Opinion ID: 468201
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: issues

Text: 14 1. Did the bankruptcy court err by considering the evidence presented at the Trustee Hearing in ruling on confirmation? 15 2. Does the Plan comply with the Code's requirements governing conformity to law, equality of treatment, impairment, nonvoting securities, and feasibility? STANDARDS OF REVIEW 16 Because we are in as good a position as the district court to review the bankruptcy court's findings, we independently review the bankruptcy court's decision. Ragsdale v. Haller, 780 F.2d 794, 795 (9th Cir.1986). We review ... the bankruptcy court's findings of fact under the clearly erroneous standard and its conclusions of law de novo.  Id.; In re Pizza of Hawaii, 761 F.2d 1374, 1377 (9th Cir.1985). See also Bankr.R. 8013. 17 Whether the Code limits the bankruptcy court to consideration of evidence presented at the confirmation hearing in ruling on confirmation is a question of statutory interpretation subject to de novo review. See In re Pacific Far East Line, Inc., 713 F.2d 476, 478 (9th Cir.1983) (involving statutory interpretation). Similarly, whether the Plan impairs Clinton's interest is a question of law. See In re Madison Hotel Assocs., 749 F.2d 410, 418 (7th Cir.1984). 18 The remaining principal issues presented in this appeal--equality of treatment, 4 fairness, and feasibility--present questions of fact which we review under the clearly erroneous standard. See, e.g., In re Pizza of Hawaii, 761 F.2d at 1377 (feasibility); Citibank, N.A. v. Baer, 651 F.2d 1341, 1346 (10th Cir.1980) (fairness). 5