green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 5×
52.0 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, 2024–2025 ·
…the decision of whether to approve a particular compromise lies within the discretion of the trial judge; an appellate court will reverse only when that discretion has been abused.
at p. 297
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1984 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1984
2005
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
With Purpose, Inc.
the decision of whether to approve a particular compromise lies within the discretion of the trial judge; an appellate court will reverse only when that discretion has been abused.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Goodman Networks, Inc. and Goodman Networks Inc d/b/a Goodman Solutions
the decision of whether to approve a particular compromise lies within the discretion of the trial judge; an appellate court will reverse only when that discretion has been abused.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Soza v. Hill
equitable considerations should be preeminent in the exercise of bankruptcy jurisdiction.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Lucien Harry Marioneaux, Jr.
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
ven if a settlement is fair and equitable to the parties to the settlement, approval is not appropriate if the rights of others who are not parties to the settlement will be unduly prejudiced
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
In re Fryar
bankruptcy court abuses its discretion in approving a settlement with a junior creditor unless the court concludes that priority of payment will be respected as to objecting senior creditors.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Highland Capital Management, L.P. - Adversary Proceeding
In considering a proposed compromise and settlement agreement, a bankruptcy court must determine whether it is “fair and equitable.” Matter of Jackson Brewing, 624 F.2d 599, 602 (5th Cir. 1980); United States v. AWECO, Inc. (In re AWECO), 725 F.2d 293, 298 (5th Cir. 1984), cert. denied 105 S. Ct. 244 (1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Austin Cole Nokes and Nora Kathleen Nokes
It is so Ordered. ### 19 Id. (quoting United States v. AWECO, Inc. (In re AWECO, Inc.), 725 F.2d 293, 299 (5th Cir. 1984)). 7
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brown
United States v. AWECO, Inc. (In re AWECO, Inc.), 725 F.2d 293, 297 (Sth Cir. 1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
DeepRock Venture Partners, L.P v. Gary Beach, et a
The record of the Settlement hearing reflects the bankruptcy court’s significant engagement with the issues and facts in dispute before bringing to bear its “informed, independent judgment.” See United States v. AWECO, Inc. (In re AWECO, Inc.), 725 F.2d 293, 299 (5th Cir. 1984) (quoting Protective Comm. for Indep.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Derosa-Grund
(2×)
The decision to approve a “compromise lies within the discretion of the trial judge.” Matter of Aweco, Inc., 725 F.2d 293, 297 (5th Cir. 1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Henley v. Malouf (In re Roberts)
In re Jackson Brewing Co., 624 F.2d 599, 602 (5th Cir.1980); U.S. v. AWECO (In re AWECO), 725 F.2d 293, 298 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).” Conn. Gen.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors ex rel. bankruptcy estates of Jevic Holding Corp. v. CIT Group/Business Credit Inc.
Id. at 298.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jevic Holding Corp. v.
Id. at 298. 20 Criticizing the Fifth Circuit’s rule in AWECO, the Second Circuit adopted a more flexible approach in In re Iridium Operating LLC, 478 F.3d 452 (2007).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. CIT Group/Business Credit Inc. (In re Jevic Holding Corp.)
