Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 83 Filed 08/15/12 Entered 08/15/12 16:12:47 Main Document Page 1 of 15

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

DAVID L. DUBROW (admitted pro hac vice) METTE H. KURTH (SBN 187100) MARK A. ANGELOV (admitted pro hac vice) ARENT FOX LLP 555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90013-1065 Telephone: 213.629.7400 Facsimile: 213.629.7401 dubrow.david@arentfox.com kurth.mette@arentfox.com angelov.mark@arentfox.com Attorneys for Ambac Assurance Company, Erste Europische Pfandbrief- und Kommunalkreditbank AG, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA RIVERSIDE DIVISION

In re: CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO, CALIFORNIA, Debtor,

Case No. 6:12-bk-28006-MJ Chapter 9 OBJECTION TO CITY OF SAN BERNARDINOS MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER (1) DIRECTING AND APPROVING FORM OF NOTICE; AND (2) SETTING DEADLINE FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO PETITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Date: Time: Judge: August 17, 2012 10:00 a.m. Hon. Meredith A. Jury Courtroom 301 3420 Twelfth Street Riverside, CA 92501

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
A RENT F OX LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

Ambac Assurance Company (Ambac), Erste Europische Pfandbrief- und Kommunalkreditbank AG (EEPK), and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (the Trustee, and together with Ambac and the EEPK, the Objectors), creditors of the City of San Bernardino, California (the Debtor, or the City) and/or parties in interest in the above-captioned chapter 9 case,
LA/1188694.3

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 83 Filed 08/15/12 Entered 08/15/12 16:12:47 Main Document Page 2 of 15

Desc

1 2 3 4 5

respectfully submit this objection (the Objection) to the Citys Motion for Entry of an Order (1) Directing and Approving Form of Notice; and (2) Setting Deadline for Filing Objections to Petition (the Motion) dated August 10, 2012 [Docket No. 46] and respectfully represent as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. The Motion should be denied because it seeks to unreasonably limit the time for

6 creditors and interested parties to evaluate, and if need be object to, the propriety of the Citys 7 bankruptcy petition. The determination of how much time is reasonable and appropriate to 8 verify the Citys claim of eligibility cannot be made until the City completes its filings in support 9 of eligibility. In addition, any objection deadline must allow the parties a meaningful opportunity 10 to engage in discovery. 11 2. 12 chapter 9 is limited to a one-page document purporting to be a Statement of Qualifications under 13 Section 109(c) [Docket No. 71]. Although the City has indicated that it intends to shortly file 14 declarations in support of its eligibility, which declarations may be supported by numerous 15 exhibits, all that has been filed to date is a single document with nothing more than a collection 16 of conclusory assertions unsupported by a single shred of evidence. 17 3. 18 its creditors with the information necessary to evaluate its chapter 9 eligibility. The interested 19 parties are in the dark because the City did not engage in the neutral evaluation process that is a 20 prerequisite to municipal bankruptcy filings under California law. The City was able to avoid this 21 22 necessary to evaluate whether the City has met its eligibility requirements or filed its chapter 9 23 petition in good faith is not available to the interested parties. 24 4. 25 its bankruptcy petition, as well as its submissions to this Court, raise serious questions about the 26 Citys eligibility under Sections 109(c) and 921(c) of the Code. Each of these sections requires 27 28
A RENT F OX LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

The relevant record on the issue of the Citys eligibility to seek protection under

Separately from the defective record before this Court, the City has not provided

statutory requirement simply by declaring a fiscal emergency.1 In summary, information

Against this background, the manner in which the City proceeded with the filing of

Curiously, the City Common Council resolution of fiscal emergency cited in the Statement of Qualifications is omitted from the exhibits. See Docket No. 71, 2.

-2LA/1188694.3

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 83 Filed 08/15/12 Entered 08/15/12 16:12:47 Main Document Page 3 of 15

