U.S. Code » Title 11 » Chapter CHAPTER 11— REORGANIZATION › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER III— POSTCONFIRMATION MATTERS

11 U.S.C. § 1144

Revocation of an order of confirmation

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 11 CasesGoogle Scholar
On request of a party in interest at any time before 180 days after the date of the entry of the order of confirmation, and after notice and a hearing, the court may revoke such order if and only if such order was procured by fraud. An order under this section revoking an order of confirmation shall—(1) contain such provisions as are necessary to protect any entity acquiring rights in good faith reliance on the order of confirmation; and(2) revoke the discharge of the debtor.(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2639; Pub. L. 98–353, title III, § 515, July 10, 1984, 98 Stat. 387.)Historical and Revision Notessenate report no. 95–989

If an order of confirmation was procured by fraud, then the court may revoke the order on request of a party in interest if the request is made before 180 days after the date of the entry of the order of confirmation. The order revoking the order of confirmation must revoke the discharge of the debtor, and contain such provisions as are necessary to protect any entity acquiring rights in good faith reliance on the order of confirmation.

Editorial NotesAmendments

1984—Pub. L. 98–353 inserted “if and only” after “revoke such order”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1984 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 98–353 effective with respect to cases filed 90 days after July 10, 1984, see section 552(a) of Pub. L. 98–353, set out as a note under section 101 of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 241 cases (31 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Matter of Depew, 115 B.R. 965 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Matter of Depew, 115 B.R. 965 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1990). · cites it 8× “1 See 11 U.S.C. § 1144 . This would have the effect of restoring debtors’ original, pre-pe-tition obligations to creditors, as they existed prior to confirmation.”
Off. Comm. of Unsecured Creditors v. Michelson (In re Michelson), 141 B.R. 715 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1992). · cites it 6× “KLEIN, Bankruptcy Judge: Among the rocks and shoals of post-confirmation matters is the poorly charted question whether materially defective disclosure used in connection with obtaining confirmation of a plan of reorganization constitutes a fraud that permits revocation of the…”
Prostok v. Browning, 112 S.W.3d 876 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2003). · cites it 4× “See 11 U.S.C. § 1144 (1993). However, no interested party requested the bankruptcy court to set aside the confirmation order based on fraud.”
In re Longardner & Assocs., Inc., Debtor. Appeal of Landahl, Brown & Weed Assocs., Inc, 855 F.2d 455 (7th Cir. 1988). · cites it 3× “11 U.S.C. § 1144 . The court concluded that the creditor had not alleged fraud and, further, the court itself had not found that the debtor fraudulently procured the order confirming the reorganization plan.”
Peter C. Browning v. Jeff P. Prostok, 165 S.W.3d 336 (Tex. 2005). “11 U.S.C. § 1144 . The 180-day period expired on September 9, 1993.”
In re Zolner, 249 B.R. 287 (N.D. Ill. 2000). · cites it 6× “Appellant, The Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union (Independent) Health and Welfare and Pension Funds (hereinafter “the Funds”), appeals the December 23, 1996 decision of the bankruptcy court that sua sponte dismissed the Funds’ motion under 11 U.S.C. §…”
Haskell v. Goldman, Sachs & Co. (In re Genesis Health Ventures, Inc.), 324 B.R. 510 (Bankr. D. Del. 2005). · cites it 7× “On this joint motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint in its entirety, the defendants contend that no relief could be granted under any set of facts that could be proved consistent with the allegations because the plaintiffs’ complaint: (1) is time-barred under 11 U.S.C. §…”
John R. Mickowski v. Visi-Trak Worldwide, LLC, 415 F.3d 501 (6th Cir. 2005). · cites it 3× “The revocation of any confirmation order is governed by 11 U.S.C. § 1144 , which proyides: On request of a party in interest at any time before 180 days after the date of the entry of the order of confirmation, and after notice and a hearing, the court may revoke such order if…”
Varde Inv. Partners, L.P. v. Comair, Inc. (In re Delta Air Lines, Inc.), 386 B.R. 518 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008). · cites it 4× “1 The Amended Complaint asserts a single claim under 11 U.S.C. § 1144 to revoke the debtors’ Joint Plan of Reorganization (the “Plan”) that was confirmed on April 25, 2007 “based upon the Comair Debtors’ fraud in the procurement of the confirmation order”.”
Kelly v. Giguere (In re Giguere), 165 B.R. 531 (Bankr. D.R.I. 1994). · cites it 5× “§ 727 (a) or alternatively, revocation of the Order of Confirmation, pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1144 . The Plaintiffs allege that the Debtor did not list them as creditors in her bankruptcy schedules, and that she concealed and/or failed to disclose assets which may be property of…”
In re Doty, 129 B.R. 571 (Bankr. N.D. Ind. 1991). · cites it 3× “11 U.S.C. § 1144 . (Emphasis supplied). Collier’s notes: A proceeding to revoke confirmation of a chapter 11 plan is an adversary proceeding as defined in Rule 7001 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure.”
First Union Nat'l Bank of Florida v. Tenn-Fla Partners (In re Tenn-Fla Partners), 170 B.R. 946 (Bankr. W.D. Tenn. 1994). · cites it 5× “See April 1, 1994 Order; 11 U.S.C. § 1144 (1). All sale proceeds in excess of those authorized items were ordered to be held in an interest bearing escrow account pending further orders of this court, with the asserted claims, liens and interests of the bondholders as secured…”
Show all 241 citing cases →
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.