Opinion ID: 3173092
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Post-BAPCPA case law.

Text: “A significant split of authorities has developed nationally among the bankruptcy courts” regarding the answer to this question. In re Maharaj, 681 F.3d 558, 563 (4th Cir. 2012) (describing division). Two conflicting positions have emerged: the “broad view” and the “narrow view.” Id. Courts applying the broad view hold that by including in § 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii) a cross- reference to § 1115 (which in turn references § 541, the provision that defines the property of a bankruptcy estate), Congress intended to include the entirety of the bankruptcy estate as property that the individual debtor may retain, thus effectively abrogating the absolute priority rule in Chapter 11 for individual debtors. Id. Under this view, an individual debtor is entitled to retain most prepetition and postpetition property and nonetheless cram down a plan over an unsecured creditor’s objection. See, e.g., In re Friedman, 466 B.R. at 482; In re Anderson, No. 11-61845-11, 2012 WL 3133895, at  n.6 (Bankr. D. Mont. Aug. 1, 2012); In re Shat, 424 B.R. 854, 868 (Bankr. D. Nev. 2010); In re Roedemeier, 374 B.R. 264, 276 (Bankr.