11 U.S.C. § 362

Section 362(d)(2)(B) does not warrant relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has a realistic prospect of reorganization and the property is necessary for that reorganization.

Tokai Bank of California v. Old Town Historic Building Ltd. Partnership (In Re Old Town Historic Building Ltd. Partnersh · filed 1987-10-08(d)(2)(B)

Based on the representations of counsel, and relying on the likelihood that the first floor will be completely leased and income producing within a short time, we find that the debtor’s ability to reorganize is not as remote as Tokai contends. We also find that the property is necessary for an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

Sunburst Bank v. Findley (In Re Findley) · filed 1987-11-25(d)(2)

As noted hereinabove, there is no dispute that the debtors have no equity in the remaining collateral pledged to Sunburst Bank. Also, from the discussion regarding the debtors’ ability to reorganize, it is the opinion of the Court that the debtors have no ability to reorganize nor are their prospects of reorganization feasible. For these reasons, subject to the priority of liens issue, the motion seeking relief from the automatic stay filed by Sunburst Bank is found to be well taken and is hereby sustained.

Under § 362(d)(2)(A), a Chapter 12 creditor cannot establish that a family farmer has no equity in property when the debtor can reduce the secured debt to the property’s current market value through reorganization.

In Re Lewis · filed 1988-02-29(d)(2)(A)

Based on that determination this Court concludes that the family farmer cannot be said to possess “no equity” in such property and thus the secured creditor cannot prevail because of the creditor’s inability to demonstrate the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2)(A).

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in collateral and cannot show that it is necessary to an effective reorganization.

American Sate Bank v. Grand Sports, Inc. (In Re Grand Sports, Inc.) · filed 1988-03-09(d)(2)

Since the Debtor has no equity in the Bank’s collateral, it is appropriate to consider relief from the automatic stay, pursuant to § 362(d)(2), before addressing the question of adequate protection. The requirements of § 362(d) are alternative. Accordingly, unless the collateral is “necessary to an effective reorganization” the automatic stay must be terminated, regardless of the question of adequate protection.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a debtor to show that the property is necessary to reorganization, but does not require a showing that successful reorganization is reasonably likely.

In Re Rassier · filed 1988-04-04(d)(2)(B)

In light of the plain language of the statute and the legislative history discussing the term “necessary to an effective reorganization,” I find that the necessity test more accurately reflects Congress’ intent in enacting § 362(d)(2)(B).

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a creditor seeking relief from the automatic stay to show that the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization.

In Re Gulph Woods Corp. · filed 1988-04-11(d)(2)(B)

However, Nassau is also obliged to satisfy the requirement of § 362(d)(2)(B), i.e., the lack of necessity of the property to the effective reorganization of the Debtor, in order to obtain relief from the automatic stay on the basis of § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(2) requires a realistic or feasible prospect of effective reorganization to keep the stay in place when the debtor has no equity in the property.

Matter of 8th Street Village Ltd. Partnership · filed 1988-05-06(d)(2)

As the following discussion shows, the word “effective” in this context means a realistic or feasible reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) does not require relief from the automatic stay merely because the debtor lacks equity; the debtor must also fail to show that the property is necessary to an effective reorganization.

In Re Missouri Flats Associates · filed 1988-05-11(d)(2)

A showing of lack of equity by itself, however, will not compel the lifting of the stay unless the debtor, in addition, fails to prove that the property is necessary to an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay for property in which the debtor has no equity unless the property will generate income or increase business value and thereby benefit the estate.

In Re Kessler · filed 1988-06-08(d)(2)

This Court agrees with those courts which have rejected the rehabilitation test in favor of one which requires a showing that the property will generate income or increase the value of the business and thereby benefit the estate.

Section 362(d)(2) does not authorize relief from the stay against property that is essential to a reorganization with a reasonable likelihood of success, even when the debtor has no equity in it.

In re WPRV-TV, Inc. · filed 1988-06-15(d)(2)

Obviously, the Debtor does not have an equity in the property involved in this case. However, the equipment is absolutely essential for the reorganization of the Debtor as the equipment is part and parcel to the entire business operation. At this time, reorganization is given a reasonable likelihood of success, thereby making the retention of the equipment meaningful.

Under § 362(d)(2), a debtor without equity in the property must show a reasonable probability of successful reorganization within a reasonable time to keep the automatic stay.

In Re National Real Estate Ltd. Partnership II · filed 1988-06-16(d)(2)

Under this test, the debtor must show that there is a reasonable probability of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time. ... This court adopts the feasibility test as constituting the better reasoned view.

Section 362(d)(2) permits lifting the stay when property would help a reorganization but is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

Halliburton Services v. First City Energy Finance Co. (In re Endrex Exploration Co.) · filed 1988-07-28(d)(2)

Thus, while recognizing that the property would prove “helpful” to a reorganization, the bankruptcy court properly concluded that the property was not “necessary” for an “effective reorganization” and accordingly lifted the stay.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a case-specific assessment of whether a debtor’s residence is necessary to an effective Chapter 13 reorganization, rather than a categorical rule.

Kehm v. Citicorp Homeowners Service, Inc. (In Re Kehm) · filed 1988-08-30(d)(2)(B)

Thus, it is unrealistic to state that the debtor’s principle residence will or will not meet the § 362(d)(2)(B) “necessary” test in all cases. We think that the appropriate approach to these cases is one which we have employed in a previous decision and which eschews a rigid per se rule in favor of a close examination of debtor’s testimony.

Under § 362(d)(2)(B), the debtor must show a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time for property to be necessary to an effective reorganization.

In Re Asheville Building Associates · filed 1988-08-31(d)(2)(B)

The reorganization contemplated by 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2)(B) must be one that is “in prospect.” ... It is the Debtor’s burden to prove that there is a “reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.”

At a preliminary relief-from-stay hearing, § 362(d)(2)(B) calls for a reasonable likelihood that the property is necessary for reorganization, rather than a determination that the debtor can complete a feasible reorganization.

First Interstate Bank of Collins, N.A. v. Baskerville (In Re Baskerville) · filed 1988-11-03(d)(2)(B)

Thus under the “necessity” test,' the bankruptcy court should determine at the preliminary hearing stage whether there exists a reasonable likelihood that the property is necessary for reorganization. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) and (e). I consider the reasoning of the courts that have adopted the “necessity” test to be persuasive, and I conclude that the bankruptcy court erred in applying the feasibility test at the preliminary hearing.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

Hoyt v. United States Ex Rel. Small Business Administration (In Re Hoyt) · filed 1988-12-01(d)(2)

The statutory framework of the Code and the facts of the case demand that the automatic stay be lifted and the motion to dismiss the adversary proceeding be granted. ... WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing discussion, the court finds that the Hoyts have no equity in the property in issue and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and fails to show a reasonable possibility of effective reorganization within a reasonable time.

In Re Chandler & Chandler Motor Inns, Inc. · filed 1988-12-06(d)(2)

Based on the foregoing analysis, we find that the debtor has failed to demonstrate even a possibility of an effective reorganization within a reasonable time. Heller is, therefore, entitled to relief so it can proceed to realize on its collateral under § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the creditor is undersecured and there is no realistic prospect of an effective reorganization.

Acquisition Corp. of America v. Federal Savings & Loan Insurance Corp. · filed 1988-12-09(d)(2)

One way in which a bankruptcy court may grant a creditor relief from a stay is provided in 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2). Under this section, if a creditor is (1) un-dersecured, and (2) there is no realistic prospect of an effective reorganization, then relief from the stay may be granted.

Section 362(d)(1) does not provide relief from the automatic stay for lack of adequate protection based on missed mortgage payments when the creditor’s collateral is not declining in value.

Lomas Mortgage USA, Inc. v. Elmore (In Re Elmore) · filed 1988-12-14(d)(1)

Because the Court finds that secured creditors are not entitled to adequate protection unless the value of their security is declining, such orders may no longer be based on a right to adequate protection.

Section 362(d)(2) allows relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and fails to establish that it is needed for an effective reorganization.

Matter of Eynetich · filed 1988-12-29(d)(2)

Relief from the automatic stay should also be granted under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2). In light of the $35,000.00 value of the property and the claims of $42,-723.73, and the $2,643.01 asserted against it, the debtor has no equity in the property. Further, under § 362(g), the debtor has the burden of proof to establish that the property is necessary to an effective reorganization. The debtor has failed to establish that the subject property is needed for a reorganization.

