concludes that it does not have to have blinders on and ignore events subsequent to the Mezz II filing, particularly the filing of its affiliates within ten days of its own bankruptcy filing. Nor does the Court have to ignore the fact that Mezz II was only created as part of the larger enterprise. Therefore, the Court concludes it must consider the Debtors holistically in order to determine if there is a realistic possibility that Mezz that they prove at this early stage of the case that they can confirm a plan; instead, they assert that they must show only that they have a realistic opportunity to do so. The Debtors argue that a motion to dismiss under section 1112 is premature where they have not been given sufficient time to propose a plan. See, e.g., Gen. Growth, 409 B.R. at 65 (<HOLDING>); In re Lizeric Realty Corp., 188 B.R. 499,
recognizing tjhere is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case holding that a bankruptcy order is not final unless it 1 holding that there is no requirement that a petitioning creditor obtain a statecourt judgment in order to have standing to file an involuntary petition under  303 of the bankruptcy code holding that a payment is under the plan when the debt is provided for in the plan holding that tjhere is no requirement in the bankruptcy code that a debtor must prove that a plan is confirmable in order to file a petition