  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
allowed for purposes of voting, do not count.13 Acceptance by a class of interests requires a vote of two thirds in amount of the allowed interest actually voting. § 1126(d).
The court may confirm a plan only after notice and hearing. § 1128(a). The Rules require not less than 25 days notice by mail to the debtor, the trustee and all creditors, setting the confirmation hearing and the time fixed for filing objections. Rules 2002(b), (d), (i) and 3017(d). Three days must be added under Bankruptcy Rule 9006(f).
Because the court can confirm a plan only upon satisfaction of specific requirements, the confirmation order must necessarily be based on a finding that these conditions have been met. The Rules require that the order of confirmation conform to the appropriate Official Form, currently Form 15. Rule 3020(c). The burden of proof is on the proponent to demonstrate that the plan complies with the Code, even if no objections have been raised.14 The Fifth Circuit,15 Ninth Circuit16 and some lower courts17 have held that the standard of proof is simply preponderance of the evidence, even if the cram down method employed is "indubitable equivalence," which some courts had held implied a higher standard.18
There is case law holding that the court in a confirmation hearing can consider
13
In re M. Long Arabians, 103 B.R. 211 (9th Cir. BAP 1989). Disputed claims may, however, either be temporarily allowed solely for purposes of voting or estimated pursuant to § 502(c) if the claim is "contingent or unliquidated," which are terms of art. In re Continental Air Lines, 981 F.2d 14550 (5th Cir. 1993); In re Rhead, 179 B.R. 169 (Bankr. D. Az. 1995).
14
In re Acequia, 787 F.2d 1352, 1358 (9th Cir. 1986); In re Texaco, Inc., 17 B.C.D. 222, 224 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 1988); In re Prudential Energy Co., 58 B.R. 857, 862 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1986); In re Toy & Sports Warehouse, Inc., 37 B.R. 141, 149 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1984).
15
Heartland Fed. Sav. & L. Ass'n v. Briscoe Enterprises, Ltd. II, 994 F.2d 1160, 1164-65 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 114 S. Ct. 550 (1993).
16
In re Ambanc La Mesa L. P., 115 F.3d 650 (9th Cir. 1997)
17
In re 203 North LaSalle Street Limited Partnership, 190 B.R. 567 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1995), aff'd, 126 F.3d 955(7th Cir. 1997), rev'd on other grounds, 119 S. Ct. 1411 (1999); In re Arnold and Baker Farms, 177 B.R. 648, 654 (9th Cir. BAP 1994), aff'd on other grounds, 85 F.3d 1415 (9th Cir. 1996); In re Locke Mill Partners, 178 B.R. 697 (Bankr. M.D.N.C. 1995); In re Cellular Information Systems, Inc, 171 B.R. 926 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1994); In re Atlanta Southern Business Park, Ltd., 173 B.R. 444 (Bankr. N.D. Ga. 1994); In re 8315 Fourth Avenue Corporation, 172 B.R. 725 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1994); In re Woodstock Assoc's I, Inc.., 120 B.R. 436, 453 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1990).
18
E.g., In re MCorp Fin., Inc., 137 B.R. 219, 225 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 1992).
3
