gives the collateral its going-concern value. And while it is also true that, absent a reorganization plan, the creditor might not recover the difference&emdash;assuming that there is in fact a difference&emdash;between the collateral’s fair market value and the amount recoverable through its state law rights, we would not characterize this additional recovery as a “windfall” to the creditor, and certainly not one that will spur secured creditors to eschew their state law remedies and seek refuge in the comfortable confines of the bankruptcy courts. We find that the bankruptcy court correctly interpreted § 506(a) as according it flexibility in choosing among possible standards of valuation, and properly applied the statute to the particular facts of this case. Winthrop proposes i 94) (<HOLDING>); Lomas Mortgage USA v. Wiese, 980 F.2d 1279,
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 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 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 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