This document summarizes a bankruptcy court hearing regarding involuntary bankruptcy petitions filed against Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems Ltd. by petitioning creditors represented by Schulte Roth & Zabel. The petitioning creditors filed motions for the appointment of a trustee and to shorten the time for a hearing on that motion. Allied Systems' counsel responded and filed a motion to transfer venue to another court. During discussions between the parties, issues regarding the involuntary petitions were resolved based on Allied Systems' stated intentions in its filings. As a result, the petitioning creditors believe the cases can now move forward in an expedited manner.
The Alleged Debtors filed a motion requesting the court's permission to file an unredacted version of their Motion to Transfer Venue under seal. They argue the unredacted version contains sensitive commercial information regarding their financial condition and restructuring negotiations that could harm their business if disclosed publicly. The Alleged Debtors state they have publicly filed a redacted version, and the unredacted version would only be available to the court and specific receiving parties subject to confidentiality restrictions. They believe this balancing of interests appropriately protects their sensitive information while still allowing for consideration of the merits of their transfer motion.
This document is a notice filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware regarding a hearing on motions seeking to transfer venue of a bankruptcy case. It lists potential witnesses and exhibits that may be presented by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors at the hearing, including the CEO of the debtor, various objectors, proposed lenders, and exhibits such as pleadings and documents filed in the bankruptcy case. The notice reserves the right to supplement the witness and exhibit lists before the hearing.
FindLaw | GM Asset Sale Approved by Bankruptcy CourtLegalDocs
This document is the decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to approve General Motors' motion to sell substantially all of its assets to Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. The court approved the sale over objections from minority bondholders, tort litigants concerned with successor liability, asbestos litigants, and non-UAW unions. The court found that a Section 363 sale was necessary and appropriate given GM's dire financial situation and inability to survive a traditional restructuring through a Chapter 11 plan.
This document is DaVita Inc.'s annual report filed with the SEC for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007. It provides an overview of DaVita as the leading provider of dialysis services in the US, operating 1,359 outpatient dialysis centers serving around 107,000 patients. It summarizes the dialysis industry, DaVita's services including outpatient and hospital dialysis, ESRD labs, and ancillary services. It also covers DaVita's focus on quality care through clinical programs and physician oversight.
This document is an affidavit of service filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. It details that various documents related to involuntary bankruptcy petitions filed against Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. (L.P.) were served upon parties including the alleged debtors, their counsel, counsel for petitioning creditors, and the United States Trustee via federal express and first class mail on May 18, 2012.
This document is an objection filed by the United States Trustee to motions filed by Petitioning Creditors and Alleged Debtors to seal certain documents filed with the court. The U.S. Trustee does not oppose sealing documents pending a ruling on whether the bankruptcy cases will proceed, but argues that any sealing should end if the court finds cause to open bankruptcy cases, as the information would then become public. The U.S. Trustee asserts that bankruptcy law favors public disclosure of information relevant to creditors and parties in interest.
This brief was submitted by intervenors-appellees-cross-appellants in defense of a Texas law (HB 1131) that restricts vertical integration between automobile insurers and autobody repair shops. The brief argues that HB 1131 does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause or the First Amendment. Regarding the dormant Commerce Clause, the brief asserts that HB 1131 regulates evenhandedly and was not enacted for protectionist purposes. Regarding the First Amendment, the brief argues that the commercial speech restrictions in HB 1131 regulate only false or misleading speech and place incidental burdens that are permissible. The brief urges the court to reject the challenges to HB 1131 and affirm the district court's
This document is a motion filed in a US bankruptcy court requesting permission to file an unredacted version of a response under seal. It summarizes that the response contains sensitive commercial information about the debtors' financial condition and restructuring negotiations. The debtors argue the information could harm ongoing negotiations and business operations if disclosed publicly. They seek to file the unredacted version under seal and make it available only to specific parties.
The Alleged Debtors filed a motion requesting the court's permission to file an unredacted version of their Motion to Transfer Venue under seal. They argue the unredacted version contains sensitive commercial information regarding their financial condition and restructuring negotiations that could harm their business if disclosed publicly. The Alleged Debtors state they have publicly filed a redacted version, and the unredacted version would only be available to the court and specific receiving parties subject to confidentiality restrictions. They believe this balancing of interests appropriately protects their sensitive information while still allowing for consideration of the merits of their transfer motion.
This document is a notice filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware regarding a hearing on motions seeking to transfer venue of a bankruptcy case. It lists potential witnesses and exhibits that may be presented by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors at the hearing, including the CEO of the debtor, various objectors, proposed lenders, and exhibits such as pleadings and documents filed in the bankruptcy case. The notice reserves the right to supplement the witness and exhibit lists before the hearing.
FindLaw | GM Asset Sale Approved by Bankruptcy CourtLegalDocs
This document is the decision by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to approve General Motors' motion to sell substantially all of its assets to Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. The court approved the sale over objections from minority bondholders, tort litigants concerned with successor liability, asbestos litigants, and non-UAW unions. The court found that a Section 363 sale was necessary and appropriate given GM's dire financial situation and inability to survive a traditional restructuring through a Chapter 11 plan.
This document is DaVita Inc.'s annual report filed with the SEC for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007. It provides an overview of DaVita as the leading provider of dialysis services in the US, operating 1,359 outpatient dialysis centers serving around 107,000 patients. It summarizes the dialysis industry, DaVita's services including outpatient and hospital dialysis, ESRD labs, and ancillary services. It also covers DaVita's focus on quality care through clinical programs and physician oversight.
This document is an affidavit of service filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. It details that various documents related to involuntary bankruptcy petitions filed against Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. (L.P.) were served upon parties including the alleged debtors, their counsel, counsel for petitioning creditors, and the United States Trustee via federal express and first class mail on May 18, 2012.
This document is an objection filed by the United States Trustee to motions filed by Petitioning Creditors and Alleged Debtors to seal certain documents filed with the court. The U.S. Trustee does not oppose sealing documents pending a ruling on whether the bankruptcy cases will proceed, but argues that any sealing should end if the court finds cause to open bankruptcy cases, as the information would then become public. The U.S. Trustee asserts that bankruptcy law favors public disclosure of information relevant to creditors and parties in interest.
This brief was submitted by intervenors-appellees-cross-appellants in defense of a Texas law (HB 1131) that restricts vertical integration between automobile insurers and autobody repair shops. The brief argues that HB 1131 does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause or the First Amendment. Regarding the dormant Commerce Clause, the brief asserts that HB 1131 regulates evenhandedly and was not enacted for protectionist purposes. Regarding the First Amendment, the brief argues that the commercial speech restrictions in HB 1131 regulate only false or misleading speech and place incidental burdens that are permissible. The brief urges the court to reject the challenges to HB 1131 and affirm the district court's
This document is a motion filed in a US bankruptcy court requesting permission to file an unredacted version of a response under seal. It summarizes that the response contains sensitive commercial information about the debtors' financial condition and restructuring negotiations. The debtors argue the information could harm ongoing negotiations and business operations if disclosed publicly. They seek to file the unredacted version under seal and make it available only to specific parties.
This document is a declaration in support of a motion to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee in the bankruptcy cases of Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. (L.P.). The declaration attaches exhibits related to Allied's bankruptcy proceedings, including a proposed joint reorganization plan, communications between Allied and General Motors regarding a proposed plan amendment, and complaints filed in related litigation. The declaration is submitted by a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, which represents petitioning creditors seeking the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee.
1) DaVita Inc. is the second largest provider of dialysis services in the US, operating 515 outpatient dialysis centers serving approximately 45,000 patients.
2) There are approximately 275,000 patients suffering from end stage renal disease (ESRD) in the US requiring routine dialysis treatments to sustain life.
3) Treatment options for ESRD include hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and kidney transplantation, with hemodialysis being the most common form performed either in outpatient centers or at home.
This document is a bench ruling from a bankruptcy judge on a motion to compel arbitration related to a debtor's cash collateral motion. The judge analyzes applicable case law and determines that:
1) Whether a debtor has authority to use cash collateral is fundamentally a bankruptcy issue, not a contractual dispute.
2) The parties did not agree to arbitrate issues relating to a debtor's rights under the Bankruptcy Code, as those rights were created by Congress and differ from pre-bankruptcy contractual rights.
3) Therefore, the motion to compel arbitration of the debtor's cash collateral motion is denied, as use of cash collateral is a core bankruptcy issue not subject to the arbitration agreement.
Horsehead Hearing on Equity Committee feesGuy Spier
The document discusses a bankruptcy court hearing for Horsehead Holding Corp. Key points include:
- The debtors have reached an agreement in principle with official unsecured creditors committee and ad hoc group of secured noteholders on a plan of reorganization.
- The agreement increases the cash recovery pool for non-Zochem general unsecured creditors from $2.5M to $11.875M, which could provide around a 21-22% recovery based on estimated $55M in claims.
- There will be corresponding adjustments to recoveries for other unsecured creditor classes as part of the agreement.
