You are here
Opinions
The District of Arizona offers a database of opinions for the years 2012 to current, listed by year and judge.
Judicial opinions from the District of Arizona, as well as other participating courts from throughout the nation, can also be accessed through the U.S. Government Publishing Office's United States Courts Opinions web page. To view judicial opinions on the GPO’s website, click here.
Date |
Description | Judge | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11/09/12 |
Trails End Lodge, Llc (4:11-bk-16190-EWH) 11/09/12 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. |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 11/09/12 |
Saunders Rudasill Hotel, Llc (4:11-bk-16202-EWH) 11/09/12 Memorandum Decision on Plan Confirmation |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 11/09/12 |
Saunders Hotels, LLC (4:11-bk-16203-EWH) 11/09/12 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. |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 11/09/12 |
Saunders Hotels, Llc (4:11-bk-16203-EWH) 11/09/12 Memorandum Decision On Plan Confirmation |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 11/09/12 |
Saunders Rudasill Hotel, LLC (4:11-bk-16202-EWH) 11/09/12 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. |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 11/09/12 |
Trails End Lodge, Llc (4:11-bk-16190-EWH) 11/09/12 Memorandum Decision On Plan Confirmation |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 11/07/12 |
Reid Park Properties LLC (4:11-bk-15267-EWH) 11/07/12 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. |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 11/07/12 |
Reid Park Properties Limited Liability Company (4:11-bk-15267-EWH) 11/07/12 Memorandum Decision |
Judge Eileen W. Hollowell (retired) | |
| 11/06/12 |
Derusha Et Al V. Duncan Et Al (2:12-ap-00068-JMM) 11/06/12 Memorandum Decision |
Judge James M. Marlar (recalled) | |
| 11/06/12 |
Derusha v. Duncan (2:12-ap-00068-JMM) 11/06/12 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. |
Judge James M. Marlar (recalled) |