Ann: US Federal Bankruptcy Court Update, page-7

The Website just went down.........

But I did get this just before it died........

Motion was denied!

That means Funding must come from Castlelake and they are not under any obligation to provide any funding... My guess is that they may still provide some funding to allow a sale.

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
In re:
MARION ENERGY INC,
Debtor,
Case No. 14-31632
Chapter 11
Judge Joel T. Marker
ORDER DENYING DEBTOR’S EMERGENCY MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
OF DENIAL OF DEBTOR’S MOTION TO OBTAIN POST-PETITION FINANCING ON
A SENIOR SECURED BASIS UNDER 11 U.S.C. § 364(d)
The above matter came before the Court, the Honorable Joel T. Marker presiding, on
December 17, 2014, for decision on the Emergency Motion of the above-captioned debtor (the
“Debtor”) for Reconsideration of Denial of Debtor’s Motion to Obtain Post-Petition Financing
On a Senior Secured Basis Under 11 U.S.C. § 364(d) [Dkt. # 66] (the “Motion to Reconsider”).
The Court held a hearing on December 17, 2014 during which it heard arguments on the
Motion to Reconsider. The Debtor was represented by J. Thomas Beckett, and Brian M.
Rothschild of Parsons Behle & Latimer. TCS was represented by David B. Levant and Bria L.
Mertens of Stoel Rives LLP. The Debtor’s parent company, Marion Energy Ltd, was
represented by George B. Hoffman of Parsons Kinghorn Harris. KM Custodians Pty Ltd was
represented by Kenneth L. Cannon II of Durham Jones & Pinegar. John T. Morgan represented
the Office of the United States Trustee.
U.S. Bankruptcy Judge
JOEL T. MARKER
Dated: December 18, 2014
The below described is SIGNED.
The Court having jurisdiction to consider the Motion to Reconsider and the relief
requested therein in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334; and consideration of the
Motion to Reconsider and the relief requested therein being core proceedings pursuant to
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2); and venue being proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1408 and 1409; and due and proper notice of the Motion to Reconsider being adequate and
appropriate under the particular circumstances; and the hearing having been held to consider the
relief requested in the Motion to Reconsider; and upon consideration of the supporting and
opposing memoranda relating to the Motion to Reconsider; and the record of the hearing and all
proceedings heard before the Court; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing
therefor, and based upon the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated on the record on
December 17, 2014, it is hereby ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
The Motion to Reconsider is denied.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/s J. Thomas Beckett__________________
J. Thomas Beckett
Counsel for Debtor
_/s Mark E. Hindley_________________
Mark E. Hindley