Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

equityappealbankruptcychapter 11 bankruptcycomplianceobjectionrespondent
equityappealbankruptcychapter 11 bankruptcycomplianceobjectionrespondent

Related Cases

In re Transwest Resort Properties, Inc., 801 F.3d 1161, 74 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 658, 15 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 10,342, 2015 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,624
View Case »
In re Combustion Engineering, Inc., 391 F.3d 190, 43 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 271, Bankr. L. Rep. P 80,206
View Case »
In re Armstrong World Industries, Inc., 432 F.3d 507, 55 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 789, 45 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 222, Bankr. L. Rep. P 80,434
View Case »
In re SubMicron Systems Corp., 432 F.3d 448, 55 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 1077, 45 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 232, Bankr. L. Rep. P 80,436
View Case »
In re Adelphia Communications Corp., 368 B.R. 140
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers, 485 U.S. 197, 108 S.Ct. 963, 99 L.Ed.2d 169, 56 USLW 4225, 18 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 262, 17 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 201, Bankr. L. Rep. P 72,186

Facts

Respondents operated a family farm and obtained secured loans from petitioners, defaulting in 1984. After default, petitioners sought possession of the farm equipment through a state-court replevin action, but respondents filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, obtaining an automatic stay. The Bankruptcy Court found the reorganization plan unfeasible, but the Court of Appeals reversed, allowing the debtors to retain their equity interest based on their contributions of labor and expertise.

Respondents operated a family farm and obtained secured loans from petitioners, defaulting in 1984. After default, petitioners sought possession of the farm equipment through a state-court replevin action, but respondents filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, obtaining an automatic stay. The Bankruptcy Court found the reorganization plan unfeasible, but the Court of Appeals reversed, allowing the debtors to retain their equity interest based on their contributions of labor and expertise.

Issue

Does the absolute priority rule in the Bankruptcy Code bar Chapter 11 debtors from retaining their equity interest in a farm when such retention is opposed by senior unsecured creditors?

Does the absolute priority rule in the Bankruptcy Code bar Chapter 11 debtors from retaining their equity interest in a farm when such retention is opposed by senior unsecured creditors?

Rule

The absolute priority rule, codified in 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii), requires that a dissenting class of unsecured creditors must be provided for in full before any junior class can receive or retain any property under a reorganization plan.

The absolute priority rule, codified in 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii), requires that a dissenting class of unsecured creditors must be provided for in full before any junior class can receive or retain any property under a reorganization plan.

Analysis

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals misapplied the absolute priority rule by allowing the debtors to retain their equity interest based on their promise of future labor. The Court emphasized that such promises are intangible and do not constitute 'money or money's worth' as required by the rule. The Court concluded that the debtors' retained interest must be considered property and could only be retained under a plan accepted by creditors or in compliance with the absolute priority rule.

The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals misapplied the absolute priority rule by allowing the debtors to retain their equity interest based on their promise of future labor. The Court emphasized that such promises are intangible and do not constitute 'money or money's worth' as required by the rule. The Court concluded that the debtors' retained interest must be considered property and could only be retained under a plan accepted by creditors or in compliance with the absolute priority rule.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the absolute priority rule applies and that the debtors' promise of future labor does not warrant an exception to its operation.

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the absolute priority rule applies and that the debtors' promise of future labor does not warrant an exception to its operation.

Who won?

Petitioners prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court upheld the absolute priority rule, which barred the debtors from retaining their equity interest in the farm over the objections of senior unsecured creditors.

Petitioners prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court upheld the absolute priority rule, which barred the debtors from retaining their equity interest in the farm over the objections of senior unsecured creditors.

You must be