Opinions

Email Updates - Click here to subscribe for automatic notices when this page is updated.

The District of Arizona offers a database of opinions for the years 2012 to current, listed by year and judge.

Holding: all of the facts and circumstances demonstrate that the Delgados did not really care about avoiding any possible violation of the automatic stay, but rather sought to use the automatic stay as a sword rather than as a shield, in order to seek a large compensatory and punitive damage award. Based on all of these factors and all of the facts and circumstances, the Court concludes Hacienda is entitled to nunc pro tunc annulment of the automatic stay, effective as of the date of the filing of the case. Indeed, the day the bidding occurred, December 27, was the day the bankruptcy case should have been dismissed, within 7 days of the date of the filing of the bankruptcy petition pursuant to Local Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1007-1. the Court concludes that the Delgados shall take nothing by their complaint pursuant to Bankruptcy Code § 362(k), Hacienda is entitled to retroactive stay relief nunc pro tunc to the date of the petition, and all parties shall bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees.

Holding: When evaluating competing confirmation plans, “the court shall consider the preferences of creditors and equity security holders in determining which plan to confirm.” 11 U.S.C. § 1129(c). Under both Debtor’s and Lender’s Plans, the existing equity holders would be replaced. As a result, only creditors’ preferences need to be considered when choosing between the competing plans. Accordingly, Lender’s Plan should be confirmed because it satisfies all of the required elements of § 1129 and provides for the best interests of creditors. Lender’s proposed 100% payment with interest offers better treatment to all creditors than Debtor’s proposal, which offers extended payment terms and exposes Lender (the largest creditor) to an unacceptable level of risk.  

Holding:When evaluating competing confirmation plans, “the court shall consider the preferences of creditors and equity security holders in determining which plan to confirm.” 11 U.S.C. § 1129(c). Under both Debtor’s and Lender’s Plans, the existing equity holders would be replaced. As a result, only creditors’ preferences need to be considered when choosing between the competing plans. Accordingly, Lender’s Plan should be confirmed because it satisfies all of the required elements of § 1129 and provides for the best interests of creditors. Lender’s proposed 100% payment with interest offers better treatment to all creditors than Debtor’s proposal, which offers extended payment terms and exposes Lender (the largest creditor) to an unacceptable level of risk.  

Holding: When evaluating competing confirmation plans, “the court shall consider the preferences of creditors and equity security holders in determining which plan to confirm.” 11 U.S.C. § 1129(c). Under both Debtor’s and Lender’s Plans, the existing equity holders would be replaced. As a result, only creditors’ preferences need to be considered when choosing between the competing plans. Accordingly, Lender’s Plan should be confirmed because it satisfies all of the required elements of § 1129 and provides for the best interests of creditors. Lender’s proposed 100% payment with interest offers better treatment to all creditors than Debtor’s proposal, which offers extended payment terms and exposes Lender (the largest creditor) to an unacceptable level of risk.

Holding: Chapter 11 provides a business debtor with the opportunity to restructure its debt and hopefully maintain employment opportunities for its workers.17 The Code provides powerful tools to assist a debtor’s reorganization efforts, including the right to extend loan terms, change interest rates, and rewrite or eliminate loan covenants. But to successfully exercise those rights, a debtor must assure that the risk of reorganization is borne fairly by all of the parties in the case. Debtor has failed to do so, and therefore, the Plan can not be confirmed.  

Holding: Because the DeRushas are unable to satisfy all three prongs of § 1141(d)(3), their adversary complaint (No. 12-68) must be dismissed. The Defendants are entitled to summary judgment, as a matter of law. A separate order will be entered, granting the Defendant Duncans’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and dismissing the complaint. 

Holding: Based on the entire record in this case, the court finds and concludes that Debtors' Second Amended Plan (and its modification) may be confirmed.  

Holding: The Plaintiffs have failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the Debtor has committed an act that would support denial of his discharge under sections 727(a)(2)-(4).

Holding: The parties do not dispute that Debtor’s obligation to Plaintiff arose under their divorce decree. Neither do they dispute that the subsequent state court judgment was a result of Debtor’s failure to pay the divorce decree obligation. Debtor makes the legal argument that the divorce decree judgment has merged into the state court civil judgment, losing its characteristic that would make it non-dischargeable pursuant to § 523(a)(15). This Court disagrees and concludes that the Debtor's Motion for Summary Judgment shall be denied.

Holding: This matter involves a review of attorneys' fees, by two different firms, for work performed in this Chapter 13 case. 

Pages