Court Opinion

ID: 9487098
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:08:04.434769+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:52:05.713454
License: Public Domain

ZILLY, District Judge,
dissenting:
I concur only with Part III of Judge Ko-zinski’s opinion, which affirms the bankruptcy court’s ruling that 11 U.S.C. Section 1322(c) does not apply to Chapter 11 proceedings. I dissent from the remaining portions of the opinion. I do not agree with Parts I and II of the opinion which hold that the debtor’s third plan (“Plan III”) failed to *1220satisfy the cram-down provisions of 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b)(2)(B). Nor do I agree with Part IV which remands to the BAP for consideration of the alleged inadequacy of the debt- or’s disclosure statement. I would affirm the decisions of the bankruptcy court and the BAP.
The bankruptcy judge entered Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in this ease. The bankruptcy court found that “the factual assertions set forth in the Creditor’s Objection to Plan of Reorganization, [and Creditor’s Supplement to Objection to Plan] filed by Franklin Everett, were unsupported by admissible, competent or persuasive evidence.” In addition, the court concluded that “the plan provides that with respect to each class of unsecured claims, that each holder of a claim of such class shall receive on account of such claim property of a value, as of the effective date of the plan, equal to the allowed amount of such claim ...” The findings of the bankruptcy court are “equivalent to a determination that the present value” will be paid. See In re Johnston, 21 F.3d 323, 329 (9th Cir.1994). In addition, the bankruptcy court found “that the Third Amended Disclosure Statement previously approved by the court is accurate and adequate.” The BAP correctly concluded that the alleged disclosure inadequacies “appear to have been addressed and resolved through the confirmation process.”
I do not find the conclusions of the bankruptcy court, or the BAP, to be clearly erroneous and would therefore affirm.
I write also to disapprove of the sexist reference in the first sentence of Judge Ko-zinski’s opinion. The term “iron maiden” refers to “a medieval instrument of torture fashioned as a box in the shape of a woman, large enough to hold a human being, and studded with sharp spikes on the inside.” Random House Dictionary of the English Language, 2nd Ed., Unabridged (1987). The use of the term unnecessarily perpetuates the misogynistic nomenclature of medieval torturers.