’s § 1105 application. 6

First, we conclude that Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) does not provide for the type of relief sought by the debtor. Rule 59(e) provides for the “alteration” or “amendment” of a judgment. The debtor’s first prayer for relief, designated by it a “motion for reconsideration,” is in the nature of a request to vacate the order appointing the trustee. In our view, this type of relief is not available under these circumstances pursuant to Rule 59(e). Therefore, debtor’s motion for “reconsideration” shall be denied. 7

Second, however, the Court does grant debtor’s request to terminate the trustee’s appointment, pursuant to § 1105, because we conclude that the circumstances which gave rise to the order appointing a trustee no longer exist. 8

*593 The major cause of the debtor’s difficulties which led to this Court’s previous § 1104 findings appears to have been the result of ill-advised legal counsel. Since the entry of the order appointing the trustee, the debtor has retained competent, experienced legal counsel. That the debtor now has competent counsel is not disputed. What the trustee did dispute at the § 1105 hearing, was whether the hiring of competent bankruptcy counsel was enough to remedy the situation which originally led to the appointment of a trustee. We conclude that the hiring of new counsel, combined with the stated intention of the principals of the debtor to comply with the requirements of the bankruptcy code, render the continued services of a trustee unnecessary. 9 Therefore, his appointment shall be terminated.

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

In Re Eastern Consolidated Utilities, Inc., 3 B.R. 591, 1 Collier Bankr. Cas. 2d 937, 1980 Bankr. LEXIS 5273, 6 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 255 (Pa. 1980).

3 B.R. 591 (In Re Eastern Consolidated Utilities, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In Re Taub
441 B.R. 211 (E.D. New York, 2010)
In Re Clinton Centrifuge, Inc.
85 B.R. 980 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 1988)
In Re Curlew Valley Associates
14 B.R. 506 (D. Utah, 1981)