In Re: v. Willis Furniture Co, 1st Cir. (1992)

Download as pdf
Download as pdf
You are on page 1of 4

USCA1 Opinion

December 11, 1992


[NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

____________________
No. 92-2391

IN RE:
WILLIS FURNITURE COMPANY, INC.,
Appellant.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Joseph L. Tauro, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Cyr and Boudin,
Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________

Andrew M. Corwin and Eskenas, Schlossberg & Kaplan, P.C. on br


________________
____________________________________

for appellant.
Leonard M. Krulewich and Leonard M. Krulewich & Associates
_____________________
____________________________________
Emergency Motion for an Expedited Hearing, or in the Alternative,
an Expedited Decision on Briefs Alone, for the Unofficial Credit
Committee of Willis Furniture Company, Inc.
____________________
____________________

Per Curiam.
__________
court order

Debtor contends

authorizing

forbidding the sale

debtor's

that the

cash

raising

bankruptcy
sale,

but

to be advertised as a "Bankruptcy Sale,"

"Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Sale," or

words of similar import

merchandise being

part

sold

is

not

of

debtor's

if

present

inventory precludes truthful advertising and thereby violates


debtor's First Amendment rights.
The arrangement

We disagree.

debtor described with

debtor to serve in

large measure as a conduit

ZLI may

inventory,

sell

new

financed

debtor's premises and goodwill.


debtor's
furnished
under

the

chapter

11

bankruptcy

on a consignment
pressure

of

through which
ZLI,

utilizing

To refer to such a
sale,

basis by
chapter

by

ZLI permits

11

when

inventory

a solvent
to

sale as

raise

is

company not
funds,

is

misleading.
protected

Misleading
by the First

or

deceptive

Amendment.

advertising

Friedman
________

is not

v. Rogers, 440
______

U.S. 1, 13-16 (1979).


Debtor contends that the advertising prohibition is
broader than
as a

necessary since a narrower

requirement that debtor

prohibition -- such

disclose the existence

inventory brought into the sale -- would suffice.


the excerpts of the record debtor has
never argued
debtor both

below

that

to explain

disclose accurately
ZLI

should

be

reconsideration,

advertisement
sale"

rather

narrower

that

it was

permitted.
debtor

prohibition
in chapter

containing

to

another

in the same manner.

undeveloped argument,

"chapter

unfair not

allowing
11 and

to

argument with

in

the words

it was

of its

Rather,

pointed

So far as

presented show, debtor

the circumstances

and contended

advertise

of new

moving

for

company's

11 bankruptcy

to allow

debtor to

We will not consider debtor's


presented (so far

as appears)

for

the

first time

on appeal.

Nothing in

this opinion,

however, precludes debtor from seeking to modify the November


16, 1992

order and

debtor could frame

explaining to

the bankruptcy court

how

an accurate advertisement containing

the

words "bankruptcy sale" or "chapter 11 bankruptcy sale" which


also discloses

the relevant aspects

with ZLI.
Affirmed.
________

-3-

of debtor's arrangement

You might also like