Cite as: 520 U. S. 953 (1997)
Stevens, J., dissenting
It is crucial to keep in mind that § 506(a) is a provision that applies throughout the various chapters of the Bankruptcy Code; it is, in other words, a "utility" provision that operates in many different contexts. Even if the words "proposed disposition or use" did not gain special meaning in the cram down context, this would not render them surplusage because they have operational significance in their many other Code applications. In this context, I also think the foreclo-sure standard best comports with economic reality. Allowing any more than the foreclosure value simply grants a general windfall to undersecured creditors at the expense of unsecured creditors. Cf. In re Hoskins, 102 F. 3d 311, 320 (CA7 1996) (Easterbrook, J., concurring in judgment). As Judge Easterbrook explained in rejecting the split-the-difference approach as a general rule, see id., at 318-320, a foreclosure-value standard is also consistent with the larger statutory scheme by keeping the respective recoveries of secured and unsecured creditors the same throughout the various bankruptcy chapters.
Accordingly, I respectfully dissent.
tion," including increased payments, to offset any derogation of his security interest during a cram down.
967
Page: Index Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15Last modified: October 4, 2007