FEDERAL · 11 U.S.C. · Chapter SUBCHAPTER III—THE PLAN
Effect of confirmation
11 U.S.C. § 944
Title11 — Bankruptcy
ChapterSUBCHAPTER III—THE PLAN
This text of 11 U.S.C. § 944 (Effect of confirmation) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Bluebook
11 U.S.C. § 944.
Text
(a)The provisions of a confirmed plan bind the debtor and any creditor, whether or not—
(b)Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, the debtor is discharged from all debts as of the time when—
(1)the plan is confirmed;
(2)the debtor deposits any consideration to be distributed under the plan with a disbursing agent appointed by the court; and
(3)the court has determined—
(A)that any security so deposited will constitute, after distribution, a valid legal obligation of the debtor; and
(B)that any provision made to pay or secure payment of such obligation is valid.
(c)The debt
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Avellino & Bienes v. M. Frenville Co.
744 F.2d 332 (Third Circuit, 1984)
Carole O'LOghLin v. County of Orange
229 F.3d 871 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)
In Re Nancy Elaine Ybarra, Debtor, Boeing North American, Inc., Successor for Limited Purposes to Rockwell International Corporation v. Nancy Elaine Ybarra
424 F.3d 1018 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
Watson v. City National Bank (In Re Watson)
78 B.R. 267 (C.D. California, 1987)
Barraford v. T&N Limited
778 F.3d 258 (First Circuit, 2015)
In re City of Detroit
548 B.R. 748 (E.D. Michigan, 2016)
In Re City of Colorado Springs Spring Creek General Improvement District
187 B.R. 683 (D. Colorado, 1995)
Jason Deocampo v. Jason Potts
836 F.3d 1134 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
In Re City of Columbia Falls
143 B.R. 750 (D. Montana, 1992)
In Re Baker
217 B.R. 609 (N.D. California, 1998)
Bank of New York Mellon v. Jefferson County (In re Jefferson County)
482 B.R. 404 (N.D. Alabama, 2012)
Boeing North American, Inc. v. Ybarra
424 F.3d 1018 (Ninth Circuit, 2005)
In re Fin. Oversight & Mgmt. Bd. for Puerto Rico
361 F. Supp. 3d 203 (U.S. District Court, 2019)
Nebraska Security Bank v. Sanitary & Improvement District No. 7
119 B.R. 193 (D. Nebraska, 1990)
In Re Sanitary & Improvement District No. 7
112 B.R. 990 (D. Nebraska, 1990)
Rhita Bercy v. City of Phoenix
103 F.4th 591 (Ninth Circuit, 2024)
Holmon v. Village of Alorton
2016 IL App (5th) 150404 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2017)
Holmon v. The Village of Alorton
2016 IL App (5th) 150404 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 2016)
FOMB v. Cooperativa de Ahorro y Credito
(First Circuit, 2022)
HRT Enterprises v. City of Detroit, Mich.
(Sixth Circuit, 2025)
Source Credit
History
(Pub. L. 95–598, Nov. 6, 1978, 92 Stat. 2624.)
Editorial Notes
Historical and Revision Notes
senate report no. 95–989
[Section 947] Subsection (a) [enacted as section 944(a)] makes the provisions of a confirmed plan binding on the debtor and creditors. It is derived from section 95(a) of chapter 9 [section 415(a) of former title 11].
Subsections (b) and (c) [enacted as section 944(b) and (c)] provide for the discharge of a municipality. The discharge is essentially the same as that granted under section 95(b) of the Bankruptcy Act [section 415(b) of former title 11].
senate report no. 95–989
[Section 947] Subsection (a) [enacted as section 944(a)] makes the provisions of a confirmed plan binding on the debtor and creditors. It is derived from section 95(a) of chapter 9 [section 415(a) of former title 11].
Subsections (b) and (c) [enacted as section 944(b) and (c)] provide for the discharge of a municipality. The discharge is essentially the same as that granted under section 95(b) of the Bankruptcy Act [section 415(b) of former title 11].
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Bluebook (online)
11 U.S.C. § 944, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/usc/11/944.