11 U.S.C. § 1122
Classification of claims or interests
This section codifies current case law surrounding the classification of claims and equity securities. It requires classification based on the nature of the claims or interests classified, and permits inclusion of claims or interests in a particular class only if the claim or interest being included is substantially similar to the other claims or interests of the class.
Subsection (b), also a codification of existing practice, contains an exception. The plan may designate a separate class of claims consisting only of every unsecured claim that is less than or reduced to an amount that the court approves as reasonable and necessary for administrative convenience.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 360
cases (37 in the last 5 years), 1980–2026 · leading case: In Re 266 Washington Assocs., 141 B.R. 275 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1992).
In Re 266 Washington Assocs., 141 B.R. 275 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1992). “11 U.S.C. §§ 1122 , 1111(b), 1129(a)(10), 1129(b)(1).”
United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U.S. 213 (1996). “[10] CF&I's reorganization plan did not lump all unsecured claims in one nonpriority class, however, but instead created four classes of unsecured creditors, only the first two of which would receive funds: Class 11 comprised small claims ($1,500 or less) grouped together for…”
In Re James E. Johnston, Dba Johnston Enter., Debtor. Steelcase Inc. v. James E. Johnston & Unsecured Creditors' Comm., 21 F.3d 323 (9th Cir. 1994). “OPINION GARTH, Circuit Judge: We are called upon in this ease to decide: (1) the proper standard for determining when an unsecured claim may be classified separately from other unsecured claims under 11 U.S.C. § 1122 (a) 1 ; and (2) whether the absolute priority rule, codified…”
Gary D. Hanson, Sandra Kay Hanson v. First Bank of South Dakota, N.A., 828 F.2d 1310 (1st Cir. 1987). “§ 1122 , which provides in pertinent part: 4 “(a) * * * a plan may place a claim or an *1313 interest in a particular class only if such claim or interest is substantially similar to the other claims or interests of such class.” Hansons contend that the unsecured claims and the…”
In Re SM 104 Ltd., 160 B.R. 202 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 1993). “29 11 U.S.C. § 1122 . Section 1122(a) expressly provides that only substantially similar claims may be placed in the same class.”
In Re AG Consultants Grain Div., Inc., 77 B.R. 665 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1987). “6 Stated another way, the plan violates 11 U.S.C. § 1122 (a) 7 because the Class VII and VIII claims are substantially similar and do not warrant separate classification and treatment.”
In re Hanish, LLC, 570 B.R. 4 (Bankr. D.N.H. 2017). “tatement for Third Plan of Reorganization Dated March 15, 2017 (Second Amended)” 3 (the “Amended Third Disclosure Statement”) based on the patent unconfirmability of the “Debtor-In-Possession[’s] Third Plan of Reorganization Dated March 15, 2017 (Second Amended)” 4 (the “Amended…”
In Re Dow Corning Corp., 255 B.R. 445 (E.D. Mich. 2000). “Classiftcation/ 11 U.S.C. § 1122 (a) 11 U.S.C. § 1122 (a) provides that “a plan may place a claim or an interest in a particular class only if such claim or interest is substantially similar to the other claims or interests of such class.”
In Re the Heritage Org., L.L.C., 375 B.R. 230 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2007). “45 First, the Court was concerned that the evidentiary record failed to support the creation of an administrative convenience class of creditors consistent with the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1122 (b). Second, if the administrative convenience class was not legally proper,…”
NexPoint v. Highland Capital Mgmt., 48 F.4th 419 (5th Cir. 2022). “See 11 U.S.C. § 1122 . Of the voting-eligible classes, classes 2, 7, and 9 voted to accept the Plan while classes 8, 10, and 11 voted to reject it.”
In Re Dow Corning Corp., 244 B.R. 634 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 1999). “The objections addressed in this opinion assert that the Plan does not comply with 11 U.S.C. §§ 1122 (a) and 1123(a)(4). 1 The Court disagrees, and for *641 the reasons stated below these objections are overruled.”
In re W.R. Grace & Co., 475 B.R. 34 (D. Del. 2012). “” 11 U.S.C. § 1122 (a). In analyzing whether claims within a given class are substantially similar, “the focus of the classification [should be on] the legal character of the *110 claim as it relates to the assets of the debtor.”
11 U.S.C. § 1122(a): 2 cases
In Re S & W Enter., 37 B.R. 153 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1984).
In Re Unbreakable Nation Co., 437 B.R. 189 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 2010).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.