The judge is not going to allow USG or anybody else to wait for legislation. She must adjudicate (sp?) the case in front of her, as though operating in a vacuum and persuant to the laws currently governing bk and asbestos litigation.
As such, the judge will force USG to profer a plan at some point. I don't think that seven extentions is the limit, and certainly the creditors attorneys have been ordered to produce what amounts to a proof of claim before the estimation hearing, but USG will still, at some point, and most likely with fair warning, be forced to produce a plan . . . there will be a year or more of legal wrangling before the plan is approved, at any time during that period, USG could rescind (sp?) the plan, were legislation to be passed.
But my point is this; USG cannot simply wait for the day that legislation, knowing that that would be their best outcome. They need to continue to fight the good fight until it is settled, or legislative developments intervene.
BTW: I'm pretty confident in what I've said here, but I'm not an attorney, so if anyone else has a competing opinion, I'd be glad to hear it.
<<Does anyone know the LAST projected estimation by the ACC for USG's asbestos liability?>>
From the ACC's motion to end exclusivity: They pegged the tax credit for the funding of the 524g at about $860 million. If we figure a 40% tax rate that puts their suggested asbestos trust funding at about $2.1 Billion. So we know their estimate was >$2.1 Billion + the $860 Million tax credit that they suggested also go to them. The ACC stated in the same document that they were impaired so it's safe to call their estimate somewhere above $3 Billion. But what's new with that....... right? You were likely looking for someone who knew the actual projection?
Because US Gypsum is worth approximately 3/5 of the EV.
If the Estimated EV of USG is around 5 billion,
then if the ACC Claim were less than 3/5 total EV,
then why should the ACC argue for Substantive Consolidation?
The only reason other than an ACC Estimation over 3 bilion would be as a bargaining method on the exact amount, but within the EV of USG Gypsum less its proportionate share of other claims (notes.)
The ACC estimation has not appeared in any of the court documents I have read. But both legal teams have known what it is for some time. This may explain the recent stock price rise as this information has disseminated through friends, relatives, coworkers, girlfriends/boyfriends etc. from one or both sides.