View
219
Download
3
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
PHIL1 5716566v.1
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
:In re: : Chapter 7
:ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., : Case No. 16-07207-JMC-7A
:Debtor. :
:
MOTION OF ARTIS PLAINTIFFS’ FOR APPOINTMENT OF KLEHRHARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG LLP AS INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL
PURSUANT TO FED. R. BANKR. PROC. 7023(g)
Plaintiffs Dennis Artis, Donna A. Lindsay and Patricia Marshall (the “Artis Plaintiffs”),
by and through their undersigned counsel, Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg, LLP, hereby move
this Honorable Court for entry of an Order substantially in the form attached as Exhibit A
appointing Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg, LLP as Interim Class Counsel pursuant to Federal
Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7023(g), for the reasons set forth in the accompanying
Memorandum of Law in Support of the Artis’ Plaintiffs Motion for Appointment of Klehr
Harrison Harvey Branzburg, LLP as Interim Class Counsel, which is incorporated herein by
reference.
[Remaining Page Intentionally Left Blank]
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 1 of 2
PHIL1 5716566v.1
WHEREFORE, the Artis Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court appoint Klehr
Harrison Harvey Branzburg, LLP, as interim class counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g),
made applicable by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7023(g), and for any other relief the
Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: October 11, 2016LEWIS & KAPPES, P.C.
/s/ Kevin A. Morrissey______________
Kevin A. Morrissey2500 One American SquareIndianapolis, IN 46282Telephone: (317) 639-1210Facsimile: (317) 639-4882kmorrissey@Lewis-Kappes.com
Local Counsel for Plaintiffs
- And -
KLEHR HARRISON HARVEYBRANZBURG LLP
/s/ Charles A. Ercole__________Charles A. Ercole, Esquire*Lee D. Moylan, Esquire*Sally E. Veghte, Esquire*1835 Market Street, Suite 1400Philadelphia, PA 19103Telephone: (215) 569-2700Facsimile: (215) 568-6603cercole@klehr.comlmoylan@klehr.comsveghte@klehr.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
*Attorneys Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 2 of 2
PHIL1 5716867v.1
EXHIBIT A
[Proposed Order]
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-1 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 1 of 3
PHIL1 5716867v.1
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
:In re: : Chapter 7
:ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., : Case No. 16-07207-JMC-7A
:Debtors. :
:
ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF ARTIS PLAINTIFFS’ FOR APPOINTMENTOF KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY BRANZBURG LLP AS INTERIM CLASS
COUNSEL PURSUANT TO FED. R. BANKR. PROC. 7023(g)
Upon the motion (the “Motion”)1 of plaintiffs Dennis Artis, Donna A. Lindsay and
Patricia Marshall, on behalf of themselves and as putative class of others similarly situated,
seeking the appointment of Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg, LLP as interim Class Counsel
pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7023(g); and the Court having determined the
relief requested in the Motion is in the best interest of the Debtor, its creditors, and all other
parties in interest; and the Court having determined that the legal and factual bases set forth in
the Motion and at the Hearing establish just cause for the relief granted herein; and upon all of
the proceedings had before this Court; and after due deliberation thereon; and good and sufficient
cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1 Capitalized terms used but not defined herein have the meanings ascribed to them in the Brief.
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-1 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 2 of 3
PHIL1 5716867v.1
1. The Motion is granted.
2. Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg, LLP is appointed as interim class counsel for
the purposes of the WARN Act litigation.
3. The Court shall retain jurisdiction to interpret, implement and enforce the terms of
this Order.
###
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-1 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 3 of 3
PHIL1 5712264v.1
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
:In re: : Chapter 7
:ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., : Case No. 16-07207-JMC-7A
:Debtor. :
:
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ARTIS PLAINTIFFS’APPOINTMENT AS INTERIM CLASS COUNSELPURSUANT TO FED. R. BANKR. PROC. 7023(g)
LEWIS & KAPPES, P.C.Kevin A. Morrissey2500 One American SquareIndianapolis, IN 46282
KLEHR HARRISON HARVEY Telephone: (317) 639-1210BRANZBURG LLP Facsimile: (317) 639-4882Charles A. Ercole, EsquireLee D. Moylan, EsquireSally E. Veghte, Esquire1835 Market Street, Suite 1400Philadelphia, PA 19103Telephone: (215) 569-2700 Counsel for Plaintiffs, individuallyFacsimile: (215) 568-6603 and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situatedOctober 11, 2016
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-2 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 1 of 17
PHIL1 5712264v.1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT..................................................................................................1
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS .........................................................................................................3
III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ...........................................................................................3
IV. ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................................5
A. THE COURT SHOULD APPOINT KLEHR HARRISON INTERIM CLASS
COUNSEL. ..................................................................................................................................7
B. PROPOSED INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL WILL FAIRLY AND ADEQUATELY
REPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE CLASS....................................................................9
a. Proposed Class Counsel Has Already Spent Considerable Time and Effort to Identify
and Investigate Claims. ..........................................................................................................10
b. Proposed Class Counsel Possess Extensive Experience Litigating Complex WARN
and Employee Class Actions..................................................................................................10
c. Proposed Class Counsel are Known Authorities in Employment Litigation, Especially
in the WARN Act...................................................................................................................11
d. Proposed Class Counsel are Prepared to Commit Substantial Resources to the Present
Litigation. ...............................................................................................................................12
V. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................13
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-2 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 2 of 17
PHIL1 5712264v.1
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES PAGE(S)
In re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig.,240 F.R.D. 56 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) ................................................................................................7
Anderson v. Fiserv, Inc.,2010 WL 571812 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2010) ...........................................................................7-8
Aros v. The Pep Boys,Case No. CV 07-1755-VBF (RZX) (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2008)..................................................7
In re Bank of Am. Corp. Secs., Derivative & ERISA Litis.,258 F.R.D. 260 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2009) ................................................................................7
In re Bear Stearns Companies, Inc. Sec., Derivative,& Employee Ret. Income Sec. Act (Erisa) Litig.,
08 M.D.L. 1963 (RWS), 2009 WL 50132 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2009)..........................................9
