1

{06005/0919/00270162.1}

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

MIAMI DIVISION

In re: Chapter 11

CINEMEX HOLDINGS USA, INC., Case No. 20-14696-LMI

Debtor.

______________________________/

DELL MARKETING, L.P. RESPONSE TO GUC CLAIMS TRUST’S 

FOURTH OMNIBUS OBJECTION TO CLAIMS (ASSUMED/CURED CLAIMS)

Dell Marketing, L.P. (“DMLP”), a creditor in the above-referenced proceeding, files its 

Response (“Response”) to the Fourth Omnibus Objection to Claims (Assumed/Cured Claims)

[ECF No. 182] (the “Omnibus Objection”) filed by the GUC Claims Trust, and states as follows:

I. BACKGROUND

1. On April 25, 2020 (the “Petition Date”), the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for 

relief under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

2. On or about June 24, 2020, DMLP timely filed its proof of claim (the “POC”) 

against Debtor in the amount of $163,388.20 (the “Claim”) based on pre-petition non-payment for 

goods and services provided to Debtor, as further reflected in the POC.

3. On June 28, 2021, the GUC Claims Trust filed the Omnibus Objection asserting 

that the POC should be disallowed on the basis that the Claim was assumed under the terms of the 

confirmed plan. 

4. Pursuant to Debtors’ Third Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of 

Cinemex USA Real Estate Holdings, Inc., Cinemex Holdings USA, Inc. and CB Theater Experience 

LLC (the “Third Amended Plan”), “[e]ntry of the Confirmation Order by the Bankruptcy Court 

shall constitute a court order approving the assumptions, assumptions and assignments, . . . as set 

forth in the Plan . . . . the Debtors or the Reorganized Debtors, as applicable, reserve the right to 

Case 20-14696-LMI Doc 195 Filed 07/19/21 Page 1 of 4
2

{06005/0919/00270162.1}

alter, amend, modify, or supplement the Rejected Executory Contract and Unexpired Lease List 

and the Assumed Executory Contract and Unexpired Lease List at any time through and including 

the Effective Date.” [Case No. 20-14695, ECF No. 772, p. 39]. The Third Amended Plan was 

confirmed on November 25, 2020. [Case No. 20-14695, ECF No. 936]. 

5. On November 19, 2020, Debtors filed its Notice of Filing of Plan Supplement 

Related to the Third Amended Plan (the “Plan Supplement”). [Case No. 20-14695, ECF No. 885]. 

Pursuant to the Plan Supplement, Debtors listed DMLP on the assumption list with a cure amount 

of $90,955.00. [Case No. 20-14695, ECF No. 885].

6. On December 18, 2020, Debtors filed its Notice of (I) Effective Date of Debtors’ 

Third Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization and (II) Bar Dates for Certain Claims

wherein Debtors notified the Court and all parties that the Effective Date was December 18, 2020. 

[ECF No. 973].

7. On or about June 30, 2021, counsel for DMLP reached out to Debtor’s counsel 

requesting proof of payment of its cure claim. Proof of payment was not provided. 

8. Debtors have failed to pay DMLP’s cure claim as set forth in the Plan Supplement

and as required under the confirmed plan. Therefore, the Claim should not be disallowed and the 

Debtors should be ordered to pay the cure claim of $90,955.00. Once the cure claim is paid in full, 

DMLP does not object to modifying its Claim. 

II. ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES

9. According to the confirmed plan, “[a]ny monetary defaults under each Assumed 

Executory Contract or Unexpired Lease shall be satisfied . . . by payment of the default amount in 

Cash on the Effective Date, or as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter . . . .” [Case No. 20-

14695, Doc. No. 936]. The POC, which is incorporated as if fully set forth herein (including all 

attachments thereto), presents a valid, legally recognizable claim supported by corroborating 

Case 20-14696-LMI Doc 195 Filed 07/19/21 Page 2 of 4
3

{06005/0919/00270162.1}

documentation, and the POC correctly reflects amounts due and owing by the Debtor to DMLP. 

Further, the Plan Supplement lists DMLP’s cure claim amount as $90,955.00. However, almost 

seven (7) months after the Effective Date, DMLP still has not received a payment for its cure 

claim. For these reasons, the Omnibus Objection should be denied, and DMLP should be paid its 

cure claim of $90,955.00. 

10. Once a creditor files a proper proof of claim, the burden then shifts to the debtor to 

produce evidence to rebut the prima facie validity of such claim. See Sherman v. Novak (In re 

Reilly), 245 B.R. 768, 773 (B.A.P. 2d Cir. 2000); see also 9 COLLIER ON BANKR. ¶ 3001.9[1] (15th

ed. 2003). In meeting its burden of production, the debtor must produce evidence rebutting the 

filed proof of claim of “probative force equal to the contents of the claim.” 9 COLLIER ON BANKR.

¶ 3001.9[1]; see also In re Brown, 221 B.R. 46, 47 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 1998) (holding that under 

Rule 3001(f) the debtor “bear[s] the initial burden of demonstrating ‘by probative force equal to 

that of the allegations of the proofs of claim themselves’ . . . that the claims should not be 

allowed.”).

11. In order to refute such prime facie validity, the party opposing a claim must present 

evidence sufficient to “negate one or more of the sworn facts in the proof of claim.” In re 

Allegheny Int’l., Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173 (3d Cir. 1992). After an objection is raised, the objecting 

party bears the burden of providing evidence sufficient to negate the prima facie validity of the 

filed claim, and must show facts tending to defeat the claim by probative force equal to that of the 

allegations the proofs of claim themselves. In re Varona, 338 B.R. 705, 712 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 

2008); In re Allegheny Int’l, Inc., 954 F.2d 167, 173-74 (3d Cir. 1992); In re AgFeed USA, LLC, 

13-11761 (BLS), 2016 WL 1753937, at *3 (Bankr. D. Del. Mar. 11, 2015). “Objections without 

substance are inadequate to disallow claims, even if those claims lack the documentation required 

Case 20-14696-LMI Doc 195 Filed 07/19/21 Page 3 of 4
4

{06005/0919/00270162.1}

by Rule 3001(c).” Campbell v. Verizon Wireless S-CA (In re Campbell), 336 B.R. 430, 436 

(B.A.P. 9th Cir. 2005) (overruling claim objections). Only after the objecting party has presented 

sufficient evidence to overcome this prima facie validity does the burden shift to a claimant. 

Varona, 388 B.R. at 712; In re Terry, 262 B.R. 657, 662 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2001); see also In re 

Lanza, 51 B.R. 125, 127 (Bankr. D.N.J. 1985) (finding that “the onus is on the debtor to overcome 

the presumption of validity”). 

III. PRAYER

For the foregoing reasons, DMLP respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order (i) 

directing Debtor to pay DMLP’s cure claim of $90,955.00; and (ii) granting DMLP such other and 

further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Dated: July 19, 2021

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/David A. Ray

David A. Ray

David A. Ray, P.A.

303 Southwest 6th Street

Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315

Telephone: 954-399-0105

dray@draypa.com

and

STREUSAND, LANDON, OZBURN & LEMMON, LLP

Sabrina L. Streusand (TX State Bar No. 11701700)

1801 S. MoPac Expressway, Suite 320

Austin, Texas 78746

Telephone: (512) 236-9901

Facsimile: (512) 236-9904

streusand@slollp.com

ATTORNEYS FOR DELL MARKETING, L.P.

Case 20-14696-LMI Doc 195 Filed 07/19/21 Page 4 of 4