You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.

In re Sabbun

Citations: 556 B.R. 383; 2016 Bankr. LEXIS 3083; 2016 WL 4440377Docket: Case No. 14-72106

Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, C.D. Illinois; August 22, 2016; Us Bankruptcy; United States Bankruptcy Court

Narrative Opinion Summary

In this bankruptcy proceeding, the court evaluated the Debtor's First Amended Chapter 11 Plan and its confirmation under the supervision of Chief Bankruptcy Judge Mary P. Gorman. The Debtor, a high-income emergency room physician with significant liabilities including substantial tax debts to the IRS, proposed a plan that failed to garner the necessary acceptance from any impaired class of creditors. Despite the IRS's informal agreement to support the modified plan, its lack of formal voting and the invalid status of submitted ballots from insiders and improperly classified creditors led to a denial of plan confirmation. Procedurally, the court addressed several issues including the mischaracterization of creditor classifications, feasibility concerns regarding the Debtor's financial projections, and the legal standards for ballot acceptance. The IRS's stipulation to increase payments to unsecured creditors did not substitute for a formal affirmative vote, as it did not comply with procedural requirements and was filed post-deadline without a request for an extension. Consequently, without valid votes in favor, the court denied confirmation of the Amended Plan, leaving the Debtor to contemplate dismissal or conversion of the case under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(J).

Legal Issues Addressed

Ballot Validity and Requirements

Application: Acceptance or rejection of a Chapter 11 plan must be in writing, signed by the creditor or an agent, and conform to Official Form 314. The IRS's stipulation did not qualify as a ballot because it lacked all requirements of the Official Form and was filed without a request for an extension of the balloting deadline.

Reasoning: Acceptance or rejection of a plan must be in writing, signed by the creditor or an agent, and conform to Official Form 314. In this case, the IRS stipulation did not qualify as a ballot because it lacked all requirements of the Official Form and was filed without a request for an extension of the balloting deadline.

Confirmation of Chapter 11 Plan Requirements

Application: For a Chapter 11 plan to be confirmed, at least one impaired class of claims must accept the plan, excluding insider votes. Actual votes are necessary; non-returned ballots do not equate to acceptance.

Reasoning: Legal analysis indicates that for a Chapter 11 plan to be confirmed, at least one impaired class of claims must accept the plan, excluding insider votes. Acceptance requires that creditors holding at least two-thirds in amount and more than half in number of allowed claims in the class vote affirmatively. Actual votes are necessary; non-returned ballots do not equate to acceptance.

Excusable Neglect in Ballot Deadlines

Application: A deadline may be extended for reasons of excusable neglect, which encompasses inadvertence, mistake, carelessness, or uncontrollable circumstances. The IRS's failure to vote was determined to be a deliberate choice rather than excusable neglect.

Reasoning: The court indicated that under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b)(1), a deadline may be extended for reasons of excusable neglect, which encompasses inadvertence, mistake, carelessness, or uncontrollable circumstances. The debtor argued that the IRS stipulation contained nearly all necessary information to be considered an affirmative ballot, but this argument overlooked the stipulation’s late filing and the absence of an extension request. More critically, the IRS's failure to vote was determined to be a deliberate choice rather than excusable neglect.

Voting Eligibility for Creditors

Application: To have a claim allowed, a creditor must file a claim unless their claim is already scheduled as valid. The ballots submitted by Sherry Vascik and Heartland may be invalid, as they do not appear to hold allowed claims.

Reasoning: Additionally, the ballots submitted by Sherry Vascik and Heartland may be invalid, as they do not appear to hold allowed claims, which is a prerequisite for voting.