In re Benedictin Litig.,857 F.2d 290 (6th Cir. 1988), cert denied, 488 U.S. 1006 (1989) ............................................6
In re Cree, Inc., Sec. Litig.,219 F.R.D. 369 (D.N.C. 2003) ..................................................................................................6
In re Hannaford Bros. Co.,252 F.R.D. 66 (D.Me. 2007)......................................................................................................5
MacAlister v. Guterma,263 F.2d 65 (2d Cir. 1958) ........................................................................................................6
In re Mun. Derivatives Antitrust Litig.,252 F.R.D. 184 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2008) ..................................................................................8
Rangel v. Cardell Cabinetry, LLC,No. SA-13-CA-843, 2014 WL 12542900 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2014) ................................1, 11
In re Truland Grp., Inc.,520 B.R. 197 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2014) ................................................................................11-12
In Re USF Red Star Worker Notification Litigation,MDL 1655 (E.D. Pa. 2005) .....................................................................................................10
STATUTES
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq..............................2
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-2 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 3 of 17
ii
PHIL1 5712264v.1
OTHER AUTHORITIES
Bankruptcy Rule 7023.....................................................................................................................4
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1) (2) and (3) .................................................................................................3
Fed. R. Civ. P.23 (g)(1)(B)..............................................................................................................8
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (g)(2) ........................................................................................................ Passim
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2)(A)..........................................................................................................2, 5
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3) ...............................................................................................................5, 7
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7023 ..........................................................................1, 2, 5
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 ......................................................................................1, 5-7, 9
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g) ......................................................................1, 7, 10, 11, 13
Rule 23(g) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ..................................................................8
Manual for Complex Litigation (2004) § 21.11 (Fourth)................................................................2
Rule 23(g)(1)(A)...........................................................................................................................7-8
Rule 23(g)(1) and Rule 23(g)(4)......................................................................................................8
Rule 23(g)(4) .........................................................................................................................1, 7, 12
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-2 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 4 of 17
1
PHIL1 5712264v.1
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(g), Plaintiffs Dennis Artis, Donna A.
Lindsay and Patricia Marshall (referred to collectively herein as the “Artis Plaintiffs”) and the
undersigned counsel at Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg, LLP (“Klehr Harrison”) respectfully
request that this Court appoint Klehr Harrison as Interim Class Counsel (the “Proposed Class
Counsel”) for the putative class. Klehr Harrison submits this memorandum of law in support of
the requested relief.
I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
Even when the prospects for a distribution in a Chapter 7 case may appear dim, it makes
sense for the trustee to treat the various WARN Act claims as one represented group – even
when active litigation may be impracticable or premature. Under these circumstances, the Court
can appoint interim class counsel, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(g), in order to relieve the chapter
7 trustee from dealing with multiple WARN Act counsel and potentially hundreds of employee
claimants. Appointment of interim class counsel can provide the trustee with a conduit for
handling employee issues and, therefore promote efficiency while ensuing due process until class
certification is determined. There is also nothing prohibiting the Court from appointing more
than one firm as interim counsel. See Rangel v. Cardell Cabinetry, LLC, No. SA-13-CA-843,
2014 WL 12542900, at *4 (W.D. Tex. Jan. 22, 2014)(The court held that two law firms satisfied
the competency-based considerations in Rule 23(g)(1), and that they would “fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the class” as required by Rule 23(g)(4)).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, made applicable by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy
Procedure 7023 (the “Bankruptcy Rules”), requires class certification to be addressed as early as
“practicable.” The rules recognize that even pre-certification, interim class counsel may be
beneficial to act in the role of a representative of the putative class.
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-2 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 5 of 17
2
PHIL1 5712264v.1
This case involves Defendants’ termination of approximately eight thousand employees
from ITT’s Indiana headquarters as well as company facilities and/or campuses in California and
Louisiana as well as other states. The employees were terminated without advance written notice
as required by the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN Act”), 29
U.S.C. § 2101 et seq.
Counsel for the Artis Plaintiffs anticipate moving for class certification under Federal
Bankruptcy Rule 7023. Prior to certification, “the Court may designate interim counsel to act on
behalf of the putative class before determining whether to certify the action as a class action.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2)(A). Designation of interim counsel clarifies responsibility for protecting
the interests of the class during precertification activities, such as making and responding to
motions, conducting any necessary discovery, moving for class certification and negotiating
settlement. Manual for Complex Litigation (2004) § 21.11 (Fourth). The appointment of interim
class counsel provides ITT and the Court with the certainty of knowing that they can effectively
negotiate and address matters of common interest to the putative WARN class and the Chapter
11 proceeding as a whole, with experienced counsel who are authorized to speak for the class.
Klehr Harrison was one of the first counsel to file a WARN action here, prior to which
they spent considerable time investigating the facts which give rise to the WARN claim. Klehr
Harrison as Proposed Class Counsel has already materially advanced the claims of the proposed
class by uncovering and identifying the WARN claims, filing two separate actions on behalf of
the Artis Plaintiffs as well as a proof of claim.
Klehr Harrison has been contacted by, spoken with, and been directly retained by
numerous former ITT employees, including plaintiff Donna A. Lindsay who was employed by
ITT as a Regional Director of Recruitment and worked in ITT’s Carmel, Indiana headquarters
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-2 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 6 of 17
3
PHIL1 5712264v.1
facility until September 6, 2016. Klehr Harrison has the resources and experience to litigate this
claim on behalf of the proposed Class, having litigated numerous WARN class actions, a
majority of which were adversary proceedings in bankruptcy courts. Klehr Harrison’s expertise
has been recognized by this Court and many others around the nation.
