The opinion of the court was delivered by: Schiller, J.
The City of Lancaster ("City") appeals a Bankruptcy Court order confirming the Third Am\ended Plan of Reorganization of Shell's Disposal and Recycling, Inc. ("Debtor"). For the reasons that follow, the Court affirms the decision of the Bankruptcy Court.
Debtor is a Pennsylvania hauling and recycling business, of which the president and sole shareholder is Willie Shell, Sr. (R. at Ex. 7 [Bankruptcy Confirmation Tr.] at 18-19.) Debtor filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on August 23, 2010, and listed the City as having an unsecured non-priority claim for $235,000 on its Amended Schedule F. (Voluntary Pet.; Am. Schedule F.) Debtor filed monthly operating reports from August 2010 through May 2012. (R. at Ex. 5 [Monthly Operating Reports].) Debtor filed a plan of reorganization on May 3, 2011, and an amended plan of reorganization on February 20, 2012.
The City states that it filed an additional unsecured claim on March 1, 2012 for $301,500 in rejection damages arising out of Debtor's rejection of a prior settlement agreement with the City. (Appellant's Br. at 5; see Bankruptcy Confirmation Tr. at 50.) The enforceability of this settlement agreement was the subject of ongoing litigation between the parties at the time the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the plan that is the subject of this appeal. The Third Circuit has since concluded that the agreement is enforceable. Shell's Disposal & Recycling, Inc. v. City of Lancaster, App. A. No. 12-1730, 2012 WL 5816870 (3d Cir. Nov. 16, 2012). As a result, the City's claim against Debtor for rejection damages remains valid, though its status was uncertain at the time of the confirmation hearing.
On April 19, 2012, Debtor filed a second amended plan, which provided for payment of Debtor's secured claims within two years of the date of confirmation of the plan, payment of unsecured priority claims within three years of confirmation, and payment of unsecured non-priority claims within five years of confirmation. (See R. at Ex. 9 [Second Am. Plan].) The IRS, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Revenue, and the City filed objections. (Appellee's Br. at 5.)
The Bankruptcy Court held a confirmation hearing on the second amended plan on June 19, 2012. At the hearing, Shell testified that Debtor engaged in advertising efforts and was a minority-owned business enterprise, which helped Debtor to attract business. (Bankruptcy Confirmation Tr. at 27, 42.) Shell also stated that Debtor was up-to-date on its taxes and its workers compensation payments. (Id. at 20, 35.) Shell acknowledged that Debtor's lawyer had agreed to defer his compensation and would not require payment immediately upon confirmation and that Shell had not been taking a salary during the bankruptcy period. (Id. at 31, 32.)
On June 21, 2012, Debtor filed the Debtor-in-Possession's Third Amended Plan of Reorganization ("Plan"), which made a "technical amendment" to the second amended plan but otherwise retained its structure. (Appellee's Br. at 6; see R. at Ex. 10 [Third Am. Plan].) The Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Plan in an order dated June 26, 2012. (R. at Ex. 2 [Order Confirming Plan].) The City appeals the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation of the Plan.
District courts have jurisdiction over appeals from final bankruptcy court orders. 28 U.S.C. § 158(a). A district court reviewing a bankruptcy court's decision has plenary review over the bankruptcy court's legal conclusions. See Am. Flint Glass Workers Union v. Anchor Resolution Corp., 197 F.3d 76, 80 (3d Cir. 1999); Computer Personalities Sys., Inc. v. Aspect Computer, 320 B.R. 812, 816 (E.D. Pa. 2005). "Findings of fact . . . shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the bankruptcy court to judge the credibility of the witnesses." Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8013; see also In re Nelson Co., 959 F.2d 1260, 1263 (3d Cir. 1992). "A factual finding is clearly erroneous when 'the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.'" In re CellNet Data Sys., Inc., 327 F.3d 242, 244 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). Matters left to the discretion of the bankruptcy court judge are reviewed for abuse of that discretion. In re Martin's Aquarium, Inc., 98 F. App'x 911, 913 (3d Cir. 2004). An abuse of discretion exists if the "court's decision rests upon a clearly erroneous finding of fact, an errant conclusion of law, or an improper application of law to fact." In re SGL Carbon Corp., 200 F.3d 154, 159 (3d Cir. 1999) (citation omitted).
The City argues that the Plan should not have been confirmed because Debtor did not prove the Plan was feasible under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(11). "Feasibility is a factual question subject to the clearly erroneous standard of review." Corestates Bank, N.A. v. United Chem. Techs., Inc., 202 B.R. 33, 45 (E.D. Pa. 1996) (citations omitted). Under § 1129(a)(11),
The court shall confirm a plan only if . . . [c]onfirmation of the plan is not likely to be followed by the liquidation, or the need for further financial reorganization, of the debtor or any successor to the debtor under the plan, ...