GENERAL42273 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

~.~ {l•, may be disturbed only when i[ achieves an unjust result amounri nq to a clear abuse of discretion, provided, however, the bankruptcy court/ s decision to approve the settlement must be an informed one based upon an objective evaluation of developed facts. Reiss vIlay moon a[ pgs. 890 and 891. See also U_S. v. Ila rda cue, 982 F.2d 1491 (10th Cir. 199)). Arc omen[ in Supmor[ of Settlement If CFbI Steel continued to pursue the Coverage Action against [he insurance Companies, its recovery possibly could be significantly higher than the 54,]00,000 aggregate settlement amount. ^oweveq given the numerous (actual and legal issues raised in the Coverage Action, the prosecution of the if tigatfon would be very costly (likely in excess of an additional $1,000,000) and time consuming and could result in no recovery at all. Moreover, the liquidation of the environmental claims against CFdI Steel and the possible limitation on the recovery of parties holding environmental claims untl er Debtors' Antl Ra ilroatl Trustee's First Amended And Restatetl Joint Plan of Reorganization Dated December 1, 1992 that vas confirmed by an ortler of the Court dated February 12, 1991 ("Debtors Confirmed Plan") may adversely impact and limit CFbI Steel's recovery or ability to recover in the Coverage Action. In addition, the proposed Settlement Agreements must be considered in the context of the Coverage Action which was instituted to intlemnify and defend CFbI Steel with respect to certain claims matle aqa inst CF6I Steel by the EPA, the NYSDEC and various private parties alleging that CFbI Steel vas liable for certain alleged property damage at and arising from certain sites locatetl in New jersey and New York. The Claims have now been liquidated antl total $2],598,870 as set forth in paragraph 2 of tl~e preceding Brief Factual Ba ckg ro untl. Because the amount of the Pension Be ne(it Guaranty Corporation's (the "PBGC") claim is still unresolved, the payout to general unsecured creditors is still quite speculative; however, using the projected payout of 55,044,000 [e general unsecured creditors on general unsecured claims, other Chan claims held by PBGC, of 560,920, OUO (see Exhibit 8 [o [he Disclosure Statement for Debtors' And Railroad 7'ruste e's First Amended And Restated Joint Plan Of Reorganization Dated December 1, 1992) the prolected payout to general unsecured cred hors was approximately 8.]i. This translates into comh fined projected payments to the EPA and Hiagra Mohawk Power Corporation of approximately 52,202,426. When this figure is added to the approximately $2,000,800 expended by CF6I in resolvi nq the Underlying Claims and the Coverage Action, CF6I believes the proposetl settlement with the Insurance Companies is reasonable, and in CF6!'s business judgment, is in the best interest of the estates. _5_ -6-