Laserfiche WebLink
'< <br /> <br />Gzr.erally, courts have denied extension of the exclusive pericds <br />only when (a) plan negotiations among parties in interest have <br />brake- down, and the continuation of the exclusive periods would <br />nerely give the debtor unfair bargaining power over other parties <br />in interest, see S. Rep. No. 95-989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 113 <br />(157"0) In re Public Service Co. of New Ha~oshire, 99 Bankr. 155, <br />175-76 (Bankr. D. N.H. 1989); In re Lake in the [goods, 10 Ear.kr. <br />33", 345 (D. .?ich. 1981); (b) the debtor has failed to resolve <br />`unda-.ental reorganization matters that must be resolved to <br />ensure the debtor's survival, see In re Grossir.oer's Associates, <br />supra, 116 Bankr. at 36; In re Sharon Steel Cora., 78 Bankr. 762, <br />766 (Bankr. [g. D. Pa. 1987); (c) the debtor is grossly mismanaged, <br />see In re Crescent Beach Tnn, Ir.c., 22 Bankr. 155 (Bankr. D. P•Ie. <br />1982), Ir. re Texas Extrusion Cora., 68 Bankr. 712, 725 (ii.D. Tex. <br />19^06), aff'd, 836 F.2d 217 (5th Cir. 1988); or (d) the debtor's <br />financial position has consistently deteriorated and is likely to <br />continue deteriorating, see In re Ravenna Industries. Inc., 20 <br />Bankr. 886, 890 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio 1982); In re Southwest Oil, <br />supra, 84 Bankr. at 453. <br />None of these examples of a breakdcwn of the <br />reoraar.ization progress is evident in Debtors' cases. In fact, <br />Debtors' cases have to date run efficiently, communication with <br />creditors has been ongoing and generally positive, important <br />issues have been addressed and resolved, Debtors have been <br />managed in an excellent manner, and Debtors' businesses have been <br />stabilized ar.d are operating well. Debtors' request for an <br />extension of the Exclusive Periods is not a reflection of a <br />11 <br />