In Re Bashas' Inc.
| Decision Date | 13 August 2010 |
| Docket Number | Nos. 2:09-bk-16050-JMM, 2:09-bk-16051-JMM, 2:09-bk-16052-JMM.,s. 2:09-bk-16050-JMM, 2:09-bk-16051-JMM, 2:09-bk-16052-JMM. |
| Citation | 437 B.R. 874 |
| Parties | In re BASHAS' INC., Bashas' Leaseco Inc., Sportsman's, LLC, Debtors. |
| Court | U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Arizona |
437 B.R. 874
In re BASHAS' INC., Bashas' Leaseco Inc., Sportsman's, LLC, Debtors.
Nos. 2:09-bk-16050-JMM, 2:09-bk-16051-JMM, 2:09-bk-16052-JMM.
United States Bankruptcy Court,D. Arizona.
Aug. 13, 2010.
437 B.R. 875
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
437 B.R. 876
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
437 B.R. 877
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
437 B.R. 878
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
437 B.R. 879
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
437 B.R. 880
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED.
437 B.R. 881
437 B.R. 882
Brenda Moody Whinery, David Jeffrey Hindman, Frederick J. Petersen, Lowell E. Rothschild, Michael W. McGrath, Scott H. Gan, Mesch, Clark & Rothschild, P.C., Tucson, AZ, Rodrick J. Coffey, Christopher Graver, Stinson Morrison Hecker, L.L.P., Edwin D. Fleming, Howard C. Meyers, Burch & Cracchiolo, P.A., Michael W. Carmel, Michael W. Carmel, Ltd., Phoenix, AZ, for Debtors.
This Filing Applies to:
[x] All Debtors,
Specified Debtors.
+-----------------+ ¦TABLE OF CONTENTS¦ +-----------------¦ +-----------------+
+--------------------+ ¦I. ¦THE PLAN ¦884¦ +---+------------+---¦ +---+------------+---¦ ¦II.¦THE DEBTORS ¦885¦ +--------------------+
+------------------------+ ¦¦A.¦Pre-Bankruptcy ¦885¦ ++--+----------------+---¦ ¦¦B.¦Post-Bankruptcy ¦885¦ +------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------+ +----+--------------------------------+---¦ ¦III.¦THE BANKS ¦885¦ +----+--------------------------------+---¦ +----+--------------------------------+---¦ ¦IV. ¦THE NOTEHOLDERS ¦886¦ +----+--------------------------------+---¦ +----+--------------------------------+---¦ ¦V. ¦THE GRACE LOANS ¦887¦ +----+--------------------------------+---¦ +----+--------------------------------+---¦ ¦VI. ¦PLAN TREATMENT AND BALLOT REPORT¦887¦ +----+--------------------------------+---¦ +----+--------------------------------+---¦ ¦VII.¦THE CONFIRMATION HEARING ¦893¦ +-----------------------------------------+
+----------------------+ ¦¦A.¦Debtors' Case ¦893¦ +----------------------+
+-----------------------------------+ ¦¦¦1.¦Christopher G. Linscott ¦893¦ +++--+--------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦2.¦Conrad N. Plomin ¦897¦ +++--+--------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦3.¦Jon Young ¦897¦ +++--+--------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦4.¦Darl J. Andersen ¦898¦ +++--+--------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦5.¦F. Phillips (Phil) Giltner¦900¦ +-----------------------------------+
+---------------------------------+ ¦¦B.¦Objecting Creditors' Case¦900¦ +---------------------------------+
+-------------------------+ ¦¦¦1.¦Morris C. Aaron ¦900¦ +-------------------------+
+--------------------------------+ +-----+----------------------+---¦ ¦VIII.¦OBJECTIONS TO THE PLAN¦902¦ +--------------------------------+
+---------------------------------+ ¦¦A.¦Preliminary Comment ¦902¦ ++--+-------------------------+---¦ ¦¦B.¦Specific Legal Objections¦902¦ +---------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------+ +---+---------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦IX.¦THE CONFIRMATION ELEMENTS OF § 1129-THE 16 ELEMENTS¦903¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------+
+------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦A.¦Sections 1129(a)(1) and (2)-General Compliance¦904¦ +------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------------+ ¦¦¦1.¦In General ¦904¦ +++--+------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦2.¦Specific Concerns ¦904¦ +---------------------------+
+-------------------------------+ ¦¦¦¦(a)¦The Parra Litigants ¦904¦ ++++---+--------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦(b)¦Bank Group ¦906¦ ++++---+--------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦¦(c)¦The Noteholders ¦909¦ +-------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦¦3.¦Sections 1129(a)(1) and (a)(2)-Conclusion¦909¦ +--------------------------------------------------+
+-------------------------------------+ ¦¦B.¦Section 1129(a)(3)-Good Faith¦909¦ +-------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------+ ¦¦¦1.¦Parra Litigants ¦910¦ +++--+-----------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦2.¦Banks and Noteholders ¦910¦ +++--+-----------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦3.¦Section 1129(a)(3)-Conclusion¦912¦ +--------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦C.¦Section 1129(a)(4)-Payments In Connection With the Case or Incident ¦912¦ ¦¦ ¦to the Case Must Be Approved and Reasonable ¦ ¦ ++--+---------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦D.¦Section 1129(a)(5)-Post-Confirmation Officers and Directors, Insiders¦912¦ ¦¦ ¦and Compensation ¦ ¦ ++--+---------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦E.¦Section 1129(a)(6)-Governmental Rate Control ¦913¦ ++--+---------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦F.¦Section 1129(a)(7)-Best Interests of Creditors Test ¦914¦ ++--+---------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦G.¦Section 1129(a)(8)-Each Class Must Accept or is Left Unimpaired ¦914¦ ++--+---------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦H.¦Section 1129(a)(9)-Priorities ¦914¦ ++--+---------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦I.¦Section 1129(a)(10)-At Least One Impaired Consenting Class ¦914¦ ++--+---------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦J.¦Section 1129(a)(11)-Feasibility ¦915¦ ++--+---------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦K.