Amcast Industrial Corporation and Amcast Industrial Corporation, et al., Reorganized

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON
In re: 	A MCAST I NDUSTRIAL C ORP ., ET AL .,
Debtors
Case No. 	04-40504
(Jointly Administered)
Judge L. S. Walter
Chapter 11
DECISION OF THE COURT:
1) DETERMINING THAT THE INSURANCE POLICIES BENEFITTING THE
RENFROES ARE NOT PROTECTED UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 1114; AND
2) GRANTING THE MOTION OF THE DEBTORS FOR AN ORDER AUTHORIZING
REJECTION OF LIFE INSURANCE POLICIES WITH NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY AND BOSTON MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY AND CONSULTATION AND SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH
DELWIN D. RENFROE.
MATTER BEFORE THE COURT
This matter is before the court on the Motion of Debtors for an Order Authorizing
Rejection of Life Insurance Policies with Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company and
Boston Mutual Life Insurance Company and Consultation and Settlement Agreement with
This document has been electronically entered in the records of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Ohio.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 05, 2006
____________________________________________________________
Case 3:04-bk-40504 Doc 1228 Filed 10/05/06 Entered 10/06/06 09:40:56 Desc
Main Document Page 1 of 14

- 2 -
Delwin D. Renfroe [Doc. 350], the Objection filed by Delwin and Leona Renfroe [Doc. 447],
and the Reply [Doc. 465]. The parties filed various related documents prior to the hearing held
on September 28, 2005 including a joint Stipulation of Facts [Doc. 1048]. 	Following the
hearing, the parties filed documents to brief the issue of Mr. Renfroe’s income in the year prior
to the bankruptcy filing [Docs. 1080 and 1095]. 	The court has reviewed the filings of the
parties, the Stipulation of Facts, the exhibits entered into evidence at the hearing and the
testimony of the witnesses. As more fully set forth below, the court has determined that § 1114
of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply under the facts of this case to protect the benefits
provided to Mr. Renfroe by Amcast and, consequently, Amcast may reject the agreements and
policies underlying those benefits.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Generally
This matter arises from the various agreements, judgment and settlements involving
Delwin Renfroe (“Renfroe”) and Amcast Industrial Corporation (“Amcast”) as part of Amcast’s
purchase of Lee Brass Company prior to filing for bankruptcy protection. At the time of the
purchase in April of 1998, Renfroe was the chief executive officer of Lee Brass Company (“Lee
Brass”) and principal shareholder of LBC Group Corp. which owned 95.16% of the shares of
Lee Brass. [Doc. 1048 (“Stip. of Facts”), ¶ 1.] As part of the purchase, Renfroe sold his Lee
Brass stock to Amcast and resigned as CEO, but also entered a Consulting and Noncompetition
Agreement (“Consulting Agreement”) with Lee Brass/Amcast. [Stip. of Facts, ¶ 3; Joint Ex. II.]
Pursuant to the terms of the Consulting Agreement, Amcast was to pay premiums for life and
health insurance policies covering Renfroe and his wife Leona for the remainder of their lives.
[Joint Ex. II, ¶ 3(b).] Following its bankruptcy filing on November 30, 2004, Amcast filed a
Case 3:04-bk-40504 Doc 1228 Filed 10/05/06 Entered 10/06/06 09:40:56 Desc
Main Document Page 2 of 14

