In re Couture Hotel Corp.

10 Citing cases

  1. In re JSAA Realty, LLC

    No. 20-32504 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Feb. 24, 2022)

    See Tex. Grand Prairie, 710 F.3d at 333-34 (holding that risk adjustments typically fall within the 1-3% range and are based on a holistic assessment of the debtor, the loan, and the feasibility of the debtor's plan).See id. at 333 (applying the Till prime-plus formula); In re Couture Hotel Corporation, 536 B.R. 712, 741-49 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2015) (Houser, J.) (applying the Till prime-plus formula); In re LMR, LLC, 496 B.R. 410, 427-37 (Bankr.W.D.Tex. 2013) (discussing Till and Tex. Grand Prairie at length and ultimately applying the prime-plus formula). In conclusion, the Court finds that the Trust failed to show that either the Original Note or the Amended Note was a hard money loan, that Sunshine or the Trust was a hard money lender, or that it is entitled to the contractual rate of interest as a matter of equity.

  2. In re K3D Prop. Servs.

    635 B.R. 297 (Bankr. E.D. Tenn. 2021)   Cited 1 times

    The court has found a third. SeeIn re Couture Hotel Corp ., 536 B.R. 712 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2015). In Seatco , the court found "unusual circumstances" in a case where the injunction beneficiary was the sole shareholder who had guaranteed the debt of the enjoined creditor.

  3. In re Murray Metallurgical Coal Holdings

    623 B.R. 444 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2021)   Cited 13 times   3 Legal Analyses

    In applying the primary Till risk factors—that is, "the circumstances of the estate, the nature of the security, and the duration and feasibility of the reorganization plan," Till , 541 U.S. at 479, 124 S.Ct. 1951 —some courts have formulated certain subfactors to help gauge the risk of a potential default by the debtor under the Chapter 11 plan. See, e.g. , In re Couture Hotel Corp. , 536 B.R. 712, 746 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2015) (quality of debtor's management); LMR , 496 B.R. at 430 (commitment of the debtor's owners); In re GAC Storage El Monte, LLC , 489 B.R. 747, 763 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2013) (loan-to-value ratio); In re San Francisco Med. Assocs., Inc. , No. 12-32859 HLB, 2013 WL 5529647, *3 (Bankr. N.D. Cal. 2013) (quality of any guarantors); In re 20 Bayard Views, LLC , 445 B.R. 83, 111–12 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 2011) (existence of an equity cushion); Am. Trailer & Storage, Inc. , 419 B.R. at 439 (collateral coverage); Prussia Assocs. , 322 B.R. at 591 (whether collateral is appreciating or depreciating).

  4. In re S B Bldg. Assocs.

    621 B.R. 330 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2020)   Cited 4 times
    Granting substantive consolidation where virtually all parties treated the entities as unified

    A plan that includes the consensual resolution of disputes between the debtor and its creditors, and that proposes to pay creditors in full "clearly promotes the objectives and purposes of the Bankruptcy Code." In re Couture Hotel Corp., 536 B.R. 712, 735 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2015). Therefore, good faith is shown when a "plan that has been proposed for the purpose of reorganizing the debtor, preserving the value of the bankruptcy estate, and delivering that value to creditors."

  5. In re A & B Assocs., L.P.

    Number 17-40185-EJC (Bankr. S.D. Ga. Mar. 29, 2019)   Cited 4 times

    "By definition," under these circumstances, "the Plan cannot fail the best interests test of § 1129(a)(7)." See In re Couture Hotel Corp., 536 B.R. 712, 736 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2015) (noting that the best interests test "is not whether creditors will receive more 'up front' or more overall, but whether creditors will receive at least as much as they would in a chapter 7 liquidation"). Because FCRE would receive under the Amended Plan at least as much as it would receive in a Chapter 7 liquidation, the Court concludes that § 1129(a)(7) has been satisfied.

  6. Neutra, Ltd. v. Terry (In re Acis Capital Mgmt., L.P.)

    604 B.R. 484 (N.D. Tex. 2019)   Cited 25 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that although the orders for relief created the possibility that Neutra might suffer harm in the future, Neutra was not aggrieved by them for standing purposes because " speculative prospect of harm is far from a direct, adverse, pecuniary hit"

    SeeIn re Bernhard Steiner Pianos USA, Inc. , 292 B.R. 109, 117 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2002) (Hale, J.); In re Seatco, Inc. , 257 B.R. 469, 476-78 (Bankr. N.D. Tex.) (Houser, J.), modified on reh'g by 259 B.R. 279 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2001) (Houser, J.); see alsoIn re Couture Hotel Corp. , 536 B.R. 712, 749-53 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2015) (Houser, J.) (applying Zale unusual-circumstances test and declining to issue injunction). As discussed below, the second unusual circumstance described in Zale is present here.

  7. In re Northbelt, LLC

    630 B.R. 228 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2020)   Cited 11 times
    Discussing income stream from SARE properties in connection with plan feasibility

    A modified plan, however, must be submitted soon in order to protect Wilmington Trust's rights and prevent any undue prejudice; otherwise, the Debtor will have failed to carry its burden to show that an effective reorganization may be accomplished in a reasonable period of time.SeeIn re Couture Hotel Corp. , 536 B.R. 712, 755 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2015) ("As explained herein, the Plan, as drafted, may not be confirmed. But, with a few modifications, the Debtor could file a new plan that would address this Court's concerns (an "Amended Plan"), and the current Plan's projections clearly show that the Dallas Hotel would be necessary for an effective reorganization...").

  8. In re Acis Capital Mgmt., L.P.

    CASE NO. 18-30264-SGJ-11 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Jan. 31, 2019)

    I. Background.Heartland Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n v. Briscoe Enters. (In re Briscoe Enters.), 994 F.2d 1160, 1165 (5th Cir. 1993); In re Sears Methodist Ret. Sys., No. 14-32821-11, 2015 Bankr. LEXIS 709, at *8 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Mar. 5, 2015); In re Couture Hotel Corp., 536 B.R. 712, 732 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2015); In re Mirant Corp., No. 03-46590, 2007 Bankr. LEXIS 4951, at *19-20 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Apr. 27, 2007). For a complete set of background facts, the court incorporates herein by reference its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in Support of Orders for Relief Issued After Trial on Contested Involuntary Petitions, entered April 13, 2018.

  9. In re Nat'l Truck Funding LLC

    588 B.R. 175 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. 2018)   Cited 1 times   3 Legal Analyses

    Id. at 946–47. See alsoIn re Couture Hotel Corp., 536 B.R. 712, 742 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2015) (citing In re Simons) ; In re Bryant, 439 B.R. 724, 747 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 2010) ("[T]here is no prohibition on a debtor using several methods to provide a secured creditor with the indubitable equivalent of its claim. Courts have routinely allowed combinations of cash payments, payments over time, abandonment of collateral, and substitution of collateral.").In Sandy Ridge , the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals discussed the indubitable equivalence requirement under § 1129(b)(2)(A).

  10. In re Thru, Inc.

    Case No. 17-31034 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Jul. 10, 2017)

    Factors commonly considered by courts in determining whether a plan is feasible include "(1) the debtor's capital structure, (2) the earning power of the business, (3) economic conditions, (4) the ability of debtor's management, (5) the probability of continuation of management, and (6) any other related matter." In re Couture Hotel Corp., 536 B.R. 712, 737 (Bankr N.D. Tex. 2015); see also In re Geijsel, 480 B.R. 238, 257 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2012). DBI presented evidence challenging the Debtor's projections.