  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
independent duty to determine whether the plan has met all of the requirements necessary for confirmation," and that in doing so, it is not necessarily bound by earlier determinations made in other contexts. Case law also suggests that the court must hold an "evidentiary hearing in ruling on confirmation," even if no objection is filed. For this reason, some appellate courts have permitted appellants to raise issues on appeal that were not raised in the bankruptcy court.
The Code allows any party in interest to object to confirmation of a plan. § 1128(b). However, a party may lack standing to raise objections that affect only other parties, such as classification and voting procedures for classes in which the objector has no claim. The objection must be filed within the time fixed by the court. Rule 3020(b)(1). The filing of an objection creates a contested matter, the procedures for which are governed by Rule 9014. Rule 3020(b) (1).
The Court may confirm only one plan. § 1129(c). If more than one plan is confirmable, the court "shall consider the preferences of creditors and equity security holders in determining which plan to confirm." § 1129(c). Rule 3018(c) provides that creditors may vote for both plans and yet indicate a preference for one of them, and Official Form 14 shows how to provide for that option on a ballot. Neither the Code nor the Rules, however, define how those preferences are to be counted, whether by number or dollar amount. Indeed, the Code does not even require the court to abide by the preferences however they might be counted, but only to "consider" them. Since most cases of competing plans involve a creditor's liquidating plan, this leaves a very open question whether the large amount of a major secured creditor's "preference" for its own plan is necessarily determinative, and the case law has not yet resolved this question. One court has held that when two competing plans are confirmable, the court should consider "(1) the type of plan; (2) the treatment of creditors and equity security holders; (3) the feasibility of the plan; and (4) the preferences of creditors and equity security holders,"
