Contrarian Funds LLC v. Aretex LLC (In Re Westpoint Stevens, Inc.)

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reasoning that a “narrow exception [to Section 366(m)] may lie for challenges to [a] Sale Order that are so divorced from the overall transactions that the challenged provision would have affected none of the considerations on which the purchaser relied” (emphasis added)
• “[P]ermitting the sale of the Debtor’s assets free and clear of encumbrances but attaching replacement liens on the proceeds of such sale to the same extent, validity, and priority as the original liens is squarely within the letter and purpose of adequate protection.”
• “[P]ermitting the sale of the Debtor’s assets free and clear of encumbrances but attaching replacement liens on the proceeds of such sale to the same extent, validity, and priority as the original liens is squarely within the letter and purpose of adequate protection.”
• “We adhere to our holding in Gucci I that ... we lack jurisdiction to review the entire Sale Order — not just the actual sale transaction.”
• “[I]n the absence of a stay (or a challenge to the good[]faith aspect of the sale), section 363(m) precludes our review of the Sale Order.”
• “[I]n the absence of a stay (or a challenge to the good[]faith aspect of the sale), section 363(m) precludes our review of the Sale Order.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).