Regions Bank v. Gator Equipment Rentals, LLC et al, No. 2:2015cv05084 - Document 50 (E.D. La. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER AND REASONS granting 30 Motion for Summary Judgment as to the validity and enforceability of the various agreements, and to defendants' status in default. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Regions submit within ten (10) days of entry of this order a brief on whether Gator Equipment's debt should be reduced by approximately $55,000.. Signed by Judge Sarah S. Vance on 8/22/16. (jjs)

Download PDF
Regions Bank v. Gator Equipment Rentals, LLC et al Doc. 50 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA REGIONS BANK CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 15-50 84 GATOR EQUIPMENT RENTALS, LLC, ET AL. SECTION “R” (5) ORD ER AN D REASON S Plaintiff Regions Bank m oves for sum m ary judgment against defendants for am ounts due under three prom issory notes executed by Gator Equipm ent Rentals, LLC, and for a judgm ent recognizing the validity of various guaranties, m ortgages, security interests, and assignm ents executed in favor of Regions Bank to guarantee Gator Equipm ent’s debt. 1 Because there is no question of m aterial fact that Gator Equipm ent is in default and that Regions holds valid notes and security interests, the Court grants the m otion for sum m ary judgment. 1 R. Doc. 30 . Dockets.Justia.com I. BACKGROU N D Regions extended several com m ercial loans to Gator Equipm ent, LLC, which were secured by itself and defendants Gator Equipm ent Rentals of Fourchon, LLC; Gator Crane Service, LLC; and Gator Equipm ent Rentals of Iberia, LLC, and by individual defendants Lovencie J ohn Gam barella, Betty Rae Gambarella, 2 Norm an J . Schieffler, J r., Misty Lynn Schieffler, J oey Don Pierce, and Shanna Guidry Pierce. 3 Specifically, on Septem ber 9, Regions and Gator Equipment executed a Business Loan Agreement, which contem plated an ongoing financing relationship between the parties. The Business Loan Agreement provided that all com m ercial loans issued by Regions to Gator Equipm ent “shall be and rem ain subject to the term s and conditions of this Agreement.”4 Am ong these conditions was that Gator Equipm ent “[n]ot perm it its ratio of EBITDAR to Interest Expense and prior period Current Maturities of Long Term Debt plus Rent and Lease Expenses for such fiscal year to be at any tim e less than 1.25 tim es, to be measured annually.”5 The Business Loan 2 On or about February 25, 20 16, after litigation began, Betty Rae Gam barella passed away. R. Doc. 39-1 at 2. On August 11, 20 16, J oey Don Pierce, the Independent Adm inistrator for Betty Rae Gam barella was properly substituted for Gambarella as a defendant. R. Doc. 49. 3 R. Doc 1 at 4. 4 R. Doc. 30 -3 at 1. 5 Id. at 2. 2 Agreement also specified several events of default, including failing to m ake any payment when due under the Loan, and failing to com ply with or to perform any other term, obligation, covenant, or condition contained in the Agreement. 6 The Agreem ent also contained an acceleration clause, which gave Regions the option to declare all of Gator Equipm ent’s indebtedness im m ediately due and payable if Gator defaulted and entitled Regions to all the rights and remedies provided in the “Related Documents.”7 According to the Business Loan Agreem ent, “Related Docum ents” include, am ong other things, all prom issory notes, guaranties, security interests, and m ortgages related to loans issued by Regions to Gator Equipm ent. 8 Regions and Gator Equipm ent executed three prom issory notes subject to the Business Loan Agreem ent. The first was executed on December 23, 20 11 in the principal am ount of $ 395,874.53. 9 Gator Equipm ent agreed to pay the principal and interest due on this note in 60 consecutive m onthly installm ents, with the first payment due on J anuary 23, 20 12. 10 The second and third prom issory notes were both executed on 6 7 8 9 10 Id. at 3. Id. Id. at 6. Id. at 10 . Id. 3 November 5, 20 13. The larger note was in the principal am ount of $ 3,621,350 .71, while the sm aller note was in the principal am ount of $ 50 0 ,0 0 0 . 11 The first installm ents for both notes were due on December 5, 20 13. 