¦Section 1129(a)(12)-Fees ¦918¦ ++--+---------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦L.¦Section 1129(a)(13)-Retiree Benefits ¦918¦ ++--+---------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦M.¦Section 1129(a)(14)-Domestic Support Obligations (Alimony; Child ¦918¦ ¦¦ ¦Support) ¦ ¦ ++--+---------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦N.¦Section 1129(a)(15)-Individual Chapter 11 Case ¦918¦ ++--+---------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦O.¦Section 1129(a)(16)-Transfers of Property ¦918¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----+ +-----+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦X.¦SECTION 1129(b)-THE CRAMDOWN PROVISIONS AND UNFAIR DISCRIMINATION¦918¦ +------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦A.¦Classes 3 and 4: The Secured Debt (Banks and Noteholders)- Cramdown ¦918¦ ¦¦ ¦Interest Rates ¦ ¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦¦1.¦In General ¦918¦ +++--+--------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦2.¦Banks' Objection Regarding Cramdown Interest Rates; Unfair ¦922¦ ¦¦¦ ¦Discrimination ¦ ¦ +++--+--------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦3.¦Noteholders' Objections to Cramdown Interest Rates ¦922¦ +++--+--------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦4.¦Cramdown Rates as to the Banks-Conclusion ¦922¦ +++--+--------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦5.¦Cramdown Rates as to the Noteholders-Conclusion ¦923¦ +++--+--------------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦¦6.¦Cramdown as to Secured Creditors-Conclusion ¦924¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+-----------------------------------------------------------------+ ¦¦B.¦Section 1129(b)(2)(A)(i)(I)-Retention of Liens (Cramdown)¦924¦ ++--+---------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦¦C.¦Section 1129(b)-Other Unfair Discrimination ¦924¦ +-----------------------------------------------------------------+
+---------------------+ ¦¦¦1.¦Banks ¦924¦ +++--+------------+---¦ ¦¦¦2.¦Noteholders ¦926¦ +---------------------+
+--------------------------------------+ +---+------------------------------+---¦ ¦XI.¦OTHER MISCELLANEOUS OBJECTIONS¦926¦ +--------------------------------------+
+--------------------+ ¦¦A.¦Banks ¦926¦ ++--+------------+---¦ ¦¦B.¦Noteholders ¦927¦ +--------------------+
+---------------------------------------------------------------------------+ +-----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦XII. ¦SECTION 1129(b)(2)(A)(iii)-“INDUBITABLE EQUIVALENT” (NOTEHOLDERS)¦927¦ +-----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ +-----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦XIII.¦SECTION 1129(b)(2)(A)-ABSOLUTE PRIORITY RULE (NOTEHOLDERS) ¦927¦ +-----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ +-----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦XIV. ¦SUBSTANTIVE CONSOLIDATION ¦928¦ +-----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ +-----+-----------------------------------------------------------------+---¦ ¦XV. ¦CONCLUSION-CONFIRMATION APPROVED ¦929¦ +---------------------------------------------------------------------------+
437 B.R. 884
Presented to the court over a five-day period, July 22, 28-30 and August 9, 2010, was the plan of reorganization proposed for the three related Debtors in these cases. For all practical purposes, the Leaseco and Sportsman's entities are divisions within the larger Bashas' organization. In the plan, both Sportsman's and Leaseco have asked that their creditors be consolidated and included for payment within the overall plan of reorganization, and the three Debtors have thus presented a single plan for court approval (the “Plan”).
Evidence was taken in the form of numerous documents and six witnesses, and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
18 cases
-
In re S B Bldg. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship
...equity security holders and with public policy with respect to the manner of selection of [any such manager]." See In re Basha's Inc., 437 B.R. 874, 912 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2010).The Court acknowledges that "opaque reporting" and "resistance to following the rules" have occurred in this case. ......
-
In re Skyline Ridge, LLC
...proposed to serve as officers or managers of [the] debtor is not in the interests of creditors and public policy." In re Bashas' Inc., 437 B.R. 874, 912 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2010); see also 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(5)(A)(ii). "[C]ontinued service by prior management may be inconsistent with the inte......
-
In re Geijsel
...749 F.2d 410, 425 (7th Cir.1984). The good faith requirement serves to guard against “abuses of the system.” Cf. In re Bashas' Inc., 437 B.R. 874, 911 (Bankr.D.Ariz.2010) (concluding, under its § 1129(a)(3) analysis, that “[t]he court is always alert for abuses of the system”); see In re Fe......
- In Re Dawn Petersen, Civ. No. 09-1600 PHX RCB.
Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
-
America's Public Shell Trafficking Problem: Ripe for Reprocessing
...plan's fundamental fairness'" (quoting In re Hercules Offshore, Inc., 565 B.R. 732 (Bankr. D. Del. 2016))).74. See In re Bashas' Inc., 437 B.R. 874, 915-16 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2010). 75. See 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(11).76. See id. (defining feasible as "not likely to later result in a liquidation ......
-
Appendices, B. List of Applicable Tests by Jurisdiction
...2000) District of Alaska In re Avery, 377 B.R. 264, 269 (Bankr. D. Alaska 2007) (applying Bonham) District of Arizona In re Bashas' Inc., 437 B.R. 874, 928-29 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2010) (applying Bonham) Northern District of California In re Central European Industrial Development Co. LLC, 288 ......