GENERAL42067

• Permit No: M1977376
• IBM Index Class Name: General Documents
• Doc Name: MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ORDER EXTENDING DEBTORS EXCLUSIVE PERIODS TO FILE PLANS
• Media Type: D
• Archive: No

3ot`: Congress ar,d the courts have recognized the. the size
end cor..plexity of a debtor's case alone constitutes cat.se for as
i.-itial extension of the exclusive periods. H.R. Rep. No. 555,
95th Ccng., 1st Sess. 231, 232, 406 (1978) ("(I]f an unusually
large cc,-.p any were to seek reorganization under Chapter 11, the
court would probably need to extend the time in order to allow
the deb~cr to rea~oh an agreement"). As the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Necr York noted in
the Te;:=_co case:
(t]he large size of the debtor and the consequent
difficulty in formulating a plan of reorganization
fer a huge debtor with a complex financial
structure are important factors which generally
constitute cause for extending the exclusivity
periods. By sheer size alone the Texaco
debtors have established cause for extending. the
exclusivity periods.
76 Bankr. at 326-27. See also In re Manville Forest Products
Corp., 31 BanY,r. 991, 995 (S.D.N.Y. 1983) (dismissing appeal of
order extending exclusivity; "[t]he sheer mass, weight, volume
and complication of the Manville filings undoubtedly justify a
shakedown period"); In re Gibson & Cushman Dredging, supra, 101
B<snkr. at 409 (cause may be found by virtue of size of case); In
re Washington St. Tammany Electric Cooperative, 97 Bankr. 852,
854-55 (E.D. La. 1989) (when previous extensions already allowed,
showing of size and complexity must be accompanied by other
faactors); In re Public Service Co. of New Hampshire, sucra, 88
B<snkr. at 527 (in ruling on motion for additional extension, the
court noted that the "unique complexity" of the case ha~9
justified the initial extension); In re Nicolet, su ra, 80 Bankr.
at 741; In re Perb:ins, supra, 71 Bankr. at 300; In re r.!r_Lean
6