Under § 362(d)(2), a party opposing relief from the automatic stay must show a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

In Re 8th Street Village Ltd. Partnership · filed 1988-12-30(d)(2)

The burden was on those opposing the lifting of the stay to show that there was a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) permits the stay to remain when the debtor shows a reasonable possibility of effective reorganization within a reasonable time, without proving that a plan is ready for confirmation.

In Re Terrace Gardens Park Partnership · filed 1989-01-06(d)(2)(B)

At the same time, determining a reasonable possibility of reorganization of an effective reorganization within a reasonable period of time in general requires a lower quantum of evidence than does actual confirmation under Section 1129(a). So long as that reasonable possibility has been established, the stay should remain in place (though perhaps its continuation should be conditioned on the debtor’s confirming a plan by a court-set deadline).

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

In Re Park Avenue Partners Ltd. Partnership · filed 1988-12-23(d)(2)

The stay may also be lifted if the debtor has no equity in the property, as is the case here, and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2). This court finds that the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization, and an order lifting the stay will be issued to allow Fannie Mae to proceed with its foreclosure.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and cannot show a feasible reorganization within a reasonable time.

In Re Century Investment Fund VII Ltd. Partnership · filed 1989-02-02(d)(2)

The stay may also be lifted if the debtor has no equity in the property, as is the case here, and if the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2). ... The debtor must also show that reorganization is feasible within a reasonable period of time. When effective reorganization is impossible, the purpose of Chapter 11 and the automatic stay cannot be fulfilled, and the stay must be lifted.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time for property to remain protected by the stay when the debtor has no equity in it.

In Re Mgn Co., III · filed 1989-03-15(d)(2)(B)

Although the Apartments would undoubtedly be necessary for any conceivable reorganization of the Debtor, subparagraph (2)(B) requires that there be “a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.” ... Based on Nidlinger's projections for 1989, the limited partners’ willingness to consider further capital investment, and the history of the Apartments under the Receiver, the Court concludes that the Debtor has shown that there is some reasonable possibility of reorganization within a reasonable time.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a debtor to show that an effective reorganization is in prospect; the plan need not yet be confirmable, but its proposed steps must be practically achievable.

Travelers Life & Annuity Co. v. Ritz-Carlton of D.C., Inc. (In Re Ritz-Carlton of D.C., Inc.) · filed 1989-03-20(d)(2)(B)

Since this Court cannot determine whether the bankruptcy judge applied the appropriate standard in this case, the Court remands the motion with instructions that the court below make explicit findings as to whether an effective reorganization plan is in prospect. The court need not determine whether the reorganization plan is confirm-able. It need only determine whether the components of the plan which are to be done after confirmation can be accomplished as a practical matter.

Under § 362(d)(2), lifting the stay shortly after filing for lack of a feasible reorganization requires compelling proof that reorganization is impossible.

In Re Century Investment Fund VIII Ltd. Partnership · filed 1989-03-22(d)(2)

Proof of impossibility must be compelling for this court to make such a determination as a matter of law, without allowing the debtor even to attempt to propose a plan.

Property is necessary to an effective reorganization under § 362(d)(2)(B) only if there is a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

In Re Hanley · filed 1989-07-26(d)(2)(B)

Further; for property to be “necessary to an effective reorganization,” it must be essential for a reorganization “that is in prospect.” ... That is, there must be a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

Under § 362(d)(2), a debtor opposing relief from the automatic stay need only show a reasonable probability that it can propose a plan leading to a successful reorganization; it need not already have proposed a plan acceptable to creditors.

Crestar Bank v. Triton/Richmond Associates Ltd. Partnership (In Re Triton/Richmond Associates Ltd. Partnership) · filed 1989-08-02(d)(2)

The debtor is not required, however, to demonstrate that it has actually proposed a plan of reorganization acceptable to its creditors. Rather, the debtor need show only that there is a reasonable probability that it will be able to propose a plan that will result in a successful reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the stay when an undersecured creditor shows that the debtor has no equity in the property and the debtor fails to show a reasonable possibility of effective reorganization within a reasonable time.

In Re PMS Associates No. 2 · filed 1989-07-27(d)(2)

Once a movant under 11 U.S.C. section 362(d)(2) establishes that it is an undersecured creditor, it is the burden of the debtor to establish that the property is necessary for an effective reorganization. ... The Court concludes that the Debtors have failed to present sufficient, credible evidence that there is a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization; a leasehold in a Chapter 7 liquidation is unnecessary to reorganization.

In Re Rosemond · filed 1989-09-22(d)(2)

AHRCO established that Debtor is in substantial default, has no equity in the leasehold, and does not need it to reorganize because this proceeding is a Chapter 7 liquidation. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2)(A), (B). Thus, relief from the automatic stay must be granted.

Relief from the stay under § 362(d)(2) is unwarranted when unreliable projections do not rule out a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

In Re Admiral's Gate Associates · filed 1989-10-12(d)(2)

First Mutual’s request for relief from stay based upon § 362(d)(2) is also DENIED, again without prejudice. The fundamental weakness in First Mutual’s position on this issue is that its projections are based far into the future (over eight years), often using estimates where actual figures were available. ... Moreover, and although not alone determinative, but considering the short time lapse since the filing of the petition, June 20, 1989, we would be hard pressed, at this early date to find or conclude as a matter of law that there is no reasonable possibility that the debtor can successfully reorganize within a reasonable amount of time.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a debtor without equity in the property to demonstrate that an effective reorganization is realistically possible to avoid relief from the automatic stay.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society v. 1025 Associates, Inc. (In Re 1025 Associates, Inc.) · filed 1989-11-14(d)(2)(B)

Under § 362(d)(2)(B), debtor must demonstrate that an effective reorganization is realistically possible.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and cannot show a reasonable prospect of effective reorganization within a reasonable time.

In re First Barnstable Corp. · filed 1989-11-09(d)(2)

Accordingly, the Court finds that the resort has a fair market value today of $2,500,000, and, therefore, the Debtor has no equity in the property. ... While the Court is sympathetic to the timeshare purchasers’ argument that a reorganization presents the only hope for them to recover monies they have expended, the Court, using the Timbers test, is unable to find that the Debtor has any prospect of reorganizing within a reasonable time.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property cannot support an effective reorganization.

In Re Lakeshore Apartments of Ft. Oglethorpe, II, Ltd. · filed 1989-11-27(d)(2)

Therefore, it can be seen that the Debtor has no equity in the Property. ... Absent evidence that Sovran Bank’s debt could be amortized with smaller monthly payments, that the occupancy rates could be increased, that monthly expenses could be decreased, that Sovran Bank would agree to a lower interest rate, or that the payments are somehow higher than market conditions would dictate, the Court is forced to conclude that this Debtor cannot successfully or effectively reorganize. ... Based upon the foregoing, Sovran Bank’s motion for relief from automatic stay should be, and the same is, hereby granted pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

In Re Stulley · filed 1989-11-29(d)(2)

In the instant proceeding, it is undisputed that the $247,014.35 in mortgages and judgment liens encumbering Debtors’ $80,-000 home leaves Debtors with no equity in that property. Accordingly, Kingston has met the test for relief established by § 362(d)(2)(A). ... In short, the Debtors have not carried their burden under § 362(d)(2)(B). ... Kingston has met the criteria set forth in § 362(d)(2) from the automatic stay. Accordingly, its motion for relief from stay is hereby granted.

Section 362(d)(2) does not authorize relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has equity in the property.

In Re Westchester Avenue Marina Realty, Inc. · filed 1991-02-25(d)(2)

Citibank’s motion for relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(2) is denied because the debtor has demonstrated that it has some equity in its marina real estate.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in property that is not necessary to an effective reorganization; necessity requires a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

In Re Ledgemere Land Corp. · filed 1991-03-08(d)(2)

Because the Debtors have no equity in the Salem, Reading, and Medford properties, the Bank would be entitled to relief from the stay against foreclosure on these properties if they are “not necessary to an effective reorganization.” 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) (1988). This means that not only must the property be necessary to a Debtor’s reorganizational efforts, but also that there must be a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and cannot show a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

In Re Lumber Exchange Ltd. Partnership · filed 1991-03-18(d)(2)

MONY is entitled to relief from stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) because the Debtor has no equity in the Lumber Exchange property, and the Debtor has not shown that there exists a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

Section 362(d)(2) allows relief from the automatic stay only when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization.

