Cite as: Keith M. Lundin, Lundin On Chapter 13, § 115.1, at ¶ ____, LundinOnChapter13.com (last visited __________).
There is much local variation in the timing of the hearing on confirmation. Bankruptcy Rule 2002(b) prescribes 25 days’ notice to all creditors of the hearing on confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan, but the rules are silent with respect to when that hearing should be. In some jurisdictions, a confirmation hearing is scheduled in every Chapter 13 case. Notice of the hearing on confirmation is mailed to all creditors, usually with the notice of the meeting of creditors but sometimes separately, with a summary or a copy of the plan.
In other jurisdictions, the hearing on confirmation is scheduled only if there is a timely objection from the Chapter 13 trustee or a creditor and sometimes notice is limited to objecting or appearing parties.1 The notice of the meeting of creditors warns all creditors that objections to confirmation must be filed by a certain date, else the debtor’s plan will be confirmed without further notice or hearing.
In some jurisdictions, the hearing on confirmation is scheduled soon after the § 341 meeting of creditors and well before the deadline for timely filing proofs of claim under Bankruptcy Rule 3002.2 In a district that schedules the meeting of creditors and the confirmation hearing on the same day in each Chapter 13 case, the bankruptcy court explained: “One appearance instead of two is clearly beneficial to debtors who, in general, cannot afford to miss much work in the first place. This procedure also allows money to be distributed to creditors as soon as the confirmation order is final.”3 In other jurisdictions, the hearing on confirmation is routinely scheduled after expiration of the period for filing claims under Bankruptcy Rule 3002.4
Delaying the hearing on confirmation until after expiration of the claims bar date has been appropriately criticized.5 Bankruptcy Rule 3002 permits a nongovernmental creditor 90 days after the first date set for the meeting of creditors in which to file a timely proof of claim.6 A governmental unit has 180 days after the filing of the petition within which to file a timely proof of claim.7 If the § 341 meeting of creditors is scheduled near the limits of the 50 days permitted by Bankruptcy Rule 2003(a),8 the earliest a confirmation hearing can be held is approximately 140 days after the filing of the Chapter 13 case. Waiting until after the bar date for the timely filing of governmental claims pushes the earliest confirmation hearing beyond 180 days after the filing of the petition. Creditors typically are not being paid during this period of delay. Cars continue to depreciate while everyone waits for the confirmation hearing. Creditors demand adequate protection by filing motions for relief from the stay.9 Chapter 13 trustees accumulate a huge undistributed pot of cash because debtors are compelled to commence making payments10 to the trustee, but the trustee cannot distribute that money to creditors until after confirmation.11 Landlords and lessors demand adequate protection and move to require the debtor to assume or reject leases and executory contracts because they don’t want to wait five months to find out whether they have a contract with the debtor.12 The passage of time engages the bankruptcy court, debtors, and creditors in expensive, nonproductive litigation that can be avoided by reaching confirmation immediately after the meeting of creditors.
There is legislative history to the Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994 supporting the view that Chapter 13 cases should be confirmed before the claims bar date. The 1994 Act amended 11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2) to instruct the Chapter 13 trustee to begin distributions to creditors “as soon as practicable” after confirmation of a plan.13 Congressman Brooks explained the amendment:
This section clarifies Congressional intent that the trustee should commence making the payments “as soon as practicable” after the confirmation of the chapter 13 plan. Such payments should be made even prior to the bar date for filing claims, but only if the trustee can provide adequate protection against any prejudice to later filing claimants caused by distributions prior to the bar date.14
These comments demonstrate some congressional awareness that distributions “as soon as practicable” might be before the claims bar date in Chapter 13 cases. The use by Congressman Brooks of the term of art “adequate protection” is unfortunate in this context.15 Adequate protection of the rights of later filing claim holders might mean that the Chapter 13 trustee must accumulate funds that would otherwise be distributed to earlier filing claim holders and hold those funds until after the claims bar date. This is a common practice in districts that reach confirmation in advance of the claims bar date.16 In such districts, Chapter 13 trustees routinely program their computers to accumulate a portion of available funds in anticipation of the filing of claims by priority and secured claim holders.
