Ayaad

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
District Judge S. Kato Crews
Civil Action No. 25-cv-03298-SKC
(Bankr. No. 23-13723-KHT)
In Re: JULIE ESTHER AYAAD and OSAMA HASSAN AYAAD,
Debtors.
OSAMA HASSAN AYAAD,
Appellant,
v.
JOLI A. LOFSTEDT, Chapter 7 Trustee, SAFWAN ALMOMANI, JANE MURPHY,
and JULIE POPE,
Appellees.
OPINION
This appeal by Appellant Osama Hassan Ayaad, originates from proceedings
in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Colorado. The Court has
studied the opening brief (Dkt. 26), response brief (Dkt. 30), reply brief (Dkt. 35), Mr.
Ayaad’s “Supplemental Submission in Further Support of Appellant’s Reply Brief
with Declaration of Osama Hassan Ayaad,” (Dkt. 36), the appendices (Dkts. 28 and
31), the docket, and applicable legal authority. Oral argument is unnecessary because
the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented and argument will not
Case No. 1:25-cv-03298-SKC Document 51 filed 10/09/26 USDC Colorado pg 1
of 16

2
materially assist in a decision.
Mr. Ayaad timely filed his Notice of Appeal on October 17, 2025. Dkt. 1. He
appeals 	the 	Bankruptcy 	Court’s 	October 	8, 	2025 	Order 	Approving 	Settlement
Agreement (“Settlement Order”). Id.; Appellant’s App’x A-1. The Settlement Order is
a final order. In re S. Med. Arts Companies, Inc., 343 B.R. 250, 254 (B.A.P. 10th Cir.
2006). Mr. Ayaad elected this Court to hear his appeal. Dkt. 1. The Court has
jurisdiction over this matter under 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1) and Fed. R. Bankr. P.
8005(a).
BACKGROUND
The parties are familiar with the factual and procedural history of this appeal.
Not much of what is relevant from that history is controverted between them.
Because the Bankruptcy Court so thoroughly recounted that history in its October
28, 	2025 	Order 	Denying 	Reconsideration 	and 	Denying 	Stay 	Pending 	Appeal
(“Reconsideration Order”), the Court quotes the relevant parts here:
Mr. Ayaad and Safwan Almomani (“Mr. Almomani”) decided to go
into the restaurant business together. In February 2011, Mr. Ayaad’s
then-wife, Julie Ayaad (“Ms. Ayaad”) filed the documentation with the
Colorado Secretary of State to form Sahara Café LLC (the “LLC”), which
owned 	and 	operated 	the 	Saraha 	Café 	(the 	“Restaurant”). 	The
Restaurant operated in leased space . . . [in] Manitou Springs, Colorado
(the “Property”). Mr. Ayaad managed the Restaurant’s daily operations.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03298-SKC Document 51 filed 10/09/26 USDC Colorado pg 2
of 16

3
Initially, the Property was owned by a third party, but in 2012,
Mr. Almomani and his wife, Jane Murphy (“Ms. Murphy,” and together,
“Creditors”) 	purchased 	the 	Property. 	Mr. 	Ayaad 	and 	Ms. 	Ayaad
(together, “Debtors”) assert they contributed to the purchase price and
were entitled to an interest in the building, based on a contract between
the two couples (the “Property Contract”). Disputes subsequently arose
between the couples, and in October 2020, Mr. Almomani filed a lawsuit
against Debtors in the El Paso County, Colorado District Court (the
“State Court”). Debtors filed counterclaims, including a claim for relief
based on the Property Contract.
* 	* 	*
In August 2022, following a jury trial, the State Court entered
Judgment 	in 	favor 	of 	Creditors 	and 	against 	Debtors, 	jointly 	and
severally, in the amount of $200,000 for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud
and deceit, and civil conspiracy, and in the amount of $750,000 for civil
theft, for a total damage award of $950,000, plus attorney’s fees and
costs of $184,193.99, plus post-judgment interest. The State Court also
entered judgment against Debtors on their counterclaims, including the
claim based on the Property Contract. After an appeal was dismissed,
the Creditors asked the State Court to dissolve the LLC and divide its
property. Before the State Court could decide that issue, Debtors filed
Case No. 1:25-cv-03298-SKC Document 51 filed 10/09/26 USDC Colorado pg 3
of 16

4
their bankruptcy petition on August 21, 2023, under Chapter 11,
subchapter V. Joli Lofstedt (“Trustee”) was appointed Subchapter V
Trustee.
During 	the 	pendency 	of 	their 	Chapter 	11 	case, 	Debtors,
represented by experienced and competent bankruptcy counsel, pursued
attempts to reorganize their affairs and resolve their disputes with
Creditors. 	They 	proposed 	a 	plan 	of 	reorganization 	and 	proposed
amendments to the plan, but Creditors pursued objections to each plan
and amendment (Docket ##81, 97, 117, 120, 123, 157, 165, 180).
Meanwhile, Mr. Almomani continued to manage the Restaurant’s
daily operations, contrary to his expressed wishes to focus on other
business and personal activities and to wind up the LLC (Docket ##47,
101). The Restaurant did not pay rent. Two notices of lis pendens
clouded Creditors’ title to the Property. Creditors were stayed from any
actions to collect their over $1.25 million judgment against Debtors,
while interest continued to accrue and their attorney’s fees continued to
increase.
In January 2025, Debtors filed a motion to convert their case to
one 	under 	Chapter 	7, 	citing 	the 	need 	to 	forestall 	additional
administrative expenses . . . . The Court converted Debtors’ case to one
under Chapter 7 by Order entered February 6, 2025 (Docket #192).
Case No. 1:25-cv-03298-SKC Document 51 filed 10/09/26 USDC Colorado pg 4
of 16

5
Trustee was appointed Chapter 7 Trustee (Docket #193).
In June 2025, Mr. Ayaad, proceeding pro se, filed a motion to
dismiss 	Debtors’ 	bankruptcy 	case 	(Docket 	#235). 	Ms. 	Ayaad, 	also
proceeding pro se, filed an objection to dismissal (Docket #240) . . . .
Trustee and Creditors also objected to dismissal of Debtors’ case (Docket
##242, 243). The Court set the motion to dismiss for preliminary hearing
to be held July 16, 2025 (Docket #261). At that hearing, for the reasons
stated on the record, the Court denied Mr. Ayaad’s motion to dismiss
(Docket #269). Mr. Ayaad filed a Motion to Reconsider (Docket #271),
which the Court also denied (Docket #286).
* 	* 	*
While [a Motion to Compel Trustee to Abandon Property of the
Estate (“Motion to Abandon”)] was pending, Trustee and Creditors
reached a Settlement Agreement resolving the Motion to Abandon and
other pending matters, including the estate’s counterclaims asserted in
adversary proceeding 23-01233 KHT (the “Adversary Proceeding”) and
the sale of rental property located at 1443 Acacia Drive, Colorado
Springs, CO 80907 (the “Rental Property”). The Settlement Agreement
provided, in part, as follows:
• 	Creditors will pay Trustee $20,000 in full satisfaction of
the Adversary Proceeding counterclaims, the motion for
dissolution pending in the State Court Case, and the
two notices of lis pendens filed against the Property.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03298-SKC Document 51 filed 10/09/26 USDC Colorado pg 5
of 16

6
Following the payment, the parties will dismiss the
motion for dissolution, close the State Court lawsuit,
and dismiss the Adversary Proceeding counterclaims.
Debtors will retain the right to assert the counterclaims
as defenses in the Adversary Proceeding.
• 	Creditors’ proof of claim will be allowed in its entirety.
• 	Trustee 	will 	assign 	to 	Creditors 	the 	estate’s
membership interest in the LLC.
• 	Trustee 	will 	release 	the 	lis 	pendens 	against 	the
Property.
• 	The estate will list and market the Rental Property and
will receive $20,000 from the net sale proceeds, with the
remaining net proceeds paid to Creditors.
On July 10, 2025, Trustee filed a Motion to Approve Settlement
Agreement (Docket #264). Mr. Ayaad filed an objection (Docket #272)
and also filed multiple pleadings alleging errors in the proceedings
before the State Court and asking for relief from the State Court’s
judgment. Creditor filed a motion to strike Mr. Ayaad’s objection for lack
of standing (Docket #273). Out of an abundance of caution, the Court
denied the motion to strike by Order entered September 11, 2025
(Docket #286), given the pendency of claims of nondischargeability in
the Adversary Proceeding.
On October 8, 2025, the Court held a preliminary hearing on the
Trustee’s 	Motion 	to 	Approve 	Settlement 	Agreement. 	Mr. 	Ayaad
appeared and presented argument to the Court. For the reasons stated
Case No. 1:25-cv-03298-SKC Document 51 filed 10/09/26 USDC Colorado pg 6
of 16

7
on the record, the Court approved the Settlement Agreement (Docket
##290, 291).
In re Ayaad, No. 23-13723 KHT, 2025 WL 3028170, at *1-3 (Bankr. D. Colo. Oct. 28,
2025) (footnotes omitted); see also Appellees’ App’x 216-29.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
When a party appeals to the district court, a district court “reviews the
bankruptcy court’s legal conclusions de novo, its factual findings for clear error, and
its discretionary decisions for abuse of discretion.” In re St. Charles, No. 20-cv-03050-
PAB, 2022 WL 168715, at *2 (D. Colo. Jan. 19, 2022) (collecting cases). The decision
of a bankruptcy court to approve a settlement agreement “may be disturbed only
when it achieves an unjust result amounting to a clear abuse of discretion.” Reiss v.
Hagmann, 881 F.2d 890, 891-92 (10th Cir. 1989).
When considering an abuse of discretion, a bankruptcy court’s decision won’t
be disturbed unless the reviewing court “has a definite and firm conviction that the
lower court made a clear error of judgment or exceeded the bounds of permissible
choice in the circumstances.” Moothart v. Bell, 21 F.3d 1499, 1504 (10th Cir. 1994)
(quoting McEwen v. City of Norman, 926 F.2d 1539, 1553–54 (10th Cir. 1991)). “An
abuse of discretion will be found only where the trial court makes an arbitrary,
capricious, whimsical, or manifestly unreasonable judgement.” F.D.I.C. v. Oldenburg,
34 F.3d 1529, 1555 (10th Cir. 1994) (cleaned up). When applying the abuse-of-
discretion standard, the reviewing court “defer[s] to the trial court’s judgment
Case No. 1:25-cv-03298-SKC Document 51 filed 10/09/26 USDC Colorado pg 7
of 16

8
because of its first-hand ability to view the witness or evidence and assess credibility
and probative value.” Moothart, 21 F.3d at 1504 (quoting McEwen, 926 F.2d at 1553-
54). And as concerns the approval of settlements, a bankruptcy court’s approval
without a sufficient factual foundation “inherently constitutes an abuse of discretion.”
Reiss, 881 F.2d at 892 (internal quotations and citation omitted).
ISSUES FOR DECISION
Mr. Ayaad’s opening brief identifies four issues on appeal: (1) “Whether the
Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion in denying Appellant’s Motion to Dismiss
under 11 U.S.C. § 707(a), where the written record does not reflect articulated
findings addressing prejudice to creditors or totality-of-circumstances analysis.”; (2)
“Whether the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion in approving the Trustee’s Rule
9019 settlement without conducting an independent, reasoned evaluation of the
required 	factors 	under 	controlling 	precedent.”; 	(3) 	“Whether 	approval 	of 	the
settlement without evidentiary development where material facts were disputed
raises due process concerns.”; and (4) “Whether denial of reconsideration compounded
the above errors.”1 Dkt. 26, p.6.
Only the issues concerning the Bankruptcy Court’s approval of the settlement
agreement (issues two and three) are properly before the Court. Mr. Ayaad’s Notice
of Appeal expressly identifies solely the October 8, 2025 Settlement Order as the
1 Because Appellant is not represented by counsel in this appeal, the Court liberally
construes his filings but without acting as his advocate. James v. Wadas, 724 F.3d
1312, 1315 (10th Cir. 2013).
Case No. 1:25-cv-03298-SKC Document 51 filed 10/09/26 USDC Colorado pg 8
of 16

9
matter being appealed.2 Appellant’s App’x A-62 (“The Debtor appeals . . . the Order
entered on October 8, 2025 (Docket No. 291), which approved the Chapter 7 Trustee’s
Motion to Approve Compromise and Settlement Agreement.”). Mr. Ayaad has not
filed a notice of appeal regarding either the order denying his motion to dismiss or
the Reconsideration Order. A party may not conflate issues that are not timely
appealed with those that are timely appealed.3 See, e.g., In re Lang, 414 F.3d 1191,
1196 (10th Cir. 2005) (“An unsuccessful motion to cure an untimely appeal cannot
itself be the vehicle for review of the matter not timely appealed.”). The issues,
therefore, are whether the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion or violated due
process with its approval of the settlement agreement.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 9019(a) allows the bankruptcy court to
approve settlements entered by the bankruptcy trustee after notice and a hearing.
2 Prior to this appeal being assigned to the undersigned, the Hon. Senior District
Judge Blackburn issued an Order to Show Cause to Appellant “as to why the appeal
should not be dismissed due to his lack of standing to commence this appeal.” Dkt. 5.
After both Appellant and Appellees responded (Dkts. 9 and 14, respectively), Judge
Blackburn issued an Order Allowing Appeal to Proceed, finding: “The Tenth Circuit
has held that courts may avoid the issue of prudential ‘person aggrieved’ standing to
decide a case on the merits. [citing In re C.W. Mining Co., 636 F.3d 1257, 1260 n.5
(10th Cir. 2011)] As such, the Court assumes, without deciding, that Appellant is a
person aggrieved and shall proceed to review the case on the merits.” Dkt. 21; see also
id. n.2 (“The Court is satisfied Article III standing exists.”).
3 Mr. Ayaad attempts to do exactly that, arguing in his Reply brief that “the dismissal
ruling is intertwined with the settlement approval.” Dkt. 35 p.10 (emphasis added).
It is not. The order denying his motion to dismiss was a separate order not timely
appealed.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03298-SKC Document 51 filed 10/09/26 USDC Colorado pg 9
of 16

10
“[S]ettlements are favored in bankruptcy.” Kearney v. Unsecured Creditors Comm.,
987 F.3d 1284, 1295 (10th Cir. 2021). A bankruptcy court’s decision to approve a
settlement must be informed and based on “an objective evaluation of developed
facts.” Reiss, 881 F.2d at 892. But the bankruptcy court isn’t required to hold a “mini-
trial” on the issues underlying the settlement or to decide all the legal or factual
questions the parties raise. In re Brutsche, 500 B.R. 62, 71 (Bankr. D.N.M. 2013).
Instead, the court should determine whether the settlement is fair, equitable, and in
the estate’s best interests, considering these factors: (1) probability of success of the
litigation on the merits; (2) potential difficulty collecting a judgment; (3) complexity
and expense of the litigation; and (4) interests of creditors. In re Kaiser Steel Corp.,
105 B.R. 971, 976 (D. Colo. 1989); see also In re Rich Glob., LLC, 652 F. App’x 625,
631 (10th Cir. 2016).
The thrust of Mr. Ayaad’s argument is that reversal is warranted because the
Settlement Order “does not reflect the independent, reasoned evaluation required by
controlling precedent.” Dkt. 26 p.9. He argues “[t]he record does not demonstrate
structured analysis of the probability of success, valuation disputes, collection risk,
litigation complexity, or the paramount interests of creditors.” Id. And he contends
“the 	settlement 	resolved 	disputed 	substantive 	rights 	without 	evidentiary
development where material facts were contested. When material factual disputes
exist, summary approval without testimony or cross-examination raises significant
procedural concerns.” Id. p.10.
Case No. 1:25-cv-03298-SKC Document 51 filed 10/09/26 USDC Colorado pg 10
of 16

11
Appellees argue the Settlement Order was not an abuse of discretion. Dkt. 30
p.9. They claim “[t]he Bankruptcy Court applied the correct law, made findings of
fact, and drew reasonable legal conclusions from the facts. Moreover, the Bankruptcy
Court properly found that the Settlement Agreement is fair, equitable, and in the
best interests of the estate and, in doing so, applied the correct legal standard.” Id.
Taking the Settlement Order alone, the Court agrees with Mr. Ayaad. In its
entirety, that order reads:
THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Trustee’s Motion to
Approve Settlement Agreement (the “Motion”) filed by Joli A. Lofstedt,
the Chapter 7 Trustee (“Trustee”) of the bankruptcy estate of Julie
Esther Ayaad and Osama Hassan Ayaad (the “Estate”). The Court
having examined the Motion hereby:
ORDERS that the Motion is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Settlement Agreement attached
to the Motion as Exhibit 1 is APPROVED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Trustee is authorized to take such
action as is deemed necessary to carry out the terms of the Settlement
Agreement, including but not limited to executing the Release of Lis
Pendens attached to the Settlement Agreement as Exhibit A.
Appellant’s App’x A-1. Nowhere in this order does the Bankruptcy Court mention it
found the settlement was fair, equitable, or in the estate’s best interests. Id. Likewise,
the order provides no indication that the Bankruptcy Court considered whether the
proposed settlement fits within the range of reasonableness by assessing the four
applicable factors. In re Kaiser Steel Corp., 105 B.R. at 976; see also In re Kopexa
Realty Venture Co., 213 B.R. 1020, 1022 (10th Cir. BAP 1997).
But days after the Settlement Order issued, Mr. Ayaad filed his Emergency
Case No. 1:25-cv-03298-SKC Document 51 filed 10/09/26 USDC Colorado pg 11
of 16

12
Motion for Reconsideration and to Vacate Order Approving Settlement. Appellees’
App’x 214-15. When the Bankruptcy Court ruled on Mr. Ayaad’s emergency motion
with its Reconsideration Order, it provided the informed decision its Settlement
Order lacked. Id. 216-29. In fine detail, the Bankruptcy Court first addressed each
argument raised by Mr. Ayaad from his emergency motion. Id. 221-24 (addressing
each of Mr. Ayaad’s four arguments regarding “Debtors’ interest in the Property,”
“Distribution from the LLC,” “The Rental Property,” and “Equitable Concerns.”).
Next, it expressly stated that “[w]hen approving the Settlement Agreement, the
Court considered” the applicable law as articulated in In re Dennett, 449 B.R. 139,
144-45 (Bankr. D. Utah 2011) (discussing Rule 9019 and the four prongs for
consideration of probability of success, difficulty of collection, complexity and expense
of litigation, and interests of creditors). Id. 225; see also id. at 220 (“As discussed
further below, the Court considered the undisputed facts and the applicable law to
determine Mr. Ayaad’s objection to the settlement must be overruled, and the
Settlement should be approved.”). It then provided its reasoned evaluation of those
factors, which dovetailed with its earlier analysis of Mr. Ayaad’s arguments for
reconsideration. Id. 225-26.
The Reconsideration Order provided the requisite detail and analysis the
Settlement Order lacked.4 That order shows the Bankruptcy Court’s decision to
4 The Reconsideration Order is part of the record on appeal even though it was issued
after the Notice of Appeal. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 8009(a)(4) (the record on appeal includes
“any opinion, findings of fact and conclusions of law relating to the issues on appeal”).
Case No. 1:25-cv-03298-SKC Document 51 filed 10/09/26 USDC Colorado pg 12
of 16

13
approve the settlement was fully informed and based on “an objective evaluation of
developed facts.” Reiss, 881 F.2d at 892. It also shows the Bankruptcy Court gave
considered attention to determining whether the settlement was fair, equitable, and
in the estate’s best interests by considering the four applicable factors. See, e.g., id.
225-26. In one example, the Bankruptcy Court explained:
Here, as discussed above, the State Court Judgment prevents Debtors’
estate from asserting a claim to an interest in the Property. And, there
is no evidence the LLC has a positive liquidation value such that a
distribution could be made on account of Ms. Ayaad’s membership
interest. The $20,000 the Creditors would pay under the Settlement
Agreement 	to 	resolve 	those 	issues 	is 	well 	within 	the 	universe 	of
reasonable actions, given the low likelihood of success of the arguments
asserted by Mr. Ayaad. Although collection of any judgment against
Creditors may not be difficult, the expense of additional litigation would
be substantial and would be an unfair burden to impose on the estate or
the Creditors. Trustee and the Court are required to consider the
interests of Creditors, whose claim includes a substantial unsecured
portion, and of other creditors, none of whom objected to the Settlement
Agreement. Ms. Ayaad did not object to the Settlement Agreement.
Considering each of the four factors, the Court properly found the
Settlement Agreement to be in the best interests of the estate.
Id.
An appellate court is free to affirm the rulings of a lower court “on any ground
that finds support in the record[.]” Smith v. Ingersoll-Rand Co., 214 F.3d 1235, 1248
(10th Cir. 2000) (quoting Cayce v. Carter Oil Co., 618 F.2d 669, 677 (10th Cir.1980)).
And a lower court’s “failure to make express findings does not require a remand if a
Regardless, the Court may take judicial notice of that order. See MTGLQ Invs., LP v.
Wellington, No. 23-2048, 2024 WL 1191128, at *2 n.2 (10th Cir. Mar. 20, 2024) (“The
district court filings subsequent to Ms. Wellington’s notice of appeal are not in the
record on appeal, but we take judicial notice of them.”).
Case No. 1:25-cv-03298-SKC Document 51 filed 10/09/26 USDC Colorado pg 13
of 16

14
complete understanding of the issues may be had [from the record] without the aid of
separate findings.” Home Indem. Co. v. Arapahoe Drilling Co., 5 F.3d 546 (10th Cir.
1993) (unpublished) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Viewing the record,
the Reconsideration Order does what the Settlement Order didn’t do. It shows the
Bankruptcy Court’s work. The Reconsideration Order is thorough and well-reasoned
and shows that the Bankruptcy Court made factual findings and legal conclusions,
and considered the applicable standard when issuing the Settlement Order. As a
result, the Court finds the Bankruptcy Court did not abuse its discretion when it
approved the settlement.
Mr. Ayaad further argues the Bankruptcy Court’s approval of the settlement
“without evidentiary development raises due process concerns.”5 Dkt. 26 p.18. But
“court proceedings that provide notice and an opportunity to be heard generally
provide due process.” Borders v. Wine, No. 21-4036-DDC-ADM, 2021 WL 4453571, at
*3 (D. Kan. Sept. 29, 2021). And Mr. Ayaad had that before the Bankruptcy Court.
5 When Mr. Ayaad raised this same issue of an evidentiary hearing with the
Bankruptcy Court on reconsideration, that court explained:
Mr. Ayaad asserts this Court was required to conduct an evidentiary
hearing before approving the Settlement. The Court disagrees. Debtors’
case has been pending before this Court more than two years, during
which time the Court has reviewed many pleadings, held multiple
hearings, and decided procedural and substantive issues. The Court has
become very familiar with the parties and their positions, as has the
Trustee. The facts before the Court are developed, and the salient facts
are undisputed.
Appellees’ App’x 220 (footnote omitted).
Case No. 1:25-cv-03298-SKC Document 51 filed 10/09/26 USDC Colorado pg 14
of 16

15
He received the Bankruptcy Court’s Order and Notice of Preliminary Hearing which
set a hearing on the matter of the trustee’s Motion to Approve Settlement Agreement.
Appellees’ App’x 212. The transcript of that hearing shows Mr. Ayaad attended and
argued his points. Id. 304-17. Having received notice and exercised his occasion to be
heard, Mr. Ayaad received all the process he was due respecting the Bankruptcy
Court’s approval of the settlement agreement. See Borders, 2021 WL 4453571, at *3
(court proceedings providing notice and an opportunity to be heard provide due
process); In re Brutsche, 500 B.R. at 71 (no mini-trial is required nor must the
bankruptcy court decide all legal or factual questions raised by the parties when
approving a settlement); In re Stewart, 603 B.R. 138, 147 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. 2019)
(bankruptcy court need not decide the numerous issues of law and fact raised by a
settlement but must only canvass the issues and see whether the settlement falls
below the lowest point in the range of reasonableness).
[remainder of page intentionally left blank]
Case No. 1:25-cv-03298-SKC Document 51 filed 10/09/26 USDC Colorado pg 15
of 16

16
CONCLUSION
For the reasons shared above, the Bankruptcy Court’s October 8, 2025 Order
Approving Settlement Agreement is AFFIRMED. The Settlement Order is supported
by a sufficient factual and legal foundation as explained by the Bankruptcy Court in
its October 28, 2025 Reconsideration Order, and therefore, there was no abuse of
discretion.
Dated: October 9, 2026
BY THE COURT:
_____________________________
S. Kato Crews
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:25-cv-03298-SKC Document 51 filed 10/09/26 USDC Colorado pg 16
of 16