10136506-6 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION 

www.flsb.uscourts.gov 

In re: 

 

TAMARAC 10200, LLC and Case No. 20-bk-23346-PDR 

UNIPHARMA, LLC, Case No. 20-bk-23348-PDR 

 Debtors1. Chapter 11 Cases 

 (Jointly Administered) 

__________________________________/ 

DEBTORS’ EXPEDITED MOTION FOR ENTRY OF INTERIM AND FINAL ORDERS

(I) PROHIBITING UTILITIES FROM ALTERING, REFUSING, OR DISCONTINUING 

SERVICES, (II) DEEMING UTILITIES ADEQUATELY ASSURED OF FUTURE 

PERFORMANCE, AND (III) ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR 

DETERMINING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF PAYMENT 

(Expedited Hearing Requested2) 

Any utility who fails to file with the Court and serve Debtor’s

counsel a written response to this motion at least two business

days prior to the scheduled hearing on this Motion, pursuant 

to Local Rule 9013-1(L), will be deemed to have consented to 

the entry of an order in the form attached to this motion 

(unless the hearing is set on less than five days’ notice). Any

scheduled hearing may then be canceled. 

Tamarac 10200, LLC (“Tamarac”) and Unipharma, LLC (“Unipharma”, and together 

with Tamarac, collectively, the “Debtors”), by and through their proposed undersigned counsel, 

file this motion (the “Motion”), on an expedited basis, for the entry of an interim and final 

1 The last four digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number are Tamarac 10200, LLC (2050) and 

Unipharma, LLC (8962). The address of the Debtors is 10200 N.W. 67th Street, Tamarac, FL 33321. 2

 Section 366(b) of the Bankruptcy Code provides, in part, that a utility provider may alter, refuse or continue 

service if the chapter 11 debtor, within 20 days after the date of the order for relief, furnishes adequate protection in 

the form of a deposit for service after such date. 11 U.S.C. § 366(b). Section 366(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code 

provides, in part, that subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), with respect to a chapter 11 case, a utility provider may alter, 

refuse or continue service if the chapter 11 debtor, within 30 days after the date of the order for relief, the utility 

provider has not received adequate assurance of payment for utility services satisfactory to the utility provider. 11 

U.S.C. § 366(b). The Debtors filed these chapter 11 cases on December 7, 2020; thus 20 and 30 days after the 

Petition Date (as defined in paragraph 4, below), is December 27, 2020 (Sunday) and January 6, 2021 (Wednesday), 

respectively. Accordingly, the Debtors respectfully request that this Motion be heard on an interim basis on 

December 21, 2020 at 1:30 P.M., and on a final basis on December 30, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. when other matters in 

these chapter 11 cases are set for hearing.

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 1 of 26
10136506-6 2

orders, (i) determining that the Debtors’ Utility Providers (defined herein) have been provided 

with adequate assurance of payment within the meaning of 11 U.S.C. § 366; (ii) approving the 

Debtors’ proposed adequate assurance and related procedures; (iii) prohibiting the Utility 

Providers from altering, refusing or discontinuing Utility Services (defined herein) on account of 

prepetition amounts outstanding or on account of any perceived inadequacy of the Debtors’ 

proposed adequate assurance; (iv) determining that the Debtors are not required to provide any 

additional adequate assurance beyond what is proposed in this Motion; and (v) granting related 

relief. In support of this Motion, the Debtors rely upon the Declaration of Neil F. Luria in 

Support of Chapter 11 Petitions and First Day Pleadings [ECF No. 10] (the “First Day 

Declaration”) filed on the Petition Date (as hereinafter defined) and incorporated herein by 

reference, and respectfully represent as follows: 

Jurisdiction and Venue 

1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 

1334. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2). 

2. Venue is proper before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. 

3. The statutory predicates for the relief requested herein are section 105 and 363 of 

Chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) and rules 6003 and 

6004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”), and rule 9013-

1(L) of the Local Bankruptcy Rules for the Southern District of Florida (the “Local Rules”).

Background 

4. On December 7, 2020 (the “Petition Date”), each of the Debtors filed a voluntary 

petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 2 of 26
10136506-6 3

5. The Debtors are operating their businesses and managing their affairs as debtorsin-possession pursuant to Sections 1107(a) and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code. 

6. For a detailed description of the Debtors and their operations, the Debtors 

respectfully refer the Court and parties in interest to the First Day Declaration. 

The Utility Providers

7. In connection with the operation of their business, the Debtors use electric, gas, 

water/sewer, and other services (collectively, the “Utility Services”) provided by approximately 

8 utility providers and other entities (collectively, the “Utility Providers”). A list identifying the 

Utility Providers is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” (the “Utility Provider List”). The Debtors’ 

business operations depend upon uninterrupted service in order to continue operations and 

preserve the value of their assets. 

8. Historically, the Debtors spend an aggregate of approximately $71,776.25 each 

month on Utility Services from the Utility Providers. Certain Utility Providers have required the 

Debtors to post deposits to secure the Debtors’ payment or performance of certain obligations. 

The obligations secured by these deposits include the Debtors’ obligations to pay certain Utility 

Services. Two of the Utility Providers, Florida Power and Light (“FPL”) and the City of Sunrise 

Public Service (the “City of Sunrise”), collectively hold security deposits aggregating 

approximately $101,010.00. Of that $101,010.00, FPL holds $47,010 for two accounts, and the 

City of Sunrise holds $54,000. Of the approximately $75,550.01 spent each month on Utility 

Services, FPL and the City of Sunrise are collectively paid approximately $56,175.30 or 

approximately 74.4%. 

