An opinion by Denver’s Judge McNamara describes the four interpretations of Section 1189(b) and follows the meaning given to Section 1221.

Knowledge of a chapter 11 case is enough to bind a creditor to the terms of a plan, even if the creditor hasn’t filed a claim, the Fifth Circuit says.

District court rules that proceeds from a postpetition personal injury claim are ‘additional disposable income’ that ordinarily goes to creditors in a chapter 13 plan.

Several justices seemed to believe that ‘prospective relief’ is sufficient to remedy the due process violation because the alternatives are ineffective.

Baltimore district judge applies the Fourth Circuit’s ‘substantial and unanticipated’ test to modifications of chapter 11 plans.

Bankruptcy Judge Whitley says that a no-opt-out plan for a solvent debtor might violate creditors’ due process and jury trial rights.

The ‘new value’ offered by old equity in a chapter 11 plan was insufficient because it was only a small fraction of claims and because the dividend to creditors was also small.

Official Form 122C-2 could be read to deprive a chapter 13 debtor of the IRS standard housing deduction when the statute permits the deduction.

Chicago Bankruptcy Judge David Cleary followed a decision by then-district Judge David Hamilton and “respectfully” disagreed with decisions by two predecessors on the same bankruptcy bench.

In the Fourth Circuit, creditors are compensated when there is a ‘substantial improvement’ in a chapter 13 debtor’s financial condition.