GREAT WESTERN BANK V. SIERRA WOODS GROUP
953 F.2d 1174 (1992)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Woods (P) appealed from a judgment that found P's reorganization
plan, which included negative amortization, unfair and inequitable under §1129(b).
FACTS: P's only asset is a ten-year-old apartment complex. Bank of American (D) owns a
note secured by a first deed of trust on the property and was owed $4,098,000. Great Western
Bank (D1) owns a note secured by a second deed of trust, and was owed $3,845,124.47 plus $
103,124.47 in interest. D1's note called for an adjustable interest rate 3% with full
amortization over 30 years and was to mature in the year 2015. P proposed a plan for payment
of D1 where the result would be negative amortization for three years because during that
time the debt would increase rather than decrease. D1 objected. The court held that
§1129((b)(2)(A)(i)(II) is a per se rule against negative amortization. The court confirmed a
reorganization plan that required P to make timely interest payments at the market rate of
interest. P appealed and the District Court ruled that 'the bankruptcy court properly
determined that the deferral proposed in the plan . . . did not under the circumstances
provide D1 with the equivalent of the present value of its claim . . .' P appealed. P argues
that §1129(b) permits the deferral of interest, or negative amortization.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment