Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees

8/3/2019 Joinder and Objection of Asbestos Committees

1/59

{D0195755.1 }

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN RE:

ACandS, Inc.Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

Combustion Engineering, Inc.

The Flintkote Company

Kaiser Aluminum Corp.Owens Corning

US Mineral Products Company

USG Corp.W.R. Grace & Co.

Debtors.

Case No.: 02-12687 (Rel. Dkt. No. 3639)Case No.: 00-4471 (Rel. Dkt. No. 10698)

Case No.: 03-10495 (Rel. Dkt. No. 3380)

Case No.: 04-11300 (Rel. Dkt. No. 5606)


Case No.: 01-2471 (Rel. Dkt. No. 3878)


IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

Mid-Valley, Inc.

North American Refractories Co.

Pittsburgh Corning Corp.

Debtors.

Case No.: 03-35592 (Rel. Dkt. No. 2770)

Case No.:02-20198 (Rel. Dkt. No. 6944)

Case No.:00-22876 (Rel. Dkt. No. 8096)

Hearing Date: February 14, 2011 @ 8:30 a.m.

JOINDER AND OBJECTION OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEES OF ASBESTOSCLAIMANTS IN THE FLINTKOTE, GRACE, NARCO AND PITTSBURGH CORNING

BANKRUPTCIES TO GARLOCKS MOTION FOR ORDERS AUTHORIZING

ACCESS TO 2019 STATEMENTS AND RELATED RELIEF


2/59

{D0195755.1 }

i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page(s)

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1

ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................2

I. Garlock Seeks the Rule 2019 Exhibits for Improper Purposes ............................................3A. This Court May Deny Access to Documents to Prevent Them from

Being Used for Improper Purposes ..........................................................................3

B. Garlock Acknowledges Its Purposes in Seeking the Rule 2019 Exhibits ................4C. Garlocks Purposes for Seeking the Rule 2019 Exhibits are Improper ...................5

II. The Law Does Not Support Garlocks Attempt to Gather All Rule 2019Exhibits from Twelve Bankruptcies ....................................................................................7

A. There is Cause to Withhold the Rule 2019 Exhibits ................................................7B. Garlock Has Not Shown Cause to Be Provided with the Rule 2019

Exhibits ..................................................................................................................10

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................14


3/59

{D0195755.1 }

ii

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Page(s)

CASES

In re 50-Off Stores, Inc.,

213 B.R. 646 (Bankr. W. D. Tex. 1997) ..........................................................2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10

Baron & Budd, P.C. v. Unsecured Asbestos Claimants Comm.,

321 B.R. 147 (D.N.J. 2005) .....................................................................................................11

In re Cendant Corp.,

260 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2001).......................................................................................................3

In re Congoleum Corp.,

426 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 2005)...............................................................................................11, 12

In re JMS Automotive Rebuilders, Inc.,

No. 01-05600DDP, 2002 WL 32817517 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2002) ........................................10

In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp.,327 B.R. 554 (D. Del. 2005) ..................................................................................................3, 6

Littlejohn v. BIC Corp.,851 F.2d 673 (3d Cir. 1988).......................................................................................................3

Nixon v. Warner Commcn, Inc.,

435 U.S. 589 (1978) ...........................................................................................................3, 4, 7

In re Orion Pictures Corp.,21 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 1994) ......................................................................................................3, 9

In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp.,

260 F. Appx 463 (3d Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................7, 11, 12


No. 04-1814 , 2005 WL 6128987(W.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2005) .....................................................7

In re Premier Intl Holdings, Inc.,423 B.R. 58 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010) ........................................................................................6, 7

DOCKETED CASES


No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa.) ...................................................................1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13


4/59

{D0195755.1 }

iii

STATUTES AND RULES

11 U.S.C. 107 ................................................................................................................................2

11 U.S.C. 107(a) ...........................................................................................................................3

11 U.S.C. 107(b) .....................................................................................................................9, 10

11 U.S.C. 107(c) .......................................................................................................................8, 9

18 U.S.C. 1028(d) .........................................................................................................................9

18 U.S.C. 1029(e) .........................................................................................................................9

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2019 ...........................................................................................................passim

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9018 ...................................................................................................................10


5/59

{D0195755.1 }

The Official Committees of Asbestos Claimants in the Flintkote, Grace, NARCO and

Pittsburgh Corning bankruptcy cases (the ACCs) hereby join in the relief requested in the

oppositions filed by the Peter Angelos et al. Law Firms (Angelos Opposition)1

and the Kazan,

McClain, Lyons, Greenwood & Harley et al. Certain Law Firm Objectors (Kazan Opposition)2

(collectively, the Law Firm Oppositions) to the Motion of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC

(Garlock) for Orders Authorizing Access to 2019 Statements Filed in This Court and For

Related Relief (the Motion),3

and likewise oppose the Motion by filing this Joinder and

Objection (the Objection). In support of the Objection, the ACCs respectfully represent as

follows:

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Garlock, a stranger to these bankruptcy cases, is attempting to misuse Rule 2019for purposes it was never intended to serve fishing-expedition discovery premised on

unsupported allegations of widespread fraud and divorced from any connection with the

purposes of Rule 2019 or of the above-captioned cases in general. During all of the many years

of asbestos bankruptcies and related litigation, the ACCs do not believe that anyone other than

Garlock has ever sought such Rule 2019 Exhibits from other cases, much less done so with

respect to twelve such cases at once. No relevant precedent supports such an attempt, and

protecting against the disclosure of the 2019 Exhibits to Garlock is well within this Courts

discretion.

2. To the contrary, this Court already addressed Garlocks arguments when Garlockpreviously made them in Pittsburgh Corning, and Garlock provides no reason for this Court to

1 See, e.g., In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2011) [Dkt. No. 8118].




6/59

{D0195755.1 }

- 2 -

change its earlier analysis. That analysis made clear that the seeking of wholesale discovery of

Rule 2019 Exhibits for use in other cases was inappropriate and would not be permitted by this

Court.

3. The Garlock ACC has authorized the ACCs to inform the Court that it disputeswhether the 2019 Exhibits are within the reasonable scope of discovery in the aggregate

estimation proceeding in the Garlock bankruptcy, and will press those arguments before Judge

Hodges in the Garlock case. As Judge Hodges is best positioned to resolve that issue, and as, for

the reasons set forth herein, Garlock is not entitled to the Rule 2019 Exhibits regardless of its

purported use for them in the Garlock bankruptcy, this Court need not address it.

ARGUMENT

4. Because it is unable to defend its unprecedented demand for all Rule 2019exhibits in twelve separate cases (some of which are closed) on the merits, Garlocks Motion

almost entirely relies on the general principle that members of the public have a presumptive

right to publicly-filed documents. In so doing, Garlock ignores or misstates previous rulings

regarding Rule 2019, misstates the law under Section 107, and fails to acknowledge that it is well

within this Courts authority to quash attempts to gather such information for improper purposes.

5. When Garlock does bother to address its purported need for the voluminous andconfidential information it seeks, it does so in a way that both acknowledges its improper

attempts to use such information as discovery materials in other cases, and fails to acknowledge

that the Rule 2019 exhibits, by their very nature, could not establish what Garlock purports to be

attempting to establish.

6. Moreover, the decision to restrict access to such materials is well within thisCourts discretion. See, e.g., In re 50-Off Stores, Inc., 213 B.R. 646, 659 (Bankr. W. D. Tex.


7/59

{D0195755.1 }

- 3 -

1997) (following Supreme Courts guidance that bar[ring] access to judicial records is [] best

left to the sound discretion of the trial court) (internal quotations and citations omitted).

I. Garlock Seeks the Rule 2019 Exhibits for Improper Purposes

A. This Court May Deny Access to Documents to Prevent Them from Being

Used for Improper Purposes

7. As the District Court noted while addressing the confidentiality of Rule 2019submissions in In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp., 327 B.R. 554, 560 (D. Del. 2005), [a]lthough

Section 107(a) evidences a strong desire by Congress to preserve the publics right to access

judicial records, that right is not absolute. To the contrary, [c]ourts have supervisory power

over their records and files and may deny access to those records and files to prevent them from

being used for an improper purpose. Id. The Supreme Court itself has recognized that [e]very

court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied where

court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes. Nixon v. Warner Commcn,

Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978).

8. Indeed, Garlocks own cited cases recognize that [i]n limited circumstances,courts must deny access to judicial documents-generally where open inspection may be used as a

vehicle for improper purposes. In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d 24, 27 (2d Cir. 1994)

(citations omitted); see also In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001) (access has

been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes) (quoting

Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598); Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 678 (3d Cir. 1988) (same).

9. Accordingly, where a Court determines that otherwise public records are soughtfor an improper purpose, it will protect such records from disclosure. See, e.g., 50-Off, 213 B.R.

at 659-60 (refusing to unseal a retention hearing where, among other things, the record in this


8/59

{D0195755.1 }

- 4 -

matter seems at least to suggest an improper purpose as that term was used by the Supreme

Court in theNixon case).

B. Garlock Acknowledges Its Purposes in Seeking the Rule 2019 Exhibits

10. Garlock makes clear that it seeks the Rule 2019 Exhibits to support far-fetchedclaims of fraud in other cases. For example, Garlock now claims it requires the 2019 statements

and exhibits for use in its own bankruptcy case, allegedly because [b]y comparing these

verified statements to discovery Garlock received over the past decade, Garlock can prove the

extent to which plaintiffs firms were concealing evidence of alternative exposures in order to

inflate Garlocks settlement values. Motion at 11. Garlock also baldly asserts that it seeks the

2019 Statements because Garlock is investigating the possibility of damages actions against

plaintiffs firms or claimants to recoup settlements obtained through the concealment of exposure

evidence. Motion at 11.

11. Indeed, the only other potential purpose identified by Garlock is even moreinappropriate. Garlock claims that [b]y comparing these 2019 exhibits verifying known

exposures to the debtors products, to the discovery Garlock was simultaneously receiving in the

tort system, Garlock can determine whether lawyers and claimants were lying in one (or both)

forums. Motion at 8. Putting aside the issue of whether the exhibits could in fact serve that

purpose (they could not) or whether Garlock has a sufficient evidentiary basis to engage in such

an exercise (it does not), Garlock possesses no roving commission to uncover alleged

misstatements in various bankruptcies in which it was not a party and many of which are now

closed. It certainly cites no authority for such a ridiculous proposition, and such a purpose

likewise would be illegitimate.


9/59

{D0195755.1 }

- 5 -

C. Garlocks Purposes for Seeking the Rule 2019 Exhibits are Improper

12. This Court has already made clear that attempts to seek Rule 2019 Statements foruse in other cases violate the purpose of the Rule, and are inappropriate. [T]he purpose for

filing the 2019 statements is essentially to make sure that the Court understands that the parties

who that the attorneys who purport to represent particular parties actually do represent those

parties and therefore have the right to participate in the significant events in the case. They are

not there for the purpose of allowing another party to use them in some litigation context outside

the confines of this case. Hearing Transcript at 40, In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 00-

22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2010) (emphasis added) (excerpts attached as Ex. A). As noted

above, in the current Motion Garlock acknowledges that its primary purpose for seeking the Rule

2019 Exhibits is to attempt to use them in other cases.

13. Similarly, if Garlock had a basis for believing such misstatements existed as tocertain claimants or counsel in tort cases, it could seek discovery (to the extent permitted) from

the makers of such misstatements in the relevant state court fora. As this Court has noted, If

theyve taken an inconsistent position in the tort system, go complain to the state court judge

about the fact that theyve taken an inconsistent position. Id. at 43.

14. In fact, the Court specifically noted the inappropriateness of the mass discoveryaspect of Garlocks request for the 2019 Statements, stating that giving you mass discovery as

to everybody who every law firm represents I think has no basis in law or in fact. Id. at 44-45.

As the Court noted, [t]hat is wholesale fishing. Id. at 51. As the Court also noted, [y]ou need

it in connection with a specific case. You have to be able to make an allegation that tort plaintiff

A has essentially lied and when you make that allegation under oath or as a certification in a

specific case, I will be happy to consider whatever disclosure is appropriate to attempt to prove


10/59

{D0195755.1 }

- 6 -

that its either true or not true. Id. Garlock has not complied with this Courts prior Rule 2019

ruling, a ruling from which it did not appeal.

15. Not only is Garlock not bringing its request in connection with a specific tortplaintiff, but it is now doing so with respect to twelve bankruptcy cases, including in Pittsburgh

Corning where its request was previously denied. Its attempt to misuse Rule 2019 as a discovery

fishing expedition should once again be rejected.

16. When a statement under Rule 2019 is required, the Rule itself instructs that thestatement should contain:

(1) the name and address of the creditor or equity security holder; (2) thenature and amount of the claim or interest and the time of acquisition

thereof unless it is alleged to have been acquired more than one year priorto the filing of the petition; (3) a recital of the pertinent facts and

circumstances in connection with the employment of the entity * * *; and

(4) with reference to the time of the employment of the entity, theorganization or formation of the committee, * * * the amounts of claims or

interests owned by the entity, * * * the times when acquired, the amounts

paid therefor, and any sales or other disposition thereof. * * * Thestatement shall include a copy of the instrument, if any, whereby the entity

is empowered to act on behalf of creditors or equity security holders.

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2019. The purpose of Rule 2019 is to ensure that plans of reorganization are

negotiated and voted upon by people who are authorized to act on behalf of the real parties in

interest. Kaiser, 327 B.R. at 559 (citing 9 Lawrence P. King, et al., Collier on Bankruptcy

2019.05[2] (15th ed. 2004)).

17. As is apparent from its text and purpose, Rule 2019 is not meant as a weapon fordebtors to use in inflicting costs and burdens on creditors, nor as a one-sided discovery device.

Accordingly, a Motion and proposed order that invoke the Rule for such improper purposes

should be summarily rejected. See In re Premier Intl Holdings, Inc., 423 B.R. 58, 75 (Bankr. D.

Del. 2010) (denying a motion to compel performance of Rule 2019 obligations and stating the

Official Committee, by filing its motion, is clearly engaged in a litigation tactic to apply pressure


11/59

{D0195755.1 }

- 7 -

on it[s] current adversary, the Informal Committee of SFO Noteholders, as well as attempting to

make an end run around a previous ruling denying the Official Committees request for

discovery seeking virtually the same information); 50-Off, 213 B.R. at 659-60 ([u]nder the

facts of this particular case, this Court believes that a litigants seeking to obtain information

from a retention hearing involving the litigants opposing counsel is an improper purpose

within the meaning of that term as used inNixon, so that access should be denied).

18. Garlocks Motion seeks information for use in other cases as an end run aroundproperly-limited discovery. As supported by the above precedent,and consistently with its prior

rulings in Pittsburgh Corning, this Court should therefore deny Garlocks Motion.

II. The Law Does Not Support Garlocks Attempt to Gather All Rule 2019 Exhibits

from Twelve Bankruptcies

19. Even if Garlocks purposes for gathering the Rule 2019 Exhibits were notimproper, it still would not be entitled to the Rule 2019 Exhibits, because those Exhibits contain

confidential information and are deserving of protection. As the District Court ruled in

Pittsburgh Corning, in response to a request for the Rule 2019 Exhibits this Court is free to hold

that countervailing concerns justify the continued protection of the information, a ruling that

was affirmed by the Third Circuit. In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 04-1814, 2005 WL

6128987, at *10 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2005), affd, 260 F. Appx 463 (3d. Cir. 2008).

