Greystone III Joint Venture, Matter of, 90-8529
| Decision Date | 19 November 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-8529,90-8529 |
| Citation | 948 F.2d 134,22 BCD 1114 |
| Parties | , 60 USLW 2575, 26 Collier Bankr.Cas.2d 220, 22 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 1114, 22 Bankr.Ct.Dec. 452, Bankr. L. Rep. P 74,351 In the Matter of GREYSTONE III JOINT VENTURE, Debtor. PHOENIX MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Appellant, v. GREYSTONE III JOINT VENTURE, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Republished as corrected at 995 F.2d 1274.
To continue reading
Request your trial
81 cases
-
Matter of Homestead Partners, Ltd.
...Properties, XVIII, 961 F.2d 496 (4th Cir.1992) (refusing to comment upon new value's continuing validity); In re Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 142-44 (5th Cir.1991), vacated in part, 995 F.2d 1274 (5th Cir.1991) (initially finding the new value doctrine dead, but subsequently w......
-
Citizens for a Better Environ. v. Union Oil Co., C 94-0712 TEH
...statute must, if possible, be construed in such a fashion that every word has some operative effect."); In the Matter of Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 138-39 (5th Cir.1991) (interpretation of one statutory provision so as to render another provision superfluous "is anathema to ......
-
In re Montgomery Court Apartments
...of the estate to junior interests." In re Greystone III Joint Venture, 102 B.R. 560, 574 (W.D.Texas 1989), rev'd on other grounds, 948 F.2d 134 (5th Cir.1992).6 The Supreme Court of the United States recognized in Case that, despite the absolute priority rule, in certain circumstances equit......
-
In re Dunes Hotel Associates
...F.2d 496, 502 (4th Cir.1992): (Classification clearly for the purpose of manipulating voting, may not stand); In re Greystone III Joint Venture 948 F.2d 134, 136 (5th Cir.1992) (as amended) (thou shalt not gerrymander an affirmative vote on a reorganization Dunes also has alleged in its Com......
Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
-
The new value exception to the absolute priority rule after In re 203 N. Lasalle Street Partnership: what should bankruptcy courts do, and how can congress help?
...the problems that may arise when classifying claims in chapter 11, see Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F. 2d 134 (5th Cir. 1992). It is sufficient for the reader to understand that only similarly situated creditors can be placed in the same class. Thus,......
-
Chapter IV Credit Bidding Under a Plan
...Hancock Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Route 37 Bus. Park Assocs., 987 F.2d 154, 159 (3d Cir. 1993) (quoting Matter of Greystone III Joint Venture, 948 F.2d 134, 139 (5th Cir. 1992)) ("'The one clear rule that emerges from otherwise muddled caselaw on § 1122 claims classification' is that 'thou shal......
-
Refining the Absolute Priority Rule and the New Value Exception
...option gives rise to a different set of confirmation issues, including the gerrymandering problem. See, e.g., In Re Greystone III J.V., 948 F.2d 134 (5th Cir. 1991). Those issues are beyond the scope of this article. 7. See Northern Pacific Railway v. Boyd, 288 U.S. 482 (1913); Kansas City ......