Laserfiche WebLink
an "independent discount rate determination." Id. at 14, 17 <br />(emphasis added). <br />ARGIIMENT <br />THIS CODRT SHOIILD REAFFIRM ITS PRIOR DETERMINATION, <br />SXERCISING INDfiPENDENT LEGAL JIIDGMENT, BASED <br />ON ITS PREVIOIIS FINDINGS OF FACT AFTER TRIAL <br />The district court has assigned to this Court the <br />responsibility of determining "the actuarial present value of <br />guaranteed benefits in the reorganization context." Op. at 12. <br />Having heard extensive testimony and having made findings of fact <br />"[b]ased upon the weight of the evidence and upon all applicable <br />equitable factors," 12/31/92 Mem. Dec. at 18, this Court need not <br />engage in lengthy deliberations on remand. The Debtors did not <br />assert, and the district court nowhere suggested, that the <br />bankruptcy court erred in improperly admitting or excluding <br />evidence. Rather, the only error cited by the district court was <br />the bankruptcy court's conclusion that some deference was due to <br />the PBGC, which "may" have prevented the Court from making an <br />"independent" evaluation. Op. at 14. <br />This Court, however, made specific findings of fact <br />which, regardless of deference, independently support and even <br />compel the result reached. There is nothing in the Court's prior <br />decisions implying that any finding of fact was even a close <br />call. Nor was there any argument on appeal, much less a ruling <br />by the district court, that any of those findings was clearly <br />erroneous. Those findings effectively require this Court to <br />reach the same result and allow PBGC's unfunded benefit <br />- 6 - <br />