HERBERT A. ROSS
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge

      After 4½ years in chapter 11, at a hearing on January 3, 1991 in Juneau, the court granted the motion to convert this case to chapter 7 filed by Fireman's Fund Insurance Company and Home Insurance Company with the concurrence of the United States Trustee.

      Alaska Trams Corporation, the debtor, has been attempting to develop a tourist attraction in Juneau for years. The center piece is a tramway from the base of Mt. Juneau to the summit, with a related hotel, gift shops, and attractions. During a hearing on December 6, 1990, the debtor said the project would cost     1 ABR 278  $40,000,000, but an interim phase could be started with just $4,000,000 capital.

      No funding has yet been secured, although the debtor has constantly sought financing during the course of this chapter 11. Prior disclosure statements have not been approved by this court because they did not comply with § 1125 of the Bankruptcy Code. Debtor suffered a setback when the Supreme Court of Alaska held that debtor was not entitled to certain air rights it had been counting on. See Alaska Trams Corporation v. Alaska Electric Light & Power, 743 P.2d 350 (Alaska 1987), cert den. 485 U.S. 905 (1988).

      At a hearing on December 6, 1990 of the motion to convert, debtor said that its was preparing a liquidating plan. Debtor no longer proposes to operate. The court ordered debtor to file the new proposed plan and disclosure statement by late December, 1990, so that the court and creditors could at least gauge the likelihood of a feasible liquidating plan being confirmed. One was filed on December 21, 1991 (Docket No. 269) entitled "(Second Modified) Disclosure Statement and Plan of Reorganization."

      At the December 6, 1990 hearing, debtor indicated that many of the parcels of real property key to the project have been placed in the name of Mt. Juneau Enterprises, Inc. (MJEI), or Jim Michael Keen, son of Charles Keen. Charles Keen is one of Alaska Trams' shareholders and its driving force.

1. 1. Debtor would sell all the assets of Alaska Trams, except the CBJ law suit, for its liquidation value (i.e., for about $100,000±) to MJEI free and clear of liens and disburse this to those creditors who did not elect to receive MJEI promissory notes. MJEI would assume all obligations of debtor of those creditors willing to waive their claims (secured and unsecured) against debtor in exchange for MJEI promissory notes.

2. 2. The proceeds would be distributed to the secured creditors of each parcel who did not elect the MJEI promissory notes in the priority of their liens until the amount allocated to that parcel is expended. The unpaid secured creditors that reject the MJEI notes would have an unsecured claim for the balance. It is unclear from the disclosure     1 ABR 280  statement how they would recover this since the only asset remaining would be the CBJ lawsuit which would be split up: (a) with the attorney on a contingent fee getting a third; (b) 25% of the net proceeds to be paid on the MJEI notes, (c) as payment for the salaries of the Alaska Trams personnel incurred post-petition, and (d) the balance to debtor free and clear of claims (Docket No. 269 at page 10).

3. 3. Those creditors that elect (apparently secured and unsecured) would have the right to promissory notes issued by MJEI bearing 10½% interest payable from 8% of the gross proceeds of the tram project and 25% of the net proceeds of the CBJ lawsuit recovery. The starting date of the quarterly note payments is loosely stated to be three months after the tram is operating and generating revenue. The entire balance is due seven years from confirmation.

      Alaska Trams in its recent disclosure statement lists the total of creditors claims as:

The amount is actually higher since some of the claims shown on the claims register are much higher than shown on the disclosure     1 ABR 281  statement, e.g. Maxwell Starkman Associates filed a Proof of Claim No. 3 for $316,519.91, whereas debtor lists it as a disputed $100,000 unsecured claim in the disclosure statement.

      There is no disclosure concerning the financial strength or makeup of MJEI or the feasibility that the promissory notes would be paid. Jim Michael Keen is the owner of MJEI. The recent disclosure statement is very deficient in complying with § 1125 of the Bankruptcy Code and would probably take into the spring until it could be approved, and the plan does not look like a likely candidate for confirmation.

      The debtor indicated at the December 6, 1990 hearing that a few of the mining claims which are apparently crucial to the tram station at the top of Mt. Juneau had been transferred from debtor to Charles Keen's son, Jim Michael Keen, within one year of the date of filing for wages earned during 1984 and 1985. This is a possible preferential transfer under § 547 of the Bankruptcy Code.

      There is a vocal group of supporters for the tram project. During the several motions for dismissal or conversion, a letter campaign was mounted by creditors or interested parties in support of continuing the case in chapter 11. Notwithstanding this, the court feels that the best way to assure that the project does go forward in a manner that will get the creditors paid is to, in the current lingo, "level the playing field."

      Too much of the project has leaked out of the debtor's corporate control into the hands of the Keen family individually     1 ABR 282  and their related companies. There has perhaps been too much lip service paid by the debtor and the Keens to the rights of these creditors, but this does not compensate for the erosion of their creditors' rights over the years.

      While the Keens may have pure motives, it is appropriate after 4½ years in bankruptcy to give some leverage to an independent trustee. If the project is financable, the Keen family, MJEI, or someone will buy the estate's rights so that it has all the property needed to do the tramway project correctly. A trustee can possibly require the return of the claims transferred to Jim Michael Keen so that there will be no project unless the creditors are paid a fair amount for the estate property.

      The Alaska Trams Corporation v. Alaska Electric Light & Power case, at 351, indicates the tram project has been on the drawing board since 1976. This debtor may not be able to reorganize within a reasonable period of time. Compare United Savings Association v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U.S. 365 (1988) dealing with reliefs from stay. Chapter 11 is not suitable to solve all debtor-creditor problems.

      Each case is different. This case is an unlikely candidate for confirmation as the plan is presently structured. Conversion is appropriate in this case since it will give the creditors of the estate the best chance of getting paid without unduly hindering the project. Conversion to chapter 7 may be more productive to the development of the project than destructive. The     1 ABR 183  Keens can pursue their financing through MJEI, but will have to deal with an independent trustee when it comes to buying the estates assets. A bankruptcy court has wide discretion whether or not to convert. In re Albany Partners, Ltd., 749 F.2d 670, 674 (11th Cir. 1984) and In re Klein/Ray Broadcasting, 100 B.R. 509, 511 (9th Cir. BAP 1987).