Skip to main content

§ 1122

In re Loop 76 LLC

Ruling
Guaranteed deficiency claim properly classified separately from unsecured trade vendor claims.
Procedural posture

A secured creditor objected that the debtor's pending plan of reorganization violated 11 U.S.C.S. § 1122 by classifying the creditor's guaranteed deficiency claim separately from the unguaranteed trade vendor claims.

ABI Membership is required to access the full summary of In re Loop 76 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 November 22, 2010 , LexisNexis #1210-132

In re Potgieter

Ruling
Separate classification of student loan obligations was not discriminatory.
Procedural posture

A chapter 13 trustee filed an unfavorable recommendation concerning the confirmation of debtors' plan where the plan proposed to pay unsecured, nondischargeable student loan creditors directly as a separate class of creditors from other general unsecured creditors when the general unsecured creditors would receive 100 percent distribution under the plan.

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

Consumer opinion summary, case decided on April 14, 2010 , LexisNexis #0810-100

In re Greenlee

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