This document is an objection filed by petitioning creditors BDCM Opportunity Fund II, LP, Black Diamond CLO 2005-1 Ltd., and Spectrum Investment Partners, LP in response to a motion by alleged debtors Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. (L.P.) to transfer venue of involuntary bankruptcy cases from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The petitioning creditors argue that the motion to transfer venue is procedurally defective and substantively objectionable. They assert the motion is premature until an order for relief is entered, and the alleged debtors have not met their burden to show transfer is in the
1) Christopher Samis, a member of the Delaware Bar, moves to admit Ezra Cohen of Troutman Sanders LLP pro hac vice to represent Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. (L.P.), who have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
2) Ezra Cohen is a member in good standing of the Georgia Bar and is admitted to practice in Georgia state courts and certain Federal courts.
3) Cohen certifies that he is eligible for admission, pays the required fee, and agrees to submit to the Court's disciplinary jurisdiction. The Court grants the motion.
This document is a complaint filed by Central Asia Institute against Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company regarding insurance coverage. It summarizes that CAl had an insurance policy with Philadelphia to cover certain legal claims. CAl and its executive director Greg Mortenson were sued in two matters (the "Pfau Litigation" and "AG Matter") and incurred legal defense costs. However, Philadelphia refused to fully cover and advance these defense costs, in breach of the insurance contract. CAl is suing Philadelphia for declaratory relief and damages for its failure to honor coverage obligations.
Horsehead Holdings May 2nd Equity Committee Hearing TranscriptGuy Spier
This document summarizes the proceedings from a bankruptcy court hearing regarding motions to appoint an official committee of equity security holders for Horsehead Holding Corp. Guy Spier, one of the movants, addresses the court to argue for the appointment. He emphasizes that as shareholders, he and others have traveled far and spent their own money to be heard, unlike the lawyers opposing them who are being paid by Horsehead. While acknowledging bankruptcy risks for equity holders, Spier argues that Horsehead's bankruptcy filing came as a surprise to shareholders without proper warning.
- The document is DaVita Inc.'s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003.
- DaVita is the second largest provider of dialysis services in the US, operating or providing administrative services to around 570 outpatient dialysis centers serving approximately 48,500 patients.
- Around 70% of DaVita's patients are covered by Medicare, which reimburses around 50% of the company's total revenues according to rates set by Congress. Commercial payors such as health insurance companies make up the remaining 42% of dialysis revenues.
Ford Motor Company filed a Notice of Appearance and Request for Notices and Papers in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, LTD. (L.P.). Ford requested copies of all notices and pleadings in the bankruptcy cases be provided to its attorneys at the listed addresses so that Ford can participate in the cases as a party-in-interest pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code and Rules. Ford reserved all of its rights in the cases without waiver.
This document summarizes a bankruptcy court ruling on confirmation of a reorganization plan for Horsehead Holding Corp. The court found that while the plan was proposed in good faith, the lack of a market check meant the only evidence of value was competing expert testimony. The court determined that equity holders' valuation of $842 million using a discounted cash flow method was reasonable. However, the court had not yet made a final determination on whether the plan satisfied the absolute priority rule's requirement that creditors not receive more than full repayment, thereby impairing junior creditors and equity holders.
Horsehead Holdings: Guy Spier Submission to Judge SontchiGuy Spier
1) Guy Spier is a professional investor appearing before Judge Sontchi to request the appointment of an equity committee in the bankruptcy of Horsehead Holdings.
2) Spier argues that shareholders were surprised by Horsehead's bankruptcy filing and that an equity committee is needed to represent shareholders' interests, ensure fairness, and protect investors' trust in the market system.
3) Spier acknowledges that appointing an equity committee would make the judge's job more difficult but argues that justice requires taking time for fairness, not efficiency.
This notice provides the agenda for a May 31, 2012 hearing in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware regarding two alleged debtors, Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. (L.P.). The notice lists two matters that will be heard: 1) A motion by the alleged debtors to transfer venue of the cases to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and 2) A motion by the alleged debtors to file an unredacted version of the venue transfer motion. No objections have been filed regarding either motion.
Caso de EliGio Cedeño contra Juan Felipe Lara FernándezInforme 25
This document is a summary order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case of Eligio Cedeño v. Castillo. The order affirms the district court's dismissal of Cedeño's RICO complaint against various defendants for failure to state a claim. Specifically, it finds that Cedeño's complaint alleges an extraterritorial violation of RICO that the statute does not reach based on insufficient domestic conduct. It also rejects Cedeño's arguments that his claims fit within RICO's domestic focus and that RICO incorporates extraterritorial predicate offenses. The court further finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cedeño's request to amend his complaint.
This document provides an introduction to a case involving alleged fraudulent activity by Lennar Corporation. It summarizes that Lennar entered into a joint venture agreement in 1997 to develop a property, but in 1999 wired the entire $37.5 million capital contribution from the other partner to one of Lennar's subsidiaries, violating the agreement. It notes Lennar's pattern of lawsuits against smaller partners and accusations that it uses litigation to delay payments and intimidate opponents.
The document provides the agenda for a telephonic status conference in the bankruptcy cases of Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, LTD. (L.P.). The agenda includes an expedited motion by petitioning creditors for the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee and a motion to shorten time for notice of a hearing on the trustee motion. The status conference will address these motions.
This notice provides an agenda for a telephonic status conference in the bankruptcy cases of Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. (L.P.). The agenda includes a motion by petitioning creditors for the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee and a motion to shorten time for notice of a hearing on that motion. The notice lists related documents filed and indicates the trustee motion will proceed as a status conference.
This notice provides an amended agenda for a telephonic status conference scheduled for May 22, 2012 at 1:00 PM in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware regarding two alleged debtors, Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. (L.P.). The agenda includes two motions to be considered at the status conference: 1) an expedited motion by petitioning creditors for the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee and related documents in support, and 2) a motion to shorten time for notice of the hearing on the motion to appoint a trustee.
This document is a motion filed in United States Bankruptcy Court requesting an expedited hearing for a separate motion to file certain documents under seal. The motion provides background on involuntary bankruptcy petitions recently filed against Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. It argues that expedited relief is necessary due to exigent circumstances, including the risk of harm to creditors from ongoing conflicts of interest if relief is not granted quickly. The motion requests that the court schedule a hearing on the separate motion to seal within two days and set the objection deadline on the same expedited schedule.
The petitioning creditors filed a motion requesting permission to file redacted versions of confidential pleadings and exhibits under seal in bankruptcy proceedings against Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. The pleadings and exhibits contain confidential commercial information from credit agreements. The motion argues that public disclosure of this confidential information would violate the credit agreements.
This document is a certificate of service for a response filed by Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. (L.P.) regarding a motion by petitioning creditors BDCM Opportunity Fund II, LP, Black Diamond CLO 2005-1 Adviser L.L.C., and Spectrum Investment Partners LP to shorten time for a hearing on appointing a trustee. The certificate lists the parties that were served the response by mail or hand delivery on May 21, 2012.
Doc962 freeman group motion compromise & settlement_ a walk-awaymalp2009
The Trustee filed a motion seeking court approval of a compromise and settlement agreement between the Trustee and the Freeman Parties. The agreement provides that Robert Freeman and David Ward will withdraw their respective $92,500 proof of claims against the estate with prejudice, and the Trustee will dismiss the Freeman Parties from an adversary proceeding. The agreement achieves a walk-away settlement and full mutual release of claims between the parties. The Trustee believes the settlement is in the best interest of creditors and the estate by avoiding substantial time and costs of litigation, despite believing there are good objections to the proof of claims.
This document is a declaration in support of a motion to appoint a Chapter 11 trustee in the bankruptcy cases of Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. (L.P.). The declaration attaches exhibits related to Allied's bankruptcy proceedings, including a proposed joint reorganization plan, communications between Allied and General Motors regarding a proposed plan amendment, and complaints filed in related litigation. The declaration is submitted by a partner at Schulte Roth & Zabel LLP, which represents petitioning creditors seeking the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee.
1) DaVita Inc. is the second largest provider of dialysis services in the US, operating 515 outpatient dialysis centers serving approximately 45,000 patients.
2) There are approximately 275,000 patients suffering from end stage renal disease (ESRD) in the US requiring routine dialysis treatments to sustain life.
3) Treatment options for ESRD include hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis, and kidney transplantation, with hemodialysis being the most common form performed either in outpatient centers or at home.
This document is a bench ruling from a bankruptcy judge on a motion to compel arbitration related to a debtor's cash collateral motion. The judge analyzes applicable case law and determines that:
1) Whether a debtor has authority to use cash collateral is fundamentally a bankruptcy issue, not a contractual dispute.
2) The parties did not agree to arbitrate issues relating to a debtor's rights under the Bankruptcy Code, as those rights were created by Congress and differ from pre-bankruptcy contractual rights.
3) Therefore, the motion to compel arbitration of the debtor's cash collateral motion is denied, as use of cash collateral is a core bankruptcy issue not subject to the arbitration agreement.
