Source: https://id.scribd.com/document/400099623/Chase-objection-to-675K-loan
Timestamp: 2019-08-18 07:37:10
Document Index: 767401673

Matched Legal Cases: ['§364', '§364', '§364', '§364', '§364', '§364', '§101', '§364', '§364', '§364', '§503', '§364', '§503', '§364', '§364', '§364', '§364', '§364', '§503']

Chase objection to $675K loan | Kebangkrutan di Amerika Serikat | Kode Komersial Seragam
Diunggah oleh Stef
Filed Feb. 11, 2019.
simpanSimpan Chase objection to $675K loan Untuk Nanti
How-do-you-Perfect-a-Lien.docx
1 Larry O.
Folks, #012142
2 Suite 1140
3 Phoenix, AZ 85004
Telephone: (602) 256-5906
4 Facsimile: (602) 256-9101
E-mail: folks@folkshesskass.com
5 Attorneys for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
7 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
8 IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
In re: Chapter 11 Proceeding
11 BOB BONDURANT SCHOOL OF HIGH Case No. 2:18-120041-BKM
PERFORMANCE DRIVING, INC.,
12 OBJECTION OF CHASE BANK TO
Debtor and Debtor-In-Possession. DEBTOR’S EXPEDITED MOTION
13 FOR INTERIM AND FINAL
ORDERS (I) AUTHORIZING
14 DEBTOR TO OBTAIN POST-
PETITION SECURED FINANCING;
15 AND (II) GRANTING SECURITY
INTERESTS AND LIENS TO
16 DEBTOR-IN-POSSESSIO LENDER
17 PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. §364
18 Hearing:
19 Time: 2:30 p.m.
Place: Courtroom 7a01
20 United States Bankruptcy Court
230 N. First Avenue, Phoenix, AZ
21 85003
22 [Relates To Docket Entry No. 146]
23 JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., a secured creditor of the Bob Bondurant School of High
24 Performance Driving, Inc., the debtor and debtor-in-possession in the above-captioned proceeding
(“Debtor”), by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby opposes (this “Objection”) the
Debtor’s Expedited Motion For Interim And Final Orders (I) Authorizing Debtor To Obtain Post-
Petition Financing; And (II) Granting Security Interests And Liens To Debtor-In-Possession
FOLKS HESS KASS, 05-86718.01
ATTOR NE YS A T L AW
Case 2:18-bk-12041-BKM Doc 151 Filed 02/11/19 Entered 02/11/19 10:11:08 Desc
Main Document Page 1 of 14
1 Lender And Related Relief Motion For Authority To Incur Debt Pursuant To 11 U.S.C. §364
2 [Docket No. 146] (the “DIP Financing Motion”) which has been set for hearing on an emergency
basis on Wednesday, February 13, 2019, at 2:30 p.m. (the “Emergency DIP Financing
Hearing”). This Response is submitted pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §364, Bankruptcy Rule 4001 and
is supported by the following Memorandum of Points and Authorities. Due to the emergency
7 nature of the relief sought, Chase Bank and its legal counsel (who will have had 3 business days
8 notice of the DIP Financing Motion prior to the Emergency Financing Hearing) has had
9 insufficient time, and lacks of sufficient information, to be able to fully respond to the DIP
10 Financing Motion. As a result, Chase Bank reserves all of its rights to address the DIP Financing
Motion in greater detail at the Emergency Financing Hearing, and to file supplemental pleadings
in opposition to the relief sought prior to any final hearing to consider the DIP Financing Motion.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 11th day of February, 2019.
15 FOLKS HESS KASS, PLLC
By /s/ Larry O. Folks
17 Larry O. Folks
18 1850 North Central Avenue
19 Attorneys for Chase Bank
20 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
21 I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT
22 Bankruptcy Code §364(d) imposes a heavy burden of proof upon the Debtor to “prime”
23 Chase Bank’s lien as is sought by the DIP Financing Motion. The Debtor must prove both: (1)
that the Debtor has exhausted all other options and is unable to obtain the DIP financing otherwise
(meaning on less drastic terms) than imposing a “priming lien” upon Chase Bank’s collateral; and
(2) that Chase Bank’s lien interest in its collateral will be adequately protected after the DIP loan
28 closes and the “priming” lien is imposed upon the subject collateral. The Debtor’s DIP Financing
FOLKS HESS KASS , PLLC 05-86718.01
Case 2:18-bk-12041-BKM 2
Doc 151 Filed 02/11/19 Entered 02/11/19 10:11:08 Desc
Main Document Page 2 of 14
1 Motion and supporting Declaration fail to provide evidence to meet the required burden and, as a
2 result, the DIP Financing Motion must be denied.
