In re New Valley Corp.
United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey
168 B.R. 73 (1994)
- Written by Solveig Singleton, JD
Facts
Several creditors filed an involuntary-bankruptcy petition against New Valley Corporation (debtor). New Valley filed a reorganization plan that provided for unsecured creditors to be paid in full in cash on the date the plan became effective. New Valley was solvent, and its overall value exceeded its liabilities. The creditors asserted that they should be paid postpetition interest on their claims against New Valley. New Valley objected. Before the enactment of the Bankruptcy Code (code), common law gave some creditors the right to postpetition interest from a solvent debtor. Section 502(b)(2) of the code specified that creditors’ claims on unmatured interest were disallowed. Section § 1124 stated that creditors who were to receive the amount of their prepetition claims in cash would be considered unimpaired in a reorganization plan and would be deemed to accept the plan. Section 1129(a)(7)(A)(ii) set out a best-interests-of-creditors test, under which creditors were entitled to postpetition interest under some circumstances. Creditors’ rights to postpetition interest were determined by the interplay of these sections. New Valley argued that its financial stability would be jeopardized if it were obliged to pay postpetition interest.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Winfield, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 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.