So if the general partners had undertaken to pay the inves- tors a sum sufficient to prevent their suffering a loss on the investment, this promise would not have been subject to the automatic stay. What the general partners promised to do, however, is to provide additional money to the partnership, not to pay the in- vestors. This sets up an argument based on sec. Without discussing the language of sec. Only the former are covered by the stay, the district court believed.
Subsequent developments show that avoiding duplication is easier said than done.
The plan took a different approach to funding the apartment complex's deficits. The bankruptcy judge confirmed the plan of reorganization on February 17, 1994. The bankruptcy judge did not say. The district court subordinated the language of sec. Subject to the standard proviso about absurd results, when the statute itself resolves the prob- lem at hand that is an end to matters.