In Re Dennett, 449 B.R. 139

Debtor Dennett filed Chapter 11 in Feb 2010 and converted to Chapter 7 in Sept 2010 with Jones as Chapter 7 Trustee.
Litigation in Utah state court concerns a repurchase agreement for Real Property outside Zion National Park, with Ferbers as defendants and cross-claimants, and Dennett as plaintiff.
Trustee moves to compromise and settle the estate claim for $25,000; Debtor moves for abandonment of the state court litigation.
Two creditors oppose the Trustee’s compromise, arguing potential benefits if Debtor prevails and property is repurchased/sold.
An evidentiary hearing was held Feb 17, 2011; the court ultimately grants the compromise and denies abandonment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the $25,000 settlement is in the best interests of creditors	Dennett argues the Debtor will prevail and the property is worth more.	Trustee contends settlement is proper given liability, costs, and weak recovery if litigated.	Approved; settlement within range of reasonableness.
Whether abandonment of the state court litigation is proper under § 554	Dennett seeks abandonment to pursue recovery himself if he prevails.	Trustee must maximize estate value; abandonment would harm creditors.	Denied; abandonment not justified under § 554.
Whether Kopexa factors support the Trustee’s compromise	Dennett challenges the valuation and likelihood of success depending on litigation outcome.	Trustee shows low probable success, high complexity/expense, and limited chance of meaningful recovery.	Yes; Kopexa factors support settlement.
Whether Moore v. Moore relevance requires bidding or auction considerations	Debtor suggests possible higher offers would require reexamination of sale procedures.	No higher bid materializes; Moore is distinguishable; no § 363 sale required.	Not controlling; settlement deemed appropriate given facts.

In re Kopexa Realty Venture Co., 213 B.R. 1020 (10th Cir. BAP 1997) (four-factor test for evaluating compromises)
In re Moore, 608 F.3d 253 (5th Cir. 2010) (settlement can be treated as a sale; higher offers may trigger sale considerations)
In re Mickey Thompson Entm't Group, Inc., 292 B.R. 415 (9th Cir. BAP 2003) (settlement is a sale; sale procedures discretionary)
In re Kaiser Steel Corp., 105 B.R. 971 (D. Colo. 1989) (corporate settlement standards for creditors)
Protective Committee for Independent Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry, Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. 414 (1968) (fiduciary duties and approvals in settlements)