A secured or priority claim holder that delays filing a proof of claim until late in the claims-filing period has only itself to blame for delay in receiving distributions under a confirmed plan.17 Unsecured claim holders rarely receive distributions in the early months after confirmation because of payments to priority and secured claim holders.18 The only danger of prejudice during the early months after confirmation is that money intended for secured and priority claim holders will be distributed to unsecured claim holders because not all priority and secured claim holders have filed proofs of claim.19 Chapter 13 trustees protect against this by accumulating the funds that would have been paid to (unfiled) priority and secured claim holders until after the claims bar date.20 The potential for prejudice would evaporate if claim holders would protect themselves by quickly filing proofs of claim in all Chapter 13 cases.
Experience in jurisdictions that confirm plans before the claims bar date demonstrates that knowing the exact amount of allowed claims is not essential to the confirmation process. Districts that confirm Chapter 13 plans in advance of the claims bar date typically use a “base or percentage, whichever is greater” plan that satisfies all the tests for confirmation while protecting creditors that file timely claims after confirmation.21 A properly constructed base or percentage, whichever is greater, plan guarantees creditors with allowed claims a minimum percentage and automatically compensates for the disallowance of claims after confirmation by redistributing money through the base to allowed claim holders.22
With just a little practice, debtors’ counsel learn to schedule the amounts of claims with sufficient accuracy to permit confirmation. The credit community learns to file proofs of claim quickly, especially if the creditor objects to its treatment under the plan. Accelerating confirmation forces debtors and creditors to do their homework and their negotiating more quickly, to everyone’s advantage. When cases move quickly to confirmation, money moves quickly from the debtor to the trustee and then to creditors; debtors complete their plans more quickly; the cases that aren’t going to succeed fail more quickly; and creditors either get paid or are returned to their nonbankruptcy remedies. If the allowed amounts of claims when known upset the feasibility of the confirmed plan, modification of the plan can be addressed under § 132923 or conversion or dismissal for cause under § 1307.24 Even amendments to the schedules after confirmation to add omitted creditors can be managed by modification of the plan or relief from the confirmation order under Bankruptcy Rule 9024.25 In jurisdictions that reach confirmation before the claims bar date, clever trustees and careful lawyers have solved the possible horribles that discourage other jurisdictions from adopting accelerated procedures.26
In some jurisdictions, the trustee or debtor’s counsel moves for a hearing on confirmation when the Chapter 13 case is ready. This approach has the unfortunate effect of allowing unconfirmed cases to languish on the docket until a creditor or the trustee loses patience.
11 U.S.C. § 1324 instructs that the bankruptcy court “shall hold a hearing on confirmation of the plan.” It is not the practice in every jurisdiction that a confirmation hearing is convened in every Chapter 13 case. In many jurisdictions, absent a timely written objection, confirmation takes place without a formal hearing. The phrase “after notice, the court shall hold a hearing” in § 1324 is similar to the phrase “after notice and a hearing” for purposes of § 102(1).27 If notice to all creditors is adequate and no one objects to confirmation or requests a hearing, no actual hearing is required by the Code. This approach is sensible for the typical Chapter 13 case in which confirmation is not contested and the rights of creditors have been fully protected through negotiation prior to confirmation. Rather than burden the debtor with lost wages and attorneys’ fees for an uncontested hearing, confirmation happens by entry of an order.
Some courts interpret § 1324 to require a hearing on confirmation in every Chapter 13 case, even when confirmation is not contested. In these jurisdictions, the timing of the hearing on confirmation is usually controlled by local rule or practice. The debtor and/or debtor’s counsel typically must appear in support of confirmation. Sometimes dozens of cases are set for simultaneous benediction by the court.
Bankruptcy courts should treat confirmation of Chapter 13 plans like any other litigated matter—in the absence of a timely objection, the plan should be confirmed without the empty formality of an oxymoronic uncontested hearing. This is the practice in many jurisdictions; it is not the practice everywhere.
1 See Curry v. Castillo (In re Castillo), 248 B.R. 153, 155 n.3 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2000) (“The Notice of Commencement of Case under Chapter 13 provides, however, that ‘[a] hearing on confirmation of the debtor(s) plan will be scheduled by the chapter 13 trustee at the 341(a) meeting of creditors if the trustee objects to the plan, or a party in interest has filed and timely served an objection to the plan, or appears at the 341(a) meeting and requests a confirmation hearing. The trustee will only give written notice of a hearing on confirmation, if one is set, to all objecting and appearing parties.’”), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 297 F.3d 940 (9th Cir. 2002); In re Walat, 87 B.R. 408, 414 n.4 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1988) (en banc) (The court reserves question of the validity of a local rule that eliminates confirmation hearings in Chapter 13 cases in the absence of an objection to confirmation but notes that the practice of holding confirmation hearings only upon objection “is consistent with the practice adopted in a growing number of districts in the country.”).
