Opinion ID: 468201
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Equality of Treatment

Text: 34 The Plan classifies both shareholders Clinton and Haley in the same class, but denies Clinton (and not Haley) the right to participate in management of the Debtor as an officer or director (unless he should be selected by the board of directors). Clinton contends this restriction on his shares conflicts with the requirement that the plan provide the same treatment for each claim or interest of a particular class.... 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1123(a)(4) (1982). See generally In re B & W Enterprises, Inc., 19 B.R. 421, 425 (Bankr.Idaho 1982). 35 Section 1123(a)(4) does not preclude classification of Clinton and Haley's interest in the same class. This provision only requires equality of treatment of claims or interests placed in the same class. 5 Collier 15th, supra p 1123.01, 1123-8-1123-9. The term interest refers to the equity security interest of a shareholder. In re Young, 48 B.R. 678, 683 n. 3 (Bankr.E.D.Mich.1985). See 11 U.S.C. Sec. 101(15)(A), (16) (1982) (equity security is a share in a corporation). Here, the Management Provisions treat the equity security interests the same. Both Haley and Clinton are prohibited from exercising their shareholder voting rights to elect or remove directors; neither may act in his or her capacity as a shareholder to alter the composition of the board of directors. Although the Plan provides that Haley alone may serve as director or officer without any action by the board of directors, her position as director and officer of the Debtor is separate from her position as an equity security holder. Haley's shares are placed in the same class and subject to the same voting restrictions as Clinton's. Hence, the Plan does not violate Sec. 1123(a)(4). 36