9. In general, the Debtors have established satisfactory payment history with the 

Utility Providers. To the best of the Debtors’ knowledge, there are no material defaults or 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 3 of 26
10136506-6 4

arrearages outstanding with respect to undisputed invoices for Utility Services as of the Petition 

Date. The Debtors intend to pay any post-petition obligations for Utility Services in a timely 

fashion and in the ordinary course. 

10. Uninterrupted utility services are essential to ongoing operations and, therefore, to 

the success of the Debtors’ Chapter 11 cases. Should the Utility Providers refuse or discontinue 

service, even for a brief period, the Debtors’ business operations would be severely disrupted. 

The impact on the Debtors’ business operations, revenue and profits would be extremely harmful 

and would jeopardize the Debtors’ efforts in connection with the above captioned cases. It is 

therefore critical that utility services continue uninterrupted. 

Relief Requested 

11. Section 366(b) of the Bankruptcy Code prevents utility companies from 

discontinuing, altering or refusing service to a debtor during the initial twenty (20) days of a 

bankruptcy case. However, a utility company has the option of terminating its services thirty 

(30) days from the Petition Date pursuant to section 366(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code if a debtor 

has not furnished adequate assurance of payment. 

12. By this Motion, the Debtors seek entry of interim and final orders: (i) determining 

that the Utility Providers have been provided with adequate assurance of payment within the 

meaning of section 366 of the Bankruptcy Code; (ii) approving the Proposed Adequate 

Assurance and the Adequate Assurance Procedures (as each is defined below); (iii) prohibiting 

the Utility Providers from altering, refusing or discontinuing services on account of prepetition 

amounts outstanding or on account of any perceived inadequacy of the Proposed Adequate 

Assurance; (iv) determining that the Debtors are not required to provide any additional adequate 

assurance beyond what the Proposed Adequate Assurance; and (v) granting related relief. 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 4 of 26
10136506-6 5

A. The Proposed Adequate Assurance 

13. The Debtors intend to pay all postpetition obligations owed to the Utility 

Providers in a timely manner and expect that revenue generated from business operations and/or 

funds from their post-petition financing will be sufficient to pay all undisputed postpetition 

utility obligations. 

14. Nevertheless, to provide adequate assurance of payment for future services to the 

Utility Providers as set forth in section 366(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtors propose to 

deposit an initial cash sum (the “Adequate Assurance Deposit”) within ten (10) business days 

after the date of entry of the order approving this Motion into a newly-created, segregated, 

interest-bearing account under the Debtors’ control (the “Adequate Assurance Account”) to be 

opened at an institution that is an approved depository, for the benefit of the Utility Providers, 

unless any such Utility Provider agrees in writing to a lesser amount or is paid in advance for 

Utility Services. 

15. The Debtors propose that the amount of the Adequate Assurance Deposit to be 

equal to the approximate aggregate cost of two weeks of Utility Services provided by the Utility 

Providers servicing the Debtors’ business, calculated using the historical average for such 

payments over the last twelve months,3

 and adjusted downwards per account by the available 

security deposit and/or surety bond for that particular account -- the Adequate Assurance 

Deposit. As such, the Debtors propose an Adequate Assurance Deposit in the total amount of 

$9,618.36; provided that the Debtors may, in their sole discretion and without further application 

to or order of the Court, reduce this amount in the event that their relationship with any Utility 

Provider ends as a result of a store closure or otherwise. In that event, the Debtors may reduce 

3

 One of the Utility Providers, Waste Management has been providing services to Unipharma for less than 1 year. 

The proposed adequate assurance reflects a deposit equal to two weeks of services since the time they have been 

providing the utility services to Unipharma. 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 5 of 26
10136506-6 6

the Adequate Assurance Deposit by the portion escrowed for any Utility Provider whose 

relationship has been terminated. 

16. The Debtors submit that the Adequate Assurance Deposit, in conjunction with the 

Debtors’ previous security deposits and the Debtors’ ability to pay for future Utility Services in 

the ordinary course of business (collectively, the “Proposed Adequate Assurance”), constitute 

sufficient adequate assurance to the Utility Providers. If any Utility Provider believes additional 

assurance is required, it may request such assurance pursuant to the following procedures. 

B. The Proposed Adequate Assurance Procedures 

17. In light of the severe consequences to the Debtors of any interruption in services 

by the Utility Providers, but recognizing the right of the Utility Providers to evaluate the 

Proposed Adequate Assurance on a case-by-case basis, the Debtors propose the following 

procedures (the “Adequate Assurance Procedures”) for approval by the Court: 

(a) Absent compliance with the Adequate Assurance Procedures, the Utility 

Providers may not alter, refuse, or discontinue service to or otherwise 

discriminate against the Debtors on account of the commencement of 

these Chapter 11 cases or any unpaid prepetition charges or request 

payment of a deposit or receipt of other security in connection with any 

unpaid prepetition charges. 

(b) Within three (3) business days after the entry of the order on the Motion, 

the Debtors will serve a copy of the order on the Utility Providers on the 

Utility Provider List by first class mail. In the event that any Utility 

Provider has been omitted from the Utility Provider List, the Debtors shall 

supplement this list and shall promptly serve a copy of the order on such 

Utility Provider upon learning of such omission. 