2 See EvaBank v. Baxter, 278 B.R. 867, 886 (N.D. Ala. 2002) (Acknowledging different methods by which plans are confirmed in Chapter 13 cases, “[s]ome such as that involved in this case do an Early Confirmation—one done prior to the time by which claims of creditors are required to be filed.”); Hildebrand v. Hays Imports, Inc. (In re Johnson), 279 B.R. 218, 222 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 2002) (“Neither the Code nor Rules fixes a particular timing for confirmation of Chapter 13 plans. Congress has encouraged bankruptcy courts to confirm Chapter 13 plans in advance of the claims bar date. . . . Neither the Code nor the Rules puts a ‘confirmation’ time limit on the filing of objections to claims.”); In re Wilson, 274 B.R. 4, 9 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2001) (“Similar to this court, a number of courts, commonly said to engage in ‘early confirmation,’ confirm Chapter 13 plans before the expiration of the claims bar date.”); In re Jones, 271 B.R. 397, 401 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. 2000) (“In this district the meeting of creditors and confirmation hearing are held at one time.”); In re Barton, 249 B.R. 561, 565–66 (Bankr. E.D. Wash. 2000) (“In many districts, confirmation hearings are routinely held prior to the claims bar date and this periodically occurs in this District. . . . Chapter 13 plans are confirmed expeditiously and delaying confirmation hearings until claims are due under F.R.B.P. 3002 plus the additional 30 days required by F.R.B.P. 3007 would be contrary to that goal.”); In re Moore, 247 B.R. 677, 690 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2000) (In the context of motions to modify confirmed Chapter 13 plan to “add” unscheduled creditors: “As an aside, the court would note that this district’s practice of confirming Chapter 13 plans before the claims period expires creates a potential problem.”); Simmons v. Ford Motor Credit Co. (In re Simmons), 224 B.R. 879, 883 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1998) (“[H]istorically in this district, Chapter 13 confirmation hearings are held prior to the expiration of the claims bar date under Bankruptcy Rule 3002.”); In re Turpen, 218 B.R. 908, 911 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 1998) (“[W]hen as in this district, a confirmation hearing is held prior to a claims deadline, the filing of a claim is not required for a creditor to object to a Chapter 13 plan.”); In re Gates, 214 B.R. 467, 471 (Bankr. D. Md. 1997) (“[I]n the District of Maryland, the hearing on the confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan often occurs earlier than the deadline for filing claims.”); In re Deel, 213 B.R. 112 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1997) (Appropriate to confirm Chapter 13 plans notwithstanding pending litigation in which the debtor challenges a large proof of claim.); Dixon v. United States (In re Dixon), 210 B.R. 610, 616 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1997) (“In this district, the confirmation process is allowed to proceed prior to the claims bar date.); Strong v. United States (In re Strong), 203 B.R. 105, 113 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1996) (“Historically in this District and Division, like others, Chapter 13 confirmation hearings are held prior to expiration of the claims bar date prescribed under Bankruptcy Rule 3002.”); In re Macias, 195 B.R. 659, 661 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1996) (“This division of the Western District of Texas (as well as the San Antonio Division) uses ‘early confirmation,’ a procedure by which plans are confirmed well before the bar date for claims.”); In re Grogan, 158 B.R. 197, 200 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. 1993) (“In the Eastern District of California, as in many other districts, the section 341 meeting of the creditors and the confirmation hearing are often scheduled for the same day. This creates a ninety-day window between confirmation of the plan and the claims bar date. It is common practice for courts to approve reorganization plans prior to the claims bar date.”).