12 In connection with the Business Loan Agreement and prom issory notes, the defendants executed security agreements, guaranties, m ortgages, and assignments to secure Gator Equipm ent’s indebtedness. These docum ents include, am ong other things: • • • Three security agreem ents executed by Gator Equipm ent, which, as m odified in December 20 14, granted Regions a continuing security interest in all of Gator Equipm ent’s inventory, accounts, equipment, general intangibles and fixtures, inventory and other tangible property; 13 A “Multiple Indebtedness Mortgage” executed by Gator Equipm ent, which granted Regions a m ortgage on Gator Equipm ent’s com m ercial property; 14 Num erous “Com mercial Guarant[ies],” in which various defendants guaranteed payment of Gator Equipm ent’s present and future debts to Regions; 15 11 Id. at 12. Id. at 7, 12. 13 Id. at 15-32 (Gator Equipm ent’s security agreements); id. at 3356 (“Waiver and First Am endment to Com m ercial Security Agreem ents”). 14 Id. at 57-74. 15 Id. at 75-10 1; R. Doc. 30 -4 at 1-17. 4 12 • • Several “Multiple Indebtedness Mortgages,” executed by the individual defendants, granting Regions m ortgages on their residential properties to secure Gator Equipm ent’s debts; 16 and Two “Assignment[s] of Life Insurance as Collateral,” executed by defendants Norm an Schieffler and Pierce assigning their life insurance policies to Regions as security for Gator Equipm ent’s present and future indebtedness. 17 At som e point, Regions’ loans to Gator Equipm ent were backed by an additional guarantor, the United States Sm all Business Adm inistration (“SBA”). It is undisputed, however, that the loans are no longer subject to an SBA guarantee. 18 A. Th e Litigatio n On October 10 , 20 15, Regions filed this lawsuit, seeking both collection of unpaid sum s and a judgm ent recognizing the validity and enforceability of the security agreements, guaranties, m ortgages, and assignm ents created by the various loan docum ents. 19 On February 8, 20 16, Regions filed this m otion for sum mary judgment. Regions subm its evidence that Gator Equipm ent has been unable to satisfy its debts since August 20 15. In support, Regions subm its the affidavit of its Vice President, Thomas 16 R. Doc. 30 -4 at 18-34 (Gam barella’s m ortgage); id. at 35-51 (Schieffler’s m ortgage); id. at 52-69 (Pierce’s m ortgage). 17 Id. at 69-70 (Schieffler’s assignment); id. at 71-72 (Pierce’s assignment). 18 See R. Doc. 32-11 at 12; R. Doc. 33 at 10 . 19 R. Doc. 1. 5 Bacarella, who attests that Gator Equipm ent defaulted under the Business Loan Agreem ent by failing to pay the m onthly installm ents due under each of the three prom issory notes in August 20 15 and each payment due since that date. 20 Bacarella also avers that Gator Equipm ent defaulted by failing to satisfy the Business Loan Agreem ent’s debt service coverage ratio provision based upon its December 20 14 financial statem ents, 21 and by selling collateral without delivering the proceeds to Regions to be applied to the outstanding amounts due. 22 The record reflects that Regions notified Gator Equipment and its guarantors that the loans were in default and that it was accelerating all sum s due under the prom issory notes by letter dated Septem ber 14, 20 15. 23 Regions demanded payment of all principal, accrued interest, late charges, and other fees by September 21, 20 15. 24 According to Bacarella, Gator Equipm ent and its guarantors failed to m ake payment by the stated deadline. 25 Bacarella attests that the total balance due under the loan docum ents is $ 4,220 ,590 .72, plus interest that continues to accrue after 20 R. Doc. 30 -5 at 3 & 8 (Regions’ Statement of Undisputed Material Facts). 21 22 23 24 25 Id. at 3 & 9. Id. at 3 & 10 . R. Doc. 30 -4 at 73-79 (September 14, 20 15 default letter). Id. at 78. R. Doc. 30 -5 at 5 & 18 (Regions’ Statement of Uncontested Facts). 6 February 6, 20 16, and all fees, expenses, attorneys’ fees and costs that arise under the loan docum ents that have accrued as of February 5, 20 16 and that continue to accrue thereafter. 26 In addition, Regions submits copies of the various loan agreem ents signed by the parties. 