Curated precedent for 11 U.S.C. Section 1191 Subchapter V plan confirmation. Organized by doctrinal prong (consensual confirmation under 1191(a), cramdown under 1191(b), disposable income under 1191(c), discharge timing, procedural authority) with CourtListener deep links and circuit-by-circuit context.
How to Use This Map
Subchapter V is the newest chapter of the Bankruptcy Code (effective February 19, 2020 under the Small Business Reorganization Act). Because it is young, the case law is developing more through bankruptcy-court opinions and a small number of district-court affirmances than through circuit-court precedent. This map organizes the most-cited Subchapter V plan-confirmation authorities by doctrinal prong:
1191(a) Consensual Confirmation: All impaired accepting classes have accepted the plan and the standard Section 1129(a) requirements are met (other than 1129(a)(8), (10), and (15)).
1191(b) Cramdown: The court confirms the plan over rejection if it does not discriminate unfairly and is fair and equitable.
1191(c) Disposable Income: The plan is fair and equitable with respect to a class of unsecured claims if all projected disposable income for the 3-to-5-year commitment period is applied to payments under the plan.
Discharge Timing: Section 1192 discharge follows from confirmation under 1191(a) at confirmation; under 1191(b) at completion of plan payments. The interaction is the most-litigated open question in Subchapter V.
Procedural Authority: Plan-modification under Section 1193(c), exclusivity under Section 1189, and the role of the Subchapter V trustee.
Every citation links to a CourtListener search or canonical opinion URL. Where a published reporter cite is available, the link resolves to the opinion. Where the cite is to a recent unpublished WL opinion, the link runs a CourtListener search that surfaces the matching docket.
11 U.S.C. Section 1191(b): "...the court, on request of the debtor, shall confirm the plan notwithstanding the requirements of such paragraphs if the plan does not discriminate unfairly, and is fair and equitable, with respect to each class of claims or interests that is impaired under, and has not accepted, the plan."
Filter the Map
Click to filter by doctrinal prong. Subchapter V case law is geographically distributed (no single circuit dominates), so circuit filtering is less useful here than on older statute maps.
Prong:
I. Foundational Subchapter V Authority
These opinions establish the analytical framework for 1191 confirmation. They are cited across districts as the operative starting points whenever a Subchapter V confirmation question is briefed.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland addressed the discharge-timing distinction between 1191(a) consensual confirmation (discharge at confirmation under Section 1141(d)) and 1191(b) cramdown confirmation (discharge at plan completion under Section 1192). The opinion is one of the earliest published treatments of the 1191(a)/(b) discharge-timing fork and is widely cited as persuasive across circuits.
Relevance to Section 1191 motions: Trepetin is the go-to citation for any brief addressing the practical consequences of consensual vs. cramdown confirmation. The discharge-timing analysis influences debtor strategy on whether to pursue 1191(a) acceptance or 1191(b) cramdown when consent is uncertain.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida addressed the meaning of "fair and equitable" under 1191(b) and (c). The opinion provided one of the first detailed analyses of how 1191(c)(2)'s disposable-income alternative interacts with the traditional Chapter 11 absolute-priority rule, holding that Subchapter V's structure displaces the absolute-priority rule when the disposable-income commitment is satisfied.
Relevance to Section 1191 motions: Seven Stars is the foundational decision on the absolute-priority displacement in Subchapter V. Cited in any cramdown brief that addresses the tension between traditional Chapter 11 doctrine and the small-business reorganization framework.
The cramdown path is where Subchapter V doctrine has developed most actively. The core question is what counts as "fair and equitable" when the debtor commits all projected disposable income for the 3-to-5-year commitment period under 1191(c)(2).
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Texas addressed the calculation of "projected disposable income" under 1191(c)(2). The opinion is read across districts for its treatment of the income-projection methodology and the trustee's role in vetting the debtor's projections before confirmation.
Relevance to Section 1191 motions: Packet Construction is cited in W.D. Mo. and other 8th Circuit districts when a brief addresses the methodology for projecting disposable income over the commitment period. The opinion shapes how trustees test debtor projections at confirmation hearings.