Rent-A-Center v. Shelby (In Re Shelby) · filed 1991-03-28(d)(2)

Both elements — that the debtor have no equity in the property and a finding that the debtor does not need the property for effective financial reorganization — must be present for the court to grant relief under Section 362(d)(2). ... Therefore, Rent-A-Center may not be granted a termination of the stay under Section 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires courts assessing whether property is necessary to an effective reorganization to consider the nature of the enterprise, the contemplated reorganization, and the property’s role in both.

In Re Fields · filed 1991-04-04(d)(2)(B)

We must examine the nature of the enterprise, the kind of reorganization contemplated, and the role this property plays in the enterprise and its reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

Ford Motor Credit Co. v. Sherwood Ford, Inc. (In Re Sherwood Ford, Inc.) · filed 1991-04-12(d)(2)

There is no dispute that the debtor has no equity in these monies. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2)(A). ... The monies held by Ford Motor Credit are not necessary to the debtor’s effective reorganization. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2)(B). ... For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the instant motion to modify automatic stay to allow Ford Motor Credit to foreclose on its security interest in the proceeds of debtor’s prepetition property and offset $249,789.38 against the amount owed by debtor.

Section 362(d)(2) measures the debtor’s equity in property by comparing its value with all liens against it; additional collateral securing the creditor does not enter that calculation.

In Re New Era Co. · filed 1991-04-19(d)(2)

Instead, section 362(d)(2) only demands an analysis of the debtor’s equity in the property, which involves a calculation of all liens, not only those of the moving creditor.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor lacks equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

In Re 400 South Main Street · filed 1991-06-10(d)(2)

11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) provides for relief from the automatic stay if the debtor does not have equity in the property, and if property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor lacks equity in the property and cannot show a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

In Re Highland Park Associates Ltd. Partnership I · filed 1991-07-16(d)(2)

The Court is required to grant relief from the stay if (A) the Debtor does not have an equity in the property, and (B) the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d). ... We find that the Debtor has not shown that there is a “reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.” Consequently, the Debtor has not met its burden under § 362(g). For this reason, LaSalle Bank’s motion to modify the stay will be granted.

Section 362(d)(2) requires the debtor to show that property is necessary for an effective reorganization, and that an effective reorganization is reasonably possible.

In Re Rollingwood Apartments, Ltd. · filed 1991-08-22(d)(2)

The second prong for relief under § 362(d)(2) requires the debtor to show that the property is necessary for an effective reorganization. This requires more than a showing that the property is necessary; an effective reorganization must be reasonably possible.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a reasonable possibility of plan confirmation within a reasonable time to show that property is necessary to an effective reorganization.

In Re Pelham Street Associates · filed 1991-08-29(d)(2)(B)

As we read the pertinent decisions, § 362(d)(2)(B) requires only that there be a reasonable possibility of confirmation, within a reasonable time.

In deciding whether a debtor has equity under § 362(d)(2), a court may use marshaling to allocate a senior lienholder’s debt between multiple properties.

Western Farm Credit Bank v. Teresi (In Re Teresi) · filed 1991-08-30(d)(2)

Furthermore, the liberal application of marshaling by the Ninth Circuit and other federal courts convinces this court that marshaling is properly available to allocate a senior lienholder’s debt between two or more properties for the purpose of determining equity in property pursuant to a section 362(d)(2) relief from stay motion.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in property and fails to show that the property is necessary to an effective reorganization.

Matter of Continental Airlines, Inc. · filed 1991-12-06(d)(2)

Debtor concedes that it has no equity in the Funds, therefore the first prong is satisfied. Debtor must show the Funds are “necessary to an effective reorganization” to maintain the automatic stay. At the hearing, Continental presented no evidence that the Funds were necessary to an effective reorganization. ... Since Continental has not met its burden under section 362(g)(2), the court will grant relief from stay as to both the Construction Fund and the Debt Reserve Fund.

When a debtor has no equity in property, § 362(d)(2) makes the property’s necessity for an effective reorganization the remaining issue on a motion for relief from stay.

Penn Mutual Life Insurance v. Woodscape Ltd. Partnership (In Re Woodscape Ltd. Partnership) · filed 1991-12-09(d)(2)

Since Debtor does not have equity in the property, the remaining issue under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) is whether the Wood-scape Apartments are necessary for an effective reorganization by Debtor.

Imminent confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan defeats a creditor’s showing under § 362(d)(2)(B) that the property is unnecessary for an effective reorganization.

Taras v. Commonwealth Mortgage Corp. of America (In Re Taras) · filed 1992-02-12(d)(2)(B)

Finally, with respect to the Mortgagee’s motion for relief from the automatic stay, we find that our conclusion that confirmation of the Debtors’ plan is imminent eliminates the Mortgagee’s possibility of proving that the Premises is “not necessary for an effective reorganization,” as required by 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2)(B).

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and cannot show that an effective reorganization is in prospect.

Matter of Holiday Associates Ltd. Partnership · filed 1992-03-30(d)(2)

Because it is not disputed that the Debtor has no equity in the property, the burden is on the Debt- or to show adequate protection and that the property at issue is necessary to an effective reorganization. ... An effective plan is not in prospect. Therefore, the Court grants Firstar the relief from stay it requests pursuant to § 362(d).

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires the debtor to show a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time, with a stronger showing required as the Chapter 11 case progresses.

Sumitomo Trust & Banking Co. v. Holly's, Inc. (In Re Holly's, Inc.) · filed 1992-04-28(d)(2)(B)

Summarizing, (1) the standard of proof under § 362(d)(2)(B) is whether there is “a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time”; (2) the debtor’s burden to prove the standard is a moving target which is more difficult to attain as the chapter 11 case progresses; (3) applying the burden of proof to the standard of proof is fact intensive and must necessarily be considered on a case by case basis; and (4) a factor to consider by the court is the reasonableness of delay imposed upon a creditor while the debtor is progressing toward plan confirmation.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not necessary for an effective reorganization.

In Re L.G. Salem Ltd. Partnership · filed 1992-05-19(d)(2)

A motion for relief from stay should be granted if the debtor has no equity in the property and it is not necessary for an effective reorganization. ... It is the Court’s conclusion that, given the attitude of MRT, no plan can be confirmed at this or any other time. It follows, therefore, that the motion for relief from stay must be granted.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) treats property as necessary to an effective reorganization when the evidence shows that a reorganization plan is reasonably in prospect.

In Re Main Road Properties, Inc. · filed 1992-05-13(d)(2)(B)

We conclude, based on the evidence, that the commitments of First National and Glenconn establish, for the purpose of this § 362(d)(2)(B) hearing, that a plan of reorganization is reasonably in prospect.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a debtor without equity in property to show that an effective reorganization is in prospect and reasonably likely within a reasonable time to avoid relief from the automatic stay.

In Re White Plains Development Corp. · filed 1992-05-28(d)(2)(B)

Thus, the debtor need only show for purposes of 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2)(B) that an effective reorganization plan is in prospect; that there is a reasonable likelihood of reorganization within a reasonable time.

To show that property is necessary to an effective reorganization under § 362(d)(2)(B), a debtor must show that a proposed or contemplated plan has a realistic chance of confirmation and is not patently unconfirmable.

In Re 266 Washington Associates · filed 1992-06-05(d)(2)(B)

The “effective reorganization” requirement enunciated by the Supreme Court does, however, require a showing by a debtor and a determination by the bankruptcy court that a proposed or contemplated plan is not patently uncon-firmable and has a realistic chance of being confirmed.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and cannot show a realistic prospect of confirming a reorganization plan within a reasonable time.

In Re Vermont Investment Ltd. Partnership · filed 1992-07-06(d)(2)

Relief from the automatic stay is appropriate under § 362(d)(2) because the property, in which the debtor has no equity, is not necessary for an effective reorganization. ... That does not present a realistic prospect of the debtor having a confirmed plan within a reasonable period of time as required to meet the test of § 362(d)(2).

