3(i) all of the matters set forth in Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2004(b) as related to [the Debtor]; (ii) all of the Debtor’s equity security holders from June 1, 2011 through and including the present; (iii) any and all documents regarding the equity ownership of the Debtor from June 1, 2011 through and including the present; and (iv) any and all documents regarding any transfers of equity ownership in the Debtor within the past twelve (12) months. See Notice at p. 1. The scope of the examination falls within Bankruptcy Rule 2004(b).
Kyko claims the examination is necessary to verify the identity of the Debtor’s equity owners. As the proponent of the
First Amended Plan of Reorganization for the Debtor
[Doc. No. 185] (the “Plan”), Kyko maintains that the information is necessary to ensure that equity holders receive adequate notice of the Plan.
Since a hearing on the Plan’s
[Doc. No. 186] is already set for April 15, 2014, Kyko suggests that its ability to pursue confirmation of the Plan is impaired without the ability to serve (with certainty) the Plan and related documents on all of the Debtor’s equity holders in the event that the
is approved. Kyko served a subpoena on Vuppalapati on December 27, 2013. Vuppalapati responded to the subpoena through her counsel, Mark D. Kimball, Esq. (“Kimball”). By letter dated December 30, 2013, Kimball stated that he would appear at the examination on Vuppalapati’s behalf. See Motion at Exhibit A. At no time did Kimball object to the form or content of the subpoena. Instead, Kimball requested that the examination be rescheduled for a mutually convenient date. He also agreed to accept service of an amended subpoena and pledged to provide documents responsive to Kyko’s requests.
Neither Vuppalapati nor the Debtor raised any objection to the scope of the exam requested by Kyko.
Kyko alleges that the list of equity holders on the Debtor’s
Statement of Financial Affairs
is inconsistent with other sworn statements previously provided by Vuppalapati.
Although not necessary for the disposition of this matter, the Court agrees with Kyko that Vuppalapati, through her counsel, waived any objection to the form of the subpoena.
Case 13-23855-GLT Doc 210 Filed 04/08/14 Entered 04/08/14 14:21:08 Desc Main Document Page 3 of 7