Laserfiche WebLink
subtracted, the amount of unfunded benefit liabilities was about <br />$223 million. 11/10/92 Tr. at 61-62 (Gustafson). These facts <br />were undisputed. In accordance with the "reiterative method," <br />the latter figure was then adjusted for the value of the Plan's <br />allowed priority minimum funding contribution claim of <br />approximately $2 million, leaving a final result of $220,953,0005 <br />-- the exact amount allowed by this Court in its final order <br />entered on May 21, 1993. <br />B. The Court Found That Debtors' Theory, the <br />So-Called "Prudent Investor" Theory, Failed <br />On Its Own Terms <br />In lieu of PBGC's combination of factors, Debtors <br />proposed that a plan's benefit liabilities be discounted by what <br />they believed to be a reasonable rate of return on a hypothetical <br />portfolio of pension plan assets, the so-called "prudent <br />investor" theory.b This Court squarely rejected Debtors' theory. <br />in the first place, the Court found: <br />• PBGC's interest factor is "only one part of a <br />three part formula ." <br />12/31/92 Mem. Dec. at 17. Debtors' theory, however, would pluck <br />one factor -- the interest factor -- from an interrelated set of <br />assumptions and change it in isolation. But the Court found: <br />SSee Memorandum in Support of Motion of Pension Benefit <br />Guaranty Corporation, Dated 1/11/93, for Reconsideration and <br />Allowance of Recalculated Claims at 7-8; Declaration of Ronald E. <br />Pekar 1~ 3-5. <br />DDebtors presented a second theory at trial, the so-called <br />"debtor specific" approach, but abandoned it on appeal. in any <br />event, this Court found "little support" for that theory, either <br />in case law or from the witnesses for both parties. 12/31/92 <br />Mem. Dec. 16. <br />- 9 - <br />