The opinion of the court was delivered by: FULLAM
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER NO. 3147
Orders Nos. 2922 and 2929 authorized the Trustees to extend offers to all taxing authorities to settle all outstanding tax claims by an immediate payment in cash of 50% of the principal amount of all post-bankruptcy taxes, or 44% of the aggregate of pre-and post-petition taxes, whichever is greater. The present deadline for acceptance of the compromise proposal is October 22, 1977.
A group of petitions now before the Court seek to have the deadline extended. Some of the petitioners also ask the Court to remedy what the petitioners assert are improper actions taken by the Trustees in furtherance of the tax compromise program.
The Cleveland Board of Education, and certain other taxing entities, assert that the Trustees have violated this Court's Orders, and have acted unfairly in their treatment of tax claimants generally, by taking actions designed to encourage taxing entities to accept the proffered compromise. I am persuaded, however, that this Court's Orders have not been violated, that the rights of the petitioners have not been infringed in any way, and that judicial intervention would be inappropriate at this time.
The compromise offer contemplates the payment in full of the principal amount of all claims not in excess of $10,000. Nearly 1600 of the approximately 2500 tax claims are in that category. The Trustees had assumed that virtually all of these small claimants would deem it advantageous to accept the settlement offer. With respect to the larger claims, the Trustees knew that some claimants were opposed to the compromise, and that others, for various reasons, had not yet reached a decision. But there were a large number of claimants in both categories who had not made any response to the settlement offer, and whose positions in the matter were unknown.
Accordingly, the Trustees embarked upon a program of mailing to each of these tax claimants a draft in the amount which would be due if the settlement offer were accepted. Before mailing out these drafts, the Trustees caused telephone calls to be placed to a responsible official of the taxing entity, explaining what was being done.
Each draft was accompanied by a covering letter which was neutral in tone, which contained no misrepresentations, and which adequately explained the purpose and effect of the drafts. Specifically, the letters and accompanying drafts explained that, by endorsing and presenting the drafts for payment, the taxing entity would be accepting the compromise settlement; and that, while the drafts would remain valid only for a period of three weeks, failure to endorse and present the drafts within that period would not affect the right of the recipient to accept the compromise proposal at any time thereafter, until the expiration of the offer on October 22.
The telephone callers were instructed to be entirely neutral, and not to attempt to "sell" the compromise program; and there is no evidence that these instructions were violated. If the official telephoned expressed any objection to the draft arrangement, no draft was sent to that taxing entity.
But even if the Trustees had exhorted the taxing entities to accept the compromise offer, judicial intervention would be inappropriate. In their negotiations and dealings with individual creditors and groups of creditors in this context, the Trustees obviously have the right to take positions, and to urge others to share their views, just as do other parties in interest, including the petitioners. The various applications for sanctions will be denied.
The more difficult problems arise in connection with the petitions for an extension of the settlement offer deadline.
As discussed in this Court's Memorandum in Support of Order No. 2922, in choosing between acceptance of the compromise offer or pursuing their claims under the Reorganization Plan, each taxing entity is required to act on the basis of presently available knowledge. While knowing what treatment is proposed for tax claims under the Plan of Reorganization, a claimant cannot know whether the proposed Plan will be approved, confirmed, and consummated without substantial change in that regard, or just when the Plan proceedings may be brought to a conclusion. And, to the extent that the proposed Plan or whatever finally emerges provides for satisfaction of tax claims in whole ...