sale of Braniffs assets been approved, we concluded, “little would remain” in the estate and there would be “little prospect or occasion for further reorganization.” Id. The instant settlement is not a sub rosa reorganization of the type disapproved in Braniff It does not dispose of all claims against Cajun, nor does it restrict creditors’ right to vote as they deem fit on a proposed reorganization plan. Finally, the settlement does not dispose of virtually all of Cajun’s assets, leaving “little prospect or occasion for further reorganization.” Cf. Braniff 700 F.2d at 940. Instead it disposes of one particular “asset,” River Bend, which is not so much the crown jewel of Cajun’s estate but its white elephant. Cf. Richmond Leasing Co. v. Capital Bank, N.A., 762 F.2d 1303 (5th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). The removal of River Bend from the estate
recognizing that in some circumstances an afterthefact remedy under state law may be adequate recognizing that the disposal of a crown jewel asset might in some circumstances amount to a sub rosa plan holding that plan language giving plan administrator power to determine which employees are eligible to participate in the plan and providing all parties dealing with the plan an interpretation of plan provisions on request indicates deferential standard of review of trustee eligibility decisions holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan recognizing oklahomas policy of allowing regulation instead of competition in waste disposal services