shortsighted. 46 . The court might consider Blackstone entitled to more than the minimum agreed to given Coleman's work on the court's behalf on the recalculation of Debtors' TEV. However, the cost of Houlihan (which contributed less but negotiated better) is such that the court is not inclined toward generosity. Moreover, Blackstone was being paid monthly for service to Debtors during the recalculation of TEV, though its work at that time was at the court's behest. Moreover, had Blackstone done a better job initially of predicting value, as discussed above, a consensual plan might have been possible without the need for recalculation of TEV. 47 . See In re Cellular 101, Inc., 377 F.3d 1092, 1096 (9th Cir.2004) (citing In re Consol. Bancshares, Inc., 785 F.2d 1249, 1253 (5th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); In re DP Partners, Ltd. P'ship, 106 F.3d 667,
holding that the principal test of substantial contribution is extent of benefit to the estate recognizing a right to contribution holding that in determining whether there has been a substantial contribution pursuant to section 503b3d the applicable test is whether the efforts of the applicant resulted in an actual and demonstrable benefit to the debt ors estate and the creditors recognizing contribution in the appropriate case holding defendants were fiduciaries because they had discretion to determine the extent of the companys annual contribution to the plan and whether the contribution would be made in  stock or cash