20. Moreover, Garlock has not shown any entitlement to the Rule 2019 Exhibits as aparty or for any other reason.

A. There is Cause to Withhold the Rule 2019 Exhibits

21. As demonstrated in Part I, above, the purpose of Rule 2019 is to inform the Courtwho represents whom. That purpose is not furthered by the production of the Rule 2019 Exhibits

to Garlock, but would be hindered by it. If tort victims thought that the submission of Rule 2019


12/59

{D0195755.1 }

- 8 -

Statements could lead to the ultimate production of their confidential medical disease types,

names, addresses, and in some cases, social security numbers, into the indefinite future for the

purposes ofother cases involving unknown issues and parties, they would be less inclined to

provide such Statements voluntarily, and more likely to litigate such submissions and their

exhibits earlier and more vigorously. This would likely lead to an unwelcome proliferation of

satellite litigation that could only distract this Court and others from the purposes of both Rule

2019 specifically and Chapter 11 generally. There is no justification in Rule 2019 for such an

outcome, and it should be avoided. Cf. 50-Off Stores, 213 B.R. at 659 (stating, with reference to

the retention of professionals, [t]he statute and its implementing rules require disclosures of a

sort that would make any adversarys mouth water. Due administration of a bankruptcy estate

requires that a court be able to inquire into these important issues without, in the process,

jeopardizing the value of the very litigation sought to be pursued).

22. Also, the fact that an individual has been diagnosed with an asbestos disease ishighly personal. There is no justification to release such information to Garlock or others,

especially when such individuals or their estates may never even decide to press a claim against

Garlock or any asbestos trust that may ultimately be formed as a result of Garlocks bankruptcy

proceeding. More generally, as Garlock primarily relies on its alleged rights as a member of the

general public, its logic naturally leads to such individuals personal medical information being

made public. Again, there is no basis for such an intrusion merely because an individuals tort

counsel included them in a 2019 Exhibit, which, for example, could have been done solely as a

protective measure before their case was worked up.

23. Also, as subsequently recognized by Congress in its enactment of Section 107(c)of the Bankruptcy Code, the public disclosure of personally identifiable information can harm


13/59

{D0195755.1 }

- 9 -

individuals.4

Such information includes names, addresses and social security numbers.5

The

harms of disclosure are both thus sufficiently clear and specific to justify the protection of the

information, as this Court recognized when it issued the Rule 2019 Order keeping the Rule 2019

Exhibits from the public docket in the first place, and as logically supported by the subsequent

statutory codification of the protectibility of personally-identifiable information in Section

107(c).

24. The Rule 2019 Exhibits also fall with Section 107(b)s protection forconfidential research, development, or commercial information. 11 U.S.C. 107(b)(1). Those

Exhibits contain information that would be useful to competitors of the submitting law firms,

such as client identification and information, and the exemplars of their retention agreements and

the confidential terms therein. Orion, 21 F.3d at 27-28 (affirming lower courts holding that

commercial information included information that could give competitors an unfair

advantage).

25. The Rule 2019 Exhibits also contain information that could properly becharacterized as work product, such as the pre-litigation or preliminary determinations that the

listed individuals might have exposure to the debtors products, as well as confidential

commercial information, which some courts have likewise fairly held to be within Section

107(b). See 50-Off, 213 B.R. at 655-56 (Certainly, a lawyers work product is one type of

4 The bankruptcy court, for cause, may protect an individual, with respect to the following types of

information to the extent the court finds that disclosure of such information would create undue risk of identity theft

or other unlawful injury to the individual or the individuals property: (A) Any means of identification (as defined in

section 1028(d) of title 18) contained in a paper filed, or to be filed, in a case under this title or (B) Otherinformation contained in a paper described in subparagraph (A). 11 U.S.C. 107(c)(1)).

5 [T]he term means of identification means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction

with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any-- (A) name, social security number, date

of birth, official State or government issued drivers license or identification number, alien registration number,government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number; (B) unique biometric data, such as

fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation; (C) unique electronic

identification number, address, or routing code; or (D) telecommunication identifying information or access device

(as defined in section 1029(e)). 18 U.S.C. 1028(d)(7).


14/59

{D0195755.1 }

- 10 -

confidential research that falls within the plain language of the statutes protection. And

certainly a clients disclosures made in confidence to its attorneys is one kind of confidential * *

* commercial information.); In re JMS Auto. Rebuilders, Inc., No. 01-05600 DDP, 2002 WL

32817517, *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2002) (affirming bankruptcy court decision where bankruptcy

court, therefore, ordered the materials sealed as confidential research and work product pursuant

to 107(b) and Rule 9018 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure). Given the deference

accorded to the bankruptcy court in deciding 107(b) exceptions, JMS, 2002 WL 32817517, at

*3,such information is fully protectable under Section 107(b) here as well.

26.

Finally, the number of the Exhibits and the information contained therein is vast

even for one case, let alone for twelve. To allow such vast quantities of information to be copied

and provided to anyone who asks for it will impose significant burdens of time and money on the

Court and on parties, and such a process would potentially have to be repeated ad infinitum as

more people could, and presumably would, come forward seeking access to the Rule 2019

Exhibits. Again, such abuse of Rule 2019 has never been contemplated or carried out, and this

Court should not set such an unwarranted precedent.

27. Countervailing considerations to public disclosure thus amply justify thecontinued protection of the Rule 2019 Exhibits, and such protection is well within this Courts

discretion.

B. Garlock Has Not Shown Cause to Be Provided with the Rule 2019 Exhibits

28. Notably, Garlock fails to cite a single case in which any entity has ever been heldentitled to Rule 2019 Exhibits filed in a bankruptcy to which they were not a party, much less in


15/59

{D0195755.1 }

- 11 -

multiple bankruptcies for use in yet other cases. Regardless of its attempt to suggest the contrary

through inapposite cases, Garlocks attempt here is simply without precedent.6

29. Instead, Garlock relies on the fact that, in the Congoleum bankruptcy, the bankruptcy court entered a Rule 2019 order that was affirmed and that did not provide for

keeping 2019 exhibits off the public docket. But the fact that the order there had different

provisions from the Rule 2019 orders used in the twelve above-captioned bankruptcies, which

didprovide for such protection, is of course unhelpful to Garlocks cause. So too is the fact that

the Third Circuit expressly distinguished that outcome in Congoleum from Pittsburgh Cornings

contrary holding, as set forth below.

30. In the Congoleumbankruptcy, the Third Circuit affirmed the disqualification of alaw firm for an actual conflict of interest, and it was the disqualification dispute and the resulting

evidentiary record that led to the Rule 2019 order. Because of the unique factual background

and record in that case, it is not persuasive precedent as to the proper contours or interpretation

of Rule 2019 generally. Indeed, the bankruptcy judge there described the factual basis for

ordering these disclosures as unprecedented. Baron & Budd, P.C. v. Unsecured Asbestos

Claimants Comm., 321 B.R. 147, 166 (D.N.J. 2005).

31. In the Pittsburgh Corning case, by contrast, the Third Circuit upheld this CourtsRule 2019 order that (1) authorized the filing of exemplars, as opposed to actual copies, of the

relevant empowering documents, and (2) permitted access to the Rule 2019 submissions only

upon motion and order of the court. In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 260 F. Appx 463 (3d Cir.

2008). In so doing, and in response to an argument by insurers that access to the Rule 2019

disclosures might enable them to reveal conflicts of interest on the part of asbestos plaintiffs

6 Similarly, Garlock has not demonstrated cause to reopen the closed bankruptcy cases, nor demonstrated

that it has standing to seek such relief.


16/59

{D0195755.1 }

- 12 -

counsel, the Third Circuit expressly distinguished its earlier decision in In re Congoleum Corp.,

426 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 2005), because in Congoleum the facts necessary to find that an actual

conflict of interest existed had already been developed and left no room for speculation.

Pittsburgh Corning, 260 F. Appx at 466 n.6.

