Draft Markup Of Plan Of Reorganization

---
name: draft-markup-of-plan-of-reorganization
task_id: bankruptcy-restructuring/draft-markup-of-plan-of-reorganization
description: Ensures a committee plan markup redlines materially objectionable plan provisions with bracketed comments grounded in applicable bankruptcy and restructuring principles, and prepares a tiered cover memorandum that prioritizes the committee’s positions without stating outcomes as conclusions.
activates_for: [planner, solver, checker]
---

# Skill: Draft Markup of Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization on Behalf of Unsecured Creditors' Committee

## 1. Subject-matter triage
- Confirm the plan package includes the operative plan text, any disclosure statement references that affect plan treatment, classification, ballot mechanics, release provisions, fee reserve language, and any exhibits or forms that alter rights.
- Identify whether the committee is evaluating a single plan or multiple plan versions/amendments; if multiple versions exist, compare them before drafting comments so the markup tracks the latest operative text.
- Separate provisions that are purely explanatory from provisions that change rights, voting, distribution mechanics, or post-effective-date governance; only the latter should drive substantive markup.

## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting
- Failing to redline inconsistencies between a class’s stated impairment status and its actual treatment, including provisions that label a class unimpaired while changing contract, distribution, or voting rights.
- Missing overbroad third-party release language, including nonconsensual non-debtor releases, or failing to preserve carve-outs for fraud, willful misconduct, gross negligence, and similarly excluded conduct where appropriate.
- Overlooking insider-friendly value leakage, including compensation, equity, governance control, or indirect consideration that may undercut senior impaired recoveries or require fuller disclosure.
- Leaving exculpation language too broad as to persons, conduct, or temporal scope, or failing to confine it to customary chapter 11 practice supported by applicable authority.
- Ignoring professional fee reserve or carve-out language that appears insufficient to cover projected administrative and professional costs and may affect feasibility or confirmation.
- Accepting vote tabulation provisions that do not track applicable ballot-counting mechanics or that allow manufactured acceptance through claim-splitting or similar tactics.
- Failing to propose a litigation trust structure where estate causes of action are significant and better administered by an independent or committee-acceptable fiduciary.
- Producing a cover memorandum that is narrative-only instead of tiered, or that blurs non-negotiable positions with items open to compromise.

## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply
- Confirm impairment designations against the treatment actually provided under the plan and the Bankruptcy Code, including the practical voting consequences of mislabeling.
- Scrutinize releases, exculpation, and injunctions under chapter 11 confirmation principles; do not assume boilerplate survives if it sweeps beyond customary bankruptcy authority.
- Test any value transfer to insiders, equity holders, management, or affiliated parties against absolute-priority principles and disclosure expectations.
- Check ballot mechanics, class acceptance rules, and anti-manipulation concepts for consistency with chapter 11 voting practice.
- Evaluate fee reserve and professional carve-out provisions against the administrative burden the case is likely to carry through effective date and closing.
- Where estate claims are important enough to affect recoveries, consider a litigation trust with defined trust assets, trustee selection mechanics, and express claim assignment rather than leaving claims entirely with the reorganized debtor.
- Cite the controlling authority for each legal proposition relied on in comments or the memorandum, including the Bankruptcy Code provisions and any generally recognized chapter 11 authority that supports the requested change.

## 4. Analytical scaffolds
- Begin by mapping each materially affected class, constituency, or rights holder, then identify the provision that changes its treatment and the legal issue that follows.
- For every substantive objection, include: the specific plan language being changed, the legal or restructuring reason for the change, and the practical consequence for the committee.
- Use explicit redline conventions that survive file conversion: [DELETED: …], [INSERTED: …], and [REPLACED: old → new], followed by a short [Rationale: …] comment.
- Attach a bracketed comment to each substantive edit that states the controlling authority or accepted chapter 11 convention supporting the edit.
- When multiple issue types appear, treat each as its own analytical pass rather than merging them into a single generic comment.
- Frame recommendations as committee positions, not conclusions of law; the markup should propose committee-favorable edits and identify why they are commercially and legally supportable.
- Tier the cover memorandum so the committee can separate positions that should be held firm from positions that can be traded for other value or clarification.

## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships
- Track how the plan provisions interact across the confirmation timeline: pre-effective-date voting, confirmation, effective date, distribution date, and post-effective-date governance.
- Check whether an edit to one section requires conforming changes elsewhere, including definitions, treatment sections, release/waiver provisions, voting procedures, fee reserve mechanics, and exhibit language.
- Where the plan cross-references another document or exhibit, verify that the referenced text does not negate the committee’s proposed protections.
- If the plan contemplates post-effective-date administration of claims or causes of action, distinguish between retained estate property, assigned claims, and trust-held claims so the allocation of control is internally consistent.

## 6. Output structure conventions
- Produce the redlined plan markup as the primary deliverable and ensure it is complete and substantive before preparing the cover memorandum.
- Use a markup format that is readable in plain text as well as in Word, with every substantive change plainly labeled and accompanied by a bracketed rationale comment.
- The cover memorandum should be addressed to committee leadership, identify the matter in neutral high-level terms, and present a tiered recommendation structure:
  - Critical: positions the committee should not waive absent a material concession.
  - Priority: positions strongly favored but potentially negotiable for value.
  - Negotiation Positions: positions acceptable if revised or clarified.
- End the memorandum with an explicit Recommended Actions section that assigns each action to a responsible role and ties it to a timing anchor or transaction milestone.
- Keep the memorandum focused on the committee’s highest-leverage issues and avoid reciting the full markup.
- Ensure the final file set includes the operative redlined plan and the committee memorandum, both non-empty and both containing substantive content rather than summaries of what should be done.