In Re Trevarrow Lanes, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that plan violated absolute priority rule because “[t]here [was] no indication in the record that other parties were offered the chance to make the purchase [of the debtor’s equity] which [the debtor’s shareholders] propose[d] to make”
• stating that “[t]he assumption underlying the [Supreme Court’s] equivalency requirement appears to have been ... that any ‘price break’ received by current shareholders with respect to the purchase of newly issued shares is in recognition of their ownership interest”
• rejecting testimony that proposed new value contribution was necessary to meet purported cash flow needs of reorganized debtor where such “needs were either overstated or manufactured out of whole cloth simply to satisfy the essentialness requirement”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).