|
achieves an unjust result amounting W a char abuse of dixrction, provided, however, Ne
<br />bankruptcy coon's derision so approve Ne sd0ement must be an in(omned one baud upon an
<br />objective evaluation of developed facts. R i•• v. H •m nn al pgs. 890 and 891. Ser also
<br />t c v w .der 982 F.24 1491 (ION Cir, 1993).
<br />In Ne original Exhibit 8 N Ne Ikblon' Disclosure SUlemrnt prepared in
<br />conjunction with Debtors' Plan, Ne estimated plan distribution m N.: EPA was approximately
<br />52,2d5,(IOO,r however, Nis ulimated distribution arsumed Ne PBGC had a general
<br />unserured claim of approximately 5168,000,000. AM Ne preparation of Exhibit 8, Nis
<br />Court ruled that Ne PBGC's general unsaured claim was approximately 5220,000,000,
<br />which would reduce the projaled payout to Ne EPA. However, Ne iuue of Ne amount of
<br />Ne PBGC's general unsecured claim was appealed N Ne United Stasis District Coun for the
<br />District of Utah, was remanded, and is presently before Nis Coun for consideration.
<br />Therefore, Ne amount of Ne PBGC'6 general uns«ured claim, which will impact any
<br />ullimaN distribution so Ne EPA wiN rasp«t b its general unecured claim, is unresolvrd.
<br />However, given Ne estimated range of Ne PBGC's general uns«urrA claim and Ne
<br />additional funds available w CFdel's esta4 aauming Ne Coverage Action SUOemenu arc
<br />approved, CF&I believes Ne proposed payment of 52,200,000 b Nc EPA under Ne EPA
<br />'E:hibit 8 rcB«ts pmj«ted wnsidention available for distribution to general unsecured
<br />creditors, other Nan Ne PBGC, of 55,04d,000 and assumes general unsecured claims, oth«
<br />Nan general ens«ured Claims of Ne PBCC, of 560,920,000, resulting in a projauil
<br />distribution of 8.28%. The EPA's allowed general unsaurexl claim of 527,098,870 a 8.28%
<br />equals 52,243,708.
<br />_g
<br />Settlement Agramenl in full satisfaction of Ne EPA's general unsecured claim against CF&1
<br />of 27,098,870 represents a goad faiN estimate of the value of Ne wnsidention Ne EPA will
<br />ultimately receive under Ne Confirmed Plan. In addition Ne proposed EPA Settlement
<br />Agramrnt avoids the cost of Litigating wiN Ne EPA Ne issue of enti0emrns to Ne net
<br />xttlement proceeds of 54,300,000 az a result of the Coverage Action sUtlemrnu and avoids
<br />the risk of being requirod to pay more Nan 52,200,000 of the 54,300,000 in xnlemcns
<br />proceeds while still having a claim by Ne EPA against CFkI's estate in excess of
<br />E22,000,000.
<br />Moreover, the payment of 52,200,000 to Ne EPA in full satisfaction of its
<br />claims against CFkI and the related Debmrs' banknpscy cases leave 52,100,0(10 in CFdeI't
<br />estate, which sum is approximately what CFBcI and iu estate have expended in the Coverage
<br />Action and the litigation wiN Ne EPA concerning Ne amount of Ne EPA's claim.
<br />Assuming the Coverage Action Senlements and Ne EPA Settlement Agrament aze approved,
<br />Ne economic impact on CFdel's creditors is neutral, j,!<, it is as i(no EPA claim or the
<br />Coverage Litigation ever existed.
<br />Last the EPA Sesslement Agramens is beneficial beaux without the EPA
<br />Settlement Agreement, Ne EPA may obj«I to Ne Coverage Action Settlements bewuu of
<br />the ef(ert the sUllemenu have on the EPA, which could adverxly affert the approval of the
<br />Coverage Action SeltlemenO.
<br />10~
<br />
<br />
|