# Identify Issues In Counterparty Confirmation Objection > Ensures a confirmation objection analysis applies the relevant confirmation standards to each argument, flags confirmation vulnerabilities the objector did not raise, and assesses the objector's own strategic position for weaknesses. - Skill: `finchipaiorg/identify-issues-in-counterparty-confirmation-objection` (Agent Skill) - Install (CLI): `npx skillmds@latest add finchipaiorg/identify-issues-in-counterparty-confirmation-objection` - Raw SKILL.md: https://api.skillmd.com/api/skills/finchipaiorg/identify-issues-in-counterparty-confirmation-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/identify-issues-in-counterparty-confirmation-objection --- # Skill: Identify Issues in Counterparty Confirmation Objection ## 2. Failure modes the skill is correcting - Agent analyzes only the objections affirmatively raised and misses debtor-side confirmation vulnerabilities that must be addressed even if the objector omitted them. - Agent treats generalized fairness complaints as if they were confirmation objections without tying them to a specific confirmation requirement or governing authority. - Agent fails to separate strong, curable, and weak points, making the hearing strategy too blunt to be useful. - Agent ignores the objector’s own posture: standing, credibility, dual roles, inconsistency, or other leverage-limiting weaknesses. - Agent omits the practical consequence of each issue: whether it affects confirmation, creates an amendment need, or is better answered through evidentiary support at hearing. - Agent stops at issue spotting and does not convert analysis into a litigation plan with concrete next steps. ## 3. Legal frameworks / domain conventions that apply - Use the governing confirmation provisions and related bankruptcy rules as the baseline for every objection argument, including the specific standard invoked by the source documents and any forum-specific authority for releases, valuation, impairment, voting, feasibility, or classification. - Test treatment of each impaired class against the plan documents, disclosure materials, and voting tabulation to determine whether acceptance, deemed rejection, or cure-by-amendment is the more accurate framing. - Apply absolute priority principles, cramdown requirements, and any claimed exceptions whenever junior recoveries or mixed consideration are present. - Evaluate secured-claim status, perfection, lien survival, collateral description, and adequate protection issues by cross-checking the loan, security, and scheduling materials in the source set. - Evaluate feasibility by comparing projected performance to historical results, current run-rate, capital structure, and any stated assumptions that bear on post-confirmation performance. - Evaluate third-party release objections under the controlling authority for the relevant jurisdiction and distinguish consensual from non-consensual releases. - Evaluate voting objections, including class composition, insider votes, and dollar-versus-headcount tabulation, by checking whether the class result changes when the challenged votes are excluded. - Treat disclosure of governance, reserve adequacy, and valuation disputes as confirmation-relevant only to the extent they connect to a recognized standard or materially affect the outcome. ## 4. Analytical scaffolds - Identify each objection point separately before analysis; do not merge distinct theories, parties, classes, or time periods into one pass unless the source documents make them truly inseparable. - For each point, state the governing authority by name and section or case name, then apply the cited facts from the plan documents and objection record. - For each point, close the analysis with: the scale of the issue as reflected in the source documents; the document or clause that interacts with it; and the downstream consequence for confirmation, leverage, or hearing strategy. - Rate each point on a uniform ordinal severity scale defined once at the top of the memo, and use that same scale throughout. - Classify each point as strong, weak, or curable, and explain whether the best response is evidentiary rebuttal, plan amendment, supplemental disclosure, narrowed release language, revised classification, or another targeted fix. - Where voting is disputed, recompute the result from the source tabulation and separately test any insider or challenged votes if the record supports that exercise. - Where valuation is disputed, compare the competing valuation narratives through their effect on recoveries and the confirmation standard, not as a standalone accounting exercise. - Flag confirmation vulnerabilities not raised by the objector, especially items that would matter at hearing even if no objection was advanced. - Assess the objector’s strategic position for conflicts, inconsistent positions, credibility problems, standing concerns, or procedural vulnerabilities that could reduce the force of the objection. - When multiple classes, claims, releases, or counterparties are implicated, keep the analysis segmented so the hearing team can answer each issue with a distinct factual record. ## 5. Vertical / structural / temporal relationships (only if applicable) - Track how treatment changes across classes, phases, or effective-date conditions, especially where a later event cures or worsens an objection. - Distinguish pre-confirmation facts from effective-date commitments and post-confirmation governance, because a defect may be curable before the hearing but material if left unresolved. - Note whether the objection attacks a plan term, a disclosure omission, a voting result, or the evidentiary support for a confirmation element, since each requires a different response. - If the source documents contain multiple scenarios or alternative treatments, analyze each materially different path rather than using a single representative assumption. ## 6. Output structure conventions - Produce an issue-by-issue memorandum organized by objection argument, with each entry containing: governing standard, application to the source facts, strength assessment, severity rating, and recommended hearing response. - Use the same ordinal severity scale throughout the memo and define it once near the outset. - Include a separate section for vulnerabilities the objector did not raise, with a short explanation of why each matters and what proactive fix or evidentiary support should be prepared. - Include a separate section on the objector’s strategic position and any weaknesses affecting credibility, standing, leverage, or consistency. - End with a Recommended Actions block that converts the analysis into imperative next steps, identifies the responsible role, and ties each action to the hearing, objection deadline, disclosure supplement, or other relevant milestone. - Keep the memo concise but complete; every issue should end in a practical litigation or transaction consequence, not a bare legal conclusion.