Laserfiche WebLink
III <br /> 2 THE PROPOSED COMPROMISE IS IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF <br /> 3 CREDITORS AND THE ESTATE <br /> 4 The standard for approval of a compromise was addressed by <br /> s the United States Supreme Court in the benchmark case of Protective <br /> 6 Committee for Independent Stockholders of T.M.T. Trailer Ferry, Inc. <br /> 7 v. Anderson, 390 U. S. 414 , reh'g. denied, 391 U. S. 909 (1968) . In <br /> 8 T.M.T. Trailer, the Court held that compromises reached during the <br /> 9 course of insolvency proceedings must be "fair and reasonable. " 390 <br /> TD U.S. at 424 . Significantly, the Court stated that " [b]asic to this <br /> „ process in every instance, of course, is the need to compare the <br /> 12 terms of the compromise with the likely rewards of litigation. " Id. <br /> 13 More recently, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held <br /> 14 that determination of whether a proposed settlement agreement meets <br /> Is the requisite standards of fairness, equity, and reasonableness, is <br /> 16 a function of several factors: (a) the probability of success in <br /> 17 the litigation; (b) the difficulties, if any, to be encountered in <br /> 18 the matter of collection; (c) the complexity of the litigation <br /> 19 involved, and the expense, inconvenience, and delay necessarily <br /> 20 attending it; and (d) the paramount interest of creditors and a <br /> 21 proper deference to their reasonable views in the premises. See <br /> 22 Martin v Kane (In re A&C Properties) , 784 F. 2d 1377 , 1381 (9th <br /> 23 Cir. ) cert. denied sub. nom. , Martin v. Robinson, 479 U. S. 854 <br /> 24 (1986) . Accord Woodson v Fireman's Fund Insur. Co. (In re <br /> 25 Woodson) , 839 F. 2d 610, 620 (9th Cir. 1988) ; In re MGS Marketing, <br /> 26 111 B.R. 264 , 267 (Bankr. 9th Cir. 1990) . <br /> n <br /> NOTICE OF JOINT MOTION AND JOINT MOTION FOR <br /> ORDER AUTHORIZING COMPROMISE OF CONTROVERSY AND <br /> APPROVING STIPULATION FOR RELIEF FROM STAY 1 1 3435\P006A.LJ C/dcl <br />