Under § 362(d)(2)(B), a debtor must have a reasonable prospect of reorganization within a reasonable time to retain the automatic stay when a creditor seeks relief.

In Re Channel Realty Associates Ltd. Partnership · filed 1992-07-17(d)(2)(B)

At a preliminary hearing held on February 24, 1992, the Court scheduled a final hearing for March 6,1992, to determine the narrow issue of whether or not the Debtor has a reasonable prospect of reorganization within a reasonable amount of time as required by 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2)(B). ... Moreover, there is no reasonable likelihood of a reorganization within a reasonable amount of time. ... Accordingly, the Court hereby allows Nationwide’s Motion to Dismiss and for Relief from the Automatic Stay.

Section 362(d)(2) warrants relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and an unconfirmable plan leaves no prospect for an effective reorganization.

In Re 499 W. Warren Street Associates, Ltd. Partnership · filed 1992-07-28(d)(2)

As a result, Debtor’s Plan is unconfirmable, and Debtor therefore has no prospect for an effective reorganization, which warrants that the automatic stay be lifted pursuant to Code § 362(d)(2).

When the debtor has no equity in property, the debtor must show a reasonable possibility that its reorganization plan will meet confirmation requirements to keep the stay in place.

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Route 37 Business Park Associates (In Re Route 37 Business Park Associates) · filed 1992-10-23(d)(2)(B)

In order to be confirmed, the reorganization plan must meet numerous specific standards laid out in 11 U.S.C. § 1129. Thus, on a motion for relief from the stay, a debtor without equity in the property under consideration must demonstrate a reasonable possibility that these requirements will be met.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when there is no equity in the property and the debtor cannot show that an effective reorganization is in prospect.

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Roswell-Hannover Joint Venture (In Re Roswell-Hannover Joint Venture) · filed 1992-12-16(d)(2)

Hancock has met its burden of showing that there is no equity in the collateral. The parties have stipulated that there is no equity and that in fact Hancock is presently undersecured in the amount of approximately $2,880,000.00. Section 362(d) requires that the stay be lifted unless debtor can meet its burden of demonstrating that there is an effective reorganization in prospect in this case. ... Since debtor cannot propose a con-firmable plan without improperly classifying Hancock and its unsecured creditors, Hancock’s motion for relief from the automatic stay should be granted.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a debtor without equity in the property to show a realistic possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time to keep the stay in place.

In Re Snapwoods Apartments of Dekalb County, Ltd. · filed 1993-01-08(d)(2)(B)

Snapwoods, however, has not demonstrated that its projected net operating income is reasonable or reliable given its recent past experience. It follows that Snapwoods has not established that its proposed plan of reorganization has any likelihood of success. Therefore, Snapwoods has not met its burden under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2)(B) to establish that a “successful reorganization” is possible.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires relief from the automatic stay when a debtor with no equity in the property has no reasonable possibility of confirming a reorganization plan.

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance v. Route 37 Business Park Associates · filed 1993-01-22(d)(2)(B)

We find, however, that the explanations advanced by the debtor are invalid as a matter of law, and therefore no evidence that the debtor could offer at a confirmation hearing could cure their flaws. Accordingly, since we see no reasonable possibility of confirmation, we hold that the lift stay order should have been granted.

Section 362(d)(2)(A) permits a court measuring equity to account for nonestate property securing the same debt, either by including its value or by apportioning shared liens among the properties.

In Re Colonial Center, Inc. · filed 1993-01-29(d)(2)(A)

With those facts, one could reach the conclusion that in such instances there is “equity” under section 362(d)(2)(A) in one of two ways. First, one could consider the value of nonestate property when computing the value of the collateral. ... Consideration of the nonestate property values, or alternatively, apportionment of the lien claims among the various properties, would both yield the result of net equity.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and no reasonable prospect of an effective reorganization within a reasonable time.

John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Route 37 Business Park Associates · filed 1993-02-19(d)(2)

In light of the general standards concerning classification schemes and the decisions of other courts of appeals in similar cases, we hold that the plan proposed in the present case had no reasonable prospect of confirmation and that Hancock's lift stay motion therefore should have been granted.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) does not make a residence necessary to an effective reorganization merely because operating a business there is convenient.

In re Christie · filed 1993-03-24(d)(2)(B)

The fact that it is convenient for the Debtors to operate the business from their house does not make the house necessary for an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) requires a less stringent showing of possible plan confirmation to keep the stay in place when no plan has been proposed and the exclusivity period has been extended.

FGH Realty Credit Corp. v. Newark Airport/Hotel Ltd. Partnership · filed 1993-06-01(d)(2)

It must be remembered that at the time the Bankruptcy Court made its decision, no plan had been proposed and the exclusivity period had been extended. Accordingly, a less stringent showing of the possibility of confirmation was required.

Section 362(d)(2) requires lifting the stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

In Re 160 Bleecker Street Associates · filed 1993-06-18(d)(2)

The automatic stay is vacated pursuant to § 362(d)(2) because Associates has no equity in the apartments and the apartments are not necessary for an effective reorganization, as well as pursuant to § 362(d)(1), because the Cooperative’s collateral is not adequately protected.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor lacks equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization, which requires a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

Principal Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Atrium Development Co. (In Re Atrium Development Co.) · filed 1993-08-03(d)(2)

As stated above, at the conclusion of the hearing on June 16,1993, the court granted Principal’s motion for relief from stay pursuant to § 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code based upon my finding there was no equity in the property, and the property was not necessary to an effective reorganization. The second element of the ruling is based upon the language used by the Supreme Court in United Savings Association of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 108 S.Ct. 626, 98 L.Ed.2d 740 (1988), to the effect that property is not necessary to an effective reorganization unless there is a “reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.” 484 U.S. at 376, 108 S.Ct. at 633.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and cannot show a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

CMF Loudoun Ltd. Partnership v. Nattchase Associates Ltd. Partnership (In Re Nattchase Associates Ltd. Partnership) · filed 1994-12-27(d)(2)

The Court will utilize a two part test, first determining if there has been a showing of a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization and then whether that showing has come within a reasonable time.

A creditor seeking relief from the stay under § 362(d)(2) must prove that there is no equity in all property securing its lien, including collateral owned by the debtor’s subsidiaries.

Dressel Associates, Inc. v. Beaver Valley Builder's Supply, Inc. (In Re Beaver Valley Builder's Supply, Inc.) · filed 1995-02-09(d)(2)

Accordingly, for Dressel to prevail under § 362(d)(2), it must establish that the value of the assets belonging to BVBS and to its subsidiaries is equal to or less than this amount. Failure to establish this will result in denial of its motion for relief from the automatic stay.

Under § 362(d)(2)(B), a debtor’s sole family vehicle can be necessary to an effective reorganization when a feasible Chapter 13 plan is in prospect.

In Re Coates · filed 1995-03-09(d)(2)(B)

Coates anticipates the confirmation of the Plan and has shown this Court that, at this point, they have adequate disposable income to pay under the Plan and that, at this stage, it appears to conform to the requirements of § 1325. Additionally, it appears that the other vehicles which may be available to the Debtors are limited by their employers to business purposes and that this Vehicle is the sole vehicle for the personal use of the Debtors’ family. Under the feasibility test adopted by this Court in measuring the requirements of § 362(d)(2)(B), it is the finding of this Court that the Vehicle is necessary to an effective reorganization.

A debtor opposing stay relief under § 362(d)(2) must show that an effective reorganization is in prospect, even when the creditor moves shortly after the bankruptcy filing.

In Re Chadwick Bay Hotel Associates Ltd. Partnership · filed 1995-03-24(d)(2)

Even when a secured creditor seeks stay relief shortly after a bankruptcy filing, the debtor retains the burden to show that an effective reorganization is in prospect.

At an early stage of bankruptcy, a debtor’s potential reorganization plan is judged under a more relaxed standard when deciding whether property is necessary for an effective reorganization under § 362(d)(2)(B).

In Re Con Am Grandview Associates, L.P. · filed 1995-03-15(d)(2)(B)

This Court finds that the Bankruptcy Court’s ruling was not clearly erroneous given the more relaxed standard under which a debtor’s potential reorganization plan is judged at the early stages of a bankruptcy proceeding.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and cannot show a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

In Re: Jason Realty · filed 1995-07-06(d)(2)

With respect to the first prong, Jason Realty concedes that it has no equity in the real property. In order to satisfy its burden on the second prong, Jason Realty had to demonstrate that there was "a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time."

