In re Juan Manuel Barreto Ginorio

• Court: United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Puerto Rico
• Decided: February 22, 2024
• Docket: 23-03681
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 1 FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO 2 IN RE 3 CASE NO. 23-03681 (ESL) JUAN MANUEL BARRETO GINORIO 4 CHAPTER 11 Debtor 5 OPINION AND ORDER 6 This case came before the court on January 30, 2024, for a hearing to consider the Motion 7 to Dismiss (Case No. 23-0368, Docket No. 47) and Motion for Relief from Stay (Case No. 23-0368, 8 Docket No. 51) filed by secured creditor Condado 5, LLC (“Condado”). See Order and Notice 9 Setting Hearing, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 50; Order and Notice, Case No. 23-03681, 10 Docket No. 77. 11 For the reasons discussed below, the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. 12 UNCONTESTED FACTS1 13 A. The Debt Owed and Past Related Proceedings 14 1. On or around January 12, 2005, Banco Popular de Puerto Rico (“BPPR”), predecessor in interest of Condado, extended a credit facility to Las Martas, Inc. (“Las Martas”), 15 in the original amount of $1,850,000.00 (“Loan I”). See Loan Agreement, Case No. 23-03681, 16 Proof of Claim No. 1-2, Part 4, pp. 1-56. See also Condado’s Proposed Finding of Facts, Pre-Trial 17 Report, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 89, ¶ 1 (first). 18 2. The Loan I is a commercial loan which purpose was to consolidate corporate and 19 personal debts for the purchase of land, 5,000 quarts of milk quota, 36 heifers, machinery, 20 equipment and for improvements to Las Martas’ facilities. See Loan Agreement, Proof of Claim 21 No. 1-2, Part 4, p. 2. See also Condado’s Proposed Finding of Facts, Pre-Trial Report, Case No. 22 23-03681, Docket No. 89, ¶ 2 (first). 23 24 1 A statement of uncontested facts was not submitted by the parties. Notwithstanding, at the 25 January 30, 2024, hearing, the court asked Debtor’s counsel which fact alleged by Condado in the motion to dismiss was or is contested by the Debtor. Debtor’s counsel responded as follows: “The 26 allegations are not contested.” Audio of January 30, 2024, Hearing, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 93, Minute 28:00 to 28:18. The facts alleged in the motion to dismiss were restated in the Pre- 27 Trial Report (Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 89). 1 3. The Debtor, his former spouse (Ms. Maria Elena Hernandez Ruiz), and JM Dairy, 2 Inc. (“JM Dairy”) all serve as guarantors to Loan I. See Loan Agreement, Case No. 23-03681, Proof of Claim No. 1-2, Part 4, p. 1; Amended Note, Case No. 23-03681, Proof of Claim No. 1-2, 3 Part 5, p. 9. See also Cond2ado’s Proposed Finding of Facts, Pre-Trial Report, Case No. 23-03681, 4 Docket No. 89, ¶ 1 (second). 5 4. Loan I secures a Master Promissory Note in favor of BPPR, and subsequently 6 endorsed in favor of Condado, in the amount of $1,850,000.00 (“Note I”, Case No. 23-03681, 7 Proof of Claim No. 1-2, Part 5, p. 1). See Condado’s Proposed Finding of Facts, Pre-Trial Report, 8 Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 89, ¶ 2 (second). 9 5. Loan I is also secured by, inter alia, 58,700 quarts of Las Martas’ bi-weekly milk 10 quota. See Security Agreement executed on January 12, 2005, authenticated through affidavit no. 11 28,485 before Notary Public Francisco J. Arraiza Donate (Case No. 23-03681, Proof of Claim No. 12 1-2, Part 7, pp. 1-36). See Condado’s Proposed Finding of Facts, Pre-Trial Report, Case No. 23- 13 03681, Docket No. 89, ¶ 3. 6. On or around October 8, 2007, BPPR extended to the Debtor a credit facility in the 14 amount of $375,000.00 (“Loan II”, and collectively with Loan I, the “Loans”). See Loan 15 Agreement, Case No. 23-03681, Proof of Claim No. 1-2, Part 4, pp. 1-56; Resolution by the PR 16 Court of First Instance in Case No. AR2021CV00693, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 47-1, p. 5, 17 ¶ 15. See also Condado’s Proposed Finding of Facts, Pre-Trial Report, Case No. 23-03681, Docket 18 No. 89, ¶ 5. 19 7. Las Martas and JM Dairy serve as guarantors to Loan II. See Loan Agreement, Case 20 No. 23-03681, Proof of Claim No. 1-2, Part 4, pp. 1-56; Resolution by the PR Court of First 21 Instance in Case No. AR2021CV00693, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 47-1, p. 5, ¶ 15. See also 22 Condado’s Proposed Finding of Facts, Pre-Trial Report, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 89, ¶ 5. 