Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
In Re Fremont Sheep Company, a Wyoming Corporation, Debtor. Farm Credit Services of the Midlands, Pca v. Fremont Sheep Corporation, a Wyoming Corporation
Citations: 110 F.3d 73; 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11029; 1997 WL 174116Docket: 96-8010
Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit; April 10, 1997; Federal Appellate Court
Unpublished opinions may be cited if they possess persuasive value on a material issue and are accompanied by a copy of the opinion or provided to the court and all parties if cited in oral argument, following the General Order of November 29, 1993. In the case of In re Fremont Sheep Company, Appellant Farm Credit Services of the Midlands, PCA, challenges the district court's denial of a stay pending appeal regarding the confirmation of Fremont Sheep Corporation's Chapter 11 reorganization plan. The bankruptcy court confirmed the plan on November 13, 1995, and the creditor sought a stay from both the bankruptcy and district courts, which were denied. The appeal examines the jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1) to review the district court’s denial of the stay, as it constitutes an injunction by potentially halting the reorganization plan's implementation. The creditor contended that the district court erred by not issuing the stay based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62(d) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8005. However, the record shows the creditor only cited Bankruptcy Rule 8005 in its motion and did not raise Rule 62(d) before the district court, nor did it seek clarification on the denial regarding Rule 62(d) after the ruling. Consequently, the panel affirmed the district court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying the stay. Creditor's request for a mandatory stay was not preserved for appeal, thus it will not be considered. The review of the district court's denial of the creditor's motion will focus on whether there was an abuse of discretion. To obtain a stay pending appeal, a party must demonstrate: (1) a strong likelihood of success on the merits, (2) irreparable injury without a stay, (3) no substantial injury to other parties from the stay, and (4) that the stay aligns with the public interest. The district court found that the creditor did not show a strong likelihood of success due to the appeal challenging factual findings subject to the clearly erroneous standard. The creditor must prove clear error in specific findings made by the bankruptcy court, including good faith filing, feasibility of the reorganization plan, lack of default, absence of unfair discrimination, and assurance of the claim's equivalent value. The court noted that the creditor is set to receive the scheduled amounts under the 1988 reorganization plan, reinforcing the conclusion that there was no abuse of discretion in denying the stay. The district court's order is affirmed, and while this judgment is not binding precedent, it can be cited under specific conditions.