In Re Placid Oil Co.

92 B.R. 183, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 1675, 1988 WL 108728
United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas·Decided September 30, 1988·No. 19-40275·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

HAROLD C. ABRAMSON,

Bankruptcy Judge.

Placid Oil Company (“Placid”) and Placid Building and Service Company (“PBSC”), *184 debtors in possession in the above-captioned Chapter 11 cases (“Debtors”), and Placid International Oil, Ltd. (“PIOL”), Placid Refining Company (“PRC”), Placid Chemical Company (“PCC”) and Placid Oil Company (United Kingdom) (“PUK”) (Placid, PBSC, PIOL, PRC, PCC and PUK collectively, the “Proponents”) have proposed and filed a Modified Fourth Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization on August 26,1988, as amended and modified (including all exhibits thereto, the “Plan”) under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”).

A copy of the Plan and of the Supplement to Fourth Amended Disclosure Statement approved by the Court * on August 30, 1988 as a supplement to the Fourth Amended Disclosure Statement approved by the Court on March 1,1988 (such disclosure statement, as supplemented, being hereinafter referred to as the “Disclosure Statement”) was transmitted to all Holders of Claims and Interests. Hearings on the confirmation of the Plan commenced on September 26,1988. The following parties-in-interest appeared by and through their counsel: Placid, PBSC, PIOL, PRC, PCC, PUK, NCNB, the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”), the Creditors Committee, Pen-rod Drilling Company, Enterprise Products Company, Wanda Petroleum Company, Services Equipment & Engineering, American International Underwriters Corporation, Tenneco Oil Company, Cooper Industries, Inc., Highland Insurance Company, Albert Huddleston as Next Friend, Mineral Management Service, Ensearch, Mellon Bank, N.A., Bank of Scotland, Security Pacific Bank, N.A., First Interstate Bank, N.A., Bank of Montreal, Marine Midland Bank, N.A., Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. and Bankers Trust Company.

Based on the record of the hearings and all the proceedings held before the Court in these Cases, and after due deliberation, and sufficient cause appearing therefor, this Court hereby makes the following Findings and Conclusions of Law all of which shall be deemed to be incorporated into the Confirmation Order:

Findings and Conclusions

A. This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A), (B), (C), (G), (L) and (0).

B. Notice. Any Person required to receive notice of the hearings on the adequacy of the Disclosure Statement and confirmation of the Plan has received due, proper and adequate notice thereof. Any Person who requested a copy of any of the documents constituting exhibits to the Plan which were not transmitted to Holders of Claims and Interests with the balance of the Plan, and made such a request in the manner set forth in the Disclosure Statement, received a copy of such documents. All Persons having an interest, vested or contingent, in any Trust Estate, or their representatives, including Mary H. Huddle-ston and Albert D. Huddleston individually and as Next Friend for his minor children, have received a copy of the Plan and the Disclosure Statement and due and adequate notice of the Confirmation Hearing, which notice complied with Section 115.015 of the Texas Trust Code as well as Bankruptcy Rule 2002. In compliance with Local Rule 3017, the Proponents have mailed the Plan and notice of the confirmation hearings to the Persons on the master service lists for the Cases, which service lists include all Persons required to be included thereon in accordance with the Code and the Bankruptcy Rules. Each of the Trust Estates which are shareholders of Placid has acknowledged in writing its receipt of the materials mailed to it by the Proponents in connection with the Plan and the confirmation thereof.

C. Code Compliance — Section 1129 (a)(1). Counsel for each of the Debtors, the IRS, and the Creditors’ Committee all believe that the Plan complies with the applicable provisions of the Code, and counsel for the Banks believe that the Plan complies with the applicable provisions of the Code as to the treatment of the Banks *185 thereunder. No Person has made a valid objection to confirmation on the ground that the Plan does not comply with the applicable provisions of the Code. Based on the foregoing and on the record in these Cases, this Court concludes that the Plan complies with the applicable provisions of the Code.

D. Proponent Compliance — Section 1129(a)(2). The Proponents of the Plan have complied with the applicable provisions of the Code. The record in these Cases discloses that the Debtors have attempted in good faith to comply with the orders of the Court entered during the pendency of these Cases and that the Debtors have not violated any such orders. The Debtors and the Proponents have complied with the provisions of the orders of this Court entered in connection with the proposal, solicitation for acceptances of, and confirmation of the Plan.

E. Proposed in Good Faith — Section 1129(a)(3).

(i) The Plan has been proposed in good faith and not by any means forbidden by law. The Debtors originally proposed an outline for a plan of reorganization in a Memorandum required by the Court in June 1987. Since that time, the Debtors and the Proponents have filed and amended their proposed plan, and all interested parties have had ample opportunity to understand, discuss with the Debtors and the Proponents, and object (to the extent they deemed necessary) to the terms and conditions of the Plan.

(ii) The Proponents and each Person executing and delivering a Release, Consent, Beneficiaries’ Acknowledgement, Initial Beneficiary Indemnity, Placid Indemnity, Subsequent Beneficiary Indemnity or Trust Estate Indemnity (each of such documents individually an “RCI Document” and collectively the “RCI Documents”) in satisfaction of certain requirements of the Plan (each Person by or on behalf of whom an RCI Document has been signed individually a “Signing Party” and collectively the “Signing Parties”) have been advised by counsel of their own choosing or have had the opportunity and were encouraged to consult with counsel of their own choosing in the formulation of the Plan and the negotiation, execution and delivery of the Plan, the Collateral Security Documents, the Disclosure Statement, the RCI Documents, the New Credit Agreement and all Plan Documents to which each of them is a party.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In Re Placid Oil Co., 92 B.R. 183, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 1675, 1988 WL 108728 (Tex. 1988).

92 B.R. 183 (In Re Placid Oil Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

In re Wade
153 F.2d 402 (Seventh Circuit, 1993)
Royal Bank of Canada v. Hunt (In Re Hunt)
124 B.R. 200 (N.D. Texas, 1991)
Burner v. Security State Bank (In Re Burner)
109 B.R. 216 (W.D. Texas, 1989)