23 8. Loan II secures a Note in favor of BPPR, and subsequently endorsed in favor of 24 Condado, in the amount of $375,000.00 (“Note II”, Resolution by the PR Court of First Instance in Case No. AR2021CV00693, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 47-1, p. 6, ¶ 16). See also 25 Condado’s Proposed Finding of Facts, Pre-Trial Report, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 89, ¶ 6. 26 27 2 1 9. Note I and Note II’s maturity dates were extended and ultimately matured on 2 January 12, 2015, and July 8, 2011, respectively. See Condado’s Proposed Finding of Facts, Pre- Trial Report, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 89, ¶¶ 4, 7. 3 10. On June 21, 2011, the Debtor, Las Martas, and JM Dairy each filed their first 4 Chapter 12 petition. See Case No. 11-05236, Docket No. 1; Case No. 11-05237, Docket No. 1; 5 Case No. 11-05239, Docket No. 1. See Condado’s Proposed Finding of Facts, Pre-Trial Report, 6 Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 89, ¶ 8, 9. 7 11. The above cases were substantively consolidated on June 7, 2011 (Case No. 11- 8 05236, Docket No. 22), and dismissed for material default with the terms of the confirmed plan on 9 January 16, 2018 (Case No. 11-05236, Docket No. 387). See Condado’s Proposed Finding of 10 Facts, Pre-Trial Report, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 89, ¶ 8, 9. 11 12. On April 18, 2019, JM Dairy filed its second Chapter 12 petition (Case No. 19- 12 02168, Docket No. 1), which was voluntarily dismissed on June 28, 2021 (Case No. 19-02168, 13 Docket Nos. 92, 97). See Condado’s Proposed Finding of Facts, Pre-Trial Report, Case No. 23- 03681, Docket No. 89, ¶ 10. 14 13. On December 14, 2018, the Debtor filed his second Chapter 12 petition (Case No. 15 18-07310, Docket No. 1), which was dismissed on July 25, 2019. See Minute Entry, Bankr. Case 16 No 18-07310, Docket No. 62. See Condado’s Proposed Finding of Facts, Pre-Trial Report, Case 17 No. 23-03681, Docket No. 89, ¶ 11. 18 14. Also on December 14, 2018, Las Martas filed its second Chapter 12 petition (Case 19 No. 18-07304, Docket No. 1), which was dismissed for unreasonable delay prejudicial to creditors 20 and failure to timely file a confirmable plan on April 22, 2021. See In re Vaqueria Las Martas, 21 Inc., Case No. 18-07304 [Docket No. 251], 2021 Bankr. LEXIS 1075, 2021 WL 8200008 (Bankr. 22 D.P.R. 2021), aff’d, Vaqueria Las Martas, Inc. v. Condado 5, LLC (In re Vaqueria Las Martas, 23 Inc.), 638 B.R. 482 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2022). See also Condado’s Proposed Finding of Facts, Pre- 24 Trial Report, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 89, ¶ 12. 15. On May 28, 2021, Condado filed a Foreclosure Complaint with the PR Court of 25 First Instance, Superior Court of Arecibo (the “PR Court of First Instance”), Case No. 26 AR2021CV00693 (the “Foreclosure Case”) against the Debtor, his former spouse, Las Martas and 27 1 JM Dairy.3 See Case No. 23-03681, Proof of Claim No. 1-2, Part 3, pp. 1-20. See also Condado’s 2 Proposed Finding of Facts, Pre-Trial Report, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 89, ¶ 13. 16. On August 16, 2022, Las Martas filed its third Chapter 12 bankruptcy petition (Case 3 No. 22-02380, Docket No. 1). See also Condado’s Proposed Finding of Facts, Pre-Trial Report, 4 Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 89, ¶ 25. 5 17. On June 15, 2023, this court held a hearing to consider Condado’s motion to dismiss 6 Las Martas’ third petition (Minute Entry, Case No. 22-02380, Docket No. 143). See also 7 Condado’s Proposed Finding of Facts, Pre-Trial Report, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 89, ¶ 31. 8 18. At the hearing, the instant Debtor testified, as president and shareholder of Las 9 Martas, that he planned on filing for bankruptcy to stall the Foreclosure Case, as follows: 10 Q. Now, Mr. Barreto, if Condado succeeds in its foreclosure case and it gets an 11 order allowing them to foreclose on the farm property, what will you do? 12 A. I haven’t analyzed it yet. But I’ve spent my entire life working in this business 13 since I was a child. Q. So will you file any proceedings to stop the foreclosure? ... 14 A. Yes. 15 Q. Do you know what kind of proceeding? 16 A. I haven’t analyzed it, it would be analyzed in the moment. 17 Q. But would that possibly be a bankruptcy filing? 18 MR. CHICO-BARRIS: I was going to object to the question, Your Honor, because 19 it’s leading. 20 THE COURT: I’m going to overrule the objection. But do note that the answer may 21 not be [in] the best interest of the debtor. 22 Q. Would that possibl[y] include a bankruptcy filing? 23 A. Total? 24 Q. No. Like, a Chapter 13, Chapter 12, Chapter 11? A. Yes. 25 26

