in the united states bankruptcy court - American Bar Association

287kB Size 8 Downloads 28 Views

Case 10-31607

Doc 3350

Filed 02/19/14 Entered 02/19/14 09:27:16 Document Page 1 of 16

Desc Main


) ) GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, ) ) DEBTOR. ) ________________________________________________)

CASE NO. 10-31607 CHAPTER 11

MOTION FOR ACCESS TO RULE 2019 STATEMENTS AND EXHIBITS Aetna, Inc. (“Aetna”) and The Rawlings Company LLC (“Rawlings”) (collectively, the “Movants”) hereby move for an Order granting them access to the Rule 2019 Statements and accompanying exhibits filed on behalf of asbestos claimants in the above-captioned case. On March 16, 2012, this Court entered an Order requiring that Rule 2019 Statements and exhibits be filed, and directing that such statements and accompanying exhibits may be accessed by those “who obtain a Court order authorizing access.” 1 This motion seeks such access. The Rule 2019 Statements and related exhibits are public records. Under wellestablished principles of common law, as well as Section 107 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Movants are entitled to review them unless an objecting party can demonstrate that disclosure will cause a “clearly defined and serious injury.”2 No such showing can be made here. Since no potential objector could make the showing necessary to overcome the presumption in favor of access, the Court should grant the present motion and allow the Movants to review the Rule 2019 Statements and exhibits.


See Revised Order Requiring Filing of Statements Pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2019, In re Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC., No. 10-31607 (Bankr. W.D.N.C. Mar. 16, 2012) [ECF No. 2037] (hereinafter the “Garlock 2019 Order”). 2

Goldstein v. Forbes (In re Cendant Corp.), 260 F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001) (“Broad allegations of harm, bereft of specific examples or articulated reasoning, are insufficient.”).

1 WCSR 31957548v1

Case 10-31607

Doc 3350

Filed 02/19/14 Entered 02/19/14 09:27:16 Document Page 2 of 16

Desc Main


This Court has jurisdiction over this motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334. This

matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A). Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a). The statutory predicates for the relief requested herein are 11 U.S.C. § 107(a) and Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 2.

Aetna is a health plan incorporated in Connecticut with its principal place of

business in Hartford, Connecticut. Aetna provides private healthcare coverage to 17,875,230 people in 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. 3.

Rawlings is a limited liability company organized under the laws of Kentucky

with its principal place of business in LaGrange, Kentucky. Rawlings is the nation’s largest provider of cost-containment services to health plans (together with Aetna, the “Health Plans”), serving many of the nation’s largest Health Plans which cover a substantial majority of the nation’s privately insured population. Rawlings’ primary services involve subrogation and coordination of benefits on behalf of Health Plans, assisting Health Plans in identifying and recovering claims that they have initially paid, but are the responsibility of a third party. 4.

The Health Plans have provided millions of dollars of medical benefits to tens of

thousands of plan members to treat their asbestos-related diseases. Many of these plan members have asserted personal injury claims against a wide variety of defendants. On information and belief, these defendants include the Debtor. 5.

The Health Plans have subrogation rights directly against tortfeasors, including

the Debtor, for their members’ health care expenses. Through subrogation, a portion of the members’ claims being asserted against the Debtor, namely that portion seeking reimbursement of medical expenses, rightfully belongs to the Health Plans. The Health Plans are the rightful 2 WCSR 31957548v1

Case 10-31607

Doc 3350

Filed 02/19/14 Entered 02/19/14 09:27:16 Document Page 3 of 16

Desc Main

holders of that part of each claim asserted by the covered member-creditors listed in the Rule 2019 statements. The Health Plans also have reimbursement rights against plan members who are compensated by tortfeasors for their injuries in suit, from trusts, or otherwise. 6.

The Movants seek access to the public records filed with the Court, but not made

available on the electronic docket. The Movants want to determine the full extent of their subrogation and reimbursement rights as to asbestos-related personal-injury claims brought against the Debtor.3 7.

Rule 2019 of the Bankruptcy Code requires an entity, other than a committee

appointed by a bankruptcy court, to file a verified statement with the court identifying, among other things, the creditor or creditors represented.4 8.

