Opinion ID: 604493
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Approval of the Compromise.

Text: 9 The burden of persuasion rests on the proponent of the compromise to demonstrate that the compromise is fair and equitable. Martin v. Kane (In re A & C Properties), 784 F.2d 1377, 1381 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 854, 107 S.Ct. 189, 93 L.Ed.2d 122 (1986). [A]s long as the [district] court amply considered the various factors that determined the reasonableness of the compromise, the court's decision must be affirmed. Id. 10 The district court addressed each of the factors set forth in A & C Properties and determined that the compromise was fair and equitable, and in the best interest of the estate, given the uncertainty of success on the merits and collectibility of any judgment, the complexity of the matter, the certainty of delay and expense to the estate, the absence of available funds, and the unwillingness of the creditor body to finance the litigation. 11 Lannes simply disagrees with the district court's assessment of the case in a number of respects. Nevertheless, it is clear that the experienced district judge was well aware of the facts, understood the nature of antitrust litigation, and was fully cognizant of the attitudes of the creditors. 12 Where, as here, the district court touched all material bases of [Lannes'] objections, and held directly, expressly or by necessary implication, on every substantial point of contention, the court's approval of the compromise does not constitute an abuse of discretion. A & C Properties, 784 F.2d at 1384. Thus, we must bow to the district judge's determination, as must Lannes. 13 AFFIRMED.