27 II. LEGAL STAN D ARD Sum m ary judgment is warranted when “the m ovant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the m ovant is entitled to judgm ent as a m atter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322– 23 (1986); Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 10 69, 10 75 (5th Cir. 1994). When assessing whether a dispute as to any m aterial fact exists, the Court considers “all of the evidence in the record but refrain[s] from m aking credibility determ inations or weighing the evidence.” Delta & Pine Land Co. v. Nationw ide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398– 99 (5th Cir. 20 0 8). All reasonable inferences are drawn in favor of the nonm oving party, but “unsupported allegations or affidavits setting forth ultim ate or conclusory facts and conclusions of law are insufficient to either support or defeat a m otion for sum mary judgment.” 26 27 R. Doc. 30 -1 at 15-16. See generally R. Doc. 30 -3; R.Doc. 30 -4. 7 Galindo v. Precision Am . Corp., 754 F.2d 1212, 1216 (5th Cir. 1985); see also Little, 37 F.3d at 10 75. If the dispositive issue is one on which the m ovant will bear the burden of proof at trial, the m ovant “must com e forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if the evidence went uncontroverted at trial.” Int'l Shortstop, Inc. v. Rally 's, Inc., 939 F.2d 1257, 1264– 65 (5th Cir. 1991). The nonm oving party can then defeat the m otion by either countering with evidence sufficient to dem onstrate the existence of a genuine dispute of m aterial fact, or “showing that the m oving party's evidence is so sheer that it m ay not persuade the reasonable fact-finder to return a verdict in favor of the m oving party.” Id. at 1265. If the dispositive issue is one on which the nonm oving party will bear the burden of proof at trial, the m oving party m ay satisfy its burden by m erely pointing out that the evidence in the record is insufficient with respect to an essential elem ent of the nonm oving party’s claim . See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325. The burden then shifts to the nonm oving party, who m ust, by submitting or referring to evidence, set out specific facts showing that a genuine issue exists. See id. at 324. The nonm ovant m ay not rest upon the pleadings, but m ust identify specific facts that establish a genuine issue for trial. See, e.g., id.; Little, 37 F.3d at 10 75 (“Rule 56 8 m andates the entry of sum m ary judgment, after adequate tim e for discovery and upon m otion, against a party who fails to m ake a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” (quoting Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322)). In nonjury cases, such as this one, 28 where the judge is the ultim ate finder of fact, the Fifth Circuit suggests that a “m ore lenient standard for sum m ary judgment” is appropriate. U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. Planters Bank & Trust Co., 77 F.3d 863, 865 (5th Cir. 1996). Specifically, at the sum m ary judgm ent stage of a bench trial, the judge m ay have “the lim ited discretion to decide that the sam e evidence, presented to him or her as trier of fact in a plenary trial, could not possibly lead to a different result.” Id. at 866. That is, “if there are no issues of witness credibility, the court may conclude on the basis of the affidavits, depositions, and stipulations before it, that there are no genuine issues of m aterial fact, even though decision m ay depend on inferences to be drawn from what has been incontrovertibly proved.” Id. Thus, “if a trial on the m erits will not enhance the court’s ability to draw inferences and conclusions,” then the court should draw those inferences 28 R. Doc. 31 at 3 (February 18, 20 16 Scheduling Order noting that “[t]rial will com m ence . . . before the District J udge without a jury”). 9 “without resort to the expense of trial.” In re Placid Oil Co., 932 F. 2d 394, 398 (5th Cir. 1991). III. D ISCU SSION To recover on a prom issory note, the plaintiff m ust show that “1) the debtor signed it, 2) the plaintiff is the present holder of the note, and 3) the note is in default.” LSREF2 Baron, LLC v. Lindsey , No. 13-2910 , 20 14 WL 2158489, at *4 (W.D. La. May 22, 20 14) (citing United States v. Law rence, 276 F.3d 193, 197 (5th Cir. 20 0 1). The Bacarella affidavit establishes that Regions is the holder of the prom issory notes and the exhibits to the affidavit include the Business Loan Agreement and copies of all the various agreements entered into and signed by the parties. The Business Loan Agreement m akes clear that any failure to m ake tim ely paym ents under any of the three prom issory notes constitutes a default. 