Laserfiche WebLink
<br />If the UtIR bankruntcv has to be resolved <br />througr_ litigation there wou'_d be few winners, i:E <br />any. <br />~1 re UNR Industries, Inc., 72 Bankr. 789, 792-93 (Bank:.. N.D. <br />I11. 1987). <br />Parties in interest are clearly benefited rather than <br />harmed by an extension of the Exclusive Periods. Moreover, the== <br />i:> little risk of harm to creditors from an extension of the <br />Exclusive Periods. As the court noted in the McLean In~9ustries <br />case: <br />[t]his is not a case where, for example, the deb'.or <br />will be unable to care for its assets and yet <br />insists en maintaining the exclusive nigh*_ to <br />propose a plan. Nor is this a case where the <br />debtor has lost sight of the need to deal with i~.s <br />creditors. <br />81 Bankr. at 835. <br />F. Debtors' Prospects for Filing a Plan of <br />Reorganization within the Extended Time Period. The prospects <br />for filing a plan of reorganization within the proposed extended <br />Exclusive Filing Period are not fully known at this time. <br />Critical negotiations with unions and the PBGC are in r~=_latively <br />early stages. It is evident that some resolution or proposed <br />resolution of the pension issues is essential to a viable plan of <br />reorganization. A resolution of these issues may take :s <br />substantial period of time, partitularly if negotiations between <br />the Debtors and the unions or between the the Debtors and the <br />Pf1GC are protracted, or if a resolution of these issues must be <br />accomplished through litigation. <br />G. Debtors' Cases bear None of the Indicia of aj <br />Bre.=_kdoc;n ?n P-ogress that would Justify Denial of the t4otion. <br />l0 <br />