Barakat v. Life Insurance Co. of Virginia (In re Barakat)
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
99 F.3d 1520 (1996)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Mohammad Barakat (debtor) filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition. Barakat filed a proposed reorganization plan that, among other things, classified general unsecured creditors’ claims separately from an unsecured mortgage-deficiency claim held by the Life Insurance Company of Virginia (LICV) (creditor). The bankruptcy court denied confirmation of Barakat’s plan, finding that the separate classification of LICV’s claim was improper because Barakat had no business or economic justification to classify the claim separately. The bankruptcy court believed that Barakat had classified LICV’s claim separately because LICV held the largest unsecured claim and because, based on the class-voting structure, LICV would have had to vote to accept the plan for the plan to be confirmed. By separating LICV into its own class, Barakat could ensure that an impaired class of unsecured creditors besides LICV existed that could vote to accept the plan, allowing the plan to be confirmed even if LICV objected. Barakat appealed the bankruptcy court’s denial of confirmation, asserting that LICV’s claim had not been separately classified just to manipulate the voting on the plan. Rather, Barakat claimed that separate classification was justified because LICV’s claim was not substantially similar to the other unsecured claims, in that LICV’s mortgage-deficiency claim had arisen by operation of law under 11 U.S.C. § 1111(b). That section allows undersecured creditors to opt to have the amount of their deficiency treated as unsecured debt.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Restani, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 802,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.