This Court has entered an Order requiring any entity representing more than one

creditor to file a Rule 2019 Statement.5 Pursuant to that Order, Rule 2019 Statements filed on behalf of asbestos claimants must include an attached Excel spreadsheet listing each claimant’s name, home address, partial social security number, and disease type.6 This exhibit is filed with the clerk in electronic form on compact disc.7 The Court’s electronic docket records the date of the filing, along with an indication that the exhibits are available to “those who obtain a Court order authorizing access.”8

3 While the Movants can obtain claimant names from the Schedule F filed at the commencement of the case, there is no other identifying information associated with such claimants. For example, the address listed in Schedule F is that of the claimant’s law firm, not the residential address of the claimant. Also, individuals whose claims arose after the Schedule F was filed would not be listed. 4

FED. R. BANKR. P. 2019(a). Rule 2019 has recently been amended to relax the requirement to disclose passive representation. See amended Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2019(a) (eff. Dec. 1, 2011). However, such amendment is irrelevant to this motion, as the events at issue took place under the prior version of Rule 2019. See, e.g., In re Motions for Access of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, 488 B.R. 281, 299 (D. Del. 2013). 5

See Garlock 2019 Order, at pp. 2-4.


Id., ¶ 2(a)-(g).


Id., p. 2.


Id., p. 2.

3 WCSR 31957548v1

Case 10-31607


Doc 3350

Filed 02/19/14 Entered 02/19/14 09:27:16 Document Page 4 of 16

Desc Main

Pursuant to this Order, more than 40 law firms or attorneys filed Rule 2019

Statements and the required exhibits.9 The exhibits are not available on the electronic docket, which contains a notation that “[e]xhibits have been scanned but may be accessed by parties who obtain Court order authorizing access.” ARGUMENT 10.

The public is presumptively entitled to access judicial records. Rule 2019

Statements, along with the exhibits filed but not placed on the electronic docket, are judicial records. There is no countervailing interest to overcome the presumption that movants, as members of the public, are entitled to access the Rule 2019 Statements. The Bankruptcy Code expands this right of access, providing that all documents filed with the court, save for those falling in three narrow exceptions not applicable to this matter, are accessible to the public. Accordingly, the Court should grant the Movants’ motion.


These law firms include: Ashcraft & Gerel, LLP (Dkt. No. 776); Baron & Budd (Dkt. No. 1226, 1719, 2038); Belluck & Fox (Dkt. No. 1236); Brayton Purcell, LLP (Dkt. No. 1604); Cascino Vaughan (Dkt. No. 911); Cooney and Conway (Dkt. No. 949); David M, Lipman (Dkt. No. 1257); Elizabeth V. Heller (Dkt. No. 920); Edward O. Moody, P.A. (Dkt. No. 872, 973); Edward Rubin (Dkt. No. 906); ELG Asbestos Claimants (Dkt. No. 1105, 2246); Fleming & Associates (Dkt. No. 1101); George C. Greatrex, Jr. (Dkt. No. 883); Gerald F. Maples, PA (Dkt. No. 940); Goldberg, Persky & White, PC (Dkt. No. 958); Harowitz & Tigerman, LLP (Dkt. No. 912); Hartley & Obrien, PLLC (Dkt. No. 946); Harvit & Schwartz, LC (Dkt. No. 1140); Hissey Kientz, LLP (Dkt. No. 1643, 1645); Howard, Brenner & Nass, PC (Dkt. No. 903); Howard & Reed (Dkt. No. 988); James F. Humphreys & Associates, L.C. (Dkt. No. 764); John Werner (Dkt. No. 2776, 3086); Kazan McClain (Dkt. No. 915); Larry O. Norris (Dkt. No. 942); Levy Phillips & Konigsberg (Dkt. No. 952); Lipsitz & Pontiero (Dkt. No. 955, 1213, 2029, 2559); Maples & Lomax, PA (Dkt. No. 1022); Moore & Van Allen, PLLC (Dkt. No. 673, 1222); Nix, Patterson & Roach, LLP (Dkt. No. 867); Patten, Wornom, Hatten & Diamonstein, LC (Dkt. No. 1269, 2763); Philip J. Hall (Dkt. No. 890); Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, LLC (Dkt. No. 887); Reaud, Morgan & Quinn, LLP (Dkt. No. 899); Robert Peirce & Associates, PC (Dkt. No. 893); Robert J. Murphy (Dkt. No. 1215); Russell B. Winburn (Dkt. No. 927); Simmons Browder Gianaris Angelides & Barnerd, LLC (Dkt. No. 895); Simon Greenstone Panatier Bartlett, PC (Dkt. No. 1621); Stephen L. Shackleford (Dkt. No. 904); The Maritime Asbestos Legal Clinic (Dkt. No. 797); The Sutter Law Firm (Dkt. No. 930); Wallace & Graham, PA (Dkt. No. 941); Ward Black Law (Dkt. No. 908, 910); Weitz & Luxenberg (Dkt. No. 927); and Williams Kerkher Hart Boundas, LLP (Dkt. No. 888).

