In Re William Herbert Hunt Trust Estate

92 B.R. 172, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 1850, 1988 WL 115636
CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas
DecidedSeptember 16, 1988
Docket19-30358
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 92 B.R. 172 (In Re William Herbert Hunt Trust Estate) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
In Re William Herbert Hunt Trust Estate, 92 B.R. 172, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 1850, 1988 WL 115636 (Tex. 1988).

Opinion

ORDER

(1) CONFIRMING PLAN OF REORGANIZATION

AND

(2) FIXING BAR DATE FOR FILING OF ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CLAIMS, CLAIMS ARISING FROM . THE REJECTION OF EXECUTORY CONTRACTS, DISSOLUTION CLAIMS, DEFICIENCY CLAIMS AND APPLICATIONS FOR ALLOWANCES OF COMPENSATION AND/OR REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES

HAROLD C. ABRAMSON,

Bankruptcy Judge.

The Debtors, certain Banks, * Old Penrod and New Penrod (together with the Debtors, the “Proponents ”) having proposed and filed a First Joint Consensual Plan of Reorganization under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) on June 30, 1988, and a copy thereof (together with the schedules thereto) and of the Disclosure Statement approved by the Court on July 25, 1988 having been transmitted to all Creditors and all holders of Interests in a Debtor (or to representatives of such holders); and the Proponents having modified the First Joint Consensual Plan of Reorganization on September 16, 1988 which modifications this Court, pursuant to Section 1127 of the Bankruptcy Code and Rule 3019 of the Bankruptcy Rules, approved under a separate order signed September 16, 1988 after a hearing (such modified version being herein referred to as the “Plan”); and confirmation hearings having been held by the Court beginning on September 8, 1988, and continuing on September 9, 15 and 16, 1988; and upon 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; and

It having been FOUND and DETERMINED, after notice and a hearing, that:

A. Each Trust Estate is, and has historically been, engaged in (a) purchasing, developing and leasing commercial and other real property, (b) owning and managing royalty, overriding royalty, working and other types of oil and gas interests, and (c) holding equity interests in other enterprises related to its real property and oil and gas holdings; and as such is a Person entitled to the protection of the provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. Each of the Trust Estates have been administered by trustees acting in their fiduciary capacities and, where appropriate, in conjunction with their respective advisory boards, acting independently under the terms of their respective trust instruments.

B. 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. All Persons having an Interest, vested or contingent, present or future, in any Trust Estate, to the extent such Persons can be presently identified, received a copy of the Plan and Disclosure Statement and due, proper and adequate notice of the Confirmation Hearing, which notice complied with Section 115.015 of the Texas Trust Code as well as Rule 2002 of the Bankruptcy Rules. Due, proper and adequate notice and an opportunity to appear was given to all Persons with any Claim against or Interest in the Debtors. Any person who requested a copy of the voluminous exhibits to the version of the *174 Plan set forth as Exhibit A to the Disclosure Statement in the manner set forth in the Disclosure Statement received a copy of such exhibits.

C. The Plan complies with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

D. The Proponents of the Plan have complied with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code.

E. The Plan has been proposed in good faith and not by any means forbidden by law. Each of the Proponents has been advised by counsel of its own choosing in the formulation of the Plan and the negotiation, execution and delivery of the Plan Transaction Documents and the Plan Securities to which it is a party and has made an independent decision to enter into the Plan Transaction Documents and the Plan Securities to which it is a party and to propose the Plan without any reliance on any representations, warranty, covenant or undertaking by or on behalf of any other Proponent or any Bank-Related Person. No representation, warranty, covenant or undertaking has been made by or on behalf of any Proponent or any Bank-Related Person to any other Proponent or any Affiliate in connection with the rights and obligations of such Proponent or any Affiliate except as expressly set forth in the Plan, the Plan Transaction Documents and the Plan Securities. There are no representations, warranties, covenants, undertakings or agreements by or on behalf of any Proponent or Life Beneficiary on the one hand, and any Bank-Related Person, on the other, as to the Plan, the Plan Securities or the Plan Transaction Documents except as specifically provided therein. No Bank-Related Person has any fiduciary obligation to any Debtor, Old Penrod, New Penrod or the OCS Subsidiary with respect to the Plan, the Plan Transaction Documents, the Plan Securities or otherwise, and none of the Debtors, Old Penrod, New Penrod and the OCS Subsidiary has any fiduciary obligation to any Bank-Related Person, except, in the case of each of New Penrod and the OCS Subsidiary, as set forth in the Security Documents to which it is a party. The relationship between each Debtor, New Penrod or the OCS Subsidiary on the one hand, and each Bank, on the other hand, with respect to the Credit Agreement, the Secured Notes and the Security Documents is, and is intended by each of them to be, solely that of debtor and creditor. No joint venture exists either between any Debtor, Old Penrod, New Penrod or the OCS Subsidiary and any one or more of the Banks, or among the Banks as a group. No agency relationship exists between any Bank or Bank-Related Person, on the one hand, and the Debtors, Old Penrod, New Penrod and the OCS Subsidiary, on the other hand.

F. Any payment made or to be made from property of any Debtor’s estate by any of the Proponents or any Person issuing securities or acquiring properties under the Plan, for services or for costs and expenses in, or in connection with, any of these Reorganization Cases, or in connection with the Plan and incident to any of these Reorganization Cases, has been approved by, or will be subject to the approval of, the Court as reasonable (except for legal fees and expenses to be paid by New Penrod under the Plan Documents, and except for amounts which all Bank-Related Persons are indemnified by the Debtors under the Plan Transaction Documents, which the Court determines are not intended to be within the scope of Section 1129(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code).

G. The Proponents of the Plan have disclosed the identity and affiliations of any Person proposed to serve, after the confirmation of the Plan, as a director, officer, voting trustee or member of the Advisory Board of any Debtor, New Penrod or the OCS Subsidiary; the appointment to, or continuance in, such office of such Person is consistent with the interests of Creditors and Interestholders and with public policy. The Debtors have disclosed the identity of any insider of the Debtors that will be employed or retained by any Debtor and the nature of any compensation for such insiders.

H. With respect to each impaired class of Claims, (i) each holder of a Claim of such class has accepted the Plan, or will receive or retain under the Plan on account of such *175

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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
92 B.R. 172, 1988 Bankr. LEXIS 1850, 1988 WL 115636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-william-herbert-hunt-trust-estate-txnb-1988.