27 3 The court takes judicial notice of the Foreclosure Case pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 201. 1 June 15, 2023, Hearing Transcript, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 47-22, p. 29, lines 16-25; p. 2 30, lines 1-13. See also Condado’s Proposed Finding of Facts, Pre-Trial Report, Case No. 23- 03681, Docket No. 89, ¶ 31. 3 19. The Debtor also testified the following during cross-examination: 4 Q. Your counsel asked you earlier that if Condado succeeds in the foreclosure case 5 filed with the Puerto Rico Court of First Instance, foreclosing that same property, 6 that you would basically file for bankruptcy to stop that foreclosure, correct? 7 A. Yes. 8 Q. And the purpose of that would be to stop the execution of a foreclosure 9 judgment, right? 10 A. Yes. 11 Q. Do you know how long this loan has been past due? 12 A. No. 13 June 15, 2023, Hearing Transcript, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 47-22, p. 39, lines 22-25; p. 40, lines 1-7. See also Condado’s Proposed Finding of Facts, Pre-Trial Report, Case No. 23- 14 03681, Docket No. 89, ¶ 31. 15 20. On September 29, 2023, this court dismissed Las Martas’ third bankruptcy case for 16 continuing loss to or diminution of the Debtor’s estate and the absence of reasonable likelihood of 17 rehabilitation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1208(c)(9). See In re Las Martas, Inc., Case No. 22-02380 18 [Docket No. 148], 2023 Bankr. LEXIS 2413, 2023 WL 6413170 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2023). In pertinent 19 part, the Opinion and Order reads as follows: 20 This is the Debtor's third bankruptcy petition, which was filed less than three weeks 21 after the second bankruptcy case was closed, meaning that the Debtor has been almost continuously in bankruptcy for the past four (4) years and nine (9) months. 22 The Debtor was unable to propose a timely confirmable plan pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1208(c)(3) in its second bankruptcy proceeding and the case was dismissed. 23 During these past four years and nine months that the Debtor has been in 24 bankruptcy, its farming operations, despite recent optimistic projections, have barely improved. In fact, the data which this Court has thoroughly discussed evince 25 that since the first bankruptcy petition the Debtor has been unable to sustain the dairy farm operations profitably or at least at a break-even point before 26 consideration of debt service. The milk quota utilization rate has decreased 27 significantly from the first bankruptcy (54%) which is the result of Debtor not having sufficient milking cows and enough cash flow to pay for the direct costs and 1 operational expenses necessary to sustain the dairy farm operations. In the previous 2 case, the Debtor was unable to use Condado's cash collateral because there was a legal issue as to whether Condado had a lien over Debtor's cash collateral. In the 3 instant case, there is also a key legal issue as to whether Condado's security interest milk quota extends to the milk produced and sold to milk processing plants and to 4 the post-petition proceeds which was appealed and a decision on the same is pending. As discussed previously, the Debtor's financial situation has only 5 worsened since the first bankruptcy petition and second bankruptcy petition, not 6 only because there has been a decrease in the assets and an increase in liabilities, but most importantly because there are on-going foreclosure proceedings against 7 the farmland which the Debtor utilizes to run its dairy farm operation. If the foreclosure proceedings are successful, there will be no farming operation. The 8 Court finds that there has been no substantial change in circumstances from the previous case aside from increasing debts and decreasing collateral and the 9 probability that the farmland will be foreclosed by Condado. Moreover, there is no 10 evidence in the historical financial performance of the Debtor in which this court may rely on to determine that there is any reasonable likelihood that this Debtor 11 may be rehabilitated. The estate has continued to diminish for the past four (4) years and nine (9) months and there is no hope of rehabilitation. The Debtors have 12 consistently demonstrated for the past eleven years (in bankruptcy) that they do not have a viable farming operation sufficient to pay expenses and fund a plan and the 13 value of the estate continues to diminish with the passage of time (VLM personal 14 assets) and its liabilities continue to increase. There is also a consistent lack of payment to creditors. The Court concludes that in the instant case, the Debtor does 15 not operate a sustainable milk producing operation which can generate enough monies to pay its operational expenses in addition to the plan payments that will 16 need to commence upon the effective date of the plan. The court finds that the Debtor failed to meet its burden with respect to feasibility. 17

18 The Court is mindful that the Debtor's principal has been in the milk industry since 1988. However, the Debtor's financial condition has only worsened throughout the 19 years. Condado's debt has been fully matured since January 12, 2015. The Debtor may not continue to speculate with Condado's money. Moreover, the courts in the 20 administration of Chapter 12 cases “... should strive to preserve [sic] this equity balance between creditors’ and debtor's rights.” In re Pretzer, 96 B.R. at 794 (citing 21 132 Cong. Rec. § 10575 supra, remarks of Sen. Thurmond). 22 Conclusion 23 For the reasons previously discussed, the Court finds that dismissal is appropriate in this case based on a continuing loss to or diminution of the Debtor's estate and 24 the absence of reasonable likelihood of rehabilitation pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 25 1208(c)(9). The Court also finds that the proposed amended plan of reorganization is not feasible and therefore does not comply with section 1225(a)(6). The Court's 26 analysis as to dismissal conclude at this juncture since one ground is sufficient to dismiss a debtor's case. […] 27 1 In re Las Martas, Inc., 2023 Bankr. LEXIS 2413, at *56-60, 2023 WL 6413170, at *16-17 (Bankr. 2 D.P.R. 2023) 21. On November 9, 2023, Las Martas appealed the dismissal of its third bankruptcy 3 case to the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit, which is pending. See B.A.P. 4 1st Cir. Appeal No. 23-26). See also Condado’s Proposed Finding of Facts, Pre-Trial Report, Case 5 No. 23-03681, Docket No. 89, ¶ 34. 6 22. An evidentiary hearing in the Foreclosure Case before the PR Court of First 7 Instance was scheduled for November 9, 2023, at 1:30 p.m. See Order by the PR Court of First 8 Instance in Case No. AR2021CV00693, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 47-24. See also 9 Condado’s Proposed Finding of Facts, Pre-Trial Report, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 89, ¶ 35. 10 B. The Instant Bankruptcy Proceeding 11 23. On November 8, 2023, the Debtor filed the instant third bankruptcy petition. See 12 Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 1. 13 24. On November 22, 2023, Condado filed and thereafter amended Proof of Claim No. 1 in the secured amount of $1,680,164.09 (the “Claim”). See Case No. 23-03681, Proof of Claim 14 No. 1-2. 15 25. On January 2, 2024, Condado filed a Motion to Dismiss (Case No. 23-0368, Docket 16 No. 47) seeking dismissal of the instant bankruptcy case for cause under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) for 17 lack of good faith and unusual delay that is prejudicial to Condado. 18 26. On January 4, 2024, Condado filed a Motion for Relief from Stay (Case No. 23- 19 0368, Docket No. 51), to which Condado replied on January 23, 2024. See Reply to Motion for 20 Relief From Stay, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 75. 21 27. Also on January 23, 2024, the Debtor filed an Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (the 22 “Opposition”, Case No. 23-0368, Docket No. 73). The court notes that the Debtor does not contest 23 or dispute any factual statement made by Condado. 24 28. On January 29, 2024, Condado filed a Reply to Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (the “Reply”, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 88). 25 29. Also on January 29, 2023, the parties filed a Pre-Trial Report (Case No. 23-03681, 26 Docket No. 89). The report summarizes the position of the parties, as espoused in their pleadings, 27 1 with the addition of certain objections by the Debtor to the filing of documents in the Spanish 2 language and the taking of judicial notice. 30. On January 30, 2024, the court held a hearing to consider both the Motion to 3 Dismiss and the Motion for Relief from Stay. See Order and Notice Setting Hearing, Case No. 23- 4 03681, Docket No. 50; Order and Notice, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 77. 5 31. At the hearing, the court stated that the uncontested facts, as alleged by Condado 6 in the motion to dismiss, establish a prima facie case of bad faith, which this court has found may 7 be grounds for cause for the dismissal of a chapter 11 petition even though it is not specifically 8 listed as a cause for dismissal. See Audio of January 30, 2024, Hearing, Case No. 23-03681, 9 Docket No. 93, Minute 23:40 to 24:20. The court concluded as follows: 10 After considering the documents filed and arguments by the parties the court 11 concluded that Condado 5, LLC established a prima facie case of bad faith, which this court finds is cause for dismissal of a Chapter 11 petition pursuant to 11 USC 12 § 1112. The debtor stated his disagreement but declined to present evidence. The court summarized its view for the record and stated that its decision will be in a 13 separate written opinion and order. 14 Minute Entry, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 92. 15 32. The Motion for Relief From Stay “is held in abeyance pending a decision on 16 Condado 5 LLC's motion to dismiss.” Minute Entry, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 91. 17 LEGAL ISSUES 18 Whether the Debtor’s third bankruptcy petition was filed in bad faith and, consequently, 19 constitutes “cause” for dismissal under Section 1112(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 20 1112(b)(1). 21 POSITION OF THE PARTIES 22 I. Condado’s Position 23 Condado avers there is “cause” to dismiss under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) for lack of good faith 24 and unusual delay that is prejudicial to Condado. Condado avers that Debtor has a long history of prior bankruptcy filings, and there is no significant change in financial circumstances or legitimate 25 bankruptcy purpose for the filing of Debtor’s third bankruptcy petition other than to further delay 26 27 1 litigation and thwart Condado’s rights to foreclose on the fully matured loans owed to it. This, 2 Condado avers, constitutes a bad faith filing and an abuse of the bankruptcy process. Condado further avers that this court has previously “held that lack of good faith (or bad 3 faith) in filing a Chapter 11 petition constitutes ‘cause’ for dismissal under section 1112(b)(1).” 4 Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 88, p. 2, quoting In re Plaza Antillana Inc., 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 5 634, at 21*, 2014 WL 585299, at *7 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2014), citing In re Costa Bonita Beach Resort, 6 Inc., 479 B.R. 14 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2012). 7 II. Debtor’s Position 8 The Debtor avers its third bankruptcy petition serves a bonafide bankruptcy purpose. The 9 Debtor also avers that “Condado’s argument - that a bad-faith filing can, as a matter of law, arise 10 to a bad-faith filing has not been either endorsed nor accepted by our First Circuit Court of Appeals. 11 In fact, this Honorable Court has correctly noted that the First Circuit Court of Appeals has not 12 endorsed the conclusion that alleged bad faith - in the filing of a bankruptcy case - constitutes 13 “cause” for dismissal under section 1112.” Case No. 23-0368, Docket No. 73, pp. 2-3, citing Costa Bonita, supra, and In re Capitol Food Corp, 490 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2007). Further, “even if an 14 alleged bad-faith filing could - as a matter of law - possibly constitute “cause” for dismissal under 15 Section 1112 - which it does not - here, Condado has failed to establish a prima facie case for 16 “cause” for dismissal.” Id., p. 3. The Debtor further avers that assuming, arguendo, that “cause” 17 has been established, dismissal should be denied because unusual circumstance exists and a plan 18 is likely to be confirmed within a reasonable amount of time. The unusual circumstances present 19 are that unsecured creditors are likely to receive distribution under a plan of reorganization. 20 APPLICABLE LAW AND ANALYSIS 21 A. Dismissal Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b), Generally 22 Section 1112(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b), mandates, after notice and 23 a hearing, the conversion or dismissal of a chapter 11 case, whichever is in the best interests of 24 creditors and the estate, if the movant establishes “cause” and the case is devoid of unusual circumstances pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(2). See 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1). Although the 25 Bankruptcy Code does not define “cause” as that term is used in Section 1112(b), Section 26 1112(b)(4) provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances which constitute “cause” for 27 1 conversion or dismissal. Because the list of causes is nonexhaustive, a case may be converted or 2 dismissed for other causes. See, e.g., Plaza Antillana, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 634, 2014 WL 585299. The initial burden is on the movant to argue and present evidence by a preponderance of 3 the evidence standard to prove its position that there is cause for either conversion or dismissal