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

the City to negotiate with its creditors prior to seeking relief under chapter 9. The City has not done so and will likely argue that the emergency state of its fiscal affairs precluded such negotiations. See Docket No. 71, 2 (the City declared a fiscal emergency on July 18, 2012), 5 (The City is unable to negotiate with its creditors because such negotiation is impracticable); Motion, p. 6 (the City filed its chapter 9 petition on an emergency basis.) 5. Accordingly, a finding that the Citys allegedly dire financial situation was a truly

unanticipated emergency will be crucial to sustaining the bankruptcy petition. However, as detailed below, the Citys own submissions to this Court suggest that the City should have anticipated the current state of affairs and allowed itself sufficient time to comply with all prerequisites for bankruptcy filing, including the neutral evaluation process required by California law. If it is shown that the City precipitated a fiscal emergency by unreasonably delaying taking necessary action and then relied on a declaration of that emergency to avoid the negotiation requirement, its petition should be dismissed. 6. This determination will require a development of an extensive factual record,

including through document discovery and depositions. In light of the foregoing, it is unfair to creditors that the Citys Motion proposes a schedule that does not allow sufficient time to inquire into the events and decisions that lead up to its emergency filing. The Motion should be denied, and an alternative schedule should be set to accommodate Court-ordered discovery. BACKGROUND 7. The Objectors are creditors of the City and/or interested parties in this proceeding

21 in connection with certain municipal bonds. Specifically, in order to refund the Citys 22 obligations to California Public Employees Retirement System relating to pension benefits, the 23 City issued its City of San Bernardino Taxable Pension Obligation Bonds in the aggregate 24 principal amount of $50,401,582.90, consisting of (i) the 2005 Series A-1 (Standard Bonds), in 25 the aggregate principal amount of $36,050,000 (the Series A-1 Bonds), and (ii) the 2005 Series 26 A-2 (Capital Appreciation Bonds), in the initial aggregate principal amount of $14,351,582.90 27 (the Series A-2 Bonds and, collectively the Series A Bonds), pursuant to that certain Trust 28
A RENT F OX LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

-3LA/1188694.3

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 83 Filed 08/15/12 Entered 08/15/12 16:12:47 Main Document Page 4 of 15

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
A RENT F OX LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

Agreement dated October 1, 2005 (the Trust Agreement), by and between the Trustee and the City. 8. The Trustee is the trustee under the Trust Agreement, and thus an interested party

in this proceeding. 9. EEPK owns one hundred (100) percent of the Series A Bonds. It is the primary

obligee under the Series A Bonds, and thus an interested party in this proceeding. 10. Ambac issued a financial guaranty insurance policy, dated December 23, 2005 (the

Policy), insuring regularly scheduled principal and interest payments with respect to the Series A-2 Bonds. Pursuant to the Policy, to the extent the City does not satisfy its payment obligations under the Seriers A-2 Bonds, Ambac will be obligated to pay the bondholders (e.g., EEPK) the full principal and interest payments when due, subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Policy. As a condition to payment of the insurance benefits to the bondholder, the bondholders are obligated to assign their right, title, and interest in the Series A-2 Bonds to Ambac, and Ambac is subrogated to all rights and remedies of the bondholders to the extent of Ambacs payments under the Policy. Ambac is, accordingly, a party in interest in this proceeding. 11. Events of Default have already occurred under the Trust Agreement in several

respects. For example, prior to the commencement of the Citys chapter 9 case, an event of default occurred and is continuing under the Trust Agreement triggered by the Citys failure to make the required debt service payments on the Series A Bonds on July 20, 2012. In addition, events of default have occurred as a result of the Citys filing of its chapter 9 case. ARGUMENT A. 12. The Motion is Premature Because the City has Not Filed an Adequate Statement of Qualifications The request to collapse the time for the eligibility evaluation should be denied

outright because the City has not yet filed an adequate Statement of Qualifications. The City has yet to submit to this Court any evidence to meet its burden on the issue of eligibility. The City should be required to present its case before asking this Court to determine how much time should be permitted for discovery and objections. -4LA/1188694.3

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 83 Filed 08/15/12 Entered 08/15/12 16:12:47 Main Document Page 5 of 15

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
A RENT F OX LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

13.

As noted above, the document purporting to be a Statement of Qualifications

Under Section 109(c) [Docket No. 71] contains no evidentiary support. In fact, the City acknowledges that it has yet to file numerous exhibits, declarations, and a memorandum of law in further support of its eligibility. See Motion, p. 6. The City does not contemplate filing this additional supporting material for at least another week. See id. (the proposed objection deadline of September 21 is four weeks after the City estimates it will file its brief and evidence in support of its eligibility as a Chapter 9 debtor.) (emphasis added). Nor does the Motion propose to impose any requirement that the City file such supporting materials and evidence, or a deadline for it to do so. 14. The Citys delay in presenting its eligibility case, and its failure to make any firm

