In re Atlanta-Stewart Partners
United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia
193 B.R. 79 (1996)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Atlanta-Stewart Partners (debtor) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 1995. Atlanta-Stewart’s proposed reorganization plan classified Atlanta-Stewart’s creditors into five classes. Class 4 included unsecured creditors holding allowed claims of less than $1,000. Atlanta-Stewart proposed paying the Class 4 creditors 95 percent of their claims’ value. Equitable Life Insurance Company of Iowa (Equitable) (creditor) and the United States trustee objected to Atlanta-Stewart’s disclosure statement regarding the proposed reorganization plan. Equitable asserted that Atlanta-Stewart had artificially impaired Class 4 by proposing to pay 95 percent of the claims’ value instead of 100 percent. According to Equitable, if Atlanta-Stewart had not artificially impaired the class, Atlanta-Stewart would not have been able to satisfy the plan-confirmation requirement that at least one impaired class vote to accept Atlanta-Stewart’s plan. The United States trustee noted that paying the extra 5 percent to Class 4 would cost Atlanta-Stewart only $154.33. Atlanta-Stewart argued that it had not artificially impaired Class 4 and further asserted that even if it paid Class 4 in full, Class 4 would still be considered impaired under the 1994 amendments to 11 U.S.C. § 1124. The bankruptcy court considered the parties’ arguments in deciding whether to approve Atlanta-Stewart’s plan-disclosure statement.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kahn, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 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.