  |
  |
  |
    
  
   |
 | |||
|
|
|
|
| |||
contemplation at the time of its confirmation.
Certain disclosures concerning future management are required as a condition of confirmation. The Code requires the proponent to disclose the identity and affiliations of any individual proposed to serve, after confirmation, as a director, officer, or voting trustee of the debtor, an affiliate of the debtor participating in a joint plan with the debtor, or a successor to the debtor under the plan. § 1129(a)(5)(A)(i). The proponent must also disclose any insider who will be employed or retained by the reorganized debtor and the nature of any compensation for that insider. § 1129(a)(5)(B). The appointment to or continuance in office of any individual who is going to serve as a director, officer, or voting trustee, must be "consistent with the interests of creditors and equity security holders and with public policy." § 1129(a)(5)(A)(ii). "There is precious little case authority on this subsection since the enactment of the Code, and no cases at all which analyze how it works."
A plan cannot be confirmed unless regulatory commissions having jurisdiction over the rates of the debtor have approved any rate changes provided for in the plan or the rate change is conditioned on that approval. § 1129(a)(6). Neither the reorganization court nor the reorganization plan may supersede state and federal regulatory bodies, at least insofar as rates are concerned. To the extent a rate change is an integral part of a plan, it must be approved by the appropriate regulatory bodies. As to the debtor's financial structure, however, the plan and the orders of the reorganization court are paramount. § 1142(a).
The provision has apparently not generated much controversy in the reported case law, although the bankruptcy court having jurisdiction of the Seabrook Nuclear Power Plant case noted that this provision raised several extremely complex questions for the court. Another court denied, for lack of sufficient evidence, a request for an emergency adjustment of rates, limiting itself to requesting the Interstate Commerce Commission to hear the request on an expedited basis, without reaching the question of the whether the bankruptcy court could have granted an emergency rate adjustment. Recently, the Ninth Circuit held that the