A party seeking relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(2) must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor lacks equity in the property.

Matter of Foxcroft Square Co. · filed 1995-07-17(d)(2)

If the party seeking relief from the stay does not establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the debtor lacks equity in the property, the movant has failed to meet its statutory burden of proof.

Section 362(d)(2)(A) measures the debtor's equity in property by comparing its current value with all secured liens, including junior liens whose holders oppose relief from the stay.

IN RE: Indian Palms · filed 1995-07-25(d)(2)(A)

A definition of equity that requires consideration of all secured liens comports with the purpose of section 362(d)(2) analysis and strikes the proper balance among the secured creditors', the unsecured creditors', and the debtor's interests.

Section 362(d)(2)(A) measures a debtor's equity in property by considering all secured liens, including junior liens held by creditors who oppose lifting the stay.

In Re Indian Palms Associates, Ltd. · filed 1995-07-25(d)(2)(A)

We find no hint in the language or legislative history of section 362(d), and the interests balancing it incorporates, that authorizes excluding the junior lienholders' claims from the equity calculation when their interests diverge from the senior lienholder's.

Section 362(d)(2) requires both a lack of equity in the property and that the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization before relief from the automatic stay is granted.

In Re Parks · filed 1995-08-02(d)(2)

This Court is required to grant the Movant’s request under section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code if the Debtors do not have equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2). There is equity in this property and the property is necessary for an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) does not allow relief from the automatic stay based on lack of equity when the debtor needs the property for effective reorganization.

In Re Chang · filed 1995-08-03(d)(2)

Peterson Bank has not met its burden under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) because Debtors do need this home for their financial rehabilitation and reorganization. Thus, the Motion to modify stay cannot prevail under that provision.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and cannot show a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

In Re Jason Realty, L.P., Debtor. First Fidelity Bank, N.A. v. Jason Realty, L.P., Jason Realty, L.P. v. First Fidelity · filed 1995-08-04(d)(2)

In order to satisfy its burden on the second prong, Jason Realty had to demonstrate that there was “a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.” United Sav. Ass’n v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., Ltd., 484 U.S. 365, 376, 108 S.Ct. 626, 633, 98 L.Ed.2d 740 (1988).

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires the debtor to show a realistic likelihood of a reorganization plan within a reasonable time to establish that property is necessary to an effective reorganization.

In re Pegasus Agency, Inc. · filed 1995-10-04(d)(2)(B)

The issue, then, is whether the Property is “necessary to an effective reorganization” under subdivision (B). That issue turns on whether there is a realistic likelihood of a plan of reorganization within a reasonable period of time.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay against property when the debtor has no equity in it and it is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

In Re Giordano · filed 1995-10-25(d)(2)

Since the Trustee has stipulated that the debtor has no equity in the attached property and that the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization, relief from the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)(2) is appropriate to allow the Cherenzias to reduce their claim to judgment and levy on the property.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) applies in Chapter 13, and a debtor opposing stay relief must show a realistic chance of confirming a plan that needs the property.

In Re Cottle · filed 1995-11-30(d)(2)(B)

As our Circuit Court of Appeals has recognized, the debtor must show that “a proposed or contemplated plan is not patently unconfirmable and has a realistic chance of being confirmed.” ... While the foregoing decisions were rendered in the context of Chapter 11 cases, the principle for which they stand has equal force in Chapter 13.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization; a plan with no reasonable possibility of confirmation does not satisfy the latter requirement.

In re Remington Forest · filed 1995-12-28(d)(2)

The automatic stay may be modified pursuant to Section 362(d)(1) for cause or (d)(2) if the debtor does not have an equity in such property and such property is not necessary to an effective reorganization. ... Under either valuation, it appears that the Debtor has no equity in the Complex property. ... This Court concludes that the Debtor has failed to meet its burden of proof of showing that the Complex property is necessary to an effective reorganization in so far as it appears that there is no reasonable possibility of the Debtor confirming a Plan of Reorganization without the consent of Summatyme Corporation, which has indicated its opposition to the Debtor’s reorganization efforts.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires a debtor to show a reasonable prospect of reorganization to establish that collateral is necessary to an effective reorganization.

Save Power Ltd. v. Pursuit Athletic Footwear, Inc. (In Re Pursuit Athletic Footwear, Inc.) · filed 1996-01-24(d)(2)(B)

Pursuit must show that it has a reasonable prospect for a reorganization to show that the property is necessary to such a reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) does not require relief from the automatic stay where the debtor lacks equity but its proposed reorganization plan is not patently unconfirmable.

In Re Curtis Center Ltd. Partnership · filed 1996-02-16(d)(2)

The second Sumitomo § 362 Motion (which is predicated on 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) only) will therefore be denied on the basis that the amended plan of the Debtor cannot be said to be patently uneonfirmable.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and no reasonable prospect of an effective reorganization within a reasonable time.

In Re Equitable Development Corp. · filed 1996-05-28(d)(2)

Section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that the court shall grant relief from stay if there is no equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization. ... This Court sees no reasonable possibility of confirmation and accordingly grants Chemical Bank’s motion for relief from stay.

Under § 362(d)(2), equity in property is its value minus the encumbrances against it.

Housing Authority v. James (In Re James) · filed 1996-08-08(d)(2)

For purposes of § 362(d)(2), equity is the difference between the value of the subject property and the amount of the encumbrances against it.

Property that provides a debtor with monthly income needed for an effective reorganization can be necessary to that reorganization under § 362(d)(2)(B), defeating relief from the automatic stay.

In Re DiMaria · filed 1996-08-27(d)(2)(B)

Moreover, the Court finds that the property subject to the stay is necessary to an effective reorganization of the Debtor because it provides a monthly source of income to the Debtor.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization; reorganization is not an issue in a Chapter 7 case.

In Re Couture · filed 1996-11-21(d)(2)

We are required by § 362(d)(2) to grant relief from the stay of an act against property if “(A) the debtor does not have an equity in such property; and (B) such property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.” Landlord “has the burden of proof on the issue of the debtor’s equity in property”; Debtor “has the burden of proof on all other issues.” § 362(g). Landlord proved that Debtors have no protectible interest in the property, and, because theirs are Chapter 7 cases, reorganization is not an issue. Thus, Landlord is granted relief from the stay to recover its property.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) does not preserve the automatic stay for property needed for reorganization unless the debtor shows a credible prospect of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

In Re Pegasus Agency, Inc., Debtor. Pegasus Agency, Inc. v. Nicholas Grammatikakis, Also Known as Nicholas Grammas · filed 1996-12-05(d)(2)(B)

Without a credible reorganization plan in prospect, Pegasus is not entitled to the continuation of the automatic stay under Section 362(d)(2)(B).

A public housing tenant’s right to perpetually renew a lease counts as equity in the unit when considering relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(2).

In Re Day · filed 1997-05-15(d)(2)

We cannot agree that a public housing tenant’s right to perpetually renew a public housing lease is not an equity therein.

To oppose relief from the automatic stay on the ground that property is necessary for an effective reorganization, debtors must show a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

In Re Tate · filed 1997-07-08(d)(2)(B)

In response to a motion for relief from stay, the Debtors must prove not only that the property was necessary for an effective reorganization but that there is a “reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.”

Section 362(d)(2) does not allow stay relief based on lack of equity when the property is necessary for an effective reorganization.

In Re Kowalsky · filed 1999-06-28(d)(2)

Thus, the Debtors have established that the vehicle is their only reliable form of transportation and the Court finds that this vehicle is necessary for an effective reorganization which precludes the granting of stay relief under § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(2) does not permit relief from the automatic stay for lack of equity when the debtor has equity in the collateral.