commitment to do so, is unjustifiable since the City is the sole repository of all relevant information. By its own admission, the facts presumably underlying the Citys eligibility have been known to it since late June 2012.2 See Motion, p. 3 (The emergent nature of the Citys cash flow crisis and dire financial condition became apparent in late June 2012 after the Citys Finance Department completed its Budget Report.) Moreover, two weeks have passed since the City commenced its chapter 9 case on August 1, 2012 without an adequate Statement of Qualifications being filed. 15. These facts are significant and warrant the denial of the Motion for two

independent reasons. First, they belie the Citys position that the time for objections should be cut short [t]o expedite the entry of an order for relief. If the City truly viewed time to be of the essence, it should have moved the case forward expeditiously. Its failure to do so while impressing the need for urgency on this Court would only serve to deprive other parties of a meaningful opportunity to verify the Citys claim of eligibility. 16. More fundamentally, however, the Citys delay in completing its eligibility filing

warrants denial of the Motion for purely practical reasons. Specifically, neither the interested parties nor the Court can meaningfully determine the time needed to supplement the record

As detailed in Section C below, the Objectors believe that discovery will establish that the facts underlying the current fiscal crisis were or should have been known to the City even prior to June 2012.

-5LA/1188694.3

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 83 Filed 08/15/12 Entered 08/15/12 16:12:47 Main Document Page 6 of 15

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

through discovery and respond to the Citys position until the City submits its evidence and arguments. The purported Statement of Qualifications filed on August 13, 2012 lacks sufficient detail and evidentiary support to enable a meaningful analysis. The entirety of the Citys eligibility presentation should be made before this Court is asked to set a deadline for objections. 17. In summary, this Court should set a deadline for the Debtor to file its

memorandum of law and all evidence in support of its eligibility for relief under chapter 9, the Motion should be denied, and deadlines for objections should not be set until the City completes its briefing on the issue. B. 18. Discovery Is Needed to Evaluate Eligibility Because the City Failed to Negotiate With Creditors Prior to Filing for Bankruptcy The Citys failure to negotiate with creditors prior to the filing of the bankruptcy

11 petition deprived the interested parties of access to information about the Citys financial 12 condition. It also casts serious doubt on the Citys eligibility. 13 19. 14 control over the debtor once the petition is approved, access to Chapter 9 relief has been designed 15 to be an intentionally difficult task. In re Sullivan County Regl Refuse Disposal Dist., 165 B.R. 16 60, 82 (Bankr. D.N.H. 1994). Because of the judicial disfavor of municipal bankruptcies, a 17 government entity desiring protection under chapter 9 must show that it meets a stringent 18 eligibility test. 19 20. 20 That provision requires a showing, among other things, that a debtor in chapter 9: 21 (5)(A) has obtained the agreement of creditors holding at least a majority in 22 amount of the claims of each class that such entity intends to impair under a plan 23 in a case under such chapter; 24 (B) has negotiated in good faith with creditors and has failed to obtain the 25 agreement of creditors holding at least a majority in amount of the claims of each 26 class that such entity intends to impair under a plan in a case under such chapter; 27 (C) is unable to negotiate with creditors because such negotiation is 28
A RENT F OX LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

It is well settled law that [c]onsidering the bankruptcy court's severely limited

The core eligibility requirements are imposed by Bankruptcy Code Section 109(c).

-6LA/1188694.3

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 83 Filed 08/15/12 Entered 08/15/12 16:12:47 Main Document Page 7 of 15

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

impracticable; or (D) reasonably believes that a creditor may attempt to obtain a transfer that is avoidable under section 547 of this title. 11 U.S.C.A. 109(c). 21. The City acknowledges that it has not complied with Section 109(c)(5)(A) or (B)

because it did not negotiate with creditors prior to filing. See Docket Entry 71, 5 (The City is unable to negotiate with creditors because such negotiation is impracticable.). Thus, the City is eligible for relief under chapter 9 if and only if it meets one of the two remaining requirements of Section 109(c)(5). See 11 U.S.C. 109(c). 22. Here, the record before the Court is devoid of any evidence that negotiations with

creditors were impracticable or that the City reasonably anticipated an avoidable transfer. Because the City failed to engage in pre-filing negotiations, creditors have been similarly deprived of the information necessary to evaluate the claim of eligibility. 23. In summary, the evidence needed to verify compliance with Section 109(c) is

exclusively within the Citys custody and control. Any objection deadline should allow not only for a meaningful opportunity to evaluate the Citys arguments but also for discovery necessary to develop a full and complete factual record. As noted in Section A above, the extent of necessary discovery will not be known until the City completes its submissions. 24. Accordingly, any deadline for objections should be set only after the City has

completed its factual presentation and should allow sufficient time for document and deposition discovery. C. 25. Discovery Is Needed to Determine if the City Filed the Petition in Good Faith; the Record Suggests Otherwise Separately from establishing the core eligibility requirements pursuant to Section

