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 2014 to current, listed by year and judge.

Holding: After a trail on the alleged non-dischareability of a particular debt, the court found that Defendant, Shane Skinner, made a representation that was so far beyond his financial reality as to be deceptive, and that, when made, he knew that he either could not or would not perform his promise to quickly pay off the underlying lien on the vehicle. Huggins reasonably and justifiably relied on this representation and all five elements under § 523(a)(2)(A)required for a finding of non-dischargeability were met.

Holding: The Court concludes that the Property is property of the estate pursuant to Section 541, Subsections (a)(5) and (a)(1). Therefore, the Court will grant the Trustee’s Motion to Sell the Property free and clear of liens. The Trustee is directed to submit an appropriate form of order incorporating this decision, granting the Motion to Sell the Property free and clear of liens, and overruling the Debtors’ Objection thereto.

Holding: the Court concludes that the Plaintiff has satisfied its duty under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 9(b), incorporated into this Adversary Proceeding as a result of Bankruptcy Rules 7012 and 7009, to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and has stated with particularity the allegations surrounding the alleged fraud. The Court has cited to relevant case law that provides a basis for the particular facts alleged to be considered fraud, though still recognizing that certain cases cited by this Court are not binding, but merely provide persuasive authority. Because Plaintiff has met its burden under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 9(b), the Court denies the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

Holding: The court finds and concludes that Debtor's Plan may be confirmed.

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. 

Pages