Id. at 298.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Delaware Trust Co. v. Energy Future Intermediate Holdings, LLC
By its express terms, 11 U.S.C. § 1123 (a)(4) applies only to plan confirmations: “Notwithstanding any otherwise applicable nonbankruptcy law, a plan shall— (4) provide the same treatment for each claim or interest of a particular class, unless the holder of a particular claim or interest agrees to a less favorable treatment of such particular claim or interest....” To overcome this obstacle, Appellant suggests that this court should adopt the logic of In re AWECO, Inc., 725 F.2d 293, 298 (5th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cadle Co. v. Mims
United States v. AWECO, Inc. (In re AWECO, Inc.), 725 F.2d 293, 297 (5th Cir. 1984) (quoting Langnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531, 541 , 51 S.Ct. 243 , 75 L.Ed. 520 (1931)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Soza v. Hill (In Re Soza)
(2×)
Constructive fraud as a concept, like many of the broad remedies of equity, can be found in diverse substantive fields of law. [27] Klein, 772 S.W.2d at 175 . [28] Id. at 176 . [29] See El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Minco Oil & Gas, Inc., 8 S.W.3d 309, 312-13 (Tex. 1999). [30] See TNB Fin., Inc. v. James F. Parker Interests (In re Grimland, Inc.), 243 F.3d 228, 234 (5th Cir.2001) ("[T]he bankruptcy court is a court of equity and it must undertake an analysis of equitable considerations."); United States v. AWECO, Inc. (In re AWECO, Inc.), 725 F.2d 293, 300 (5th Cir.1984) ("Equitable consideration…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Roqumore
The decision to approve a compromise “lies within the discretion of the trial judge.” AWECO, 725 F.2d at 297.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
CFB-5, INC. v. Cunningham
In re AWECO, Inc., 725 F.2d 293, 297 (5th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Arter & Hadden, LLP
While a bankruptcy court does, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019, have jurisdiction to determine whether a settlement is fair and equitable, “looking only to the fairness of the settlement as between the debtor and the settling claimant [and ignoring third-party rights] contravenes a basic notion of fairness.” In re AWECO, Inc., 725 F.2d 293, 298 (5th Cir.1994); see also Cullen v. Riley (In re Masters Mates & Pilots Pension Plan), 957 F.2d 1020, 1031 (2d Cir.1992)(holding that “where the rights of one who is not a party to a settlement are at stake, the fairness of the settlement to the s…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Motorola, Inc. v. Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
Without the requirement that pre-plan settlements conform to the absolute priority rule, only the bankruptcy court’s invocation of Rule 9019 factors would protect the interests of any nonsignatory intermediate or impaired creditors. 18 In response to this concern, the Fifth Circuit held that the absolute priority rule should also apply to pre-plan settlements, concluding that “a bankruptcy court abuses its discretion in approving a [pre-plan] settlement with a junior creditor unless the court concludes that priority of payment will be respected as to objecting senior creditors.” United S…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Iridium Operating LLC
Without the requirement that pre-plan settlements conform to the absolute priority rule, only the bankruptcy court's invocation of Rule 9019 factors would protect the interests of any nonsignatory intermediate or impaired creditors. 18 26 In response to this concern, the Fifth Circuit held that the absolute priority rule should also apply to pre-plan settlements, concluding that "a bankruptcy court abuses its discretion in approving a [pre-plan] settlement with a junior creditor unless the court concludes that priority of payment will be respected as to objecting senior creditors." United Stat…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Lindauer v. Traxler (In Re Traxler)
See, Matter of Jackson Brewing Co., 624 F.2d 605, 607 (5th Cir.1980); Matter of AWECO, Inc., 725 F.2d 293, 298 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States Ex Rel. Rahman v. Oncology Associates, P.C. (In Re Equimed, Inc.)
In the Matter of AWECO, Inc., 725 F.2d 293, 298 (5th Cir.1984); In re American Reserve Corporation, 841 F.2d 159 , 162 (7th Cir.1987) (“the ‘fair and equitable’ analysis-comparing claims’ relative priorities — is just one factor for the bankruptcy judge to consider in determining whether a settlement is in the estate’s best interest.”).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Walsh v. Hefren-Tillotson, Inc. (In re Devon Capital Management, Inc.)
U.S. v. AWECO, Inc. (In re AWECO, Inc.), 725 F.2d 293, 297 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Dalen
U.S. v. AWECO (In re AWECO), 725 F.2d 293, 298 (5th Cir.1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re United States Brass Corp.
Matter of Jackson Brewing Co., 624 F.2d 605, 607 (5th Cir.1980); Matter of AWECO, Inc., 725 F.2d 293, 298 (5th Cir.) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Eddy v. National Union Fire Insurance (In Re Medical Asset Management, Inc.)
We may approve a settlement only if we conclude that it is “fair and equitable” U.S. v. AWECO, Inc. (In re AWECO, Inc.), 725 F.2d 293, 297 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc.