Allegheny-Ludlum Brackenridge Federal Credit Union, Movant v. Fassinger (In Re Fassinger) · filed 2000-03-27(d)(2)

However, if said Dragnet Clauses are not enforceable, then (a) Allegheny is not entitled to the stay relief that it seeks via § 362(d)(2) given that the debtor would possess equity in the 1997 Dodge and the 1997 Kawasaki, and (b) the February 24, 1998 Loan and ttle VISA Credit Card Account are not secured by the 1997 Dodge and/or the 1997 Kawasaki, given that said loans are not otherwise secured by said vehicles.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and cannot show a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

Bowman v. Bond (In Re Bowman) · filed 2000-10-02(d)(2)

But they offered no concrete evidence establishing a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time. The record is replete with evidence to support findings that a reorganization was not in progress and that there was no prospect for a successful reorganization in the foreseeable future. We find that the bankruptcy court’s conclusion that the Debtors did not have a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable period of time was not clearly erroneous. Accordingly, we affirm the bankruptcy court’s decision to grant Appellee relief from the automatic stay under section 362(d)(2).

Under § 362(d)(2), a debtor seeking to keep the stay on property in which it has no equity must show a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

Bowman v. Bond · filed 2000-10-02(d)(2)

The Supreme Court held that the debtor must show there is a “reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time” to satisfy section 362(d)(2)’s “necessary for an effective reorganization” component. ... Applying the Timbers of Inwood Forest standard to this case, the Debtors failed to establish that there was any prospect for a successful reorganization of their farming operations at any time.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the stay only if the debtor lacks equity in the property and the property is unnecessary for an effective reorganization.

In Re National Hydro-Vac Industrial Services, L.L.C. · filed 2001-05-24(d)(2)

Because the Debtor demonstrated a need for the Agreement in order to reorganize, there is no reason to address the issue of whether the Debtor has equity in the property. This is so because both (A) and (B) of section 362(d)(2) must be proven before relief can be granted under section 362(d)(2), and the Bank did not establish that the Agreement was unnecessary for effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor lacks equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.

Bank v. Cohen (In Re Cohen) · filed 2001-08-15(d)(2)

Because the Debtor lacks equity in the Property and because the Property is not necessary to the Debtor’s effective reorganization, the Court grants the Bank’s motion for relief under section 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(2) does not warrant relief from the stay when the property is needed to fund operations and a successful reorganization remains reasonably possible within a reasonable time.

In Re 5877 Poplar, L.P. · filed 2001-09-27(d)(2)

The Debtor disproved the assertion that the property (i.e., the room revenues and rents) is not effective for the reorganization because the rents represent the Debtor’s sole source of funding to operate the hotel and to continue to administer the chapter 11 estate. Additionally, the court cannot find, under a totality of the existing circumstances and at this stage of the case administration, that no reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization (or liquidation) within a reasonable time exists.

Under § 362(d)(2), debtor equity is measured against all liens on the property, including junior liens, rather than only the moving creditor’s lien and senior liens.

In re Franke · filed 2001-09-20(d)(2)

The statute does not refer to the debtor’s equity as against only the lienholder seeking to lift stay or persons holding liens senior to that of the moving lienholder. We believe the minority view improperly focuses upon the interests of the senior lienholder as opposed to the debtor’s lack of equity in the property.

Section 362(d)(2) allows relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization.

In Re Gibson · filed 2002-11-08(d)(2)

The motion requested relief from the stay to allow the Government to offset against the LDPs. There is no equity in the LDPs and, given this is a Chapter 7 proceeding, the LDPs are certainly not necessary to an effective reorganization. See 11 U.S.C. § 362(d).

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires the debtor to show a reasonable prospect of successful reorganization within a reasonable time to keep property protected by the automatic stay.

In Re 68 West 127 Street, LLC · filed 2002-11-19(d)(2)(B)

Having met the good faith standard under section 362(d)(1), the Debtor also has satisfied the similar, if not identical, standards of sections 362(d)(2)(B) and 362(d)(3)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. ... At this time the Debtor must show only that its plan has a reasonable prospect of success within a reasonable time.

For relief from the stay under § 362(d)(2), property in a Chapter 7 case is not needed for an effective reorganization.

In Re Marcano · filed 2003-01-31(d)(2)

The instant petitions seek relief under Chapter 7, and therefore it is axiomatic that the respective properties are not needed for an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay for property in which the debtor has no equity and that is unnecessary to a reorganization.

In Re Watkins · filed 2003-08-22(d)(2)

The ground for rehef alleged in the motion is also sufficient under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2). That is, Watkins is not currently in a reorganization chapter of bankruptcy, and she has no equity in a totaled vehicle for which she still owes $8,612.51.

Under § 362(d)(2), collateral cannot be necessary to an effective reorganization when reorganization is not feasible.

Congress Financial Corp. v. Airwalk International, LLC (In Re Airwalk International, LLC) · filed 2003-12-11(d)(2)

Consequently, the assets cannot be necessary to a reorganization which is not feasible.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and no reorganization is possible because the case is a Chapter 7 liquidation.

Sanabria v. American Natl. Bank · filed 2004-11-16(d)(2)

A court may grant relief from the automatic stay with respect to an act against property if the debtor does not have equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization. 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2). Here, the court properly found that the Debtor has no equity in the vehicle. Furthermore, since the Debtor’s case is a liquidation case under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, no reorganization is in process for which the vehicle could be necessary. The court did not abuse its discretion in granting relief from the automatic stay.

Under § 362(d)(2)(B), a debtor opposing stay relief near the expiration of the exclusivity period must show that successful reorganization within a reasonable time is probable, rather than merely plausible.

In Re Gunnison Center Apartments, Lp · filed 2005-02-08(d)(2)(B)

When relief from stay is requested near the expiration of the exclusivity period, the “sliding scale” or “moving target” burden of proof requires a greater showing than “plausibility.” ... Based upon the evidence, this Court can reach no conclusion but that the Debtor has failed to meet its burden of proof as to the feasibility of its prospective plan of reorganization. The testimony presented does not indicate that a successful plan is “probable,” or even “plausible.” As a result, the second prong of § 362(d)(2) has been met and Lenox is entitled to relief from the automatic stay.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor lacks equity in the property and has no reasonable prospect of an effective reorganization.

In Re Northwest Timberline Enterprises, Inc. · filed 2006-09-15(d)(2)

Not only is it stipulated that there is no equity in the Debtors’ properties, but the overwhelming evidence reveals that there is no reasonable chance of an effective reorganization in prospect. ... Under Section 362(d)(2), the court must grant relief from the automatic stay if “(A) the debtor does not have any equity in [its] property; and (B) such property is not necessary to an effective reorganization.”

Section 362(d) permits stay relief to pursue state-court remedies when a creditor’s lien has priority over the trustee’s potential lien and the property has no equity for the Chapter 7 estate.

In Re Suggs · filed 2006-10-16(d)

Inasmuch as there is no equity in the Property’; [u]pon which the Chapter 7 Trustee could execute a lien, MERS is entitled to relief from the automatic stay under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d) to pursue remedies in state court. Therefore, MERS’s Motion for Relief from Stay is GRANTED.

Section 362(d)(1) permits modification of the stay to allow foreclosure when a transfer in violation of an enforceable due-on-sale clause leaves the mortgage holder’s rights under that clause inadequately protected.

In Re Tewell · filed 2006-10-23(d)(1)

Because Almaraz, the mortgagor, conveyed his interest in the Property to the Debtor subject to the due-on-sale clause, the Court finds that the Creditor’s interests under the mortgage, and specifically, its rights under the clause, are not adequately protected. Hence, the Creditor has met its burden of showing that just cause exists to modify the automatic stay pursuant to § 362(d)(1) to allow the Creditor to proceed with the foreclosure action.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires proof that the property is necessary to reorganization and that the debtor has a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time; necessity is not irrebuttably presumed.

In Re Huggins · filed 2006-12-14(d)(2)(B)

In this latter regard, the Court rejects the argument that there is an irrebuttable presumption that the Property is necessary to an effective reorganization. ... As to the second element, while I am aware of the many formulations of the term “effective reorganization” employed by various courts, I understand the issue as, and will require evidence on, whether the Debtor has a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time.

Under § 362(d)(2), a debtor with no equity in property must prove a reasonable possibility of successful reorganization within a reasonable time; the property's operational necessity and the possibility of reversing a judgment on appeal are insufficient.

In Re Wbss, Lp · filed 2007-03-13(d)(2)

While the Debtor's continued utilization of its property rights granted under the profit a' prendre agreement is obviously necessary for its sand extraction operations to continue in order to produce the income required to fund a future plan of reorganization, that logical necessity is singularly insufficient to carry the burden of proof under § 362(d)(2). To meet its burden, the Debtor must additionally demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that there is a "[r]easonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time." United Say. Ass'n of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Assocs., 484 U.S. 365, 376, 108 S.Ct. 626, 633, 98 L.Ed.2d 740 (1988). In the context of an ongoing litigation dispute in which a judgment debt continues to be challenged through the appellate process, that standard cannot be met merely by the possibility that the legitimacy of the challenged claim might be ultimately reversed by a successful appeal.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) does not make an overencumbered recreational boat necessary to an effective Chapter 13 reorganization merely because it provides therapeutic benefit, without sufficient evidence that the debtor cannot effectively reorganize without it.

In Re McNeely · filed 2007-04-09(d)(2)(B)

While the Debtors have provided evidence that the Houseboat provides some therapeutic benefit and a retreat on the summer weekends, the Debtors have not provided sufficient evidence to establish that they would not be able to effectively reorganize without the Houseboat. ... Accordingly, the court finds it appropriate to grant relief from the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy Code to Key Bank pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) on the grounds that no equity exists in the Houseboat, and that the Houseboat is not an item that is necessary for the Debtors’ effective reorganization under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Under § 362(d)(2), once the creditor proves lack of equity, the debtor must show a reasonable prospect of a confirmable reorganization within a reasonable time; even early in the case, speculative hopes do not satisfy that burden.

In Re Global Ship Systems, LLC · filed 2007-12-21(d)(2), (g)

The burden of proof on the question of a debtor’s lack of equity in property lies with Drawbridge. 11 U.S.C. § 362(g)(1). I conclude that Drawbridge has met its burden of proving lack of equity in the property. ... Global now bears the burden of proving that the property is necessary to an effective reorganization. 11 U.S.C. § 362(g)(2). ... Of course, at this stage, Global cannot be expected to present a comprehensive plan proposal. However, Global must demonstrate with reasonable probability that it can do so. Instead of evidence of at least the broad outlines of a plan that would have even a colorable possibility of being confirmed, Global and the petitioning creditors argue, without proof, that (1) the claim of Drawbridge may be subordinated in a later proceeding; (2) a lender liability suit might be brought; and (3) Global’s case may be consolidated with the just filed, but not adjudicated, involuntary case filed against Operations. ... For these reasons, I conclude that the Motion for Relief from Stay filed by Drawbridge will be granted.

Section 362(d)(2) requires a discretionary assessment of the debtor’s progress toward a realistic reorganization goal rather than a mechanical application of fixed milestones.

In Re Brian Wise Trucking, Inc. · filed 2008-02-27(d)(2)

Instead, what § 362(d)(2) calls for is much more of a discretionary inquiry, rather than a mechanical one, which, at bottom, requires the court to make a judgment call as to whether the debtor is making sufficient progress towards a sufficiently realistic goal such that its efforts should be allowed to continue.

Section 362(d)(2) does not permit relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has equity in the property and the property is necessary to an effective reorganization.

Moulton v. Deutsche Bank National Trust Co. (In Re Moulton) · filed 2008-09-15(d)(2)

Section 362(d)(2) authorizes relief from the automatic stay with respect to property of the estate if the debtor does not have equity in the property and the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization. Neither of those factors is satisfied here; therefore, relief from the stay is due to be denied. There is equity in the property and the property is necessary for Ms. Moulton’s effective reorganization. Therefore, the motion is due to be denied on this ground.

Section 362(d)(2) does not warrant lifting the stay merely for lack of equity when the property is necessary to a viable liquidating reorganization plan providing for sale within approximately one year.

In Re Ripley · filed 2008-10-20(d)(2)

For reasons discussed above, the Court concludes that it is premature and unwarranted to lift the automatic stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2) at this time. Therefore, the Motion is denied. While the Debtor lacks equity in the Property, the land is necessary for an effective reorganization. The Debtor has presented the Court with a plan of reorganization which the Court deems to be viable. It is reasonable to propose that the Property can be marketed and sold within approximately one year.

Under § 362(d)(2)(B), a debtor without equity who previously failed to reorganize must show sufficiently changed circumstances to establish a reasonable prospect of effective reorganization within a reasonable time.

In Re Mullock · filed 2009-04-14(d)(2)(B)

In short, in a case in which the Debtor proposes to fund her reorganization plan through an alleged dramatic increase in income and where confirmability and feasibility are at issue and a prior reorganization effort was unsuccessful, the Debtor has failed to make a satisfactory showing that her circumstances have changed sufficiently to establish that (1) an effective reorganization is probable within a reasonable period of time and therefore, (2) the automatic stay should be maintained as to a property that lacks equity.

For relief from the automatic stay under § 362(d)(2), equity is the property’s value minus liens, encumbrances, and any claimed exemption.

In Re White · filed 2009-07-24(d)(2)

As for the question of equity in property, for the purpose of § 362(d)(2) equity is a function of the property’s value, minus the amounts due on account of the liens and encunu brances against it, and any claimed exemption.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the movant proves the debtor lacks equity in the collateral and the debtor fails to show a likely effective reorganization.

In Re Yl West 87th Holdings I LLC · filed 2010-01-13(d)(2)

Thus, Garrison has met its burden in proving that the Debtor lacks equity in the Collateral, and the Debtor has failed to meet its burden in proving that there is any likelihood of an effective reorganization pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2). Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the automatic stay under section 362(a), reimposed under section 105(a), should be lifted.

Under § 362(d)(2), a corporate debtor’s ability to reorganize may depend on whether a promised third-party contribution can reliably cover a shortfall in plan payments when its own operations cannot fund the plan.

In Re 2670 West Ridge Road LLC · filed 2010-02-04(d)(2)

The Court granted the relief requested in the Stay Motion at the Eviden-tiary Hearing, for the following reasons: ... (f) The significant annual income of an individual, who promises to fund a shortfall under a corporate business reorganization plan, when the debtor cannot fund its own plan from its own business operations, is not sufficient in this Court’s opinion to demonstrate that such a plan is feasible and can be properly implemented, when a creditor with standing to object to feasibility, in fact objects.

Section 362(d)(2) does not permit relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has substantial equity in the property.

In Re Brodeur · filed 2010-08-13(d)(2)

Thus, there is substantial equity in the Camp and the Movants are not entitled to relief from stay under section 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(2) allows relief from the stay when the debtor has no equity in property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization; property that drains resources from payments to creditors is not essential to the reorganization.

Bank of Newington v. Simmons (In Re Simmons) · filed 2010-09-17(d)(2)

Here, however, the whole point of Debtors’ proposed plan is to save the farm at the expense of the unsecured creditors. The Property is not “essential” to the reorganization because Debtors have shown that they can make substantially higher payments to creditors without it.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and cannot use it for an effective reorganization.

In Re Huntington Development, LLC · filed 2012-03-09(d)(2)

Because there is no equity in the Huntington Property and the Debtors have no other appreciable assets, the Debtors have no ability to present this Court with a plan for an effective reorganization. Based upon the record before me, I conclude that Citizens has met its burden of proof under § 362(g)(1) and the Debtor has failed to meet its burden of proof under § 362(g)(2).

In a Chapter 7 case, section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor lacks equity in the property, because there will be no reorganization.

In re Quade · filed 2012-10-10(d)(2)

EEI argues the Debtor’s lack of equity is grounds for relief from stay under section 362(d)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code. EEI also contends that because this is a chapter 7 bankruptcy, lack of equity is the only grounds it need show. The court agrees.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor cannot confirm a Chapter 11 plan and thus has no realistic prospect of effective reorganization.

In re 18 RVC, LLC · filed 2012-10-22(d)(2)

A debtor’s inability to confirm a chapter 11 plan may also provide the basis to grant relief from the automatic stay under section 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(2) requires a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time for property to be necessary to an effective reorganization.

In re 473 West End Realty Corp. · filed 2014-04-03(d)(2)

On a motion for relief from the automatic stay, the Court did not need to decide that the Debtor could never confirm a plan under any possible scenario; rather, the Court need only to have considered whether the Debtor had “a reasonable possibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time.”

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in property and the property is unnecessary to an effective reorganization, assessed against the debtor’s proposed plan.

In re Moy · filed 2014-08-25(d)(2)

The Bank has clearly met its burden of demonstrating the Debtor’s lack of equity in the Crystal Springs Property. ... Therefore, because the plan provides for surrender of the Crystal Springs Property, because Perry does not own the property and because the property does not and will not generate any income to fund his plan of reorganization, the Crystal Springs Property is clearly not necessary for debtor Perry Moy’s effective reorganization. ... But the determination whether property is necessary to an effective reorganization for purposes of Section 362(d)(2) is not based on what a creditor believes the Chapter 13 debtor “should” propose.

Under § 362(d)(2), a debtor with no equity in property bears the burden of proving that the property is necessary to an effective reorganization to resist relief from the automatic stay.

In re Guyton · filed 2014-09-25(d)(2)

Although Debtor has no equity in the Property, she met her burden of proving that the Property is necessary to an effective reorganization under § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(2) does not support relief from the stay when the property is necessary to an effective reorganization, even if the court does not decide whether the debtor has equity.

In re 412 Boardwalk, Inc. · filed 2014-10-24(d)(2)

The Court need not conduct a thorough analysis of whether there is equity in the Properties because the Court finds that the Properties are necessary for an effective reorganization.

Section 362(d)(2)(B) requires the debtor to show that property is necessary for an effective reorganization and that a successful reorganization is reasonably possible within a reasonable time.

Mercado v. Combined Investments, LLC (Mercado) · filed 2015-01-08(d)(2)(B)

After reviewing the record, we agree that the Debtor did not provide evidence demonstrating her ability to reorganize within a reasonable time and failed to satisfy her burden under § 362(d)(2)(B).

Section 362(d)(2) permits a liquidating plan to satisfy the effective reorganization requirement, but the debtor must show a realistic prospect of completing the liquidation within a reasonable time.

Anderson ex rel. Estate Anderson v. Commonwealth Renewable Energy, Inc. (In re Commonwealth Renewable Energy, Inc.) · filed 2015-11-04(d)(2)

Such plans are acceptable for § 362(d)(2)(B) purposes. ... At this advanced stage of the bankruptcy, Commonwealth has not shown that it could realistically implement a liquidating plan within a reasonable time period.

Section 362(d)(2) permits relief from the automatic stay when the debtor lacks equity in the property and fails to show that an effective reorganization is in prospect.

In re BB Island Capital, LLC · filed 2015-11-05(d)(2)

In view of the Debtor’s failure to draw even a faint outline of a plan of reorganization, coupled with the absence of equity in the Four Properties,- the Court concludes that EBSB has established a colorable claim to relief under 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(2)(B) permits a solvent debtor to show that property is necessary to an effective reorganization when its liquidation under a plan would benefit equity.

In re Kadlubek Family Revocable Living Trust · filed 2016-02-11(d)(2)(B)

Analogizing to the cases holding that liquidating an asset for the benefit of unsecured creditors can be “necessary,” the Court concludes that with a solvent estate, liquidation of an asset for the benefit of equity also can be “necessary.”

Under § 362(d)(2)(B), whether property is necessary for an effective reorganization turns on the feasibility of a successful reorganization within a reasonable time, without requiring a confirmable plan.

In re Shree Meldikrupa Inc. · filed 2016-03-22(d)(2)(B)

The test under § 362(d)(2) is one of feasibility, not confirmability.

Section 362(d)(2) requires relief from the automatic stay as to property in which the debtor has no equity and that is unnecessary to an effective reorganization.

Bagwell v. Bank of America, N.A. · filed 2018-10-23(d)(2)

However, Section 362(d)(2) requires a court to lift a stay affecting a debtor’s property if “the debtor does not have an equity” in the property and the property “is not necessary to an effective reorganization.”

Section 362(d)(2) requires lifting the automatic stay when the debtor has no equity in the property and the property is not necessary to an effective reorganization with a realistic chance of success.

Robert D. Manning · filed 2020-08-27(d)(2)

Here, because the Court finds that Mr. Manning has no equity in any of the condominium Units and that the Units are not necessary for an effective reorganization that has a realistic possibility of success, the Court must lift the stay under § 362(d)(2).

Section 362(d)(1) does not treat a debt’s nondischargeability alone as cause to lift the automatic stay; the court must consider the circumstances of the case.

The Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania v. Feingold · filed 2013-09-17(d)(1)

We agree with these courts that nondischargeability alone cannot supply the cause contemplated by § 362(d)(1), otherwise the statutory automatic exceptions for the enumerated nondischargeable debts—like domestic support obligations—found in § 362(b) would be meaningless.

Section 362(d)(1) permits a court to lift the automatic stay for cause in the interest of judicial economy.

3685 San Fernando Lenders, LLC v. Cross Equities Partners, LLC · filed 2011-09-19(d)(1)

The district court did not abuse its discretion by lifting the automatic stay for cause in the interest of judicial economy.

Section 362(d)(1) permits modification of the automatic stay for cause based on the parties’ competing interests and the policies underlying the stay.

American Airlines, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, Inc. (In Re Continental Airlines, Inc.) · filed 1993-11-25(d)(1)

After balancing the competing interests of the parties, and considering the policies underlying the automatic stay, the Court concludes that there is cause to modify the automatic stay.

Section 362(d) requires a request for relief from the automatic stay to be filed as an adversary proceeding complaint under the Bankruptcy Rules then in effect.

Chattanooga Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Northwest Recreational Activities, Inc. (In re Northwest Recreational Activi · filed 1980-01-11(d)

The filing of an adversary proceeding complaint under Bankruptcy Rule 701(6) is the proper and necessary method to make such a “request” under Bankruptcy Code § 362(d) to obtain relief from a stay.

Section 362(d)(1) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when a debtor uses baseless delaying tactics to frustrate enforcement of a judgment.

Matter of GSVC Restaurant Corp. · filed 1980-04-03(d)(1)

Moreover, although the Bankruptcy Code does not indicate the nature of the cause required to modify the automatic stay, other than for a lack of adequate protection, it is evident that such cause would include the baseless delaying tactics employed by the debtor in this case.

Section 362(g) places the burden of proof on the party opposing relief from the stay for every issue except the debtor’s equity in the property.

Second National Bank of Saginaw v. Honaker (In Re Honaker) · filed 1980-06-10(g)

Under Section 362(g) the party opposing the relief has the burden of proof on all issues except the Debtor’s equity in property. In this case it is apparent from the plan filed by the Debtor that no equity of the Debtor exists, or is claimed, in the collateral in question. No other grounds being found for denying relief from the stay, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the stay be lifted to the extent necessary to allow the Bank to assert its non-bankruptcy remedies to recover the 2 snowmobiles and the tractor.

Section 362(d) requires relief from the automatic stay when the debtor cannot adequately protect the secured creditor.

Bamerical Mortgage & Finance Co. v. Paradise Boat Leasing Corp. (In Re Paradise Boat Leasing Corp.) · filed 1979-12-26(d)

If Paradise cannot provide adequate protection, the stay should .be lifted.

Section 362(d) permits relief from the automatic stay for cause when the debtor fails to adequately protect the movant’s interest in property.

J. F. Batte & Sons of Richmond, Inc. v. Bradley (In Re Bradley) · filed 1980-03-27(d)

Cause includes lack of adequate protection of an interest in the property of a party in interest. ... The Plaintiffs have shown sufficient cause to grant relief and the Bradleys have failed to establish any indicia of adequate protection.

Section 362(d)(1) permits modification of the automatic stay so a surety may pursue a pending third party indemnity complaint against the debtor to judgment.

Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Maryland v. Harris (In re Harris) · filed 1980-04-07(d)(1)

It follows that plaintiff is entitled to a judgment modifying the automatic stay to permit it to proceed to judgment on its pending third party complaint against the debtor and that any judgment it obtains will be, a fortiori, non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4).

Section 362(d)(2) applies to encumbered property, including inventory and accounts receivable, as well as real property.

Midlantic National Bank v. Anchorage Boat Sales, Inc. (In Re Anchorage Boat Sales, Inc.) · filed 1980-06-16(d)(2)

However, the language of the statute is not so limited, and should be read as applying to all property which is encumbered by a creditor’s interest, including inventory and accounts receivable.