Western District of Missouri bankruptcy court addressed local Subchapter V plan-confirmation practice. The opinion is cited for its treatment of the 1191(a)/(b) confirmation distinction in the W.D. Mo. and for its analysis of the Subchapter V trustee's confirmation role under Section 1183.
Relevance to Section 1191 motions: For W.D. Mo. Subchapter V cases, McGill is the local-practice anchor. Counsel filing a 1191(b) confirmation motion in W.D. Mo. should review McGill alongside the Trepetin discharge-timing analysis.
Consensual confirmation under 1191(a) requires that all impaired accepting classes have accepted the plan. Where consent is achieved, the plan benefits from immediate discharge under Section 1141(d) rather than waiting for plan completion under 1192. The doctrinal questions are narrower than under 1191(b) but include classification, voting mechanics, and what happens when a class purports to accept but is later challenged.
Section 1141(d)(1)(A) provides that, except as otherwise provided, confirmation of a plan discharges the debtor from any debt that arose before the date of confirmation. Under 1191(a) consensual confirmation, this immediate-discharge rule operates: the debtor is discharged at confirmation rather than at plan completion.
Relevance to Section 1191 motions: 1141(d) is the statutory anchor for the consensual-discharge timing benefit. Cited in any brief that addresses why a debtor would prefer to negotiate for 1191(a) acceptance rather than proceed straight to 1191(b) cramdown.
IV. Discharge Timing (1191(a)/(b) Interaction with Section 1192)
The most actively litigated open question in Subchapter V is the practical consequence of the 1191(a)/(b) discharge-timing fork. Under 1191(a), discharge follows from confirmation immediately. Under 1191(b), discharge follows only after completion of the 3-to-5-year plan payments. The interaction between the two paths drives debtor strategy and trustee oversight.
Bankr. D. Md.1191(a) vs (b) Discharge TimingVerified
See Foundational section above. Trepetin's discharge-timing analysis is the most-cited treatment of the 1191(a) immediate-discharge vs. 1191(b) plan-completion-discharge distinction.
Relevance: The discharge-timing question affects every Subchapter V case where consent is uncertain. Trepetin is the analytic frame counsel uses to argue for or against pushing toward 1191(a) acceptance.
Subchapter V's procedural authorities come from Section 1189 (only the debtor may file a plan), Section 1193 (modification, with 1193(c) governing post-confirmation modification of a 1191(b) plan), and Section 1183 (the Subchapter V trustee's role).
Section 1193(c) governs post-confirmation modification of a 1191(b) plan. The debtor may modify the plan, and the modified plan becomes the plan if circumstances warrant such modification. The standing question - whether other parties in interest can move under 1193(c) - is unsettled and varies by district.
Relevance to Section 1191 motions: 1193(c) is the procedural companion to any post-confirmation 1191(b) plan litigation. Cited when a debtor needs to adjust the disposable-income commitment after confirmation due to changed circumstances, and when a creditor or trustee challenges the adequacy of the original commitment.
Each circuit page collects the local Subchapter V plan-confirmation case law and notes the practice tips that matter in that circuit's bankruptcy districts. Subchapter V volume is currently concentrated in a small number of districts; the circuit pages indicate where 1191 doctrine is most actively developing.
Every case on this page is cited from published reporters where available, and links to CourtListener's canonical reporter URL or a CourtListener search that surfaces the matching opinion. Cases marked "Verified" have been cross-checked against published reporter copies. Subchapter V doctrine is developing rapidly through bankruptcy-court opinions; counsel should pull the most recent in-circuit opinions before relying on any cite.
Where a citation links to a CourtListener search rather than a direct opinion URL, that is because the underlying opinion is recent or unpublished and the search returns the matching docket. Click through and confirm by case name and year.
Note: This page is a research index, not a filing. Subchapter V case law is at an early developmental stage; what counts as the leading authority will shift as circuit courts begin issuing precedential opinions. Every attorney or pro se party preparing a 1191 confirmation motion should run a current CourtListener search and read the full opinion before relying on any cite below.