Co. v. United Companies Financial Corp. (Matter of Foster Mortgage Corp.), 68 F.3d 914, 917 (5th Cir.1995); United States v. AWECO, Inc. (In re AWECO, Inc.), 725 F.2d 293, 297 (5th Cir.1984). 102 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Western Pacific Airlines, Inc. v. Western Pacific Airlines, Inc. (In Re Western Pacific Airlines, Inc.)
Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424, 434 , 88 S.Ct. 1157, 1168 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1 (1968); United States v. AWECO, Inc. (In re AWECO), 725 F.2d 293, 299 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984)). “‘An approval of a compromise, absent a sufficient factual foundation, inherently constitutes an abuse of discretion.’ ” Reiss at 892 quoting AWECO, 725 F.2d at 299 ).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Burton v. Ulrich (In Re Schmitt)
(2×)
"An approval of a compromise, absent a sufficient factual foundation, inherently constitutes an abuse of discretion." Matter of AWECO, Inc., 725 F.2d 293, 299 (5th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Cajun Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. Ex Rel. Mabey
“The words ‘fair and equitable’ are terms of art — they mean that senior interests are entitled to full priority over junior ones.” United States v. AWECO, Inc. (In re AWECO, Inc.), 725 F.2d 293, 298 (5th Cir.) (internal quotation marks *356 and citations omitted), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In The Matter Of Foster Mortgage Corporation, A Louisiana Corporation
Jackson Brewing Co., 624 F.2d at 602 ; U.S. v. AWECO (In re AWECO), 725 F.2d 293, 298 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
The Matter of Zale Corporation, Debtor. Alan D. Feld, and National Union Fire Insurance Company, Inc., of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania v. Zale Corporation
"The bankruptcy court derives its authority to approve settlements from Bankruptcy Rule 9019(a).” United States v. AWECO, Inc. (In re AWECO, Inc.), 725 F.2d 293, 297 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Quality Beverage Co., Inc.
Matter of AWECO, Inc., 725 F.2d 293, 298 (5th Cir.1984). 7.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Fugazy
Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424 , 88 S.Ct. 1157, 1163 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1 (1968); United States v. AWECO, Inc. (In re AWECO, Inc.), 725 F.2d 293, 298 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984); In re Texaco Inc., 84 B.R. 893, 901 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.), appeal dismissed, 92 B.R. 38 , (S.D.N.Y.1988).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re C.P. Del Caribe, Inc.
In re AWECO, Inc., 725 F.2d 293, 298 (5th Cir.1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Allegheny International, Inc.
Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424 , 88 S.Ct. 1157, 1163 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1 (1968); In re AWECO, Inc., 725 F.2d 293, 298 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984); In re Texaco, Inc., 84 B.R. 893, 901 (Bank.S.D.N.Y.1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International (In re Continental Airlines, Inc.)
Thus, there was no special need for the bankruptcy court to intervene to protect this group from what it perceived to be an unfair labor settlement. 8 Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code states that “[t]he court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title.” Although this court has noted that “[ejquitable considerations should be preeminent in the exercise of bankruptcy jurisdiction,” AWECO, 725 F.2d at 300, it has also pointed out that Section 105(a) “does not authorize the bankruptcy courts to create substant…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Continental Airlines Corp., Debtors. Continental Airlines, Inc. And the Continental Airlines Working Pilots Committee, Appellants-Cross v. Air Line Pilots Association, International, and Joseph E. O'neill, Appellees-Cross in the Matter of Continental Airlines Corp., Debtors. Continental Airlines, Inc. v. James B. Evans, in the Matter of Continental Airlines Corp., Debtors. Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Joseph E. O'neill, in the Matter of Continental Airlines Corp., Debtors. Continental Airlines, Inc., Continental Airlines Working Pilots Committee, Intervenor-Appellant v. Joseph E. O'Neill
Thus, there was no special need for the bankruptcy court to intervene to protect this group from what it perceived to be an unfair labor settlement. 8 40 Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code states that "[t]he court may issue any order, process, or judgment that is necessary or appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title." Although this court has noted that "[e]quitable considerations should be preeminent in the exercise of bankruptcy jurisdiction," AWECO, 725 F.2d at 300, it has also pointed out that Section 105(a) "does not authorize the bankruptcy courts to create substantive rig…
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Del Grosso
In re Aweco, Inc., 725 F.2d 293, 297 (5th Cir.1984) cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984); In re Sherman Homes, Inc., 28 B.R. at 177 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gnidovec v. Alwan (In Re Alwan Bros.)
