With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". can be rehabilitated. Colony argues nonetheless that there is no realistic chance of reorganization because no plan can be confirmed in the Mezz II case. There has been no substan- five consolidation of the Debtors. Therefore, to confirm a plan, Mezz II would need to have at least one impaired, accepting class. 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(10). See also In re Tribune Co., No. 08-13141, 2011 WL 5142420, at *37-41 (Bankr.D.Del. Oct. 31, 2011) (analyzing § 1129(a)(10) and concluding that absent substantive consolidation, there must be a consenting class for each individual debtor in a joint plan for it to be confirmed). Because Colony is Mezz II’s only creditor, confirmation of a plan to which they do not consent is not possible. See, e.g., In re 3 Ram, Inc., 343 B.R. 113, 119 (Bankr.E.D.Pa.2006) (<HOLDING>). The Debtors contend that there is no

A: holding that a creditors security was preserved notwithstanding the bankruptcy of the debtor
B: holding that all property regardless of disclosure revests in the debtor upon dismissal and declining to follow kunmica and kilpatrick because the debtor did not benefit from and the creditors were not impaired by the bankruptey proceedings or the dismissal
C: holding that where debtor has no operations and only one asset which is fully encumbered in favor of the only creditor debtor is unable to confirm a plan over creditors opposition thereby requiring mandatory dismissal under section 1112b4a
D: holding that property a debtor holds only in trust for another is not an interest of the debtor in property under 11 usc  547b which authorizes the trustee to avoid certain preferential payments to creditors made before bankruptcy
C.