St. Thomas Law Review
First Page
1
Document Type
Article
Abstract
Cramdown has been referred to as "the iron maiden of bankruptcy reorganizations- the dreaded cramdown." The object of this paper is to see whether that uncomplimentary reference is a "bum rap" or a deserved appellation. Obfuscated though it may be, is this feature of the Bankruptcy Code really a medieval form of torture, or when fully understood is it just another statutory provision that could have been more clearly drafted? "Cramdown" is not a word used by the Code. It is a lawyers' euphemism for a very vital part of Chapters 9,3 11,4 12,5 and 136 of the Code-the statutory provision by which the proponent of a plan of reorganization or adjustment of debts may require the bankruptcy judge to confirm its plan despite the objections9 of classes 0 of "claims or interests" that are "impaired under, and have not accepted, the plan." As some courts have stated it, the plan is crammed "down the throats" of the objectors. Congress has taken pains to assure that such "cramming down" is not undertaken unless and until the creditors and interest holders receive a certain amount of protection. The method of achieving the stated objective of this paper is to analyze in depth Chapters 11 and 13, followed by a somewhat cursory analysis of Chapters 12 and 9 in that order. While there are similarities among the cramdown provisions of the four Chapters considered, the dissimilarities are of sufficient magnitude to treat them separately, with emphasis on the more often used Chapters 11 and 13.
Recommended Citation
Richard Maloy,
A Primer on Cramdown - How and Why It Works,
16
St. Thomas L. Rev.
1
(2003).
Available at:
https://scholarship.stu.edu/stlr/vol16/iss1/8