# Analyze Counterparty Plan Objection > Ensures a plan objection analysis applies the governing legal standards to each argument with a fact-driven assessment, rather than offering only descriptive paraphrases of the objector's positions. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/analyze-counterparty-plan-objection` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/analyze-counterparty-plan-objection` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/analyze-counterparty-plan-objection/raw - Safety review: pending - Works with: Claude Code, Claude.ai, OpenAI Codex - Category: Coding & Dev Tools - Author: FinchipAIOrg (https://skillmd.com/u/finchipaiorg) - Updated: 2026-09-22 - Page: https://skillmd.com/skills/finchipaiorg/analyze-counterparty-plan-objection --- # Skill: Analyze Counterparty Plan Objection for Meritorious and Deficient Arguments ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - The memo paraphrases each objection point without testing it against the governing bankruptcy standard or explaining why it is strong or weak. - The memo treats the objection as a single blob instead of separating each argument and analyzing them in the order presented. - The memo omits the procedural posture that can independently defeat or narrow an objection, including classification, voting, and confirmation mechanics. - The memo states conclusions without tying them to the source record, the relevant plan documents, and the specific consequence for confirmation or hearing strategy. - The memo leaves issues at description; it does not close each issue by tying it to the relevant scale in the record, the interacting document provision, and the downstream effect. - The memo identifies problems but does not recommend how to answer them at hearing or in supplemental briefing. - The memo states a legal position without naming the controlling bankruptcy rule, statute, or case supporting it. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - Apply the governing confirmation framework implicated by the objection, including cramdown, fair and equitable treatment, best interests, impaired-class voting, classification, feasibility, and any treatment-specific objection rules raised by the materials. - For interest-rate objections, identify the controlling valuation or market-rate framework, any risk adjustment discussed in the record, and whether the plan rate is supported by the evidence. - For classification objections, test whether the plan uses legitimate legal distinctions, or whether the structure appears designed to manufacture an accepting impaired class without a proper basis. - For best-interests objections, compare plan recovery to the hypothetical liquidation recovery using the correct waterfall and allowed-claim amount. - For feasibility objections, scrutinize the challenged projections, assumptions, liquidity runway, refinancing assumptions, and historical performance to determine whether the plan is likely to succeed. - For secured-claim objections, assess collateral value, adequate protection, postpetition interest, and any oversecured or undersecured consequences that the record supports. - Use the controlling authority for each proposition. Cite the statute, rule, regulation, or leading case that supports the legal standard relied on in the memo. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - Start by enumerating each objection argument in the order the objector presents it. If there is only one discrete argument, say so expressly. - For each argument, run the same sequence: - State the controlling legal standard and authority. - Apply the standard to the actual plan language, schedules, disclosure statement, voting materials, and financial exhibits. - Identify what the objection gets right, what it misses, and any factual or legal weakness. - Rate the argument as Meritorious, Partially Meritorious, or Deficient. - State the hearing response strategy: concede, narrow, distinguish, supplement, or oppose. - Every issue analysis must close with three things: the relevant figure or threshold from the record, the related plan provision or exhibit that interacts with the issue, and the practical consequence for confirmation, economics, or litigation posture. - For vote-tally and classification objections, verify the class-by-class treatment reflected in the materials and check whether the objector’s own characterization creates a problem for its position. - For liquidation or recovery objections, check that the comparison uses the correct claim amount and waterfall, and note any missing assumption or inconsistent input that changes the result. - For feasibility objections, compare challenged assumptions against historical actuals when available and identify which assumptions are most vulnerable at hearing. - For each issue, note any point that appears to undermine the objector’s standing, requested relief, or internal consistency. - If the objection bundles multiple theories into one paragraph, separate them into distinct analytical entries before evaluating merit. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships - Track how treatment changes across classes, tranches, claim types, and voting groups, because a defect in one layer can alter the confirmation analysis for another. - Track timing dependencies: filing date, voting deadline, hearing date, effective date, interest accrual period, and any milestone that changes the objector’s leverage or the plan’s exposure. - When one document incorporates another by reference, analyze the incorporated provision as part of the same issue rather than in isolation. - If the objection relies on projections or future performance, distinguish historical fact from forward-looking assumption and identify which assumptions drive the outcome. - If a classification or voting issue turns on acceptance or rejection status, test the downstream effect on cramdown, impaired accepting class requirements, and any related confirmation element. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Produce an issue-by-issue issue-assessment memo organized by objection argument, not a narrative summary. - For each argument, use a compact substructure: Legal Standard → Application → Merit Assessment → Hearing Strategy. - State the controlling authority in the Legal Standard section for each issue. - In the Application section, anchor the analysis in the source documents and include the record facts that make the argument stronger or weaker. - In the Merit Assessment section, use a clear one-line rating: Meritorious, Partially Meritorious, or Deficient, with a brief rationale. - In the Hearing Strategy section, give a concrete response approach tailored to that argument. - Include an opening framing paragraph that identifies the objection, the relevant plan documents, and the overall posture of the memo. - End with a Recommended Actions block that uses imperative verbs, identifies the responsible role, and ties each recommendation to a deadline or hearing milestone. - Conclude with a short overall assessment that ranks the strongest and weakest objections and prioritizes the response sequence.