“If more than one adequate applicant seeks appointment [as class counsel], “the court
must appoint the applicant best able to represent the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23
(g)(2) (emphasis added). Having been named by bankruptcy courts in major WARN cases as
interim and class counsel, with WARN experience that far exceeds that of any firm, Klehr
Harrison is the best able to represent the proposed class under the criteria established for
selection of counsel by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(1) (2) and (3) and should be appointed interim class
counsel.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Until its shutdown on September 6, 2016, ITT maintained and operated its headquarters
in Indiana which had 150 or more employees. Defendant also maintained other facilities in
California, Louisiana and across the United States, as that term is defined in the WARN Act,
including over 130 campuses in 38 states, employing more than 8,000 employees in the United
States. On September 16, 2016, ITT filed in this Court a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of
Title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.
III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
ITT employees began contacting Klehr Harrison and its counsel for legal assistance on
September 7, 2016, the day after the company shut down. Declaration of Charles A. Ercole
(“Ercole Dec.”) ¶3. Klehr Harrison immediately assigned several attorneys and paralegals to
investigate what appeared to be terminations without advance written notice as required by the
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-2 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 7 of 17
4
PHIL1 5712264v.1
WARN Act. Ercole Dec. ¶4. Klehr Harrison fielded calls from many more employees in the
ensuing days after ITT filed for bankruptcy protection. Klehr Harrison was retained and asked to
commence a lawsuit by the Artis Plaintiffs and other plaintiffs on or before September 7, 2016.
Ercole Dec. ¶5. Klehr Harrison’s interviews with employees revealed a high level of concern
about the lack of adequate WARN notice or 60 days’ pay in lieu of notice, as provided for in the
statute. ITT’s actions seemed to have been taken with apparent disregard to WARN’s
requirements. Ercole Dec. ¶3. These discussions and investigations lead directly to Klehr
Harrison filing a complaint on behalf of the Artis Plaintiffs in the Delaware District Court on
September 7, 2016 (16-cv-790 RGA) and an adversary proceeding in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana (the “Bankruptcy Court”) on September
20, 2016 (Bankr. Case No. 16-07207-JMC-7A)(Adv. Proc. No. 16-50298-JMC). Klehr Harrison
has also filed a proof of claim in ITT”s bankruptcy case on behalf of the Artis Plaintiffs
individually and on behalf of the putative class. (See Claim 3; filed Sept. 20, 2016). The class
actions comprised claims under the federal WARN Act and ERISA as well as state law wage
claims.
Also currently pending with the Bankruptcy Court is a WARN Act adversary proceeding
filed against ITT by plaintiffs Allen Federman, Joanna Castro and Steve Ryan (the “Federman
Plaintiffs”) (Adv. Proc. No. 16-50296 JMC) (the “Federman Adversary Proceeding”). The
Federman Adversary Proceeding was filed on September 16, 2016.
On September 23, 2016, counsel for plaintiff Christin Long filed a poof of claim in the
above-captioned bankruptcy proceeding (the “Long POC”) which was previously filed as a
putative class action against ITT in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-2 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 8 of 17
5
PHIL1 5712264v.1
Indiana. The Long POC also attached a motion for an order directing the Bankruptcy Court to
apply Bankruptcy Rule 7023 to the class proof of claim.
After a status conference before the Court, the parties agreed to submit a stipulated
briefing schedule for motions seeking appointment of interim class counsel for the proposed
class of former ITT employees who were terminated on or about September 6, 2016, in an effort
to determine the most effective way to present the WARN Act claims for resolution by the
Court.1 The stipulation was filed with the Court, discussed at the hearing on October 11, 2016
and is pending approval.
IV. ARGUMENT
Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a court “may designate
interim counsel to act on behalf of a putative class before determining whether to certify the
action as a class action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(3). In re Hannaford Bros. Co., 252 F.R.D. 66, 67
(D.Me. 2007). The Advisory Committee has recognized that ordinarily, pre-certification work is
handled by the lawyer who filed the action. Id. The Advisory Committee has recognized that
ordinary, pre-certification work is handled by the lawyer who filed the action. Id. The Advisory
Committee notes to Rule 23(g)(2)(A) also explain that the rule “authorizes [a] court to designate
interim counsel during the pre-certification period if necessary to protect the interests of the
putative class.” The Manual for Complex Litigation (2004) elaborates:
If . . . there are a number of overlapping, duplicative, or competing suits pending in other courts, and some or all of those suits may be consolidated, a number of lawyers may compete for class counsel appointment. In such cases, designation of interim counsel clarifies responsibility for protecting the interests of the class duringprecertification activities, such as making and responding to
1 Klehr Harrison, in filing this affirmative Motion under Rule 7023, reserves its right to file an opposition to the other motions seeking appointment of interim class counsel currently on file or filed at a later date, which has a return date of October 21, 2016, pursuant to the stipulation filed by the parties.
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-2 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 9 of 17
6
PHIL1 5712264v.1
motions, conducting any necessary discovery, moving for class certification and negotiating settlement.
§ 21.11 (Fourth)(emphasis added).
In complex cases, a court can, and customarily does, appoint lead counsel to coordinate
the prosecution of a complex case. See, e.g., In re Cree, Inc., Sec. Litig., 219 F.R.D. 369, 373
(D.N.C. 2003); In re Benedictin Litig., 857 F.2d 290, 297 (6th Cir. 1988), cert denied, 488 U.S.
1006 (1989). “The benefits achieved by consolidation and the appointment of general counsel,
i.e., elimination of duplication and repetition and in effect the creation of a coordinator of diffuse
plaintiffs through whom motions and discovery proceedings will be channeled, will most
certainly redound to the benefit of all parties to the litigation.” MacAlister v. Guterma, 263 F.2d
65, 69 (2d Cir. 1958). Appointment of proposed Class Counsel here will promote efficient
prosecution of the class claims, avoid delays in discovery and authorize Klehr Harrison to act on
behalf of the putative WARN class. Such authority is necessary for Proposed Class Counsel to
make strategic decisions impacting the putative WARN class, to protect the putative class on
pre-certification issues, and to pursue interim relief for the class.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 sets for the “Standard for Appoint Class Counsel” and states: “If more
than one adequate applicant seeks appointment, “the court must appoint the applicant best able to
represent the interests of the class.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 (g)(2) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs
request the appointment of Klehr Harrison as interim class counsel.
Proposed Class Counsel is a nationally-recognized class action law firm that has handled
numerous WARN Act cases, including a recent settlement in MF Global in the Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York. Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd., C.A. No. 11-
15059 MG and C.A. No. 11-15058 MG (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011). Ercole Dec. ¶8. Proposed
Class Counsel has extensive successful experience representing plaintiffs in employment class
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-2 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 10 of 17
7
PHIL1 5712264v.1
actions -- including those involving WARN claims in bankruptcy court -- and have significant
knowledge of the applicable law. Ercole Dec. ¶8. The resources that Klehr Harrison can and
will commit to representing the proposed ITT class are substantial, as it has already expended
considerable time and effort to meet with the ITT employees and identify and investigate the
potential viable claims in this action. Ercole Dec. ¶9. Klehr Harrison is exceptionally well-
suited counsel to fairly and adequately represent the class.
A. THE COURT SHOULD APPOINT KLEHR HARRISON INTERIM CLASSCOUNSEL.
As one New York District Court explained in a similar context, “where multiple
overlapping and duplicative actions have been transferred to a single district for coordination of
pretrial proceedings, designation of interim class counsel is encouraged, and indeed is probably
essential for efficient case management.” In re Air Cargo Shipping Servs. Antitrust Litig., 240
F.R.D. 56, 57 (E.D.N.Y. 2006) (emphasis added) (citing the Manual for Complex Litigation
(Fourth) § 21.11 (2004)). Courts have used Rule 23(g) to create leadership structures in
employment cases. See e.g., Aros v. The Pep Boys, Case No. CV 07-1755-VBF (RZX) (C.D.
Cal. Jan. 15, 2008) (pretrial order appointing interim lead counsel in consolidated wage and hour
class action).
While neither Rule 23(g)(3) nor the Advisory Committee Notes explicitly set forth the
criteria used for selecting interim class counsel, when one class action has been filed, Rule 23
looks to whether counsel is “adequate” (Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(4)), or when multiple cases have
been filed whether counsel is the “best able to represent the interests of the class.” (Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(g)(2)). Courts have held that they are the same standards that apply in choosing class
counsel at the time of certification of the class under Rule 23(g)(1)(A). Anderson v. Fiserv, Inc.,
09 CIV. 8397 (BSJFM), 2010 WL 571812 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 29, 2010), see, e.g., In re Air
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-2 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 11 of 17
8
PHIL1 5712264v.1
Cargo, 240 F.R.D. at 57; In re Bank of Am. Corp. Secs., Derivative & ERISA Litis., 258 F.R.D.
260, 272 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 2009); In re Mun. Derivatives Antitrust Litig., 252 F.R.D. 184, 186
(S.D.N.Y. Aug. 1, 2008).
In appointing class counsel under Rule 23(g)(1)(A), the court must consider:
• the work counsel has done in identifying or investigatingpotential claims in the action,
• counsel’s experience in handling class actions, other complex litigation, and claims of the type asserted in theaction,
• counsel’s knowledge of the applicable law, and
• the resources counsel will commit to representing the class.
Anderson v. Fiserv, Inc., at *2.
Faced with competing “adequate” applicants, however, a court must go beyond
determining whether the applicant is “adequate” under Rule 23(g)(1) and Rule 23(g)(4), which
requires that counsel “fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class.” The Court
“must appoint the applicant best able to represent the interests of the class.” Id., citing Rule
23(g)(2). Additionally, the court may consider any other matter pertinent to counsel’s ability to
fairly and adequately represent the interests of the class. Fed. R. Civ. P.23 (g)(1)(B).
In Anderson v. Fiserv, Inc., the first moving party (“Gross-Elan”) sought a “Lead
Counsel” designation. In opposition, the second party, (“Zamansky”) cross-moved seeking to
have themselves appointed instead as interim class counsel pursuant to Rule 23(g) (2) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Although the found both parties “capable” it appointed
Zamansky interim class counsel. First, it found by reviewing the firms’ resume’s and websites
that Zamansky specialized in financial and class action litigation to a greater extent than Gross-
Elan, “which also tout their capabilities in personal injury suits.” The Court found that although
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-2 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 12 of 17
9
PHIL1 5712264v.1
Gross-Elan had “extensive experience (and success) in class actions,” it found “puzzling” that
Gross-Elan inappropriately moved to be “Lead Counsel” which is not a criterion used in Rule 23
class litigation but rather under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”) which
was not before the Court.
Further, the Anderson Court found that while Gross-Elan was “likely to commit
significant resources to this case if they are chosen as interim class counsel …. their papers do
not expressly make that commitment.” Finally, the Anderson Court found that while Gross-Elans
had the edge in identifying and investigating the plaintiffs’ potential claims it was not nough to
tip the balance to disfavor Zamansky, which it named interim class counsel. Applying Rule
23(g)(2) criteria in granting interim class counsel in the Bear Stearns ERISA litigation, the court
favored two firms, that inter alia, “have worked together as co-lead counsel in several ERISA
breach of fiduciary duty company stock class action cases. (citations omitted). It found “[t]his
history of cooperation should lead to the efficient, effective, and professional management and
resolution of the ERISA Actions on behalf of all Plan participants.” In re Bear Stearns
Companies, Inc. Sec., Derivative, & Employee Ret. Income Sec. Act (Erisa) Litig., 08 M.D.L.
1963 (RWS), 2009 WL 50132 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 5, 2009). As detailed herein, Klehr Harrison has a
demonstrated and well-established bankruptcy and WARN practice in which the WARN Act
practice group has litigated successfully on behalf of many clients. Ercole Dec. ¶10.
B. PROPOSED INTERIM CLASS COUNSEL WILL FAIRLY AND ADEQUATELYREPRESENT THE INTERESTS OF THE CLASS.
Klehr Harrison has some of the most experienced lawyers in the United States in the
prosecution of WARN class actions. They have been recognized as highly experienced in
WARN Act litigation in cases before numerous federal courts.