of 4 the chapter 11 case, whichever is in the best interests of creditors and the estate. See Alan N. 5 Resnick & Henry J. Sommer, 7 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1112.04[4] (16th ed. 2024). “Thus, until 6 the movant carries this burden, the statutory direction that the court ‘shall convert the case to a 7 case under chapter 7 or dismiss the case’ is not operative.” Id. The court, after finding cause, has 8 broad discretion to determine whether conversion or dismissal is in the best interest of creditors 9 and the estate. See Gilroy v. Ameriquest Mortg. Co. (In re Gilroy), 2008 Bankr. Lexis 3968, 2008 10 WL 4531982 (B.A.P. 1st Cir. 2008). However, if the movant proves that there is cause for 11 dismissal pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(4) by a preponderance of the evidence standard, the 12 court must find that movant has established cause. See Alan N. Resnick & Henry J. Sommer, 7 13 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1112.04[4] (16th ed. 2024). Once “cause” has been established, the burden shifts to the debtor to identify unusual 14 circumstances that evince that conversion or dismissal is not in the best interest of creditors and 15 the estate. Even, if there are no unusual circumstances, the court may not convert or dismiss a case 16 if the debtor establishes and the court finds that: “(1) there is a reasonable likelihood that a plan 17 will be confirmed within a reasonable time; (2) the cause’ for dismissal or conversion is something 18 other than a continuing loss or diminution of the estate coupled with a lack of reasonable likelihood 19 of rehabilitation; and (3) there is a reasonable justification or excuse for a debtor's act or omission 20 and the act or omission will be cured within a reasonable time.” In re Orbit Petroleum, Inc., 395 21 B.R. 145, 148 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2008). 22 B. Lack of Good Faith (or Bad Faith) 23 This court, in Costa Bonita, supra, held that lack of good faith (or bad faith) in filing a 24 chapter 11 petition constitutes “cause” to dismiss pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1). This court also rejected the use of the mechanical checklist approach to determine lack of good faith for all 25 cases. In pertinent part, the court stated the following regarding lack of good faith (or bad faith) as 26 a cause for dismissal of a chapter 11 petition: 27 “Good faith is not a statutory requirement for the filing of a Chapter 11 petition. 1 However, it is a requirement for a Chapter 11 plan to be confirmed. 11 U.S.C. § 2 1129(a)(3). The unsettled issue is whether lack of good faith (or bad faith) may constitute “cause” to dismiss a Chapter 11 petition under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b)(1). 3 See Ali M.M. Mojdehi & Janet Dean Gertz, The Implicit “Good Faith” Requirement in Chapter 11 Liquidations: A Rule in Search of a Rationale?, 14 Am. 4 Bankr.Inst. L.Rev. 143 (2006). Any determination of good faith, or lack of good faith (bad faith) is fact intensive and must consider the totality of the circumstances 5 on a case by case basis. In Chapter 11 cases the court must carefully consider the 6 distinctions between liquidation and reorganization as both are valid objectives under the Bankruptcy Code. 7 Several Circuits have determined that lack of good faith (or bad faith) in filing a 8 chapter 11 bankruptcy petition constitutes “cause” to dismiss or convert a case to Chapter 7 pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b). See Little Creek Dev. Co. v. 9 Commonwealth Mortgage Corp. (In re Little Creek Dev. Co.), 779 F.2d 1068 (5th 10 Cir.1986); In re Humble Place Joint Venture v. Fory (In re Humble Place Joint Venture), 936 F.2d 814 (5th Cir.1991); Carolin Corp. v. Miller, 886 F.2d 693 (4th 11 Cir.1989); Trident Assocs. Ltd. Partenership v. Metro. Life Ins. Co. (In re Trident Assocs. Ltd. Partnership), 52 F.3d 127 (6th Cir.1995); NMSBPCSLDHB, L .P. v. 12 Integrated Telecom Express, Inc. (In re Integrated Telecom Express, Inc.), 384 F.3d 108 (3rd Cir.2004); In re Albany Partners, Ltd., 749 F.2d 670 (11th Cir.1984). The 13 First Circuit has not decided whether lack of good faith (or bad faith) in the filing 14 of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition constitutes “cause” under 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b). See Fields Station LLC v. Capitol Food Corp. (In re Capitol Food Corp.), 490 F.3d 15 21, 24 (1st Cir.2007). One court declined the proposition that 11 U.S.C. § 1 112(b) imposes a good faith filing requirement in a SARE case. See In re Victoria Ltd. 16 Partnership, 187 B.R. 54, (Bankr.D.Mass.1995).