- 3 -
motion to terminate its continued obligation to pay those premiums and the Renfroes objected
under 11 U.S.C. § 1114.
B. Stock Purchase Agreement
On March 26, 1998, Amcast entered a Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”) with Renfroe
and the other shareholders of LBC Group Corp. [Stip. of Facts, ¶ 2; Joint Ex. I.] Pursuant to the
SPA, Amcast purchased all shares of Lee Brass owned by LBC Group Corp. including those
owned by Renfroe. [Stip. of Facts, ¶ 2; Joint Ex. I.] 	Renfroe received approximately
$6,500,000.00 in 1998 for the sale of his shares. [Transcript from September 28, 2005 hearing
(“Tr.”) p. 45.]
Renfroe’s primary motivation for selling his shares in Lee Brass to Amcast and resigning
as CEO was his health. [Tr. pp. 36, 45-46.] At the time of the purchase, Renfroe was 59 years
old and had recently discovered that he would need a fourth heart bypass surgery. [Tr. pp. 36-37,
45-46.]
C. Consulting Agreement and Benefits Provided to Renfroe
The SPA required that Lee Brass and Renfroe enter a Consulting Agreement. [Stip. of
Facts, ¶ 3; Joint Ex. 1, § 11.04.] Pursuant to the terms of the Consulting Agreement, Renfroe
agreed to consult with and assist Lee Brass in the transition of management and the marketing
and sale of Lee Brass products during a period starting on the Acquisition Date and ending on
April 9, 2001. [Joint Ex. II, ¶¶ 1 and 2.] 	No particular number of days or hours were required
and it was understood that such services would be provided as Renfroe’s health permitted.1
[Stip. of Facts, ¶ 21, Joint Ex. II, ¶ 1.] In exchange, Lee Brass was to provide Renfroe with
monetary compensation and certain benefits. [Joint Ex. II, ¶ 3.] These obligations of Lee Brass
were guaranteed by Amcast. [Stip. of Facts, ¶ 4.]
1 Renfroe testified that Lee Brass never called on him to provide any consulting services he contracted to give and
he has not been employed since he left Lee Brass. [Tr. p. 38.]
Case 3:04-bk-40504 Doc 1228 Filed 10/05/06 Entered 10/06/06 09:40:56 Desc
Main Document Page 3 of 14

- 4 -
As compensation for his consulting services, Renfroe was to receive a consulting fee of
$175,000 per year. [Joint Ex. II, ¶ 3(a) and (c).] The agreement also provided non-monetary
benefits to Renfroe as compensation for his consulting services. [Joint Ex. II, ¶ 3.] Specifically,
Renfroe was to be provided:
(i) Medical Insurance under the Amcast Healthbuilder for Consultant [Renfroe] and his
spouse, Leona S. Renfroe, until they reach Medicare eligibility at which time Amcast
shall provide the reasonable cost of Medicare supplemental insurance for the lives of
Consultant and his spouse, Leona S. Renfroe.
(ii) 	Life insurance for Consultant and his spouse, Leona S. Renfroe, as currently
provided by Lee Brass to Consultant and his spouse, during the lives of Consultant and
his spouse, Leona S. Renfroe.
****
[Joint Ex. II, ¶ 3(b)(i) and (ii), (c).] 	The compensation and benefits provided to Renfroe within
the Consulting Agreement were to be in full payment of his consulting services and “in lieu of
participation in any other benefit programs that Lee Brass or Amcast may maintain.” [Joint Ex.
II, ¶ 3(c).]
To comply with the terms of the Consulting Agreement, Amcast paid the premiums for
life and health insurance policies for the Renfroes. Specifically, Amcast paid premiums to
Boston Mutual Life Insurance Company (“Boston Mutual”) under a group policy for a life
insurance benefit for Renfroe in the amount of $600,000 and for Leona Renfroe in the amount of
$50,000. [Stip. of Facts, ¶ 16.] Boston Mutual terminated the group policy on August 1, 2005 at
which time the Renfroes converted their coverage ($600,000 and $50,000) to individual policies
with Boston Mutual. [Stip. of Facts, ¶¶ 17 - 19.] Amcast paid the premiums on these individual
policies for the period of September 1, 2005 through November 30, 2005 to comply with the
terms of the Consulting Agreement. [Stip. of Facts, ¶ 19.]
Case 3:04-bk-40504 Doc 1228 Filed 10/05/06 Entered 10/06/06 09:40:56 Desc
Main Document Page 4 of 14

- 5 -
Amcast further maintained a Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance policy covering
Renfroe. [Tr. p. 17; Amcast Ex. C.] The face amount of the coverage was $300,000 and the
named beneficiaries were Lee Brass Company and designees of Renfroe. [Amcast Ex. C.]
In addition to the life insurance policies, Amcast was obligated to pay for medical
insurance coverage for the Renfroes. [Joint Ex. II, ¶ 3(b)(i).] 	Initially, Amcast paid for health
insurance for Renfroe including prescriptions. [Tr. p. 38.] At some point after Renfroe began
receiving Medicare, Amcast paid the premiums for supplemental medical insurance acquired by
Renfroe and reimbursed Renfroe for his medications. [Tr. pp. 20, 31-33, 38-39, 53-54.] Amcast
also paid for supplemental insurance for Renfroe’s wife and reimbursement of her prescriptions.
[Tr. pp. 41, 53.]
At the hearing, Renfroe testified as to his negotiations with Amcast regarding the
purchase of his Lee Brass stock and the importance of the benefits he was to receive pursuant to
the terms of the Consulting Agreement. Renfroe stated that he demanded the health and life
insurance provisions in the Consulting Agreement because of his poor health and because he was
worried about his family. [Tr. p. 37.] He felt that he could not afford life and health insurance
any other way, and, because he was 59 years old, he was not yet able to receive Medicare.2 [Id.]
Renfroe further testified that he would not have sold his shares in Lee Brass without Amcast’s
agreement to provide life and health insurance. [Id.] 	Renfroe testified that he considered the
health and life insurance benefits owed by Amcast under the Consulting Agreement to be retiree
benefits. [Tr. p. 55.]
2 At the time of or immediately following the sale of Lee Brass, Renfroe applied for and received Social Security
disability benefits and other disability benefits under a policy with Lee Brass. [Tr. p. 37.] His disabled status began
on April 9, 1998, the date that he left Lee Brass. [Id.]
Case 3:04-bk-40504 Doc 1228 Filed 10/05/06 Entered 10/06/06 09:40:56 Desc
Main Document Page 5 of 14

- 6 -
D. Renfroe’s Judgment Against Amcast and Subsequent Settlement Agreement
In 2002, Renfroe commenced litigation in Alabama against Amcast and Lee Brass
Company to recover amounts due to him under the Consulting Agreement that Amcast and Lee
Brass had not paid. [Stip. of Facts, ¶ 5.] On March 19, 2003, the Alabama court entered a
judgment in favor of Renfroe and against Lee Brass Company (“Judgment”) for monetary
damages and specific performance. [Stip. of Facts, ¶ 6, Joint Ex. III, Recitals.]
Following the entry of the Judgment, Lee Brass Company, Amcast and Renfroe entered
into a settlement agreement dated February 12, 2004 resolving the state court litigation (“Renfroe
Settlement Agreement”). 	[Stip. of Facts, ¶ 7; Joint Ex. III.] Under the terms of the Renfroe
Settlement Agreement, Amcast and Lee Brass Company were to pay Renfroe the total amount of
$340,586 as follows:
a. 	Amcast and Lee Brass Company were to instruct the clerk of the State Court to
release to Renfroe their cash bond of $260,916.45.
b. 	Lee Brass was to pay, via wire transfer, the balance of $79,669.55 to Renfroe
within 2 days of the release of the cash bond.
[Stip. of Facts, ¶ 8 (a) and (b); Joint Ex. III, ¶ 1.]
The Renfroe Settlement Agreement further provided that the provisions of the Judgment
awarding future specific performance of the Consulting Agreement were to remain in full force
and effect. [Stip. of Facts, ¶ 9; Joint Ex. III, ¶¶ 2, 7.] The Renfroe Settlement Agreement
required Lee Brass/Amcast to continue reimbursing Renfroe and his spouse for supplemental
medical insurance and medications [Joint Ex. III, ¶ 3] and to continue paying the premiums for
the Northwestern Life Insurance Policy and Boston Mutual Life Insurance Policy for Renfroe
and his wife [Joint Ex. III, ¶ 4]. Lee Brass / Amcast’s obligation to provide Renfroe and his wife
with these life and health insurance benefits was to be for the “remainder of their respective
lives.” [Joint Ex. III, ¶¶ 3-4.] In addition, the Renfroe Settlement Agreement named Renfroe’s
Case 3:04-bk-40504 Doc 1228 Filed 10/05/06 Entered 10/06/06 09:40:56 Desc
Main Document Page 6 of 14

