In Re Lift & Equipment Service, Inc., Debtor. Itt Diversified Credit Corp., Cross-Appellant v. Lift & Equipment Service, Inc., Cross-Appellee

Fifth Circuit

In Re Lift & Equipment Service, Inc., Debtor. Itt Diversified Credit Corp., Cross-Appellant v. Lift & Equipment Service, Inc., Cross-Appellee

819 F.2d 546, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 8748

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 18, 1987

Docket86-3086

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 819 F.2d 546 (In Re Lift & Equipment Service, Inc., Debtor. Itt Diversified Credit Corp., Cross-Appellant v. Lift & Equipment Service, Inc., Cross-Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In Re Lift & Equipment Service, Inc., Debtor. Itt Diversified Credit Corp., Cross-Appellant v. Lift & Equipment Service, Inc., Cross-Appellee, 819 F.2d 546, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 8748 (5th Cir. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING

Before GEE, POLITZ and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Both the debtor-appellant, Lift & Equipment Service, Inc., and the creditor-appel-lee, ITT Diversified Credit Corp., have requested that the court rehear this matter. The arguments raised by Lift were neither argued nor briefed at any stage of the litigation, and are in any event inapplicable in this case. ITT’s application, however, correctly suggests a modification.

In the opinion, we recognized that ITT was entitled to post-petition interest, to be paid out of its security, in the amount set forth in the assignment of accounts receivable, a rate we recognized to be ten percent. ITT correctly notes that the rate stipulated was “four and one half percentage points per annum higher than the generally prevailing prime per annum rate of interest charged on the last business day of the preceding month by Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., New York, New York,” but a minimum of ten percent. Consistent with our holding that the contract governs the rate of interest, the interest awarded should be assessed at the quoted rate, if otherwise allowable, in accordance with the calculation procedures detailed in the Business Financing Agreement/Assignment of Accounts Receivable.

Finally, ITT suggests that in recognizing a security interest in accounts re *547 ceivable, we did not specifically state that the security interest attached to the money generated by those receivables. That necessarily follows herein, and the security interest extends to the funds which are subject to the control of the bankruptcy court.

The applications for rehearing are GRANTED to the extent necessary for these revisions; otherwise the applications for rehearing are DENIED.

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

ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING

Before GEE, POLITZ and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Both the debtor-appellant, Lift & Equipment Service, Inc., and the creditor-appel-lee, ITT Diversified Credit Corp., have requested that the court rehear this matter. The arguments raised by Lift were neither argued nor briefed at any stage of the litigation, and are in any event inapplicable in this case. ITT’s application, however, correctly suggests a modification.

In the opinion, we recognized that ITT was entitled to post-petition interest, to be paid out of its security, in the amount set forth in the assignment of accounts receivable, a rate we recognized to be ten percent. ITT correctly notes that the rate stipulated was “four and one half percentage points per annum higher than the generally prevailing prime per annum rate of interest charged on the last business day of the preceding month by Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co., New York, New York,” but a minimum of ten percent. Consistent with our holding that the contract governs the rate of interest, the interest awarded should be assessed at the quoted rate, if otherwise allowable, in accordance with the calculation procedures detailed in the Business Financing Agreement/Assignment of Accounts Receivable.

Finally, ITT suggests that in recognizing a security interest in accounts re *547 ceivable, we did not specifically state that the security interest attached to the money generated by those receivables. That necessarily follows herein, and the security interest extends to the funds which are subject to the control of the bankruptcy court.

The applications for rehearing are GRANTED to the extent necessary for these revisions; otherwise the applications for rehearing are DENIED.

In Re F/s Airlease Ii, Inc. v. Lewis Simon and S-J Corporation Greycas, Inc. Appeal of the Swig Investment Company Aircraft Trust No. 1, One of the Creditors Above Named in This Bankruptcy Proceeding (Three Cases). Appeal of F/s Airlease Ii, Inc., Appellant-Debtor Above Named (Three Cases). Appeal of Lewis Simon and S-J Financial Corporation (Three Cases). In Re F/s Airlease Ii, Inc. v. Greycas, Inc. F/s Airlease Ii, Inc. v. Swig Investment Company, Greycas, Inc., in No. 86-3714

844 F.2d 99 (Third Circuit, 1988)

F/S AirLease II, Inc. v. Simon (Appeal of Swig Investment Co. Aircraft Trust No. 1)

844 F.2d 99 (Third Circuit, 1988)

Louisiana World Exposition, Inc. v. Federal Insurance Co. (In re Louisiana World Exposition, Inc.)

832 F.2d 1391 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)

17 Collier bankr.cas.2d 1291, Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,124 in Re Louisiana World Exposition, Inc., and Contractor Creditors' Committee, Louisiana World Exposition, Inc., and Contractor Creditors' Committee v. Federal Insurance Co., John A. Alario, Jr.

832 F.2d 1391 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)

In Re Lift & Equipment Service, Inc.

816 F.2d 1013 (Fifth Circuit, 1987)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

819 F.2d 546, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 8748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-lift-equipment-service-inc-debtor-itt-diversified-credit-corp-ca5-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack