green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
22.5 score
“the code has eliminated the legal distinction between non-recourse deficiency claims and other unsecured claims.”
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited "but see"
In Re Stratford Associates Ltd. Partnership
(5×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
But cf. Matter of Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d at 139 .
discussed
Cited "but see"
In Re Harman
But see, e.g., In re Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 142-44 (5th Cir.1991), vacated in part (5th Cir. Feb. 27, 1992); and In re Winters, 99 B.R. 658, 663 (Bankr.W.D.Pa.1989) (new value exception to absolute priority rule no longer exists).
discussed
Cited "but see"
In Re Triple R Holdings, L.P.
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See Hanson v. First Bank of South Dakota, N.A., 828 F.2d 1310, 1313 (8th Cir.1987); Matter of Jersey City Medical Center, 817 F.2d 1055, 1061 (3rd Cir.1987); In re U.S. Truck Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 581, 586-87 (6th Cir.1986); In re AOV Industries, Inc., 792 F.2d 1140, 1156 (D.C.Cir.1986); Matter of LeBlanc, 622 F.2d 872, 879 (5th Cir.1980); but see Greystone, 948 F.2d 134 (5th Cir.1991).
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Boston Post Road Ltd. Partnership v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (In Re Boston Post Road Ltd. Partnership)
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
the code has eliminated the legal distinction between non-recourse deficiency claims and other unsecured claims.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re New Midland Plaza Associates
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Debtor’s Legitimate Business Justifications for Separate Classification The general rule is that “thou shall not classify similar claims differently in order to gerrymander an affirmative vote on a reorganization plan.” In the Matter of Briscoe Enters., Ltd., II, 994 F.2d 1160, 1167 (5th Cir.1993) (citing to Matter of Greystone, 948 F.2d 134, 139 (5th Cir.1991)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hobson v. Travelstead (In Re Travelstead)
Section 1122(a) is permissive rather than mandatory; however, “although separate classification of similar claims may not be prohibited, it ‘may only be undertaken for reasons independent of the debtor’s motivation to secure the vote of an impaired, assenting class of claims.’ ” Bryson, 961 F.2d at 502 (quoting In re Grey stone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 139 (5th Cir.1992) (as amended)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Applied Safety, Inc.
See John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Route 37 Business Park Associates, 987 F.2d 154, 159 (3d Cir.1993); In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F.2d 496, 502 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 866 , 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992); and In re Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 139 (5th Cir.1991), reconsidered in part, 995 F.2d 1274 (5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Homestead Partners, Ltd.
Bonner Mall Partnership v. U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. (In re Bonner Mall Partnership), 2 F.3d 899, 906-09 (9th Cir.1993) (finding that new value continues to present a viable doctrine); In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F.2d 496 (4th Cir.1992) (refusing to comment upon new value's continuing validity); In re Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 142-44 (5th Cir.1991), vacated in part, 995 F.2d 1274 (5th Cir.1991) (initially finding the new value doctrine dead, but subsequently withdrawing that portion of the 'decision); Kham & Nate's Shoes No. 2, Inc. v. First Bank of Whiting, 908 F.2d 1…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dunes Hotel Associates v. Hyatt Corp. (In Re Dunes Hotel Associates)
Also see In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F.2d 496, 502 (4th Cir.1992): (Classification clearly for the purpose of manipulating voting, may not stand); In re Greystone III Joint Venture 948 F.2d 134, 136 (5th Cir.1992) (as amended) (thou shalt not gerrymander an affirmative vote on a reorganization plan).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Citizens for a Better Environment-California v. Union Oil Co.
See United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., — U.S. -, -, 112 S.Ct. 1011, 1015 , 117 L.Ed.2d 181 (1992) (“[It is a] settled rule that a statute must, if possible, be construed in such a fashion that every word has some operative effect.”); In the Matter of Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 138-39 (5th Cir.1991) (interpretation of one statutory provision so as to render another provision superfluous “is anathema to elementary principles of statutory construction”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Immenhausen Corp.
Townhouse Ass’n, Inc., supra; contra In re Jack Sidney James, 1992 WL 21365 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1992); In re Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 139 (5th Cir.1991) withdrawn in part, reinstated in part on rehearing, 995 F.2d 1274 (1991) cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 72 , 121 L.Ed.2d 37 (1992). *351 The Second Amended Plan provides that the Debtor’s equity shareholders will retain their equity interest and be entitled to receive 50% of the property’s net cash flow while the Bank’s secured claim remains unpaid and unsatisfied under the Plan and the unsecured claims which the Bank…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
California Federal Bank, F.S.B. v. Moorpark Adventure (In Re Moorpark Adventure)
As stated in pertinent part by the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in the case of the Matter of Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 139 (5th Cir.1993): the one clear rule that merges from the otherwise muddled case law in § 1122 claim classification is that “thou shalt not classify similar claims differently in order to gerrymander an affirmative vote on a reorganization plan.” Further, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit in the case of John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Route 37 Business Park Associates, 987 F.2d 154, 158 (3d Cir.1993), stated in pertinent…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Thornwood Associates v. Greater New York Savings Bank (In Re Thornwood Associates)
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit succinctly stated the rule in In re Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 139 (5th Cir.1991): “thou shaft not classify similar claims differently in order to gerrymander an affirmative vote on a reorganization plan.” In its March 31, 1993, order in this case, the Bankruptcy Court held that Thornwood could offer no valid reason for separately classifying the GNYSB and Gallant claims and that, under John Hancock, the plan was improper. 4 On appeal, Thornwood argues that there are critical distinctions that should foreclose our app…
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
FGH Realty Credit Corp. v. Newark Airport/Hotel Ltd. Partnership
(3×)
The reasonableness requirement is imposed to limit the debtor’s ability to “manipulate ‘acceptance’ by artful classification.” In re Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 138 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 72 , 121 L.Ed.2d 37 (1992); see Route 37, at 157-58; Jersey City Medical Center, 817 F.2d at 1061 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Chateaugay Corp.
Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Greystone III Joint Venture (In re Greystone III Joint Venture), 948 F.2d 134, 139 (5th Cir. 1991); In re Pine Lake Village Apartment Co., 19 B.R. 819, 830 (Bkrtcy.S.D.N.Y. *630 1982).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Austin Ocala Ltd.
The Fifth Circuit recently enunciated “one clear rule” with respect to the classification of claims, “thou shalt not classify similar claims differently in order to gerrymander, an affirmative vote on a reorganization plan.” Matter of Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 139 (5th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re 500 Fifth Avenue Associates
(2×)
Partnership, 968 F.2d 647 , 650 (8th Cir.1992); In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F.2d 496, 501 (4th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 191 , 121 L.Ed.2d 134 (1992); In re Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 137-38 (5th Cir.1991), withdrawn in part, reinstated in part on reh’g (5th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 113 S.Ct. 72 , 121 L.Ed.2d 37 (1992); 11 U.S.C. § 1129 (a)(10).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re B & B West 164th Street Corp.
In re Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 140 (5th Cir.1991), withdrawn in part, reinstated in part on reh’g (1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 72 , 121 L.Ed.2d 37 (1992); 266 Washington Assocs., 141 B.R. at 285-87 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Heron, Burchette, Ruckert & Rothwell
What is crucial is whether the claims in a class “share common priority and rights against the debtor’s estate.” In re Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 139 (5th Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Kliegl Bros. Universal Electric Stage Lighting Co.
As enunciated by the Eighth Circuit: “A debtor may classify substantially similar claims separately for [reasons independent of the debtor’s motivation to secure the vote of an impaired, assenting class of claims.] In re Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 139 (5th Cir.1991) (as amended), cert. den., — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 72 , 121 L.Ed.2d 37 ; see also Hanson v. First Bank of South Dakota, N.A., 828 F.2d 1310, 1313 (8th Cir.1987).” In re Lumber Exchange Bldg.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Boston Post Road Ltd. Partnership
See also In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F.2d 496, 502 (4th Cir.1992), petition for cert. filed, 61 U.S.L.W. 3061 (U.S. July 16, 1992) (No. 92-108); In re Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 139 (5th Cir.1991) (as amended), petition for cert. filed, 60 U.S.L.W. 3843 (U.S. May 27, 1992) (No. 91-1902); In re Holywell Corp., 913 F.2d 873 , 880 (11th Cir.1990).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Westwood Plaza Apartments
(2×)
Co. v. Greystone III Joint Venture (In re Greystone), 948 F.2d 134, 139 (5th Cir.1991), and the deletion of the section addressing the demise of the new value exception.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re A.V.B.I., Inc.
The panel stated that the codification of the “absolute priority” rule in Section 1129(b)(2) set “a minimum standard for a fair and equitable plan that may be confirmed over creditor objections.” Id. at 143 (emphasis in original).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re 499 W. Warren Street Associates, Ltd. Partnership
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Succinctly stated, “[a] plan may not be confirmed unless either (1) it is approved by two-thirds in amount and more than one half in number of each ‘impaired’ class, 11 U.S.C. § 1126 (c), 1129(a)(8); or (2) at least one impaired class approves the plan, § 1129(a)(10), and the debtor fulfills the cramdown requirements of § 1129(b) to enable confirmation notwithstanding the plan’s rejection by one or more impaired classes.” Matter of Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 137-138 (5th Cir.1991) vacated in part per curiam, reh’g en banc denied, 948 F.2d 142 (5th Cir.1992), peti…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bonner Mall Partnership v. U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. (In Re Bonner Mall Partnership)
(2×)
Co. v. Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 142 (5th Circuit 1991) (as amended on Petition for Rehearing, per curiam, Feb. 27, 1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In the Matter of Delbert Snyder, Deanna Snyder, and Robert Snyder, Debtors-Appellants. Farm Credit Bank of St. Louis, Cross-Appellant
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
See, e.g., Kham & Nate’s Shoes, 908 F.2d at 1361 ; In re Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 143 (5th Cir.1991) (Jones, J., dissenting from grant of rehearing). 4 But their approach seems to slight a settled canon of interpretation: “[I]f Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Lumber Exchange Building Limited Partnership
(4×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
See also In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F.2d 496, 501-02 (4th Cir.1992); Greystone, 948 F.2d at 140.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Lumber Exchange Building Ltd. Partnership v. Mutual Life Insurance Co. of New York (In re Lumber Exchange Building Ltd. Partnership)
(4×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
See also In re Bryson Properties, XVIII, 961 F.2d 496, 501-02 (4th Cir.1992); Greystone, 948 F.2d at 140.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Ex Rel. Farmers Home Administration v. Cook
Generally, the creditor may elect recourse status and obtain the right to vote in the unsecured class, or it may elect to forego recourse to gain an allowed secured claim for the entire amount of the debt.” Matter of Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 140 (5th Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re 266 Washington Associates
(2×)
Co. v. Greystone III Joint Venture (In re Greystone III Joint Venture), 948 F.2d 134, 139 (5th Cir.1991) (“A fair reading of both subsections [1] U.S.C. § 1122(a) and (b) ] suggests that ordinarily ‘substantially similar claims,’ those which share common priority and rights against the debtor’s estate, should be placed in the same class.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Montgomery Court Apartments of Ingham County, Ltd.
Co. v. Greystone III Joint Venture (In re Greystone III Joint Venture), 948 F.2d 134, 137-41 (5th Cir.1991), vacated in part on reh’g per curiam (1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Creekside Landing, Ltd.
Co. v. Greystone III Joint Venture (In re Greystone III Joint Venture), 948 F.2d 134, 137-41 (5th Cir.1991), vacated in part on reh’g per curiam (1992).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Travelers Insurance Co. v. Bryson Properties, XVIII (In re Bryson Properties, XVIII)
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Greystone, 948 F.2d at 142 (vacating bankruptcy court’s opinion upholding new value exception but declining to rule on question); Kham & Nate’s Shoes No. 2, Inc. v. First Bank of Whiting, 908 F.2d 1351, 1361-63 (7th Cir.1990) (questioning vitality of exception but finding it inapplicable on facts); In re U.S. Truck Co., 800 F.2d 581, 588 (6th Cir.1986) (applying exception without discussion).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Bryson Properties, Xviii, Debtor. Travelers Insurance Company v. Bryson Properties, Xviii
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Greystone, 948 F.2d at 142 (vacating bankruptcy court’s opinion upholding new value exception but declining to rule on question); Kham & Nate’s Shoes No. 2, Inc. v. First Bank of Whiting, 908 F.2d 1351, 1361-63 (7th Cir.1990) (questioning vitality of exception but finding it inapplicable on facts); In re U.S. Truck Co., 800 F.2d 581, 588 (6th Cir.1986) (applying exception without discussion).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Heartland Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Briscoe Enterprises Ltd., II (In Re Briscoe Enterprises Ltd., II)
Co. v. Greystone III Joint Venture (In re Greystone III Joint Venture), 948 F.2d 134, 139 (5th Cir.1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Cantonwood Associates Ltd. Partnership
Second, tenant security deposit holders were not properly deemed an “impaired” class under the circumstances of this plan. 948 F.2d at 136 [hereinafter Greystone]. 2 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Holiday Associates Ltd. Partnership
Co. v. Greystone III Joint Venture (In re Greystone III), 948 F.2d 134, 142 (5th Cir.1991), partially withdrawn, (per curiam) (withdrawing and deleting the prior opinion’s discussion of the new value exception to the absolute priority rule) and Kham & Nate’s Shoes No. 2 v. First Bank, 908 F.2d 1351, 1360 (7th Cir.1990) with In re U.S. Truck Co., 800 F.2d 581, 587-88 (6th Cir.1986); Anderson v. Farm Credit Bank (In re Anderson), 913 F.2d 530, 532 (8th Cir.1990); In re Blankemeyer, 861 F.2d 192, 194 (8th Cir.1988) and Carson Nugget, Inc. v. Green (In re Green), 98 B.R. 981, 982 (9th Cir.B.A.…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Pattni Holdings
Atlanta West, 91 B.R. at 626 ; In re Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 138-39 (5th Cir.1991); In re U.S. Truck Co., 800 F.2d 581 (6th Cir.1986); Hanson v. First Bank of South Dakota, N.A., 828 F.2d 1310 (8th Cir.1987).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Slc Ltd. V
(2×)
Greystone, reh’g en banc denied, 948 F.2d at 142 (1992).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re 495 Central Park Avenue Corp.
Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 142 (5th Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Bjolmes Realty Trust
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
In a recent decision denying the presence of the fresh contribution exception under § 1129(b)(2)(B), the Fifth Circuit denies the force of the statutory phrase “on account of” and tortures the definition of “includes,” stating: “[The word “includes”] sets forth a minimum standard for a fair and equitable plan that may be confirmed over creditor objections_ The ‘new value exception,’ by contrast, dilutes the minimum requirement.” In re Greystone III .Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, at 143 (5th Cir.1991).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance v. Greystone III Joint Venture
PER CURIAM: A majority of the panel having voted to grant rehearing in part, the opinion of the court in disposing of this appeal is as follows: Part IV of the panel opinion, found at 948 F.2d 134, 142-44 (5th Cir.1991), is hereby withdrawn and deleted from the opinion.
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Rivers End Apartments, Ltd.
See Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Greystone III Joint Venture (Matter of Greystone III Joint Venture), 948 F.2d 134 (5th Cir.1991), as amended on Petition for Rehearing, 995 F.2d 1274 (5th Cir.1991); and Travelers Insurance Company v. Bryson Properties, XVIII (In re Bryson Properties, XVIII), 961 F.2d 496, 502 (4th Cir.1992).
discussed
Cited "see"
Polysat, Inc. v. Union Tank Car Co. (In Re Polysat, Inc.)
S.D.N.Y.1980); accord, e.g., Matter of Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134 , 141 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 72 , 121 L.Ed.2d 37 (1992); In re Continental Country Club, Inc., 114 B.R. 763, 767 (Bankr.M.D.Fla.1990); Matter of Central Watch, Inc., 22 B.R. 561, 565 (Bankr.E.D.Wis.1982); see L.
discussed
Cited "see"
John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Roswell-Hannover Joint Venture (In Re Roswell-Hannover Joint Venture)
See Lumber Exchange, Piedmont Associates, Boston Post Road, 266 Washington Associates, Waterways Barge, and Meadow Glen, supra. In Greystone, where the plan proposed identical treatment but separate classification of the unsecured creditors and the unsecured deficiency, the Court said “Even if Grey-stone’s Plan had treated the trade creditors differently from Phoenix, the classification scheme here is still improper.” Greystone, 948 F.2d at 141 .
cited
Cited "see"
266 Washington Associates v. Citibank, N.A. (In Re Washington Associates)
See Greystone III, 948 F.2d at 140 ; In re Pine Lake Village Apt.
discussed
Cited "see"
John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Route 37 Business Park Associates (In Re Route 37 Business Park Associates)
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
See Matter of Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134 (5th Cir.1991), aff'd in part on reh'g, 948 F.2d 142 (5th Cir.1991). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Batten
See Ahlers, supra. Absolute Priority Rule and the New Value Exception This Court has previously adopted the analysis expressed in In re Greystone III Joint Venture, 102 B.R. 560 (Bkrtcy.W.D.Tex.1989), affirmed 127 B.R. 138 (W.D.Tex.1990), reversed, Matter of Greystone, III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134 (5th Cir.1991); corrected, reinstated, reh, en ban, den., February 27, 1992. 6 The bankruptcy court’s opinion in Grey-stone concludes that the exception known as the “new value” or “money’s worth” exception as it was articulated in Case v. Los Angeles Lumber Products Co., 308 U.S. 106 …
cited
Cited "see"
In Re Main Road Properties, Inc.
See Matter of Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134 (5th Cir.1991) (substantially similar claims sharing common priority should be classed together).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Greystone III Joint Venture, Debtor. Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company
v.
Greystone III Joint Venture
v.
Greystone III Joint Venture
90-8529.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Feb 27, 1992.
Cited by 68 opinions | Published
60 USLW 2347, 60 USLW 2575, 26
Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 220,
22 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1114, 22 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 452,
Bankr. L. Rep. P 74,351
In the Matter of GREYSTONE III JOINT VENTURE, Debtor.
PHOENIX MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
GREYSTONE III JOINT VENTURE, Appellee.
No. 90-8529.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 19, 1991.
As Amended on Petition for Rehearing
and Suggestion for Rehearing En
Banc Feb. 27, 1992.
1
Republished as corrected at 995 F.2d 1274.