17 The First Circuit has determined that if 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) imposes a good faith 18 filing requirement, then it is the movant that must establish prima facie that the petition was filed in bad faith before the burden shifts to the debtor. See In re 19 Capitol Food Corp., 490 F.3d at 24 (“Although the bankruptcy court held that subsection 1112(b) imposes no good faith filing requirement, we need not address 20 this matter in the present case. Even the courts which have found a good faith filing requirement would demand that Fields Station first make a prima facie showing 21 that Capital Food filed its petition in bad faith.”); Farnsworth v. Morse (In re 22 Farnsworth), 2009 Bankr.Lexis 3699, *18, (B.A.P. 1st Cir.2009); In re Miller, 2009 Bankr.Lexis 3351, *4 (Bankr.D.Mass.2009). The First Circuit noted that, 23 “[c]atastrophic business events, such as an imminent or threatened foreclosure on the debtor's interests in real property essential to successful reorganization efforts, 24 are precisely the sort of imminent financial distress for which debtors routinely seek 25 chapter 11 protection.” In re Capitol Food Corp., 490 F.3d at 25 citing In re Liberate Techs., 314 B.R. 206, 216 (Bankr.N.D.Cal.2004). The First Circuit also observed 26 that a good faith petition must seek to preserve or create some value that would otherwise be lost outside of bankruptcy and that it is not bad faith to seek to gain 27 an advantage from declaring bankruptcy. Id. at 25. 1 The determination of whether the movant has established prima facie that there is 2 a lack of good faith (or bad faith) in the filing of a bankruptcy petition is a fact intensive inquiry in which the court analyzes the totality of the circumstances. See 3 In re Farnsworth, 2009 Bankr.Lexis 3699, *20 citing Marrama v. Citizens Bank of Mass. (In re Marrama), 430 F.3d 474, 482 (1st Cir.2005) aff'd, 549 U.S. 365, 127 4 S.Ct. 1105, 166 L.Ed.2d 956 (2007). Lack of good faith or bad faith is atypical conduct that constitutes an abuse of the bankruptcy process. See Marrama v. 5 Citizens Bank, 549 U.S. 365, 375, 127 S.Ct. 1105, 166 L.Ed.2d 956, fn. 11 6 (U.S.2007); Berliner v. Pappalardo (In re Puffer), 674 F.3d 78, 82 (1st Cir.2012). Good faith is driven by the congressional intent of Chapter 11 relief. “Chapter 11 7 is designed to offer greater recovery for creditors and equity owners than liquidation in a Chapter 7 case by providing a means by which financially distressed 8 businesses or individuals may restructure their finances by obtaining confirmation of a plan which provides either a continuation of the business, or retention or 9 orderly sale of assets, and exiting bankruptcy relieved of burdensome debts and 10 obligations.” Hon. Nancy C. Dreher & Hon. Joan N. Feeney, Bankruptcy Law Manual, § 11.1 (5th ed.2011). 11 The totality of the circumstances test cannot be reduced to a mechanical checklist 12 (irrespective of the chapter or whether it is in the filing of the petition and/or the confirmation of the plan). See In re Puffer, 674 F.3d at 81 (“The totality of the 13 circumstances test cannot be reduced to a mechanical checklist, and we do not 14 endeavor here to canvass the field and catalogue the factors that must be weighed when determining whether a debtor has submitted a Chapter 13 plan in good faith”). 15 The First Circuit has determined that, “in all events, good faith is a concept not a construct. Importantly, it is a concept that derives from equity. This matters because 16 equitable concepts are particularly insusceptible to per se rules.” In re Puffer, 674 F.3d 78, 82. Thus, this court, in conformity with the determinations of the First 17 Circuit in In re Puffer rejects the mechanical checklist approach for a determination 18 of lack of good faith (or bad faith) for all cases, irrespective of whether they are SARE cases. Good faith is an abstract idea generalized from particular 19 circumstances and not a working assumption.” Id. 479 B.R. at 39–40. 20 479 B.R. at 39-40. See also Plaza Antillana, 2014 Bankr. LEXIS 634, 2014 WL 585299 21 (finding that movant established prima facie that debtor filed its bankruptcy petition in bad faith. “The desperate resort to filing for bankruptcy on the eve of a consented foreclosure, without 22 ongoing operations and inability to service the secured debt, is atypical conduct which constitutes 23 an abuse of the bankruptcy process.”); In re Rodriguez, 2022 Bankr. LEXIS 1341, 2022 WL 24 1308081 (Bankr. D.P.R. 2022) (finding cause pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) for filing a petition 25 in bad faith. No “unusual circumstances” were demonstrated). 26 27 1 This court's analysis of bad faith as a cause for dismissal of a bankruptcy petition was cited 2 with approval and applied by the U.S. Bankruptcy Appellate Panel for the First Circuit (the “Panel”) in La Trinidad Elderly LP SE, 627 B.R. 779 (1st Cir. BAP 2021). In pertinent part, the 3 Panel stated the following: 4

