is not met. The second alternative, that “the holder of any claim or interest that is junior to the claims of such class will not receive or retain under the plan on account of such junior claim or interest” is often referred to as the “absolute priority rule.” SOS’s Plan does not provide for equity holders to receive or retain an interest, because the Debtor, as a non-profit organization, has no equity holders. See e.g., In re General Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 890, 265 F.3d 869 (9th Cir.2001) (affirming bankruptcy court’s holding that a labor union, which was a non-profit entity, had no equity holders and that, therefore, the absolute priority rule was not applicable to its Chapter 11 plan); In re Wabash Valley Power Ass’n., Inc., 72 F.3d 1305 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied sub nom. U.S. v. Wabash Valley
holding that a creditors failure to vote or to object to a chapter 11 plan constitutes acceptance of the plan holding that a plan under chapter 13 although confirmed was invalid because it failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of 11 usc  1322a2 requiring full payment of all claims entitled to priority holding that the absolute priority rule was not applicable to the chapter 11 plan of a nonprofit electric cooperative which had no equity holders holding that the good faith analysis for evaluating a chapter 11 petition and that in evaluating a chapter 11 plan are distinct holding in a case where a chapter 11 trustee was appointed after a period during which the debt or had operated as debtor in possession that a chapter 11 trustee has two years from the date of his appointment not from the commencement of the chapter 11 case to bring avoidance actions