In re Corcoran Hosp. Dist.

7 Citing cases

  1. In re Pierce County Housing Authority

    414 B.R. 702 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009)

    The Debtor states that it does not believe that its former counsel has any liability and that it is not a requirement of confirmation that it allow the Post-Confirmation Committee to pursue any and all potential claims. In support, the Debtor cites to In re Corcoran Hosp. Dist., 233 B.R. 449 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1999), where the bankruptcy court determined that a hospital district had no obligation to raise taxes to pay unsecured claims in full in order to demonstrate that the plan was proposed in good faith and fair and equitable. Corcoran, 233 B.R. at 459-60 (concluding that a plan was proposed in good faith where the debtor hospital demonstrated that it could not raise taxes sufficient to pay more to creditors). Unlike in Corcoran, the Debtor has no taxing authority, and it is undisputed that Washington State law prevents the Debtor from raising rents as a possible source of funds to pay creditors.

  2. In re Pierce County Housing Authority

    414 B.R. 702 (Bankr. W.D. Wash. 2009)

    The Debtor states that it does not believe that its former counsel has any liability and that it is not a requirement of confirmation that it allow the Post-Confirmation Committee to pursue any and all potential claims. In support, the Debtor cites to In re Corcoran Hosp. Dist., 233 B.R. 449 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.1999), where the bankruptcy court determined that a hospital district had no obligation to raise taxes to pay unsecured claims in full in order to demonstrate that the plan was proposed in good faith and fair and equitable. Corcoran, 233 B.R. at 459-60 (concluding that a plan was proposed in good faith where the debtor hospital demonstrated that it could not raise taxes sufficient to pay more to creditors).

  3. In re Hardeman Cnty. Hosp. Dist.

    540 B.R. 229 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2015)   Cited 1 times   2 Legal Analyses

    ” Id.In a California municipal hospital case, the bankruptcy court held that, because there are no equity holders in a Chapter 9 case, “ ‘the absolute priority rule’ embodied by § 1129(b)(2)(B)does not prevent the debtor here from continuing to operate the hospital.” In re Corcoran Hosp. Dist.,233 B.R. 449, 458 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.1999).In Chapter 9, creditors cannot expect that, in making payments to Creditors under a plan, the Debtor's cash at any point in the future will go toward the additional payment of Claims because, as Colliermakes clear, the Debtor must be allowed to retain sufficient funds with which to operate, make necessary improvements, and maintain its facilities.

  4. In re City of Detroit

    524 B.R. 147 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2014)   Cited 29 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that, in contrast to the Takings Clause, "the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide a substantive constitutional right to compensation for damages"

    On the other hand, some decisions appear to review the reasonableness of only unpaid fees. One example here is In re Corcoran Hospital District, 233 B.R. 449 (Bankr.E.D.Cal.1999) : The debtor has agreed that “after confirmation, the Debtor will seek to pay its attorneys and Committee counsel compensation and reimbursement in an amount and on a schedule to be approved by the Court.

  5. In re Hyatt

    509 B.R. 707 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2014)   Cited 5 times
    Noting that appropriate mechanism for subordinating claims in chapter 11 case without relying on equitable subordination is separate classification and treatment

    Ltd. P'ship, 159 B.R. 695, 703 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1993)); In re Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 348 B.R. 136, 159 (D.Del.2006) (“A classification structure satisfies section 1122 of the Bankruptcy Code when a reasonable basis exists for the structure, and the claims or interests within each particular class are substantially similar.”) (citations omitted); In re Corcoran Hosp. Dist., 233 B.R. 449, 455 (Bankr.E.D.Ca.1999) (stating that “there must be a business or economic justification for separate classification of unsecured claims”) (citations omitted). Under Bankruptcy Code § 1129(b)(1), the Court may not confirm a plan that discriminates unfairly with respect to a class of claims that has not accepted the plan.

  6. In re 28th Legislative Dist. Comm. Development

    No. 10-14804 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. Nov. 10, 2011)

    The objecting creditors have not identified any junior interest holder that is retaining any property. Interest has been construed to be "that which is held by an `equity security holder.'" In re General Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local 890, 225 B.R. 719, 736 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 1998); In re Corcoran Hosp. Dist., 233 B.R. 449, 458 (Bankr. E. D. Cal. 1999); Matter Wabash Valley Power Ass'n, Inc., 72 F. 3d 1305, 1313 (7th Cir. 1995). In a case in which the debtor does not have equity holders such as a non-profit corporation or a municipality or an electric cooperative, there is no junior class and so there can be nothing that the non-existent junior class is retaining or receiving.

  7. In re 28™ Legislative Dist. Cmty. Dev. Corp.

    No. 10-14804 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. Nov. 9, 2011)

    The objecting creditors have not identified any junior interest holder that is retaining any property. Interest has been construed to be "that which is held by an 'equity security holder.'" In re General Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local 890, 225 B.R. 719, 736 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 1998); In re Corcoran Hosp. Dist., 233 B.R. 449, 458 (Bankr. E. D. Cal. 1999); Matter Wabash Valley Power Ass'n, Inc., 72 F. 3d 1305, 1313 (7th Cir. 1995). In a case in which the debtor does not have equity holders such as a non-profit corporation or a municipality or an electric cooperative, there is no junior class and so there can be nothing that the non-existent junior class is retaining or receiving.