MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

JORGE L. ALONSO, District Judge.

Fireman's Fund Insurance Company, Kaanapali Land LLC, and the United States appeal from the bankruptcy court's order lifting the automatic stay to allow appellees to litigate their asbestos-injury claims against the Debtor ("Order") in state court and its subsequent order denying reconsideration of the Order. For the reasons set forth below, the Court reverses the bankruptcy court's rulings.

Background

Appellees, Larry Sublett, Peter Schroeder, Arcelia Schroeder, Douglas Bell, Alan Spalding, Linda Spalding, Roderick Johnston, Jr., and Rosalyn Johnston, have asserted, or want to assert, state-court claims against Debtor for personal injuries allegedly caused by exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products that Debtor manufactured, marketed, or distributed. In April 2015, appellees filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay to permit them to pursue their claims against Debtor. On May 7, 2015, the bankruptcy court ordered that objections or responses to the motion be filed by May 14, 2015. (See Appellants' App., Ex. 3, 5/7/15 Order.) All three appellants filed timely objections to the motion.

On May 14, 2015, the bankruptcy court granted the motion. The one-page order states, in relevant part:

(Appellant's App., Ex. 10, 5/14/05 Order.)

Appellants filed motions for reconsideration of the Order, which the bankruptcy court denied on May 27, 2015. (See id., Ex. 24, 5/27/15 Hr'g Tr. at 16.) These appeals followed.

Discussion

Bankruptcy courts have discretion to lift the automatic stay "for cause." 11 U.S.C. § 362(d)(1). Factors relevant to the cause determination are whether: (1) "[a]ny great prejudice to either the bankrupt estate or the debtor will result from continuation of the civil suit"; (2) "the hardship to the [non-bankrupt party] by maintenance of the stay considerably outweighs the hardship of the debtor"; and (3) "the creditor has a probability of prevailing on the merits." In re Fernstrom Storage & Van Co., 938 F.2d 731, 735 (7th Cir. 1991) (quotation omitted). Stay lift decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion. In re Holtkamp, 669 F.2d 505, 507 (7th Cir. 1982). An abuse of discretion exists only if "the record contains no evidence upon which the court could have rationally based its decision," the decision is based on erroneous conclusions of law or findings of fact, or "the decision clearly appears arbitrary." Jones v. City of Elkhart, Ind., 737 F.3d 1107, 1116 (7th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted).

The Order says nothing about the Fernstrom factors and was issued without consideration of the objections of Kaanapali and the United States. (See Appellant's App., Ex. 10, 5/14/05 Order; id., Ex. 24, 5/27/15 Hr'g Tr. at 6.) The court considered those objections before ruling on the motions to reconsider, but still addressed only one Fernstrom factor — prejudice to the non-bankrupt parties — and did so only in a cursory fashion. (See id., Ex. 24, 5/27/15 Hr'g Tr. at 16 (denying the motions to reconsider and saying, "I just don't see how lifting the stay prejudices anyone that has got competing claims.").)

Nonetheless, appellees contend that the rulings should be affirmed because the record contains evidence on which the court's decision could have been based. Specifically, appellees note that the trustee told the court that there is "in excess of $100 million of [available] insurance" to pay claims asserted against Debtor. (See Appellant's App., Ex. 24, 5/27/15 Hr'g Tr. at 8-11.) However, the trustee offered no evidence to support this assertion which, in any event, means little without evidence as to the total dollar amount of claims that have been made. Moreover, the trustee said nothing about appellees' likelihood of succeeding on their state-law claims, and neither he nor the bankruptcy court explained why it was appropriate for appellees to liquidate their claims before the other claimants.

In short, the bankruptcy court did not articulate and the record does not otherwise disclose the bases for its decisions. Absent an explanation, the Court cannot find that the bankruptcy court exercised any discretion, let alone did so appropriately. Therefore, the Court reverses the bankruptcy court's rulings.

Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court reverses the bankruptcy court's Order and rulings on the motions to reconsider and remands the case for further proceedings. These cases are terminated.

SO ORDERED.