3 In re Jones, 271 B.R. 397, 401 (Bankr. S.D. Ala. 2000).
4 See In re Rogers, 239 B.R. 883, 886–87 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 1999) (“[T]he Eastern District of Texas has historically been what is denominated in Chapter 13 phraseology as a ‘late confirmation’ district. That is, the confirmation hearing in a Chapter 13 case in this district is not scheduled to occur until the deadline established for the filing of all claims in the case has passed. Other bankruptcy courts in different regions of the country are denominated as ‘early confirmation’ districts because they have chosen to accelerate the scheduling of Chapter 13 confirmation hearings to various times in earlier phases of the case. Some courts conduct Chapter 13 confirmation hearings as early as the date upon which the § 341 meeting of creditors is conducted. Undoubtedly some of those districts have accelerated the confirmation hearing date in order to resolve the problems addressed by this Court today; however, it is apparent from the jurisprudence of those districts that the ‘early confirmation’ process comes with its own set of problems. . . . Notwithstanding the enticing features of the altar call issued by the advocates of early confirmation, this Court is not inclined at this time to change the historical practice of handling Chapter 13 cases in this district.”); In re Cason, 190 B.R. 917, 920 n.1 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1995) (In a note, “[t]he first confirmation hearing is held after the bar date for filing proofs of claim on the first available date on the court’s calendar. This means that a confirmation hearing will be held not sooner than 4 months after the date the bankruptcy petition is filed. . . . Various surveys indicate that approximately one third of Bankruptcy Courts confirm Chapter 13 plans after the claims bar date.”); Baxter v. Evans (In re Evans), 183 B.R. 331, 332 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1995) (“In this district, plan confirmation hearings are held and suitable plans confirmed as soon as practicable after expiration of the deadline for the filing of nongovernmental entity claims, usually within five months of filing.”); In re Hartdegen, 67 B.R. 230 (Bankr. N.D. Ala. 1986) (Confirmation hearing in a Chapter 13 case occurs after expiration of the period for filing claims under Bankruptcy Rule 3002.).
5 See, e.g., Strong v. United States (In re Strong), 203 B.R. 105, 113 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1996) (Chapter 13 confirmation hearings should be held prior to expiration of the claims bar date “in order to expedite case administration and get dividend distributions from the Chapter 13 Standing Trustee to the creditors as soon as possible, rather than wait for the completion of the sometimes lengthy claims objection process.”); In re Minick, 63 B.R. 440 (Bankr. D.D.C. 1986) (It is appropriate to confirm Chapter 13 plans without awaiting judicial resolution of all claims. It is not necessary to wait until the time for filing claims under Bankruptcy Rule 3002(c) expires, and it is not necessary to judicially determine the extent of secured claims under § 506 or the precise amount of arrearages to be cured under § 1322. Such matters can be determined after entry of the confirmation order.).
6 See § 275.2 [ In General: Filing is Required for Allowance ] § 132.2 In General: Filing is Required for Allowance.
7 11 U.S.C. § 502(b)(9); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3002(c)(1). See § 276.1 [ Governmental Units ] § 132.3 Governmental Units.
8 Bankruptcy Rule 2003(a) permits the U.S. trustee to call the meeting of creditors in Chapter 13 cases “no fewer than 20 and no more than 50 days after the order for relief.” See § 42.1 [ Timing and Procedure ] § 43.1 Timing and Procedure.
9 See §§ 48.1 [ Adequate Protection of Lienholders prior to Confirmation ] § 47.1 Adequate Protection of Lienholders before Confirmation, 67.2 [ Adequate Protection Rights ] § 57.2 Adequate Protection Rights and 81.1 [ Lack of Adequate Protection ] § 64.1 Lack of Adequate Protection.
10 See 11 U.S.C. § 1326, discussed beginning at § 44.1 First Test of Debtor’s Good Intentions.
11 See 11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2) (“If a plan is confirmed, the trustee shall distribute . . . as soon as practicable.”); Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3021 (“After confirmation of a plan, distribution shall be made to creditors. . . .”).
12 See §§ 174.3 [ Lessor Can Demand Adequate Protection ] § 102.6 Lessor Can Demand Adequate Protection and 174.4 [ Lessor Can Accelerate Assumption or Rejection ] § 102.7 Lessor Can Accelerate Assumption or Rejection.
13 11 U.S.C. § 1326(a)(2), as amended by Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-394, § 307, 108 Stat. 4106 (1994).
14 140 Cong. Rec. H10,770 (section-by-section analysis by Congressman Brooks).
15 Adequate protection in the context of a Chapter 13 debtor’s use of property subject to liens is discussed in § 48.1 [ Adequate Protection of Lienholders prior to Confirmation ] § 47.1 Adequate Protection of Lienholders before Confirmation. Adequate protection of a lessor of personal property under 11 U.S.C. § 363(e) is also discussed in § 174.3 [ Lessor Can Demand Adequate Protection ] § 102.6 Lessor Can Demand Adequate Protection.
