Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Boston Post Road Limited Partnership v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

21 F.3d 477 (1994)

Case BriefRelatedOptions
From our private database of 32,200+ case briefs...

Boston Post Road Limited Partnership v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

21 F.3d 477 (1994)

Facts

Boston Post Road Limited Partnership (BPR) (debtor) owned a residential and office complex in Connecticut. In 1988 BPR took out a loan from Connecticut Bank and Trust Company (Connecticut Bank). In exchange, BPR granted Connecticut Bank a mortgage in the complex. BPR defaulted on the mortgage, and Connecticut Bank initiated a foreclosure action against BPR. During the proceedings, Connecticut Bank became insolvent, and the Federal Deposition Insurance Company (FDIC) (creditor) became the holder of the mortgage in the complex. BPR filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy to delay the foreclosure. The FDIC filed a proof of claim in BPR’s bankruptcy proceedings that contained secured and unsecured portions. BPR proposed a reorganization plan with several classes of creditors. The proposed plan included two classes of unsecured creditors—one class for the unsecured portion of the FDIC’s claim, and another class for BPR’s other unsecured creditors. The proposed plan also included a class of secured creditors who were tenants in the residential complex. The FDIC, BPR’s largest creditor, opposed the reorganization plan. Two classes of noninsider creditors—the non-FDIC unsecured creditors and the residential tenants—voted to approve the plan. At the confirmation hearing, the bankruptcy court held that BPR had improperly classified its creditors. The bankruptcy court reasoned that all of BPR’s unsecured creditors, including the FDIC, should have been included in the same class. The bankruptcy court also held that the residential tenants were not impaired creditors and, therefore, were not entitled to vote on the plan. The bankruptcy court concluded that the plan had not been properly approved by BPR’s creditors. The district court affirmed the bankruptcy court. BPR appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Pollack, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 585,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 585,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 32,200 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 585,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 32,200 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership