TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Sandy Ridge Development Corporation, Debtor. Sandy Ridge Development Corporation v. Louisiana National Bank

In the Matter of SANDY RIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Debtor. SANDY RIDGE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Appellant, v. LOUISIANA NATIONAL BANK, Appellee

Sandy Ridge Dev. Corp., Debtor. Sandy Ridge Dev. Corp. v. La. Nat'l Bank, 889 F.2d 663 (5th Cir. 1989)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
December 8, 1989
Docket
No. 88-3072
Judges
Wisdom, Garwood, Jolly
Citations
889 F.2d 66319 Bankr. Ct. Dec. (CRR) 18441989 WL 1396221989 U.S. App. LEXIS 18772

Opinion — Per Curiam

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC Before WISDOM, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In denying the petition for rehearing, we observe that we have held that distribution of estate property, at values properly fixed by the bankruptcy court, to nonconsenting creditors under a liquidating reorganization is not per se categorically prohibited as a matter of law under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and that the plan in question meets the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1129 (b)(2)(A)(iii) with respect to appellee LNB’s secured claim regarding Brightside. However, these holdings do not mean, and we have not held, that the plan in question meets (or fails to meet) the “fair and equitable” requirement (or the “does not discriminate unfairly” requirement) of section 1129(b)(1) respecting LNB’s class (or any other class of impaired, nonaccepting claims or interests) or that it meets (or fails *664 to meet) other applicable requirements, including but not necessarily limited to those of section 1129(a)(3) (“good faith”), section 1129(a)(10), or section 1123(a)(3), or that it is (or is not) workable. These latter matters are among those to be addressed by the bankruptcy court on remand. Our original opinion, in its footnote 19, also observed that LNB had not requested relief from the automatic stay so as to foreclose its lien. We further note that the record reflects no request by any party under 11 U.S.C. § 554 that Brightside or Port Vincent be abandoned.

* The petition for rehearing is DENIED and no member of this panel nor judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and Local Rule 35), the suggestion for rehearing en banc is DENIED.

No further petition for rehearing shall be entertained and the mandate shall issue forthwith.

* Moreover, the first paragraph of part III of our original opinion is not intended to speak to whether bankruptcy court valuation of the distributed property, e.g., Brightside, for purposes of calculating the amount of LNB’s unsecured claim in bankruptcy (in the event the plan were to be properly approved) would have any legal effect (or if so, what such effect would be) in a state law suit by LNB against the guarantors.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 28 cases

View all citing references →
1990: 21991: 31992: 21993: 21994: 71995: 21996: 41998: 12009: 12011: 22014: 12015: 119902026peak 1994 · 7

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States ex rel. Farmers Home Administration v. Arnold & Baker Farms (In re Arnold & Baker Farms)95 Daily Journal DAR 3041 (9th Cir. BAP 1994)
  2. PNC Bank, National Ass'n v. Park Forest Development Corp. (In re Park Forest Development Corp.)197 B.R. 388 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1996)
  3. Richfield 81 Partners II, LLC v. SunTrust Bank (In re Richfield 81 Partners II, LLC)447 B.R. 653 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2011)
  4. Bank of New York Trust Co. v. Official Unsecured Creditors' Committee584 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2009)
  5. In re SM 104 Ltd.160 B.R. 202 (Bankr. S.D. Florida 1993)
  6. Arnold & Baker Farms, Debtor. Arnold & Baker Farms v. United States of America, on Behalf of the United States Farmers Home Administration, Arnold & Baker Farms, and Western Cotton Services Corp. v. United States of America, on Behalf of the United States Farmers Home Administration, Arnold & Baker Farms v. United States of America, on Behalf of the United States Farmers Home Administration, Western Cotton Services Corp.85 F.3d 1415 (9th Cir. 1996)

Most recent

  1. Farm Credit of Florida, ACA v. Sugarleaf Timber, LLC529 B.R. 317 (M.D. Fla. 2015)
  2. In re Ponce de Leon 1403, Inc.523 B.R. 349 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2014)
  3. In re Sud Properties, Inc.462 B.R. 547 (Bankr. E.D.N.C. 2011)
  4. Richfield 81 Partners II, LLC v. SunTrust Bank (In re Richfield 81 Partners II, LLC)447 B.R. 653 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 2011)
  5. Bank of New York Trust Co. v. Official Unsecured Creditors' Committee584 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2009)
  6. In re Sagewood Manor Associates Ltd. Partnership223 B.R. 756 (Bankr. D. Nev. 1998)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list