Cramdown calculation must use "replacement value" of collateral In re Stembridge (5th Cir. 2004) HELD: Bankruptcy Court erred in its valuation of collateral for confirmation of a cram down plan when it used the foreclosure value of the collateral as of the Petition date. The Supreme Court's Rash decision requires use of replacement value in this context. The Supreme Court's decision in Rash does not address the appropriate "as of" date on which collateral should be valued for purposes of Plan confirmation. The appropriate date is the Petition date, not the effective date of the Plan. In order to confirm a Plan, the value of the collateral should be determined as of the filing of the Petition, and the Plan should provide the replacement value less any adequate protection payments already made. _______________________ Bar to refiling may be invalid without a hearing In re Tennant (9th Cir. BAP 2004) The BAP has "serious doubts" as to whether a Local Rule providing for an automatic 180-day bar to refiling after dismissal for failure to file schedules is enforceable in the absence of a motion, hearing and finding of willful failure.