on the various issues raised in the case. In its supplemental objection, Resurgence asserts that this is still insufficient. Although WTC may be correct that less detai tive claim under section 503(b)(3)(D), contending it made a substantial contribution in this case. Alternatively, WTC relies on section 503(b)(3)(F), which allows expenses of Committee members. Finally, WTC argues that, because it is entitled to an administrative claim under section 503(b)(3)(D) or (F), it is entitled to an administrative claim for its attorneys’ fees under section 503(b)(4). WTC must prove that it is entitled to an administrative expense award by a preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., Calpine Corp. v. O’Brien Envtl. Energy, Inc. (In re O’Brien Envtl. Energy, Inc.), 181 F.3d 527, 533 (3d Cir.1999) (<HOLDING>); In re TransAmerican Natural Gas Corp., 978
holding burden of proof is on one asserting an affirmative defense recognizing that the burden of proof is an essential element of the claim itself and that one who asserts a claim has the burden of proof that normally comes with it holding that the burden of proof is on the claimant holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that claimant moving for summary judgment on its claim must conclusively prove all the essential elements of the claim and that claimant has the burden to show that there are no genuine issues of material fact and that claimant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law