You are here

Section 362 Automatic Stay (Judge Gargotta)

In re UTEX Communications Corp. (September 21, 2011)
Issue: Could the Court lift the automatic stay and allow Creditor to terminate the agreement with Debtor due to Debtor’s post-petition failure to pay amounts owed?
Holding: The Court denied the request to lift the stay because Creditor is unsecured and, balancing the hardships, the Court found that to lift the stay and allow Creditor to cancel the agreement would be calamitous for Debtor.

In re Pineda (February 11, 2010)
Issue: Does cause exist under § 362(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. § 362) such that Motion for Relief from Stay should be granted when note payable to Creditors has fully matured and they are entitled to foreclose on the Property under state law, and there is no feasible means to adequately measure future income of Debtors?
Holding: Yes. The Court declined to rely on speculation of income and held “in this case, promises are no longer a substitute for payments.”

In re Save Our Springs Alliance (April 14, 2008)
Issue: Whether (1) the deadline to obtain confirmation can or should be extended; (2) designation of vote was cast in bad faith, and (3) Plan should be confirmed or denied due to: gerrymandering by improper classification, lack of an impaired accepting class, best interest of creditors test not met, feasibility, discharge is not permissible where the plan in essence does not provide for the Debtor’s continuation in “business”, cramdown is not permissible where insider claims are not subordinated to payment in full of all other claims, lack of good faith?
Holding: The Court finds that the Motion to Extend Time should be Granted in part and Denied in part, the Vote Designation Motion should be Denied, and confirmation of the Debtor’s Plan should be Denied.