should not be valued as if it were being liquidated; rather, courts should value the collateral “in light of’ the debtor’s proposal to retain it and ascribe to it its going-concern or fair market value with no deduction for hypothetical costs of sale. We are persuaded that [this] line of cases[ ] correctly interprets the statute!,] gives meaning to both sentences of § 506(a), and enables bankruptcy courts to exercise the flexibility Congress intended. By retaining collateral, a Chapter 11 debt- or is ensuring that the very event Winthrop proposes to use to value the property' — a foreclosure sale — will not take place. At the same time, the debtor should not be heard to argue that, in valuing the collateral, the court should disregard the very event that, according to the debtor’ 94) (<HOLDING>); Lomas Mortgage USA v. Wiese, 980 F.2d 1279,
holding that for chapter 12 plan confirmation purposes hypothetical costs should not be deducted from fair market value in valuing collateral to be retained by debtor holding that motor vehicle to be retained by chapter 13 debtor should be valued at the price the debtor could get for it in a free and open market ie its fair market value holding that notwithstanding a debtors inability to obtain a chapter 13 discharge a debtor is nonetheless eligible to file a chapter 13 case holding that truck to be retained by chapter 13 debtor must be valued at replacement cost to debtor because foreclosure value fails to account for debtors proposed use of collateral holding that a chapter 13 debtor should be able to obtain a copy of his transcript in light of the broader discharge provision of chapter 13