With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". interest, would, as of the time of the Hearing, calculate out to a value approximating the then-current market view of the TEV of the reorganized Debtors. However, had the court adopted Coleman's value, creditors of Mirant would have been entitled to virtually all the common stock of the reorganized parent debtor (the balance going to creditors of MAG) to the exclusion of equity. That would have resulted in overpayment of Mirant creditors (based on post-effective date stock prices) of approximately 10% ($600 million). During the Valuation Hearing the financial advisors often lectured the court on the omniscience of the securities markets; if those markets are, indeed, all wise, they have beyond any doubt proven that the value projections of the financial advisors we 73 (5th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); Lebron v. Mechem Pin. Inc., 27 F.3d 937, 944

A: holding that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in awarding opposing counsels attorneys fees and expenses as sanctions without affording the sanctioned party the right to examine question or provide argument against the claimed fees and expenses
B: holding that at a minimumthe court should weigh the cost of the claimed fees and expenses against the benefits conferred upon the estate
C: holding that erisa benefits are not property of the estate
D: holding that debtors have the burden of proving that other necessary expenses on form b22c are actual reasonable and necessary expenses and that these expenses should be considered in light of schedule j and other relevant evidence
B.