16026314
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MESCH CLARK ROTHSCHILD 259 North Meyer Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701 Phone: (520) 624-8886 Fax: (520) 798-1037 Email: [email protected] [email protected] By: Michael McGrath, #6019 Isaac D. Rothschild, #25726
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202-4432 Phone: (303) 223-1100 Fax: (303) 223-1111 Email:[email protected] By: Michael J. Pankow (Pro Hac Vice)
Attorneys for the Creditor Trustee
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
In re:
REGIONAL CARE SERVICES CORP., CASA GRANDE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL D/B/A CASA GRANDE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, REGIONAL CARE PHYSICIAN’S GROUP, INC., and CASA GRANDE REGIONAL RETIREMENT COMMUNITY,
Debtors.
Chapter 11 Proceedings Case Nos. 4:14-bk-01383-BMW 4:14-bk-01384-BMW 4:14-bk-01385-BMW 4:14-bk-01386-BMW (Joint Administration) MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER, PURSUANT TO §105(a) AND BANKRUPTCY RULE 9019, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH STEWART CLAIMANTS
This Filing Applies to:
All Debtors Specified Debtor(s)
Scott B. Davis, in his capacity as the trustee (in such capacity, the “Creditor
Trustee”) of the Regional Care Services Corp. Creditor Trust (the “Creditor Trust,”
successor-in-interest to the Debtors), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby
requests the entry of an order, pursuant to Section 105(a) of title 11 of the United
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 6
2 16026314
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) and Rule 9019 of the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”), authorizing and approving the
Settlement Agreement (as defined below) between Maria Stewart, individually and
on behalf of statutory beneficiaries Mary Stewart and Randy Stewart of decedent
Gerald Stewart (collectively, the “Claimants”) and the Creditor Trust (together with
the Claimants, the “Settling Parties”). In support of this motion, the Creditor Trustee
respectfully represents as follows:
I. JURISDICTION
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider and determine this
Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. This is a core proceeding pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 157(b). Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. The
predicates for the relief sought herein are §105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and
Bankruptcy Rule 9019.
II. FACTS
General Case Background
On February 4, 2014 (the “Petition Date”), each of the Debtors commenced
voluntary cases under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Debtors’ cases were
jointly administered pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1015(b) under Case No. 14-bk-
01383-BMW.
The Court has entered an order (Dkt. No. 416) confirming the Second
Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization Dated March 28, 2014 (Dkt. No.
294, as confirmed, the “Plan”). As contemplated by the Plan, the Court also
approved the Declaration of Trust of Scott B. Davis, in his capacity as creditor
trustee of the Regional Care Services Corp. Creditor Trust (the “Trust Agreement”).
Section 7.02 of the Plan provides that “[a]fter the Effective Date, the Creditor
Trustee may settle any Disputed Claim where the proposed Allowed Claim is to be
less than $25,000 without notice and a hearing and without an order of the
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Main Document Page 2 of 6
3 16026314
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Bankruptcy Court. All other settlements shall be subject to notice and a hearing
pursuant to §102(1) of the Bankruptcy Code and a Final Order of the Bankruptcy
Court approving the settlement.”
Similarly, Section 3.1(d) of the Trust Agreement grants the Creditor Trustee
full right, power and discretion to “…review, object to, prosecute, compromise,
settle, discontinue, abandon, dismiss, or otherwise resolve Claims or Objections to
Claims and litigation related thereto, and to do so without notice and a hearing and
without order of the Bankruptcy Court where the proposed settlement amount or
Allowed Claim is less than $25,000.” Any proposed settlement which is $25,000 or
greater requires this Court’s approval.
The Stewart Litigation
Prior to the Petition Date, the Claimants filed a Complaint (the “Action”)
against Casa Grande Community Hospital d/b/a Casa Grande Regional Medical
Center (“CGRMC”) in the Maricopa County Superior Court, Case No. CV2013-
007806. The Action arose out of certain alleged negligent acts or omissions by
CGRMC in connection with an alleged incident involving Claimants’ decedent on
June 29, 2011.
Following arms-length negotiation conducted under the auspices of mediation,
the Settling Parties entered into that certain Settlement Agreement and Release (the
“Settlement Agreement”), which, if approved by the Court, will resolve the disputes
between the Settling Parties. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
III. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
Subject to this Court’s approval, the Settling Parties have agreed to settle
Claimants’ claim against CGRMC based on the Claimants receiving an immediate
payment of $750,000 (the “Settlement Amount”). The Settlement Amount would be
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Main Document Page 3 of 6
4 16026314
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
within the amount reserved1 for this claim.
