IRT Partners, L.P. v. Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• reasoning that “amendment of a creditor’s claim after confirmation of a plan can render a plan infeasible or alter the distribution to other creditors” and therefore concluding “only . . . compelling circumstances justify” post-confirmation amendment
• explaining that, similar to a civil judgment, confirmation extinguishes the claim and creates a new claim defined by the treatment under the plan, and determining that the confirmed plan had res judicata effect precluding the post-confirmation amendment of a creditor’s proof of claim
• “a confirmed reorganization plan should be accorded res judicata effect on a creditor’s subsequent attempt to amend his claim.”
• “Therefore, we hold that post-confirmation amendment—while not prohibited—is not favored, and only the most compelling circumstances justify it.”
• A “post- confirmation amendment—while not prohibited—is not favored . . . .”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).