Sandy Ridge Development Corporation Sandy Ridge Development Corporation v. Louisiana National Bank’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions

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 146 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “(A) With respect to a class of secured claims, the plan provides- (i)(I) that the holders of such claims retain the liens securing such claims, whether the property subject to such liens is retained by the debtor or transferred to another entity, to the extent of the allowed amount of such claims; and (II) that each holder of a claim of such class receive on account of such claim deferred cash payments totaling at least the allowed amount of such claim, of a value, as of the effective date of the plan, of at least the value of such holder's interest in the estate's interest in such property; (ii) for the sale, subject to section 363(k) of this title, of any property that is subject to the liens securing such claims, free and clear of such liens, with such liens to attach to the proceeds of such sale, and the treatment of such liens on proceeds under clause (i) or (iii) of this subparagraph; or (iii) for the realization by such holders of the indubitable equivalent of such claims.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In re Alderson · In re Nat'l Truck Funding LLC

2. “[W]e must reject [the creditor’s] argument that the bankruptcy court cannot set the value of property but instead must in all instances require the debtor to abandon that property and let the foreclosure sale market determine its price. This is simply not required by the Code. Section 506(a) provides that “value shall be determined in light of the purpose of the valuation and of the proposed disposition or use of the property, and in conjunction with any hearing on such disposition or use or on a plan affecting such creditor’s interest.” It ' seems contemplated that this determination is to be made by the court. Furthermore, we have recently held that “[t]he valuation of the assets of a debtor in bankruptcy ... is an integral part of the confirmation process under Chapter 11.””

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Matter of Hock · Matter of Atlanta Southern Business Park, Ltd.

3. “[T]he bankruptcy court “must consider the entire plan in the context of the particular facts and circumstances [of the case].” In re D & F Construction, Inc., 865 F.2d 673 , 675 (5th Cir.1989). To begin with, simple technical compliance with the requirements of section 1129(b)(2) does not assure that the plan is fair and equitable. Id. Instead, this section merely sets minimal standards that a plan must meet, and does not require that “every plan not prohibited be approved.” Id. Second, even if a plan is “fair and equitable,” it must continue to meet all of the requirements of section 1129(a) (with the exception of paragraph (a)(8)).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. In Re Nelson · Matter of Kennedy