In exchange for receipt of the Settlement Amount, the Claimants will provide,
inter alia: (a) a general release and discharge in favor of CGRMC; and (b) a
Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice of the Action.
IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
The Creditor Trustee requests that the Court approve the Settlement
Agreement and authorize and direct the Creditor Trustee to pay the Settlement
Amount to Claimants, subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in full and
final satisfaction of all claims asserted by Claimants in Debtors’ bankruptcy cases.
V. BASIS FOR RELIEF
Compromises are favored by bankruptcy courts. See In re Sassalos, 160 B.R.
646, 653 (D. Or. 1993) (stating that “compromises are favored in bankruptcy, and the
decision of the bankruptcy judge to approve or disapprove a compromise . . . rests in
the sound discretion of the judge.”); Martin v. Kane (In re A&C Props.), 784 F.2d
1377, 1380-81 (9th Cir. 1986). Under Bankruptcy Rule 9019(a), the Court has the
authority to approve a settlement if it is fair and equitable and in the best interests of
the estate. See, e.g., Protective Comm. for Indep. Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry,
Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. at 424. The central factor for evaluating proposed
settlements is “the need to compare the terms of the compromise with the likely
rewards of litigation.” Id. at 425.
Courts within this circuit have utilized the following factors to determine the
reasonableness of settlements: (i) the probability of success in the litigation; (ii) the
difficulties, if any, to be encountered in the matter of collection; (iii) the complexity
of the litigation involved, and the expense, inconvenience and delay necessarily
attending it; (d) the paramount interest of the creditors and a proper deference to their
1 In accordance with the terms of the Plan and the Trust Agreement, the Creditor Trustee has established a reserve for this claim equal to the deductible under the Debtors’ applicable insurance policy.
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Main Document Page 4 of 6
5 16026314
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
reasonable views of the premises. In re Woodson, 839 F.2d 610, 620 (9th Cir. 1988);
In re Clark, 2012 WL 12261414, *4 (Bankr. D. Ariz. April 24, 2012) (“If the
settlement does not fall below the threshold of reasonableness, the court should
approve the settlement.”)(citations omitted).
As to the probability of success in the litigation, the Creditor Trustee believes
he has adequate defenses in the Action, but acknowledges the risk inherent in all
litigation. The Claimants assert damages claims in the millions of dollars, and there
is no guarantee that the Creditor Trustee would successfully defeat such claims if the
Action were litigated. As such, the Creditor Trustee concluded that there was merit
to a negotiated resolution of the Action. The proposed Settlement Amount is the
product of arms’-length negotiations and represents a reasonable resolution of the
dispute. A successful outcome is less certain (and less immediate) than the proposed
settlement.
The second factor, difficulties of collection, is inapplicable here because
CGRMC is the defendant in this litigation.
The third set of factors strongly favors settlement. Among other things, the
Settling Parties would be required to engage in substantial pretrial preparations,
including Motions in Limine, designation of deposition testimony, and the creation
of substantial numbers of trial exhibits. Even so, there is always a risk that the trial
setting would be continued due to congestion of court calendars, resulting in the a
requirement of repeated trial preparation costs. All of the above would be expensive
and cause both inconvenience and delay to the ultimate resolution of this matter.
The fourth factor, the paramount interest of the creditors, is key to the
proposed settlement. The Creditor Trustee believes the proposed settlement is fair
and equitable and falls within the range of reasonableness. The proposed settlement
would provide CGRMC’s bankruptcy estate the benefit of a prompt resolution
without the necessity, risk, or costs of protracted litigation and, possibly, appeal.
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Main Document Page 5 of 6
6 16026314
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Among other things, settlement resolves a legal issue that likely would have been the
subject of appeal after trial, resulting in additional expense and delay in
administration of the Creditor Trust.
Additionally, it should be noted the settlement involves a single lump-sum
payment. The certainty of a lump sum payment facilitated negotiations and avoids
the need for a follow-on distribution had an Allowed Claim amount been grossed up
to allow an initial payment consistent with the negotiated settlement.
Accordingly, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019, the proposed settlement
should be approved.
WHEREFORE, the Creditor Trustee respectfully requests that the Court enter
an Order substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, approving the
Settlement Agreement, authorizing and directing the Creditor Trustee to pay the
Settlement Amount to Claimants, subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
in full and final satisfaction of all claims asserted by Claimants in Debtors’
bankruptcy cases, and granting the Creditor Trustee such other relief as may be just
or proper.
