sale of assets necessary to fund a plan. There is a split of authority whether “under a plan confirmed” limits § 1146(c) to post-confirmation transfers. I find the text to be ambiguous because it can reasonably support two different outcomes. From one perspective, “under a plan confirmed” requires plan confirmation as a precondition to eligibility for the exemption. See NVR Homes, 189 F.3d at 456-57. Alternatively, it can be read as merely describing a type of eligible transfer, i.e., one that is an integral part of the plan process for a plan later confirmed or pursuant to a confirmed plan, as opposed to, for example, a transfer incidental to a debtor’s business operations. See, e.g., City of New York v. Smoss Enter. Corp. (In re Smoss Enter. Corp.), 54 B.R. 950, 951 (E.D.N.Y.1985) (<HOLDING>); In re Lopez Dev., Inc., 154 B.R. 607, 609 n.
holding preconfirmation transfer essential to fund plan is exempt under  1146c holding that professionals who advised the plan were not fiduciaries because they had no decision making authority over the plan or plan assets also noting that the power to act for the plan is essential to status as a fiduciary holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan holding that where a governmental entity purchases a benefit plan on behalf of government employees and dele gates the administration to a private insurer the plan is a government plan exempt from erisa 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