4 WCSR 31957548v1

Case 10-31607


Doc 3350

Filed 02/19/14 Entered 02/19/14 09:27:16 Document Page 5 of 16

Desc Main

The Public’s Right Of Access To Judicial Records Is Well Established. 11.

The public’s right to access documents filed with the court is a universally

established principle of Anglo-American justice.10 Ensuring that court filings are available to the public promotes public confidence in the judicial system; diminishes the potential for injustice, incompetence, perjury or fraud; provides the public with a more complete understanding of the judicial system; and helps to assure that judges perform their duties in an honest and informed manner.11 12.

“The filing of a document with a court clearly establishes it is subject to the right

of access.”12 This right can only be overcome “if countervailing interests heavily outweigh the public interests in access.”13 The burden is on the party seeking to restrict access.14 1.

Rule 2019 Statements Are “Judicial Records” To Which The Public Has A Presumptive Right of Access.


In In re Motions for Access, the United States District Court for the District of

Delaware addressed the appeal of a bankruptcy court’s order denying a non-party to the bankruptcy case access to Rule 2019 Statements.15 The district court reversed the bankruptcy court’s order denying access, expressly holding that Rule 2019 Statements and their


See, e.g., Nixon v. Warner Commc’ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (“[T]he courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and copy . . . judicial records and documents.”); Publicker Indus., Inc. v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 1059, 1068-70 (3rd Cir. 1984). 11

See Goldstein v. Forbes (In re Cendant Corp.), 260 F.3d 183, 192 (3rd Cir. 2001); Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 678 (3rd Cir. 1988). 12

In re Motions for Access of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, 488 B.R. 281, 298 (Bankr. D. Del. 2013) (quoting In re Cendant, 260 F.3d at 192) (internal quotations omitted); see also Leucadia, Inc. v. Applied Extrusion Tech., Inc., 998 F.2d 157, 161 (3rd Cir. 1993) (observing that the “pervasive common law right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents” is “beyond dispute”) (citation omitted). 13

Rushford v. New Yorker Magazine, 846 F.2d 249, 253 (4th Cir. 1988); see also Stone v. Univ. of Md. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 178, 182 (4th Cir. 1988) (right of access “may be abrogated only in unusual circumstances”). 14

Rushford, 846 F.2d at 253.


See In re Motions for Access, 488 B.R. at 286-87. In that case, the Debtor sought access to Rule 2019 Statements filed in nine (9) prior bankruptcy cases. Id. The Debtor sought this information for the purpose of using it during the estimation proceedings in its own case. Id.

5 WCSR 31957548v1

Case 10-31607

Doc 3350

Filed 02/19/14 Entered 02/19/14 09:27:16 Document Page 6 of 16

Desc Main

accompanying exhibits constitute “judicial records.”16 The court held that members of the public have standing to seek such documents, and found no justification for overcoming the presumption of access.17 The court also noted that the Rule 2019 orders in the bankruptcy cases at issue, as does the one here, expressly contemplate a mechanism for providing access to the documents; it was, thus, unreasonable for the claimants who submitted the information to assume that access by the public would be prevented.18 14.

The provisions of the Rule 2019 orders addressed in In re Motions for Access are

virtually identical to those imposed by the Court in this case.19 The Movants have a presumptive right of access to these judicial records. 2.

There Is No Right To Participate Anonymously in Bankruptcy Proceedings; The Rule 2019 Statements Contain No Information Justifying Protection.