16 In re Wilson, 274 B.R. 4, 10–12 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2001) (It is appropriate to confirm plans before the claims bar date, but trustee assumes the risk of commencing distributions to unsecured claim holders before priority and secured claims are known. “From the legislative history, it appears that Congress intended ‘as soon as practicable’ to mean such time as the trustee is able to determine that distributions to claimants having filed proofs of claim will not result in prejudice to other creditors that later file claims. If the Chapter 13 trustee is unable to do so based on the information available at the time, the trustee must defer making distributions . . . . In some cases, the trustee may be required to await the expiration of the claims bar date. . . . In choosing to make distributions on non-governmental general unsecured claims, the trustee assumed the risk that the secured and priority claims . . . could be, as ultimately was the case, so large as to render the distributions on the non-governmental general unsecured claims prejudicial to the secured and priority claims to be paid through the plan. . . . [D]istributions in error that would prejudice secured and priority creditors can be avoided by the Chapter 13 trustee accumulating funds to be paid to such creditors upon the filing of proofs of claim.”).
17 See, e.g., In re Wilson, 274 B.R. 4 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2001) (Although delay by priority claim holders in filing proofs of claim “contributed” to a shortfall of funds necessary to pay all creditors consistent with the confirmed plans, it was not appropriate to penalize the priority claim holders because the trustee’s decision to begin distributions to general unsecured claim holders before the precise amounts of priority claims were known was the primary cause of the problem.).
18 See § 204.2 [ Order of Payments to Creditors ] § 113.7 Order of Payments to Creditors before BAPCPA.
19 See, e.g., In re Wilson, 274 B.R. 4, 8–12 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2001) (Although it is appropriate to confirm plans before the claims bar date, trustee bears risk of commencing distributions to unsecured claim holders before the claims bar date. Confirmed plan required full payment of secured and priority claims and “variable rate payment” to general unsecured claims. “After confirmation of the debtors’ Chapter 13 plan, but prior to governmental claims bar date, the trustee began making distributions on filed claims, including general unsecured claims. The trustee relied on the amounts of the debts listed in the debtors’ schedules in determining that funds to be paid under the plan were sufficient to permit a distribution to general unsecured creditors. After the passage of the governmental claims bar date, it became apparent to the trustee that her initial determination was in error: the balance of the funds to be paid by the debtors into the Chapter 13 plan would be insufficient, given the payments already made on general unsecured claims, to pay the secured claim of the IRS in full with interest, to pay the priority claims in full, and to pay the IRS and District of Columbia a percentage of their general unsecured claims equal to that percentage already paid on the other general unsecured claims. . . . In choosing to make distributions on non-governmental general unsecured claims, the trustee assumed the risk that the secured and priority claims of the IRS and District of Columbia could be, as ultimately was the case, so large as to render the distributions on the non-governmental general unsecured claims prejudicial to the secured and priority claims to be paid through the plan. . . . While the IRS’ and District of Columbia’s delay in filing their proofs of claim contributed to the shortfall of funds necessary to administer the debtors’ case, it is not appropriate to penalize the IRS and District of Columbia for waiting to file their proofs of claim. . . . [I]t would be appropriate on motion of an affected creditor, to consider requiring the trustee to reimburse the estate unless she recovers, pursuant to an implicit right recognized by 11 U.S.C. § 502(j), all distributions made in error by the trustee.”).
20 See, e.g., In re Wilson, 274 B.R. 4, 12 (Bankr. D.D.C. 2001) (In a district that confirms plans before the claims bar date, “distributions in error that would prejudice secured and priority creditors can be avoided by the Chapter 13 trustee accumulating funds to be paid to such creditors upon the filing of proofs of claim.”).
21 See § 170.1 [ Methods of Paying Unsecured Claims ] § 101.3 Methods of Paying Unsecured Claims for discussion of base plans and variations.
22 See, e.g., Hildebrand v. Hays Imports, Inc. (In re Johnson), 279 B.R. 218, 221–22 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn. 2002) (A “base or percentage, whichever is greater” plan permits confirmation before claims bar date and protects creditors that file timely claims after confirmation; confirmation does not preclude trustee’s avoidance action with respect to a vulnerable security interest. “The absence of any language in this plan allowing or disallowing any claim is a fundamental recognition that claims will be filed, allowed and sometimes, disallowed after confirmation in Chapter 13 cases. . . . When a claim is disallowed after confirmation, the money that would have been paid to that creditor under the confirmed plan is simply redistributed through the base or pot and paid to other creditors holding allowed claims.”).