5 The issue of whether lack of good faith (“bad faith”) constitutes cause for dismissal is “unsettled,” and “debated.” The First Circuit “has expressly declined to decide” 6 the issue. Nonetheless, “[t]here is a well-developed body of case law that holds that chapter 11 petitions can be dismissed for lack of good faith.” Several courts of 7 appeals have determined that lack of good faith (or bad faith) in filing a chapter 11 petition constitutes “cause” to dismiss or convert a case under § 1112(b). In holding 8 that lack of good faith could constitute cause for dismissal, the Third Circuit 9 explained:

10 Four factors guide our adoption of a good faith standard—the permissive language of § 1112(b), viewed in light of its legislative history; the decisions 11 of our sister courts of appeals; the equitable nature of bankruptcy; and the 12 purposes underpinning Chapter 11.

13 The legislative history of the statute reflects that “[t]he court will be able to consider other factors as they arise, and to use its equitable powers to reach an appropriate 14 result in individual cases.”

15 “[T]he overwhelming majority of courts considering the issue agree that an implicit 16 good faith filing requirement exists under § 1112(b), and that a Chapter 11 case may be dismissed for cause if it was filed in bad faith.” “The equitable nature of 17 [the ‘for cause’] determination supports the construction that a debtor's lack of ‘good faith’ may constitute cause for the dismissal of a petition.” Most bankruptcy 18 courts and at least one district court within this circuit that have considered the issue in published opinions have also concluded that bad faith constitutes cause for 19 dismissal. The Panel has not yet addressed this issue in the chapter 11 context, 20 although it has previously ruled that lack of good faith is grounds for dismissal of a chapter 13 petition. 21 We are persuaded by the abundant, well-reasoned authority holding that lack of 22 good faith can constitute cause for dismissal of a chapter 11 petition under § 1112(b). Accordingly, the bankruptcy court below did not commit error when it so 23 ruled. 24 627 B.R. at 799-800 (citations omitted). 25 Here, Condado alleges that the Debtor filed its bankruptcy petition in bad faith. The 26 uncontested facts in this case, as alleged by Condado in the Motion to Dismiss and the Pre-Trial 27 Report, clearly show that the Debtor has filed sequential bankruptcy petitions in an effort to stall 1 || the foreclosure of the collateral securing the Loans owed to Condado. The latest attempt to furthe 2 || delay being the filing of the instant third petition. The forgoing is further supported by the Debtor’ 3 |Jown testimony and constitutes an abuse of the bankruptcy process. See June 15, 2023, Hearin 4 Transcript, Case No. 23-03681, Docket No. 47-22, p. 29, lines 16-25; p. 30, lines 1-13; p. 39, line 5 22-25; p. 40, lines 1-7. The court also notes that the Debtor declined to present evidence at th January 30, 2024, hearing. Thus, no “unusual circumstances” have-been demonstrated. ° Therefore, the court concludes that Condado has established prima facie that Debtor file its bankruptcy petition in bad faith, and finds that “cause” for dismissal under 11 U.S.C. § 8 1112(b)(1) exists for lack of good faith (or bad faith) in the filing of this bankruptcy petition. ? CONCLUSION 10 For the reasons stated herein, Condado’s Motion to Dismiss (Case No. 23-0368, Docke 11 || No. 47) is GRANTED. Consequently, the case is dismissed and the court need not decide whethe 12 || relief from stay is appropriate. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 22™ day of February 2024. 15

unitdd States Bankruptcy Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 -|4-