More specifically, Chase Bank objects to the relief sought by the DIP Financing Motion,
because the Debtor has not, and cannot, carry its heavy burden pursuant to Bankruptcy Code
§364(d)(1) and (2) to establish BOTH that granting Arlington Street Investments, LLC (the “DIP
7 Lender”) a priming lien (the “DIP Priming Lien”) on substantially all of the Debtor’s personal
8 property business assets (the “DIP Collateral”) senior to Chase Bank’s lien on the DIP Collateral
9 is: (1) the only means for the Debtor to obtain the requested $675,000.00 debtor-in-possession
10 loan (the “DIP Loan”); and (2) that, if approved, Chase Bank’s subordinated lien interest in the
DIP Collateral will be adequately protected. 11 U.S.C. §364(d)(1) and (2).
The only evidence submitted by the Debtor in support of its DIP Financing Motion is a
Declaration Of Timothy H Shaffer [Docket No. 150] (the “Shaffer Declaration”) who is the
15 court-appointed Chief Restructuring Officer of the Debtor (the “CRO”). The Shaffer Declaration
16 does not include the required factual evidence to prove that, in fact, exhaustive efforts were made
17 to obtain DIP Financing on terms which do not require “priming” Chase Bank’s lien. In addition,
of more significance, the Debtor has failed to provide an appraisal or any admissible evidence of
the value of the DIP Collateral. This is a critical omission, because the parties agree that before
the DIP Loan closes, there is an “equity cushion” adequately protecting Chase Bank’s lien
meaning that as things stand, even if the Debtor is liquidated, Chase Bank will be paid in full. The
23 only objective means to establish that Chase Bank’s lien position will remain the same position
24 after the DIP Loan closes and be adequately protected is if the value of the DIP Collateral equals
25 or exceeds both the $675,000 DIP Loan balance and the approximate $150,000.00 due under the
Chase Bank Loan. Neither the DIP Financing Motion nor the Shaffer Declaration reference a
professional appraisal of the DIP Collateral. In addition, the CRO is not a Certified Appraiser nor
Case 2:18-bk-12041-BKM 3
Main Document Page 3 of 14
1 even an owner of the DIP Collateral qualified to testify as to its value under the Federal Rules of
2 Evidence. Therefore, the only evidence before the Court is a bald assertion that Chase Bank is
secured by an equity cushion and that simply is not sufficient to grant the “priming lien” sought
by the DIP Financing Motion. Without this critical information, for all Chase Bank, the Court or
anyone else knows, Chase Bank could be immediately converted from an oversecured creditor to
7 an undersecured (or even wholly undersecured creditor) the moment the DIP Loan is approved
8 and that simply is not permissible and the Debtor must prove that won’t be the case.
9 II. FACTUAL BACKROUND
10 1. On October 2, 2018 (the “Petition Date”), the Debtor filed a voluntary petition for
relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code located at 11 U.S.C. §101 et. seq.
(the “Bankruptcy Code”).
2. Prior to the Petition Date, Chase Bank entered into a revolving line of credit loan
15 with the Debtor with a maximum credit limit of $150,000.00 (the “Loan”).
16 DESCRIPTION OF CHASE BANK’S LOAN DOCUMENTS AND THE COLLATERAL
SECURING ITS LOAN
3. On July 28, 2011, the Debtor, executed and delivered to Chase Bank a Promissory
19 Note evidencing a line of credit with a maximum credit limit of $150,000.00 (collectively, the
20 “Note”). A true and accurate copy of the Note is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and is herein
21 incorporated herein by this reference.