23 See discussion of modification after confirmation beginning at § 126.1 Standing, Timing and Procedure.
25 See §§ 223.1 [ Relief from Confirmation Order: Bankruptcy Rules 9023 and 9024 ] § 117.2 Relief from Confirmation Order: Bankruptcy Rules 9023 and 9024, 233.1 [ Notice and Due Process Considerations, Including Claims Allowance and Valuation ] § 121.2 Notice and Due Process Considerations, Including Claims Allowance and Valuation, 260.1 [ To “Add” Prepetition Creditors ] § 127.3 To “Add” Prepetition Creditors and 283.1 [ Unscheduled Creditors ] § 133.2 Unscheduled Creditors before BAPCPA. See, e.g., In re Moore, 247 B.R. 677, 690 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2000) (“As an aside, the court would note that this district’s practice of confirming Chapter 13 plans before the claims period expires creates a potential problem, for it is possible that a debtor’s amendment of the schedules and notification to the omitted creditor could precede the claims cutoff date but still be after the plan was confirmed. . . . It would clearly be unfair to bind a creditor to a plan for which it was not given the opportunity to object. However, this problem can be alleviated by the omitted creditor filing a Rule 9024 motion to set aside the confirmation order.”).
26 See In re Gates, 214 B.R. 467, 471 (Bankr. D. Md. 1997) (“[I]n the District of Maryland, the hearing on the confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan often occurs earlier than the deadline for filing claims. The trustee’s recommendation and court’s findings as to adequate funding of the plan and compliance with 11 U.S.C. § 1325(a)(5)(B)(ii) are often based upon the amounts of claims scheduled by the debtor. If a subsequent proof of a secured or priority claim is timely filed in an amount larger than the plan can distribute, the plan must be adjusted to satisfy the requirements of 11 U.S.C. § 1322(a)(2) and § 1325(a). Often a motion to modify the plan is filed by the debtor or the trustee unless an objection to the filed claim is sustained.” Where funding of confirmed plan was insufficient to pay an allowed secured claim in full and debtor’s objection to the secured claim was overruled, confirmed plan must be modified “or the case will be subject to dismissal.”); In re Deel, 213 B.R. 112 (Bankr. W.D. Va. 1997) (Appropriate to confirm a Chapter 13 plan notwithstanding pending adversary proceeding in which the debtor challenges proof of claim by IRS for $465,427.72. Resolution of adversary proceeding could require years and modification of the plan after confirmation would be available to deal with outcome of that litigation.); Dixon v. United States (In re Dixon), 210 B.R. 610, 616 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 1997) (“In this district, the confirmation process is allowed to proceed prior to the claims bar date. As a result, it is not at all unusual for a plan to be confirmed before all proofs of claim have been or are required to be filed. Claims timely filed subsequent to plan confirmation will be allowed unless objected to and their effect upon the confirmed plan will be evaluated by the Chapter 13 Trustee. If a claim was not contemplated by the plan, or if it is substantially in excess of the amount contemplated, the Trustee may determine that the plan as confirmed is no longer feasible and may move the court either to modify the plan to make it feasible or to dismiss the case.”); In re Macias, 195 B.R. 659, 661 (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 1996) (“Ancillary procedures honed over many years of experience with tens of thousands of cases have resolved most of the problems that early confirmation might otherwise raise. One such ancillary procedure is the use of a trustee’s ‘recommendation concerning claims.’ The trustee does not actually commence making distributions to creditors upon confirmation. Instead, she awaits the bar date for claims, then reviews the claims file. She then prepares a report and sends out her recommendation that the claims be ‘allowed’ as set forth in her report, i.e., that she have court authorization to make distributions in accordance with the report. Once the recommendation is accepted, the trustee is then free to make distributions over the remainder of the case. This system protects the trustee from liability to creditors by assuring that each creditor is paid the proper amount. It also comports with Rule 3021.”).
27 11 U.S.C. § 102(1)(B)(i) provides:
(1) “after notice and a hearing”, or a similar phrase—
(B) authorizes an act without an actual hearing if such notice is given properly and if—
(i) such a hearing is not requested timely by a party in interest.