In Re Combustion Engineering, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[T]he plan does not change whatever rights the insurers had prepetition regarding payment of claims.”
• “Continued lawsuits against Basic and Lummus may drain insurance so that it is not available to fund [Combustion Engineering’s] Plan.”
• “The insurers contend that the Plan is not feasible in that there will be insufficient funds to pay the indemnities, which I have valued at zero.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).