  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
Locke Mill Partners, 178 B.R. 697 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 1995); In re Cellular Information Systems, Inc, 171 B.R. 926 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994); In re Atlanta Southern Business Park, Ltd., 173 B.R. 444 (Bankr.
N.D. Ga. 1994); In re 8315 Fourth Avenue Corporation, 172 B.R. 725 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1994); In re Woodstock Assoc's I, Inc.., 120 B.R. 436, 453 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1990).
E.g., In re MCorp Fin., Inc., 137 B.R. 219, 225 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 1992).
In re Acequia, Inc., 787 F.2d 1352, 1358-59 (9th Cir. 1986).
In re Williams, 850 F.2d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 1988).
In re Acequia, Inc., 787 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th Cir. 1986); In re Williams, 850 F.2d 250, 253 (5th Cir. 1988).
In re Produce Hawaii, Inc., 41 B.R. 301, 303 (Bankr. D. Ha. 1984)(plan cannot be confirmed in the absence of evidence of satisfaction of the best interests test of § 1129(a) (7) and the unlikelihood of subsequent liquidation required by 1129(a)(11)).
In re Perez, 30 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 1994); In re Arnold & Baker Farms, 177 B.R. 648 (9th Cir. BAP 1994), aff'd on other grounds, 85 F.3d 1415 (9th Cir. 1996).
"Party in interest" is defined by § 1109(b) as including the debtor, the trustee, a creditors' committee, an equity security holders' committee, a creditor, an equity security holder, and an indenture trustee. Such parties in interest, plus the Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States Trustee, may raise and appear and be heard on any issue in a chapter 11 case. §§ 1109 and 307.
Kane v. Johns-Manville Corp., 843 F.2d 636, 643-45 (2d Cir. 1988); In re Tascosa Petroleum Corp., 196 B.R. 856 (D. Kan. 1996). See also In re PWS Holding Corp., 228 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2000) (creditor may not object to failure of disclosure statement to provide information objector already had, absent
showing creditors would have voted differently, resulting in better treatment of objector).
See, e.g., In re River Village Assocs., 181 B.R. 795 (E.D. Pa. 1995)(the court noted it was "only obligated to consider the preferences of the creditors and equity interests, not obey them," and found the preferences to be "overwhelmingly" in favor of the secured creditor's liquidating plan because most creditors were unimpaired under that plan, and therefore deemed to vote for it, and the secured creditor preferred its own plan).
In re Holly Garden Apartments, Ltd., 238 B.R. 488 (Bankr. M.D. Fla. 1999).
In re Aspen Limousine Services, Inc., 193 B.R. 325 (D. Colo. 1996). But after expiration of 160 days, § 1121(e)(3)(B) requires dismissal of the case. In re Western Steel & Metals, Inc., 200 B.R. 873 (Bankr.
S.D. Cal. 1996).
"Paragraph (1) [of subsection 1129(a)] requires that the plan comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 11, such as §§ 1122 and 1123, governing classification and contents of plan." S. Rep. No. 95 -989, 95th Cong., 2d sess. 126 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S. Code Congress and Administrative News
5787, 5912. See In re Cajun Elec. Power Coop, 150 F.3d 503 (5 Cir. 1998).
Kane v. Johns-Manville Corp., 843 F.2d 636, 649 (2d Cir. 1988). Accord, In re AOV Industries Inc., 792 F.2d 1140, 1150 (D.C. Cir. 1986); In re Commercial Western Finance Corp., 761 F.2d 1329, 1338 (9th Cir. 1985).
"The principal purpose of Section 1129(a) (2) is to assure that the proponents have complied with the requirements of section 1125 in the solicitation and acceptances to the plan." H.R. Rep. No. 95-595, 95th Cong., 1st sess. 412 (1977); S. Rep. No. 95-989, 95th Cong., 2d sess., 126 (1978). See In re Cajun
S.D.N.Y. 1988), citing In re Toy & Sports Warehouse, Inc., 37 B.R. 141, 149 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1984). See also In re Elsinore Shore Associates, 91 B.R. 238 (Bankr. D. N.J. 1988) (§ 1129(a)(2) is satisfied if the proponent satisfies the disclosure and solicitation requirements); In re Butler, 42 B.R. 777 (Bankr.
E.D. Ark. 1984).