- 7 -
spouse, Leona Renfroe, as third party beneficiary of the Consulting Agreement and the Renfroe
Settlement Agreement. [Stip. of Facts, ¶ 9; Joint Ex. III, ¶ 9.]
Amcast and Lee Brass Company partially satisfied their obligations under the Renfroe
Settlement Agreement by paying Renfroe the total sum of $340,586. [Stip. of Facts, ¶ 10.]
Renfroe received the funds in February of 2004. [Id.] Renfroe testified that, although he
received the funds in 2004, the obligation should have been paid by Amcast in 2001 since the
obligation represented compensation due to Renfroe for a period ending April 9, 2001. [Tr. pp.
39-40.] Excluding these funds from his 2004 income, Renfroe testified that his gross income for
2004 would total less than $250,000. [Tr. p. 40.] Renfroe testified that his income for 2005
would total approximately $100,000. [Tr. pp. 40-41.]
On March 3, 2004, Renfroe filed a Notice of Partial Satisfaction of Judgment (“Notice”)
with the Alabama state court acknowledging receipt of the $340,586. [Stip. of Facts, ¶ 11; Joint
Ex. IV.] The Notice further declared that the specific performance obligations after January 30,
2004 remained in full force and effect. [Stip. of Facts, ¶ 12; Joint Ex. IV.]
E. LBC Settlement Agreement
In February of 2004, Amcast, Lee Brass Company, Renfroe and the other shareholders of
LBC Group Corp. entered into a settlement agreement (“LBC Settlement Agreement”) to resolve
a separate dispute arising under the SPA with regard to $487,000 still held in escrow. [Stip. of
Facts, ¶ 13; Joint Ex. V; Tr. pp. 21-22.] Pursuant to the terms of the LBC Settlement Agreement,
Amcast received $280,000 and Renfroe and the other shareholders of LBC Group Corp. received
$207,483. [Stip. of Facts, ¶ 14; Joint Ex. V.] In February of 2004, Renfroe received $147,506 of
the $207,463 disbursed to the LBC shareholders. [Stip. of Facts, ¶ 15.]
Case 3:04-bk-40504 Doc 1228 Filed 10/05/06 Entered 10/06/06 09:40:56 Desc
Main Document Page 7 of 14

- 8 -
F. Judgment Lien and Liens of Secured Lenders
Amcast’s pre-petition lenders have a valid and enforceable security or mortgage interest
in all of Amcast’s personal and real property located in the state of Alabama. [Stip. of Facts, ¶
20.] The lenders’ liens, perfected in March of 2003 prior to the state court judgment rendered in
favor of Renfroe, covers all property to which a judgment lien filed by Renfroe could attach
except the cash surrender value of the insurance policy. 3 [Id.]
LEGAL ANALYSIS
The issue presented to the court is whether the Bankruptcy Code, and specifically 11
U.S.C. § 1114, prevents Amcast from rejecting life and health insurance policies benefiting the
Renfroes and terminating its ongoing obligation to provide these benefits.
Bankruptcy Code Section 1114 was enacted to protect the interests of retirees of Chapter
11 debtors and ensure that bankrupt employers did not renege on retirement obligations to their
employees. General DataComm Indus., Inc. v. Arcara (In re General DataComm Indus., Inc.),
407 F.3d 616, 620 (3rd Cir. 2005); In re Certified Air Technologies, Inc., 300 B.R. 355, 370
(Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2003); In re Farmland Indus., Inc., 294 B.R. 903, 918-19 (Bankr. W.D. Mo.
2003). 	Section 1114, 4 entitled “Payment of Insurance Benefits to Retired Employees” protects
“retiree benefits” defined as:
. . . payments to any entity or person for the purpose of providing or reimbursing
payments for retired employees and their spouses and dependents, for medical, surgical,
or hospital care benefits, or benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, or death
under any plan, fund, or program (through the purchase of insurance or otherwise)
maintained or established in whole or in part by the debtor prior to filing a petition
commencing a case under this title.
3 At the September 28, 2005 hearing, the parties agreed to strike a portion of paragraph 20 from the Stipulation of
Facts with respect to whether or not the lenders’ liens attach to the cash surrender value of the Northwestern Policy.
The parties further agreed to amend the stipulation after they investigated the liens. According to the court’s review
of the docket, the parties never filed an amendment and, consequently, the court is unable to resolve the issue.
4 Bankruptcy Code Section 1114 has been modified by the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection
Act of 2005 (“BAPCPA”), Pub. L. No. 109-8. However, this case was filed prior to the new law’s enactment, and,
consequently, the BAPCPA modifications do not apply to this matter. Consequently, all references to and
quotations from § 1114 cited in this decision are from the section as written prior to the enactment of BAPCPA.
Case 3:04-bk-40504 Doc 1228 Filed 10/05/06 Entered 10/06/06 09:40:56 Desc
Main Document Page 8 of 14

- 9 -
11 U.S.C. § 1114(a). If a benefit plan, fund or program meets this definition, a debtor-in-
possession or trustee cannot modify or terminate the benefits absent good faith negotiations
followed by court approval or an agreement to the termination / modifications from an
“authorized representative” of the retirees. 11 U.S.C. § 1114(e) – (g). See also Certified Air
Technologies, 300 B.R. at 370.
In this case, Amcast does not attempt to conduct the negotiations and other actions
required to terminate or modify retiree benefits under § 1114. Instead, Amcast argues that §
1114 and its requirements are inapplicable. Amcast asserts that the insurance policies purchased
to benefit the Renfroes were a term of the stock purchase and consulting agreements and were
not retiree benefits under a plan, fund, or program maintained or established by Amcast.
Amcast correctly notes that the language of § 1114 protects retirement benefits provided
under a “plan, fund or program” maintained or established by a debtor. 11 U.S.C. § 1114(a).
This language suggests that Congress had in mind the protection of large scale plans and
programs administered by an employer specifically to provide retirement benefits for groups of
covered employees rather than a contractual obligation in a non-retirement agreement with one
individual.5 Nonetheless, the phrase “plan, fund or program” is left undefined within the
Bankruptcy Code and its application to terms in a non-retirement agreement with one individual
remains unclear. For this reason, courts have used the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et seq., as a reference because this federal legislation also
5 Other provisions of § 1114 further support that Congress intended to protect programs covering groups of retired
employees rather than contracts with individual employees. Specifically, § 1114(b), (c) (d) discuss the appointment
of an “authorized representative” to negotiate on behalf of and generally represent the interests of retirees under a
benefit plan that a debtor-in-possession is attempting to terminate. Because the appointment of an authorized
representative of the retirees is required in all cases (see § 1114(d)), it appears that the types of plans or programs
intended to be protected under § 1114 are those covering a large group of retirees rather than an agreement with one
single individual like Renfroe for which the appointment of a representative seems unnecessary.
Case 3:04-bk-40504 Doc 1228 Filed 10/05/06 Entered 10/06/06 09:40:56 Desc
Main Document Page 9 of 14

- 10 -
protects retirement benefits and utilizes the same phraseology. In re New York Trap Rock Corp.,
126 B.R. 19, 22 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991).
Specifically, the definitional section of ERISA defining an “employee welfare benefit
plan” describes a “plan fund or program” as follows:
The terms "employee welfare benefit plan" and "welfare plan" mean any plan, fund, or
program which was heretofore or is hereafter established or maintained by an employer
or by an employee organization, or by both, to the extent that such plan, fund, or program
was established or is maintained for the purpose of providing for its participants or their
beneficiaries, through the purchase of insurance or otherwise, (A) medical, surgical, or
hospital care or benefits, or benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, death or
unemployment, or vacation benefits, apprenticeship or other training programs, or day
care centers, scholarship funds, or prepaid legal services, or (B) any benefit described in
section 186(c) of this title (other than pensions on retirement or death, and insurance to
provide such pensions).
29 U.S.C. § 1002(1) (emphasis added).
Whether an employer’s obligation is a plan fund or program within this ERISA provision
depends upon the surrounding circumstances of each case. New York Trap Rock Corp., 126 B.R.
at 22. To make this determination, courts have considered, among other factors, the central
purpose of the arrangement. See Roderick v. Mazzetti & Assocs., Inc., 2004 WL 2554453, at
**8-10 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 9, 2004). Utilizing this analysis, an employer’s obligation arises from
an ERISA protected “plan, fund or program” when the arrangement is specifically designed for
the purpose of paying retirement income or providing retirement benefits to employees.
Williams v. Wright, 927 F.2d 1540, 1546 (11 th Cir. 1991); Fraver v. North Carolina Farm
Bureau Mutual Life Ins. Co., 801 F.2d 675, 678 (4th Cir. 1986). When the benefits are not part
of an arrangement specifically designed for retirement, but are, instead, incidental to an
individual stock purchase agreement, buy-out contract, or other non-retirement agreement, courts
have found that the employer’s obligation to provide such benefits is not part of a “plan, fund or
program” protected by ERISA. Williams, 927 F.2d at 1546-47 (noting that the analysis focuses
on whether the arrangement was designed primarily for the purpose of providing retirement
Case 3:04-bk-40504 Doc 1228 Filed 10/05/06 Entered 10/06/06 09:40:56 Desc
Main Document Page 10 of 14

- 11 -
income or whether the payment of post-retirement income is incidental to a contract of current
employment); Fraver, 801 F.2d at 678 (concluding that post-termination compensation provided
to an agent as part of his buy-out or employment contract did not constitute the type of
retirement benefits under a “plan, fund or program” protected by ERISA); Roderick, 2004 WL
2554453, at **8-10 (determining that post-retirement payments from a stock purchase
agreement, even when the employee intends those payments as retirement, are not protected by
ERISA if the central purpose of the agreement was transferring ownership of the company rather
than providing retirement security); Laverty v. Savoy Indus., Inc., 954 F.Supp. 86, 89-90
(S.D.N.Y. 1997) (holding that benefits, including insurance, promised as part of an employment
and consulting agreement did not create an ERISA protected “employment welfare plan” when
all benefits were part of the consultant’s present compensation arrangement and the agreement
set up no administration of plan funds nor required the employer to contribute to a fund as a
source of accrued benefits).
In this case, Amcast’s agreement to provide health and life insurance benefits to the
Renfroes was not part of a standard retirement “plan, fund or program” as the term is used in §
1114. Instead, Amcast’s agreement to pay these benefits was couched within terms of the
Consulting Agreement and related SPA with Delwin Renfroe. Pursuant to these agreements,
Renfro sold his stock, resigned as CEO and agreed to provide consulting services. [Joint Exs. I
and II.] In exchange, Amcast/Lee Brass paid Renfroe $6,500,000 for the stock, gave him a
yearly consulting fee of $175,000 and provided life and health insurance policies “for the lives”
of the Renfroes. [Id.] 	The consulting fees and benefits, including the health and life insurance
polices, were provided to Renfroe “in lieu of participation in any other benefit programs that Lee
Brass or Amcast may maintain.” [Joint Ex. II, ¶ 3(c).]
Case 3:04-bk-40504 Doc 1228 Filed 10/05/06 Entered 10/06/06 09:40:56 Desc
Main Document Page 11 of 14