24 109(c), discovery will be needed to determine if the Citys bankruptcy filing was in good faith 25 within the meaning of Section 921(c). 26 26. 27 the petition in good faith or if the petition does not meet the requirements of this title. 11 U.S.C. 28
A RENT F OX LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

Section 921(c) permits a dismissal of a chapter 9 petition if the debtor did not file

-7LA/1188694.3

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 83 Filed 08/15/12 Entered 08/15/12 16:12:47 Main Document Page 8 of 15

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
A RENT F OX LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

921(c). Here, the record suggests that the City did not act in good faith when it declared a fiscal emergency, which enabled it to seek bankruptcy protection without engaging in pre-petition settlement negotiations with creditors as required by California law. 27. Specifically, absent a fiscal emergency, the California Government Code requires

financially distressed municipalities to engage in a neutral evaluation process with its creditors. See CA Govt 53760. The legislative intent underlying this requirement is to require municipalities to explore consensual resolution with creditors in an attempt to avoid resorting to chapter 9. See 2011 Cal. Stat. ch. 675, 1-2. The neutral evaluation process contemplates that the negotiations will be facilitated by disclosure of relevant financial and budget information. Id. 28. A municipality may avoid the neutral evaluation process only by declaring a fiscal

emergency pursuant to California Government Code 53760.5. Under that provision, the City Council is permitted to declare a fiscal emergency only upon a finding that (i) the financial state of the local public entity jeopardizes the health, safety, or well-being of the residents of the local public entity's jurisdiction; and (ii) the public entity is or will be unable to pay its obligations within the next 60 days. See CA Govt 53760.5. According to the Statement of Qualifications, it appears that the City Council made the required findings and passed a resolution declaring a fiscal emergency on or about July 18, 2012. See Docket Entry 71, 2. 29. However, Section 921(c) looks beyond mere mechanical compliance with the law.

The good faith provision protects the integrity of the reorganization process by requiring municipalities to anticipate and act to avoid having to seek chapter 9 protection. In re Sullivan County, 165 B.R. at 80 (a municipality cannot engineer its way into the bankruptcy courts by simply refraining from paying its debts from available assets and then claiming the resulting inability to pay debts as they came due justified bankruptcy court relief.) 30. The good faith requirement is necessarily fact specific and, therefore, must be

decided on a case-by-case basis. Collier on Bankruptcy 921.04[2] (15th ed). In determining whether a chapter 9 filing is in good faith, courts are guided by the good faith standard applicable to chapter 11. See e.g. In re Sullivan County, 165 B.R. at 82; N.Y.C. Off-Track Betting Corp., 227 B.R. 256. 279 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.). -8LA/1188694.3

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 83 Filed 08/15/12 Entered 08/15/12 16:12:47 Main Document Page 9 of 15

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
A RENT F OX LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

31.

Accordingly, the Court will need to apply the following factors to determine

whether the Citys filing was in good faith: (i) the debtors subjective beliefs; (ii) whether the debtors financial problems fall within the situations contemplated by chapter 9; (iii) whether the debtor filed its chapter 9 petition for reasons consistent with the purposes of chapter 9; (iv) the extent of the debtors prepetition negotiations, if practical; (v) the extent to which alternatives to chapter 9 were considered; and (vi) the scope and nature of the debtors financial problems. Collier on Bankruptcy 921.04[2](15th ed). 32. Here, the record before the Court strongly suggests that the fiscal emergency

declared on July 18 was both foreseeable and avoidable, and as a result, not at all an emergency. For example, the City asserts that the emergent nature of its financial condition did not become apparent until late June of 2012 when the Citys Finance Department issued its Budget Report. See Motion, p. 3. The City cites the following material report findings to support the claim of emergency: the City faced a budget deficit estimated to be over $45.8 million in its current fiscal year which began on July 1, 2012; the City had depleted all its General Fund reserves to cover substantial budget deficits in the last four consecutive fiscal years; immediate and substantial action had to be taken to reduce spending and preserve cash for the City to continue providing essential services to its residents; an audit of the Citys General Fund revealed that the balances at the start of the 2010-11 and 2011-12 fiscal years had been erroneously reported by City staff and actually totaled over $4.5 million less than reported, and the beginning General Fund balance for the current fiscal year was estimated to be a negative balance of millions of dollars; and the City did not have sufficient unrestricted cash available to pay its financial obligations as and when those obligations are due or to become due and owing. See Motion, p. 3 (emphasis in the original). 33.
LA/1188694.3

