Skip to main content

§ 1122(a)

In re Rexford Props. LLC

Sep
28
2016
Ruling
Claims of trade vendors could be classified separately from those of other unsecured creditors.(Bankr. C.D. Cal.)
Issue(s)
Could debtor’s claims classification proposal be approved?

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Rexford Props. LLC Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on September 28, 2016 , LexisNexis #1016-099
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

Polite Enters. Corp. PTY v. N. Am. Safety Prods.

Jan
29
2014
Ruling
Separate classification of three classes of unsecured claims was proper.
Issue(s)
Could plan proposing three separate classes of unsecured claims be confirmed?

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Polite Enters. Corp. PTY v. N. Am. Safety Prods. Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Commercial opinion summary, case decided on January 29, 2014 , LexisNexis #0714-021
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

Wells Fargo Bank v. Loop 76 LLC (In re Loop 76 LLC)

Feb
23
2012
Ruling
Unsecured claim for which guarantees existed properly treated differently from claims without guarantees.
Procedural posture

Appellant undersecured creditor challenged a decision of the bankruptcy court for the District of Arizona, which issued an order confirming the debtor's chapter 11 plan.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of Wells Fargo Bank v. Loop 76 LLC (In re Loop 76 LLC) Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Court :
Judge or Jurisdiction information not available
Commercial opinion summary, case decided on February 23, 2012 , LexisNexis #0412-029
LexisNexis Article
Learn More

In re Greenlee

Jan
07
2010
Ruling
Creditor who did not object to confirmation of plan could not claim discriminatory treatment.
Procedural posture

One of the chapter 11 debtors filed an objection to a claim of a creditor, alleging that the claim was not secured, as it was filed, but was due to be paid as an unsecured deficiency claim. The creditor conceded that the claim was not secured but contended that the plan provided discriminatory treatment of its claim in violation of 11 U.S.C.S. §§ 1122(a) and 1123(a)(4).

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Greenlee Please sign in if you are already an ABI member, or otherwise you may Become an ABI Member

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on January 07, 2010 , LexisNexis #0310-022
LexisNexis Article
Learn More
Subscribe to %1