Opinion ID: 3013802
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: For the reasons set out

Text: above, the order of the District Court is As we have noted, the Committee affirmed. could have argued that the evidence that it offered in the proceeding before the Bankruptcy Court was so strong that the Bankruptcy Court had no choice but to find that the Committee had proven that the conditions for the appointment of a trustee were present. This argument, howe ver, would have faced tw o formidable obstacles: the abuse of discretion standard of appellate review and the clear and convincing burden of persuasion. The Committee chose not to attempt to surmount those obstacles, and thus this factual argument is not before us. We add, however, that if the argument were before us, we would hold that the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the conditions for the appointment of a trustee were not established by clear and convincing evidence. There is unquestionably considerable acrimony between the debtor and the asbestos claimants, but as the Bankruptcy Court noted, some of the most contentious disputes will presumably be addressed in other pending litigation, and it was the Bankruptcy Court’s judgment that the debtor in possession would be able to discharge its fiduciary obligations with regard to other matters. W e cannot say that the Bankruptcy Court abused the broad discretion that it possesses in determining whether the conditions specified in 11 U.S.C. § 1104(a) have been adequately shown. 10