(c) If a Utility Provider is not satisfied with the Proposed Adequate Assurance 

provided by the Debtors, the Utility Provider must make a request for an 

additional assurance of payment (an “Adequate Assurance Request”) and 

serve such request so that it is received by the Debtors and their 

bankruptcy counsel at the following addresses no later than fifteen (15) 

days of entry of an order granting this Motion: (i) Debtors c/o Tamarac 

10200, LLC and Unipharma, LLC, 10200 N.W. 67th Street, Tamarac, FL 

33321 (Attn: Waite Popejoy, Email: wpopejoy@soliccapital.com); (ii) 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 6 of 26
10136506-6 7

Debtors’ Chief Restructuring Officer, Neil F. Luria of SOLIC Capital 

Advisors, LLC, 25 West New England Avenue, Ste. 300, Winter Park, FL 

32789, Email: nluria@soliccapital.com; and (iii) attorneys for the Debtors, 

Berger Singerman LLP, 1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900, Miami, 

Florida 33131 (Attn: Paul Steven Singerman, Esq., Email: 

singerman@bergersingerman.com and Christopher Andrew Jarvinen, 

Esq., Email: cjarvinen@bergersingerman.com). 

 

(d) Any Adequate Assurance Request must: (i) be made in writing; (ii) set 

forth the location for which utility services are provided; (iii) include a 

summary of the Debtors’ payment history relevant to the affected 

account(s), including any security deposit; (iv) set forth why the Utility 

Provider believes the Proposed Adequate Assurance is not sufficient 

adequate assurance of future payment; and (v) include a proposal for what 

would constitute adequate assurance of future payment from the Debtors, 

along with an explanation of why such proposal is reasonable. Any 

Adequate Assurance Request that fails to meet these requirements shall be 

deemed an invalid request for adequate assurance. 

(e) Upon the Debtors’ receipt of any Adequate Assurance Request at the 

addresses set forth above, the Debtors shall have until thirty (30) days 

from the receipt of such Adequate Assurance Request or such other date as 

the parties mutually agree (the “Resolution Period”) to negotiate with such 

Utility Provider to resolve such Utility Provider’s request for additional 

assurance of payment and advise the Utility Provider that the Adequate 

Assurance Request is acceptable. 

(f) If the Debtors determine, in their discretion, that an Adequate Assurance 

Request or any consensual agreement reached in connection therewith is 

reasonable, the Debtors, without further order of the Court, may enter into 

agreements granting additional adequate assurance to the Utility Provider 

serving such Adequate Assurance Request and, in connection with such 

agreements, provide the Utility Provider with additional adequate 

assurance of payment, including payments on prepetition amounts owing, 

cash deposits, prepayments, or other forms of security, and to the extent 

authorized pursuant to any orders authorizing postpetition financing and 

the use of cash collateral and the applicable budget thereunder. 

(g) If the Debtors determine that the Adequate Assurance Request is not 

reasonable and are not able to reach an alternative resolution with the 

Utility Provider during the Resolution Period, the Debtors, during or 

immediately after the Resolution Period, will request a hearing before this 

Court to determine the adequacy of assurances of payment with respect to 

a particular Utility Provider (the “Determination Hearing”) pursuant to 

section 366(c)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code. 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 7 of 26
10136506-6 8

(h) Pending resolution of an Adequate Assurance Request at any such 

Determination Hearing and entry of a final, non-appealable order thereon 

finding that the Utility Provider is not adequately assured of future 

payment, such Utility Provider shall be prohibited from discontinuing, 

altering or refusing service to the Debtors on account of unpaid charges 

for prepetition service or on account of any objections to the Proposed 

Adequate Assurance. 

(i) Any Utility Provider that does not timely request assurance of payment 

through an Adequate Assurance Request pursuant to the Adequate 

Assurance Procedures, automatically will be deemed to have received 

assurance of payment that is satisfactory to the Utility Provider under 

section 366(c)(2) without further action by the Debtors and without 

prejudice to the right of such Utility Provider to seek relief in the future 

pursuant to section 366(c)(3), subject to the requirements imposed by 

Local Rule 2081-1(g)(7).4

 

18. The Debtors request that any security deposits and/or surety bonds that were in 

place prior to the Petition Date shall remain in place and shall continue to be held by those 

Utility Providers holding the same, except upon either (a) written agreement(s) between the 

Debtors and a Utility Provider, or other applicable procedures, without further order of the Court 

or (b) further order(s) of the Court. 

19. The Debtors also request authorization to adjust periodically the amount in the 

Adequate Assurance Deposit to reflect the following factors: (a) the termination of Utility 

Services by the Debtors; (b) the entry into any agreements between the Debtors and the 

applicable Utility Provider; and (c) the removal of any amount spent on Utility Services from 

Utility Providers that hold a postpetition security deposit, surety bond or other security from the 

Debtors for such services. 

4

 As a condition of accepting an Adequate Assurance Deposit, the Debtors propose that a Utility Provider shall be 

deemed to have stipulated that the Adequate Assurance Deposit constitutes adequate assurance of payment to such 

Utility Provider within the meaning of section 366 of the Bankruptcy Code, and shall be prohibited from challenging 

or opting out of the Adequate Assurance Procedures, filing an Adequate Assurance Request, or requesting any 

additional adequate assurance of payment of any kind at any time, notwithstanding any attempt by such Utility 

Provider to reserve a right to seek any such relief.

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 8 of 26
10136506-6 9

C. Subsequent Modifications of Utility Service List 

20. Although, the Debtors have made every attempt to identify any and all Utility 

Providers, certain Utility Providers that currently provide Utility Services to the Debtors may not 

be listed on the Utility Provider List. Accordingly, the Debtors request that the Court: (a) 

authorize the Debtors to provide notice and a copy of the order granting this Motion to Utility 

Providers not listed on the Utility Provider List (collectively, the “Additional Utility Providers”), 

as such Utility Providers are identified, and (b) provide that the Additional Utility Providers are 

subject to the terms of the order, including the Adequate Assurance Procedures. As a result, 

each Additional Utility Provider will be afforded thirty (30) days from the service of the order 

granting this Motion on such Additional Utility Provider to request assurance of payment from 

the Debtors pursuant to the Adequate Assurance Procedures. 

The Requested Relief Should Be Granted 

21. Section 366(a) of the Bankruptcy Code protects a debtor against the immediate 

termination of utility services after it files for bankruptcy. Pursuant to this section, a utility 

provider may not, during the first twenty (20) days of the case, alter, refuse or discontinue 

services to a debtor in a Chapter 11 case solely because of unpaid prepetition amounts if a debtor 

furnishes “adequate assurance” of payment. However, the utility provider may do so thereafter 

unless the debtor furnishes “adequate assurance” of payment for postpetition services in a form 

“satisfactory” to the utility provider within thirty (30) days of the Petition Date. 

22. Section 366(c) of the Bankruptcy Code (a) defines the forms of adequate 

assurance of payment that a debtor may employ in providing adequate assurance of payment to 

include cash deposits, letters of credit, certificates of deposit, surety bonds, prepayments of 

utility consumption or another form of security that is mutually agreed on between the utility 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 9 of 26
10136506-6 10

provider and the debtor; (b) excludes from the definition of adequate assurance the availability of 

an administrative expense claim; and (c) provides that a court may not consider certain facts in 

determining the amount of assurance that is adequate. 11 U.S.C. §§ 366(c)(1)(A)–(B) and 

(c)(3)(B). 

23. Although section 366 of the Bankruptcy Code does clarify what forms adequate 

assurance of payment may take and what factors the court should consider when determining 

whether such assurance is adequate, the statute still requires courts to determine what amount, if 

any, is necessary to provide adequate assurance of payment. Congress did not set a minimum 

adequate assurance amount, but rather vested discretion in the courts to determine the 

appropriate level of adequate assurance required in each case. Accordingly, section 366 of the 

Bankruptcy Code does not give utility companies a blank check or the right to extract from 

debtors an unlimited amount of adequate assurance. Under section 366(c) of the Bankruptcy 

Code, there is nothing to prevent a court from deciding that, on the facts of the case before it, the 

amount required of a debtor to adequately assure payment to utility providers is zero or nominal.5

24. In addition, section 366(b) requires only that a utility’s assurance of payment be 

“adequate.” Courts have long recognized that adequate assurance of performance does not 

constitute an absolute guarantee of a debtor’s ability to pay. See, e.g., In re Caldor, Inc. - N.Y., 

199 B.R. 1, 3 (S.D.N.Y. 1996) (“Section 366(b) requires [a] [b]ankruptcy [c]ourt to determine 

whether the circumstances are sufficient to provide a utility with ‘adequate assurance’ of 

5

 Under section 366 prior to the 2005 amendments to the Bankruptcy Code, courts had the discretion to determine 

that the amount of adequate assurance payments or collateral required in a particular case was zero. See Virginia 

Elec. & Power Co. v. Caldor, Inc., 117 F.3d 646, 650 (2d Cir. 1997) (“Even assuming that ‘other security’ should be 

interpreted narrowly, we agree with the appellees that a bankruptcy court’s authority to modify the level of the 

deposit or other security, provided for under §366(b), includes the power to require no deposit or other security 

where none is necessary to provide a utility supplier with adequate assurance of payment.”). Since the revised 

section 366(c)(3) still allows the courts to order the modification of the amount of an assurance of payment, the 

courts remain free to require no deposit or security where none is necessary to ensure adequate assurance of 

payment in any particular case. 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 10 of 26
10136506-6 11

payment. The statute does not require an ‘absolute guarantee of payment.’”) (citations omitted) 

(hereinafter “Caldor”), aff’d sub nom Virginia Elec. & Power Co. v. Caldor, Inc. - N.Y., 117 

F.3d 646 (2d Cir. 1997); In re New Rochelle Tel. Corp., 397 B.R. 633, 639 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 

2008); In re Steinebach, 303 B.R. 634, 641 (Bankr. D. Ariz. 2004) (“Adequate assurance of 

payment is not, however, absolute assurance . . . . [A]ll § 366(b) requires is that a utility be 

protected from an unreasonable risk of non-payment”); In re Adelphia Bus. Sols., 280 B.R. 63, 

80 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“In determining adequate assurance, a bankruptcy court is not 

required to give a utility company the equivalent of a guaranty of payment”); In re Penn Jersey 

Corp., 72 B.R. 981, 982 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987) (stating that section 366(b) of the Bankruptcy 

Code “contemplates that a utility receive only such assurance of payment as is sufficient to 

protect its interests given the facts of the debtor’s financial circumstances”). Whether utilities 

are subject to an unreasonable risk of nonpayment for postpetition services must be determined 

from the facts of each case. See In re Anchor Glass Container Corp., 342 B.R. 872, 875 (Bankr. 

M.D. Fla. 2005); In re Keydata Corp., 12 B.R. 156 (Bankr. D. Mass. 1981). 

25. Furthermore, in this analysis, courts have recognized that “[i]n deciding what 

constitutes ‘adequate assurance’ in a given case, a bankruptcy court must ‘focus upon the need of 

the utility for assurance, and . . . require that the debtor supply no more than that, since the debtor 

almost perforce has a conflicting need to conserve scarce financial resources.’” Virginia Elec. & 

Power Co., 117 F.3d at 650 (emphasis in original) (quoting Penn Jersey, 72 B.R. at 985); In re 

Adelphia Bus. Sols., 280 B.R. at 80 (“The requirement for ‘adequate assurance’ of payment, 

which, at least in this Circuit, need not necessarily be provided by deposit.”); see also In re Penn 

Cent. Transp. Co., 467 F.2d 100, 103-04 (3d Cir. 1972) (upholding lower court’s decision that no 

utility deposits were necessary where such deposits “would jeopardize the continuing operation 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 11 of 26
10136506-6 12

of the [debtor] merely to give further security to suppliers who already are reasonably 

protected”); see also New Rochelle Tel. Corp., 397 B.R. at 639 (“deciding what constitutes 

adequate assurance, a bankruptcy court must focus on the utility’s need for assurance with the 

debtor’s scarce financial resources”). 

26. Based upon the foregoing, the Debtors believe the Utility Providers have adequate 

assurance of payment even without recourse to the Adequate Assurance Deposit. The Debtors 

anticipate having sufficient resources to pay, and intend to pay, all valid postpetition obligations 

for utility services in a timely manner. In addition, the Debtors’ reliance on the Utility Services 

for the operation of their businesses and preservation of value of their assets provides them with 

a powerful incentive to stay current on their utility obligations. Significantly, two of the seven 

the Utility Providers are already the beneficiaries of approximately $101,010.00 in security 

deposits in excess of the Adequate Assurance Deposit. These factors, which the Court may 

consider when determining the amount of any adequate assurance payments, justify finding that 

the Debtors are not required to make any additional adequate assurance payments in these 

Chapter 11 cases. In light of the foregoing, the Debtors respectfully submit that the Proposed 

Adequate Assurance is more than sufficient to assure the Utility Providers of future payment. By 

offering the Proposed Adequate Assurance and the Additional Adequate Assurance Procedures, 

the Debtors seek to implement an organized process that facilitates the determination of the 

amount of assurance of payment that is adequate. 

27. Absent the approval of the proposed procedures, the Utility Providers could 

discontinue service, without warning, thirty (30) days after the Petition Date, if they claim they 

have not yet received a “satisfactory” adequate assurance payment. The Debtors could then be 

forced to address numerous requests by Utility Providers in an unorganized manner at a critical 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 12 of 26
10136506-6 13

period in their Chapter 11 cases when their efforts should be focused on maximizing value for all 

of their stakeholders. The orderly process contemplated by the Additional Adequate Assurance 

Procedures is necessary for a smooth transition by the Debtors into Chapter 11 and will aid in 

their restructuring efforts. Moreover, the proposed procedures will ensure that all parties act in 

good faith by establishing a fair process. Because the Adequate Assurance Procedures are 

reasonable and in accord with the purposes of section 366 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Court 

should grant the relief requested herein. 

28. Moreover, this Court has the authority to grant the relief requested herein 

pursuant to section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. Section 105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code 

provides that the Court “may issue any order, process or judgment that is necessary or 

appropriate to carry out the provisions of this title.” The basic purpose of section 105 is “to 

assure the bankruptcy courts power to take whatever action is appropriate or necessary in aid of 

the exercise of its jurisdiction.” See 2 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 105.01, at 105-6 (Alan N. 

Resnick & Henry J. Sommers eds., 16th ed 2014). As such, the determination of “adequate 

assurance” within the meaning of section 366 of the Bankruptcy Code is fully within this Court’s 

discretion. See In re Marion Steel Co., 25 B.R. 188, 198 (Bankr. D. Ohio 1983). In this regard, 

bankruptcy courts are not bound by state or local regulations governing what constitutes 

adequate assurance of payment for postpetition utility services. Id. at 199; In re Begley, 41 B.R. 

402, 405-06 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1984), aff’d, 760 F.2d 36 (3d Cir. 1987). 

29. The Debtors submit that on the facts of these Chapter 11 cases, the Proposed 

Adequate Assurance is sufficient to provide adequate assurance to the Utility Providers of the 

Debtors’ future performance. Additionally, the Debtors propose to further protect the Utility 

Providers through the Adequate Assurance Procedures outlined above. The Debtors submit that 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 13 of 26
10136506-6 14

granting the requested relief will not prejudice the rights of the Utility Providers to seek 

additional adequate assurance of payment under section 366 of the Bankruptcy Code should the 

Proposed Adequate Assurance fail to provide the Utility Providers with adequate assurance of 

payment. 

30. As stated above, the Debtors cannot continue their operations without the 

continued services of the Utility Providers. If any of the Utility Providers alter, refuse, or 

discontinue service, even for a brief period, the Debtors’ business operations would be severely 

disrupted and the value of their estates would be negatively impacted. In contrast, if the Court 

grants the relief requested herein, the Utility Providers will not be prejudiced by the continuation 

of their services. 

31. Relief similar to that sought herein has been granted by this Court and courts in 

other Districts. See In re Pace Industries, LLC, No. 20-10927 (MFW) (Bankr. D. Del. April 14, 

2020); In re The Krystal Company, No. 20-61065 (PWB) (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Feb. 13, 2020); In re 

VCHP Neptune Beach, LLC, No. 3:20-bk-00740-CJJ (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Mar. 19, 2020); Integrity 

Home Health Care, Inc., No. 8:20-bk-00014-CPM (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Jan. 24, 2020); In re 

Mattress Pal Holdings, LLC, No. No. 6:19-bk-02247-CCJ (Bankr. M.D. Fla. April 11, 2019); 

See, e.g., In re Adinath Corp., et al., Case No. 15-16885-LMI (Bankr. S.D. Fla. May 13, 2015); 

In re Antaramian Properties, LLC, No. 9:14-bk-10145-CED (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Oct. 20, 2014); In 

re WRS Holding Company, No. 8:14-08588-CPM (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Aug. 13, 2014); In re 

Decorator Industries, Inc., Case No. 11-37641-BKC-JKO (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Oct. 6, 2011); In re 

Robb & Stucky Limited LLLP, No. 8:11-bk-02801-CED (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Feb. 24, 2011). 

32. Accordingly, the Debtors submit that granting the relief requested in this Motion 

is both necessary and appropriate. Such relief will help the Debtors’ efforts to restructure 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 14 of 26
10136506-6 15

successfully and will not prejudice the rights of the Utility Providers under section 366 of the 

Bankruptcy Code. 

Expedited Consideration and Waiver of any Applicable Stay 

33. The Debtors respectfully request expedited consideration of this Motion pursuant 

to Bankruptcy Rule 6003, which empowers a court to grant relief within the first 21 days after 

the commencement of a Chapter 11 case “to the extent that relief is necessary to avoid immediate 

and irreparable harm.” Here, the Debtors believe an immediate and orderly transition into 

Chapter 11 is critical to the viability of its operations and that any delay in granting the relief 

requested could hinder the Debtors’ operations and cause irreparable harm. Furthermore, the 

failure to receive the requested relief during the first 21 days of these Chapter 11 cases would 

severely disrupt the Debtors’ operations at this critical juncture. Accordingly, the Debtors 

submit that they have satisfied the “immediate and irreparable harm” standard of Bankruptcy 

Rule 6003 and, therefore, respectfully request that the Court approve the relief requested in this 

Motion on an expedited basis. 

34. To implement the foregoing successfully, the Debtors request that the Court enter 

an order providing that notice of the relief requested herein satisfies Bankruptcy Rule 6004(a) 

and that the Debtors have established cause to exclude such relief from the 14-day stay period 

under Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h). 

35. No prior motion for the relief requested herein has been made to this or any other 

court. 

Local Rule 9013-1(L)(2)(b) Certification 

I CERTIFY that undersigned counsel for the Debtors has contacted the Utility Providers 

(other than FPL and the City of Sunrise) and made a good faith effort to comply with the 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 15 of 26
10136506-6 16

requirements under § 366, prior to the filing of the motion. Specifically, the Debtors have come 

to agreements regarding the amount of adequate assurance deposits with Waste Management and 

Harmony Environmental; however, no such agreements were reached (for various reasons, 

including the inability to provide a substantive response to the adequate assurance deposit 

proposed by the Debtors) with City of Tamarac, AT&T, Comcast Business or Ring Central. 

WHEREFORE, the Debtors respectfully request the Court to enter an interim order 

substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “B”: (i) determining that their Utility 

Providers have been provided with adequate assurance of payment within the meaning of section 

366 of the Bankruptcy Code; (ii) approving the Proposed Adequate Assurance and the Adequate 

Assurance Procedures; (iii) prohibiting the Utility Providers from altering, refusing or 

discontinuing services on account of prepetition amounts outstanding or on account of any 

perceived inadequately or Proposed Adequate Assurance; (iv) determining that the Debtors are 

not required to provide any additional adequate assurance beyond the Proposed Adequate 

Assurance; (v) scheduling a final hearing on this Motion for December 30, 2020 at 10:00 a.m.; 

and (vi) granting such other and further relief and this Court deems necessary. 

[REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK] 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 16 of 26
10136506-6 17

Dated: December 14, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

 BERGER SINGERMAN LLP 

 Counsel for Debtors in Possession 

1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900 

 Miami, FL 33131 

 Telephone: (305) 755-9500 

 Facsimile: (305) 714-4340 

 By: /s/ Paul A. Avron 

 Paul Steven Singerman 

 Florida Bar No. 0378860 

 singerman@bergersingerman.com

 Christopher Andrew Jarvinen 

 Florida Bar No. 21745 

 cjarvinen@bergersingerman.com

 Paul A. Avron 

 Florida Bar No. 50814 

 pavron@bergersingerman.com

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 17 of 26
Utility Name Account Number Address City State Zip Code

Last 12 months Paid

Last 12 months Period ended

Monthly Average

Depthe Any

FPL 3258905292 General Mail Facility Miami FL 33188-0001 10/27/2020 $ 123,195.67 $ 10,266.31 $ 

FPL 8163758421 General Mail Facility Miami FL 33188-0001 10/27/2020 $ 453,663.13 $ 37,805.26 $ 

City of Tamarac 000114987-

009990134

7525 NW 88th Ave Tamarac FL 33321-2401 10/29/2020 $ 80,127.46 $ 6,677.29 $ 

City of Sunrise Public Service 494163-131562 PO Box 31432 Tampa FL 33631-3432 10/22/2020 $ 97,244.73 $ 8,103.73 $ 

Ring Central, Inc. (954) 951-3655 Dept. CH 19585 Palatine IL 60055-9585 11/9/2020 $ 26,105.85 $ 2,175.49 $ AT&T 287257547306 PO BOX 6463 Carol Stream IL 60197 10/27/2020 $ 2,799.71 $ 233.31 $ 

AT&T 8310005491979 PO BOX 6463 Carol Stream IL 60197 10/19/2020 $ 5,494.39 $ 457.87 $ 

Comcast Business 8495 75 382 1444204 PO BOX 71211 Charlotte NC 28272-1211 10/20/2020 $ 5,300.77 $ 441.73 $ 

