GENERAL31473 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

in connection with Che settlement of 11[igation under [he Banknptcy Act.' In Reiee v. Hermann, SS1 P.2d e90, S91 (10th Cir. 19591, a case under [he Bankruptcy Code, the Tenth Cl rcuit acknowledged the ten Factor teat of the RSna Resources Co. case es coot rolling !n connection rich [he approval of a settlement and compromise under the Bankruptcy Code; however, [he Tenth Circuit !n Reiee v. Haamann Cocueed pa rt lcula rly on [he issues of the likelihood of success and the expected e~penee end delay caused by litigation. Other of the ten [actors enunciated in Che Klna Resources Co. case that rould srguably apply to the proposed Allocation Agreement negot l8 tad by Reorganized CP6I and [he USWA include the number o[ pa r[Ses that object to the ee[tlemenC, [he competency and experience of counsel who support the settlement and the extent to which the settlement ie tnily [he product of arms-length bargaining. A bankruptcy court's approval of a compromise may be disturbed only when it achieves an unjust result amounting to a clear abuse of discretion, provides, however, the bankruptcy court's decision [o approve the settlement moat be an informed one based upon an objective evaluation of developed [acts. Heiea v. Hlgmann at pp. 590 and 891. See also U.9. v. Hardaae, 952 P.2d 1491 110th Cir, 19931. The proposed Allocation Agreement hef ore Che Court does not represent a compromise and settlement of litigation between Reorganized CP6I and the Retirees, ae Reorganized CP6I prosecuted the Mvereary Proceeding end [he litigation that preceded the Adversary Proceeding primarily for the benefit of the Reti rasa. Rather, the proposed Allocation Agreement represents a proposal to allocate equitably between creditors of Reorganized CPLI and ReClreee the coat and expense of recovering the reserve Lunde wrongfully withheld by equitable/CGLIC. As set forth in paragraph 6 of the Statement Of Pacts, the USWA has disavowed any authority to enter into an agreement that binds any of the Reti rase, but particularly those Retirees [hat. were never mamba re of [he USWA. Nevertheless !n [he Adversary Proceeding and the litlga tton prior to the Adversary Pzoceeding, and Sn connection with the negotiation and settlement o[ the ACversary Proceeding, both Reorganized CP4I and the USWA Bought to protect the rights and intereete of the Retirees. Likewise, with reaper[ to Che negoClation of Che proposed Allocation Agreement, Reorganized 'Because the case was a very large, complex case involving a settlement that rns put together over a period in excess of tro years and involved some [ozty (401 distinct representative groups or part iee holding sharp, antagonistic and conflicting intereete, several oC the ten (10) factors enumerated are not applicable to many eettlemente, including the settlement in this case. CPfiI was mindful of the rights and intereete of the Retirees but the USwA specifically sought to protect the rights and interests of ReClreee. The proposed Allocation Agreement represents the result oP good faith, arms-length negotiations between Reorganized CF6I and the USWA wherein the intereete of all part iee were considered and protected. It Se the business judgment of the Reeponeible OfElcer/Reeponeible Director of Reorganized CP4I that the Allocation Agreement le in the beet intereete of CPLI steel Corporation's estate and the creditors of its estate. Based on the foregoing, Reorganized CP4I and the USWA respectfully request [hat the Allocation Agreement be approved. DATED this 9th day oC June, 1997. RAY, QUINNBY 6 NBBBKBR /e/ Weston L. Harris Weston L. Harris Attorneys for Reorganized CPaI 8tee1 Corporation COHBN, WB198 and SIMON /e/ Ann 8. O'3hea Ann 6. O'Shea Attorneys for United Steel Workers of America ern.m~a