Bankruptcy court values 900-plus abuse claims at $1 each for plan voting after no creditor objected

Chapter 11 plan voting on unliquidated claims raises a hard question: how do you count two-thirds in amount when no claim has an amount? In In re The Diocese of Buffalo, N.Y., Chief Judge Carl L. Bucki set each of more than 900 abuse claims at $1 for voting, while saying plainly what that does to the statute and why it granted the motion anyway.

What happened in the Diocese of Buffalo chapter 11

The Diocese of Buffalo filed its chapter 11 petition on February 28, 2020. Since then, individuals have submitted more than 900 claims for damages arising from alleged sexual abuse. All of them remain disputed and unliquidated. The Second Amended Plan places every abuse claim in a single class, and the Disclosure Statement was approved by order dated August 28, 2026.

An initial draft of the Disclosure Statement simply said each abuse claim would count as $1 for voting. The court described it this way: “the debtor and committee arbitrarily announced that every abuse claim would be valued at $1 for purposes of voting.” It said that approach “contradicted the directive of Bankruptcy Rule 3018(a)(4).” At the court's direction, the debtor brought a separate motion asking for authority to assign a nominal value to the claims. This is a trial-level ruling.

How do you count votes on unliquidated claims in chapter 11?

The problem comes from three provisions working together.

• Section 1129(a)(10). A plan can be confirmed “only if at least one impaired class votes its acceptance.” Here, the abuse claimants are the only impaired class.
• Section 1126(c). A class accepts when the accepting creditors hold “at least two-thirds in amount and more than one-half in number” of the allowed claims. A claim with no fixed amount leaves the first test without a number to apply.
• Section 502(c) and Rule 3018(a)(4). Section 502(c) calls for estimating an unliquidated claim whose fixing or liquidation would unduly delay the case. Rule 3018(a)(4) lets a court, after notice and a hearing, temporarily allow a claim “in an amount that the court considers proper for voting.”

Why did the court approve a $1 value for each abuse claim?

The debtor argued that estimating more than 900 claims would be costly and would delay ballot review, and the court said it appreciated that argument. It did not treat the result as a clean fit with the statute. Giving every claim the same $1, the court wrote:

“the proposed valuation of claims will effectively eviscerate the expectations of 11 U.S.C. § 1126(c)”

Those expectations, the court explained, are “that special weight be given to claims based on their estimated value.” In effect, when every claim carries the same value, no claim weighs more than another.

The court rested its ruling on the absence of opposition. Its words:

“If any creditor had objected, the Court might have approached the debtor's request differently.”

It treated the motion as also “a notification of estimated values that no creditor wishes to challenge,” noted that the creditors' committee, a co-proponent of the plan, supported the valuation, and ruled: “In the context of creditor default, the motion of the debtor is granted.”

What the court ordered, and what it did not

The order is narrow: “for purposes of voting on acceptance of the Joint Second Amended Plan of Reorganization, each claim of abuse victims will be assigned the nominal value of $1.” It speaks only to voting. It does not allow or fix any claim for distribution, and it does not rule on whether the plan should be confirmed.

What it means in practice

The decision does not announce a rule that abuse claims are worth $1 for voting in every case. It is a ruling on an unopposed motion, and the court said an objection might have led somewhere else. For religious organizations and nonprofits in chapter 11, it shows one way a court handled claim-estimation cost in a mass-claim case with no objection and committee support. For claimants and their counsel, it shows how much can turn on a motion that draws no response.

The court's treatment of the initial draft also matters. A voting value announced in a draft disclosure statement, the court said, contradicted the directive of Rule 3018(a)(4), and at its direction the debtor sought authority by motion. For more on bankruptcy appeals, see our notes on stays pending appeal and on the scope of a bankruptcy notice of appeal.

Why this case shows the value of appellate counsel

The court tied its ruling to the absence of any creditor objection. A party facing a similar motion may have little to take to a reviewing court if the issue was never raised below, and a later challenge to a voting order is shaped by what was said, and when, in the bankruptcy court. Where appellate review is available, appellate counsel can help by looking at a motion when it is filed, identifying what belongs on the record, and calendaring the short bankruptcy appeal period. See our appeals and writs page.

Facing a ruling you may need to appeal or challenge by writ? Yisrael Gelb · yisrael@gelblawapc.com · (323) 632-6864

Start an intake Civil litigation

← All notes · More on Religious organizations and nonprofits