Harmony Environmental, Inc. None 3362 Cat Brier Trail Harmony FL 34473 10/31/2020 $ 87,515.81 $ 7,292.98 Waste Management 23-61949-13006 PO BOX 4648 Carol Stream IL 60197-4648 10/31/2020 $ 2,918.04 $ 729.51 $ 

Waste Management 23-63005-13003 PO BOX 4648 Carol Stream IL 60197-4648 10/31/2020 $ 2,139.53 $ 713.18 $ Waste Management 23-71136-93001 PO BOX 4648 Carol Stream IL 60197-4648 10/31/2020 $ 1,306.69 $ 653.35 $ 

TOTAL $ 887,811.78 $ 75,550.01 $ 

EXHIBIT A

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 18 of 26
10136506-6 

EXHIBIT “B” 

 (Proposed Interim Order) 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 19 of 26
10136575-2 

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA 

FORT LAUDERDALE DIVISION 

www.flsb.uscourts.gov 

In re: 

 

TAMARAC 10200, LLC and Case No. 20-bk-23346-PDR 

UNIPHARMA, LLC, Case No. 20-bk-23348-PRD 

 Debtors1

. Chapter 11 Cases 

 (Joint Administration Pending) 

___________________________________ / 

INTERIM ORDER GRANTING DEBTORS’ EXPEDITED MOTION FOR INTERIM 

AND FINAL ORDERS DETERMINING ADEQUATE ASSURANCE OF PAYMENT 

FOR FUTURE UTILITY SERVICES AND SETTING FINAL HEARING 

THIS MATTER having come before the Court for a hearing on December ___, 2020 at 

____ a.m./p.m. in Fort Lauderdale, Florida upon the Debtors’ Expedited Motion for Interim and 

Final Orders Determining Adequate Assurance of Payment for Future Utility Services [ECF No. 

___] (the “Motion”)2

 filed by the above-captioned debtors and debtors-in-possession

(collectively, the “Debtors”). The Court, having considered the Motion, finding that: (a) the 

1 The last four digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification number are Tamarac 10200, LLC (2050) and 

Unipharma, LLC (8962). The address of the Debtors is 10200 N.W. 67th Street, Tamarac, FL 33321. 2

 Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Motion. 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 20 of 26
2

10136575-2

Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334; (b) venue is 

proper before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409; (c) this matter is core pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), and that this Court may enter a final order consistent with Article III of 

the Constitution; (d) notice of the Motion and the hearing thereon was sufficient under the 

circumstances; and (e) the Court having determined that the legal and factual bases set forth in 

the Motion and at the hearing establish just cause for the relief granted herein, it is 

ORDERED that: 

1. The Motion is GRANTED, on an interim basis. 

2. The Debtors are hereby authorized to take all actions necessary to effectuate the 

relief granted pursuant to this Order in accordance with the Motion. 

3. The terms and conditions of this Order shall be immediately effective and 

enforceable upon its entry and the Debtors’ offer of adequate assurance is deemed satisfactory 

for this Interim Order. 

4. The Utility Providers are forbidden to discontinue, alter or refuse service on 

account of any unpaid prepetition charges, or require additional adequate assurance of payment 

other than the Proposed Adequate Assurance pending entry of the Final Order. 

5. Any Utility Provider who accepts an Adequate Assurance Deposit shall be 

deemed to have stipulated that the Adequate Assurance Deposit constitutes adequate assurance 

of future payment to such Utility Provider, and such Utility Provider shall be deemed to have 

waived any right to seek additional adequate assurance during the course of these chapter 11 

cases. 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 21 of 26
3

10136575-2

6. Any Utility Provider desiring a deposit in an amount greater than the Adequate 

Assurance Deposit must request such assurance pursuant to the following procedures (the 

“Adequate Assurance Procedures”): 

a. Absent compliance with the Adequate Assurance Procedures, the Utility 

Providers are forbidden to discontinue, alter or refuse service on account 

of any unpaid prepetition charges, or require additional adequate assurance 

of payment other than the Proposed Adequate Assurance pending entry of 

the Final Order. 

b. Any Utility Provider desiring an Adequate Assurance Deposit must serve 

a request (an “Adequate Assurance Request”) so that it is received by the 

Debtors and their bankruptcy counsel at the following addresses by 

January __, 2021 (15 days from the entry of this Order): (i) Debtors c/o 

Tamarac 10200, LLC and Unipharma, LLC, 10200 N.W. 67th Street, 

Tamarac, FL 33321 (Attn: Waite Popejoy, Email: 

wpopejoy@solicapital.com); (ii) Debtors’ Chief Restructuring Officer, 

Neil F. Luria of SOLIC Capital Advisors, LLC, 25 West New England 

Avenue, Ste. 300, Winter Park, FL 32789, Email: 

nluria@soliccapital.com; (iii) attorneys for the Debtors, Berger Singerman 

LLP, 1450 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1900, Miami, Florida 33131 (Attn: Paul 

Steven Singerman, Esq., Email: singerman@bergersingerman.com and 

Christopher Andrew Jarvinen, Esq., Email: 

cjarvinens@bergersingerman.com). 

c. Any Adequate Assurance Request must: (i) be made in writing; (ii) set 

forth the location for which utility services are provided; (iii) include a 

summary of the Debtors’ payment history relevant to the affected 

account(s), including any security deposit; and (iv) set forth why the 

Utility Provider believes the Proposed Adequate Assurance is not 

sufficient adequate assurance of future payment; and (v) include a 

proposal for what would constitute adequate assurance of future payment 

from the Debtors, along with an explanation of why such proposal is 

reasonable. Any Adequate Assurance Request that fails to meet these 

requirements shall be deemed an invalid request for adequate assurance. 

