  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
---F.3d ----, 2007 WL 4209261 (1st Cir. Nov. 30, 2007) (Amended Chapter 11 plan's reclassification of creditors who objected to the original plan was permissible. The approval of these creditors was not necessary for confirmation of the amended plan because the creditors were paid in full under the plan, so, under S 1124(1), their claims were not impaired.)
Sherman v. Harbin (In re Harbin), --- F.3d ----, 2007 WL 1203545 (9th Cir. Apr. 25, 2007) (amended opinion 486 F.3d 510 (9th Cir. May 8, 2007)) (In making the plan feasibility determination required by S 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 S 364(c)(2). The bankruptcy court should consider four factors in determining whether to exercise its equitable discretion to grant nunc pro tunc approval of postpetition financing under S 364(c)(2): whether the financing transaction benefits the bankruptcy estate, whether the creditor adequately explained its failure to seek prior authorization or otherwise acted in good faith, whether there is full compliance with the requirements of S 364(c)(2) and whether the circumstances of the case present one of those rare situations in which retrospective authorization is appropriate.)
In re Dow Corning Corp., 456 F.3d 668 (6th Cir. July 26, 2006) (Unsecured creditors may recover post-petition interest at the default rate contained in their contracts with a solvent debtor and may recover attorney's fees and expenses if provided for in their contracts. The debtor's plan was not fair and equitable under S 1129(b)(1) because it violated the absolute priority rule by allowing shareholders to retain millions of dollars while denying unsecured creditors contractual interest at the default rate.)
Elixir Indus. Inc. v. City Bank & Trust Co. (In re Ahern Enters. Inc.), 507 F.3d 817 (5th Cir. Nov. 6, 2007) (Lien on property dealt with in plan was voided under S 1141(c) because lien was not addressed in plan and lienholder participated in the case. Judgment creditor filed and recorded, pre-petition, a judgment lien on debtor's property that was subject to a prior recorded mortgage that exceeded the value of the property. Lienholder filed a proof of claim in the case and received notice of the plan but filed no objection. The plan referred to the property and provided that the mortgage lien would remain in place until paid in full. Since the plan did not
