Rida Trinidad Rabain Cabanilla

84503
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
In re
RIDA RABAINO TRINIDAD
CABANILLA,
Debtor and
Debtor-in-possession.
Case No. 24-00615
(Jointly Administered)
(Chapter 11)
Confirmation Hearing
Date: 	December 1, 2025
Time: 	2:00 p.m.
Judge: Hon. Robert J. Faris
Relates to dkt. ## 113,
124, 126 127, 132
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
IN SUPPORT OF ORDER CONFIRMING DEBTOR’S SECOND
AMENDED CHAPTER 11 PLAN OF REORGANIZATION
DATED AS OF SEPTEMBER 8, 2025
The hearing to confirm the Debtor’s Second Amended Chapter 11 Plan Of
Reorganization Dated As Of September 8, 2025 (the “Plan”),1 filed herein as dkt. #
113, by Rida Cabanilla, the debtor and debtor-in-possession (the “Debtor”), was
1 Capitalized terms not herein defined shall have the meaning set forth in the Plan.
Date Signed:
January 21, 2026
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 1 of 21

- 2 -
held on December 1, 2025, at 2:00 p.m. (the “Confirmation Hearing”), before the
Honorable Robert J. Faris, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Hawaii (“Court”). Appearances were noted in
the record.
The findings and conclusions set forth herein, together with the record of the
Confirmation Hearing, constitute the Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of
law pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 7052, made applicable to this proceeding by
Bankruptcy Rule 9014. To the extent any of the following findings of fact
constitute conclusions of law, they are adopted as such. To the extent any of the
following conclusions of law constitute findings of fact, they are adopted as such.
The orders entered herein constitute the Court’s judgment pursuant to Bankruptcy
Rule 7054, made applicable to this proceeding by Bankruptcy Rule 9014.
Having considered all of the pleadings and evidence filed in support of
confirmation, all of the objections to confirmation of the Plan having been
resolved, withdrawn or overruled, and based on the record in this case, the
arguments and representations of counsel, and good cause appearing, the Court
now makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
FINDINGS OF FACT
Filing of Petition and Judicial Notice
1. 	RIDA RABAINO TRINIDAD CABANILLA, is the debtor and debtor-
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 2 of 21

- 3 -
in-possession in Chapter 11 case no. 24-00615, which was commenced by the filing
of a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States
Code on July 9, 2024 (“Chapter 11 Case”) in this Court.
2. 	The Court takes judicial notice of the docket of the Chapter 11 Case,
including, without limitation, all pleadings and other documents filed, all orders
entered, and all evidence and arguments made, proffered or adduced at hearings held
before this Court during the pendency of the Chapter 11 Case.
3. 	The Debtor owns three properties: (1) a 50% interest in a single-family
residence located at 2841 Kamanaiki Street, Honolulu, Hawaii (the “Kamanaiki
Property”), which is co-owned with her son, Christopher Manabat; (2) 1702 Noe
Street, Honolulu, Hawaii (the “Noe Property”), and (3) a duplex located at 94-114
Pupukahi Street, Waipahu, Hawaii (the “Pupukahi Property”).
4. 	As of the Petition Date, (1) UMB Bank, National Association, not in its
individual capacity but solely as owner trustee for Verus Securitization Trust 2023-
5 (“UMB”) held a first mortgage against the Noe Property; and (2) First Hawaiian
Bank (“FHB”) and American Savings Bank (“ASB”) held and continues to hold first
and second mortgages against the Pupukahi Property, respectively.
5. 	Prior to the Petition Date, the Superior Court for the County of Orange,
State of California issued a judgment in favor of Medica Testing Group, Inc.
(“Medica”), and against the Defendants Green Label Group, LLP, George Albert
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 3 of 21

