Law Commons^™

Creditor And Debtor Burdens When Confirming A Chapter 11 Reorganization Plan, Corey Trail

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

In Chapter 11 bankruptcy, after a debtor has submitted a reorganization plan, the creditor has the right to vote on that plan. However, the right to vote on that plan is grounded in the understanding that the creditor will not vote against a debtor’s reorganization plan in bad faith. If a court finds that the creditor rejected the plan in bad faith, the court may “designate” the votes of the creditor that voted against the plan. But the issue of good faith does not solely lie with the creditor’s behavior. Reorganization under Chapter 11 also demands that the debtor …

Who Has Standing To Object To A Debtor’S Reorganization Plan? Analyzing Section 1128(B)’S “Party In Interest” Bankruptcy Standing Requirement And The “Persons Aggrieved” Appellate Standing Test, Michael Battema

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

In a decision with important implications for parties listed in debtor reorganization plans, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit recently reiterated its position that section 1128(b) of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Code”) should be interpreted broadly to permit any listed party whose rights might be implicated by a debtor’s reorganization plan the ability to object to the plan’s terms in bankruptcy court. In its decision, the Third Circuit distinguishes between a party’s right to object to a debtor’s confirmation plan in bankruptcy court (“Bankruptcy Standing”) versus that party’s ability to appeal the debtor’s confirmation ruling …

Non-Consensual Third Party Releases In Chapter 11 Bankruptcy, Craig Lutterbein

Bankruptcy Research Library

The Seventh Circuit, in Airadigm Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Comm’n. (In re Airadigm Commc’n, Inc.), 519 F.3d 640 (7th Cir. 2008), has joined the circuits permitting the non-consensual releases of non-debtor third parties from their obligations to creditors in chapter 11 reorganizations. In Airadigm, the court considered the validly of releasing a guarantor and major reorganization financer, Telephone and Data Services (hereinafter TDS), from liability resulting from the reorganization of debtor Airadigm Communications. The Court came to three conclusions on the subject: 1. Bankruptcy code section 524(e) does not prevent bankruptcy courts from granting third-party releases; 2. …

What Exactly Does The Term “Fair And Equitable” Mean?, Peter Doggett Jr.

Bankruptcy Research Library

(Excerpt)

In a plan of reorganization, the Bankruptcy Code outlines a priority scheme that must be strictly adhered to. 11 U.S.C. § 1129. According to the Code, “the holder of any claim or interest that is junior to the claims of such class will not receive or retain under the plan on account of such junior claim or interest any property.” 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii). When faced with the question of extending the codified priority rule to settlement approvals, the Fifth Circuit in United States v. AWECO Inc. (In re AWECO, Inc.), 725 F.2d 293 (5th Cir. 1984) held …