Horsehead Hearing on Equity Committee feesGuy Spier
The document discusses a bankruptcy court hearing for Horsehead Holding Corp. Key points include:
- The debtors have reached an agreement in principle with official unsecured creditors committee and ad hoc group of secured noteholders on a plan of reorganization.
- The agreement increases the cash recovery pool for non-Zochem general unsecured creditors from $2.5M to $11.875M, which could provide around a 21-22% recovery based on estimated $55M in claims.
- There will be corresponding adjustments to recoveries for other unsecured creditor classes as part of the agreement.
This document is an objection filed by petitioning creditors BDCM Opportunity Fund II, LP, Black Diamond CLO 2005-1 Ltd., and Spectrum Investment Partners, LP in response to a motion by alleged debtors Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. (L.P.) to transfer venue of involuntary bankruptcy cases from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The petitioning creditors argue that the motion to transfer venue is procedurally defective and substantively objectionable. They assert the motion is premature until an order for relief is entered, and the alleged debtors have not met their burden to show transfer is in the
1) Christopher Samis, a member of the Delaware Bar, moves to admit Ezra Cohen of Troutman Sanders LLP pro hac vice to represent Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. (L.P.), who have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.
2) Ezra Cohen is a member in good standing of the Georgia Bar and is admitted to practice in Georgia state courts and certain Federal courts.
3) Cohen certifies that he is eligible for admission, pays the required fee, and agrees to submit to the Court's disciplinary jurisdiction. The Court grants the motion.
This document is a complaint filed by Central Asia Institute against Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company regarding insurance coverage. It summarizes that CAl had an insurance policy with Philadelphia to cover certain legal claims. CAl and its executive director Greg Mortenson were sued in two matters (the "Pfau Litigation" and "AG Matter") and incurred legal defense costs. However, Philadelphia refused to fully cover and advance these defense costs, in breach of the insurance contract. CAl is suing Philadelphia for declaratory relief and damages for its failure to honor coverage obligations.
Horsehead Holdings May 2nd Equity Committee Hearing TranscriptGuy Spier
This document summarizes the proceedings from a bankruptcy court hearing regarding motions to appoint an official committee of equity security holders for Horsehead Holding Corp. Guy Spier, one of the movants, addresses the court to argue for the appointment. He emphasizes that as shareholders, he and others have traveled far and spent their own money to be heard, unlike the lawyers opposing them who are being paid by Horsehead. While acknowledging bankruptcy risks for equity holders, Spier argues that Horsehead's bankruptcy filing came as a surprise to shareholders without proper warning.
- The document is DaVita Inc.'s annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003.
- DaVita is the second largest provider of dialysis services in the US, operating or providing administrative services to around 570 outpatient dialysis centers serving approximately 48,500 patients.
- Around 70% of DaVita's patients are covered by Medicare, which reimburses around 50% of the company's total revenues according to rates set by Congress. Commercial payors such as health insurance companies make up the remaining 42% of dialysis revenues.
Ford Motor Company filed a Notice of Appearance and Request for Notices and Papers in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, LTD. (L.P.). Ford requested copies of all notices and pleadings in the bankruptcy cases be provided to its attorneys at the listed addresses so that Ford can participate in the cases as a party-in-interest pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code and Rules. Ford reserved all of its rights in the cases without waiver.
This document summarizes a bankruptcy court ruling on confirmation of a reorganization plan for Horsehead Holding Corp. The court found that while the plan was proposed in good faith, the lack of a market check meant the only evidence of value was competing expert testimony. The court determined that equity holders' valuation of $842 million using a discounted cash flow method was reasonable. However, the court had not yet made a final determination on whether the plan satisfied the absolute priority rule's requirement that creditors not receive more than full repayment, thereby impairing junior creditors and equity holders.
Horsehead Holdings: Guy Spier Submission to Judge SontchiGuy Spier
1) Guy Spier is a professional investor appearing before Judge Sontchi to request the appointment of an equity committee in the bankruptcy of Horsehead Holdings.
2) Spier argues that shareholders were surprised by Horsehead's bankruptcy filing and that an equity committee is needed to represent shareholders' interests, ensure fairness, and protect investors' trust in the market system.
3) Spier acknowledges that appointing an equity committee would make the judge's job more difficult but argues that justice requires taking time for fairness, not efficiency.
This notice provides the agenda for a May 31, 2012 hearing in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware regarding two alleged debtors, Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. (L.P.). The notice lists two matters that will be heard: 1) A motion by the alleged debtors to transfer venue of the cases to the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia, and 2) A motion by the alleged debtors to file an unredacted version of the venue transfer motion. No objections have been filed regarding either motion.
Caso de EliGio Cedeño contra Juan Felipe Lara FernándezInforme 25
This document is a summary order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the case of Eligio Cedeño v. Castillo. The order affirms the district court's dismissal of Cedeño's RICO complaint against various defendants for failure to state a claim. Specifically, it finds that Cedeño's complaint alleges an extraterritorial violation of RICO that the statute does not reach based on insufficient domestic conduct. It also rejects Cedeño's arguments that his claims fit within RICO's domestic focus and that RICO incorporates extraterritorial predicate offenses. The court further finds that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Cedeño's request to amend his complaint.
This document provides an introduction to a case involving alleged fraudulent activity by Lennar Corporation. It summarizes that Lennar entered into a joint venture agreement in 1997 to develop a property, but in 1999 wired the entire $37.5 million capital contribution from the other partner to one of Lennar's subsidiaries, violating the agreement. It notes Lennar's pattern of lawsuits against smaller partners and accusations that it uses litigation to delay payments and intimidate opponents.
The document provides the agenda for a telephonic status conference in the bankruptcy cases of Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, LTD. (L.P.). The agenda includes an expedited motion by petitioning creditors for the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee and a motion to shorten time for notice of a hearing on the trustee motion. The status conference will address these motions.
This notice provides an agenda for a telephonic status conference in the bankruptcy cases of Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. (L.P.). The agenda includes a motion by petitioning creditors for the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee and a motion to shorten time for notice of a hearing on that motion. The notice lists related documents filed and indicates the trustee motion will proceed as a status conference.
This notice provides an amended agenda for a telephonic status conference scheduled for May 22, 2012 at 1:00 PM in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware regarding two alleged debtors, Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. (L.P.). The agenda includes two motions to be considered at the status conference: 1) an expedited motion by petitioning creditors for the appointment of a Chapter 11 trustee and related documents in support, and 2) a motion to shorten time for notice of the hearing on the motion to appoint a trustee.
This document is a motion filed in United States Bankruptcy Court requesting an expedited hearing for a separate motion to file certain documents under seal. The motion provides background on involuntary bankruptcy petitions recently filed against Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. It argues that expedited relief is necessary due to exigent circumstances, including the risk of harm to creditors from ongoing conflicts of interest if relief is not granted quickly. The motion requests that the court schedule a hearing on the separate motion to seal within two days and set the objection deadline on the same expedited schedule.
The petitioning creditors filed a motion requesting permission to file redacted versions of confidential pleadings and exhibits under seal in bankruptcy proceedings against Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. The pleadings and exhibits contain confidential commercial information from credit agreements. The motion argues that public disclosure of this confidential information would violate the credit agreements.
This document is a certificate of service for a response filed by Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. (L.P.) regarding a motion by petitioning creditors BDCM Opportunity Fund II, LP, Black Diamond CLO 2005-1 Adviser L.L.C., and Spectrum Investment Partners LP to shorten time for a hearing on appointing a trustee. The certificate lists the parties that were served the response by mail or hand delivery on May 21, 2012.
Doc962 freeman group motion compromise & settlement_ a walk-awaymalp2009
The Trustee filed a motion seeking court approval of a compromise and settlement agreement between the Trustee and the Freeman Parties. The agreement provides that Robert Freeman and David Ward will withdraw their respective $92,500 proof of claims against the estate with prejudice, and the Trustee will dismiss the Freeman Parties from an adversary proceeding. The agreement achieves a walk-away settlement and full mutual release of claims between the parties. The Trustee believes the settlement is in the best interest of creditors and the estate by avoiding substantial time and costs of litigation, despite believing there are good objections to the proof of claims.
1) A petition under Chapter 11 bankruptcy was filed against Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware on May 17, 2012.
2) Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. was summoned to file a motion or answer to the involuntary bankruptcy petition within 21 days of being served the summons.
3) The summons was served on Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. via Federal Express and First Class Mail to addresses in Wilmington, DE and Atlanta, GA on May 18, 2012.
This document is the Alleged Debtors' response to the Petitioning Creditors' motion to shorten time for a hearing on their motion to file redacted and sealed documents. The Alleged Debtors do not object to shortening time for the hearing on appointing a trustee, but they believe any redactions or sealed documents should not prevent them from sharing the information with others to promote their interests. The Alleged Debtors also request that the bankruptcy case be transferred to Georgia where related cases are pending.
This document is a motion and proposed order seeking to admit David Hillman pro hac vice to represent three parties, BDCM Opportunity Fund II, LP, Black Diamond CLO 2005-1 Ltd. and Spectrum Investment Partners, L.P., in the bankruptcy cases of Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, LTD. (L.P.). The motion includes a certification by Mr. Hillman that he is eligible for admission, a member in good standing of the New York bar, and familiar with the local bankruptcy rules. The proposed order grants the motion for Mr. Hillman's pro hac vice admission.
This document is a motion and order for admission pro hac vice of Robert J. Ward to represent certain parties in the bankruptcy cases of Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, LTD. (L.P.). The motion provides certification that Robert J. Ward is eligible for admission, a member in good standing of the New York bar, and familiar with the local rules of the court. The order grants the motion for pro hac vice admission.
This document is a motion and proposed order to admit Jeffrey W. Kelley pro hac vice to represent Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. (L.P.) in their Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. Christopher M. Samis, a Delaware attorney, moves for Mr. Kelley's admission. Mr. Kelley is a member in good standing of the Georgia bar and is admitted to practice in Georgia state courts and federal district and bankruptcy courts in Georgia. The certification also states that Mr. Kelley will submit to this Court's disciplinary jurisdiction and has paid the required fee.
This document is a motion and order for the admission of Victoria A. Lepore to represent BDCM Opportunity Fund II LP, Black Diamond CLO 2005-1 Ltd. and Spectrum Investment Partners, L.P. pro hac vice in two bankruptcy cases in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The motion certifies that Lepore is eligible for admission, admitted and in good standing in New York and will submit to the court's jurisdiction. The order grants the motion.
This document is a motion and order for admission pro hac vice of Victoria A. Lepore to represent certain parties in the bankruptcy cases of Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, LTD. (L.P.) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The motion certifies that Ms. Lepore is eligible for admission, is a member in good standing of the New York bar, and will submit to the court's disciplinary jurisdiction. It also certifies she has familiarized herself with the local rules and paid the pro hac vice admission fee. The order grants the motion for her admission pro hac vice.
This document is a motion and proposed order to admit Jeffrey W. Kelley pro hac vice to represent Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. (L.P.) as alleged debtors in their Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. The motion asserts that Mr. Kelley is a member in good standing of the Georgia bar and various Georgia federal courts. It also certifies that he will submit to this court's jurisdiction and has paid the required fee. The proposed order grants the motion to admit Mr. Kelley pro hac vice to represent the alleged debtors.
This document is a motion and order for admission pro hac vice of Robert J. Ward to represent certain parties in the bankruptcy cases of Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, LTD. (L.P.). The motion certifies that Mr. Ward is eligible, admitted, and in good standing to practice in New York and will submit to this court's jurisdiction. The order grants the motion and admits Mr. Ward pro hac vice.
This document is a motion filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware seeking to admit Adam C. Harris pro hac vice to represent three clients, BDCM Opportunity Fund II, LP, Black Diamond CLO 2005-1 Ltd. and Spectrum Investment Partners, L.P., in the bankruptcy cases of Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, LTD. (L.P.). The motion includes a certification by Harris that he is eligible for admission, is in good standing in New York where he is admitted, and will submit to the jurisdiction of the Delaware court. It requests an order granting the motion for Harris to appear pro hac vice.
The motion requests admission pro hac vice of Ezra H. Cohen to represent Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. and Allied Systems, Ltd. (L.P.), the alleged debtors, in their chapter 11 bankruptcy cases and related adversary proceedings. Mr. Cohen is a member in good standing of the Georgia bar and is admitted to practice in Georgia state courts and certain U.S. District and Bankruptcy Courts. The certification asserts that Mr. Cohen is eligible for admission, familiar with the local bankruptcy rules, and has paid the required annual fee. The proposed order would grant the motion and admit Mr. Cohen pro hac vice.
This document discusses the split among US courts on whether private international arbitral bodies are considered "foreign or international tribunals" under 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a), which governs US judicial assistance for foreign discovery requests. Prior to 2004, the Second and Fifth Circuits held that private arbitrations were not covered by the statute. However, the Supreme Court's 2004 Intel decision gave an expansive interpretation of the statute without directly addressing private arbitrations. This led to differing approaches among lower courts, with the Eleventh Circuit initially holding in 2012 that private arbitrations are covered before vacating that ruling in 2014. The issue remains unresolved and may lead to a circuit split.
The document is a 43-page legal filing that contains no substantive information. It consists of repetitive page headers on each page indicating it was filed on October 24, 2012 as document 5-1 of case 12-17804-pmc. No other notable details are provided in the document.
Rural metro restructuring support agreement p1Randall Reese
The document appears to be a 94-page court filing related to a case from 2013. It includes repeated references to pages in a document filed on a given date, but there is no other contextual information provided.
Revstone sale transaction support agreement summaryRandall Reese
This document summarizes key terms of an agreement related to the sale of automotive assets. It outlines conditions that must be met for the agreement to take effect, including various parties executing related agreements. It then details milestones and deadlines for the sale of different business units, including Metavation, Contech facilities, Eptec's non-damper business, and CLS assets. Specific deadlines are set for tasks like obtaining letters of intent, executing asset purchase agreements, holding auctions, and completing sales. Failure to meet the milestones would constitute a violation of the agreement.
This document provides notice of Patriot Coal Corporation's motion seeking court approval to conduct rights offerings as part of its chapter 11 reorganization plan. Specifically, the motion seeks authorization to enter into a backstop purchase agreement with certain funds to ensure sufficient proceeds are raised in the rights offerings. The rights offerings will allow eligible creditors to purchase new senior secured notes and warrants. The motion also seeks approval of the proposed rights offerings procedures. Objections to the motion are due by October 30, with a hearing scheduled for November 6.
This document is a plan support agreement between Newland International Properties Corp. (the "Debtor") and holders of at least a majority of the Debtor's outstanding 9.50% Senior Secured Notes due 2014 (the "Initial Supporting Noteholders"). The agreement provides that the parties will support a prepackaged bankruptcy plan to restructure the Debtor's obligations under the Notes. Key terms include: (1) the Debtor and Initial Supporting Noteholders will negotiate restructuring documents consistent with the terms in an attached term sheet; (2) the Initial Supporting Noteholders agree to vote in favor of the prepackaged bankruptcy plan and direct the Notes' trustee to cooperate; and (3) the Debt
This document is a 9-page court filing related to case 12-71188-bem. It includes the case number, document number, filing date, and page numbers but no other descriptive text.
This document is a plan support agreement between KIT digital, Inc. and three sponsors (JEC Capital Partners, Ratio Capital Partners, and Prescott Group Capital Management) to implement a restructuring of KIT digital's debt. Key points:
- The sponsors deposited $1.5 million in escrow and committed to fund the restructuring.
- The parties agree to support a chapter 11 plan of reorganization consistent with the terms in Exhibit A, which sets forth the restructuring proposal.
- The sponsors and company agree not to support any alternative restructuring transactions, except the company can consider superior offers if required by its fiduciary duties to shareholders.
The document is a 25-page court filing in the case 13-10060-MFW filed on June 18, 2013. However, it does not contain any substantive information beyond procedural identifiers on each page.
The document is a 25-page court filing in the case of 13-10060-MFW filed on June 18, 2013. It includes page numbers but no other distinguishing content on each page.
The document appears to be a court filing related to a bankruptcy case from May 31, 2013. It includes page numbers but no other distinguishing content on each of 24 numbered pages. The document provides identifying information about a case and filing but lacks substantive information about its purpose or contents.
This 6-page document contains no text, only headers indicating it is a court filing related to case 13-11456, document 817-1, filed on October 18, 2013. The document is labeled Exhibit A and consists of 6 blank pages with a note that signature pages have been redacted from an original filing.
This document is a plan support agreement between GMX Resources Inc., Diamond Blue Drilling Inc., Endeavor Pipeline Inc. (collectively, the "Debtors"), holders of Senior Secured Notes ("Consenting Senior Secured Noteholders"), and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors ("Creditors' Committee"). The parties agree to support a restructuring plan under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code consistent with the terms of the attached term sheet. The parties will seek Bankruptcy Court approval of the plan support agreement and work together in good faith to negotiate definitive agreements to implement the restructuring plan.
The document is a 9-page legal filing related to case number 13-30340. It includes boilerplate language identifying the case number, date of filing, and page numbers. No other substantive information is provided in the document.
Friend finder transaction support agreementRandall Reese
The document appears to be a 40-page court exhibit filed on September 17, 2013 in the case of 13-12404-CSS. However, the content of the exhibit is not provided in the document text. It only lists page numbers and headers repeating the case information across 40 numbered pages, so no essential information could be summarized from the content.
The document appears to be a case filing containing 40 numbered pages related to Case 13-10164. It includes documentation of filed documents and dates but no other contextual information that would help summarize the essential information or high-level purpose of the case filing.
This document is a restructuring support agreement between Excel Maritime Carriers Limited and its subsidiaries (the "Company") and the consenting lenders (the "Consenting Lenders"). It sets forth the terms for a restructuring of the Company as outlined in an attached term sheet. The parties agree to support a pre-arranged reorganization plan for the Company consistent with the term sheet. The Consenting Lenders agree to support the restructuring and plan, not take actions to oppose or delay them, and waive any defaults related to the restructuring. The parties will negotiate definitive restructuring documents consistent with the term sheet and agreement.