Dated: November 3, 2017.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
Michael J. Pankow
-AND-
MESCH CLARK ROTHSCHILD
By: /s/Isaac D. Rothschild, #25726 Michael McGrath Isaac D. Rothschild
Attorneys for the Creditor Trustee
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Main Document Page 6 of 6
Exhibit A
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 1 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 2 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 3 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 4 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 5 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 6 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 7 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 8 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 9 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 10 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 11 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 12 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 13 of 13
Exhibit B
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-2 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit B Page 1 of 3
1 16027451
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
In re:
REGIONAL CARE SERVICES CORP., CASA GRANDE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL D/B/A CASA GRANDE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, REGIONAL CARE PHYSICIAN’S GROUP, INC., and CASA GRANDE REGIONAL RETIREMENT COMMUNITY,
Debtors.
Chapter 11 Proceedings Case Nos. 4:14-bk-01383-BMW 4:14-bk-01384-BMW 4:14-bk-01385-BMW 4:14-bk-01386-BMW (Joint Administration) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER, PURSUANT TO §105(a) AND BANKRUPTCY RULE 9019, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH STEWART CLAIMANTS
This Filing Applies to:
All Debtors Specified Debtor(s)
The Court having considered the Motion for Entry of an Order, Pursuant to
§ 105(a) and Bankruptcy Rule 9019, Authorizing and Approving the Settlement
Agreement with Stewart Claimants (the “Motion”) filed by Scott B. Davis, in his
capacity as the trustee (in such capacity, the “Creditor Trustee”) of the Regional Care
Services Corp. Creditor Trust (the “Creditor Trust,” successor-in-interest to the
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-2 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit B Page 2 of 3
2 16027451
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Debtors); proper notice with an opportunity to object having been given; there being
no objections to the Motion; and good cause appearing;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Motion is GRANTED;
2. The Settlement Agreement and Release between Maria Stewart,
individually and on behalf of statutory beneficiaries Mary Stewart and
Randy Stewart of decedent Gerald Stewart and the Creditor Trust is
approved in its entirety and the Creditor Trustee is authorized to take
such actions as are necessary to effectuate the terms thereof.
DATED AND SIGNED ABOVE.
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-2 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit B Page 3 of 3
16026314
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MESCH CLARK ROTHSCHILD 259 North Meyer Avenue Tucson, Arizona 85701 Phone: (520) 624-8886 Fax: (520) 798-1037 Email: [email protected] [email protected] By: Michael McGrath, #6019 Isaac D. Rothschild, #25726
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 410 Seventeenth Street, Suite 2200 Denver, CO 80202-4432 Phone: (303) 223-1100 Fax: (303) 223-1111 Email:[email protected] By: Michael J. Pankow (Pro Hac Vice)
Attorneys for the Creditor Trustee
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
In re:
REGIONAL CARE SERVICES CORP., CASA GRANDE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL D/B/A CASA GRANDE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, REGIONAL CARE PHYSICIAN’S GROUP, INC., and CASA GRANDE REGIONAL RETIREMENT COMMUNITY,
Debtors.
Chapter 11 Proceedings Case Nos. 4:14-bk-01383-BMW 4:14-bk-01384-BMW 4:14-bk-01385-BMW 4:14-bk-01386-BMW (Joint Administration) MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER, PURSUANT TO §105(a) AND BANKRUPTCY RULE 9019, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH STEWART CLAIMANTS
This Filing Applies to:
All Debtors Specified Debtor(s)
Scott B. Davis, in his capacity as the trustee (in such capacity, the “Creditor
Trustee”) of the Regional Care Services Corp. Creditor Trust (the “Creditor Trust,”
successor-in-interest to the Debtors), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby
requests the entry of an order, pursuant to Section 105(a) of title 11 of the United
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 6
2 16026314
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”) and Rule 9019 of the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”), authorizing and approving the
Settlement Agreement (as defined below) between Maria Stewart, individually and
on behalf of statutory beneficiaries Mary Stewart and Randy Stewart of decedent
Gerald Stewart (collectively, the “Claimants”) and the Creditor Trust (together with
the Claimants, the “Settling Parties”). In support of this motion, the Creditor Trustee
respectfully represents as follows:
I. JURISDICTION
The Court has subject matter jurisdiction to consider and determine this
Motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. This is a core proceeding pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 157(b). Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. The
predicates for the relief sought herein are §105(a) of the Bankruptcy Code and
Bankruptcy Rule 9019.
II. FACTS
General Case Background
On February 4, 2014 (the “Petition Date”), each of the Debtors commenced
voluntary cases under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Debtors’ cases were
jointly administered pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1015(b) under Case No. 14-bk-
01383-BMW.
The Court has entered an order (Dkt. No. 416) confirming the Second
Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization Dated March 28, 2014 (Dkt. No.
