Court Opinion

ID: 9764966
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 03:46:46.988909+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:30:02.850028
License: Public Domain

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
In his motion for rehearing, Fimberg contends that the letter agreement dated April 23, 1992, and contained in the record before this court was never attached to the plan of reorganization. He further contends that there is no evidence that the agreement in the record is the agreement referred to in paragraph 1.29 of the plan.
Paragraph 1.29 states that an agreement between the parties dated April 23,1992, was attached to the plan. During his deposition, Fimberg was asked whether the agreement, now in the record before this court as an exhibit attached to his deposition, was the agreement referred to in paragraph 1.29, and he replied “Yes.” Fimberg was also asked whether he had any reason to dispute the accuracy of the statement made in paragraph 1.29, and he replied “No.” Nothing in the record indicated that paragraph 1.29 or Fun-berg’s deposition answers were inaccurate regarding the attachment of the agreement as an exhibit to the plan.
The motion for rehearing is overruled.