Only one of these findings could have been surprising to its Council: that the -9-

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 83 Filed 08/15/12 Entered 08/15/12 16:12:47 Main Document Page 10 of 15

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

balances for 2010-11 and 2011-12 budget years were overstated. See id. However, by Citys own admission, that error amounted to less than 10% of the projected 2012-13 budget deficit. The discovery of this error was not sufficient to trigger a fiscal emergency in and of itself. 34. In contrast, the remaining findings referenced in the Motion should have been

anticipated long before the Budget Report issued. For example, the fact that the City had depleted all its General Fund reserves to cover substantial budget deficits in the last four consecutive fiscal years was necessarily known prior to the Budget Report. Similarly, it is inconceivable that the City could not have anticipated its $45 million budget deficit for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2012 until the June 26, 2012 report. This unanticipated shortfall amounted to more than 1/3 of the Citys revenues during 2008, the Citys peak year. See id. The struggling City also should have anticipated the lack of sufficient unrestricted cash and the attendant need to reduce spending in order to fund essential services. 35. In summary, the record does not support the Citys contention that its financial

state as of the July 18 declaration of fiscal emergency was truly unexpected and unavoidable. At the very least, interested parties are entitled to discovery to discern the intent behind the Citys actions and evaluate whether it proceeded in good faith. This, in turn, requires that the request to create an artificial objection deadline of September 21 be denied. * 36. * *

Accordingly, the Motion should be denied. The City should be compelled to

promptly submit all of its arguments and evidence in support of eligibility. Finally, all interested parties should then be given an opportunity to identify the scope of discovery necessary to complete and supplement the factual record supplied by the City. Then, and only then, would it be appropriate to entertain a motion to set a deadline for objections to eligibility. CONCLUSION 37. For the foregoing reasons, the Court should issue an Order (i) denying the Motion

26 without prejudice to renewal once the City completes its filings in connection with eligibility; and 27 (ii) granting such other and further relief as is just and proper under the circumstances. 28
A RENT F OX LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

- 10 LA/1188694.3

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 83 Filed 08/15/12 Entered 08/15/12 16:12:47 Main Document Page 11 of 15 ARENT FOX LLP

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
A RENT F OX LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW LOS ANGELES

DATED:

August 15, 2012

By:

/s/ Mette H. Kurth DAVID L. DUBROW METTE H. KURTH MARK A. ANGELOV Attorneys for Ambac Assurance Company, Erste Europische Pfandbrief- und Kommunalkreditbank AG, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee

- 11 LA/1188694.3

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 83 Filed 08/15/12 Entered 08/15/12 16:12:47 Main Document Page 12 of 15

Desc

PROOF OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENT

I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding. My business address is: Arent Fox LLP, Gas Company Tower, 555 West Fifth Street, 48th Floor, Los Angeles, CA 90013.

A true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled (specify): OBJECTION TO CITY OF SAN BERNARDINOS MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER (1) DIRECTING AND APPROVING FORM OF NOTICE; AND (2) SETTING DEADLINE FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO PETITION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF will be served or was served (a) on the judge in chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) in the manner stated below: 1. TO BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF): Pursuant to controlling General Orders and LBR, the foregoing document will be served by the court via NEF and hyperlink to the document. On (date) August 15, 2012, I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined that the following persons are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at the email addresses stated below:

Service information continued on attached page 2. SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAIL: On (date) August 15, 2012, I served the following persons and/or entities at the last known addresses in this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope in the United States mail, first class, postage prepaid, and addressed as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that mailing to the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed.

Service information continued on attached page 3. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY, OVERNIGHT MAIL, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OR EMAIL (state method for each person or entity served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on (date) _______________, I served the following persons and/or entities by personal delivery, overnight mail service, or (for those who consented in writing to such service method), by facsimile transmission and/or email as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that personal delivery on, or overnight mail to, the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed.

Service information continued on attached page I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct. August 15, 2012 Date ADRIANE I. LARK Printed Name

/s/ Adriane I. Lark

Signature

This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. June 2012

F 9013-3.1.PROOF.SERVICE

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 83 Filed 08/15/12 Entered 08/15/12 16:12:47 Main Document Page 13 of 15

Desc

1. TO BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF): Jerrold Abeles on behalf of Interested Party Ambac Assurance Company abeles.jerry@arentfox.com Joseph M Adams on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF jadams@lawjma.com Andrew K Alper on behalf of Creditor BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. aalper@frandzel.com, efiling@frandzel.com;ekidder@frandzel.com Thomas V Askounis on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF taskounis@askounisdarcy.com Anthony Bisconti on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF tbisconti@bmkattorneys.com Jeffrey E Bjork on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF jbjork@sidley.com J Scott Bovitz on behalf of Creditor U.S. TelePacific Corp. bovitz@bovitz-spitzer.com Jeffrey W Broker on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF jbroker@brokerlaw.biz Deana M Brown on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF dbrown@milbank.com Michael J Bujold on behalf of U.S. Trustee United States Trustee (RS) Michael.J.Bujold@usdoj.gov Christina M Craige on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF ccraige@sidley.com Alex Darcy on behalf of Creditor Marquette Bank adarcy@askounisdarcy.com Susan S Davis on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF sdavis@coxcastle.com Paul R. Glassman on behalf of Debtor City of San Bernardino, California pglassman@sycr.com Everett L Green on behalf of U.S. Trustee United States Trustee (RS) everett.l.green@usdoj.gov James A Hayes on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF jhayes@cwlawyers.com M Jonathan Hayes on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF jhayes@hayesbklaw.com, roksana@hayesbklaw.com;carolyn@hayesbklaw.com;elizabeth@hayesbklaw.com Bonnie M Holcomb on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF bonnie.holcomb@doj.ca.gov
This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. June 2012

F 9013-3.1.PROOF.SERVICE

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 83 Filed 08/15/12 Entered 08/15/12 16:12:47 Main Document Page 14 of 15

Desc

Whitman L Holt on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF wholt@ktbslaw.com Steven J Katzman on behalf of Creditor Certain Retired Employees of the City of San Bernardino SKatzman@bmkattorneys.com Mette H Kurth on behalf of Interested Party Ambac Assurance Company kurth.mette@arentfox.com Gregory A Martin on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF gmartin@winston.com Aron M Oliner on behalf of Interested Party San Bernardino Police Officers Association roliner@duanemorris.com Scott H Olson on behalf of Creditor Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. solson@seyfarth.com Dean G Rallis on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF drallis@sulmeyerlaw.com Christopher O Rivas on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF crivas@reedsmith.com Kenneth N Russak on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF krussak@frandzel.com, efiling@frandzel.com;dmoore@frandzel.com Gregory M Salvato on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF gsalvato@salvatolawoffices.com, calendar@salvatolawoffices.com Benjamin Seigel on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF bseigel@buchalter.com, IFS_filing@buchalter.com Jason D Strabo on behalf of Creditor U.S. Bank National Association, not individually, but as Indenture Trustee jstrabo@mwe.com, losangelestrialdocket@mwe.com Matthew J Troy on behalf of Creditor United States of America matthew.troy@usdoj.gov United States Trustee (RS) ustpregion16.rs.ecf@usdoj.gov Anne A Uyeda on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF auyeda@bmkattorneys.com Annie Verdries on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF verdries@lbbslaw.com Brian D Wesley on behalf of Interested Party Courtesy NEF brian.wesley@doj.ca.gov

This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. June 2012

F 9013-3.1.PROOF.SERVICE

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ

Doc 83 Filed 08/15/12 Entered 08/15/12 16:12:47 Main Document Page 15 of 15

Desc

2. SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAIL: U.S. Trustee (RS) Everett L. Green Office of the U.S. Trustee 3685 Main Street, Suite 300 Riverside, CA 92501 Debtor City of San Bernardino, California City Hall 300 North "D" Street San Bernardino, CA 92418

3. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY, OVERNIGHT MAIL, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OR EMAIL: Judge Honorable Meredith A. Jury United States Bankruptcy Court 3420 Twelfth Street Riverside, CA 92501-3819

This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. June 2012

F 9013-3.1.PROOF.SERVICE