exclusively reserved to old equity, excluding any participation by the creditors. Debtor counters that the new stock will be sold to the old shareholders “on account of” their contribution of “new value,” i.e., cash, and not “on account of” their old equity interest. Acknowledging that status as an old equity holder is a necessary condition to be eligible under the plan to buy the new stock, debtor contends that the absolute priority rule is not violated because old equity status is not sufficient to entitle the holder to shares of the new stock. Debtor’s analysis fails to recognize that the exclusive right to control the reorganized debtor is itself “property” under (B)(ii). See Norwest Bank Worthington v. Ahlers, 485 U.S. 197, 207-08, 108 S.Ct. 963, 969, 99 L.Ed.2d 169, 180 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Kham & Nate’s Shoes No. 2, Inc. v. First Bank
holding that when a spouse has given separate property to the marital community section 2640 preserves to the contributing spouse the equity value of his or her separate property contribution unless that retained interest is waived holding that there was no evidence of market value where owners testimony affirmatively showed that it was based on personal value holding that a retained equity interest is property even if it has no market value holding that congress has made it clear in amending section 522 that a lien will be deemed to impair an exemption even when there is no equity in the property if the sum of all the liens on the property and the hypothetical value of the exemption without liens exceeds the value of the debtors interest in the property in the absence of liens holding that the formula in section 522f2a creates equity for purposes of lien avoidance even if debtors otherwise have no equity in the property