Recom LLC

CourtUnited States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah
DecidedApril 11, 2025
Docket24-23750
StatusUnknown

This text of Recom LLC (Recom LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Bankruptcy Court, D. Utah primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Recom LLC, (Utah 2025).

Opinion

This order is SIGNED.

Prepared and submitted by: George Hofmann (10005) COHNE KINGHORN, P.C. 111 East Broadway, 11' Floor Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Telephone: (801) 363-4300 Facsimile: (801) 363-4378

Attorneys for the Debtor

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH

In re: Bankruptcy No. 24-23750 (JTM) RECOM LLC, Chapter 11 Debtor. (Subchapter V)

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW REGARDING CONFIRMATION OF DEBTOR’S PLAN OF REORGANIZATION DATED FEBRUARY 21, 2025

The matter before the Court is the Debtor’s Plan of Reorganization dated February 21, 2025 [Docket No. 61] (the “Plan”), filed by Recom LLC, the debtor and debtor-in-possession in the above-captioned case (the “Debtor’). On April 10, 2025, the Court held a hearing on the confirmation of the Plan, at which counsel for the Debtor, counsel for the United States Trustee, and the SBRA Trustee appeared. Based upon the presentation and arguments set forth at the hearing, the

evidence set forth on the Docket in the Case, including the Declaration of Danny Hales in Support of Confirmation of Plan of Reorganization [Docket No. 71] (the “Hales Declaration”), the Ballot Tabulation Register [Docket No. 69] (the “Ballot Register”), and other papers filed concerning the Plan [e.g., Docket Nos. 65, 64, and 61], as well as the arguments raised by the Debtor in the Memorandum of Law in Support of Confirmation of Debtor’s Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization Dated February 21, 2025 [Docket No. 70] (the “Memorandum”), having inquired into the legal sufficiency of the evidence adduced, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby FINDS AND CONCLUDES1 as follows:

A. Exclusive Jurisdiction; Venue; Core Proceeding. This Court has jurisdiction over the Bankruptcy Case2 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. Confirmation of the Plan is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2), and this Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the Plan complies with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and should be confirmed. B. Judicial Notice. This Court takes judicial notice of the docket of the Bankruptcy Case maintained by the Bankruptcy Court, including, without limitation, all pleadings, papers and other documents filed, all orders entered, and the transcripts of, and all minute entries, all transcripts of hearings, and all of the evidence received and

arguments made at the hearings held before the Court during the pendency of the

1 Findings of fact shall be construed as conclusions of law and conclusions of law shall be construed as findings of fact when appropriate. See Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7052. Bankruptcy Case. C. Transmittal and Mailing of Materials; Notice. All due, adequate, and sufficient notices of the Plan, the Motion, and the deadlines for voting on and filing objections to the Plan, were given to all known holders of Claims and Interests in accordance with the Bankruptcy Rules and this Court’s Order Granting Debtor’s Ex Parte Motion to: (i) Approve Solicitation Procedures and Deadlines; (ii) Approve Forms of Ballots; and (iii) Establish Deadlines for Voting on and Objecting to Debtor’s Plan and Setting Hearing for Confirmation of Debtor’s Plan [Docket No. 64]. See Certificate of Service, Docket No. 66. The Plan and relevant ballots were transmitted and served in

substantial compliance with the Bankruptcy Rules upon Creditors entitled to vote on the Plan, and such transmittal and service were adequate and sufficient. Any modifications of and to the Plan, including any modifications made under the Confirmation Order, are immaterial in that they do not adversely change the treatment under the Plan of any creditor, and under Bankruptcy Rule 3019(a), the modifications are deemed accepted by all creditors who have previously accepted the Plan. No other or further notice of the Plan or Motion is or shall be required. D. Solicitation. The solicitation of votes for acceptance or rejection of the Plan complied with § 1126,3 Bankruptcy Rules 3017.2 and 3018, all other applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, and all other rules, laws, and regulations. Based on

the record before the Court in the Bankruptcy Case, the Debtor’s solicitation of votes on the Plan was proper and done in good faith.

3 Unless otherwise provided, all references to statutory sections in these Findings and Conclusions using the section symbol “§” are to the relevant sections of the Bankruptcy Code. E. Distribution. All procedures used to distribute the solicitation materials to the applicable holders of Claims and to tabulate the ballots were fair and conducted in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Rules, the local rules of the Bankruptcy Court, and all other rules, laws, and regulations. F. Acceptance of Plan. The Plan establishes three Classes of Claims and one Class of Equity Interests. Based on the Hales Declaration and the Ballot Register, no creditors in Class 1 or 3 submitted ballots or objected to the Plan. Accordingly, Classes 1 and 3 are deemed to have accepted the Plan under In re Ruti-Sweetwater, Inc., 836 F.2d 1263, 1267-68 (10th Cir. 1988) (presuming acceptance of class of

creditors that did not return a ballot and did not timely object to confirmation). Class 2 is impaired and were entitled to vote on the Plan. The holders of Claims in Classes 2 who returned Ballots unanimously voted to accept the Plan. Class 4 is unimpaired and, as such, automatically is presumed to accept the Plan. G. Plan Complies with Bankruptcy Code. The Plan, as supplemented and modified by the Confirmation Order, complies with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, thereby satisfying §§ 1129(a)(1) and 1191(a). i. Proper Classification. As required by § 1123(a)(1), Article 3 of the Plan properly designates classes of Claims and classifies only substantially similar Claims in the same classes pursuant to § 1122.

ii. Specify Unimpaired Classes. The Plan specifies Class 4 as unimpaired. All other classes of claims are impaired. iii. Specify Treatment of Impaired Classes. Classes 1 through 3 are designated as impaired under the Plan. Article 4 of the Plan specifies the treatment of the impaired Classes of Claims, thereby satisfying § 1123(a)(3). iv. No Discrimination. The Plan provides for the same treatment for each Claim or Interest in each respective Class, unless the holder(s) of a particular Claim(s) have agreed to less favorable treatment with respect to such Claim, thereby satisfying § 1123(a)(4). v. Implementation of Plan. The Plan provides adequate and proper means for its implementation, thereby satisfying § 1123(a)(5). Among other things,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Recom LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/recom-llc-utb-2025.