- 4 -
Martinez 	Garcia 	aka 	Georgio 	Martinez, 	the 	Debtor, 	Kristen 	Loung, 	RMP
Environmental, Inc. and Johnathan Pozon, jointly and severally in the amount of
$3,992,244.26 (the “California Judgment”).
6. 	On or about March 27, 2024, Medica commenced a special proceeding
in the Circuit Court for the First Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii, as Civil No.
S.P. No. 1 CSP-24-0000413 to domesticate the California Judgment.
7. 	On April 11, 2024 (89 days before the Petition Date), Medica recorded
the [domesticated] California Judgment in the Bureau of Conveyances for the State
of Hawaii as Document No. A-88670429.
8. 	On or about April 16, 2024, Medica commenced a fraudulent transfer
action against the Debtor and others in the Circuit Court for the First Circuit Court
of the State of Hawaii, as Civil No. 1CCV-24-0000482.
Approval of Disclosure Statement, Transmittal of Solicitation Materials,
and Good Faith Solicitation
9. 	On February 14, 2025, the Debtor filed her Chapter 11 Plan of
Reorganization Dated as of February 14, 2025 (the “Original Plan”), and Disclosure
Statement for [Original Plan]. See dkt. ## 53 and 54.
10. 	On February 28, 2025, the Debtor filed her Motion for Order Approving
Disclosure Statement for Debtor's Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization Dated
February 14, 2025, and Balloting Procedures, and Scheduling Deadlines. See dkt.
# 55.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 4 of 21

- 5 -
11. 	On July 28, 2025, the Debtor filed Debtor’s First Amended Chapter 11
Plan of Reorganization Dated as of July 28, 2025 (the “First Amended Plan”), and
a Disclosure Statement for [First Amended Plan]. See dkt. ## 99 and 100.
12. 	The “First Amended” Plan contained the following amendments:
a. 	Debtor to retain the Pupukahi Property and will cure any prepetition
arrearages owed to ASB, and continue to pay FHB and ASB in
accordance with the respective loan documents;
b. Increase Payment on Medica’s Allowed Secured Claim from zero to
$75,000;
c. 	Increase the amount available for general unsecured creditors from
$50,000 to $300,000; and
d. The Debtor will borrow $350,000 against her residence (in lieu of
selling the Pupukahi Property).
See generally dkt. # 102-1 (redlined Plan).
13. 	On August 25, 2025, the Debtor filed her Motion for Order
Authorizing Debtor to Obtain Post-Petition Secured Indebtedness (the “Dasigo
DIP Motion”) seeking to borrow $350,000.00 from Maria Dasigo to fund in part
the Plan (the “Dasigo DIP Loan”). See dkt. # 107.
14. 	On September 8, 2025, the Debtor filed her Second Amended Chapter
11 Plan of Reorganization Dated as of February 14, 2025 (the “Plan”), and
Disclosure Statement for [the Plan]. See dkt. ## 113 and 114.
15. 	The “Second Amended Plan” contained the following amendments:
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 5 of 21

- 6 -
a. 	Update the amounts owed to the IRS based on its amended proof of
claim (priority tax claim decreased from $327,110.77 to $222,695.31,
general unsecured claim decreased from $185,578.65 to $146,707.33);
b. Deleted from treatment of Class 2 (First Hawaiian Bank) and Class 3
(American Savings Bank) the following language: “lender shall not be
paid as part of its Allowed Secured Claim, any default interest, late
charges or similar fees or expenses, as may be allowed by the Court.”;
and
c. 	Add as conditions precedent to the Effective Date: (1) receipt of the
$100,000 new value contribution and (2) receipt of the $350,000 loan
proceeds.
See generally dkt # 113.
16. 	On September 11, 2025, the Court entered an order approving the
Dasigo DIP Loan. See dkt # 116.
17. 	On September 12, 2025, the Court entered an 	Order Approving
Disclosure 	Statement 	for 	[the 	Plan], 	Balloting 	Procedures 	and 	Scheduling
Deadlines 	(“Solicitation 	Order”) 	that, 	among 	other 	things, 	(a) 	preliminarily
approved the disclosures in the Original Plan, (b) established November 3, 2025, as
the date for the Confirmation Hearing, and (c) established procedures governing the
Confirmation Hearing. See dkt. # 117.
18. 	In accordance with the Solicitation Order, the Debtor transmitted the
following items to creditors and parties in interest: (a) the Plan, (b) the notice of the
Confirmation Hearing, and (c) ballots (as appropriate). See dkt. #122
19. 	On October 17, 2025, FHB filed a First Hawaiian Bank’s Position
Statement Re [The Plan] (the “FHB Objection”). See dkt. # 124.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 6 of 21

- 7 -
20. 	On October 21, 2025, the Department of Taxation, State of Hawaii
(“DoTax”) filed its Department of Taxation, State of Hawaii's Statement of
Position Re: Confirmation of Debtor's Chapter 11 Plan (the “DoTax Objection”).
See dkt. # 126.
21. 	On October 22, 2025, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) filed its
Creditor Internal Revenue Service’s Position As To Debtors Second Amended
Chapter 11 Plan. See dkt. # 127.
22. 	On October 27, 2025, the Debtor filed her Confirmation Brief for
Second Amended Chapter 11 Plan (the “Confirmation Brief”) and the Declaration
of Allison A. Ito Regarding Tabulation of Ballots in Support of Confirmation of
[Plan]. See dkt. ## 130 and 131.
23. 	On November 3, 2025, the IRS filed its Response to [Confirmation
Brief]. See dkt. # 132.
24. 	The November 3, 2025, Confirmation Hearing on the Plan was
continued to allow the Debtor to obtain alternate DIP financing as the Dasigo DIP
Loan was not funded. See dkt. #134 (minutes).
25. 	On November 6, 2025, the Debtor filed a Motion for Order Authorizing
Debtor To Obtain Postpetition Secured Indebtedness (“Tango Juliet DIP Loan
Motion”) seeking authority to borrow $500,000.00 from Tango Juliet, LLC, secured
by a first mortgage on the Kamanaiki Property.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 7 of 21

- 8 -
26. 	On December 2, 2025, the Court entered an Order Granting Debtor’s
[Tango Juliet DIP Loan Motion]. 	See dkt # 142 (requiring the net proceeds of the
loan to be transferred to the Choi & Ito client trust account).
27. 	Service of the Original Plan and other solicitation matters was adequate
and proper as provided by Bankruptcy Rule 3017(d), and no other or further notice
is or shall be required. The amendments to the Original Plan
28. 	Based on the record before the Court in this Chapter 11 Case, the
Debtor and her agents, representatives, and any professional persons employed or
formerly employed by any of them, have acted in “good faith” within the meaning
of Bankruptcy Code Section 1125(e) in compliance with the applicable provisions
of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules in connection with all their
respective activities relating to the solicitation of acceptances to the Plan and their
participation in the activities described in Section 1125 of the Bankruptcy Code,
and are entitled to the protections afforded by Section 1125(e) of the Bankruptcy
Code.
29. 	Adequate and sufficient notice of the modifications to the Plan have
been given, and no other further notice, or re-solicitation of votes on the Plan is
required. None of the modifications incorporated in the (confirmed) Plan
adversely affects the treatment of any Claim or Equity Interest thereunder. The
filing with the Court of the Plan constitutes due and sufficient notice thereof.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 8 of 21

- 9 -
30. 	All modifications to the Plan filed or announced prior to the
conclusion of the Confirmation Hearing constitute technical changes and/or
changes that have either been consented to by affected constituents or which do not
require additional disclosure under Bankruptcy Code Sections 1125 or 1127(a), or
re-solicitation of votes under Bankruptcy Code Section 1126, nor do they require
that holders of Claims or Equity Interests be afforded an opportunity to change
previously cast acceptances or rejections of the Plan. The modifications do not
adversely change the treatment for the accepting Classes. Therefore, additional
notice under Bankruptcy Rule 3019(a) is not required.
Objections Resolved or Overruled
31. 	The Debtor has the burden of proving the elements of Section 1129 of
the Bankruptcy Code by a preponderance of evidence, and have done so as set
forth herein.
32. 	To the extent not resolved or withdrawn, all Plan Objections are
overruled in all respects.
Bankruptcy Code Requirements for Confirmation
33. 	In addition to Administrative Claims and Priority Tax Claims, which
need not be classified, the Plan designates six (6) Classes of Claims and one (1)
Class of Equity Interests. The Claims and Equity Interests placed in each Class are
substantially similar to other Claims and Interests, as the case may be, in each such
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 9 of 21

- 10 -
Class. Valid business, factual, and legal reasons exist for separately classifying the
various classes of claims and Interests created under the Plan.
34. 	The Plan specifies that Classes 1, 2, 3, and 6 are not impaired under
the Plan, thereby satisfying Section 1123(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code. Said
Classes are deemed to have accepted the Plan because they are not impaired under
the Plan.
Treatment of Claims
35. 	The holder of the Allowed UMB Claim (Class 1) will receive at least
as much as it would receive in a case under chapter 7 with respect to those Claims.
If the assets of the Debtor were liquidated outright, Class 1 would be paid in full.
The Treatment of Class 1 is fair and equitable and does not unfairly discriminate
against said Class.
36. 	The holder of the Allowed First Hawaiian Bank Claim (Class 2), will
receive at least as much as it would receive in a case under chapter 7 with respect
to those Claims. The Treatment of Class 2 is fair and equitable and does not
unfairly discriminate against said Class.
37. 	The holder of the Allowed American Savings Bank Claim (Class 3)
will receive at least as much as it would receive in a case under chapter 7 with
respect to those Claims. The Treatment of Class 3 is fair and equitable and does
not unfairly discriminate against said Classes.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 10 of 21

- 11 -
38. 	The holder of the Allowed Medica Secured Claim Bank Claim (Class
4) will receive at least as much as it would receive in a case under chapter 7 with
respect to its Claim, because if a chapter 7 trustee was appointed, the chapter 7
trustee would seek to avoid the recorded Judgment as a preferential transfer. The
Treatment of Class 4 is fair and equitable and does not unfairly discriminate
against said Classes.
39. 	The holders of the Allowed General Unsecured Claims (Class 5) will
receive at least as much as they would receive in a case under chapter 7 with
respect to those Claims because if the assets of the Debtor were liquidated out
right, said Class would between 0.43% and 4.55%. Under the Plan, Class 5
creditors will be paid a pro rata share of $300,000 (or approximately 7.08%). The
Treatment of Class 5 is fair and equitable and does not unfairly discriminate
against said Class.
40. 	The holders of the Allowed Priority Unsecured Claims (Tenant
Deposits) (Class 6) will receive at least as much as they would receive in a case
under chapter 7 with respect to those Claims. The Treatment of Class 6 is fair and
equitable and does not unfairly discriminate against said Class.
Equity Interests
41. 	Allowed Equity Interest in Class 7 will retain her equity interest under
the Plan.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 11 of 21

- 12 -
42. 	The Plan provides for the same treatment for each Claim or Equity
Interest in each respective Class, unless the holder of a particular Claim or Equity
Interest has agreed to a less favorable treatment of such Claim or Equity Interest,
thereby satisfying Section 1123(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Means of Implementation
43. 	The Plan provides adequate and proper means for the Plan’s
implementation through proceeds from (1) the settlement of Melanie Manabat’s
obligation to the Debtor for a lump sum payment of $60,000.00, (2) a $100,000
new value contribution from the Debtor, (3) a $500,000 loan secured by a
mortgage against the Kamanaiki Property, and (4) the Debtor’s income from
Cardiopulmonary Diagnostic Services, Inc. and her pension.
44. 	The Debtor has exercised sound and considered business judgment in
the formulation of the Plan. The Debtor has demonstrated sound business purpose
and justification for the Plan.
45. 	All fees payable under Section 1930 of title 28, United States Code, as
determined by the Bankruptcy Code, have been paid or will be paid pursuant to the
Plan, thus satisfying the requirements of Section 1129(a)(12).
46. 	Any finding of fact subsequently determined to be a conclusion of law
shall be deemed a conclusion of law.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 12 of 21

- 13 -
47. 	This proceeding is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
157(b)(2).
48. 	This Court has jurisdiction over these Chapter 11 Cases, pursuant to
Sections 157 and 1334 of title 28 of the United States Code. Venue is proper
pursuant to Sections 1408 and 1409 of title 28 of the United States Code.
Confirmation of the Plan is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
157(b)(2)(L), and this Court has exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether the
Plan complies with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and should
be confirmed and has exclusive jurisdiction over all of the Debtors’ assets.
Compliance With Section 1129(a)(1)
49. 	The Plan complies with the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy
Code, thereby satisfying Section 1129(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.
(a) 	The Plan properly places substantially similar claims in each
class and designated such classes of claims, thereby satisfying Sections 1122 and
1123(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code;
(b) 	The Plan specifies the treatment of each Class that is not
impaired, thereby satisfying Section 1123(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code;
(c) 	The Plan specifies the treatment of each Class that is impaired,
thereby satisfying Section 1123(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code;
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 13 of 21

- 14 -
(d) 	The Plan provides for the same treatment for each claim or
interest in a particular Class, unless the holder thereof agrees to a less favorable
treatment, thereby satisfying Section 1123(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code;
(e) 	The Plan includes the adoption and implementation of all
actions necessary to implement the Plan and the execution of all documents and the
implementation of all actions as required with respect to and in accordance with
the Plan provisions, thereby satisfying Section 1123(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code;
(f) 	Sections 1123(a)(6) and 1123(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code
does not apply to the Debtor;
(g) 	The Plan provides for the payment of the Debtor’s future rental
income from Pupukahi and Noe Street properties to make monthly mortgage
payments to UMB (holder of Class 1 claim), ASB, and FHB, respectively, and for
the payment of a portion of the Debtor’s personal services income to make Plan
payments to creditors (e.g., Medica, DoTax and IRS), thereby satisfying section
1123(a)(8);
(h) 	The Plan’s provisions are appropriate and not inconsistent with
the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code; and
(i) 	The Plan is dated and identifies the Debtor submitting it as
proponents, thereby satisfying Bankruptcy Rule 3016(a).
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 14 of 21

- 15 -
Compliance With Section 1129(a)(2)
50. 	The Debtor has complied with the applicable provisions of the
Bankruptcy Code, thereby satisfying Section 1129(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.
(a) 	The Debtor is a proper debtor under Section 109 of the
Bankruptcy Code;
(b) 	The Debtor has complied with applicable provisions of the
Bankruptcy Code, except as otherwise provided or permitted by orders of the
Court; and
(c) 	The Debtor complied with the applicable provisions of the
Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Rules, and the Solicitation Order in transmitting
the Plan, the Ballots, and related documents and notices and in soliciting and
tabulating votes on the Plan.
Compliance With Section 1129(a)(3)
51. 	The Debtor has proposed the Plan in good faith and not by any means
forbidden by law, thereby satisfying Section 1129(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code.
The good faith of the Debtor is evident from the facts and records of this case, the
Plan, and the record of the Confirmation Hearing and other proceedings held in
this case. The Plan was proposed with the legitimate and honest purpose of
maximizing the value of the Debtor’s Estate.
52. 	The injunctive provisions of the Plan and the Confirmation Order
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 15 of 21

- 16 -
implement the Debtor’s discharge. Moreover, the Plan provides a mechanism for
parties in this case to seek relief from the injunctions.
Compliance With Section 1129(a)(4)
53. 	Any payment made or to be made by the Debtor for services or for
costs and expenses in or in connection with the Debtor’s Chapter 11 Case, or in
connection with the Plan and incident to the Debtor’s Chapter 11 Case, has been
approved by, or is subject to the approval of, the Court as reasonable, thereby
satisfying Section 1129(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Compliance With Section 1129(a)(5)
54. 	Section 1129(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code is not applicable to the
Debtor because the Debtor is an individual.
Compliance With Section 1129(a)(6)
55. 	Section 1129(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code is not applicable to the
Debtor.
Compliance With Section 1129(a)(7)
56. 	The Plan satisfies section 1129(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code. The
liquidation analysis provided in the Plan (a) is persuasive and credible, (b) has not
been controverted by other evidence, and (c) establish that each holder of a Claim
or Equity Interest in an impaired Class either has accepted the Plan or will receive
or retain under the Plan, on account of such Claim or Equity Interest, property of a
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 16 of 21

- 17 -
value, as of the Effective Date, that is not less than the amount that holder would
receive or retain if the Debtors were liquidated under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy
Code on such date.
Compliance With Section 1129(a)(8)
57. 	Classes 4 and 5 have accepted the Plan under section 1126(f) of the
Bankruptcy Code. Classes 1, 2, 3, and 6, are conclusively presumed to have
accepted the Plan.
58. 	Section 1129(a)(8) of the Bankruptcy Code has been satisfied.
Compliance With Section 1129(a)(9)
59. 	The treatment of Administrative Claims and Priority Tax Claims
under the Plan satisfies the requirements of Bankruptcy Code section 1129(a)(9).
Compliance With Section 1129(a)(10)
60. 	Classes 4 and 5 are impaired under the Plan, and have voted in favor
of accepting the Plan.
61. 	Section 1129(a)(10) of the Bankruptcy Code is not applicable to the
Debtor.
Compliance With Section 1129(a)(11)
62. 	The evidence proffered, adduced, or presented prior to and at the
Confirmation Hearing (a) is persuasive and credible, and (b) establishes that
confirmation of this Plan is not likely to be followed by the liquidation, or the need
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 17 of 21

- 18 -
for further financial reorganization, of the Debtor, thus satisfying the requirements
of Section 1129(a)(11) of the Bankruptcy Code. Among other things, the Debtor
has obtained exit financing which is sufficient to provide additional liquidity to
make Plan payments.
Compliance With Section 1129(a)(12)
63. 	All fees payable under section 1930 of title 28, United States Code, as
determined by the Court, have been paid or will be paid pursuant to the Plan, the
terms of which are satisfactory to the Debtor and the United States Trustee, thus
satisfying the requirements of Section 1129(a)(12) of the Bankruptcy Code.
Compliance With Section 1129(a)(13)
64. 	Section 1129(a)(13) of the Bankruptcy Code, which requires a plan to
provide for the continuation of payment of all “retiree benefits” is inapplicable in
the instant case as the Debtor does not have any such obligation.
Other Matters
65. 	The principal purpose of the Plan is not the avoidance of taxes or the
avoidance of the application of Section 5 of the Securities Act of 1933. No
governmental agency with standing to raise an objection pursuant to Bankruptcy
Code Section 1129(d) has, in fact, raised any such objection. This is strong
evidence that the principal purpose of the Plan is not tax avoidance.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 18 of 21

- 19 -
66. 	All modifications to the Plan filed or announced prior to the
conclusion of the Confirmation Hearing constitute technical changes and/or
changes that have either been consented to by affected constituents or which do not
require additional disclosure under Bankruptcy Code sections 1125 or 1127(a), or
re-solicitation of votes under Bankruptcy Code section 1126, nor do they require
that holders of Claims or Interests be afforded an opportunity to change previously
cast acceptances or rejections of the Plan.
67. 	Based on the record before the Bankruptcy Court in this Chapter 11
Case, the Debtor and her agents, representatives, and any professional persons
employed or formerly employed by any of them, have acted in “good faith” within
the meaning of Bankruptcy Code section 1125(e) in compliance with the
applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy Rules in connection
with all their respective activities relating to the solicitation of acceptances to the
Plan and their participation in the activities described in section 1125 of the
Bankruptcy Code, and are entitled to the protections afforded by section 1125(e) of
the Bankruptcy Code.
68. 	The release, injunction, and exculpation provisions (as modified in the
Plan Confirmation Order) contained in the Plan are fair and equitable, are given for
valuable consideration, were properly noticed to holders of Claims and Equity
Interests and other interested parties in accordance with the requirements of due
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 19 of 21

- 20 -
process and the applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code and Bankruptcy
Rules, and are in the best interests of the Debtor and her Estate.
69. 	Each term and provision of the Plan is valid and enforceable pursuant
to its terms.
70. 	The Plan satisfies the requirements for confirmation set forth in
Section 1129 of the Bankruptcy Code.
71. 	The Court may properly retain jurisdiction over the matters set forth
in the Plan and Bankruptcy Code Section 1142 of the Bankruptcy Code. It is
appropriate for the Court to retain jurisdiction to: (a) enforce and implement the
terms and provisions of the Plan; (b) enforce any Assumed Executory Contracts;
(c) enforce the default remedies afforded to creditors under the Plan; and (d)
resolve any disputes arising under or related to the Plan.
72. 	In accordance with Section 1123(b)(3)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code
and Bankruptcy Rule 9019, and in consideration for the distributions and other
benefits provided under the Plan, the provisions of the Plan constitute a good-faith
compromise of all Claims that all Holders of Claims may have with respect to any
Allowed Claim or any distribution to be made on account of such Allowed Claim.
The compromise and settlement of such Claims embodied in the Plan are in the
best interests of the Debtor, the Estate, and all Holders of Claims, and are fair,
equitable, and reasonable.
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 20 of 21

- 21 -
73. 	Any conclusion of law later determined to be a finding of fact shall be
deemed a finding of fact.
74. 	Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, it is appropriate for
the Court to enter the Confirmation Order.
END OF FINDINGS OF FACT CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
Submitted by:
CHOI & ITO
Attorneys at Law
CHUCK C. CHOI
ALLISON A. ITO
700 Bishop Street, Suite 1107
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813
Telephone: (808) 533-1877
Facsimile: (808) 566-6900
Email: cchoi@hibklaw.com;
aito@hibklaw.com
Counsel for Debtor and
Debtor-in-Possession
U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Hawaii #24-00615 Dkt # 146 Filed 01/22/26 Page 21 of 21