4. The Additional Terms of the Note that the Debtor executed and delivered to Chase
Bank serve as a Security Agreement (the “Security Agreement”) which has pledged a security
interest in and first-priority lien upon the majority of the Debtor’s personal property business
26 assets (the “Business Assets”).
27 5. On August 2, 2011, Chase Bank filed a UCC-1 financing statement with the
28 Secretary of State of Arizona as Instrument No. 2011-16589553 (the “UCC-1 Financing
Case 2:18-bk-12041-BKM 4
Main Document Page 4 of 14
1 Statement”) which identifies Chase Bank’s lien upon the Business Assets specifically as all
2 “Inventory”, “Chattel Paper”, “Accounts”, “Equipment” and “General Intangibles” and all
“Proceeds” thereof as defined by the Uniform Commercial Code as enacted in Arizona (the
“UCC”) (hereinafter, the “Chase Bank Collateral”). Chase Bank’s act of filing the UCC-1
Financing Statement with the Secretary of State of Arizona perfected its first-priority lien upon
7 the Chase Bank Collateral. A true and accurate copy of the UCC-1 Financing Statement is
8 attached hereto as Exhibit 2 and is herein incorporated by this reference.
9 6. Although the Debtor has made allegations about the scope of Chase Bank’s lien,
10 it doesn’t contest that the bank holds a first-priority lien upon certain of the Debtor’s Business
Assets. See, the Debtor’s DIP Financing Motion at Paragraph 5. Furthermore, as of the Petition
Date, the Debtor and Chase Bank agree that the bank’s lien upon the DIP Collateral was and
remains oversecured.
15 7. As of the Petition Date, the loan balance due to Chase Bank was comprised of: (i)
16 $149,813.25 of unpaid principal; and (ii) $742.38 of accrue and unpaid interest for a total of
17 $149,813.25 (the “Loan Balance”).
8. Chase Bank was not consulted with by the Debtor concerning the proposed DIP
Loan or relief sought by the DIP Financing Motion prior the emergency relief being sought.
9. The Debtor’s DIP Financing Motion contains a dearth of information, and no
23 admissible evidence, of any kind with respect to the Debtors efforts to locate financing on less
24 drastic terms. What is clear, however, is that the Debtor is seeking enter into the $675,000.00 DIP
25 Loan pursuant to Bankruptcy Code Section 364(d) secured by a first-priority “priming” lien upon
all of the Debtor’s Business Assets and to subordinate Chase Bank’s currently oversecured lien
Case 2:18-bk-12041-BKM 5
Main Document Page 5 of 14
1 to the DIP Lien with no evidence of the value of the Business Assets to establish what Chase
2 Bank’s lien position will be after the DIP Loan is granted.
CHASE BANK’S LEGAL OPPOSITION TO APPROVAL OF THE DIP FINANCING
4 MOTION AND THE PROPOSED DIP LOAN
5 10. Chase Bank first opposes the DIP Financing Motion on the procedural basis that it
6 fails to satisfy the express requirements of Bankruptcy Rule 4001(c). Therefore, the Court should
make an initial preliminary determination concerning whether, or not, to even consider the DIP
Financing Motion at the Emergency DIP Financing Hearing. In particular, Bankruptcy Rule
4001(c)(1)(A) provides that a motion for authority to obtain post-petition credit shall be
accompanied by a copy of the credit agreement. In this case, although the DIP Financing Motion
12 does attach a DIP Loan Term Sheet, it does not satisfy the requirement of Bankruptcy Rule
13 4001(c)(1)(A) requirement that the Debtor submit the actual proposed credit agreement to
14 document the terms of the DIP Loan.
12. Second, Chase Bank opposes the DIP Financing Motion, because the Debtor has
not submitted sufficient evidence that the Debtor will suffer “immediate and irreparable harm” as
is required to entitle the Debtor to obtain an interim post-petition loan without a Final Hearing as
19 is required Bankruptcy Rule 4001(c)(2). Other than assertions in the DIP Financing Motion that
20 the funds are needed to bring their landlord’s payments current and to fund operational breathing
21 room there are no concrete facts asserted such as facing immediate eviction or closure of the
22 business to justify granting the relief requested on an interim basis pursuant to Local Bankruptcy
Rule 4001-4(c). In short, there is no basis for this Court to grant the Debtor’s requested emergency
13. Third, Chase Bank opposes the DIP Financing Motion, because it fails to
27 satisfy the requirements of Bankruptcy Code §364.
28 Bankruptcy Code §364(c) provides—
Case 2:18-bk-12041-BKM 6
Main Document Page 6 of 14
1 If the trustee is unable to obtain unsecured credit allowable under section 503(b)(1) of
this title as an administrative expense, the court, after notice and a hearing may authorize
2 the obtaining of credit, or the incurring of debt—
(1) with priority over any or all administrative expenses of the kind specified in
4 section 503(b) or 507(b) of this title;
5 (2) secured by a lien on property of the estate that that is not otherwise subject to a
7 (3) secured by a junior lien on property of the estate that is subject to a lien.
8 11 U.S.C. §364(c).
9 The Bankruptcy Code contemplates that if post-petition borrowing is necessary, debtors-
10 in-possession should pursue such loans, first, as unsecured loans; second, as unsecured loans with
priority over administrative claims; third, as secured loans with a lien on unencumbered property;
and fourth, as secured loans with a lien junior to an existing lien. The Debtor has not shown by
convincing evidence that it has exhausted all of these options. The only evidence submitted to
15 the Court in support of the DIP Financing Motion is the Shaffer Declaration. The Schaffer
16 Declaration, however, only makes a cursory statement that the Debtor has been unable to obtain
17 financing in the form of unsecured credit allowable under Bankruptcy Code §503(b)(1) as an
18 administrative expense or solely in exchange for the grant of a special administrative expense
priority pursuant to Bankruptcy Code §364(c)(1). There is no detail of the efforts made and no
explanation of whether the Debtor even explored granting the DIP Lender a lien on collateral less
than all of the Debtor’s Business Assets. See, the Shaffer Declaration at ¶9. Instead, of explaining
23 why the DIP Loan couldn’t be obtained by affording the DIP Lender other safeguards in the form
24 of §§503(b)(1), 503(b), 507(b), 364(c)(2) and (c)(3) protections, the Debtor simply asserts that
25 isn’t possible.
Case 2:18-bk-12041-BKM 7
Main Document Page 7 of 14
1 Additionally, the Debtor’s request that the DIP Loan be given superiority status to
2 “prime”/subordinate Chase Bank’s currently oversecured lien is not supported by the evidence
Bankruptcy Code §364(d)(1) provides—
The court, after notice and a haring, may authorize the obtaining of credit or the
6 incurring of debt secured by a senior or equal lien on property of the estate that is subject
7 to a lien only if—
8 (A) the trustee is unable to obtain such credit otherwise; and
9 (B) there is adequate protection of the interest of the holder of the lien on the
property of the estate on which such senior or equal lien is proposed to be
11 U.S.C. §364(d)(1) (emphasis added).
Even if the Court accepts the testimony of the Shaffer Declaration that the Debtor simply
cannot obtain the DIP Loan without priming Chase Bank’s lien, there is no evidence before the
15 Court to meet the second (and also mandatory) prong of §364(d)(1)(B) that Chase Bank’s lien
16 will be afforded adequate protection after the DIP Loan closes. Currently, the Chase Bank Loan
17 is oversecured. There has been no appraisal, nor any other evidence submitted in the Shaffer
Declaration, or elsewhere, of what the value of the DIP Collateral is to allow Chase Bank, or the
Court, to conclude what Chase Bank’s collateral position will be after the DIP Lien is in place.
Also, no form of adequate protection to Chase Bank is offered by the DIP Financing Motion or
form of Order presented at all.