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-2 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 13 of 17
10
PHIL1 5712264v.1
a. Proposed Class Counsel Has Already Spent Considerable Time and Effort toIdentify and Investigate Claims.
Klehr Harrison has already expended time and effort conducting legal and factual
research, evaluating potential claims and defenses and drafting pleadings. Ercole Dec. ¶4. Klehr
Harrison has interviewed dozens of putative class members at virtually all levels of the ITT
organization, including those involved in admissions and management, as well as those
employed at ITT”s headquarters. Ercole Dec. ¶4. Numerous individual ex-ITT employees have
already retained Klehr Harrison to litigate their WARN claims including former employees that
worked at ITT’s headquarters and in campuses located in Louisiana and other states. Ercole
Dec. ¶4.
b. Proposed Class Counsel Possess Extensive Experience Litigating Complex WARNand Employee Class Actions.
Klehr Harrison, and partner Charles A. Ercole, have represented thousands of employees
and served as lead counsel in numerous WARN class action lawsuits. Ercole Dec. ¶12. For the
aforementioned reasons, Proposed Class Counsel possesses the requisite experience and
expertise to satisfy Rule 23(g). In addition, Klehr Harrison has a robust stable of litigation
attorneys and attorneys with other specialties to round out its practice and address any related
needs of the proposed putative class.
Klehr Harrison has represented thousands of employees and Mr. Ercole has served as
lead counsel in numerous employment class action lawsuits. See, e.g., Justin Abreau v. Oakwood
Homes Corp., et al., C.A. 0213396 (Bankr. D. Del. 2002); In Re USF Red Star Worker
Notification Litigation, MDL 1655 (E.D. Pa. 2005); In Re McGraw v. Independence Blue Cross,
Docket No. 000171 (Pa. Ct. Common Pleas 2007); Rocco v. Sears, et al., No. 06-2868 (D.N.J.
2008); Riley v. Hoboken Wood Flooring, C.A. No. 2:07-cv-05666, (D.N.J. 2009); Caccamo and
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-2 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 14 of 17
11
PHIL1 5712264v.1
Harnois v. Mortgage Lenders Network, Adv. No. 07-51415 (D. Del. 2009); Perez v. Am.
Remanufacturers Inc., Adv. No. 06-50819 (Bankr. D. Del.); Sane v. Liberty Fibers Corp., Adv.
No. 06-05049 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn.); McDermott v. Premium Protein Prods., LLC, Adv. Proc.
Nos. 09-04076 and 09-04077 (Bankr. Nebraska.); In re Qimonda N. Am., et al., Adv. No. 09-
50192 (Bankr. D. Del.); Smith v. Arrow Trucking, No. 09-cv-810 (N.D. Okla. 2011); Fleetwood
Travel Trailers, No. 6:09-ap-01114-MJ (Bankr. C.D. Ca. 2010); Excel Storage Products, Adv.
Proc. No. 5:10-ap-00368 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2010); Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings, Ltd, et al.,
Adv. Proc. No. 11-02880 MG (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011); Jarvis v. Patterson Global Advisors,
LLC, C.A. No. 11-864 RGA (D.Del. 2011); Woolery v. Matlin Patterson Global Advisors, LLC,
C.A. No. 12-726 RGA (D.Del. 2012); Popovich v. Hostess Brands, Inc., et al., Adv. Proc. No.
12-08314 RDD (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012); Mehan v. Knightspoint Partners, C.A. 13-695 GMS
(D.Del. 2013); Mehan v. CPI, Adv. Proc. Nos. 13-51038 BLS and 13-51037 BLS (Bankr. D.Del.
2013); Matthews v. The Truland Group, Inc., et al., Adv. Proc. No. 14-01136 BFK (Bankr. E.D.
Va. 2014).
c. Proposed Class Counsel are Known Authorities in Employment Litigation,Especially in the WARN Act.
Proposed Class Counsel’s attorneys are nationally known authorities on the substantive
and procedural legal issues raised in WARN litigation in bankruptcy. Klehr Harrison adequately
demonstrates its knowledge in the substantive and procedural legal issues present in this
litigation, as required by Rule 23(g)(1). Ercole Dec. ¶13.
For example, in In re Truland Group, Klehr Harrison obtained the first published opinion
holding that WARN Act damages arising out of pre-petition layoffs should be given
administrative priority. In re Truland Grp., Inc., 520 B.R. 197 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2014). In
Truland, the Trustee ultimately settled, in part, with a $2,000,000 administrative claim [which
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-2 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 15 of 17
12
PHIL1 5712264v.1
has been paid in full]. Some of the other significant decisions involve “single employer”
liability and the liquidating fiduciary defense. See, e.g., Woolery v. Matlin Patterson Global
Advisors, LLC, C.A. No. 12-726 RGA, Memorandum Opinion issued April 23, 2013 (D.Del.
2012); Popovich v. Hostess Brands, Inc., et al., Adv. Proc. No. 12-08314 RDD (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
2012). Ercole Dec. ¶7.
d. Proposed Class Counsel are Prepared to Commit Substantial Resources to thePresent Litigation.
Proposed Class Counsel is ready, willing, and able to commit the resources necessary to
litigate this case vigorously. Klehr Harrison’s Litigation and Bankruptcy Departments have over
30 attorneys, as well as several paralegals to assist in the WARN class action litigation. Ercole
Dec. ¶13. Klehr Harrison has already committed the time and effort of several attorneys and
paralegals to the meetings, legal research, factual investigation, and prosecution of its adversary
proceeding and drafting of the class proof of claim, and will continue to do so, maintaining
appropriate staffing levels for each project. Ercole Dec. ¶9. Accordingly, Proposed Class
Counsel easily satisfies the adequacy requirement of Rule 23(g)(4) as well as the “best able to
represent the interests of the class” standard under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(g)(2).
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-2 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 16 of 17
13
PHIL1 5712264v.1
V. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Artis Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court appoint
Klehr Harrison Harvey Branzburg, LLP, as interim class counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
23(g) and for any other relief the Court deems appropriate under the circumstances.
Respectfully submitted, October 11, 2016
LEWIS & KAPPES, P.C.
/s/ Kevin A. Morrissey____________Kevin A. Morrissey2500 One American SquareIndianapolis, IN 46282Telephone: (317) 639-1210Facsimile: (317) 639-4882kmorrissey@Lewis-Kappes.com
Local Counsel for Plaintiffs
- And -
KLEHR HARRISON HARVEYBRANZBURG LLP
/s/ Charles A. Ercole____________Charles A. Ercole, Esquire*Lee D. Moylan, Esquire*Sally E. Veghte, Esquire*1835 Market Street, Suite 1400Philadelphia, PA 19103Telephone: (215) 569-2700Facsimile: (215) 568-6603cercole@klehr.comlmoylan@klehr.comsveghte@klehr.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
*Attorneys Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-2 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 17 of 17
PHIL1 5716502v.1
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
:In re: : Chapter 7
:ITT EDUCATIONAL SERVICES, INC., : Case No. 16-07207-JMC-7A
:Debtor. :
:
DECLARATION OF CHARLES A. ERCOLE IN SUPPORT OF ARTIS PLAINTIFFS’
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF APPOINTMENT OF INTERIM CLASS
COUNSEL PURSUANT TO FED. R. BANKR. PROC. 7023(g)
Charles A. Ercole hereby makes the following declaration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746:
1. This declaration is submitted in further support of plaintiffs Dennis Artis, Donna
A. Lindsay and Patricia Marshall (referred to collectively herein as the “Artis Plaintiffs”)
memorandum of law in support of the Motion to Appointment Klehr Harrison Harvey
Branzburg, LLP (“Klehr Harrison”) as interim class counsel in this case.
2. I am a partner at Klehr Harrison and we have been retained by the Artis Plaintiffs
to assert WARN Act claims against defendant ITT Educational Services, Inc. (“Defendant” or
“ITT”) in connection with this matter, arising from ITT’s abrupt termination of employees from
its facilities, including those in its Indiana headquarters, without cause, on or about September 6,
2016 without providing 60 days advance written notice of the terminations as required by the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (“WARN Act”), 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et. seq.
Klehr Harrison has also been retained by the Artis Plaintiffs to assert claims against ITT for
unpaid, accrued vacation pursuant to applicable state wage laws.
3. ITT’s actions seemed to have been taken with apparent disregard to WARN’s
requirements. As a result, Klehr Harrison has been monitoring the ITT situation from the
moment ITT closed its doors on September 6, 2016 and then filed for bankruptcy protection on
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-3 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 1 of 6
PHIL1 5716502v.1
September 16, 2016. ITT employees began contacting Klehr Harrison and its counsel for legal
assistance on September 7, 2016, the day after the company shut down.
4. Klehr Harrison immediately assigned several attorneys and paralegals to
investigate what appeared to be terminations without advance written notice as required by the
WARN Act. Klehr Harrison has interviewed many potential putative class members at virtually
all levels of the ITT organization, including those involved in admissions and management as
well as those employed at ITT’s headquarters. Numerous individual ex-ITT employees have
already retained Klehr Harrison to litigate their WARN claims including former employees that
worked at ITT’s headquarters and in campuses located in Louisiana and other states. Klehr
Harrison has already expended time and effort conducting legal and factual research, evaluating
potential claims and defenses and drafting pleadings.
5. On the day of the layoffs, after having identified and investigated potential class
action claims of the former employees of ITT under the WARN Act, Klehr Harrison’s extensive
WARN Act litigation experience allowed them to react immediately on behalf of the Artis
Plaintiffs and putative class members through the filings of a WARN Act complaint in the
District Court for the District of Delaware on September 7, 2016 and then an Adversary
Proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division,
on September 20, 2016 as well as a class proof of claim on September 20, 2016 (Claim No. 3).
6. After realizing that two WARN Act class adversary proceeding filings had been
made (which concerned the same claims), Klehr Harrison conferred with the other claimants and
agreed to submit briefing to the Bankruptcy Court on the most efficient method to handle the
appointment of interim class counsel. Klehr Harrison then focused on identifying and
investigating other potential claims of the terminated employees of ITT.
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-3 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 2 of 6
PHIL1 5716502v.1
7. The WARN Act group at Klehr Harrison has litigated successfully on behalf of
many clients as set forth on its micro website www.warnactlawyer.com. Klehr Harrison has also
established significant WARN Act case law precedent. For example, in In re Truland Group,
Klehr Harrison obtained the first published opinion holding that WARN Act damages arising out
of pre-petition layoffs should be given administrative priority. In re Truland Grp., Inc., 520 B.R.
197 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 2014). In Truland, the Trustee ultimately settled, in part, with a
$2,000,000 administrative claim [which has been paid in full]. Some of the other significant
decisions involve “single employer” liability and the liquidating fiduciary defense. See, e.g.,
Woolery v. Matlin Patterson Global Advisors, LLC, C.A. No. 12-726 RGA, Memorandum
Opinion issued April 23, 2013 (D.Del. 2012); Popovich v. Hostess Brands, Inc., et al., Adv.
Proc. No. 12-08314 RDD (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012).
8. Proposed Class Counsel is a nationally-recognized class action law firm that has
handled numerous WARN Act cases. Klehr Harrison is a firm with numerous WARN class
counsel appointments including a recent settlement in MF Global in the Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York. Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd., C.A. No. 11-15059 MG
and C.A. No. 11-15058 MG (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011). Klehr Harrison also has extensive
successful experience representing plaintiffs in employment class actions -- including those
involving WARN claims in bankruptcy court -- and has significant knowledge of the applicable
law.
9. The resources that Klehr Harrison can and will commit to representing the
proposed ITT class are substantial, as it has already expended considerable time and effort to
meet with the ITT employees and identify and investigate the potential viable claims in this
action.
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-3 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 3 of 6
PHIL1 5716502v.1
10. Klehr Harrison has a demonstrated and well-established bankruptcy and WARN
practice in which the WARN Act practice group has litigated successfully on behalf of many
clients.
11. I am a member of the following bars: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; State of
New Jersey; United States District Courts for the Eastern and Middle Districts of Pennsylvania;
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey; United States Court of Appeals for
the Third Circuit; and the United States Supreme Court. I am appearing Pro Hac Vice before this
Honorable Court in the above-captioned matter.
12. Klehr Harrison and I have represented thousands of employees and served as lead
counsel in numerous employment class action lawsuits. See, e.g., Justin Abreau v. Oakwood
Homes Corp., et al., C.A. 0213396 (Bankr. D. Del. 2002); In Re USF Red Star Worker
Notification Litigation, MDL 1655 (E.D. Pa. 2005); In Re McGraw v. Independence Blue Cross,
Docket No. 000171 (Pa. Ct. Common Pleas 2007); Rocco v. Sears, et al., No. 06-2868 (D.N.J.
2008); Riley v. Hoboken Wood Flooring, C.A. No. 2:07-cv-05666, (D.N.J. 2009); Caccamo and
Harnois v. Mortgage Lenders Network, Adv. No. 07-51415 (D. Del. 2009); Perez v. Am.
Remanufacturers Inc., Adv. No. 06-50819 (Bankr. D. Del.); Sane v. Liberty Fibers Corp., Adv.
No. 06-05049 (Bankr. M.D. Tenn.); McDermott v. Premium Protein Prods., LLC, Adv. Proc.
Nos. 09-04076 and 09-04077 (Bankr. Nebraska.); In re Qimonda N. Am., et al., Adv. No. 09-
50192 (Bankr. D. Del.); Smith v. Arrow Trucking, No. 09-cv-810 (N.D. Okla. 2011); Fleetwood
Travel Trailers, No. 6:09-ap-01114-MJ (Bankr. C.D. Ca. 2010); Excel Storage Products, Adv.
Proc. No. 5:10-ap-00368 (Bankr. M.D. Pa. 2010); Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings, Ltd, et al.,
Adv. Proc. No. 11-02880 MG (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011); Jarvis v. Patterson Global Advisors,
LLC, C.A. No. 11-864 RGA (D.Del. 2011); Woolery v. Matlin Patterson Global Advisors, LLC,
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-3 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 4 of 6
PHIL1 5716502v.1
C.A. No. 12-726 RGA (D.Del. 2012); Popovich v. Hostess Brands, Inc., et al., Adv. Proc. No.
12-08314 RDD (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2012); Mehan v. Knightspoint Partners, C.A. 13-695 GMS
(D.Del. 2013); Mehan v. CPI, Adv. Proc. Nos. 13-51038 BLS and 13-51037 BLS (Bankr. D.Del.
2013); Matthews v. The Truland Group, Inc., et al., Adv. Proc. No. 14-01136 BFK (Bankr. E.D.
Va. 2014).
13. In addition to my experience, Klehr Harrison’s Litigation and Bankruptcy
Departments have over 30 attorneys, as well as several paralegals at our client’s disposal to assist
in the class action litigation. At least ten of our attorneys have worked on WARN Act cases in
the past. Its expertise in WARN Act litigation and bankruptcy makes it uniquely qualified to
serve as interim class counsel and lead counsel. Klehr Harrison adequately demonstrates its
knowledge in the substantive and procedural legal issues present in this litigation, as required by
Rule 23(g)(1).
14. I submit that Klehr Harrison’s counsel are the most experienced and best suited to
represent the putative class in this matter and are prepared to vigorously litigate this matter.
15. I pledge to the Court that I will comport myself professionally and courteously,
towards all other counsel in these cases, and that I will act always in the best interests of the
putative class.
16. In view of the foregoing, the Artis Plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court
appoint Klehr Harrison as Interim Class Counsel under Rule 23(g)(2) for the putative class in
this case and all competing cases.
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-3 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 5 of 6
PHIL1 5716502v.1
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the
foregoing is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Date: October 11, 2016
/s/ Charles A. Ercole___________________Charles A. Ercole (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-3 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 6 of 6
PHIL1 5716633v.1
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on October 11, 2016, a copy of the foregoing Motion of Plaintiffs
Dennis Artis, Donna A. Lindsay and Patricia Marshall to Appoint Klehr Harrison Harvey
Branzburg, LLP as Interim Class Counsel Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure
7023(g) along with accompanying Memorandum in Support of the Motion and the Declaration
of Charles A. Ercole was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to the following
parties through the Court’s Electronic Case Filing System. Parties may access this filing through
the Court’s system.
Scott S. Anders scott.anders@jordanramis.com, litparalegal@jordanramis.comKay Dee Baird kbaird@kdlegal.com, rhobdy@kdlegal.com; crbpgpleadings@kdlegal.comMichael I. Baird baird.michael@pbgc.gov, efile@pbgc.govAshley Flynn Bartram ashley.bartram@oag.texas.gov, elizabeth.martin@oag.texas.govRichard James Bernard rbernard@foley.comJoan Ligocki Blackwell joan.blackwell@btlaw.comKayla D. Britton kayla.britton@faegrebd.com, cindy.wondra@faegrebd.com;
sarah.herendeen@faegrebd.comJames E. Carlberg jcarlberg@boselaw.com, mwakefield@boselaw.com;
rmurphy@boselaw.comDeborah Caruso dcaruso@rubin-levin.net, dwright@rubin-levin.net;mcruser@rubin-levin.netDeborah J. Caruso trusteecaruso@rubin-levin.net, DJC@trustesolutions.net; mcruser@rubinlevin.
netJoshua W. Casselman jcasselman@rubin-levin.net, angie@rubin-levin.netSonia A. Chae chaes@sec.govMichael Edward Collins mcollins@manierherod.comLawrence D. Coppel lcoppel@gfrlaw.comHeather M. Crockett Heather.Crockett@atg.in.gov, kelly.stclair@atg.in.govDavid H DeCelles david.h.decelles@usdoj.govDustin R. DeNeal dustin.deneal@faegrebd.com, cindy.wondra@faegrebd.com;
sarah.herendeen@faegrebd.comLaura A DuVall Laura.Duvall@usdoj.gov, Catherine.henderson@usdoj.govAbby Engen aengen@nmag.govCharles Anthony Ercole cercole@klehr.com, acollazo@klehr.comAndrew W Ferich awf@chimicles.comLydia Eve French lydia.french@state.ma.usJulian Ari Hammond Jhammond@hammondlawpc.com, ppecherskaya@hammondlawpc.comAdam Craig Harris adam.harris@srz.comRocio Herrera rocio@johnsonblumberg.com, bkecfnotices@johnsonblumberg.comMichael W. Hile mhile@jacobsonhile.com, badams@jacobsonhile.comJohn C. Hoard johnh@rubin-levin.net, marie@rubin-levin.net;atty_jch@trustesolutions.comJeffrey A Hokanson jhokanson@fbtlaw.com, tacton@fbtlaw.com;
jhokanson@ecf.inforuptcy.com
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-4 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 1 of 3
PHIL1 5716633v.1
Jeffrey L Hunter jeff.hunter@usdoj.gov, USAINS.ECFBankruptcy@usdoj.gov;denise.woody@usdoj.gov;kristie.baker@usdoj.gov
James C Jacobsen jjacobsen@nmag.gov, eheltman@nmag.govChristine K. Jacobson cjacobson@jacobsonhile.com, cjacobson@ecf.inforuptcy.com;
badams@jacobsonhile.comJay Jaffe jay.jaffe@faegrebd.com, sarah.herendeen@faegrebd.comBenjamin F Johns bfj@chimicles.com, klw@chimicles.comAnthony R. Jost tjost@rbelaw.com, baldous@rbelaw.comTimothy Q. Karcher tkarcher@proskauer.comTaejin Kim tae.kim@srz.comEdward M King tking@fbtlaw.com, lsugg@fbtlaw.com;tking@ecf.inforuptcy.comLawrence Joel Kotler ljkotler@duanemorris.comJerrold Scott Kulback jkulback@archerlaw.comDonald D Levenhagen dlevenhagen@landmanbeatty.comMelinda Hoover MacAnally Melinda.MacAnally@atg.in.gov, kelly.stclair@atg.in.govJeff J. Marwil jmarwil@proskauer.com, npetrov@proskauer.com;pyoung@proskauer.com;
jwebb@proskauer.comPatrick Francis Mastrian pmastrian@btlmlaw.comMichael K. McCrory mmccrory@btlaw.com, bankruptcyindy@btlaw.comRobert W. Miller rmiller@manierherod.comJames P Moloy jmoloy@boselaw.com, dlingenfelter@boselaw.com;mwakefield@boselaw.comRonald J. Moore Ronald.Moore@usdoj.govHal F Morris hal.morris@oag.texas.govKevin Alonzo Morrissey kmorrissey@lewis-kappes.com,
JMcAlpin@lewiskappes.com;leckert@lewis-kappes.com;KTinsley@lewis-kappes.com
Whitney L Mosby wmosby@bgdlegal.com, floyd@bgdlegal.comC Daniel Motsinger cmotsinger@kdlegal.com, cmotsinger@kdlegal.com;
crbpgpleadings@kdlegal.com;lsmalley@kdlegal.comLee Duck Moylan lmoylan@klehr.com, acollazo@klehr.comAlissa M. Nann anann@foley.comJack A Raisner jar@outtengolden.comJonathan Hjalmer Reischl jonathan.reischl@cfpb.govJames E Rossow jim@rubin-levin.net, ATTY_JER@trustesolutions.com;robin@rubinlevin.
net;lisa@rubin-levin.netRene Sara Roupinian rsr@outtengolden.com, jxh@outtengolden.com;
kdeleon@outtengolden.com;rmasubuchi@outtengolden.com;rfisher@outtengolden.com;gl@outtengolden.com
Craig Damon Rust craig.rust@doj.ca.gov, Kristine.orr@doj.ca.govJoseph Michael Sanders jsanders@atg.state.il.usThomas C Scherer tscherer@bgdlegal.com, rjenkins@bgdlegal.comLauren C. Sorrell lsorrell@kdlegal.comJonathan David Sundheimer jsundheimer@btlaw.comMeredith R. Theisen mtheisen@rubin-levin.net, dwright@rubin-levin.net;mcruser@rubinlevin.
netJessica L Titler jt@chimicles.comRonald M. Tucker rtucker@simon.com, cmartin@simon.com,bankruptcy@simon.comU.S. Trustee ustpregion10.in.ecf@usdoj.govSally E Veghte sveghte@klehr.com, acollazo@klehr.comMichael Benton Willey michael.willey@ag.tn.gov
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-4 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 2 of 3
PHIL1 5716633v.1
I further certify that on the 11th day of October, 2016, a copy of the foregoing was mailed by first-class United States mail, postage prepaid, and properly addressed to the following:
Eboney CobbPerdue Brandon Fielder Collins Mott LLP500 E Border Street Suite 640Arlington, TX 76010
Alan M Grochal100 East Pratt Street 26th FloorBaltimore, MD 21202
Paul Weiser Esq.Bachalter Nemer16435 North Scottsdale Road, Suite 440Scottsdale, AZ 85254-1754
Elizabeth WellerLinebarger Goggan Blair & Sampson, LLP2777 N. Stemmons Freeway, Suite 1000Dallas, TX 75207
/s/ Charles A. Ercole___________________Charles A. Ercole (Admitted Pro Hac Vice)
Case 16-07207-JMC-7A Doc 321-4 Filed 10/11/16 EOD 10/11/16 21:00:42 Pg 3 of 3
Recommended