Few controversies can arise that present so many variables and require such delicate balancing of not easily ascertainable economic and legal interests as the one occurring when it becomes necessary for a court to pass on the fairness of a reorganization plan. The recognition of this is clearly seen in the provision of Section 77B of the Bankruptcy Act which reads in part: "after hearing such objections as may be made to the plan, the judge shall confirm the plan if satisfied that it is fair and equitable and does not discriminate unfairly in favor of any class of creditors or stockholders and is feasible." The problem presented is obvious although it seems possible to phrase it in several ways. To what extent must the court today go back to the Boyd case and its successors in determining whether the reorganization plan is fair and equitable? Can it be argued that Congress intended this provision to set up a new standard of fairness? Is the problem of the fair plan under Section 77B in any way a new one? Although the form of these questions could be varied indefinitely, it is felt that answers to these will furnish a background against which the chief difficulties can be resolved.
Edward B. Barrett,
CORPORATIONS-''FAIR PLAN" UNDER SECTION 77B-APPLICABILITY OF Boyd CASE,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol34/iss7/6