294, as confirmed, the “Plan”). As contemplated by the Plan, the Court also
approved the Declaration of Trust of Scott B. Davis, in his capacity as creditor
trustee of the Regional Care Services Corp. Creditor Trust (the “Trust Agreement”).
Section 7.02 of the Plan provides that “[a]fter the Effective Date, the Creditor
Trustee may settle any Disputed Claim where the proposed Allowed Claim is to be
less than $25,000 without notice and a hearing and without an order of the
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Main Document Page 2 of 6
3 16026314
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Bankruptcy Court. All other settlements shall be subject to notice and a hearing
pursuant to §102(1) of the Bankruptcy Code and a Final Order of the Bankruptcy
Court approving the settlement.”
Similarly, Section 3.1(d) of the Trust Agreement grants the Creditor Trustee
full right, power and discretion to “…review, object to, prosecute, compromise,
settle, discontinue, abandon, dismiss, or otherwise resolve Claims or Objections to
Claims and litigation related thereto, and to do so without notice and a hearing and
without order of the Bankruptcy Court where the proposed settlement amount or
Allowed Claim is less than $25,000.” Any proposed settlement which is $25,000 or
greater requires this Court’s approval.
The Stewart Litigation
Prior to the Petition Date, the Claimants filed a Complaint (the “Action”)
against Casa Grande Community Hospital d/b/a Casa Grande Regional Medical
Center (“CGRMC”) in the Maricopa County Superior Court, Case No. CV2013-
007806. The Action arose out of certain alleged negligent acts or omissions by
CGRMC in connection with an alleged incident involving Claimants’ decedent on
June 29, 2011.
Following arms-length negotiation conducted under the auspices of mediation,
the Settling Parties entered into that certain Settlement Agreement and Release (the
“Settlement Agreement”), which, if approved by the Court, will resolve the disputes
between the Settling Parties. A copy of the Settlement Agreement is attached hereto
as Exhibit A.
III. SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT
Subject to this Court’s approval, the Settling Parties have agreed to settle
Claimants’ claim against CGRMC based on the Claimants receiving an immediate
payment of $750,000 (the “Settlement Amount”). The Settlement Amount would be
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Main Document Page 3 of 6
4 16026314
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
within the amount reserved1 for this claim.
In exchange for receipt of the Settlement Amount, the Claimants will provide,
inter alia: (a) a general release and discharge in favor of CGRMC; and (b) a
Stipulation for Dismissal with Prejudice of the Action.
IV. RELIEF REQUESTED
The Creditor Trustee requests that the Court approve the Settlement
Agreement and authorize and direct the Creditor Trustee to pay the Settlement
Amount to Claimants, subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, in full and
final satisfaction of all claims asserted by Claimants in Debtors’ bankruptcy cases.
V. BASIS FOR RELIEF
Compromises are favored by bankruptcy courts. See In re Sassalos, 160 B.R.
646, 653 (D. Or. 1993) (stating that “compromises are favored in bankruptcy, and the
decision of the bankruptcy judge to approve or disapprove a compromise . . . rests in
the sound discretion of the judge.”); Martin v. Kane (In re A&C Props.), 784 F.2d
1377, 1380-81 (9th Cir. 1986). Under Bankruptcy Rule 9019(a), the Court has the
authority to approve a settlement if it is fair and equitable and in the best interests of
the estate. See, e.g., Protective Comm. for Indep. Stockholders of TMT Trailer Ferry,
Inc. v. Anderson, 390 U.S. at 424. The central factor for evaluating proposed
settlements is “the need to compare the terms of the compromise with the likely
rewards of litigation.” Id. at 425.
Courts within this circuit have utilized the following factors to determine the
reasonableness of settlements: (i) the probability of success in the litigation; (ii) the
difficulties, if any, to be encountered in the matter of collection; (iii) the complexity
of the litigation involved, and the expense, inconvenience and delay necessarily
attending it; (d) the paramount interest of the creditors and a proper deference to their
1 In accordance with the terms of the Plan and the Trust Agreement, the Creditor Trustee has established a reserve for this claim equal to the deductible under the Debtors’ applicable insurance policy.
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Main Document Page 4 of 6
5 16026314
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
reasonable views of the premises. In re Woodson, 839 F.2d 610, 620 (9th Cir. 1988);
In re Clark, 2012 WL 12261414, *4 (Bankr. D. Ariz. April 24, 2012) (“If the
settlement does not fall below the threshold of reasonableness, the court should
approve the settlement.”)(citations omitted).
As to the probability of success in the litigation, the Creditor Trustee believes
he has adequate defenses in the Action, but acknowledges the risk inherent in all
litigation. The Claimants assert damages claims in the millions of dollars, and there
is no guarantee that the Creditor Trustee would successfully defeat such claims if the
Action were litigated. As such, the Creditor Trustee concluded that there was merit
to a negotiated resolution of the Action. The proposed Settlement Amount is the
product of arms’-length negotiations and represents a reasonable resolution of the
dispute. A successful outcome is less certain (and less immediate) than the proposed
settlement.
The second factor, difficulties of collection, is inapplicable here because
CGRMC is the defendant in this litigation.
The third set of factors strongly favors settlement. Among other things, the
Settling Parties would be required to engage in substantial pretrial preparations,
including Motions in Limine, designation of deposition testimony, and the creation
of substantial numbers of trial exhibits. Even so, there is always a risk that the trial
setting would be continued due to congestion of court calendars, resulting in the a
requirement of repeated trial preparation costs. All of the above would be expensive
and cause both inconvenience and delay to the ultimate resolution of this matter.
The fourth factor, the paramount interest of the creditors, is key to the
proposed settlement. The Creditor Trustee believes the proposed settlement is fair
and equitable and falls within the range of reasonableness. The proposed settlement
would provide CGRMC’s bankruptcy estate the benefit of a prompt resolution
without the necessity, risk, or costs of protracted litigation and, possibly, appeal.
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Main Document Page 5 of 6
6 16026314
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Among other things, settlement resolves a legal issue that likely would have been the
subject of appeal after trial, resulting in additional expense and delay in
administration of the Creditor Trust.
Additionally, it should be noted the settlement involves a single lump-sum
payment. The certainty of a lump sum payment facilitated negotiations and avoids
the need for a follow-on distribution had an Allowed Claim amount been grossed up
to allow an initial payment consistent with the negotiated settlement.
Accordingly, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019, the proposed settlement
should be approved.
WHEREFORE, the Creditor Trustee respectfully requests that the Court enter
an Order substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit B, approving the
Settlement Agreement, authorizing and directing the Creditor Trustee to pay the
Settlement Amount to Claimants, subject to the terms of the Settlement Agreement,
in full and final satisfaction of all claims asserted by Claimants in Debtors’
bankruptcy cases, and granting the Creditor Trustee such other relief as may be just
or proper.
Dated: November 3, 2017.
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP
Michael J. Pankow
-AND-
MESCH CLARK ROTHSCHILD
By: /s/Isaac D. Rothschild, #25726 Michael McGrath Isaac D. Rothschild
Attorneys for the Creditor Trustee
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Main Document Page 6 of 6
Exhibit A
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 1 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 2 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 3 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 4 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 5 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 6 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 7 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 8 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 9 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 10 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 11 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 12 of 13
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-1 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit A Page 13 of 13
Exhibit B
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-2 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit B Page 1 of 3
1 16027451
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
In re:
REGIONAL CARE SERVICES CORP., CASA GRANDE COMMUNITY HOSPITAL D/B/A CASA GRANDE REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, REGIONAL CARE PHYSICIAN’S GROUP, INC., and CASA GRANDE REGIONAL RETIREMENT COMMUNITY,
Debtors.
Chapter 11 Proceedings Case Nos. 4:14-bk-01383-BMW 4:14-bk-01384-BMW 4:14-bk-01385-BMW 4:14-bk-01386-BMW (Joint Administration) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER, PURSUANT TO §105(a) AND BANKRUPTCY RULE 9019, AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH STEWART CLAIMANTS
This Filing Applies to:
All Debtors Specified Debtor(s)
The Court having considered the Motion for Entry of an Order, Pursuant to
§ 105(a) and Bankruptcy Rule 9019, Authorizing and Approving the Settlement
Agreement with Stewart Claimants (the “Motion”) filed by Scott B. Davis, in his
capacity as the trustee (in such capacity, the “Creditor Trustee”) of the Regional Care
Services Corp. Creditor Trust (the “Creditor Trust,” successor-in-interest to the
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-2 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit B Page 2 of 3
2 16027451
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Debtors); proper notice with an opportunity to object having been given; there being
no objections to the Motion; and good cause appearing;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Motion is GRANTED;
2. The Settlement Agreement and Release between Maria Stewart,
individually and on behalf of statutory beneficiaries Mary Stewart and
Randy Stewart of decedent Gerald Stewart and the Creditor Trust is
approved in its entirety and the Creditor Trustee is authorized to take
such actions as are necessary to effectuate the terms thereof.
DATED AND SIGNED ABOVE.
Case 4:14-bk-01383-BMW Doc 689-2 Filed 11/03/17 Entered 11/03/17 09:50:49 Desc Exhibit B Page 3 of 3