32. As in Pittsburgh Corning, there is no factual record in the cases before this Courtthat could support the relief Garlock has requested. To the contrary, as shown by the Third

Circuits decision in Pittsburgh Corning above, speculative fishing expeditions such as that

sought by Garlock here do not justify requests for Rule 2019 disclosures. Though they vaguely

argue that the Rule 2019 Order limits their rights by preventing them from obtaining

information that could reveal unethical procedures or conflicts of interests on the part of

plaintiffs lawyers (Appellants Br. 36), Appellants merely speculate that there are any unethical

procedures or conflicts of interest to reveal. They do not point us to even one actual ethical

violation or conflict of interest extant in the filings and have failed to investigate these issues so

as to support their contention. Id. at 466. Garlocks speculative and conclusory assertions

regarding alleged wide-spread fraud fail for the same reasons.

33. In its factual background section, Garlock baldy asserts that ballots it receivedin the Pittsburgh Corning case allegedly revealed widespread inconsistency with materials

submitted to Garlock in the tort system. Motion at 10. But such assertions are not evidence: to

the contrary, this Court ruled most of Garlocks proposed evidence at the Pittsburgh Corning

confirmation hearing inadmissible, Garlocks witness acknowledged that it was not offered as a

sample or anything representative, and most of the responses provided at the Pittsburgh

Corning confirmation hearing were not shown to be inconsistent, but, for example, incorporated

objections and other discovery documents that were not themselves provided. See Plan


17/59

{D0195755.1 }

- 13 -

Proponents and Plan Supporters Post-Trial Brief in Support of Confirmation of Modified Third

Amended Plan of Reorganization for Pittsburgh Corning Corporation at 34 n.49, In re Pittsburgh

Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2010) [Dkt. No. 7904]. As this Court

has also noted, saying 14 out of 312,000 people who filed ballots in a case either made a

mistake or somehow or another didnt report or filed a claim in the wrong place, frankly thats so

de minimis I cant consider that to be a substantial portion. Hrg Tr. 175-76, Dec. 2, 2010

(excerpts attached as Ex. B). Garlocks ipse dixit assertions provide no basis for the relief it

seeks.

34.

The Rule 2019 statements also cannot prove inconsistency with tort discovery

submissions, because, contrary to Garlocks assertions, Rule 2019 exhibits are not evidence that

the listed claimants in fact definitely can prove exposure to the products in the relevant

bankruptcy cases or will ultimately seek recovery from the subsequently-formed asbestos trusts.

As this Court has noted, the fact that somebody has listed an individual as a client on a 2019

statement is not evidence that they are going to submit a claim against the trust in the future.

Hearing Transcript at 44, In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Jan.

13, 2010) (emphasis added).

35. Accordingly, Garlocks rationale for seeking such exhibits is on its faceinsufficient to justify its receipt of them, and certainly is insufficient to overcome the valid cause

to protect those exhibits shown above.


18/59

{D0195755.1 }

- 14 -

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the ACCs respectfully request that Garlocks Motion be

denied.

Dated: February 7, 2011 Respectfully submitted,

CAMPBELL & LEVINE, LLC

/s/ David B. Salzman

Philip E. Milch (PA I.D. No. 53519)David B. Salzman (PA I.D. No. 39360)

1700 Grant Building

Pittsburgh, PA 15219Telephone: (412) 261-0310

Facsimile: (412) [email protected]

[email protected]

CAMPBELL & LEVINE, LLC

/s/ Mark T. Hurford

Marla R. Eskin (Bar No. 2989)Mark T. Hurford (Bar No. 3299)

800 N. King Street, Suite 300

Wilmington, DE 19801Telephone: (302) 426-1900

Facsimile: (302) [email protected]

[email protected]

CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED

Peter Van N. LockwoodTrevor W. Swett

Kevin C. Maclay

One Thomas Circle, NWSuite 1100

Washington, DC 20005Telephone: (202) 862-5000

Facsimile: (202) 429-3301

E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected]@capdale.com

CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED

Elihu Inselbuch375 Park Avenue, 35th Floor

New York, NY 10152-3500

Telephone: (212) 319-7125Facsimile: (212) 644-6755

E-mail: [email protected]

Counsel for the Official Committees of Asbestos Claimants


19/59

EXHIBIT A


20/59


21/59


22/59


23/59


24/59


25/59


26/59


27/59


28/59


29/59


30/59


31/59


32/59


33/59


34/59


35/59


36/59


37/59


38/59


39/59

EXHIBIT B


40/59


41/59


42/59


43/59


44/59


45/59


46/59


47/59


48/59

{D0195760.1 }


FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN RE:

ACandS, Inc.Armstrong World Industries, Inc.

Combustion Engineering, Inc.The Flintkote Company

Kaiser Aluminum Corp.

Owens Corning

US Mineral Products CompanyUSG Corp.

W.R. Grace & Co.

Debtors.



Case No.: 02-10429 (Rel. Dkt. No. 10009)

Case No.: 00-3837 (Rel. Dkt. No. 20954)


Case No.: 01-1139 (Rel. Dkt. No. 26053)


FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

Mid-Valley, Inc.

North American Refractories Co.Pittsburgh Corning Corp.

Debtors.

Case No.: 03-35592 (Rel. Dkt. No. 2770)

Case No.:02-20198 (Rel. Dkt. No. 6944)Case No.:00-22876 (Rel. Dkt. No. 8096)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, Mark T. Hurford, of Campbell & Levine, LLC, hereby certify that on February

7, 2011, I caused a copy of theJoinder and Objection of the Official Committees of Asbestos

Claimants in the Flintkote, Grace, Narco and Pittsburgh Corning Bankruptcies to Garlocks

Motion for Orders Authorizing Access to 2019 Statements and Related Reliefto be served

upon the individuals on the attached service lists via first class mail.

Dated: February 7, 2011

/s/ Mark T. HurfordMark T. Hurford (DE No. 3299)


49/59

195741.1 }

Adam H. Isenberg

Centre Square West

500 Market Street, 38th

FloorPhiladelphia, PA 19102

Daniel K. Hogan, Esq.

The Hogan Firm

1311 Delaware AvenueWilmington, DE 19806

Mark Minuti, Esq.

Lucian B. Murley, Esq.

Saul Ewing LLP

222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1200

P.O. Box 1266

Wilmington, DE 19899

Gregg Anderson, Esq.

Terry Bryant

West Memorial Office Park

8584 Katy Freeway, Suite 100

Houston, TX 77024

Natalie D. Ramsey, Esq.

Laurie A. Krepto, Esq.

Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP

105 North Market Street, Suite 1500Wilmington, DE 19801

Natalie D. Ramsey, Esq.

Laurie A. Krepto, Esq.


123 S. Broad StreetPhiladelphia, PA 19109

Ellen C. Brotman


23 South Broad Street

Avenue of the Arts

iladelphia, PA 19109

Gregory W. Werkheiser, Esq.

Matthew B. Harvey, Esq.

Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP

1201 North Market Street, 18th

Floor

Wilmington, DE 19899-1347

Peter J. Ashcroft, Esq.Bernstein Law Firm, P.C.

Suite 2200 Gulf Tower

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Sander L. Esserman, Esq.David A. Klinger, Esq.

David J. Parsons, Esq.

Cliff I. Taylor, Esq.

Stutzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka

2323 Bryan Street, Suite 2200

Dallas, TX 75201

Richard A. Swanson, Esq.

Arthur H. Stroyd, Jr., Esq.

Del Sole Cavanaugh Stroyd LLC

The Waterfront Building

200 First Avenue, Suite 300


Garland S. Cassada, Esquire

Richard C. Worf, Jr.

Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson

101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900

Charlotte, NC 28246


50/59

W.R. Grace 2002 Service ListLaura Davis Jones, Esquire

James ONeill, Esquire.

Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl, & Jones LLP

919 North Market Street, 17th FloorWilmington, DE 19899-8705

William H. Sudell, Jr., EsquireEric D. Schwartz, Esquire

Morris, Nichols Arsht & Tunnell

1201 N. Market Street

P.O. Box 1347Wilmington, DE 19899

Mark D. Collins, Esquire

Deborah E. Spivak, Esquire

Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.One Rodney SquareWilmington, DE 19899

Jeffrey C. Wisler, Esquire

Michelle McMahon, Esquire

Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP1220 Market Street, 10th Floor


Carmella Keener, Esquire

Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess, P.A.

919 Market Street, Suite 1401Wilmington, DE 19899

Kathryn Sallie, EsquireBayard, P.A.

222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900


Joseph Grey, EsquireStevens & Lee

1105 N. Market St. Ste 700


Francis A. Monaco, Jr., EsquireWomble Carlyle

222 Delaware Avenue, 15th Floor


Mark S. Chehi, Esquire

Kevin Brady, Esquire

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP

One Rodney SquareWilmington, DE 19801

Robert Jacobs, Esquire

Jacobs & Crumplar, PA

Two East 7th Street


Kathleen M. Miller, Esquire

Smith, Katzenstein & Furlow LLP

The Corporate Plaza

800 Delaware Ave., 7

th

FloorWilmington, DE 19899

VIA HAND DELIVERY

Teresa K.D. CurrierSaul Ewing LLP

222 Delaware Avenue

Wilmington DE 19801

David Klauder, EsquireOffice of the United States Trustee

844 King St., 2nd FloorWilmington, DE 19801

William D. Sullivan, EsquireSullivan Hazeltine Allinson

4 East 8th Street, Suite 400Wilmington, DE 19801

Michael R. Lastowski, Esquire

Duane Morris LLP

1100 N. Market Street, Suite 1200


Michael B. Joseph, Esquire

Ferry & Joseph, P.A.



J. Douglas Bacon, Esquire

David S. Heller, EsquireLatham & Watkins

Sears Tower, Suite 5800

Chicago, IL 60606

D. J. Baker, Esquire

Sheila Birnbaum, Esquire

Greg St. Clair, Esquire

Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLPFour Times Square

New York, NY 10036

Nancy Worth Davis, Esquire

Ness, Motley, Loadhold, Richardson & Poole

28 Bridgeside Boulevard

P.O. Box 1792Mount Pleasant, SC 29465

Securities & Exchange Commission

15th & Pennsylvania Ave. N.W.

Washington, DC 20020

District Director

IRS409 Silverside Road


Securities & Exchange Commission

Atlanta Regional Office Branch/Reorganization3475 Lenox Road, NE, Suite 100

Atlanta, GA 30326-1232

Secretary of TreasurerP.O. Box 7040

Dover, DE 19903

Secretary of State

Division of Corporations

Franchise Tax

P.O. Box 7040

Dover, DE 19903

James D. Freeman, Esquire

Jerel L. Ellington, Esquire

U.S. Department of Justice

Environmental Enforcement Section

1961 Stout Street 8th Floor

Denver, CO 80294

Martin J. Bienenstock, Esquire

Judy G.Z. Liu, Esquire

Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP

767 Fifth AvenueNew York, NY 10153

David S. Rosenbloom, Esquire

Jeffrey E. Stone, Esquire

Lewis S. Rosenbloom, EsquireMcDermott, Will & Emery

227 West Monroe Street

Chicago, IL 60606-5096

Brad Rogers, Esquire

Office of the General CounselPension Benefit Guaranty Corp

1200 K. Street, N. W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-4026

Pamela Zilly

Richard Shinder

David Blechman

Michael AlexanderThe Blackstone Group

345 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10154


51/59

Patrick L. Hughes, EsquireHaynes & Boone LLP

1 Houston Center

1221 McKinney, Suite 2100

Houston, TX 77010

Elio Battista, Jr., Esquire

Blank Rome LLP

1201 Market Street, Suite 800


David S. Heller, Esquire

Latham & Watkins

Sears Tower, Suite 5800

Chicago, IL 60606

Stephen H. Case, Esquire

Nancy L. Lazar, Esquire

David D. Tawil, Esquire

Davis Polk & Wardwell450 Lexington Avenue

New York, NY 10017

Jan M. Hayden, Esquire

William H. Patrick, Esquire

Heller, Draper, Hayden, Patrick & Horn, L.L.C.

650 Poydras Street, Suite 2500New Orleans, LA 70130-6103

Joseph F. Rice, Esquire

Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole

28 Bridgeside Blvd.

P.O. Box 1792Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465

Farallon Capital Management LLC

One Maritime PlazaSuite 2100

San Francisco, CA 94111

John M. Klamann, Esquire

Klamann & Hubbard7101 College Blvd., Suite 120

Overland Park, KS 66210

Hamid R. Rafatjoo, Esquire

Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl, & Jones LLP10100 Santa Monica Boulevard

Los Angeles, CA 90067-4100

Charles E. Boulbol, Esquire

26 Broadway, 17th Floor

New York, NY 10004

Matthew Grimshaw, EsquireRutan & Tucker

611 Anton Boulevard

Suite 1400

Costa Mesa, California 92626-1931

Christopher C. Colley, EsquireBaron & Budd, P.C.

3102 Oak Lawn Avenue

Suite 1100

Dallas, TX 75219

Bankruptcy Administration

IOS Capital, Inc.

1738 Bass Road

P.O. Box 13708Macon, GA 31208-3708

Richard S. Cobb, Esquire

Megan N. Harper, EsquireLandis Rath & Cobb LLP

919 Market Street, Suite 600Wilmington, DE 19801

Margery N. Reed, Esquire

Duane Morris LLP

4200 One Liberty Place

Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396

Elizabeth S. Kardos, EsquireGibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger

& Vecchione, PC

One Riverfront Plaza

Newark, NJ 07102-5497

Thomas J. Noonan, Jr.

c/o R & S Liquidation Company

Five Lyons Mall PMB #530

Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-1928

James A. Sylvester, Esquire

Intercat, Inc.

P.O. Box 412

Sea Girt, NJ 08750

Alan R. Brayton, Esquire

Brayton & Purcell

222 Rush Landing Road

Novato, CA 94945

Jonathan W. Young, Esquire

T. Kellan Grant, Esquire

Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon

225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3000Chicago, IL 60606-1229

Steven J. Johnson, Esquire

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP1530 Page Mill Road

Palo Alto, CA 94304-1125

Russell W. Budd, Esquire

Baron & Budd, P.C.3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100

Dallas, TX 75219

Shelby A. Jordan, Esquire

Nathaniel Peter Holzer. Esquire

Jordan, Hyden, Womble & Culbreth, P.C.500 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 900

Corpus Christi, TX 78471

Charlotte Klenke, Esquire

Schneider National, Inc.

P.O. Box 2545

3101 S. Packerland

Green Bay, WI 54306

Courtney M. Labson, EsquireThe Mills Corporation

Legal Department

5425 Wisconsin Avenue

Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Ira S. Greene, EsquireSquadron, Ellenoff, Plesent & Sheinfeld, LLP

551 Fifth Avenue

New York, NY 10176-0001

Joseph T. Kremer, Esquire

Lipsiptz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury& Cambria, LLP

42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 300Buffalo, NY 14202

Paul M. Matheny, Esquire

The Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C.100 N. Charles Street

Baltimore, MD 21201-3804

Paul D. Henderson, Esquire

Paul D. Henderson, P.C.

712 Division AvenueOrange, TX 77630


52/59

Michael J. Urbis, Esquire

Jordan, Hyden, Womble & Culbreth, P.C.

500 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 900

Corpus Christi, TX 78471

David B. Siegel

W.R. Grace and Co.

7500 Grace Drive

Columbia, MD 21044

Mary A. Coventry

Sealed Air Corporation

Park 80 East

Saddle Brook, NJ 07663

John Donley, Esquire

Adam Paul, Esquire

Kirkland & Ellis

300 North LaSalleChicago, IL 60654

Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esquire

Richard M. Heimann, Esquire

Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP

275 Battery Street, 30th FloorSan Francisco, CA 94111

Derrick Tay, Esquire

Ogilvy Renault

Royal Bank Plaza, South Tower, Suite 3800

200 Bay Street, Box 84Toronto, Ontario M5J2Z4

CANADA

Evelyn J. Meltzer

Pepper Hamilton LLPHercules Plaza, Suite 5100

1313 Market Street

P.O. Box 1709


Scott L. Baena, Esquire

Bilzin Sumberg Dunn Baena Price

& Axelrod LLPFirst Union Financial Center

200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2500

Miami, FL 33131

Edward W. Westbrook, Esquire

Robert M. Turkewitz, EsquireRichardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman

174 East Bay Street

Charleston, SC 29401

Elihu Inselbuch, EsquireRita Tobin, Esquire

Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered

375 Park Avenue, 35th Floor

New York, NY 10152-3500

Peter Van N. Lockwood, EsquireNathan D. Finch, Esquire


One Thomas Circle, N.W.


ToddMeyer, EsquireKilpatrick Stockton

1100 Peachtree Street

Atlanta, GA 30309

Bernice Conn, Esquire

Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP

2049 Century Park East, Suite 3700Los Angeles, CA 90067

Cindy Schultz

Ingersoll-Rand Fluid ProductsOne Aro Center

P. O. Box 151Bryan, OH 43506

Peter A. Chapman, Esquire572 Fernwood Lane

Fairless Hills, PA 19030

Michael B. Schaedle, EsquireBlank Rome LLP

One Logan Square

130 North 18th Street

Philadelphia, PA 19103

Hal Pitkow, Esquire

The Falls at Lambertville

351 South Main Street

Lambertville, NJ 08530

Alan B. Rich, Esq.

Elm Place

1401 Elm Street, Suite 4620

Dallas, TX 75201

Mr. Thomas Moskie

Bankers Trust Company

1 Bankers Trust Plaza

New York, NY 10001

Charles E. Gibson, III, Esquire

Gibson Law Firm

447 Northpark DriveRidgeland, MS 39157-5109

John P. Dillman, Esquire

Linebarger Heard Goggan Blair

Graham Pea & Sampson, LLP

P. O. Box 3064Houston, TX 77253-3064

Steven J. Kherkher, Esquire

Laurence G. Tien, EsquireWilliams Kherkher Hart & Boundas, LLP

8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite #600

Houston, TX 77017

Steven T. Hoort, Esquire

Ropes & GrayOne International Place

Boston, MA 02110-2624

Patrick J. Reilly, Esquire

Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A1000 N. West Street

Suite 1200


Paul M. Baisier, Esquire

SEYFARTH SHAW

1545 Peachtree Street, Suite 700

Atlanta, GA 30309

William S. Katchen, Esquire

Duane, Morris LLP

744 Broad Street, Suite 1200

Newark, NJ 07102-3889

Sander L. Esserman, EsquireStutzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka

2323 Bryan Street

Suite 2200

Dallas, TX 75201-2689

Delta Chemical Corporation2601 Cannery Avenue

Baltimore, MD 21226-1595

Paul D. Henderson, Esquire

Dies, Dies & Henderson1009 W. Green Avenue

Orange, TX 77630

Tara L. Lattomus, EsquireEckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC

300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1210Wilmington, DE 19801


53/59

Todd C. Meyers, EsquireKilpatrick Stockton, LLP

1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800

Atlanta, GA 30309-4530

Peter S. Goodman, Esquire

Andrews & Kurth LLP

450 Lexington Avenue, 15th Floor

New York, New York 10017

Brad N. Friedman, EsquireRachel S. Fleishman, Esquire

Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Learch

One Pennsylvania Plaza

New York, NY 10019

Lewis Kruger, Esquire

Robert Raskin, Esquire

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP

180 Maiden LaneNew York, NY 10038-4982

C. Randall Bupp, Esquire

Plastiras & Terrizzi

24 Professional Center Parkway

Suite 150San Rafael, CA 94903

Thomas J. Noonan, Jr.

Hermans Sporting Goods in Liquidation

C/o R&S Liquidation Company, Inc.

5 Lyons Mall PMB #530Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-1928

William E. Frese, Esquire

Attn: Sheree L. Kelly, Esquire80 Park Plaza, T5D

P.O. Box 570

Newark, NJ 07101

Scott W. Wert, Esquire

Foster & Sear, L.L.P.

817 Greenview Drive

Grand Prairie, TX 75050

Rosa Dominy

Bankruptcy Administration

IOS Capital, Inc.1738 Bass Road

P.O. Box 13708

Macon, GA 31208-3708

State Library of Ohioc/o Michelle T. Sutter

Revenue Recovery

101 E. Town Street, Second Floor

Columbus, OH 43215

Dorine Vork, Esquire

Stibbe

489 Fifth avenue, 32nd Floor

New York, New York 10017

Jonathan H. Alden, Esquire

Assistant General Counsel

3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS 35

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

Credit Lyonnais1301 Avenue of the Americas

New York, New York 10019-0602

Randall A. Rios, Esquire

Floyd Isgur Rios & Wahrlich, P.D.700 Louisiana, Suite 4600

Houston, TX 77002

Deanna D. Boll, EsquireKirkland & Ellis

Citigroup Center601 Lexington AvenueNew York, NY 10022

Paul G. Sumers, Esquire

TN Attorney Generals Office, Bankr. Unit

P.O. Box 20207

Nashville, TN 37202-0207

Harry Lee, Esquire

Steptoe & Johnson LLP

1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.


Thomas O. Bean, Esquire

Eric P. Magnuson, Esquire

Nutter, McClennen & Fish, LLP

World Trade Center West155 Seaport Blvd.

Boston, MA 02210

Allan M. McGarvey, Esquire

Jon L. Heberling, Esquire

Roger M. Sullivan, Esquire

McGarvey Heberling Sullivan & McGarvey745 South Main

Kalispell, MT 59901

Neil Berger, Esquire

Togut Segal & Segal LLP

One Penn Plaza, Suite 3335New York, NY 10119

Deirdre Woulfe Pacheo, Esquire

Wilentz Goldman & SpitzerP.O. Box 10

Woodbridge Center Drive

Woodbridge, NJ 07095

John G. Stoia, Jr., Esquire

Timothy G. Blood, Esquire

Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & RobbinsLLP

655 West Broadway, Suite 1900

San Diego, CA 92101

Philip Bentley, Esquire

Gary M. Becker, EsquireKramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP

1177 Avenue of the Americas

New York, NY 10036

Jacob C. Cohn, Esquire

Cozen OConnor

1900 Market Street


James Sottile, Esquire

Zuckerman Spaeder LLP

1800 M Street, NW, Suite 1000

Washington, DC 20036-5802

Richard S. Lewis, Esquire

Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC1100 New York Avenue, N.W.

West Tower, Suite 500Washington, DC 20005

Marsha A. Penn, Esquire2425 West Loop south, Suite 200

Houston, TX 77036

Darrell W. Scott, Esquire

The Scott Law Group, P.S.926 W. Sprague Avenue, Suite 583

Spokane, WA 99201


54/59

Thomas M., EsquireHagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

One Main Street

4th Floor

Cambridge, MA 02142

Robert J. Dehney, Esquire

Morris Nicholas Arsht & Tunnell

1201 N. Market Street


David Pastor, EsquireEdward L. Manchur, Esquire

Gilman & Pastor LLP

225 Franklin Street

16th Floor

Boston, MA 02110

Thomas G. Macauley, Esquire

Zuckerman Spaeder LLP

919 Market Street, Suite 990PO Box 1028


Mark Minuti, Esquire

Saul Ewing LLP

222 Delaware AvenueP.O. Box 1266


Thomas G. Whalen, Esquire

Stevens & Lee

1105 North Market Street, 7th FloorWilmington, DE 19801

Mr. Mark Hankin

HanMar Associates, M.L.P.P.O. Box 26767

Elkins Park, PA 19027

Attn: Ted Weschler

Peninsula Capital, L.P.404B East Main Street, 2nd Floor

Charlottesville, VA 22902

Jordan N. Malz, Esquire

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett425 Lexington Avenue

New York, NY 10017

Richard D. Trenk, EsquireHenry M. Karkowski, Esquire

Trenk, DiPasquale, Webster, Della Fera & Sodono P.C.

347 Mt. Pleasant Avenue

Suite 300West Orange, New Jersey 07052-3317

Janet S. Baer, Esquire

The Law Offices of Janet S. Baer P.C.

70 West Madison Street, Suite 2100

Chicago, IL 60602

Christopher R. Momjian, EsquireSenior Deputy Attorney General

Office of the Attorney General

21 S. 12th Street, 3rd Floor


Janet M. Weiss, Esquire

Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP200 Park Avenue

New York, NY 10166

Joseph L. Schwartz, Esquire

Curtis M. Plaza, Esquire

Craig T. Moran, EsquireRiker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti LLP

Headquarters Plaza, 1 Speedwell Avenue

Morristown, NJ 07962

Mr. Harvey Schultz

The Schultz Organization900 Route 9 North

Woodbridge, NJ 07095

Charles L. Finke, Assistant Attorney GeneralBrad Rogers, Attorney

Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation

Office of the General Counsel

1200 K Street, NW


Richard A. OHalloran, Esquire

BURNS, WHITE & HICKTON, LLC

531 Plymouth Road, Suite 500

Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462

W. Wallace Finlator, Jr.Assistant Attorney General

N.C. Department of Justice

Post Office Box 629

Raleigh, NC 27602-0629

Christopher M. Candon

Cohn & Whitesell LLP

101 Arch Street, Suite 1605Boston, MA 02110

Steven K. Kortanek, Esquire

Joanne B. Wills, Esquire

Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers919 Market Street, Suite 1000


William P. Bowden, Esquire

Amanda M. Winfree, Esquire

Ashby & Geddes, P.A.500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor


Jeffrey L. Roelofs, Esquire

Anderson & Kreiger, LLP43 Thorndike Street

Cambridge, MA 02141

John V. Fiorella, Esquire

Archer & Greiner, P.C.300 Delaware Avenue

Suite 1370


Thomas Tew, Esquire

Tew Cardenas L.L.P.Four Seasons Tower, 15th Floor

1441 Brickell Avenue

Miami, Florida 33131-3407

James E. Wimberley, Esquire

McPherson, Monk, Hughes, Bradley & Wimberley,

L.L.P.

3120 Central Mall Drive

Port Arthur, TX 77642

Marc Abrams, Esquire

Willkie, Farr & Gallagher

787 Seventh Avenue

New York, NY 10019-6099

Citadel Investment Group, L.L.C.

Attn: S. Jay Novatney

131 South Dearborn Street, 36th FloorChicago, IL 60603

Kirk A. Patrick III, Esquire

Donohue Patrick1500 Bank One Centre-North Tower

PO Box 1629

Baton Rouge, LA 70821-1629

Anne McGinness Kearse, Esquire

Motley Rice LLC28 Bridgeside Blvd.

PO Box 1792

Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465

Roger W. Hammond

Kforce Inc.1001 East Palm Avenue

Tampa, FL 33605


55/59

Mr. Eugene Paul Sullivan

29-B Plaza Delas Flores

Freehold, NJ 07728

Todd C. Schiltz, Esquire

Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen LLP

Wilmington Trust Center



Bruce D. Levin, EsquirePeter B. McGlynn, Esquire

Bernkopf Goodman LLP

125 Summer Street, Suite 1300

Boston, MA 02110

Frederick P. Furth, Esquire

The Furth Firm LLP

10300 Chalk Hill RoadHealdsburg, CA 95448

John C. Phillips, Jr., Esquire

Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A.

1200 N. Broom StreetWilmington, DE 19806

Roger Frankel, Esquire

Richard H. Wyron, Esquire

Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP

Columbia Center1152 15th Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20005-1706

Robert J. Sidman, Esquire

Tiffany Strelow Cobb, Esquire

Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP52 East Gay Street

P.O. Box 1008

Columbus, OH 43215

Justin Shrader, Esquire

Shrader & Associates, L.L.P.1021 Main Street, Ste. 1450

Houston, TX 77002

Sean Allen

BMC Group600 1st Avenue, Suite 300

Seattle, WA 98104

M. David Minnick, EsquireMichael P. Ellis, Esquire

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

50 Fremont Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-2228

Gerald F. George, Esquire

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP

50 Fremont Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-2228

Thomas A. Spratt, Jr., EsquirePepper Hamilton, LLP

3000 Two Logan Square

Eighteenth & Arch Streets


Steven T.Davis

Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP3 Mill Road, Suite 306A


D. Alexander Barnes, Esquire

Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLPOne Penn Center, 19th Floor

1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd.Philadelphia, Pa 19103-1895

Steven J. McCardell, Esquire

Jared Inouye, EsquireDuham Jones & Pinegar

111 E. Broadway, Suite 900Salt Lake City, UT 84111

John Waters, EsquireIowa Department of Revenue

Collections Section

P.O. Box 10457

Des Moines, Iowa 50306

Yves LauzonMichel Belanger

Lauzon Belanger, Inc.

286, rue St-Paul Quest, Bureau 100

Montreal Quebec

Daniel K. Hogan, Esquire

The Hogan Firm

1311 Delaware Avenue


David A. Hickerson, Esquire

M. Jarrad Wright, Esquire

Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP

1300 Eye Street N.W., Suite 900Washington, D.C. 20005

Ralph I. Miller, Esquire

Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP

200 Cresent Court, Suite 300Dallas, TX 75201

Neil B. Glassman, Esquire

Steven M. Yoder, Esquire

Kathryn D. Sallie, Esquire

The Bayard Firm222 Delaware Avenue, Ste 900


Steven J. Mandelsberg, Esquire

Christina J. Kang, EsquireHahn & Hessen LLP

488 Madison Avenue

New York, NY 10022

Tobey M. Daluz, Esquire

Leslie C. Heilman, EsquireBallard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP

919 N. Market Street, 12th Floor


Pryor Cashman LLP

Attn: Richard Levy, Jr., Esquire7 Times Square

New York, NY 10036

Jacqueline Dais-Visca, Esquire

Business Law Section

Ontario Regional Office

Suite 2400, Box 34

The Exchange Tower

130 King Street WestToronto, Ontario M5X 1K6

Peter D. Keisler, Esquire

Assistant Attorney General

Department of Justice, Civil Division

Ben Franklin Station

P.O. Box 875


Katherine White, Esquire

Sealed Air Corporation

20 Riverfront Boulevard

Elmwood Park, NJ 07407

Garvan F. McDaniel, Esquire

Bifferato Gentilotti & Balick, L.L.C.800 King Street, 1st Floor

Box 2165


John Kevin Welch, Esquire

Office of Legal ServicesFifth Floor, Capital Plaza Tower

Frankfort, KY 40601

John F. Dickinson, Jr., Esquire

Deputy Attorney General

Department of Law & Public SafetyDivision of Law

Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex

P.O. Box 093

Trenton, NY 08625-0093


56/59

Elihu E. Allinson, Esq.

Sullivan Hazeltine Allinson LLP

4 East 8th Street, Suite 400


Anthony Petru, EsquireQuynh L. Nguyen, Esquire

Hildebrand McLeod & Nelson LLP

350 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 4 th Floor

Oakland, CA 94612

Daniel A. Speights, EsquireSpeights & Runyan

200 Jackson Avenue, East

P.O. Box 685

Hampton, SC 29924

Christopher D. Loizides, Esquire

Loizides, PA

1225 King Street, Suite 800Wilmington, DE 19801

John W. Kozyak, Esquire

David L. Rosendorf, Esquire

Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, PA

2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th FloorCoral Gables, FL 33134

John T. Carroll, III, Esquire

Barry M. Klayman, Esquire

Cozen OConnor

1201 N. Market StreetSuite 1400


Robert B. Millner, Esquire

Christopher E. Prince, EsquireSonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP

233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 7800

Chicago, IL 60606

Frederick B. Rosner, Esquire

Messana Rosner & Stern LLP1000 N. West Street, Suite 1200


James M. Brako, Esquire

Palm Beach County Tax CollectorP.O. Box 3715

West Palm Beach, FL 33402

Janet S. Baer, Esquire

The Law Offices of Janet S. Baer P.C.

70 West Madison Street, Suite 2100

Chicago, IL 60602

Brett D. Fallon, EsquireMorris James LLP500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500


Garland Cassada, EsquireRichard C. Worf, Esquire

Robinson, Bradshaww & Hinson

101 N. Tryon Street, Suite 1900

Charlotte, NC 28246

Daniel C. Cohn

Murtha Cullina LLP

99 High Street

Boston, MA 02110-2320


57/59

0156127.1 }

FLINTKOTE 2002 SERVICE LIST

Parcels, Inc.

Vito I. DiMaio

230 North Market Street


David Klauder

Office of the United States Trustee

J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building

844 N. King Street, Suite 2207Lockbox 35


ames L. Patton, Jr., Esq.

Edwin J. Harron, Esq.

Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP000 West Street, 17th Floor


Laura Davis Jones, Esquire

James E. ONeill, EsquireSandra McLamb, Esquire

Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl, Young, Jones & Weintraub919 N. Market Street, 17th Floor

PO Box 8705Wilmin ton, DE 19899-8705

Kevin T. Lantry, Esq.

Sally S. Neely, Esq.

Jeffrey E. Bjork, Esq.Sidley Austin LLP555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000

Los Angeles, CA 90013-6000

Mr. Lawrence Fitzpatrick

009 Lennox Drive

Bldg. 4, Suite 101

Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

Randy Bono, Esq.

The Simmons Firm, LLC

707 Berkshire Blvd.

PO Box 521

East Alton, IL 62024

Charles A. Waters, Esq.

Waters & Kraus

3219 McKinney Ave.

Suite 3000

Dallas, TX 75204

Pam Wise, Esq.

Wise & Julian

555 College Ave.

PO Box 1108

Alton, IL 62002

David M. McClain, Esq.

Kazan & McClain

171 Twelfth Street

3rd Floor

Oakland, CA 94607

Mike Kaeske, Esq.

Kaeske Reeves LLP

1301 W. 25th

StreetAustin, TX 78705

R. Dean Hartley, Esq.

Hartley & OBrien

001 Main Street, Suite 600

Wheeling, WV 26003

Russell W. Budd, Esq.

Baron & Budd

3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100

Dallas, TX 75219-4281

Glen W. Morgan, Esq.

Reaud, Morgan & Quinn

801 Laurel

Beaumont, TX 77701

cott M. Hendler, Esq.

Hendler Law Firm

16 Congress Ave.

uite 1230Austin, TX 78701

James J. Bedortha, Esq.

Goldberg, Persky, Jennings & White, PC

1030 Fifth Ave., 3rd Floor

Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6295

John J. Kittel, Esq.

Mazur & Kittel

30665 Northwestern Highway

Farmington Hills, MI 48334

Denman H. Heard, Esq.

Watts & Heard LLP

Meilie Esperson Building

15 Walker Street, 16th Floor

Houston, TX 77002

John M. Deakle, Esq/

The Deakle Law Firm

802 Main Street

PO Box 2072

Hattiesburg, MS 39403

Alan R. Brayton, Esq.Christina C. Subic, Esq.

Brayton Purcell222 Rush LandingPO Box 6169Novato CA 94948-6169

oseph F. Rice, Esq.

Motley Rice LLC

8 Bridgeside Blvd.

Mount Pleasant, SC 29464

Mark H. Iola, Esq.

Stanley Mandel & Iola LLP

3100 Monticello Avenue

Suite 750

Dallas, TX 75205

Tom B. Scott, Esq.

Scott & Scott

PO Box 2009

Jackson, MS 39215-2009

Barbara J. Arison

Frantz Ward LLP

500 Key Center

27 Public Square

Cleveland, OH 44114-1230

T. Roe Frazer, II, Esq.

Frazer & Davidson, PA

500 East Capitol Street

Jackson, MS 39201

Brent Coon, Esq.

Brent Coon & Associates

917 Franklin

Suite 210

Houston, TX 77002


58/59

0156127.1 }

Thomas M. Wilson, Esq.

Kelley & Ferraro, L. L. P.

200 Key Tower27 Public Square

Cleveland, OH 44114

Peter Van N. Lockwood, Esq.


One Thomas Circle, NW


James A. Pardo, Jr., Esq.

King & Spalding

191 Peachtree Street

Atlanta, GA 30303

Robert B. Millner, Esq.

onnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal

000 Sears Tower

33 South Wacker Drive

Chicago, IL 60606

Scott W. Wert, Esq.

Foster & Sear, L.L.P.524 E. Lamar Blvd., Suite 200

Arlington, TX 76011

Charlene D. Davis, Esq.

Eric M. Sutty, Esq.

The Bayard Firm222 Delaware Avenue Suite 900

PO Box 25130


Richard C. Sutton, Jr., Esq.

Reginauld T. Harris, Esq.

Rush Moore Craven Sutton Morry & Beh

37 Bishop Street, Suite 2400

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

David P. McClain, Esq.

Tony Draper, Esq.

McClain, Leppert & Maney, P.C.

South Tower, Pennzoil Place

711 Louisiana Street, Suite 3100

Houston, TX 77002

Carmella P. Keener, EsquireRosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A.919 Market Street, Suite 1401


Bryan J. Farkas, Esquire

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP

100 One Cleveland Ctr.375 E. 9th Street

Cleveland, OH 44114

Brian L. Kasprzak

Michael J. Joyce, Esquire

Marks, ONeill, OBrien and Courtney913 N. Market Street, Suite 800


Mark D. Plevin

Leslie A. Epley

Kelly R. Cusick, Esquire

Crowell & Moring LLP1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW


oseph D. Frank

Frank/Gecker LLP

25 North LaSalle Street, Suite 625

Chicago, IL 60610

Reginald W. Jackson, Esquire

Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP

52 E. Gay Street

Columbus, OH 43215

James E. Wimberley

McPherson, Monk, Hughes, Bradley,

Wimberley & Steele, L.L.P.

3120 Central Mall Drive

Port Arthur, TX 77642

Daniel K. Hogan

The Hogan Firm

311 Delaware Avenue


Samuel R. Grego, Esquire

Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C.

Two PPG Place Suite 400


Julie A. Ardoin, Esq.

Julie Ardoin, LLC2200 Veterans Memorial Boulevard, Suite 2

Kenner, LA 70062-4032

Robert T. Aulgur, Jr., Esq.

Kristi J. Doughty, Esq.

Whittington & Aulgur

13 N. DuPont Highway

uite 110

Odessa, DE 19730

Anthony Sakalarios, Esquire

Morris, Sakalarios & Blackwell, PLLC

Post Office Drawer 1858

Hattiesburg, MS 39403-1858

Albert A. Ciardi, III, Esquire

Ciardi & Ciardi, P.C.

One Commerce Square

2005 Market Street, Suite 2020


Robert W. Dremluk, Esquire

eyfarth Shaw LLP

20 Eighth Avenue

New York, NY 10018-1405

Daniel J. DeFranceschi, Esq.Jason M. Madron, Esq.Christopher M. Samis, Esq.Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.920 North King Street


SEYFARTH SHAW LLP

David C. Christian II, Esquire

131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400

Chicago, IL 60603


59/59

Daniel J. DeFranceschi, Esq.ason M. Madron, Esq.

Christopher M. Samis, Esq.Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A.20 North King Street


Kelly-Ann Pokrywa, EsquireGordon & Gordon, P.C.505 Morris AvenueSpringfield, NJ 07081

Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax CollPO Box 54110Los Angeles, CA 90051-0110

Donna L. Harris, Esq.

inckney, Harris & Weidinger, LLC220 N. Market Street, Suite 950


Doug McManamy, Esq.

The Mathis Law Firm3575 Piedmont Road, NE Suite 1560

Atlanta, Georgia 30305

David Hensley D39084

California Medical FacilityP.O. Box 2500 H2-202-LVacaville, CA 95696

Date post:	07-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kirk-hartley
View:	220 times
Download:	0 times