Parties cannot participate anonymously in federal judicial proceedings, save for

“exceptional cases” where “a litigant’s reasonable fear of severe harm outweighs the public’s interest in open judicial proceedings.”20 Bankruptcy proceedings are no different.21 The Rule


See In re Motions for Access, 488 B.R. at 298-99. The Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania adopted the In re Motions for Access decision for the purpose of resolving the Debtor’s motion for access to Rule 2019 Statements filed in Pennsylvania bankruptcy court. See In re Motions for Access of Garlock Sealing Technology, LLC, Nos. 11-1406 (ECF No. 33), 11-1439 (ECF No. 25), 11-1452 (ECF No. 30) (Bankr. W.D. Pa.). 17

In re Motions for Access, 488 B.R. at 298.


Id. at 301.


Compare In re Motions for Access, 488 B.R. at 297 (discussing terms of Rule 2019 orders entered in prior bankruptcy cases) with the Specialty Products Rule 2019 Order. 20

Doe v. Megless, 654 F.3d 404, 408 (3rd Cir. 2011) (affirming denial of civil rights plaintiff’s request to proceed by using a pseudonym because “plaintiff’s use of a pseudonym runs afoul of the public’s common law right of access to judicial proceedings.”) (internal quotations omitted); see also Doe v. City of Chicago, 30 F.3d 667, 669 (7th Cir. 2004) (denying permission for sexual harassment victim to use pseudonym). 21

See, e.g., In re Barney’s, Inc., 201 B.R. 703, 707-709 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1996) (denying request to withhold identity of potential investor in debtor, even though investor asserted it would abandon transaction is its identity was disclosed before due diligence was completed); In re Foundation for New Era Philanthropy, 1995 WL 478841 at *6 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. May 18, 1995) (denying request to seal list of donors to failed philanthropy, stating “[t]he bankruptcy process is by nature an open one, since it is often not a two party dispute”); In re Moramerica Fin. Corp., 158 B.R. 135, 137 (Bankr. N.D. Iowa 1993) (balancing interests and concluding that desire to spare embarrassment and protect privacy of investors in debtor was insufficient to prevent disclosure of identities).

6 WCSR 31957548v1

Case 10-31607

Doc 3350

Filed 02/19/14 Entered 02/19/14 09:27:16 Document Page 7 of 16

Desc Main

2019 Statements show who is participating in bankruptcy proceedings, a fact that should not be concealed from the public.22 16.

The Garlock Rule 2019 Order, requiring only that the name, residential address,

and a placeholder for the claimant’s social security number be included on the exhibits, comports with Bankruptcy Rule 9037.23 And, the Movants are willing to accept limitations on the further disclosure of the information they obtain, and will agree to keep any addresses and social security number information confidential. The Movants have no intention, or desire, to publish such information; it will be used only to the extent necessary to match the claimant’s information to the Health Plans’ existing databases to identify any covered members who are seeking recovery for an asbestos-related injury. 17.

The Movants, like any other member of the public, are entitled to access to such

documents: [A]ll persons seeking to inspect and copy judicial records stand on an equal footing, regardless of their motive for inspecting such records. Thus, the press has no greater right of access than does the general public, and more importantly, an intervenor who is also a litigant in a collateral proceeding enjoys no lesser rights merely because s/he desires to use public documents for his or her own benefit.24


See In re Motions for Access, 488 B.R. at 301 (noting that each claimant, even if they never file a formal claim, contacted an attorney and authorized that attorney to represent them in connection with a potential asbestosrelated claim and the information set forth in the Rule 2019 Statement is the same information that would have to be disclosed in litigation). 23

FED. R. BANK. P. 9037(a) (“Unless the court orders otherwise, in an electronic or paper filing made with the court that contains an individual's social-security number, taxpayer-identification number, or birth date, the name of an individual, other than the debtor, known to be and identified as a minor, or a financial-account number, a party or nonparty making the filing may include only: (1) the last four digits of the social-security number and taxpayeridentification number; (2) the year of the individual's birth; (3) the minor's initials; and (4) the last four digits of the financial-account number.”) 24

Leucadia, 998 F.2d at 167; see also Lugosch v. Pyramid Company of Onandaga, 435 F.3d 110, 123 (2d Cir. 2006) (allowing access and rejecting argument that since newspaper was not seeking information for the purpose of monitoring the judicial proceedings, but to evaluate the business practices of a party, the presumption of access should be lessened); In re Motions for Access, 488 B.R. at 298 (“While it is undoubtedly true that Rule 2019 is not intended for the purpose to which Garlock seeks to put it, this fact does not rebut the presumption of public access to judicial records…. [J]ust because Garlock might have another mechanism for obtaining the information it

7 WCSR 31957548v1

Case 10-31607


Doc 3350

Filed 02/19/14 Entered 02/19/14 09:27:16 Document Page 8 of 16

Desc Main

The Bankruptcy Code Explicitly Provides The Public With A Right Of Access. 18.

