You are on page 1of 17

11-22820-rdd

Doc 456

Filed 10/09/12 Entered 10/09/12 15:28:32 Pg 1 of 12

Main Document

HEARING DATE: October 17, 2012 HEARING TIME: 10:00 A.M. TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP Attorneys for The Christian Brothers Institute, et al. Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession 1350 Broadway, 11th Floor New York, New York 10018 (212) 216-8000 Scott S. Markowitz, Esq. Rocco A. Cavaliere, Esq. UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------------- x In re: : : THE CHRISTIAN BROTHERS INSTITUTE, et al. : : Debtors. : ------------------------------------------------------------------- x

Chapter 11 Case No.: 11-22820 (RDD) (Jointly Administered)

DEBTORS OBJECTION TO THE CORPORATION OF THE CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SEATTLES AMENDED MOTION FOR 2004 EXAMINATIONS AND SUBPOENAS TO DEBTORS AND ENTITIES AFFILIATED WITH THE DEBTORS TO: THE HONORABLE ROBERT D. DRAIN UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE The Christian Brothers Institute (CBI) and The Christian Brothers of Ireland, Inc. (CBOI), the above-captioned debtors and debtors-in-possession (individually a Debtor and collectively, the Debtors) hereby file this objection (the Objection) to the amended motion of the Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle (the Archdiocese) for entry of an order pursuant to Rule 2004 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the Bankruptcy Rules) authorizing the examination of entities related to the Debtors (the Amended Motion). In support of the Objection, the Debtors respectfully represent as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. The Archdiocese, a co-defendant and potential joint tortfeasor with the Debtors in

{Client/001718/BANK376/00537487.DOC;3 }

11-22820-rdd

Doc 456

Filed 10/09/12 Entered 10/09/12 15:28:32 Pg 2 of 12

Main Document

certain litigation commenced by alleged sexual abuse claimants in Seattle, Washington, is attempting to utilize Bankruptcy Rule 2004 as a sword to limit their potential joint and several liability as a joint tortfeasor after the Debtors emerge from Chapter 11. As a preliminary matter, the Debtors question whether the Archdiocese is even a party-in-interest. Although the

Archdiocese has filed a proof of claim asserting contribution and indemnification, the Archdioceses claim is a classic example of a claim that will be disallowed under 502(e)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. As such, the Court should seriously question the Archdioceses standing, as well as motives, in filing its 2004 motion. 2. In the event the Court determines that the Archdiocese is a party-in-interest

entitled to seek 2004 discovery, the Archdioceses requests for information are simply unreasonable and overly burdensome, as even a cursory review of the document request indicates the Archdiocese is looking for documents listing names and addresses, and contact information of board members of various entities dating back almost 80 years. Further, the relief is not necessary since the Debtors have already produced thousands of pages of documents in response to the Committees Rule 2004 Motion (defined below). These documents have been uploaded to a document management system called e-Stet (e-Stet). Notably, as confirmed by the Amended Motion, the Archdiocese was given access to e-Stet months ago to review documents that the Debtors have produced to date.1 The Debtors submit that many of the requests can be answered by a diligent review of the documents that have already been produced. To the extent that any requests for information cannot be answered by the documents that are already on e-Stet, the Debtors believe that no other documents exist or are in the Debtors possession at this time. If additional documents are located, however, the Debtors will promptly upload them to e-Stet for

Aside from granting access to e-Stet, on September 13, 2012, the Debtors delivered various sexual abuse proofs of claim to the Archdiocese, subject to a confidentiality agreement.

{Client/001718/BANK376/00537487.DOC;3 }

11-22820-rdd

Doc 456

Filed 10/09/12 Entered 10/09/12 15:28:32 Pg 3 of 12

Main Document

any permitted party, including the Committee and Archdiocese, to review. 3. The Debtors are filing this Objection because the Amended Motion confers an

undue burden and cost on the Debtors when the requested information, to the extent available, has already been provided to the Archdiocese through its access to e-Stet. Furthermore, the Debtors are in the midst of plan negotiations with the Committee, and to the extent the Archdiocese has any issues with any plan that is filed, the Archdiocese will retain its right to seek discovery prior to confirmation of the plan. GENERAL BACKGROUND 4. On April 28, 2011 (the Petition Date), the Debtors each commenced their

respective Chapter 11 case by filing a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the Bankruptcy Code). Pursuant to 1107(a) and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code, the Debtors continue to operate as debtors-in-possession. No trustee has been appointed. 5. The Debtors cases were consolidated for administrative purposes only, by order

dated May 2, 2011. Thereafter, by order dated May 18, 2011, the Debtors were authorized to retain Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP as bankruptcy counsel. 6. CBI is a domestic not-for-profit 501(c)(3) corporation organized under

