Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Madhavi Vuppalapati Ordered to Attend an Examination in Bankruptcy Proceedings Related to Fraud Action Commenced by Kyko Global Inc.

Madhavi Vuppalapati Ordered to Attend an Examination in Bankruptcy Proceedings Related to Fraud Action Commenced by Kyko Global Inc.

Ratings: (0)|Views: 72 |Likes:
Published by Megan Finley
Madhavi Vuppalapati Ordered to Attend an Examination in Bankruptcy Proceedings Related to Fraud Action Commenced by Kyko Global Inc. Against Madhavi Vuppalapati, Anandhan Jayaraman, Prasad Rao Guru Pandyar, Srinivas Sista, Prithvi Information Solutions Ltd. and others
Madhavi Vuppalapati Ordered to Attend an Examination in Bankruptcy Proceedings Related to Fraud Action Commenced by Kyko Global Inc. Against Madhavi Vuppalapati, Anandhan Jayaraman, Prasad Rao Guru Pandyar, Srinivas Sista, Prithvi Information Solutions Ltd. and others

More info:

Categories:Types, Presentations
Published by: Megan Finley on Apr 16, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/26/2014

pdf

text

original

 
1IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA  _____________________________________ In re: : : Case No. 13-23855-GLT PRITHVI CATALYTIC, INC. : Chapter 11 : Debtor. : : KYKO GLOBAL, INC., a Canadian : Related to Doc. No. 191 Corporation, and KYKO GLOBAL GmbH, : a Bahamian corporation, : : Movants, : v. : : Hearing Date: April 1, 2014 at 10:30 a.m. PRITHVI CATALYTIC, INC., : : Respondent. : :
ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF CREDITORS KYKO GLOBAL, INC. AND KYKO GLOBAL GMBH TO COMPEL RULE 2004 EXAMINATION OF MADHAVI VUPPALAPATI
Before the Court is the
 Motion of Creditors Kyko Global, Inc. and Kyko Global GmbH to Compel Rule 2004 Examination of Madhavi Vuppalapati
 [Doc. No. 191] (the “Motion”) filed by Kyko Global, Inc. and Kyko Global GmbH (together, “Kyko”), the
 Responsein Opposition to Motion
[Doc. No. 199] (the “Response”) filed by Madhavi Vuppalapati (“Vuppalapati”), the
 Reply of Kyko in Support of Motion
 [Doc. No. 207] (the “Reply”), and the
Sur-Reply in Opposition to Motion
 [Doc. No. 209] (the “Sur-Reply”). The Court held a hearing (the “Hearing”) to consider the Motion on April 1, 2014. Prithvi Catalytic, Inc. (the “Debtor”) did not take a position with respect to the Motion, nor did its counsel appear at the Hearing. For the reasons set forth herein, and on the record at the Hearing, the Motion is granted.
Case 13-23855-GLT Doc 210 Filed 04/08/14 Entered 04/08/14 14:21:08 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 7
 
2
A. Vuppalapti’s Role With the Debtor
Vuppalapati presented herself to this Court as the Debtor’s President and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”). In that capacity, she signed the Debtor’s voluntary petition for  bankruptcy relief. She also verified the accuracy of the Debtor’s bankruptcy schedules and its statement of financial affairs. Despite her role as President and CEO, and her knowledge of the Debtor and its business, Vuppalapati never has appeared before this Court. While the Debtor’s chief financial officer was recently given authority to make necessary decisions related to the Debtor’s operations, the Court is unaware of any effort by Vuppalapati to relinquish her position within the Debtor’s organization.
1
B. Kyko’s Examination Notice and Subpoena
Kyko, a creditor and party in interest in this case, gave notice (the “Notice”) of its intent to examine Vuppalapati pursuant to Rule 2004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”) by letter to Debtor’s counsel on December 17, 2013. See Motion at Exhibit A.
2
 According to the Notice, the examination was to take place on January 15, 2014, more than 28 days after the date of the Notice. The Notice identifies the scope of the examination. Specifically, Kyko seeks to examine Vuppalapati on the following topics:
1
 See
 Agreed Order Resolving the: (I) Emergency Motion of Creditors Kyko Global, Inc. and Kyko Global GmbH for an Order Directing the Appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee Pursuant to 11 U.S.C.  §§1104(a)(1) and 1104(a)(2) and Request for an Expedited Hearing; and (II) Motion to Use Cash Collateral 
. [Doc. No. 77].
2
 Kyko asserts that the Notice followed several attempts to schedule a mutually-convenient date for the examination with Debtor’s counsel. Although the Court is not familiar with the extent of these discussions, it was informed during hearings held on October 30, 2013 and November 26, 2013 that Kyko was pursuing Vuppalapati’s examination. See Proceeding Memos [Doc. Nos. 69 and 100].
Case 13-23855-GLT Doc 210 Filed 04/08/14 Entered 04/08/14 14:21:08 Desc Main Document Page 2 of 7
 
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).
3
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.
4
 Since a hearing on the Plan’s
 DisclosureStatement 
 [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
 Disclosure Statement 
 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.
5
 
3
 Neither Vuppalapati nor the Debtor raised any objection to the scope of the exam requested by Kyko.
4
 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.
5
 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

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->