United States v. AWECO, Inc. (In re AWECO), 725 F.2d 293, 298 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bankr. L. Rep. P 73,173 Gail Elin Reiss A/K/A Gail E. Reiss, Debtor v. Guilford Hagmann, Trustee, Bank of Woodward, Creditor-Appellant v. Mildred v. Fox, Trustee of the Gail E. Reiss Trust
Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424, 434 , 88 S.Ct. 1157, 1163, 1168 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1 (1968); United States v. AWECO, Inc. (In re AWECO, Inc.), 725 F.2d 293, 299 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reiss v. Hagmann
Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 424, 434 , 88 S.Ct. 1157, 1163, 1168 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1 (1968); United States v. AWECO, Inc. (In re AWECO, Inc.), 725 F.2d 293, 299 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United Steelworkers v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. (In Re Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corp.)
See e.g., Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders, etc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414, 434 , 88 S.Ct. 1157, 1168 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1 (1968), reh. den., 391 U.S. 909 , 88 S.Ct. 1649 , 20 L.Ed.2d 425 (1968); In re A & C Properties, 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir.1986); Matter of AWECO, Inc., 725 F.2d 293, 299-300 (5th Cir.1984) cert. den. 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Egolf
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Furthermore, the court “abuses its discretion in approving a settlement with a junior creditor unless the court concludes that priority of payment will be respected as to objecting senior creditors.” Matter of Aweco, Inc., supra, 725 F.2d at 298.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Texaco Inc.
(4×)
also: Cited "see"
Matter of AWECO, 725 F.2d at 297.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Technical Knockout Graphics, Inc. (In re Technical Knockout Graphics, Inc.)
United States v. AWECO, Inc. (In re AWECO), 725 F.2d 293, 298 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re Technical Knockout Graphics, Inc.
United States v. AWECO, Inc. (In re AWECO), 725 F.2d 293, 298 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 880 , 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In Re a & C Properties, Debtors. William W. Martin, Superseded by Gilbert Robinson, in Intervention v. William E. Kane, Barbara Kelly, K & K Properties, Inc., and Investors Replacement, Inc., William W. Martin, Objectors-Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Gilbert Robinson, Trustee in Bankruptcy, in Intervention
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Fairness of the Settlement Agreement. 38 Appellants claim that the bankruptcy court abused its discretion in approving the settlement agreement and compromise "in the absence of a record which provides an adequate analysis of its merits." A court may approve a compromise or settlement only when it is "fair and equitable." Matter of Aweco, Inc., 725 F.2d 293, 298 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 105 S.Ct. 244 , 83 L.Ed.2d 182 (1984).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Liberty Mutual Insurance Company
v.
Gulf Oil Corporation
v.
Gulf Oil Corporation
83-3354.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Feb 21, 1984.
Cited by 2 opinions | Published
Citer courts: W.D. Louisiana (1) · E.D. Tennessee (1)
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GULF OIL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 83-3354.
United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit.
Feb. 21, 1984.
Christovich & Kearney, J. Walter Ward, Jr., Thomas C. Cowan, New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellant.
Camp, Carmouche, Palmer, Barsh & Hunter, James R. Sutterfield, New Orleans, La., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana; Charles Schwartz, Jr., Judge.
Before POLITZ, RANDALL and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
[*~293]1
Having considered the record, briefs and oral argument, we affirm on the facts as found and the legal analysis made by the district court. 559 F.Supp. 777 (E.D.La.1983).
[*~299]2
AFFIRMED.