Chapter 11 plan after notice that “is appropriate in the particular circumstances.” See 11 U.S.C. §§ 102(1), 1128(a); see also 2 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 102.02 (15th ed. 1993). In order to satisfy due process, TIFCO and Jar-dine had to receive notice that specified the treatment of their class of claim, and allowed them to make an informed judgment about Barton’s Chapter 11 plan. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 1123(a)(3), 1125(a). Because TIFCO and Jardine admittedly received the required notices in this case, see Appellants’ Response Br. at 13, the issue is whether, under the particular circumstances, the notices they received were “of such nature as reasonably to convey the required information.” Mullane, 339 U.S. at 314, 70 S.Ct. at 657; see also In re Linkous, 990 F.2d 160, 162-63 (4th Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>). While a close case, we agree with the
holding plan properly vacated with respect to chapter 13 creditor who received actual notice of proceedings but did not receive adequate notice that court would value secured claim at the confirmation hearing recognizing that when a creditor does not receive adequate notice the creditor is not bound by the confirmation order holding that creditor with notice of bankruptcy could have objected to confirmation of chapter 13 plan in order contest treatment of claim holding that the secured creditor was only entitled to the amount of its claim as provided in the debtors chapter 13 plan when the destruction of the vehicle yielded insurance proceeds greater than the secured creditors claim holding that provision in chapter 13 plan discharging postpetition interest on a student loan is binding on creditor under theory of res judicata where objection was not raised prior to plan confirmation and confirmation order was not appealed