In Re CoServ, L.L.C.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that § 105(a) used in conjunction with § 1107(a) can provide statutory basis to apply pre-Code “doctrine of necessity” and justify post-petition payment of prepetition general unsecured claims to “critical vendors”
• rejecting argument that § 549 gives power to authorize preferential “critical vendor” payments.”
• “Congress clearly knew how to place some unsecured claims ahead of others in right to payment.”
• “[T]he entire scheme of the Bankruptcy Code favors equal (and simultaneous) treatment of equal allowed claims.”
• court may allow debtors to pay pre-petition debt other than pursuant to a plan but only under extraordinary and rare circumstances
• “The goal of equal treatment in liquidation or under a plan suggests Congress would not countenance use by a general unsecured prepetition creditor of a ‘critical’ position to force payment of a prepetition debt.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).