1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
|
|
| 
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1.
This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sections 1334 and 157(a). The
Motion to Compromise is a core proceeding under 28 V.S.C. Section 157(b).
2.
The notice of the Hearing at which this Order was approved, which notice was
provided by the Trustee, constitutes adequate notice under the circumstances in accordance with
Bankruptcy Rule 2002 and Bankruptcy Code Section 102(1), in light of tile nature of the relief
requested in the Motion and complied with the concepts of due process and all applicable rules
of law.
3.
Compromises are a normal part of the process of a Chapter 11 proceeding and
are consistent with the general policy of courts in favor of settlements. Protective Committee
for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry. Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424
(1968); Martin v. Kane (In re A&C Properties), 74 F.2d 1377 (9th Cir.) (cert. denied, sub nom.,
Martin v. Robinson,479U.S.854, 107S.Ct.189,93 L.Ed.2d 122 (1986).
4. Rule 9019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure gives this Court
authority to approve a compromise and settlement upon motion by a Trustee and after hearing
on notice to creditors, and other such persons as the Court may designate. In re Marshall, 33
B.R. 42, 43 (Bkrtcy. D. Conn. 1983).
5.
The decision whether to approve a motion for approval of a compromise and
settlement lies with the discretion of this court. In re Aeweco, 725 F.2d 293,297 (51h Cir.
1984).
6.
In exercising its discretion in determining the fairness, reasonableness and
adequacy of the proposed Settlement Agreement, this Court is required to, and has, given
consideration to such factors as the probability of success with regard to the actual and potential
disputes, the difficulties, if any, to be encountered in the matter of collection, the complexity of
the litigation involved, and the expense, inconvenience and delay necessarily attending it, and
the apparent interest of creditors and a proper deference to their reasonable views in the
premises. Martin v.Kane (In re: A&C Properties),784F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir.1986).
|
|
|
