MEMORANDUM Boyne, USA, Inc. and Big Sky Resort, LLC appeal from the district court’s order affirming the bankruptcy court’s approval of a settlement agreement between the trustee of the estates of three debtors (the “Estates”) and various insider entities (the “Debtor-Affiliates”). “In an appeal from the district court’s affirmance of a decision of the bankruptcy court ... we are, in essence, reviewing the final order of the bankruptcy court.” Martin v. Kane (In re A&C Properties), 784 F.2d 1377, 1380 (9th Cir. 1986).
We review the bankruptcy court’s decision to approve the settlement agreement for abuse of discretion. Id. The bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in approving the Debtor-Affiliate Settlement. Under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019, a bankruptcy court “may approve a compromise or settlement” on motion by the trustee and after notice and a hearing. The settlement must be “fair and equitable.” In re A&C Properties, 784 F.2d at 1381. In determining whether a settlement satisfies this standard, the bankruptcy court must consider: (
a) The probability of success in the litigation; (
b) the difficulties, if any, to be encountered in the matter of collection; (
c) the complexity of the litigation involved, and the expense, inconvenience and delay necessarily attending it; (
d) the paramount interest of the creditors and a proper deference to their reasonable views in the premises. Id. Generally, the bankruptcy court does not abuse its discretion if it makes “a full and fair independent assessment of the wisdom of the compromise.” Id. at 1383. Here, the bankruptcy court held an evi-dentiary hearing and considered the A&C Properties factors.
In particular, it noted that litigation of the Estates’ fraudulent conveyance and preference claims would likely be expensive in light of the Debtor-Affiliates’ possible defenses, and it credited the testimony of the trustee’s financial ad-visor regarding the likely difficulty of collection. On this record, the bankruptcy court did not abuse its discretion in approving either the settlement or the trustee’s proposed allocation of the proceeds. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.