to be entitled to postpetition interest rates); In re Hughes, 230 B.R. 213, 230 (Bankr.M.D.Ga.1998) (same). III. Penalty Debtor alleges that “[t]he request for additional interest is punitive in nature.” Brief, Dckt. No. 282, p. 8. To support this position Debtor cites multiple state court cases which analyze liquidated damages provisions. Those cases are not relevant to the issue at hand and do not inform my decision. Debtor’s description of the interest as “additional” is erroneous. The maturity rate of interest on the notes is 16%. Five of the notes matured on May 11, 2010, and one matured on March 13, 2010. Therefore, the Maturity/Default Rate is not “additional” interest, and is not punitive in nature. See In re Cliftondale Oaks, LLC, 357 B.R. 883, 887-88 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.2006) (<HOLDING>). POST-CONFIRMATION INTEREST Debtor’s Amended
holding that accruing interest at the default interest rate was not a penalty but the addition of a 5 late charge on top of the default interest would have been unreasonable pursuant to  506b and would have therefore been a penalty holding default interest rate unenforceable as a penalty and recognizing that a bankruptcy court is not empowered to give a creditor rights that state law withholds holding that trial court must make entry of default prior to entry of default judgment and court may not make entry of default when there is no default in law or in fact holding that state default charge of twentyfive percent imposed on debtor for failing to make timely contribution to state fund was penalty and not substitute for interest or compensation for actual loss and thus was not entitled to priority holding that nonconsensual oversecured tax claim is entitled to the statutory rate of interest unless the statutory rate constitutes a penalty