![]() Congress could not have intended that its readoption of the pre-Code administrative expenses rule would work a change in the also readopted pre-Code rule denying undersecured creditors post-petition interest. Similarly, petitioner's contention that, since general administrative expenses do not have priority over secured claims, see §§ 506(c), 507(a), the Code embodies a principle prohibiting secured creditors from bearing any of the costs of reorganization, is without merit. (b) Denying petitioner compensation under § 362(d)(1) is not inconsistent with § 361(3)'s use of the phrase "indubitable equivalent." Although the same phrase appears in § 1129(b), under which section, as a condition for confirmation of a reorganization plan, a secured claimant has a right to receive the present value of his collateral (including interest if the claim is to be paid over time), the source of the right in § 1129 is not the "indubitable equivalent" language, but the provision guaranteeing payments of a value, " as of the effective date of the plan," equal to the value of the collateral. Petitioner's contention that undersecured creditors will face inordinate and extortionate delay if they are denied compensation under § 362(d)(1) is also belied by § 362(d)(2), which requires relief from the stay unless the debtor establishes a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time, and under which numerous cases have provided relief within less than a year from the filing of the bankruptcy petition. Third, petitioner's interpretation of § 362(d)(1) makes a practical nullity of § 362(d)(2), which, on petitioner's theory, would be of use only to a secured creditor who was fully protected both as to the value of, and interest on, its collateral, but nonetheless wanted to foreclose. ![]() Second, § 552(b), which makes possession of a perfected security interest in post-petition rents or profits from collateral a condition of having them applied to satisfy the secured creditor's claim ahead of the claims of unsecured creditors, is inconsistent with petitioner's interpretation of § 362(d)(1), under which the undersecured creditor who lacks such a perfected security interest in effect could achieve the same result by demanding the "use value" of his collateral. In the property without regard to his right to immediate possession on default. Moreover, the meaning of § 362(d)(1)'s "interest in property" phrase is clarified by the use of similar terminology in § 506(a), where it must be interpreted to mean only the creditor's security interest Had Congress nevertheless meant to give undersecured creditors interest on the value of their collateral, it would have said so plainly in § 506(b). First, petitioner's contrary interpretation contradicts the carefully drawn substantive disposition effected by § 506(b), which codifies the pre-Code rule denying undersecured creditors post-petition interest on their claims. (a) The language of other Code provisions that deal with the rights of secured creditors, and the substantive dispositions that those provisions effect, establish that the "interest in property" protected by § 362(d)(1) does not include a secured party's right to immediate foreclosure. ![]() Held: Undersecured creditors are not entitled to compensation under § 362(d)(1) for the delay caused by the automatic stay in foreclosing on their collateral. The District Court affirmed, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The court granted relief, conditioning continuance of the stay on monthly payments by respondent on the estimated amount realizable on the foreclosure that the stay prevented. party in interest," or "(2) with respect to a stay of an act against property," if the debtor does not have an equity in such property ( i.e., the creditor is undersecured) and the property is "not necessary to an effective reorganization." Section 361 provides that adequate protection of an entity's interest in property may be provided by granting such relief "as will result in the realization by such entity of the indubitable equivalent of its interest." After respondent filed a petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Code, petitioner, an undersecured creditor, moved the Bankruptcy Court for relief from the § 362(a) stay on the ground that there was a lack of "adequate protection" of its interest within the meaning of § 362(d)(1). Section 362(d) authorizes the bankruptcy court to grant relief from the stay "(1) for cause, including the lack of adequate protection of an interest in property of. When a bankruptcy petition is filed, § 362(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides an automatic stay of actions taken to realize the value of collateral given by the debtor.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |