General Growth Properties Inc. said Wednesday that it has filed its reorganization plan, and its lenders have agreed to restructure about $9.7 billion in shopping mall mortgage loans, more than previously planned.

Last month the mall operator, which earlier this year filed the largest U.S. real estate bankruptcy case in history, said its lenders had agreed to restructure some $8.9 billion in loans.

The real estate investment trust and about 166 regional shopping centers and subsidiaries filed for Chapter 11 protection in April. The company had about $27 billion in debt piled up at the time.

General Growth fell victim to an aggressive expansion during the height of the real estate boom and was unable to service it when credit markets dried up during last year's financial crisis.

General Growth, based in Chicago, is the second-largest U.S. mall operator. The shopping mall loans that are being restructured cover 92 regional shopping centers, office properties, community centers and related subsidiaries.

The company's reorganization plan includes full payment of all undisputed claims against emerging debtors for pre-petition goods and services.

General Growth said the Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of New York is set to confirm its reorganization plan on Dec. 15. If the company obtains all of the necessary approvals for its plan and meets the necessary conditions, General Growth anticipates the regional shopping centers, office properties community centers and other subsidiaries associated with the loans will be out of bankruptcy before year's end.

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected another request by former Qwest Communications International Inc. CEO Joseph Nacchio to review his insider trading conviction.

The court revealed Monday that it won't reconsider its decision in October not to take up his case.

Nacchio was convicted in 2007 on 19 counts of insider trading, and he reported to prison in April.

However a federal judge is reconsidering his sentence. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in July that he should be resentenced because the trial judge miscalculated when he sentenced Nacchio to six years in prison and ordered him to pay $71 million in fines and forfeitures.

Nacchio still faces a civil lawsuit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission.

General Motors Co. has sued a supplier over problems with steering columns that have so far cost the automaker more than $30 million to fix.

The Detroit automaker is seeking damages from JTEKT North America Inc. and subsidiary JTEKT Automotive Virginia Inc. for problems associated with steering products used in the Chevrolet Cobalt and other GM vehicles since 2005.

GM claims the steering columns "had excessive gear backlash, thereby causing the columns to rattle under certain driving conditions."

Problems with the parts resulted in an "unexpectedly high number" of warranty claims and complaints about "unusual rattles, 'clunks' or other noises emanating from the steering assemblies in their vehicles," GM alleges in the lawsuit, originally filed in Macomb County Circuit Court but moved last week to federal court in Detroit.

While the problem has already cost GM more than $30 million, the automaker said it expects the bill will rise as GM customers file additional warranty claims.

A federal court has reversed a ruling that overturned Boeing Co.’s $1.1 billion contract for maintenance of an Air Force refueling tanker jet.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s ruling Tuesday overturns a 2008 decision by the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and reinstates Chicago-based Boeing’s 10-year contract for work on the 50-year-old fleet of KC-135 tankers, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday.

Boeing, which built the KC-135, was awarded the maintenance contract in September 2007, and the aerospace giant has been awarded similar contracts for nearly a decade.

Competitor Alabama Aircraft Industries Inc. of Birmingham, Ala., filed suit, alleging the contract was not properly awarded to Boeing and citing issues involving pricing and past performance, The Associated Press reported.

It's an expensive lesson on the importance of reading your mail.

A Wisconsin judge has ordered PepsiCo Inc to pay $1.26 billion to two men who said it stole their idea to sell purified water after a secretary mislaid a document alerting the world's No. 2 soft drink maker the lawsuit existed.

The case was reported earlier on Wednesday by The National Law Journal. The judgment amount is equal to more than 20 percent of PepsiCo's reported annual profits in recent years, regulatory filings show.

According to filings with the Jefferson County Circuit Court, Charles Joyce and James Voigt won the September 30 judgment five months after first suing PepsiCo and two distributors.

The Wisconsin men said they talked with the distributors in 1981 about their idea to bottle and sell purified water and that PepsiCo later stole the idea by creating Aquafina.

The complaint was filed on April 28, but PepsiCo said the legal department at its Purchase, New York headquarters was not alerted to the case until around September 18, when secretary Kathy Henry received a letter for her supervisor Tom Tamoney.

Henry, however, put the letter aside and did not tell anyone about it or enter it into her log "because she was so busy preparing for a board meeting," according to PepsiCo's October 13 motion asking the court not to enforce the judgment.

The administrators of Lehman Brothers' assets in Europe said Monday that they may seek a direct agreement with hedge funds and other creditors to return money tied up since the collapse of the parent company as an alternative to a court-sanctioned settlement.

PricewaterhouseCoopers — which controls some $8.9 billion in assets from Lehman Brothers International (Europe) since the parent company went bankrupt on Sept. 15, 2008 — has proposed a contractual agreement with creditors following an adverse ruling by the High Court in London. The court ruled in July that it had no power to grant the administrators' request to set a "bar date" or deadline for creditors to file claims.

PricewaterhouseCoopers is appealing the court ruling, with a hearing expected on Oct. 26, but meanwhile it has disclosed a timetable for the alternate settlement.

The administrators sought a bar date because they had not received responses from all clients of Lehman Brothers, they could not depend on the accuracy of Lehmans' record and had not received all the information requested from custodians, depositories and affiliates of Lehman Brothers International (Europe).