Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): provides that each class must accept the plan or be unimpaired. The plan may still be confirmed over the dissent of one or more classes of impaired creditors if the plan complies with all requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a) and the cramdown standard set forth in 11 U.S.C. § 1129(b). In addition to the considerations of objections raised by parties in interest, this Court has a mandatory independent duty to determine whether the plan has met all of the requirements of confirmation. United Student Aid Funds, Inc. v. Espinosa, 559 U.S. 260, 130 S.Ct. 1367, 1381, 176 L.Ed.2d 158 (2010) (stating that bankruptcy court has obligation to ensure Chapter 13 plan complies with the Code even if the creditor fails to object); Burnett v. Burnett (In re Burnett), 646 F.3d 575, 581 (8th Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); Williams v. Hibernia Nat’l Bank (Matter of 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that bankruptcy court preconfirmation bears an independent duty to assure compliance with title 11 even if no objection is lodged (B) holding that section 105a facilitates compliance with the bankruptcy code and the bankruptcy courts orders and compliance is one of the central goals of civil contempt sanctions (C) holding that an employer through its employees did not breach an independent duty to power company not to come in contact with power companys transmission lines because such a duty is a general duty not an independent one (D) holding that bankruptcy court has discretionary power pursuant to 11 usc  105a to order preconfirmation plan payments in a chapter 12 proceeding (E) holding that all core proceedings necessarily arise under title 11 or arise in a title 11 case
Output (English): holding that an employer through its employees did not breach an independent duty to power company not to come in contact with power companys transmission lines because such a duty is a general duty not an independent one