Decided: May , Errata Filed: April , IN RE: JOHN C., (2nd Cir. 2001)
Linked as:
Text
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term, 2000
(Argued: December 11, 2000) Decided: May 01, 2001
Errata Filed: April 16, 2001)
Docket No. 00-5013
IN RE: JOHN C. MCKENNA, as Provisional Liquidator of New Cap Reinsurance Corporation (Bermuda) Limited; JOHN GIBBONS, as Administrator of New Cap Reinsurance Corporation, Limited Debtors.
VESTA FIRE INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellant, v. NEW CAP REINSURANCE CORPORATION LIMITED; NEW CAP REINSURANCE CORPORATION (BERMUDA) LIMITED Appellees.
BEFORE: OAKES, CARDAMONE, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
Vesta Fire Insurance Corporation ("Vesta") appeals from a February 14, 2000 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Robert W. Sweet, Judge)
affirming the May 19, 1999 order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Cornelius Blackshear, Bankr. Judge). Judge Blackshear's order denied Vesta's objection to the petition of appellee, New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Limited ("New Cap"), for a preliminary injunction staying arbitration.
AFFIRMED.
Daniel Markewich, Mound, Cotton & Wollan, New York, NY, for Appellant.
Howard Seife, Chadbourne & Parke LLP, New York, NY, for Appellees.
PER CURIAM:
Vesta Fire Insurance Corporation ("Vesta") appeals from a February 14, 2000 judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Robert W. Sweet, Judge)
affirming the May 19, 1999 order of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (Cornelius Blackshear, Bankr. Judge). Judge Blackshear's order denied Vesta's objection to the petition of appellee, New Cap Reinsurance Corporation Limited ("New Cap"), for a preliminary injunction staying arbitration. New Cap's petition for a preliminary injunction staying arbitration was filed pursuant to § 304 of the Bankruptcy Code.
For the first time on appeal, Vesta makes an argument regarding Section 116(3) of the Australian Insurance Act of 1973. Vesta's failure to raise its argument based upon Section 116(3) at the bankruptcy court level and the district court level constitutes waiver. See In re The Lionel Corp., 29 F.3d 88, 92 (2d Cir. 1994). Aside from Vesta's novel argument, we conduct a plenary review of orders of a district court functioning as an appellate court in a bankruptcy case.
See In re Mazzeo, 131 F.3d 295, 301 (2d Cir. 1997). Having conducted such a plenary review, we affirm, substantially for the reasons stated in the judgment of the district court, Vesta Fire Insurance Corporation v. New Cap Reinsurance Corporation, Ltd., 244 B.R. 209 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), and because Vesta has waived its argument as to Section 116(3) of the Australian Insurance Act of 1973.
Sponsored links
This document cites
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - in Re the Lionel Corporation and Lionel Leisure, Inc., Debtors. Murray Klein, Stanley Zabar, and Saul Zabar, as Tenants in Common, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Civale & Trovato, Inc., Defendant-Appellant, Lionel Leisure, Inc., Defendant-Appellee, J. United Electrical Contracting Corp., Defendant., 29 F.3d 88 (2nd Cir. 1994)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit - 32 Collier Bankr.Cas.2D 38, Bankr. L. Rep. P 77,567 in Re Salvatore J. Mazzeo, Debtor. Salvatore J. Mazzeo, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. United States of America and New York State, Defendants-Appellees. New York State Department of Taxation and Finance, Creditor, Marianne de Rosa, Trustee., 131 F.3d 295 (2nd Cir. 1997)
See other documents that cite the same legislation