The debtors filed a motion seeking court approval of a Plan Support Agreement between the debtors, Clean Harbors, and Guggenheim. The Plan Support Agreement provides for Clean Harbors to sponsor a plan of reorganization to purchase EEHI's stock in EOI (effectively purchasing EOI's business as a going concern) and implement a financial restructuring. The motion seeks an order authorizing the debtors to enter into the Plan Support Agreement and take necessary steps to consummate its terms, including obtaining approval of bidding procedures, a disclosure statement, and plan confirmation.
This document is a notice of motion filed in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois regarding Debtors' motion to approve entry into a plan sponsor agreement with NRG Energy, Inc. and related relief. Key details include:
- Debtors have entered into an agreement with NRG Energy, Inc. to acquire substantially all of Debtors' assets and equity interests, to be effectuated through a chapter 11 plan.
- The agreement is supported by Debtors' major creditor groups, including an official unsecured creditors committee, a group of senior unsecured noteholders, and parties related to certain of Debtors' power plants.
- The notice sets an objection deadline of October 22, 2013
The document is a court order authorizing the assumption of a Restructuring Support Agreement between Devonshire PGA Holdings, LLC and its affiliates (the "Debtors") and ELP West Palm, LLC as Senior Lender ("ELP") in the Debtors' Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases. The order approves the Debtors' assumption of the Restructuring Support Agreement effective upon entry of the order. The order also provides that the Restructuring Support Agreement is binding on the parties, modifies the automatic stay to allow termination of the agreement if applicable, and retains jurisdiction for the court to resolve any disputes regarding implementation of the order.
This 3-page court document from June 10, 2013 pertains to Case 13-11153-CSS. It contains standard legal language and formatting across its 3 pages but does not include any substantive details about the specific case or its proceedings.
1. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 1
1 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
2 DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
4 In re:
5 Chapter 11
6 ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 12-11564(CSS)
7
8 Alleged Debtor.
9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
10 In re:
11 Chapter 11
12 ALLIED SYSTEMS LTD. (L.P.), Case No. 12-11565(CSS)
13
14 Alleged Debtor.
15 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
16
17 United States Bankruptcy Court
18 824 North Market Street
19 Wilmington, Delaware
20
21 May 22, 2012
22 4:13 P.M.
23
24
25
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
2. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 2
1 B E F O R E :
2 HON CHRISTOPHER S. SONTCHI
3 U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 ECR OPERATOR: LESLIE MURIN
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
3. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 3
1 HEARING re Expedited Motion of Petitioning Creditors for the
2 Appointment of a Trustee Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a),
3 1104(a)(1) and 1104(a)(1)(Filed May 17, 2012, Docket No. 13)
4
5 HEARING re Petitioning Creditors' Motion Pursuant to Del.
6 Bankr. L.R. 9006-1(e) for an Order Shortening Time for
7 Notice of the Hearing to Consider the Expedited Motion of
8 Petitioning Creditors for the Appointment of a Trustee
9 Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a), 1104(a)(1) and
10 1104(a)(2)(Filed May 17, 2012, Docket No. 12)
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Transcribed by: William J. Garling
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
4. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 4
1 A P P E A R A N C E S :
2 TROUTMAN SANDERS, LLP
3 Attorney for Allied Systems Holdings, Inc., Debtor
4 600 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 5200
5 Atlanta, GA 30308
6
7 BY: EZRA H. COHEN, ESQ. (TELEPHONIC)
8 JEFFREY W. KELLEY, ESQ. (TELEPHONIC)
9 MICHAEL JOHNSON, ESQ. (TELELPHONIC)
10
11 RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A.
12 Attorney for Allied Systems Holdings, Inc., Debtors
13 One Rodney Square
14 920 North King Street
15 Wilmington, DE 19081
16
17 BY: CHRISTOPHER M. SAMIS, ESQ. (TELEPHONIC)
18
19 OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRUSTEE
20 Attorney for the United States Trustee
21 844 King Street, Suite 2207
22 Lockbox 35
23 Wilmington, DE 19801
24
25 BY: DAVID L. BUCHBINDER, ESQ. (TELEPHONIC)
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
5. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 5
1 SCHULTE, ROTH & ZABEL, LLP
2 Attorney for BDCM Opportunity Fund II, LP, Creditor
3 919 Third Avenue
4 New York, NY 10022
5
6 BY: ADAM C. HARRIS, ESQ. (TELEPHONIC)
7 ROBERT J. WARD, ESQ. (TELEPHONIC)
8
9 YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
10 Attorney for Yucaipa, Interested Party
11 Rodney Square
12 1000 North King Street
13 Wilmington, DE 19801
14
15 BY: MICHAEL R. NESTOR, ESQ. (TELEPHONIC)
16
17 LATHAM & WATKINS, LLP
18 Attorney for Yucaipa, Interested Party
19 355 South Grand Avenue
20 Los Angeles, CA 90071
21
22 BY: ROBERT A. KLYMAN, ESQ. (TELEPHONIC)
23
24
25
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
6. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 6
1 KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP
2 Attorney for Yucaipa, Interested Party
3 Two Midtown Plaza, Suite 1500
4 1349 West Peachtree Street, N.W.
5 Atlanta, GA 30309
6
7 BY: DAVID E. SPALTEN, ESQ. (TELEPHONIC)
8
9 KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP
10 Attorney for Yucaipa, Interested Party
11 1633 Broadway
12 New York, NY 10019
13
14 BY: DAVID E. ROSS, ESQ. (TELEPHONIC)
15
16 APPEARED TELEPHONICALLY:
17 ROBERT WARD, ESQ.
18 MICHAEL JOHNSON, ESQ.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
7. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 7
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 THE CLERK: All rise.
3 THE COURT: Please be seated.
4 Good afternoon, counsel, this is Judge Sontchi and
5 we're here on a status conference in Allied System Holdings
6 and Allied Systems Limited.
7 There are quite a few people on the telephone and
8 I would urge you to please -- to mute your phones if you're
9 not actively speaking, to do your best not to talk over each
10 other, and to remember to identify yourself prior to every
11 time you speak.
12 And I would like to start by hearing from the
13 petitioning creditors.
14 MR. HARRIS: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
15 Adam Harris and Robert Ward from Schulte, Roth &
16 Zabel.
17 Your Honor, would you like to take appearances
18 from everybody before we get started or --
19 THE COURT: That would take -- that would take
20 longer than the hearing.
21 MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
22 Your Honor, we filed the involuntary petitions
23 last week as Your Honor knows, and the summons have been
24 served upon the alleged debtors in the case -- in the cases,
25 I should say.
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
8. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 8
1 In conjunction with the filing of the
2 involuntaries we've also filed a motion for the appointment
3 of a trustee, as well as a motion of entering an order
4 shortening time -- to set a hearing with respect to that
5 motion.
6 Last night, Your Honor, I believe, received a
7 response to the motion shortening time by the alleged
8 debtors as well as a motion to transfer venue of the cases
9 to the Northern District of Georgia.
10 Your Honor, since the responses were filed last
11 night, since the involuntaries were filed last week, we've
12 had an opportunity to speak with counsel for the alleged
13 debtors, Mr. Collins from Richards Layton, as well as
14 Messrs. Kelley and Cohen from Troutman Sanders.
15 Your Honor, the purpose of our suggestion of a
16 status conference, which we brought up late last week or
17 Monday, I can't remember which it was, was that we thought
18 it would be helpful to Your Honor in making decisions about
19 entering orders shortening time or otherwise setting
20 calendars to hear from the various parties as to the issues
21 that were likely to be brought before the Court and on which
22 the Court would be asked to rule.
23 Given certain of the statements that were made in
24 the alleged debtor's filings last night in some instances in
25 the redacted portion -- so I'm not going to talk about them
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
9. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 9
1 specifically -- I think that the -- many of the issues
2 related to whether orders could be -- relief could be
3 entered based upon the involuntary petitions and the issues
4 under 303 have in some sense been muted by intentions of the
5 company as expressed in their filings. And, obviously, I
6 would like to let Mr. Collins or his co-counsel from
7 Troutman Sanders address those issues.
8 To the extent those intentions are carried out in
9 the manner that they were described in both the filings and
10 as we discussed them with the alleged debtor's counsel
11 today, we think that the cases can move forward on --
12 hopefully on a more cooperative and consensual track. And
13 that there might not need to be any particular order or
14 scheduling order entered by Your Honor relative to our
15 trustee motion at this time.
16 I would like Your Honor to hear from Mr. Collins
17 or his co-counsel from Troutman Sanders on those issues and
18 would then like to have an opportunity to speak thereafter
19 based upon what they say.
20 THE COURT: All right. Let me hear from the
21 purported debtor.
22 MR. SAMIS: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
23 This is Chris Samis from Richards, Layton & Finger
24 on behalf of the alleged debtors.
25 Your Honor, with me on the phone are my co-counsel
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
10. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 10
1 in this matter, Jeffrey Kelley, Ezra Cohen, and Michael
2 Johnson, all with the Troutman Sanders firm.
3 Your Honor, pro hac vice motions are in process
4 for these gentlemen and we expect to submit them shortly.
5 In advance of these motions being reviewed by the Court and
6 pro hac orders being entered, for the limited purpose of
7 today's status conference, I would request that the Court
8 permit them to speak.
9 THE COURT: I'd be happy to do so, and I'd like to
10 express my personal thanks to you, Mr. Samis, for your
11 yeoman's work in getting the Court the documents I needed to
12 be prepared for today, but I'll hear from them.
13 MR. SAMIS: Your Honor, no problem. I was happy
14 to do so, and I also -- wanted to thank Your Honor for
15 accommodating us this afternoon in reviewing a pretty
16 voluminous docket on very short notice for this status
17 conference.
18 Your Honor, just very briefly, with respect to why
19 we're here today, the alleged debtors believe it's
20 appropriate to use this status conference to address not
21 only the motion to shorten on the trustee motion, but more
22 importantly in our view, the scheduling of our own venue
23 transfer motion, which we think deals with a real gating
24 issue in these cases.
25 So, Your Honor, with that as background, I turn
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
11. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 11
1 the balance of our presentation over to Mr. Kelley.
2 THE COURT: Very good.
3 Thank you.
4 MR. KELLEY: Good afternoon, Your Honor.
5 This is Jeff Kelley with Troutman Sanders in
6 Atlanta. Ezra Cohen is also, I think, on the line with us
7 now, but I'll do all the speaking, I believe.
8 By way of background, both Ezra and I were counsel
9 to Allied in the first Chapter 11 case of Allied in front of
10 Judge Mullins, here in Atlanta.
11 Your Honor, the filing of these petitions has
12 caused what Allied believes to be, as we set forth in our
13 papers, some unnecessary disruptions and potentially
14 significant damage to Allied's business and its value.
15 Our perspective on how this possibly could have
16 happened and the motives may be driving the petitioning
17 creditors is set forth in particular in the redacted
18 portions of our response to the motion to shorten time for
19 the hearing on the appointment of a trustee where we, among
20 other things, argue that we don't think that any emergency
21 has been shown and that the issues raised have been the
22 subject of the State Court litigations among the various of
23 the parties going back several years.
24 However, Your Honor, due to the filing that's
25 taken place, their -- the actions in this involuntary
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
12. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 12
1 petition -- involuntary petitions being filed, it does
2 appear very likely the subject to bankruptcy -- subject the
3 board approval, I should say, Allied's board approval, that
4 Allied will likely, in the future, convert these cases to
5 voluntary Chapter 11 cases, but the timing is not ripe today
6 for that. Allied needs a little time to make sure it has
7 adequate financing and cash collateral before it files its
8 other subsidiaries, its many other subsidiaries, along with
9 these two. Those subsidiaries are identified in our
10 response.
11 But, Your Honor, Allied's preferred forum is
12 Atlanta. That's where, as I mentioned, Allied's first case
13 was administered by Judge Mullins. That case is still open.
14 Although it's ready to be closed, it is still open. The
15 reasons that we think a transfer is appropriate are set
16 forth in the venue motion. I'm not going to argue that at
17 this point, but it's primarily the convenience of Allied's
18 very, very stretched-thin executive team, which is located
19 in Atlanta, not to mention Judge Mullins' familiarity with
20 most of the players in this case.
21 The first case was a very large case by Atlanta
22 standards, very intense, a lot of activity in that case, and
23 Judge Mullins had ample opportunity to learn a lot about
24 Allied, and for that matter, Yucaipa.
25 So, Your Honor, we ask that you rule on the venue
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
13. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 13
1 transfer motion as a gating matter before anything else gets
2 ruled on in this case, because we take the position and
3 believe and submit, that everything else that happens in
4 this case, including the trustee motion, should heard by the
5 Court that ultimately has the case, whether is that Your
6 Honor or a bankruptcy judge in Atlanta, probably Judge
7 Mullins.
8 Your Honor, due to the petitioning creditors'
9 actions we need to get these cases moving along in the right
10 direction, so we respectfully ask that the Court give
11 Allied's transfer motion consideration as soon as the
12 Court's schedule permits, and that's our position as to the
13 status of matters and proposed scheduling.
14 THE COURT: Well, the decision is Judge Mullins';
15 is it not?
16 MR. KELLEY: Would that be -- are you referring,
17 Your Honor -- this is Jeff Kelley, again -- to Bankruptcy
18 Rule 10014 (sic)?
19 THE COURT: (Indiscernible - 4:22:23).
20 MR. KELLEY: Yes, we did raise that, Your Honor,
21 in our papers, and technically that is correct because the
22 first case is still pending.
23 THE COURT: Okay.
24 Anyone else?
25 MR. HARRIS: Adam Harris -- sorry to interrupt.
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
14. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 14
1 I guess that would depend on whether the company
2 that was the subject of the case there is, in fact, the same
3 legal entity, which is the subject to the involuntary.
4 My understanding is that Allied Systems Holdings,
5 Inc. is a successor by merger to what was the reorganized
6 debtor, I guess, but it is not the same legal entity that
7 was the debtor in the case down there.
8 Now, that all being said, Your Honor, we've had a
9 conversation with Mr. Kelley and Mr. Cohen and Mr. Samis
10 earlier today where we told them that we would be happy to
11 sit with them and try to better understand their views on
12 Atlanta as an appropriate venue versus -- versus Delaware
13 and take into account and discussing with them the interests
14 of all of the parties involved here, only one of which
15 really is located in Atlanta, the rest of whom are located
16 mostly in the Northeast corridor, but also in California and
17 Detroit and elsewhere.
18 And to the extent the Court is inclined to set a
19 hearing in connection with the venue transfer request, we
20 would only ask that we be given an opportunity to get with
21 the purported debtors and others to discuss this, and that
22 if a hearing need be held, that it would be held sometime
23 late next week rather than between now and the Memorial Day
24 weekend. I don't think that would prejudice the debtors at
25 all given the timetable they seem to be operating on
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
15. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 15
1 relative to their thoughts on when they would ultimately,
2 potentially convert these cases to voluntary Chapter 11s.
3 THE COURT: Do I take it --
4 MR. HARRIS: I --
5 THE COURT: I'm sorry.
6 Do I take it that you would -- were that to be the
7 case, you would hold your trustee motion in abeyance pending
8 the decision on the venue motion?
9 MR. HARRIS: We would, Your Honor.
10 THE COURT: Okay.
11 MR. NESTOR: Yes, Your Honor. Michael Nestor ,
12 Young Conaway on behalf of Yucaipa, and I'm on with Robert
13 Klyman from Latham & Watkins.
14 May we be heard briefly?
15 THE COURT: I'm sorry. I missed your client,
16 Mr. Nestor.
17 MR. NESTOR: It's Yucaipa.
18 THE COURT: Oh, very good.
19 Yes, Mr. Klyman.
20 MR. KLYMAN: Thank you, Your Honor.
21 For the record, Robert Klyman of Latham & Watkins,
22 LLP, on behalf of Yucaipa.
23 Your Honor, by way of background, Yucaipa is the
24 largest lender and shareholder and member of the board of
25 the alleged debtors and we have a direct economic material
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
16. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 16
1 -- economic interest in the outcome.
2 We would echo what Mr. Kelley said, that it's,
3 from our vantage point, very important to have the venue
4 determined first and foremost. If Your Honor determines
5 that it's appropriate for Judge Mullins to make the initial
6 decision we would be happy to go down there and get that
7 teed up on an expedited basis.
8 I believe that the debtor chose to file the motion
9 to transfer venue before your Court only because what's left
10 to be resolved in Atlanta is a motion to close the case, but
11 under the plain reading of the statute that may be the
12 more appropriate place for determination as to venue. We
13 just thought that since there was a trustee motion on an
14 expedited basis filed this was the natural venue to first
15 raise the issue. But as I said, at least from Yucaipa's
16 perspective, having the issue determined by Judge Mullins
17 would be a perfectly fine result on an expedited basis.
18 I would just add two other points. The first is
19 while my colleague, Mr. Harris, says that he needs more time
20 to sit down with the debtors, and maybe Yucaipa to
21 understand all there is about the venue in Atlanta, the fact
22 of the matter is that they did have sufficient time to do
23 that before they filed an involuntary. The filing of the
24 involuntary was their timing, not the debtor's, and the
25 reasons why venue's appropriate in Atlanta, I believe, are
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
17. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 17
1 spelled out in great detail in the motion to transfer venue.
2 So, although on behalf of Yucaipa, and I believe
3 Mr. Kelley would echo the sentiment, we are always happy to
4 sit down with Black Diamond and Mr. Harris. We do not
5 believe that that is a reason to delay a resolution of the
6 venue motion.
7 The alleged debtors are suffering, you know,
8 potential business issues while they are in limbo. They
9 want to tee up a process for obtaining financing and getting
10 on with the case in a manner that preserves value, both for
11 the enterprise as a whole and the secured lenders, including
12 Black Diamond in particular.
13 We would also ask Your Honor that while the venue
14 issue is being decided that Black Diamond actually withdraw
15 the trustee motion without prejudice with the ability to
16 refile it on an expedited basis if they'd like, with all
17 parties reserving their rights with respect to whether or
18 not the request for expedited hearing is appropriate before
19 whatever judge ultimately hears the case.
20 The -- it's, you know, tough enough for the
21 business and management to be dealing with an involuntary
22 and scrambling to catch up to make sure that the business
23 doesn't suffer the unnecessary stigma of a trustee motion,
24 which is not going to be heard for some period of time, is
25 something that, at least on Yucaipa's behalf, we would like
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
18. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 18
1 to avoid hanging over when we meet with customers and
2 vendors and the like, recognizing that this would not
3 prejudice Black Diamond's ability to refile at any time in
4 the future.
5 THE COURT: Well, I think that from what I had
6 read in the papers Black Diamond might take issue with your
7 comment that you're willing to sit down and talk to them,
8 but that wasn't my impression from what I read.
9 All right. Does anyone else care to make
10 comments?
11 MR. BUCHBINDER: Your Honor, this is Dave
12 Buchbinder from the U.S. Trustee's Office.
13 We are concerned about Rule 1014(b) and how it
14 applies here. If we do have the same debtor the rule would
15 seem to imply that anything pending here is stayed until the
16 Court in Atlanta rules otherwise or orders otherwise.
17 To the extent that an issue has been raised as to
18 whether or not this is the same debtor, Rule 1014(b),
19 Subdivision 4, says that if petitions commencing cases are
20 filed in different districts by regarding or against and Sub
21 4 is a debtor and an affiliate, if the new debtor is a
22 successor they may or may not be an affiliate.
23 And so what I'm getting at is I agree with the
24 parties that the threshold matter here is a ruling on either
25 Rule 1014(b)'s applicability or a ruling on the venue
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
19. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 19
1 motion, and it may be that the venue motion, if it were to
2 proceed here, requires the consent of the judge in Atlanta
3 because that's the case first filed, and the last thing I
4 think any of the parties on line would want would be a
5 ruling from this Court and then someone going back to
6 Atlanta saying the ruling here was void because of Rule
7 1014(b).
8 THE COURT: Thank you. I understand your
9 position.
10 I think it's less than clear whether this Court
11 has, without authority, to enter any order pending that
12 decision as opposed to simply making a decision on venue,
13 but I certainly appreciate your (Indiscernible - 4:30:31) I
14 think that's the most sophisticated response to some of the
15 complications that the Court is looking at in this case.
16 Anyone else?
17 MR. KELLEY: Yeah, this is Jeff Kelley, again, for
18 the alleged debtors.
19 I -- I would will also like to reiterate and state
20 for the alleged debtors that we're certainly willing -- I
21 don't know about -- you know, we are not Yucaipa, and
22 whatever was alleged and whether it's true or not about
23 Yucaipa's willingness to cooperate -- of course the alleged
24 debtors are willing to sit down and cooperate and talk with
25 their lenders at any time. We don't have to be subject to
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
20. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 20
1 an involuntary bankruptcy petition to do that; we're always
2 willing to do that, and we need -- and we know we need to
3 cooperate.
4 So, I just wanted to address the cooperation
5 issue, and to reiterate that however we do it, we would like
6 to try to get a decision as soon as the Court's calendar
7 permits on the venue transfer motion.
8 If I needed to go file something in front of Judge
9 Mullins I would. I don't want to unduly complicate this by
10 doing that. We did think that under the circumstances of
11 this case, this was the appropriate place to bring up the
12 venue transfer motion.
13 THE COURT: All right. What's the debtor's
14 position -- presuming I will schedule the venue transfer
15 motion to be heard expeditiously -- what's the debtor's
16 position on when that should occur?
17 MR. KELLEY: As soon as Your Honor's calendar
18 permits.
19 THE COURT: Okay. Can I --
20 MR. KELLEY: (Indiscernible - 4:32:09.)
21 THE COURT: -- can I transfer the case before
22 entry of an order for relief?
23 MR. KELLEY: We believe you can, Your Honor. This
24 is a -- under the strict ruling reading of 303(b) a case was
25 commenced --
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
21. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 21
1 THE COURT: Uh-huh.
2 MR. KELLEY: -- when the petitions were filed, and
3 we are seeking -- we filed a motion seeking the transfer of
4 a case.
5 THE COURT: Mr. Harris, anything?
6 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I mean I understand the
7 strict reading -- the way they're looking at it; on the
8 other hand, what would be the purpose of transferring venue
9 if the only thing the Court who is receiving it would do
10 would be then to be ruling on whether or orders for relief
11 should be entered or not unless there's going to be a ruling
12 that Your Honor can make if there's going to be a contested
13 involuntary. If there's not going to be a contested
14 involuntary and the debtors were to affirm that, then, you
15 know, there wouldn't be any issue with dealing with the
16 venue transfer in my mind.
17 But there seems to be a timing issue in some
18 respects as to the desire to go to a forum and then deal
19 with the involuntary and conversion at a later date, and not
20 even, frankly, confirmed, but they said subject to board
21 approval -- and I think the word used was "likely" convert,
22 where that would basically put us in a position of
23 litigating the involuntaries in a jurisdiction in which we
24 didn't file them.
25 THE COURT: All right. So, what I'm -- I'm going
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
22. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 22
1 to see if I can make sure I understand what I'm hearing.
2 And what I'm hearing from Mr. Harris is, at least
3 for the immediate future, he's not pressing the trustee
4 motion, and again, would like to open and we'll continue in
5 a dialogue concerning how this case will go forward, whether
6 it go forward here in Delaware or whether it get filed or
7 transferred to some other jurisdiction.
8 What I'm hearing from the debtor is that -- and
9 its supporters -- that the only thing they want me to decide
10 what venue the case should (indiscernible - 4:34:18) once
11 that decision has been made they'll be in a position,
12 perhaps, to make a decision on whether agree to agree to an
13 entry of order for relief or not.
14 Is that right -- I want to make sure -- is that a
15 gating issue or do you (indiscernible - 4:34:39)?
16 MR. KELLEY: This is Jeff Kelley.
17 It's my opinion that the two are unrelated in my
18 view. Allied Systems needs to make a decision, and the
19 (indiscernible - 4:34:50), Your Honor, is I just don't have
20 the board sitting here with me, that -- which because of the
21 filing of the involuntary petitions we will be consenting,
22 we just do not wish to have a crash landing into a voluntary
23 Chapter 11. We want to make sure that our financing is all
24 lined up and we want to do it as neatly as possible with the
25 right message to all of our constituencies, many of whom are
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
23. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 23
1 on the phone.
2 So, I don't think the two are related, Your Honor.
3 The fiduciary decision of deciding to go ahead and enter
4 into a voluntary 11 is independent of the venue motion.
5 THE COURT: Right.
6 MR. KELLEY: We just -- we wanted to make -- to
7 bring the venue motion before your Court in a very early
8 time to let you know that it was an issue. We were faced
9 with an emergency filing for appointment of a trustee. We
10 didn't think that if Your Honor was not going to keep the
11 case, not presupposing at all what Your Honor's decision
12 will be, that Your Honor would want to be the one deciding
13 whether to appoint a trustee --
14 THE COURT: Okay.
15 MR. KELLEY: -- so we brought this motion to your
16 attention promptly.
17 THE COURT: Very good. And I understand you would
18 like Mr. Nestor to withdraw, but, of course, I can't make
19 him withdraw it.
20 I will offer a comment. I think as presented in
21 its -- or in the papers that the trustee motion is not
22 particularly persuasive, of course, all those motions
23 require a development of facts and it's somewhat difficult
24 to figure it out from the actual papers.
25 What I'd like to do in this case and what I will
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
24. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 24
1 do is let's have a hearing on the venue transfer motion on
2 Thursday, May 31st. (Indiscernible - 4:36:44 reschedule
3 that, I'm available throughout the day with -- I do have to
4 take a break in the late morning, so I won't be available
5 until say 10:30, if we started in the morning, or I'm
6 available 12:30 going forward whether we take a break or we
7 start in the afternoon.
8 I know there are a lot of people who are going to
9 be interested and when the timing on that is going to be, so
10 if people want me to simply state a time I will and we'll
11 basically try to figure it out.
12 But, I think regardless of whether this is going
13 to be withdrawn or filed an 11 or what have you, I have a
14 responsibility to decide very quickly where -- what the
15 venue should be. And it very well may be at the end of that
16 Mullin hearing my answer is going to be, I can't make that
17 decision because Judge Mullins is going to make that
18 decision.
19 But if it is appropriate for this Court to have a
20 hearing on transfer venue, then one of the possibilities may
21 be that this Court doesn't have the power, or the
22 possibility is this Court decides it has that power and
23 makes a decision. Either way, I need to hear from the
24 parties and the facts and law to make that call.
25 Is there any comment on that?
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
25. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 25
1 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, it's Adam Harris.
2 That's all fine with us, just two
3 questions/comments.
4 One is, can we set a time for filing responses of
5 maybe a day before the hearing? And that ties into my
6 suggestion that we hold the hearing, if Your Honor's
7 available, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. That way parties
8 can get in and out the same day, including potentially
9 flying up from Atlanta to the extent they need to do that,
10 rather than doing something early in the morning where
11 people may feel compelled to come in the night before --
12 just the cost issue. I think if we do the 2 o'clock, then
13 we can try to get the responses by noon the day before. If
14 that's too tight, we can probably do it a little sooner than
15 that.
16 THE COURT: All right.
17 MR. KELLEY: Your Honor --
18 THE COURT: Go ahead. Sorry, go ahead.
19 MR. KELLEY: -- this is Jeff Kelley.
20 The date of the hearing is fine, and we would ask
21 that, if possible, the response date be set a little sooner
22 than that to give us a little bit more time to read it, and
23 we appreciate and agree with Mr. Harris' suggestion that the
24 hearing start at 2 o'clock.
25 THE COURT: All right.
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
26. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 26
1 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, we can do the response
2 5:00 p.m., Tuesday, the 29th, I guess that would be.
3 THE COURT: Well, that's what I was about to say.
4 All right. We'll have a hearing May 31st at
5 2:00 p.m. on the venue motion.
6 Responses are due to -- by no later than 5:00 p.m.
7 on the 29th, which is Tuesday. (Indiscernible - 4:39:46)
8 transfer motion and no other motions.
9 Anything else?
10 And -- I'm sorry, in the pending, at least the
11 (indiscernible - 4:40:00) I'm going to hold the trustee
12 motion in abeyance.
13 MR. HARRIS: That's fine, Your Honor.
14 Thank you.
15 THE COURT: Okay.
16 MR. SAMIS: Your Honor, this is Chris Samis.
17 For the record, just to be absolutely clear, we do
18 actually have a pending motion to seal in connection with
19 our venue motion, so I would ask that that be heard at the
20 hearing, as well.
21 THE COURT: Well, I was about to say that.
22 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Indiscernible - 4:40:19)
23 Your Honor, with respect to certain matters that were
24 contained in our statement in support of trustee motion.
25 MR. HARRIS: Your Honor, I don't think there's any
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
27. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 27
1 opposition from either side to those -- Chris, unless you
2 guys have some issues with ours -- so we might be able to
3 submit orders and not -- and avoid a hearing on those.
4 THE COURT: All right. Well, here's where we'll
5 go with that. I was about to say this actually, but I
6 appreciate being reminded.
7 To the extent there are (indiscernible 4:40:46)
8 confidentiality or seal of motions, obviously, we'll hear
9 those motions in relation to the venue motions, and if there
10 aren't any objections and you want to send out a stipulated
11 order, that's fine with the Court; however you want to play
12 it.
13 But let's limit it to the venue motion and the
14 related file under seal motions, et cetera.
15 MR. SAMIS: Thank you, Your Honor.
16 I'll -- we'll discuss that with Mr. Harris and
17 we'll get it worked out.
18 MR. HARRIS: All right. Great. Thank you.
19 THE COURT: Very good.
20 Anything else?
21 MR. BUCHBINDER: Your Honor, this is Dave
22 Buchbinder, again.
23 It might be -- I'm sort of concerned about 1014(b)
24 here, as I know everyone else is, and I wouldn't want
25 everyone to end up in another forum and fighting about what
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
28. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 28
1 applied here or didn't apply here.
2 It seems to me that that threshold issue in the
3 venue motion is whether or not Rule 1014(b) applies based
4 upon the comment that we maybe are not dealing with the same
5 debtor.
6 If the Court were to find that we weren't, then we
7 we'd be looking at what I'll call a traditional change of
8 venue motion, the motion that was filed. But if the Court
9 were to find that one of the four types of entities
10 described in Rule 1014(b) is the -- and type of entity we're
11 dealing with, I think the rule doesn't give the Court any
12 discretion except to move the case back to Atlanta.
13 So we might want to deal with 1014(b) first, and
14 as further backup, the parties might all want to agree, and
15 at least for purposes of the venue motion, they're not going
16 to invoke this rule or the Court may want to independently
17 consult with Judge Mullins, who may want to issue an order
18 allowing this Court to rule on the venue motion so that the
19 record is clear and that a lot of unnecessary time is
20 perhaps not wasted downstream litigating these matters.
21 It's just a suggestion.
22 THE COURT: Well, I'm not at all sure that I agree
23 that if there's a pre-existing case there is no choice but
24 to transfer venue. I'm not sure I agree with your
25 interpretation of the statute.
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
29. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 29
1 And the point I was trying to make in connection
2 with the hearing is that I intend to consider the 1014
3 issues in connection with the venue transfer motion, but I
4 think I have to do so based on the facts, and it sounds to
5 me like there may be a factual issue at play here about
6 1014.
7 If I find that I have a situation where there's a
8 pre-existing case and that Judge Mullins, or whoever has
9 that case has the decision, I mean, I think it would be
10 nonetheless helpful to combine the motions, because if I
11 decide no then I can decide it on the merits; if I decide
12 yes I can kick it to Judge Mullins, but I can also make,
13 perhaps, observations that he would find helpful.
14 So I'm going to have the whole hearing the same
15 day, okay?
16 MR. BUCHBINDER: Well, I wasn't -- this is Dave
17 Buchbinder.
18 I wasn't suggesting to not have the hearing the
19 same day.
20 THE COURT: Oh, okay.
21 Thank you, I'm sorry. I --
22 MR. BUCHBINDER: I was just simply suggesting that
23 in terms of order, the 1014(b) issue might be first.
24 THE COURT: Well, that's something for the parties
25 to work out in how they're going to run their hearing, but I
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
30. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 30
1 certainly would hope that the parties -- and I know they
2 will, because I know you all -- will figure out a
3 professional and logical way to do it.
4 Okay. So the hearing will be May 31st at
5 2:00 p.m.
6 Responses due by 5:00 on the 29th, which is
7 Tuesday.
8 All right. Anything else?
9 All right. We're adjourned.
10 MR. HARRIS: That's it from the petitioning
11 creditors, Your Honor.
12 Thank you.
13 THE COURT: Okay. We're adjourned then.
14 Thank you.
15 MR. KELLEY: The debtors thank you, Your Honor.
16 MR. BUCHBINDER: On behalf of the U.S. Trustee,
17 thank you, Your Honor.
18 (Whereupon these proceedings were concluded at
19 4:44 P.M.)
20
21
22
23
24
25
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
31. ALLIED SYSTEMS HOLDINGS, INC.
Page 31
1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
2
3 I, William J. Garling, certify that the foregoing transcript
4 is a true and accurate record of the proceedings.
5
6
William J. Digitally signed by William J. Garling
DN: cn=William J. Garling, o=Veritext,
Garling
ou, email=digital@veritext.com, c=US
Date: 2012.05.25 15:15:20 -04'00'
7
8
9
10 Veritext
11 200 Old Country Road
12 Suite 580
13 Mineola, NY 11501
14
15 Date: 5/24/2012
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-2400
32. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
District of Delaware
In Re:
Allied Systems Holdings, Inc.
2711 Centerville Road Chapter: 11
Suite 400
Wilmington, DE 19808
EIN: 58−0360550
Case No.: 12−11564−CSS
NOTICE OF FILING OF TRANSCRIPT AND OF DEADLINES RELATED TO RESTRICTION AND
REDACTION
A transcript of the proceeding held on 5/22/2012 was filed on 5/25/2012 . The following deadlines apply:
The parties have 7 days to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this transcript. The
deadline for filing a request for redaction is 6/15/2012 .
If a request for redaction is filed, the redacted transcript is due 6/25/2012 .
If no such notice is filed, the transcript may be made available for remote electronic access upon expiration of the
restriction period, which is 8/23/2012 unless extended by court order.
To review the transcript for redaction purposes, you may purchase a copy from the transcriber (see docket for
Transcriber's information) or you may view the document at the clerk's office public terminal.
Clerk of Court
Date: 5/25/12
(ntc)
33. Notice Recipients
District/Off: 0311−1 User: Brandon Date Created: 5/25/2012
Case: 12−11564−CSS Form ID: ntcBK Total: 7
Recipients of Notice of Electronic Filing:
ust United States Trustee USTPREGION03.WL.ECF@USDOJ.GOV
aty Christopher M. Samis samis@rlf.com
aty Christopher M. Samis samis@rlf.com
aty Mark D. Collins collins@rlf.com
TOTAL: 4
Recipients submitted to the BNC (Bankruptcy Noticing Center):
adb Allied Systems Holdings, Inc. 2711 Centerville Road Suite 400 Wilmington, DE 19808
aty Ezra H. Cohen Troutman Sanders LLP Bank of America Plaza 600 Peachtree Street Suite
5200 Atlanta, GA 30308−2216
aty Jeffrey W. Kelley Troutman Sanders LLP 600 Peachtree St. NE, Suite 5200 Atlanta, GA 30308
TOTAL: 3