29 The Bacarella affidavit additionally attests that neither Gator Equipm ent nor any of its guarantors have m ade any paym ents due under the Business Loan Agreem ent since August 20 15. 30 29 Therefore, under the plain term s of the Business Loan R. Doc. 30 -3 at 3. R. Doc. 30 -2 at 6 & 7. Defendants subm it evidence that they have m ade a payment of approxim ately $ 55,0 0 0 to Regions, though it is not clear when this payment was made. R. Doc. 37-1 at 2-3. This payment is addressed below. 10 30 Agreement, Gator Equipm ent has defaulted, and the individual defendants are liable due to their position as Gator Equipm ent’s guarantors. Defendants have put forward no evidence to suggest that they are not in default of the Business Loan Agreem ent. Indeed, defendants have raised no genuine dispute relating to the validity of the notes, guarantees, security agreements and various loan agreements; to Region’s status as the owner and holder of the notes and various loan agreem ents; or to defendants’ defaults on the various loan agreem ents. Instead, defendants assert arguments that focus on the SBA’s decision to discontinue its guarantee, which this Court rejected in a previous order. 31 These argum ents, as well as the additional technical argum ents m ade by defendants will be addressed in turn. 32 A. Th e SBA’s W ith d raw al o f its Gu aran te e Defendants again argue that Regions m ay have been responsible for the SBA’s decision to discontinue its guarantee and that this “culpability” 31 Regions Bank v. Gator Equipm ent Rentals, LLC, et al, No. 1550 84 (E.D. La. J uly 1, 20 16) (Order denying defendants’ Rule 56(d) m otion). 32 Defendant J oey Don Pierce, in his capacity as the Adm inistrator for Betty Rae Gambarella’s estate, filed a separate opposition to Regions’ m otion for sum m ary judgment. R. Doc. 39. The only ground for opposition was that Betty Rae Gam barella had since passed away and that Regions had yet to substitute her Adm inistrator as a proper party. As J oey Don Pierce was substituted for Betty Rae Gam barella on August 11, 20 16, this argument is now m oot. 11 could reduce or elim inate the defendants’ liability to Regions for Gator Equipm ent’s indebtedness. 33 Defendants also renew their argument that depending on the tim ing of the SBA’s withdrawal, certain late fees and prepayment fees m ay be contrary to SBA regulations and are therefore invalid, or, that in the very least, there rem ains a genuine factual dispute over the validity of the fees. 34 As these argum ents have already been rejected in detail by this Court, this order will deal with them in an abbreviated m anner. 35 As before, defendants’ argument that SBA’s withdrawal of its guarantee affects defendants’ liability to Regions m isunderstands SBA’s loan guarantee program. Section 7(a) of the Sm all Business Act authorizes the SBA to finance qualified sm all businesses. See 15 U.S.C. ' 636(a) (authorizing general business program loans). Section 7(a) loans come in three forms: (1) a direct loan by the SBA; (2) an im m ediate participation loan by a lender and the SBA; or (3) a guaranteed or deferred participation loan. 13 C.F.R. ' 120 .2(a). Unlike other loans, guaranteed loans do not involve the SBA’s loaning m oney directly to the sm all business. Instead, the SBA guarantees a portion of a loan issued by a private lender--in this case, 33 34 35 R. Doc. 37-6 at 7-9. Id. at 10 -11. See R. Doc. 34 at 14-22 for this Court’s reasoning. 12 Regions. If the sm all business borrower defaults, then upon the lender's dem and, the SBA is required to purchase the guaranteed portion of the loan from the lender. 13 C.F.R. ' 120 .520 (a)(1). The SBA then stands in the lender's shoes, and it m ay pursue the borrower and any pledged collateral for the outstanding balance. Rooster's Grill, Inc. v. Peoples Bank, 965 F. Supp. 2d 770 , 774 (S.D. Miss. 20 13). The SBA does not, however, insure the borrower against the risks associated with com m ercial loans. Id. Therefore, the SBA’s loan guarantee program is m eant to protect lenders from the risk of default, not to indem nify borrow ers. That Regions once enjoyed governmental protection against the risk of default in the form of an SBA guarantee has no bearing on Gator Equipm ent's duty to pay am ounts due under the prom issory notes. Nor does it affect the guarantees, security agreem ents, m ortgages, and assignm ents that the defendants executed in favor of Regions as security for Gator Equipm ent's debts. Thus, any factual dispute regarding SBA’s decision to withdraw its guarantee does not defeat Regions’ m otion for sum m ary judgm ent. To resist this conclusion, defendants reassert three arguments that the Court has already rejected. First, defendants suggest that they m ay have a claim against Regions for causing the SBA’s withdrawal since that 13 withdrawal m ade it harder to refinance Gator Equipm ent’s debt. 36 Second, defendants argue that Regions’ conduct, which allegedly caused the SBA to withdraw its guarantee, establishes that Regions violated its obligation of good faith and fair dealing to Gator Equipm ent--which could, in turn, reduce or elim inate defendants’ liability under the loan docum ents. 37 Third, defendants argue that certain late fees and prepayment fees sought by Regions are contrary to SBA regulations and invalid. 38 Defendants cannot point to any evidence that Regions caused the SBA to withdraw its guarantee, but even if they could, it would not create a factual dispute sufficient to defeat Regions’ m otion for summ ary judgment. As the Court explained in its J uly 1, 20 16 order, the SBA’s discontinuation of its loan guarantee does not vest defendants with a claim against Regions or a defense to liability under the loan documents. Second, while the obligations of good faith and fair dealing are im plicit in any agreement between Regions and defendants, this duty cannot contradict or override the express terms of the written agreement. Even if Regions were responsible for the SBA’s withdrawal, it rem ains true that Regions performed under the various loan 36 R. Doc. 37-6 at 9 (“In fact, the Defendants have a lender ready and willing to m ove forward with a buyout of the Loan but for the lack of SBA backing”). 37 Id. at 7-8. 38 Id. at 10 . 14 agreements by lending m oney to Gator Equipm ent. Furtherm ore, defendants provide no evidence that Regions’ conduct vis-à-vis the SBA, if any, caused or contributed to defendants’ failure to repay Gator Equipm ent’s loans. Gator Equipm ent’s argument that it could refinance the loan now if only it had an SBA guarantee does not dem onstrate that Regions caused Gator Equipm ent to default on its paym ents in August 20 15. 39 Defendants again argue that there is a genuine issue of disputed m aterial fact as to the validity of the late fees and the prepayment penalties. Defendants argue that under 13 C.F.R. ' 120 .221(d), Regions m ay not charge a late paym ent fee in excess of 5 percent of the regular loan paym ent. The prom issory notes executed by Gator Equipm ent provide for late charges of five percent of the unpaid portion of the m onthly payment due. 40 Therefore, even if the SBA’s regulations applied, and Gator Equipment could enforce 39 Gator Equipm ent has not pointed to anything in the Business Loan Agreem ent that would obligate Regions to assist Gator Equipm ent in securing refinancing or to wait for Gator Equipm ent to refinance before collecting am ounts due. Furtherm ore, although the record is unclear as to the am ount of the loans that was initially guaranteed by the SBA, by law the SBA can guarantee only a m axim um of 75 percent of any loan above $ 150 ,0 0 0 . 13 C.F.R. ' 120 .210 . The total am ount loaned here was over $ 4,50 0 ,0 0 0 , so even if the SBA guaranteed the m axim um , there would still be over $ 1.1 m illion not guaranteed by the SBA. This casts doubt on the plausibility of Gator Equipm ent’s assertion that “but for” the lack of SBA backing, Gator Equipm ent would be able to refinance, particularly since it has been unable to service its debt since August 20 15. 40 R. Doc. 30 -3 at 7, 10 , 12. 15 them , section 120 .221 (d) provides no basis for altering Regions’ late fee assessment. Sim ilarly, while defendants correctly point out that SBA regulations prohibit lenders from assessing fees for the full or partial prepayment of an SBA-guaranteed loan, 13 C.F.R. ' 120 .221(e), there is no dispute that the loans in question are no longer subject to an SBA guarantee. To the extent defendants suggest that som e portion of the prepayment penalty dem anded by Regions m ay have been incurred as a result of defendants' "prepaym ent of the Loan while the Loan was SBA guaranteed," 41 this argument fails as well. Only one of the three prom issory notes provides for a prepayment penalty. That note states that "upon prepayment of this note, Lender is entitled to" a penalty "equal to 2% of the outstanding loan balance . . . ."42 This penalty is assessed "if the loan is prepaid in whole on or before five years from the date of this note . . . ."43 To date, defendants have yet to tender payment of amounts due under the prom issory note, and all parties agree that the note is no longer backed by the SBA. Thus, regardless of when the SBA discontinued its guarantee, defendants did not incur a prepayment penalty while the loan was subject to an SBA guarantee. 41 42 43 R. Doc. 32-11 at 16. R. Doc. 30 -3 at 10 . Id. 16 Finally, defendants put forward two new argum ents to resist sum m ary judgm ent. First, defendants argue that contrary to Regions’ assertion that Gator Equipm ent defaulted on the Business Loan Agreem ent because it perm itted its ratio of EBITDAR to Interest Expense to fall below 1.25 tim es, Gator Equipm ent com plied with the EBITDAR provision. 44 Gator Equipm ent subm its evidence of calculations of Gator Equipm ent’s debt prepared by Kerney F. Craft, J r., Gator Equipm ent’s CPA. 45 Craft’s calculations show that Gator Equipm ent’s EBITDAR ratio as of December 20 14 was 1.39 and therefore in com pliance with the Business Loan Agreement. 46 Even if defendants are correct that they were com pliant with the EBITDAR provision, this does not establish that Gator Equipm ent is not in default of the Business Loan Agreem ent. There is no question of m aterial fact as to defendant’ failure to pay amounts when due under the Business Loan Agreement, and there is no question of m aterial fact that failure to pay am ounts due under the Agreement constitutes a default. Therefore, any factual dispute concerning the EBITDAR-related default is irrelevant and is not sufficient to defeat Regions’ m otion for sum m ary judgm ent. 44 45 46 R. Doc. 37-6 at 11. R. Doc. 37-1 at 4. Id. 17 Sim ilarly, defendants argue that Regions’ assertion that Gator Equipm ent failed to deliver the proceeds of the sale of certain collateral (as described in the Security Agreements) and that this failure resulted in default is incorrect because, according to Gator Equipm ent, Regions waived this provision of the Business Loan Agreem ent. 47 In support, Gator Equipm ent subm its the affidavit of J oey Don Pierce, which attests to his belief that Regions waived this requirem ent. 48 J ust as with the EBITDAR argum ent, any waiver of this provision would not negate Gator Equipm ent’s default status for failure to pay the am ounts due. Gator Equipm ent does, however, submit evidence (the Pierce affidavit) that after selling collateral it paid approxim ately $ 55,0 0 0 to Regions. 49 In its reply in support of its m otion for sum m ary judgm ent, Regions does not respond to Gator Equipm ent’s evidence that it paid Regions approxim ately $ 55,0 0 0 . Regions has ten (10 ) days to respond and provide evidence as to whether the outstanding indebtedness of Gator Equipm ent should be reduced by the am ount recovered from Gator Equipm ent’s sale of collateral, and if not, why not. 47 48 49 R. Doc. 37-6 at 11-12. R. Doc. 37-1 at 2-3. Id. 18 To sum m arize, defendants subm it no relevant evidence or applicable law supporting a challenge to the existence of the Business Loan Agreem ent, the validity of the various agreements, the enforceability of any of the various agreements, or defendants’ status in default. Defendants’ arguments regarding the SBA’s withdrawal of its guarantee and SBA regulations are legally m isplaced and have no bearing on defendants’ liability to Regions. Sim ilarly, defendants’ arguments on the EBITDAR and proceeds-related defaults do not negate defendants’ liability on the am ounts due under the Business Loan Agreem ent. Therefore, Regions is entitled to a judgment as a m atter of law. IV. CON CLU SION For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Regions’ motion for sum m ary judgment as to the validity and enforceability of the various agreements, and to defendants’ status in default. IT IS ORDERED that Regions subm it within ten (10 ) days of entry of this order a brief on whether Gator Equipm ent’s debt should be reduced by approxim ately $ 55,0 0 0 . New Orleans, Louisiana, this _22nd _ day of August, 20 16. ___ _____________________ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT J UDGE 19

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.