Fifth Avenue Associates Fifth Avenue Associates v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Company in Rehabilitation’s Empirical Analysis
29 F.3d 95 · 1994
Citation profile
6 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Wade v. Bradford (1994), First Federal Bank of California v. Weinstein (In Re Weinstein) (1998)
6 federal appellate ·
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 11 U.S.C. § 102 · 11 U.S.C. § 1111 · 11 U.S.C. § 502
Relies on Johnson v. Home State Bank · Pch Associates Liona Corporation Inc v. Pch Associates Pch · General Electric Mortgage Corp. v. South Village, Inc. (In Re South Village, Inc.) · Tampa Bay Associates, Ltd. v. DRW Worthington, Ltd.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(A) A claim secured by a lien on property of the estate shall be allowed or disallowed under section 502 of this title the same as if the holder of such claim had recourse against the debtor on account of such claim, whether or not such holder has such recourse ... (2) If such an election is made, then notwithstanding section 506(a) of this title, such claim is a secured claim to the extent that such claim is allowed.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The impetus behind Congress’s enactment of § 1111(b) was to protect the rights of nonrecourse lienholders in Chapter 11 reorganizations. Specifically, in reorganizations where the debtor elects to retain the collateral property, the absence of a public sale would preclude the lienholder from bidding on the property and thereby realizing the value of its lien, and the nonre-course nature of the debt would leave the lender without a claim for the deficiency. If the property is valued by the bankruptcy court and effectively “sold” to the debt- or outright at the valuation price, the worth of the undersecured lien is reduced to the current market value of the property, and, unlike the situation where he can be a successful bidder, the lienholder is unable to benefit from any unanticipated post-valuation appreciation. In addition, if the lienholder’s deficiency claim is not allowed, his participation in the bankruptcy will likewise be limited to the market value of his lien, and the debtor will more likely be able to “cram down” a plan that is unfavorable to the lienholder. Section 1111(b) therefore implements a general rule that a claim secured by a lien on property of the estate is to be treated as giving the lienholder recourse against the debtor, whether or not recourse exists under applicable non-bankruptcy law. The statute thereby puts the Chapter 11 debtor who wishes to retain collateral property in the same position as a person who purchased property “subject to” a mortgag”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. In Re Stanley“The plain meaning of § 1111(b) does not limit itself to consensual or nonconsen-sual liens. Moreover, § 1111(b) is not limited to nonrecourse loans or to claims where the lienholder is in privity with the debtor. The only precondition to the statute’s application is a claim secured by a lien on property of the estate.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.