In the bankruptcy context, Congress has gone so far as to codify the public’s right

to access. 11 U.S.C. § 107(a) provides that “[e]xcept as provided in subsections (b) and (c) and subject to section 112, a paper filed in a case under this title and the dockets of a bankruptcy court are public records and open to examination by an entity at reasonable times without charge.” 19.

The “coverage of § 107(a) is ‘sweeping,’ … extending to ‘all papers filed in a

bankruptcy case.’”25 Under the Section 107 analysis, the bankruptcy court does not engage in a balancing of equities.26 The only inquiry is whether the documents being sought fall within one of three statutory exceptions. These exceptions “are construed narrowly.”27 The heavy burden to justify secrecy is on the party seeking to hide the information.28 Such party must come forward with particular facts establishing that the documents fall within the confines of the exception.29

seeks here does not, in the circumstances presented here, diminish Garlock’s right to pursue access through the process it is pursuing in this Court.”). 25

In re Gitto Global Corp., 422 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2005) (citations omitted, emphasis in original). This broad sweep eliminates the need for a judicial determination as to whether a particular document is a “judicial record;” once filed in the bankruptcy case, the presumption of public access applies. Id. at 9-10. 26

Id., 422 F.3d at 10.


See Ferm v. United States Trustee (In re Crawford), 194 F.3d 954, 960 (9th Cir. 1999); see also 2 COLLIER ON BANKRUPTCY, ¶ 107.3 (Alan N. Renick & Henry J. Sommer eds., 15 th ed. 2006) (noting the exceptions of Section 107(b) must be viewed as an extraordinary measure warranted only in rare circumstances; “mere embarrassment, or harm to reputation based on [disclosure of] nonscandalous, nondefamatory information is [insufficient]”; “the dissemination of merely prejudicial material cannot be enjoined under the provision.”) (collecting cases)). 28

In re Cendant, 260 F.3d at 194 (party seeking to block access bears burden of showing clearly defined and serious injury). 29

In re Gitto, 422 F.3d at 11; In re Cendant, 260 F.3d at 194; see also In re Anthracite Capital, Inc., 492 B.R. 162, 174 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (“Since the sealing of records runs contrary to the strong policy of public access, ‘only clear evidence of impropriety can overcome the presumption and justify protection under § 107(b)(2).’” (citation omitted)); United States v. Continental Airlines, Inc. (In re Continental), 150 B.R. 334, 340-41 (D. Del. 1993) (refusing to seal documents based on “nothing more than the mere possibility” that they contained defamatory information).

8 WCSR 31957548v1

Case 10-31607


Doc 3350

Filed 02/19/14 Entered 02/19/14 09:27:16 Document Page 9 of 16

Desc Main

Section 107(b)(1) provides an exception for trade secrets and confidential

research, development of commercial information.30 This exception is inapplicable here. 21.

Section 107(b)(2) provides an exception for scandalous or defamatory matter.31

There is nothing scandalous or defamatory contained in the Rule 2019 Statements and accompanying exhibits. 22.

Section 107(c) provides an exception allowing, but not requiring, a court to

protect identifying information that the court finds would create an undue risk of causing identity theft, or other unlawful injury.32 Any concerns regarding identity theft can be overcome by restrictions imposed upon the use of the information.33 The disclosure of truthful information (of the sort that the individuals claimants would otherwise freely publish when filing complaints outside of bankruptcy) cannot lead to unlawful injury.34 CONCLUSION WHEREFORE, for the reasons expressed herein, the Movants respectfully request that this Court issue an order permitting them access to the Rule 2019 Statements and accompanying exhibits filed in this case; and providing such other and further relief as the Court deems necessary and appropriate. Respectfully submitted, this the 19th day of February, 2014. [Signature on Following Page]


11 U.S.C. § 107(b)(1).


11 U.S.C. § 107(b)(2).


11 U.S.C. § 107(c).


See, e.g., In re Motions for Access of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC, 488 B.R. 281, 298 (Bankr. D. Del. 2013) (rejecting contention that disclosure of Rule 2019 Statements would lead to identity theft, noting restrictions the court would place on the use of the information). 34

See, e.g., In re Creighton, 490 B.R. 240, 246 (N.D. Ohio 2013) (“If the ‘ridicule’ Mrs. Creighton suffers deals only with the true fact that she filed for bankruptcy protection, that speech is protected and cannot result in unlawful injury.”).

9 WCSR 31957548v1

Case 10-31607

Doc 3350

Filed 02/19/14 Entered 02/19/14 09:27:16 Document Page 10 of 16

Desc Main

/s/ Thomas W. Waldrep, Jr. _____ Thomas W. Waldrep, Jr. (NC State Bar No. 11135) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP a Limited Liability Partnership

One West Fourth Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Telephone: 336-747-6631 Telefax: 336-726-8531 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Rawlings and Aetna

10 WCSR 31957548v1

Case 10-31607

Doc 3350

Filed 02/19/14 Entered 02/19/14 09:27:16 Document Page 11 of 16

Desc Main

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that the foregoing Motion for Access to Rule 2019 Statements and Exhibits were served electronically on those entities that have properly registered for such electronic service or by United States Mail, first class for those entities not registered for electronic service as indicated on the attached Exhibit “A”. Dated this 19th day of February, 2014.

/s/ Thomas W. Waldrep, Jr. _____ Thomas W. Waldrep, Jr. (NC State Bar No. 11135) WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE, LLP a Limited Liability Partnership

One West Fourth Street Winston-Salem, NC 27101 Telephone: 336-747-6631 Telefax: 336-726-8531 Email: [email protected] Attorney for Rawlings and Aetna

11 WCSR 31957548v1

Case 10-31607

Doc 3350

Filed 02/19/14 Entered 02/19/14 09:27:16 Document Page 12 of 16

Desc Main

Exhibit A Kenneth B. Oettinger, Jr., Esq. Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP 3300 One Wachovia Center 301 South College Street Charlotte, NC 28202-6025

Via ECF: Shelley Koon Abel, Esq. Albert F. Durham, Esq. Ross Robert Fulton, Esq. John R. Miller, Esq. Ashley K. Neal, Esq. William S. Smoak, Jr. Richard C. Worf, Esq. Rayburn Cooper & Durham 227 West Trade Street Suite 1200 Charlotte, NC 28202

Benjamin A. Kahn, Esq. Nexsen Pruet, PLLC P.O. Box 3463 Greensboro, NC 27402 Sara W. Higgins, Esq. Higgins & Owens, PLLC 5925 Carnegie Blvd. Suite 530 Charlotte, NC 28209

Louis Adam Bledsoe, III, Esq. Garland S. Cassada, Esq. Jonathan C. Krisko, Esq. Robinson Bradshaw Hinson, P.A. 101 N. Tryon Street Suite 1900 Charlotte, NC 28246

G. Martin Hunter, Esq. G. Martin Hunter, Attorney at Law 301 S. McDowell Street, Suite 1014 Charlotte, NC 28204

Daniel Gray Clodfelter, Esq. Hillary B. Crabtree, Esq. Mark A. Nebrig, Esq. Moore Van Allen PLLC 100 N. Tryon Street 47th Floor Charlotte, NC 28202-4003

Burton Shuford, Esq. Shuford & Bain, PLLC 1909 J.N. Pease Place Suite 101 Charlotte, NC 28262 John S. Buford, Esq. Jeffrey E. Oleynik, Esq. Jim W. Phillips, Jr., Esq. Brooks Pierce, et. al. P.O. Box 26000 Greensboro, NC 27420

Gary W. Jackson, Esq. Samuel McGee, Esq. Jackson & McGee 225 East Worthington Avenue Suite 200 Charlotte, NC 28203

Bryan W. Stone, Esq. Arnold & Smith, PLLC 200 N. McDowell Street Charlotte, NC 28204

Ashley A., Esq. Kiah T. Ford, IV, Esq. William L. Esser, IV, Esq. Parker Poe Adams Bernstein, LLP 401 South Tryon Street Suite 3000 Charlotte, NC 28202 12 WCSR 31957548v1

Case 10-31607

Doc 3350

Filed 02/19/14 Entered 02/19/14 09:27:16 Document Page 13 of 16

Andrew T. Houston, Esq. Richard S. Wright, Esq. Moon Wright & Houston, PLLC 227 West Trade Street Suite 1800 Charlotte, NC 28202

Matthew L. Thiel, Esq. Kazan McClain Lyons Greenwood Jack London Market 55 Harrison Street, Suite 400 Oakland, CA 94607 Jeffrey T. Gaughan, Esq. Baggett McCall Burgess Watson 3006 Country Club Road Lake Charles, IA 70605

Deborah L. Fletcher, Esq. FisherBroyles LLP 6000 Fairview Road Suite 1200 Charlotte, NC 28210

Casey F. Cogburn, Esq. Bill G. Hall, P.C. P.O. Box 19024 Huntsville, AL 35801

VIA REGULAR MAIL: Stephen Juris, Esq. David Austin, Esq. Morvillo, Abramowitz, et al. 565 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10017

Elihu Inselbuch, Esq. Caplin & Crysdale 600 Lexington Avenue 21st Floor New York, NY 10022-6000

Michael A. Rosenthal, Esq. Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166-0193

Leslie M. Kelleher, Esq. Jeanna Rickards Koski, Esq. Jeffrey A. Liesemer, Esq. Kevin C. Maclay, Esq. Todd E. Phillips, Esq. James P. Wehner, Esq. Caplin Drysdale Chartered One Thomas Circle, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005

Aaron G. York, Esq. Sacks Tierney, P.A. 4250 N. Drinkwater Blvd. Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Christopher K. Kiplok, Esq. Hughes Hubbard & Reed, LLP One Battery Park Plaza New York, NY 10004

Bronwyn I. Rinehart, Esq. James F. Humphreys & Associates 500 Virginia Street, East Suite 800 Charleston, WV 25301

Peter C. D’Apice, Esq. Sander L. Esserman, Esq. Jo E. Hartwick, Esq. Stutzman Bromberg Esserman 2323 Bryan Street Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201

Jeffrey S. Mutnick, Esq. Law Office of Jeffrey S. Mutnick 737 SW Vista Avenue Portland, Oregon 97205

13 WCSR 31957548v1

Desc Main

Case 10-31607

Doc 3350

Filed 02/19/14 Entered 02/19/14 09:27:16 Document Page 14 of 16

J. David Butler, Esq. Richardson, Patrick, et. al. 1730 Jackson Street P.O. Box 1368 Barnwell, SC 29812

Jason M. Katz, Esq. Hiersche, Hayward, Drakeley 15303 Dallas Parkway Suite 700 Addison, TX 75001

Elizabeth V. Heller, Esq. Goldenberg Heller Antognoli 2228 South State Route 157 Edwardsville, IL 62025

Frankel Wyron, LLP 2101 L Street, NW Suite 800 Washington, DC 20037

Jason T. Shipp, Esq. Goldberg, Persky & White, P.C. 1030 Fifth Avenue Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Lauren M. Webb, Esq. Robert W. Phillips, Esq. Simmons Browder Gianaris 707 Berkshire Blvd. P.O. Box 521 East Alton, IL 62024

Robert Bench, Esq. Rand Nolen, Esq. Fleming & Associates, L.L.P. 1330 Post Oak Blvd. Suite 3030 Houston, TX 77056

Ann Harper, Esq. Baron & Budd, PC 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219

Brian T. FitzPatrick, Esq. Belluck & Fox, LLP 546 5th Avenue 4th Floor New York, NY 10036

John D. Hurst, Esq. Joseph F. Rice, Esq. John A. Baden, IV Jeanette M. Gilbert, Esq. Motley Rice LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464

Mark R. Snyder, Esq. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. Office of the Chief Counsel 1200 K Street, N.W. Suite 340 Washington, D.C. 20005-4026

Perry Weitz, Esq. Lisa N. Busch, Esq. Weitz & Luxenberg, PC 700 Broadway New York, NY 10003

Wendy A. Kinsella, Esq. Harris Beach PLLC 333 West Washington Street Suite 200 Syracuse, NY 13202

Leonard P. Goldberger, Esq. Stevens & Lee, P.C. 1818 Market Street 29th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103

Martin E. Beeler, Esq. Covington & Burling LLP 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018

14 WCSR 31957548v1

Desc Main

Case 10-31607

Doc 3350

Filed 02/19/14 Entered 02/19/14 09:27:16 Document Page 15 of 16

John D. Demmy, Esq. Stevens & Lee, P.C. 1105 North Market Street 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801

Joseph M. Snyder, Esq. Widewaters Hotels, LLC 5786 Widewaters Parkway Suite 3 DeWitt, NY 13214

Garrett J. Bradley, Esq. Thornton & Naumes, LLP 100 Summer Street Boston, MA 02110

Lee J. Rohn, Esq. Rohn and Carpenter, LLC 1101 King Street Christiansted, St. Croix U.S. Virgin Islands 00820

Nancy L. Manzer, Esq. Wilmer Cutler Pickering 1875 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20006

Jonathan P. Guy, Esq. Richard H. Wyron, Esq. Debra L. Felder, Esq. Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe 1152 15th Street, NW Columbia center Washington, DC 20005-1706

Thomas Parker Griffin, Esq. Bradley Arant Boult Cummings 1819 Fifth Avenue North Birmingham, AL 35203

Richard H. Hunter, Esq. Hunter, Cole & Bennett 1138 King Street, 3rd Floor Christiansted, VI 00820

Daniel L. Keller, Esq. Keller, Fishback & Jackson, LLP 18425 Burbank Blvd., Suite 610 Tarzana, CA 91356

Francis Spinelli, Esq. Everett & Weathersby 3405 Piedmont Road, NE Suite 225 Atlanta, GA 30305

Rachael L. Stringer, Esq. Stutzman, Bromberg, Esserman, et al. 2323 Bryan Street, Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201 Michael S. Davis, Esq. Jantra Van Roy, Esq. Peter Janovsky, Esq. Zeichner Ellman & Krause LLP 575 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022

Britain H. Bryant, Esq. Bryant Barnes Moss 1134 King Street, 2nd Floor Christiansted, VI 00820 James Crawford Orr, Esq. Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz 33 Washington Street, 18th Floor Newark, NJ 70102-5311

Frank F. McGinn, Esq. Bartlett Hackett Feinberg, PC 155 Federal Street 9th Floor Boston, MA 02110

John H. Benham, Esq. John H. Benham, P.C. 1 Frederiksbeg Gade Box 11720 St. Thomas, VI 00801 15

WCSR 31957548v1

Desc Main

Case 10-31607

Doc 3350

Filed 02/19/14 Entered 02/19/14 09:27:16 Document Page 16 of 16

James Hymes, III, Esq. Hymes & Zebedee, PC 1131 King Street, Suite 309 Christiansted, VI 00820

C. Michael Evert, Jr., Esq. Evert & Weathersby 3405 Piedmont Road Suite 225 Atlanta, GA 30305

Susan J. Cole, Esq. Bice Cole Law Firm 999 Ponce de Leon Blvd. 710 Coral Gables, FL 33134

Carol G. Hurst, Esq. No. 18 Dronningens Gade St. Thomas, VI 00802 Richard E. Daley, II, Esq. 1104 Strand Street Suite 204 St. Crox, VI 00820

W. Mark Wilczynski, Esdq. Law Office of W. Mark Wilczynski P.O. Box 1150 St. Thomas, VI 00804 Simone R.D. Francis, Esq. Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Tunick Building, Suite 201 1336 Beltjen Road St. Thomas, VI 00802 Garlock Sealing Transportation 1666 Division Street Palmyra, NY 14522 Pernard Pattie, Esq. 1244 Queen Cross Street Suite 5 Christiansted, VI 00820 Theodore Huge, Esq. 171 Church Street Suite 160 Charleston, SC 29401 Maria Tankenson Hodge, Esq. Hodge & Francois 1340 Taarneberg St. Thomas, VI 00802

16 WCSR 31957548v1

Desc Main