Document Type




This Comment argues that the Ninth Circuit’s Sunnyslope decision misconstrued the Rash Court’s holding and is divorced from the text and structure of the Code. Rash does not provide a brightline rule that answers valuation questions in cramdowns; it offers a flexible standard that is compatible with the Code’s protections for both debtors and secured creditors. Further, this Comment also argues that Sunnyslope could have been answered not as a valuation issue, but as a lien priority issue. In any event, the Ninth Circuit completely missed the mark in interpreting the Supreme Court’s holding in Rash and in understanding the text and structure of the Code.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.