of the Litigation Fund was “adjudicated,” constitute payments to the Plaintiffs in consideration of potential liability and thereby render Central Texas a “settling person”? (Or more broadly, was the Litigation Plan a settlement between Central Texas and the Plaintiffs?) We answer “yes.” The tender of the $5 million to the bankruptcy court (half of which went to the Litigation Fund) and Central Texas’ direct annual payments to the Litigation Fund, were indirect payments to the Plaintiffs in consideration of Central Texas’ potential liability to the Plaintiffs, and the subsequent payments from that fund to the Plaintiffs were not contingent on the outcome of an adversarial or uncertain proceeding. Cf. Gilcrease v. Garlock, Inc., 211 S.W.3d 448, 452-55 (Tex.App.-El Paso 2006, no pet.) (<HOLDING>) (citing McNair v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas
holding that postsettlement bankruptcies of settling parties did not make settlements contingent and that defendant was entitled to credits even though settlements had not been paid and distinguishing settlements contingent on other litigation and uncertain bankruptcy proceedings holding that defendant may be entitled to selfdefense instruction even though he did not testify holding that a defendant did not otherwise defend even though he had appeared before the court holding that transferors request to recover fee it had paid was within the scope of the general statutory language allowing recovery of reasonable costs of participating in a proceeding even though other party was initially responsible for paying this fee and even though statute did not specifically provide that such recovery was allowed holding that bankruptcy court erred by not awarding fees for unsuccessful litigation even though the effort was found to have been actually made reasonable and necessary to the faithful representation of the bankruptcy estate