Also known as: feasibility requirements · feasibility
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A confirmation requirement for a chapter 11 reorganization plan. It obligates the court to find that the debtor will likely be able to perform the plan's obligations without the need for further reorganization or liquidation.
Fatima Flores fell from a hospital bed lacking alarms and sued for negligence. The hospital disputed both its control over the beds and whether alarms were feasible to install. After the fall the hospital added alarms and a monitoring policy. Flores offered the changes solely to rebut the feasibility dispute. The court admitted the evidence for that limited purpose.
Fabian Flynn's contract dispute required the forum to apply another state's choice-of-law rules to reach an identical result. The forum examined whether those rules could be applied without undue practical difficulty. Finding the application feasible, the forum adopted the foreign choice-of-law rules rather than its own.
The court must determine that confirmation is not likely to be followed by liquidation or the need for further financial reorganization. The inquiry turns on the specific facts of the debtor's plan and operations.
No. The requirement applies to the overall plan and asks whether the debtor can meet all plan commitments. It is distinct from the separate rules governing treatment of priority claims under section 1129(a)(9).
The court makes a factual determination based on the record. It considers whether the debtor's projections and resources support performance of the plan without further reorganization.