d. Upon the Debtors’ receipt of any Adequate Assurance Request at the 

addresses set forth above, the Debtors shall have until thirty (30) days 

from the receipt of such Adequate Assurance Request or such other date as 

the parties mutual agreement (the “Resolution Period”) to negotiate with 

such Utility Provider to resolve such Utility Provider’s request for 

additional assurance of payment and advise the Utility Provider that the 

Adequate Assurance Request is acceptable. 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 22 of 26
4

10136575-2

e. If the Debtors determine, in their discretion, that an Adequate Assurance 

Request or any consensual agreement reached in connection therewith is 

reasonable, the Debtors, without further order of the Court and subject to 

reasonable notice to the DIP Lender, as defined in the DIP Financing 

Order (as defined below), may enter into agreements granting additional 

adequate assurance to the Utility Provider serving such Adequate 

Assurance Request and, in connection with such agreements, provide the 

Utility Provider with additional adequate assurance of payment, including 

payments on prepetition amounts owing, cash deposits, prepayments, or 

other forms of security, and to the extent authorized pursuant to any orders 

authorizing postpetition financing and the use of cash collateral and the 

applicable budget thereunder. 

f. If the Debtors determine that the Adequate Assurance Request is not 

reasonable and is not able to reach an alternative resolution with the 

Utility Provider during the Resolution Period, the Debtors, during or 

immediately after the Resolution Period, will request a hearing before 

this Court to determine the adequacy of assurances of payment with 

respect to a particular Utility Provider (the “Determination Hearing”) 

pursuant to section 366(c)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code. 

7. The Debtors are authorized to add or remove any Utility Provider from the Utility 

Service List. To the extent that the Debtors identify additional Utility Providers, the Debtors 

shall file amendments to the Utility Service List, and shall serve copies of this Interim Order, 

including the Adequate Assurance Procedures, and any final order (when and if entered) on such 

newly-identified Utility Providers. Any Utility Provider subsequently added to the Utility 

Service List shall be bound by this Interim Order and the Adequate Assurance Procedures. 

8. In accordance with this Interim Order and any other Order of this Court, each of 

the financial institutions at which the Debtors maintain their accounts relating to the payment of 

the obligations described in the Motion is directed to receive, process, honor, and pay all such 

checks presented for payment of the obligations described in the Motion and fund all requests 

made by the Debtors related thereto to the extent that sufficient funds are on deposit in such 

amounts. 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 23 of 26
5

10136575-2

9. The Debtors’ service of the Motion and this Interim Order upon the Utility 

Services List shall not constitute an admission or concession that each such entity is a “utility” 

within the meaning of Bankruptcy Code section 366, and the Debtors reserve all rights and 

defenses with respect thereto. 

10. Notwithstanding the relief granted herein and any actions taken hereunder, 

nothing contained in the Motion or this Interim Order or any payment made pursuant to this 

Interim Order shall constitute, nor is it intended to constitute, an admission as to the validity or 

priority of any claim or lien against the Debtors, a waiver of the Debtors’ rights to subsequently 

dispute such claim or lien, or the assumption or adoption of any agreement, contract, or lease 

under Bankruptcy Code section 365. 

11. Notwithstanding the relief granted in this Order, any payment made by the 

Debtors pursuant to the authority granted herein shall be subject to and in compliance with any 

interim or final order entered by the Court approving the Debtors’ entry into any post-petition 

debtor in possession financing facility (the “DIP Financing Order”). To the extent that there is 

any inconsistency between the terms of this Order and the DIP Financing Order, the terms of the 

DIP Financing Order shall control. 

12. The contents of the Motion satisfy the requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 6003(b). 

13. Notice of the Motion satisfies the requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 6004(a). 

14. Notwithstanding Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h), the terms and conditions of this 

Interim Order are immediately effective and enforceable upon its entry. 

15. The Debtors are authorized to take all actions necessary to effectuate the relief 

granted in this Interim Order in accordance with the Motion. 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 24 of 26
6

10136575-2

16. The Court shall conduct a final hearing on the Motion on December ___, 2020 at 

___ a.m./p.m. by VIDEO CONFERENCE. 

17. **IMPORTANT** The hearing scheduled by this Order will take place only by 

video conference. DO NOT GO TO THE COURTHOUSE. Attorneys must advise their clients 

not to appear at the courthouse. To participate in the hearing by video conference please refer to 

the instructions under the name of the presiding Judge on the Court's web site, 

www.flsb.uscourts.gov. 

18. To register for the video conference, manually enter the following registration 

link in a browser: 

 

19. PLEASE NOTE: No person may record the proceedings from any location by 

any means. The audio recording maintained by the Court will be the sole basis for creation of a 

transcript that constitutes the official record of the hearing. Although conducted using video 

conferencing technology, the hearing is a court proceeding. The formalities of the courtroom 

must be observed. All participants must dress appropriately, exercise civility, and otherwise 

conduct themselves in a manner consistent with the dignity of the Court. 

20. This Court retains jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters arising from or 

related to the interpretation or implementation of this Interim Order. 

# # # 

Submitted by: 

Paul A. Avron 

pavron@bergersingerman.com

BERGER SINGERMAN LLP 

1450 Brickell Avenue, Ste. 1900 

Miami, FL 33131 

Telephone: (305) 755-9500 

Facsimile: (305) 714-4340 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 25 of 26
7

10136575-2

(Paul A. Avron, Esq. is directed to serve a copy of this order on interested parties and file with 

the Court a certificate of service.) 

Case 20-23346-PDR Doc 75 Filed 12/14/20 Page 26 of 26