- 12 -
The central purpose of these agreements was to transfer ownership and control of the
company and provide for consulting services to the company and revenue to Delwin Renfroe
following his resignation as CEO. The life and health insurance policies were an incidental part
of this package and, in fact, nowhere within the SPA or the Consulting Agreement do the parties
use the word “retirement” in connection with the benefits provided to the Renfroes. 6 [Joint Exs. I
and II.] The court concludes that Amcast’s obligation to provide life and health insurance
benefits to the Renfroes is not part of a “plan, fund or program” established or maintained by
Amcast. Consequently, the insurance policies are not protected pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1114.7
CONCLUSION
Because Amcast’s obligation to pay life and health insurance premiums for the Renfroes
was not established as part of a “plan, fund or program,” but instead was an incidental term to
stock purchase and consulting agreements, the court concludes that the benefits are not protected
6 Following Amcast / Lee Brass’s default on its obligations to the Renfroes, the Renfroes sued Amcast / Lee Brass
and obtained a judgment against Amcast / Lee Brass requiring the continuation of insurance benefits. After the
judgment was entered, Lee Brass, Amcast and the Renfroes further entered a settlement agreement continuing the
Renfroe’s insurance benefits “for the remainder of their respective lives.” [Joint Ex. III.] None of these documents
refer to the insurance policies as “retirement benefits” for the Renfroes.
7 As an alternative argument, Amcast maintained that Delwin Renfroe’s income in the year prior to the bankruptcy
was too high for his benefits to receive § 1114 protection. Relevant to this argument is § 1114(l) which states:
(l) This section shall not apply to any retiree, or the spouse or dependents of such retiree, if such retiree's
gross income for the twelve months preceding the filing of the bankruptcy petition equals or exceeds
$250,000, unless such retiree can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the court that he is unable to obtain
health, medical, life, and disability coverage for himself, his spouse, and his dependents who would
otherwise be covered by the employer's insurance plan, comparable to the coverage provided by the
employer on the day before the filing of a petition under this title.
11 U.S.C. § 1114. Amcast argues that because Delwin Renfroe received his settlement award totaling $340,586 in
February of 2004, Renfroe’s income in the year prior to Amcast’s bankruptcy filing was higher than $250,000.
Consequently, Amcast asserts that Renfroe’s benefits are not protected under the statute. The Renfroes oppose this
argument noting that the settlement award to Delwin Renfroe was related to an obligation that Amcast should have
paid in 2001. Excluding the settlement funds from his 2004 income, Renfroe testified that his gross income for 2004
would total less than $250,000.
Because the court concludes that Renfroe’s insurance benefits are not protected by § 1114 for the other reasons
stated in this decision, the court need not reach the issue of Renfroe’s income level in the year prior to the
bankruptcy filing. However, the court certainly questions whether a debtor should be able use the date of paying a
settlement award related to a much earlier obligation in order to eliminate a former employee’s benefit protections
under § 1114.
Case 3:04-bk-40504 Doc 1228 Filed 10/05/06 Entered 10/06/06 09:40:56 Desc
Main Document Page 12 of 14

- 13 -
by 11 U.S.C. § 1114. Consequently, Amcast may reject and terminate the life and health
insurance policies benefiting the Renfroes under 11 U.S.C. § 365(a) as well as remaining
obligations under the settlement agreement. 8
SO ORDERED.
cc:
Amcast Industrial Corporation, et al., Reorganized Debtors
c/o Alan Lepene and Jeremy Campana
Thompson Hine LLP
3900 Key Center
127 Public Square
Cleveland, OH 41114
Debtor
Jennifer L Maffett
Scott A King
Lawrence T Burick
Thompson Hine LLP
2000 Courthouse Plaza NE
PO Box 8801
Dayton, OH 45401-8801
Email: THDaytonECF@thompsonhine.com
Louis F Solimine
312 Walnut St
Suite 1400
Cincinnati, OH 45202-4029
(513) 352-6784
Email: louis.solimine@thompsonhine.com
N Christian Glenos
C Ellis Brazeal III
Walston, Wells, Anderson & Birchall, LLP
1819 5th Avenue North, Suite 1100
Birmingham, AL 35203
8 Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code states: “Except as provided in sections 765 and 766 of this title and in
subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section, the trustee, subject to the court's approval, may assume or reject any
executory contract or unexpired lease of the debtor.” 11 U.S.C. § 365(a). The parties appear to agree that the life
and health insurance policies at issue are executory contracts and no party argues that any exception to the
application of § 365(a) applies in this case.
Case 3:04-bk-40504 Doc 1228 Filed 10/05/06 Entered 10/06/06 09:40:56 Desc
Main Document Page 13 of 14

- 14 -
Jean R Robertson
2100 Bank One Center
600 Superior Ave E
Cleveland, OH 44114-2653
(216) 348-5400
Email: jrobertson@mcdonaldhopkins.com
Scott N Opincar
2100 Bank One Center
600 Superior Ave E
Cleveland, OH 44114-2653
(216) 348-5400
Email: sopincar@mcdonaldhopkins.com
Asst US Trustee (Day)
Office of the US Trustee
170 North High Street
Suite 200
Columbus, OH 43215-2417
614-469-7411
# # #
Case 3:04-bk-40504 Doc 1228 Filed 10/05/06 Entered 10/06/06 09:40:56 Desc
Main Document Page 14 of 14