to consider the fees and the surrounding circumstances as part of its analysis, and this Court is not left with “the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made” in relying on that evidence to find loss to or diminution of the estate. In re Vaughn, 765 F.3d at 1180. Accordingly, the Bankruptcy Court’s finding in this regard is affirmed. B. “Absence of a Reasonable Likelihood of Rehabilitation” Regarding likelihood of rehabilitation, the Bankruptcy Court noted that Morreale’s Plan was a liquidating plan, not a rehabilitation plan, and therefore no reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation existed. (R., Vol. VI at 102.) The Bankruptcy Court’s conclusion is consistent with a number of cases on this issue. See Loop Corp. v. U.S. Trustee, 379 F.3d 511, 516 (8th Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>). Morreale’s challenge to the Bankruptcy
recognizing general proposition that pattern of compensation in past cases raises inference that witness may slant testimony to ensure he is hired in future cases holding and citing cases standing for the proposition that rehabilitation plans may not be based on liquidation holding same and citing cases holding rehabilitation act applicable holding the ada and the rehabilitation act applicable