Louis P. Rosenberg and Matthew Jacobs v. United States of America, in the Matter of Bri-Test, Inc., Bankrupt

Second Circuit

Louis P. Rosenberg and Matthew Jacobs v. United States of America, in the Matter of Bri-Test, Inc., Bankrupt

242 F.2d 141, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4298

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit

DecidedFebruary 25, 1957

Docket149, Docket 24217

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 242 F.2d 141 (Louis P. Rosenberg and Matthew Jacobs v. United States of America, in the Matter of Bri-Test, Inc., Bankrupt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Louis P. Rosenberg and Matthew Jacobs v. United States of America, in the Matter of Bri-Test, Inc., Bankrupt, 242 F.2d 141, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4298 (2d Cir. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The attorney for the trustee in bankruptcy and the accountant here appealing the reduction in their allowances undoubtedly rendered substantial professional services to the trustee. The attorney in particular was highly successful in obtaining a reversal from us of the dismissal below of his action to recover a preference, Margolis v. Gem Factors Corp., 2 Cir., 201 F.2d 803, and then, after a trial and judgment, in recovering ultimately $5,000 on this claim, as well as some $1,600 in other matters. These sums, together with funds turned over by a receiver, yielded a balance of $15,219.26; but the priority tax claim of the United States was $22,205.29, leaving nothing for the general claims of about $76,000. Even though these professional services were well performed and helpful, we think the only realistic course in bankruptcy collections is that allowances must be limited — as they are by customary practice — to a reasonable percentage of the recovery. In view of the substantial proportion of the recovery here granted, we cannot say that Judge Murphy’s reasoned conclusion requiring some reduction constitutes error as a matter of law.

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The attorney for the trustee in bankruptcy and the accountant here appealing the reduction in their allowances undoubtedly rendered substantial professional services to the trustee. The attorney in particular was highly successful in obtaining a reversal from us of the dismissal below of his action to recover a preference, Margolis v. Gem Factors Corp., 2 Cir., 201 F.2d 803, and then, after a trial and judgment, in recovering ultimately $5,000 on this claim, as well as some $1,600 in other matters. These sums, together with funds turned over by a receiver, yielded a balance of $15,219.26; but the priority tax claim of the United States was $22,205.29, leaving nothing for the general claims of about $76,000. Even though these professional services were well performed and helpful, we think the only realistic course in bankruptcy collections is that allowances must be limited — as they are by customary practice — to a reasonable percentage of the recovery. In view of the substantial proportion of the recovery here granted, we cannot say that Judge Murphy’s reasoned conclusion requiring some reduction constitutes error as a matter of law.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 F.2d 141, 1957 U.S. App. LEXIS 4298, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/louis-p-rosenberg-and-matthew-jacobs-v-united-states-of-america-in-the-ca2-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack