In re: Josue Carrion Carrero
This text of In re: Josue Carrion Carrero (In re: Josue Carrion Carrero) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2
3 IN RE: CASE NO. 16-01964 4
5 JOSUE CARRION CARRERO CHAPTER 11
6 Debtor(s) FILED & ENTERED ON 09/01/2016 7
9 OPINION & ORDER
10 Before the court is the United StatesTrustee’s (“UST”) Motion to Convert to Chapter 7 11 Pursuant to § 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and Legal Memorandum in Support of the Motion 12 [Dkt. No.’s 91 & 92], Firstbank Puerto Rico’s (“Firstbank”) Motion Requesting Conversion or 13 Dismissal [Dkt. No. 114], and Debtor’s Responses [Dkt. No’s 126 & 130]. The court held a 14 hearing to consider the motions on August 24, 2016, and took the matter under advisement. For 15 16 the reasons set forth below, the UST’s motion to convert to chapter 7 is GRANTED. In its 17 motion, which is joined by Firstbank, the UST cites several grounds for the conversion of the 18 case to chapter 7, specifically, lack of good faith due to undisclosed assets; substantial or 19 continuing loss to or diminution of the estate coupled with the absence of the likelihood of 20 rehabilitation; and gross mismanagement of the estate. 21 The initial burden is on the movant to prove there is cause for either conversion or 22 dismissal of the chapter 11 case. Efron v. Candelario, 529 B.R. 396, 411 (1st Cir. BAP 2015). 23 24 Once the movant establishes cause, the burden shifts to the opposing party to demonstrate 25 “unusual circumstances” establishing that conversion or dismissal is not in the best interests of 26 27 1 the creditors and the estate, and that it meets the other requirements of § 1112(b)(2). Id. If no 2 such unusual circumstances exist and/or the other requirements are not met, the bankruptcy court 3 must convert or dismiss the case. Id. The bankruptcy court has broad discretion to determine 4 whether unusual circumstances exist and whether conversion or dismissal is in the best interest 5 of creditors and the estate. Id. (citing In re Colón Martinez, 472 B.R. at 144; In re Gilroy, 2008 6 WL 4531982, at *4). 7 8 Although the Code does not define “cause” as that term is used in § 1112(b), Section 9 1112(b)(4) provides a nonexclusive list of what constitutes cause including, but not limited to, 10 “substantial or continuing loss to or diminution of the estate and the absence of a reasonable 11 likelihood of rehabilitation,” “unexcused failure to satisfy timely any filing or reporting 12 requirement established by this title or by any rule applicable to a case under this chapter,” or 13 “failure timely to provide information or attend meetings reasonably requested by the United 14 States trustee.” See 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4)(A), (F), and (H). 15 16 The record of the case demonstrates that the information contained in Debtor’s schedules 17 was inaccurate or misrepresented. The Section 341 meeting of creditors in this case was held on 18 May 6, 2016 and May 20, 2016. At both meetings, the Debtor failed to disclose numerous 19 personal properties. In addition, Schedule A/B requires Debtor to list all of his personal 20 properties. The Debtor is the owner of multiple personal properties that were not disclosed in his 21 Schedule A/B. This schedule was amended twice after the filing of the case; the last time on 22 August 22, 2016 [Dkt. No. 129] in response to the UST’s motion to convert. The amended 23 24 schedules contained material additions to prior disclosures. One hundred and sixty four days 25 after the order for relief, Debtor’s assets are still being disclosed. In light of Debtor’s failure, 26 27 1 neither the United States trustee, nor the creditors were able to properly evaluate Debtor’s 2 financial affairs and probabilities of rehabilitation. Given the information available, the court 3 concludes that “cause” exists for relief under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1). This is predicated on the 4 court’s finding that the Debtor acted either intentionally or recklessly in violation of his financial 5 disclosure obligations as a chapter 11 debtor. 6 Section 1112(b)(2) requires that there be a “reasonable justification” for the act or 7 8 omission that gives rise to a finding of “cause” under § 1112(b)(1). The Debtor’s counsel 9 proffered at the hearing and in his reply the following explanation for the omissions from his 10 initial bankruptcy schedules and statements: 11 Here, the Debtor filed the instant voluntary petition in the midst of having to file not one, 12 but two, emergency petitions (one for himself and one for his business). At the time the Debtor and his business were the objects of at least twenty lawsuits, were subject to 13 immediate garnishments, the Debtor’s business was in the midst of losing its operational licenses from Hacienda, and five or six of the Debtor’s real properties had gone into 14 foreclosure. On top of all of the above, the Debtor, who is a celebrity, was subject to daily reports and commentary in the print, radio, and television media of the 15 Commonwealth. With the above as background, the Debtor managed to file schedules 16 which were over 99.99% correct; that is, out of a total alleged asset of $5,545,000.00; the Debtor correctly listed and scheduled over $5,540,000.00. In fact, to achieve the above 17 the Debtor amended his schedules, on his own and prior to any 341 Meeting, at least three times to increase and further supplement and corrects his asset scheduling. It can 18 hardly be argued that a Debtor which, on his own, amends his schedules to increase, supplement, and further disclose assets, not once, twice, but three times prior to the 341 19 Meeting…. Moreover, on August 22, 2016, the Debtor further amended his schedules to 20 supplement the four pieces of personal property, valued at less than $5,000.00 and potentially all exempt property, alleged by the Trustee which were not scheduled. [Dkt. 21 No. 130, pg. 3].
22 This rationale provided above was not subject to the court’s scrutiny as a finder of fact due to 23 Debtor’s unexplained absence from this proceeding. The Debtor’s written explanation, standing 24 alone, is insufficient. There is no evidence submitted that would suggest that a sophisticated 25 26 27 1 experienced businessman would be prevented from fulfilling the most basic of bankruptcy debtor 2 duties. 3 The Debtor, while acting as debtor-in-possession (“DIP”) and as a fiduciary to his creditors, 4 acted either deliberately or recklessly in failing to disclose the existence of valuable estate assets. 5 He continued to conceal that information from his creditors for several months. An inexcusable 6 failure to make numerous, material financial disclosures supports a finding of cause for 7 8 dismissal, conversion or the appointment of a trustee under § 1112(b).1 The court rejects the 9 Debtor’s explanation for his unacceptable financial reporting. The court finds that the Debtor’s 10 violation of his duties, at a minimum, reckless or, worse still, purposeful. Either way, his conduct 11 is inexcusable. Without a reasonable justification for the Debtor’s inadequate performance as 12 DIP, the case must be converted or dismissed. 13 Further, and more fundamentally, the Debtor has not established that this case is unusual in 14 either common meaning of the term or in the specialized way it is employed in Section 15 16 1112(b)(2), such that it would be appropriate to disregard the existence of cause of conversion of 17 the case. The UST has established cause for relief under section 1112(b)(2) and the Debtor has 18 failed to establish the existence of “unusual circumstances under section 1112(b)(2).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
In re: Josue Carrion Carrero, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-josue-carrion-carrero-prb-2016.