23 Bankruptcy Code §364(d) permits the Court to authorize a debtor to obtain senior secured
24 debt only if, among other requirements “there is adequate protection of the interest” of existing
25 interest holders. Section 364(d)(2) places the burden of establishing adequate protection of
existing lienholders’ interests on the party requesting the post-petition financing. Here, as
discussed above, the Debtor fails to explain or substantiate how the terms or effect of the proposed
Case 2:18-bk-12041-BKM 8
Main Document Page 8 of 14
1 DIP Loan will adequately protect the existing interest in the DIP Collateral, beyond a cursory
2 claim that here exists additional equity beyond the value of the existing lien interests with no
Under the facts and circumstances of the case, whether or not the terms and conditions of
the proposed DIP Loan are sufficient to adequately protect existing interests is highly
7 questionable, and the Debtor has failed to offer sufficient basis at this time. There is no plan on
8 file that would reveal how the DIP Financing is intended to rehabilitate the Debtor and protect the
9 interests of all parties in the case. Furthermore, although a budget has been submitted and
10 arguments made that the DIP Loan will keep the organization afloat, no exit strategy has been
proposed such as a firm signed asset purchase agreement for the business to allow creditors or the
Court to conclude that the DIP Loan will simply keep the lights on for awhile for failure of the
business down the road. Absent actual proof of real and adequate protection, as well as adequate
15 justification for the amount and proposed use of the requested funds, the DIP Financing Motion
16 should be denied.
17 As discussed above, the DIP Financing Motion is a priming request, subject to an elevated
level of scrutiny. In re First South Savings Assoc., 820 F.2d 700, 710 (5th Cir. 1987)(“Given the
fact that super priority financing displaces liens on which creditors have relied in extending credit,
a court that is asked to authorize such financing must be particularly cautious when assessing
whether the creditors so displaced are adequately protected”); In re Seth Co., 281 B.R. 150, 153
23 (Bankr. D. Conn. 2002)(“the ability to prim an existing lien is extraordinary…”).
24 While the focus of any DIP financing analysis is centered on the “adequate protection”
25 granted to current creditors, bankruptcy courts have consistently applied a three factor approach
analysis of DIP financing requests, especially those that seek to prime another party’s position:
However, we believe that the Debtors must nevertheless sustain the burden of
28 establishing the following before we could approve the Stipulations in issue:
Case 2:18-bk-12041-BKM 9
Main Document Page 9 of 14
(1) They are unable to obtain unsecured credit per 11 U.S.C. §364(b), i.e., by allowing a
2 lender only an administrative claim per 11 U.S.C. §503(b)(1)(A);
(2) The credit transaction is necessary to preserve the assets of the estate; and
(3) The terms of the transaction are fair, reasonable, and adequate, given the
5 circumstances of the debtor-borrower and the proposed lender.
6 In re Crouse, 71 B.R. 544, 549 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1987). Here, the Debtor has failed to
satisfy these “three requisite elements”. Id. at 550.
First the Debtor has made no showing regarding efforts made to secure additional
financing. The Shaffer Declaration merely alleges that “the Debtor has been unable to procure
DIP financing in the appropriate amount from any source other than the DIP Lender. See, the
12 Shaffer Declaration at ¶12. Generalized statements and unsubstantiated efforts are insufficient to
13 satisfy the Debtor’s burden.
14 Second, the Debtor has failed to show that the requested financing will sufficiently
preserve or benefit the estate. It is not enough to “keep alive a faint hope” that the bankruptcy
case and the transactions contemplated therein will be completed successfully. Id. at 551.
Finally, the proposed DIP Loan terms are not “fair, reasonable, and adequate” with respect
19 to Chase Bank. In effect, the Debtor wants Chase Bank to convert its unquestionable oversecured
20 loan into what may be in an eroded lien position. Furthermore, even though the Debtor alleges
21 that Chase Bank is receiving payments, those payments are insufficient to even pay current
22 interest on the Chase Bank Loan.
In conclusion, the Debtor has not offered Chase Bank sufficient adequate protection to
merit subordination of its lien interest in the DIP Collateral—at a minimum an appraisal must be
produced to show that Chase Bank will remain fully secured if the DIP Loan closes for Chase
27 Bank to be adequately protected. Furthermore, the Debtor has not proven that it is unable to
28 obtain other credit on more favorable terms. In particular, the DIP Financing Motion does not
Case 2:18-bk-12041-BKM 10
Main Document Page 10 of 14
1 even discuss what steps, if any, were taken by the Debtor to locate alternative post-petition
2 financing other than current DIP Lender proposed. The DIP Financing Motion simply includes an
unsupported bald assertion by legal counsel that the Debtor was unable to obtain post-petition
credit from an alternative source. Although the Debtor does not need to show that it approached
every conceivable lender for post-petition financing, it must make an effort to obtain financing
7 without priming a senior lien. A debtor must further show that such financing was not available.
8 See, e.g., In re Snowshoe Co., Inc., 789 F.2d 1085, 1088 (4th Cir. 1986). Clearly, the Debtor must
9 present at least some credible evidence that the proposed DIP Loan is the best financing available
10 and there are no other loans available on more favorable terms. Testimony must be presented by
the Debtor to satisfy this important element of proof to obtain authorization to enter into the
proposed DIP Loan.
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Chase Bank: (1) requests that the Court deny
15 the relief sought by the Debtor’s DIP Financing Motion; (2) opposes approval of any debtor-in-
16 possession financing in this case which “primes” Chase Bank’s lien; and (3) requests that the
17 Court enter an order granting such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and
22 By /s/ Larry O. Folks
23 Suite 1140
24 Phoenix, AZ 85004
Attorneys for Chase Bank
E-FILED on February 11, 2019, with
28 The U.S. Bankruptcy Court and copies
Case 2:18-bk-12041-BKM 11
Main Document Page 11 of 14
1 Served via ECF notice on all parties that have appeared in the case.
2 COPY mailed the same date via U.S. Mail to:
3 Bob Bondurant School of High Performance Driving, Inc.
4 Chandler, AZ 85226
Hilary L. Barnes, Esq.
6 Philip J. Giles, Esq.
7 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1150
8 Attorneys for the Debtor
9 List Of 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors
10 Elizabeth C. Amorosi, Esq.
11 230 North First Avenue, Suite 204
COPY emailed same date to:
15 230 N. First Avenue, Ste 204
16 Elizabeth.C.Amorosi@usdoj.gov
17 Warren J. Stapleton
2929 N. Central Ave., Ste 2100
19 Phoenix, AZ 85012
wstapleton@omlaw.com
20 Attorneys for Sun Valley Marina Development Corp.
21 Michelle E. Shriro
23 Addison, TX 75001
mshriro@singerlevick.com
24 Attorneys for Moses Smith Racing LLC
Case 2:18-bk-12041-BKM 12
Main Document Page 12 of 14
1 Thomas E. Littler
LITTLER, PC
2 341 W Secretariat Dr.
3 Phoenix, AZ 85284
telittler@gmail.com
4 Attorneys for Semple Marchal Cooper PLC
5 Christopher C. Simpson
6 1850 N. Central Ave., #2100
7 Phoenix, AZ 85004
8 Attorneys for FCA US LLC
9 Sheryl L. Toby
10 39577 Woodward Ave., #300
11 stoby@dykema.com
12 Attorneys for FCA US LLC
13 Hilary L. Barnes, Esq.
14 1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1150
15 hbarnes@allenbarneslaw.com
Philip J. Giles, Esq
17 ALLEN BARNES & JONES, PLC
1850 North Central Avenue, Suite 1150
18 Phoenix, AZ 85004
pgiles@allenbareslaw.com
19 Attorneys for the Debtor
21 MORITT HOCK & HAMROFF LLP
22 Garden City, NY 11530
lberkoff@moritthock.com
23 Attorneys for Unifi Equipment Finance, Inc.
Case 2:18-bk-12041-BKM 13
Main Document Page 13 of 14
1 Christopher R. Kaup
2 Seventh Floor, Camelback Esplanade II
3 2525 E. Camelback Rd.
4 crk@tblaw.com
Attorneys for Robert and Patricia C. Bondurant
By /s/ Iesha Meza
6 An employee of Folks Hess Kass, PLLC
Case 2:18-bk-12041-BKM 14
Main Document Page 14 of 14
Dokumen Serupa dengan Chase objection to $675K loan
In Re: Diane Malinowski and Stanley Malinowski, Debtor Diane Malinowski and Stanley Malinowski v. New York State Department of Labor, 156 F.3d 131, 2d Cir. (1998)
10000024055
10000028203
10000019901
Lainnya Dari Stef
Court order mandating Bondurant's back rent by March 1
190128 Balance Sheet
Advanced Foreign Exchange Derivatives.rb 4
Understanding and Contract Law.
OBLICON Dean Del Castillo Cases 2016-2018