P's only asset is a ten-year-old apartment complex. Bank of American (D) owns a note secured by a first deed of trust on the property and was owed $4,098,000. Great Western Bank (D1) owns a note secured by a second deed of trust and was owed $3,845,124.47 plus $ 103,124.47 in interest. D1's note called for an adjustable interest rate 3% with full amortization over 30 years and was to mature in the year 2015. P proposed a plan for payment of D1 where the result would be negative amortization for three years because, during that time, the debt would increase rather than decrease. D1 objected. The court held that §1129((b)(2)(A)(i)(II) is a per se rule against negative amortization. The court confirmed a reorganization plan that required P to make timely interest payments at the market rate of interest. P appealed, and the District Court ruled that 'the bankruptcy court properly determined that the deferral proposed in the plan . . . did not under the circumstances provide D1 with the equivalent of the present value of its claim . . .' P appealed. P argues that §1129(b) permits the deferral of interest or negative amortization.