The opinion of the court was delivered by: A. RICHARD CAPUTO, District Judge
Before me is Appellant's Motion for Rehearing Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8015. (Doc. 10.) Yaakov
Spritzer seeks a rehearing on my affirmance of the Bankruptcy
Court by Order of May 28, 2004. Specifically, I held that the
Bankruptcy Court was correct in determining that Mr. Spritzer's
plan violated 11 U.S.C. § 1123(a)(7) because it was inconsistent
with public policy with respect to the manner of selection of any
officer, director or trustee under the plan and any successor
officer, director or trustee. (Doc. 9.) Mr. Spritzer's plan
involved replacing directors of the debtor in violation of
sections 613, 703, and 706 of the New York Not-for-Profit
Corporation Law. (See Doc. 9.)
Mr. Spritzer argues that what his plan seeks is consistent with
the purposes of the bankruptcy law and therefore the state law
should yield. He also argues that a decision of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York grants him
the authority to run the debtor and, I presume, implicitly
authorizes him to appoint directors of debtor. I have reviewed
the decision of the Eastern District of New York to which he
refers, and note that I do no find his argument persuasive. The
first decision to which Mr. Spritzer refers is an injunction against several of the directors
of debtor from violence and harassment against Mr. Spritzer and
others, from entering the camp without authorization, and from
interfering in the administration of the affairs of the camp.
Machne Menachem, Inc. v. Hershkop, No. CV-97-2550 (E.D.N.Y.
July 1, 1997). A later decision of the same court confirmed the
incumbency of Messrs. Hershkop, Huber, Goldman, and Spritzer as
the directors of debtor. Machne Menachem, Inc. v. Hershkop,
237 F. Supp. 2d 27 (E.D.N.Y. 2002). The court also concluded, inter
alia, that Mr. Spritzer "arrogated" control of the debtor and
that he "appointed" directors in violation of New York law. Id.
I find that Mr. Spritzer has identified no law or fact that I
overlooked or misapprehended in deciding the appeal. See Zegeye
v. Keshishian, No. Civ. A. DKC 2004-1387, 2005 WL 544 763, at *1
(D. Md. March 4, 2005) (identifying standard set forth in Rule 40
of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure as the proper
standard for reviewing motions for rehearing brought under Rule
8015). Accordingly, the Motion for Rehearing Pursuant to Federal
Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8015 (Doc. 10) will be denied.
An appropriate Order follows. ORDER
NOW, this 27th day of June, 2005, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Appellant's Motion for Rehearing Pursuant to Federal Rule of
Bankruptcy Procedure 8015 (Doc. 10) is DENIED.
© 1992-2005 VersusLaw ...