Res 1993-185 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I 6A G- , Objection to Claim") against HealthVest. In their First Amended Objection to Claim. Debtors objected to all claims filed by HealthVest in HII's tankruptcy case. HII obj ected to the claims of HealthVest which are arnoun t s claimed for future rent obligations because the Debtors had neither assumed nor rejected any leases at the time HealthVest's claims were filed. On October 9, 1992, Healthcare San Antonio, Inc., the Oaks Psychiatric Hospital, Inc.. Healthcare Virginia, Inc., Healthcare Rehabilitation Center of Austin, Inc. and Healthcare Living Centers, Inc. filed a Motion to Assume their leases with HealthVest. An Order allowing the ¡!ssumption of these leases was signed by the Court on November 20, 1992. This order made the objections to HealthVest.s claims based on these leases moot. On August 13,1992, the Debtors filed a Motion to Reject Executory Leases wherein they sought to reject the following leases covering the following hospital facilities: Cedar Springs Hospital, Glenwood, Meadow Pines, West Oaks, Oaks Treatment Center and Kahi Mohala. On October 7, 1992, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order Approving Agreement on Motion to Reject Executory Leases. With regard to these claims an issue remained as to whether HealthVest's claim against HI! (the guarantor of the lease payments) is limited by the statutory cap set forth in section 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code (the "Code"). HII ~lso objected to some of HealthVest's claims based on the allegation that HealthVest charged interest on the note payments both under, the New Deferral Note and under the original notes, théreby rece~ving double interest payments. HII also objected to certain of HealthVest's claims on the grounds that HealthVest charged HII a late fee, included some postpetition interest, and filed duplicative claims. These disputes did not involve large dollar amounts. HI! also objected to HealthVest's claims pursuant to section 502(d), asserting that HealthVest received avoidable transfers under sections 547 and 548 of the Code, and consequently its claim should be disallowed until HealthVest pays over the avoidable transfers. The Debtors' claim that HealthVest received fraudulent transfers were resolved on November 19, 1992 when the Court granted HealthVest's Fourth Motion for Partial Summa ry Judgment (Fraudulent Transfers) and Brief in Support Thereof, and found that no fraudulent transfers occurred. The Debtors' claims that HealthVest received preferences from the Debtors under section 547 of the Code were also largely resolved by summary judgment granting HealthVest's Fifth Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Obligations Incurred and Rent Payments Made Were Not Preferential Transfers) and Brief in Support Thereof. The Court ruled in HealthVest's favor on this Fifth Motion on Novembe r 19, 1992, finding that none of the alleged preferences addressed therein were avoidable by the Debtors. The Debtors' allegation that the pledge of the San Marcos stock to secure the New Deferral Note was a - 32 - a-ZeISS