Uchendu Ikenna Azodo and Gail Danielle Hamilton Azodo

Page 1 of 18
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
In re:
Case No. 26-13896-PDR
Uchendu Ikenna Azodo and
Gail Danielle Hamilton Azodo,
Chapter 11, Subchapter V
Joint Debtors.
/
ORDER DETERMINING THE SCOPE OF THE AUTOMATIC STAY AND
GRANTING LIMITED RELIEF FROM STAY
Bankruptcy draws a line between what the automatic stay protects and what
it does not. The stay protects the debtor and property of the bankruptcy estate. A
debtor’s equity interest in a company becomes estate property; the company’s assets
do not. But the line is less clear when that equity interest carries the right to
manage the company. Does the stay prevent another court from appointing a
Peter D. Russin, Judge
United States Bankruptcy Court
_____________________________________________________________________________
ORDERED in the Southern District of Florida on August 18, 2026.
Case 26-13896-PDR Doc 88 Filed 08/19/26 Page 1 of 18

Page 2 of 18
receiver 	over 	the 	company 	because 	the 	receiver 	would 	displace 	the 	debtor’s
management authority? This dispute lies at that boundary.
The Debtors each own half of two nondebtor holding companies, Real Hearing
LLC 	and Real 	Hearing 	2 LLC (together, 	the 	“Real 	Hearing Entities”). Those
companies, in turn, own nondebtor audiology practices. Sonova USA Inc., a creditor
of the Debtors and the Real Hearing Entities, has moved for a receiver to be
appointed over the Real Hearing Entities in federal court in Illinois. The Debtors
and the Real Hearing Entities argue that this action by Sonova has violated the
automatic stay; they contend that Sonova is a competitor using debt enforcement
remedies to put the Real Hearing entities out of business, which would destroy the
value of the Debtors’ membership interests.
That concern, while certainly legitimate, does not expand the automatic stay.
Whether Sonova has a basis for the appoint of a receiver, whether it is pursuing an
improper competitive objective, and whether a receivership would preserve or
destroy 	value 	are 	questions 	for the 	court 	asked to 	appoint 	the 	receiver. 	The
automatic stay does not give the Debtors a veto over equitable relief against
nondebtors merely because that relief may reduce the value of their equity. For the
following reasons, the Court modifies the stay, to the extent it applies at all, so the
Illinois District Court can decide those questions, subject to clear limits protecting
the Debtors and this bankruptcy estate.
I. 	Background
The Debtors commenced this joint Subchapter V case on March 30, 2026.
They remain Debtors in Possession, and Tarek Kiem serves as the Subchapter V
Case 26-13896-PDR Doc 88 Filed 08/19/26 Page 2 of 18

Page 3 of 18
trustee. Each Debtor owns a fifty percent membership interest in the Real Hearing
Entities which are Delaware limited liability companies and are not debtors in this,
or any other, bankruptcy case.
The Real Hearing Entities are holding companies that own interests in
nondebtor entities that provide audiology and hearing aid services in several states
(the “Practice Entities”). The Real Hearing Entities and the Practice Entities own
their respective cash, receivables, equipment, inventory, contract rights, records,
goodwill, and other assets. The Debtors do not own those assets directly.
Sonova 	filed Claim No. 	21-1 	for $4,722,809.84. 1 It 	designated its 	claim
against the Debtors as unsecured and attributed liability principally to a guaranty
executed by Gail Azodo. Sonova separately asserts liens against property owned by
the Real Hearing Entities, including their ownership interests in the Practice
Entities. Claim No. 21-1 does not assert a lien against the Debtors’ membership
interests 	in 	the 	Real 	Hearing 	Entities. 	The 	validity, 	amount, 	priority, 	and
enforceability of Sonova’s asserted claims and liens remain disputed.
The Debtors’ plan generally provides that they will retain estate property
after confirmation, but it does not separately value the Debtors’ interests in the
Real Hearing Entities or propose their sale, financing, restructuring, abandonment,
or other disposition.2 The projections identify $2,600 per month of anticipated “Real
Hearing” 	income, 	but 	the 	Debtors 	have 	not 	presented 	a 	concrete 	means 	of
preserving or realizing value from the membership interests. They have not sought
1 Proof of Claim No. 21-1.
2 Dkt. No. 50.
Case 26-13896-PDR Doc 88 Filed 08/19/26 Page 3 of 18

