n re New Bride Missionary Baptist Church, 509 B.R. 85 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2014) –

After the bankruptcy court denied confirmation of a debtor’s proposed chapter 11 plan of reorganization because there was no accepting impaired class, the debtor proposed an amended plan that placed a mortgagee’s large deficiency claim in one class and claims of other unsecured creditors in a separate “administrative convenience” class.

In re Diplomat Construction, Inc., 481 B.R. 215 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2012) –

Vanderbilt Mortgage & Finance, Inc. v. Higgason (In re Pierce), 471 B.R. 876 (B.A.P. 6th Cir. 2012) –

Reprinted with permission from the March 18, 2011 issue of The Legal Intelligencer © 2010 ALM Media Properties, LLC. Further duplication without permission is prohibited. All rights reserved.

Over the last couple of years, the predominant goal in many business bankruptcy proceedings has been the sale of substantially all of the estate's assets. Such bankruptcy sales are often favored by buyers under Section 363(f), which enables a "free and clear" transfer of the assets.

View original on Law360: https://www.law360.com/articles/1173110/the-upside-of-the-fastest-chapter-11-confirmation-ever

In re Baber, 523 B.R. 156 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2014) –

The debtors objected to a proof of claim filed on behalf of a mortgagee based on issues arising from assignment of the mortgage note by the lender that originated the loan.  The mortgagee responded by, among other things, challenging the standing of the debtors to raise these issues.

U.S. Bank, N.A. v. Brumfiel (In re Brumfiel), 514 B.R. 637 (Bankr. D. Colo. 2014) –

After a debtor reopened her chapter 7 bankruptcy case, a lender moved for relief from the automatic stay in order to continue with a foreclosure action. The debtor objected, arguing among other things that the lender did not have standing to request relief.

In re Cook, 481 B.R. 265 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 2012) –

Kline v. Deutsche Bank Nat’l Trust Co. (In re Kline), 172 B.R. 98 (B.A.P. 10th Cir. 2012) –

The Bankruptcy Code sets forth the relative priority of claims against a debtor and the waterfall in which such claims are typically paid. In order for a court to confirm a plan over a dissenting class of creditors – what is commonly called a “cram-down” – the Bankruptcy Code demands thateither (i) the dissenting class receives the full value of its claim, or (ii) no classes junior to that class receive any property under the plan on account of their junior claims or interests. This is known as the “absolute priority rule.”