Connecticut General Life Insurance v. Hotel Associates of Tucson (In Re Hotel Associates of Tucson) Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A debtor’s plan delayed payment to a small creditor class solely to create an “impaired” class necessary for confirmation. The court held that while technically impaired, this strategic ‘gerrymandering’ must be scrutinized for bad faith and remanded for the lower court to make specific findings.
Legal Significance: This case establishes the Ninth Circuit’s rule that artificial impairment of a creditor class is analyzed not under the definition of impairment (§ 1124), but under the good faith requirement for plan confirmation (§ 1129(a)(3)), with such manipulation being indicative of bad faith.
Connecticut General Life Insurance v. Hotel Associates of Tucson (In Re Hotel Associates of Tucson) Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Hotel Associates of Tucson, a limited partnership whose sole asset was a hotel, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Its largest secured creditor, Connecticut General, held a claim of over $8.5 million. The debtor’s general partners (the “Paragon Group”) proposed a reorganization plan that impaired Connecticut General’s claim. To satisfy the requirement under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(10) that at least one impaired class accept the plan, the Paragon Plan created a class of general unsecured creditors (Class 6) and proposed to pay their claims in full, but with a 30-day delay post-confirmation, plus interest. The debtor had sufficient cash to pay this class immediately on the plan’s effective date. Class 6 voted to accept the plan, while Connecticut General, the primary creditor, rejected it. A competing plan, favored by Connecticut General, was also proposed. The bankruptcy court confirmed the Paragon Plan over Connecticut General’s objection, finding it satisfied § 1129 but without making specific findings on good faith or the fair and equitable standard.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a Chapter 11 plan’s deliberate but minimal alteration of a creditor class’s rights, made solely to create an accepting impaired class required for cramdown, satisfy the confirmation requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1129?
Vacated and remanded. The court held that the 30-day delay in payment Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ip
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a Chapter 11 plan’s deliberate but minimal alteration of a creditor class’s rights, made solely to create an accepting impaired class required for cramdown, satisfy the confirmation requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1129?
Conclusion
This case clarifies that in the Ninth Circuit, challenges to artificial impairment Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim
Legal Rule
Under Ninth Circuit precedent, any alteration of a creditor's legal, equitable, or Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum
Legal Analysis
The Panel addressed the critical issue of artificial impairment, a common strategy Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sin
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A debtor can create an “impaired” class under § 1129(a)(10) through