Page 4 of 18
authority to sell those interests, obtained financing for the Real Hearing platform,
or placed a binding value-preservation transaction before the Court. At the hearing,
counsel referred generally to prospective purchasers, but no purchaser had been
vetted, and no transaction was ready for review.
Meanwhile, 	operations 	of 	the 	Practice 	Entities 	have been 	suspended or
substantially curtailed. Nonessential employees were furloughed, and the principals
lacked funds for payroll, inventory, and warranty service. The resulting loss of
customers, employees, goodwill, and going concern value is continuing.
On June 26, 2026, Sonova commenced Sonova USA Inc. v. Real Hearing,
LLC, et al.in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
Eastern Division (the “Illinois Action”).3 The only defendants are the Real Hearing
Entities. Neither Debtor is a defendant. Sonova seeks damages for breach of loan
and supply agreements, foreclosure of asserted liens against property of the Real
Hearing Entities, and appointment of a receiver over the Real Hearing Entities and
their property. No receiver has been appointed, and no substantive receivership
relief has been implemented. Sonova asked that the Illinois Action be held while
this Court determined the reach of the automatic stay.
Sonova’s proposed receivership order in the Illinois Action is broad. It would
authorize a receiver to take possession and control of the Real Hearing Entities and
their property, exercise powers otherwise held by their officers, managers, and
members, displace existing management, control the Practice Entities, operate, sell,
or wind down entity assets, pursue or settle entity claims, and prevent the Debtors
3 Sonova USA Inc. v. Real Hearing, LLC, et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-07517 (N.D. Ill.).
Case 26-13896-PDR Doc 88 Filed 08/19/26 Page 4 of 18

Page 5 of 18
and 	others 	from 	acting 	for 	the 	Real 	Hearing 	Entities 	without 	the 	receiver’s
authority.4
The Real Hearing Entities and the Debtors argue that Sonova is a competitor
and that its actual objective is to shut down the Real Hearing business platform.
Sonova responds with communications that it says show that the Debtors and the
Real Hearing Entities previously requested or consented to a receivership. The
parties dispute the meaning, completeness, privilege, and legal effect of those
communications. The Court does not decide those disputes and does not rely on the
challenged communications.
A separate action, Real Hearing, LLC, et al. v. Sonova USA Inc.,5 is pending
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (the “Florida
Action”). Gail Azodo and the Real Hearing Entities filed that action as plaintiffs
after 	the 	Petition 	Date. 	It 	was 	administratively 	closed 	after 	a 	suggestion 	of
bankruptcy was filed.
The 	Real 	Hearing 	Entities 	filed 	an 	Emergency 	Motion 	to 	Enforce 	the
Automatic Stay and for Sanctions Against Sonova USA Inc. and Related Relief (the
“Stay Enforcement Motion”).6 The Debtors joined that motion.7 Sonova filed its own
motion asking the Court to determine that the stay does not apply to the two
district court actions or, alternatively, to modify the stay (the “Stay Relief Motion”).8
4 Proposed Receivership Order, attached to Stay Relief Motion [Dkt. No. 74].
5 Real Hearing, LLC, et al. v. Sonova USA Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-23894-KMM (S.D. Fla.).
6 Dkt. No. 68.
7 Dkt. Nos. 70, 79.
8 Dkt. No. 74.
Case 26-13896-PDR Doc 88 Filed 08/19/26 Page 5 of 18

Page 6 of 18
The Court heard both motions on August 5, 2026 at 10:30 A.M., and took them
under advisement. This Order resolves both motions.
II. 	Jurisdiction
The Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and
1334. This is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157(b)(2)(A) and (G). Venue is
proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.
III. 	Legal Standard
A bankruptcy petition creates an estate containing the debtor’s legal and
equitable interests 	in 	property. 9 The 	automatic stay 	protects 	the 	debtor from
specified proceedings and protects estate property from possession or control. 10
State law ordinarily determines the nature and extent of the debtor’s property
rights.11
A debtor’s ownership interest in a separate legal entity is distinct from the
property owned by that entity. For example, Delaware law makes a member’s
interest in a limited liability company personal property but gives a member no
interest in specific company property. 12 Consistent with that rule, the Eleventh
Circuit 	distinguishes 	property 	owned 	by 	a 	separate 	entity 	from 	the 	debtor’s
ownership interest in that entity.13
9 11 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1).
10 11 U.S.C. §§ 362(a)(1), (a)(3).
11 Butner v. United States, 440 U.S. 48, 54 (1979).
12 6 Del. C. § 18-701.
13 Cont’l Nat’l Bank of Miami v. Sanchez (In re Toledo), 170 F.3d 1340, 1348 (11th Cir. 1999).
Case 26-13896-PDR Doc 88 Filed 08/19/26 Page 6 of 18

Page 7 of 18
The Court may terminate, annul, modify, or condition the stay for cause.14
Cause is not confined to a fixed list; it depends on the circumstances, including the
burdens imposed on the parties, the effect on the bankruptcy case, and the interests
protected by the Bankruptcy Code.15
IV. 	Analysis
The motions present several related but distinct questions: who may invoke
the Debtors’ stay, what property the stay protects, and whether either the Illinois
Action or Florida Action would affect the Debtors or property of this estate. The
Court begins with the threshold question of standing.
A. Standing and the Debtors’ Joinder
The Real Hearing Entities filed the Stay Enforcement Motion in their own
names. They are not debtors. They have not filed claims in this case, and the
present record does not establish an independent right for them to invoke the
Debtors’ stay to obtain protection for themselves or damages belonging to the
Debtors. The Court therefore has substantial doubt about their standing to seek
that relief.
However, the Court need not decide that question here. The Debtors joined
the motion and requested the statutory damages remedy available to an individual
injured by a willful stay violation. The Court will decide the stay issues as requests
made by the Debtors to protect alleged estate property.
14 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1).
15Disciplinary Bd. of the Sup. Ct. of Pa. v. Feingold, 730 F.3d 1268, 1276–77 (11th Cir. 2013).
Case 26-13896-PDR Doc 88 Filed 08/19/26 Page 7 of 18

Page 8 of 18
B. The Real Hearing Entities and Their Property
The Debtors’ membership interests in the Real Hearing Entities became
property of this bankruptcy estate; the property owned by the Real Hearing Entities
did not. The same is true one level down: the Real Hearing Entities’ interests in the
Practice Entities belong to the Real Hearing Entities, and the assets of the Practice
Entities belong to those entities.
The automatic stay therefore does not prevent Sonova from suing the Real
Hearing 	Entities, 	liquidating 	claims 	against 	them, 	determining 	its 	asserted
interests in their property, or enforcing against property they own. Nor does the
stay protect the Practice Entities or their property merely because enforcement may
affect the Real Hearing Entities and, in turn, the value of the Debtors’ membership
interests.
That last point is of natural concern to any bankruptcy estate. Almost any
collection against a company can reduce the value of its owners’ equity. If that
economic consequence were enough to trigger the owners’ bankruptcy stay, an
individual bankruptcy would automatically shield every entity the debtor owned.
The automatic stay is not so expansive. A reduction—even a complete loss—in the
value of the Debtors’ membership interests caused by lawful enforcement against
nonestate property is not, without more, an act against estate property.
C. The Illinois Action
That said, the proposed receivership in the Illinois Action would do more
than take possession of the Real Hearing Entities’ assets. It would vest a receiver
with 	powers 	otherwise 	exercised by 	officers, 	managers, 	and members, 	replace
Case 26-13896-PDR Doc 88 Filed 08/19/26 Page 8 of 18

Page 9 of 18
existing management, and restrain the Debtors from acting for the Real Hearing
Entities. Voting and governance rights attached to an estate-owned interest may
themselves be estate property, and affirmative action that displaces those rights
may implicate the stay.16
The 	precise 	division 	between 	the 	Debtors’ 	rights 	as 	members 	and 	any
authority they hold in separate offices as managers or officers depends on Delaware
law and the governing agreements. The Court need not decide every aspect of that
division. That is because, even assuming the proposed receivership would exercise
control over estate owned governance rights, cause exists to modify the stay.
The businesses are not operating, value is deteriorating, and the Debtors
have not presented a concrete transaction or operating proposal that would preserve
their membership interests. Their plan does not separately value or provide specific
treatment for those interests. 17 Keeping the stay in place would not protect an
identified 	reorganization 	opportunity. 	It 	would 	leave 	deteriorating 	nondebtor
businesses under existing control while preventing the Illinois District Court from
deciding whether an independent receiver could preserve more value.
The 	allegation 	that 	Sonova 	is 	pursuing 	a 	receivership 	for 	an 	improper
competitive purpose does not change that conclusion. If Sonova is using equitable
process to eliminate a competitor rather than protect a legitimate claim or collateral
interest, that is a serious objection to the requested receivership. But it is an
objection to the merits and scope of the relief sought in Illinois—not a reason to
16 See Walro v. Lee Grp. Holding Co. (In re Lee), 524 B.R. 798, 803–04 (Bankr. S.D. Ind.
2014); In re Bello, 612 B.R. 389, 394–95 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. 2020).
17 See Dkt. No. 50.
Case 26-13896-PDR Doc 88 Filed 08/19/26 Page 9 of 18

Page 10 of 18
enlarge the bankruptcy estate. The Illinois District Court can test Sonova’s claims
and liens, evaluate its purpose, consider the likely effect on the businesses, weigh
less drastic alternatives, and impose whatever safeguards it considers necessary.
Nor would appointment of a receiver simply hand the Real Hearing Entities
to Sonova. A federal receiver is an officer of the appointing court, not the agent of
the party who requested the appointment. The receiver acts under that court’s
direction and administers receivership property for the benefit of all whose rights
are ultimately established, including creditors and equity holders.18 The receiver
also remains subject to the duties imposed by the appointment order and applicable
law. 19 If a receiver were to sacrifice value for Sonova’s competitive benefit, the
Debtors and the Real Hearing Entities could seek relief from the Illinois District
Court, which would supervise the receiver.
This allocation respects both courts’ roles. This Court decides what the
automatic stay protects. The Illinois District Court decides whether Sonova has
established a default, a valid and enforceable lien, grounds for a receiver, and
entitlement to any particular receiver power. Nothing in this opinion prejudges
those questions.
The stay is therefore modified to the extent necessary to permit the Illinois
District Court to consider and, if warranted, implement a receivership. The relief
will not permit Sonova or a receiver to add the Debtors as defendants, liquidate or
collect a personal claim against them, dispose of their membership interests, control
claims or privileges that belong to them or this estate, or take distributions already
18 Atlantic Tr. Co. v. Chapman, 208 U.S. 360, 370–71 (1908).
19 28 U.S.C. § 959(b)
Case 26-13896-PDR Doc 88 Filed 08/19/26 Page 10 of 18

Page 11 of 18
payable directly to them. Those boundaries give the Illinois District Court room to
address 	the 	nondebtor 	entities 	while 	preserving 	this 	Court’s 	control 	over 	the
Debtors and estate property.
D. The Florida Action
The Florida Action is different. Gail Azodo and the Real Hearing Entities
brought it as plaintiffs after the bankruptcy filing. The automatic stay ordinarily
does not prevent a debtor from prosecuting an action or prevent the defendant from
defending against it.20 The stay therefore does not require that action to remain
closed while the plaintiffs pursue their affirmative claims and Sonova defends. It
does, however, continue to prohibit Sonova from obtaining affirmative recovery
against Gail Azodo or estate property without further relief from this Court.
E. Sanctions
Sanctions are not warranted on this record. As to the Real Hearing Entities,
they cannot recover under § 362(k)(1), which provides a damages remedy only to an
“individual” injured by a willful violation of the automatic stay.21 The Eleventh
Circuit has held that a corporation is not an “individual” for purposes of that
provision. 22 And 	because 	the 	alleged 	stay 	violation 	identified 	here 	concerns
interference with the Debtors’ estate-owned membership and governance rights,
rather than property of the Real Hearing Entities themselves, there is also a
20 Crosby v. Monroe Cnty., 394 F.3d 1328, 1331 n.2 (11th Cir. 2004).
21 11 U.S.C. § 362(k)(1).
22 Jove Eng’g, Inc. v. IRS (In re Jove Eng’g, Inc.), 92 F.3d 1539, 1552 (11th Cir. 1996).
Case 26-13896-PDR Doc 88 Filed 08/19/26 Page 11 of 18

Page 12 of 18
substantial question whether the Real Hearing Entities have standing to recover
damages for such a violation in any event.
As to the Debtors, although they are persons eligible to recover under §
362(k), that provision is unavailing here because they have not proven actual
damages caused by the violation. No receiver was appointed, and the Debtors have
not identified any compensable loss resulting from Sonova’s filing or prosecution of
the receivership request. Accordingly, the record does not support an award of
actual damages, costs, or attorneys’ fees to the Debtors under § 362(k)(1).
Sanctions under § 105(a) are likewise unjustified. The Eleventh Circuit
recognizes that a non-individual entity may seek compensatory relief for a violation
of the automatic stay through the Court’s civil contempt authority under § 105(a).23
Civil contempt, however, is inappropriate where there is a “fair ground of doubt” as
to whether the challenged conduct was prohibited.24
Even 	assuming 	the 	Real 	Hearing 	Entities 	have 	standing 	to 	seek
compensatory 	contempt 	sanctions 	under 	§ 	105(a) 	here, 	that 	standard 	is 	not
satisfied. Sonova proceeded only against nondebtor entities and their property, and
the applicability of the automatic stay turned on the narrow question of whether the
proposed receivership would displace particular governance rights belonging to the
Debtors’ estate. No receiver has been appointed; Sonova sought to hold the Illinois
proceeding while the issue was presented to this Court; and Sonova sought a
determination from this Court concerning the scope of the automatic stay. Under
23 Jove, 92 F.3d at 1553.
24 Taggart v. Lorenzen, 587 U.S. 554, 561 (2019) .
Case 26-13896-PDR Doc 88 Filed 08/19/26 Page 12 of 18

Page 13 of 18
those circumstances, there was at least a fair ground of doubt as to the extent to
which Sonova’s actions were prohibited by the automatic stay. Civil contempt
sanctions under § 105(a) therefore are not warranted.
F. The Debtors’ Request to Operate the Real Hearing Entities
The Debtors and the Real Hearing Entities request an order authorizing the
Debtors to conduct the entities’ business in the ordinary course, including exercising
governance authority and making decisions concerning asset sales, investments,
and distributions. The Bankruptcy Code is not the source of the Debtors’ authority
to 	operate 	these 	nondebtor 	entities, 	but 	neither 	does 	it 	eliminate 	whatever
authority they otherwise possess. The Debtors may exercise whatever management
and governance rights they hold under the applicable operating agreements and
nonbankruptcy law.
Sonova’s request for a receiver may affect those rights. Whether a receiver
should be appointed, what authority any receiver should possess, and the extent to
which a receiver may displace or limit the Debtors’ management authority are
questions 	for 	the 	Illinois 	District 	Court. 	This 	Court 	decides 	only 	that 	the
Bankruptcy Code does not give the Debtors additional authority over property
belonging to the Real Hearing Entities and that the automatic stay does not prevent
the Illinois District Court from deciding the effect of a receivership on the Debtors’
existing authority.
Case 26-13896-PDR Doc 88 Filed 08/19/26 Page 13 of 18

Page 14 of 18
V. 	Order
For these reasons, the Court ORDERS:
1. 	The Stay Enforcement Motion [Dkt. No. 68], as joined by the Debtors [Dkt.
Nos. 70, 79], is GRANTED IN-PART only to the extent this Order confirms
that the Debtors’ membership interests in Real Hearing LLC and Real
Hearing 2 LLC are property of the estate. The motion is otherwise DENIED.
2. 	All requests for sanctions, damages, contempt relief, attorneys’ fees, and
expenses are DENIED.
3. 	Nothing in this Order prohibits the Debtors from operating the Real Hearing
Entities or exercising management or governance authority to the extent
permitted by the applicable operating agreements and nonbankruptcy law.
This Order grants the Debtors no additional authority under the Bankruptcy
Code. Whether a receiver should be appointed and, if so, the extent to which
the receiver may displace or limit that authority will be determined by the
Illinois District Court in accordance with this Order.
4. 	Sonova’s Stay Relief Motion [Dkt. No. 74] is GRANTED 	IN-PART and
DENIED IN-PART as provided in this Order.
5. 	As to the Real Hearing Entities and Practice Entities, the automatic stay
does not prohibit litigation to determine claims against those entities, entry
of judgment against them, determination of the validity, priority, or extent of
asserted liens in entity owned property, or enforcement against entity owned
property.
6. 	With respect to the Illinois Action [Sonova USA Inc. v. Real Hearing, LLC, et
al., Case No. 1:26-cv-07517 (N.D. Ill.)], to the extent the automatic stay
Case 26-13896-PDR Doc 88 Filed 08/19/26 Page 14 of 18

Page 15 of 18
applies, it is MODIFIED to permit Sonova to request, and the Illinois
District Court to consider and, if warranted under applicable nonbankruptcy
law, grant and implement the following relief:
a. 	adjudication 	of 	Sonova’s 	claims 	and 	the 	Real 	Hearing 	Entities’
defenses, entry of judgment against the Real Hearing Entities, and
determination and enforcement of asserted liens against property of
the Real Hearing Entities;
b. 	appointment and supervision of a receiver over the Real Hearing
Entities and their property;
c. 	authorization for a receiver to possess, preserve, and control property
of the Real Hearing Entities; control their interests in the Practice
Entities; operate, finance, sell, or otherwise dispose of the assets of the
Real Hearing Entities; wind down the Real Hearing Entities; and
pursue, defend, settle, or release claims owned by the Real Hearing
Entities;
d. 	authorization for a receiver to exercise powers otherwise held by the
Real 	Hearing 	Entities’ 	officers, 	managers, 	or 	members; 	displace
existing management; act for the entities without the Debtors’ consent;
and, if the Illinois District Court determines that such authority is
proper, commence a case under title 11 for either Real Hearing Entity;
e. 	orders requiring the Debtors, solely in their representative capacities
as members, managers, officers, employees, or agents of the Real
Hearing Entities, to cooperate with a receiver; surrender entity-owned
Case 26-13896-PDR Doc 88 Filed 08/19/26 Page 15 of 18

Page 16 of 18
property, books, records, credentials, and information; and refrain from
acting for the Real Hearing Entities except as authorized by the
receiver or the Illinois District Court; and
f. 	such other entity-level relief as the Illinois District Court determines is
authorized and appropriate under applicable law.
7. 	Notwithstanding paragraph 6, this Order does not authorize any person to:
a. 	add either Debtor as a defendant in the Illinois Action, adjudicate a
prepetition claim against either Debtor, or obtain affirmative monetary
or injunctive relief against either Debtor personally;
b. 	collect from either Debtor or obtain possession or control of property
owned by either Debtor or this bankruptcy estate, except for the
limited displacement and exercise of governance authority expressly
permitted by paragraph 6;
c. 	levy upon, foreclose upon, sell, transfer, assign, cancel, extinguish, or
otherwise 	dispose 	of 	the 	Debtors’ 	membership 	interests 	in 	Real
Hearing LLC or Real Hearing 2 LLC;
d. 	prosecute, settle, release, or control a claim owned personally by either
Debtor or by this bankruptcy estate, including Gail Azodo’s individual
claims in the Florida Action;
e. 	waive a privilege belonging personally to either Debtor or to this
bankruptcy estate; or
f. 	redirect or retain a distribution that has been lawfully declared and is
payable 	directly 	to 	either 	Debtor 	because 	of 	an 	estate 	owned
Case 26-13896-PDR Doc 88 Filed 08/19/26 Page 16 of 18

Page 17 of 18
membership interest. Any such distribution remains subject to the
Bankruptcy Code and further orders of this Court.
8. 	Nothing in this Order determines that a proposed receiver may sell entity
property free and clear of liens or interests, grants authority under the
Bankruptcy Code for such a sale, determines the validity or priority of any
asserted lien, or directs the Illinois District Court to grant any relief. The
Illinois District Court retains full authority to decide the merits, whether
Sonova’s 	purpose 	is 	proper, 	whether 	a 	receivership 	is 	equitable, 	what
safeguards 	are 	necessary, 	the 	receiver’s 	duties 	and 	powers, 	and 	the
procedures that apply under nonbankruptcy law.
9. 	With respect to the Florida Action [Real Hearing, LLC, et al. v. Sonova USA
Inc., Case No. 1:26-cv-23894-KMM (S.D. Fla.)], the Court clarifies:
a. 	the automatic stay does not prohibit Gail Azodo and the Real Hearing
Entities from prosecuting their affirmative claims or prohibit Sonova
from defending against those claims, seeking dismissal, or asserting
recoupment solely to reduce or defeat a recovery;
b. 	the automatic stay does not prohibit Sonova from asserting affirmative
claims against the Real Hearing Entities or seeking recovery from
their property;
c. 	the automatic stay continues to prohibit Sonova from prosecuting an
affirmative 	claim 	against 	Gail 	Azodo, 	obtaining 	affirmative 	relief
against her, or collecting from her or estate property, absent further
order of this Court; and
Case 26-13896-PDR Doc 88 Filed 08/19/26 Page 17 of 18

Page 18 of 18
d. 	the Court expresses no view on whether the Florida District Court
should reopen the Florida Action or on the merits of any claim or
defense.
10. Nothing in this Order adjudicates Claim No. 21-1; the pending objection to
that claim, as joined by the Debtors; the Real Hearing Entities’ standing to
prosecute 	that 	claim 	objection; 	the 	enforceability 	of 	any 	loan, 	supply,
amendment, forbearance, guaranty, or security agreement; the existence of a
default; the perfection or priority of any asserted lien; or any dischargeability
issue. Those matters are reserved.
11. Sonova must promptly file a copy of this Order in the Illinois Action. Gail
Azodo and the Real Hearing Entities must promptly file a copy in the Florida
Action.
12. The 	fourteen 	day 	stay 	under 	Federal 	Rule 	of 	Bankruptcy 	Procedure
4001(a)(4) is waived. This Order is effective immediately.
13. The Court retains jurisdiction to interpret and enforce this Order.
###
Copies To:
All Parties in Interest.
Case 26-13896-PDR Doc 88 Filed 08/19/26 Page 18 of 18