  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
ERISA provides no guidance, the court determined that a plan-by-plan analysis could produce absurd or inequitable results in that beneficiaries of terminated plans would likely receive substantially smaller pensions than beneficiaries of plans that remained active.)
In re New Power Co., 438 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. Feb. 3, 2006) (Amendments to debtor's liquidating Chapter 11 plan did not "materially and adversely" change the way objecting creditor was treated so as to require a new disclosure statement and vote, and provision of amended plan allowing interim distributions did not violate § 1123(a)(4) requirement equal treatment of each claim or interest of a particular class. Additionally, provision of amended plan allowing interim distributions did not violate § 1123(a)(4) because the provision only established a procedure under which the court could approve interim distributions; it did not award such distributions. Additionally, delayed receipt of distributions to members of a class whose claims remain disputed does not, in and of itself, violate § 1123(a)(4).)
Jacksonville Airport, Inc. v. Michkeldel, Inc., 434 F.3d 729 (4th Cir. Jan 19, 2006) (Creditor was properly excluded from voting on Chapter 11 Plan, where the creditor successfully litigated a state court claim against the debtor but failed to respond to the debtor's motion to disallow the claim.)
Sherman v. Harbin (In re Harbin), ---F.3d ----, 2007 WL 1203545 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2007) (amended opinion --- F.3d ----, 2007 WL 1322389 (9th Cir. May 8, 2007)) (In making the plan feasibility determination required by § 1129(a)(11), a bankruptcy court must evaluate the likely outcome of state court litigation to which the debtor is a party. Also, a bankruptcy court has discretion to retroactively approve debtor's post-petition financing under § 364(c)(2). (1) At the time of plan confirmation, a state trial court had determined that the debtor had no liability to a certain creditor that had asserted a very large claim, but the state court decision was on appeal. The bankruptcy court sustained an objection to the creditor's proof of claim and overruled the creditor's objection to confirmation. The bankruptcy court confirmed the debtor's plan that reserved no allowance for this creditor but paid other creditors in full. The creditor appealed the confirmation order, and, while the appeal was pending, the state appellate court reversed the state trial court and held that the debtor was liable on the creditor's claim. Ninth Circuit held that the bankruptcy court committed clear error by not considering the possibility that a potential future judgment would affect the debtor's ability to implement its plan. The bankruptcy court was not required to wait for the resolution of the state court appeal before confirming a plan but had an obligation to consider the likelihood of the creditor's success in
