As previously mentioned, Chief Judge Paul G. Hyman held in the Gosman case that the retention of exempt property by an individual debtor in a chapter 11 violates the absolute priority rules unless unsecured creditors are paid in full. In re Gosman, 282 B.R. 45 (Bankr. S.D. Fla. 2002). Also as previously noted, some courts disagree with the Gosman decision and hold that the debtor’s retention of his exempt property is not subject to the absolute priority rule. See eg. In re Bullard, 358 B.R. 541 (Bankr. D.Conn. 2007)(the retention of exempt property is not on account of the debtor’s junior interest in property).
Since the passage of BAPCPA and its amendments to 11 USC 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii), there has been some commentary (Hon. Norton, Hon Drake, etc.) that the absolute priority rule is no longer applicable to an individual chapter 11 debtor’s retention of property. Judge Saladino’s decision in In re Tegeder, ___ B.R. ____, 2007 WL 1549067 (Bkrtcy.D.Neb.) is apparently the first decision to end this speculation, at least in his courtroom.
The court in Tegeder held that new 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii) provides an exception to the absolute priority rule for the retention of property by individual chapter 11 debtors and that the “absolute priority requirements imposed by Code 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii) were waived by permitting a debtor to retain property included in the estate under 1115. BAPCPA added the following to 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii) “except that in a case in which the debtor is an individual, the debtor may retain property included in the estate under section 1115, subject to the requirements of subsection (a)(14) of this section”. New section 1115 defines property of the estate to include property specified in section 541 as well as property acquired post-petition and earnings from services performed post-petition.
The court states that interpreting new 1129(b)(2)(B)(ii) any narrower would cause the amendment to have little effect.