102(a)(5) of the New York Not-for-Profit Corporation Law. CBI was formed in 1906 pursuant to Section 57 of the then existing New York Membership Law. The Not-for-Profit Corporation Law replaced the Membership Law effective September 1, 1970. The purpose for which CBI was, and continues to be, formed was to establish, conduct and support Catholic elementary and secondary schools principally throughout New York State. As a not-for-profit corporation, its assets, and/or income are not distributable to, and do not inure to, the benefit of its directors or

{Client/001718/BANK376/00537487.DOC;3 }

11-22820-rdd

Doc 456

Filed 10/09/12 Entered 10/09/12 15:28:32 Pg 4 of 12

Main Document

officers. CBI depends upon grants and donations to fund a portion of its operating expenses. 7. CBOI is a domestic not-for-profit 501(c)(3) corporation organized under the Not-

for-Profit Corporation Law of the State of Illinois. The purpose for which CBOI was, and continues to be, formed was to establish, conduct and support Catholic elementary and secondary schools principally throughout the State of Illinois, as well as other spiritual and temporal affairs of the former Brother Rice Province of the Congregation of Christian Brothers. As a not-forprofit corporation, its assets, and/or income are not distributable to, and do not inure to the benefit of its members, or officers. CBOI depends upon grants and donations to fund a portion of its operating expenses. 8. The cause for the filing of these cases has been extensively detailed in the

affidavit pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 1007-2 filed with the original petitions, and is referred to as if fully set forth herein. In short, the Debtors Chapter 11 cases were filed in an effort to resolve in one forum, the onslaught of litigation and claims asserted by alleged sexual abuse plaintiffs against the Debtors. 9. On May 11, 2011, the United States Trustee appointed an Official Committee of

Unsecured Creditors (the Committee). The Committee retained Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP as its counsel, which was approved by an order of this Court dated July 14, 2011. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 10. On August 31, 2012, the Archdiocese filed its original motion authorizing

it to conduct Rule 2004 examinations and obtain documents from the Debtors and other entities, which, on October 4, 2012, was superseded by the Amended Motion. The Archdiocese seeks information on the relationship between the Debtors and certain non-debtor entities to ascertain whether substantive consolidation is appropriate in these cases and to determine whether

{Client/001718/BANK376/00537487.DOC;3 }

11-22820-rdd

Doc 456

Filed 10/09/12 Entered 10/09/12 15:28:32 Pg 5 of 12

Main Document

contributions should be made by non-debtor entities. See Amended Motion, p. 6.

The

Archdiocese has also commenced an adversary proceeding to substantively consolidate the Debtors with certain non-debtor entities. See Adv. Pro. No. 12-8236. The Court recently entered orders dismissing the complaint as to Christian Brothers Institute of Michigan and Christian Brothers Institute of California. 11. The Archdioceses Amended Motion is not the first motion seeking

information from the Debtors concerning their financial affairs and their affiliation with various non-debtor entities. On September 28, 2011, the Committee filed a motion for entry of an order pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2004 (the Committees Rule 2004 Motion) seeking a host of information from the Debtors, including but not limited to (a) the formation and organization of the Debtors and their affiliated, related, or associated entities, (b) the value of the Debtors assets, (c) any material assets that the Debtors may have transferred to a third party, (d) whether the Debtors made any avoidable transfers, (e) whether any entities hold property for the benefit of the Debtors, (f) the property of the Debtors estates, (g) the Discovery Parties2 financial information, including information that provided the basis for the Debtors Statements of Financial Affairs and Schedules of Assets and Liabilities, (h) insurance policies that may benefit the Debtors and their estates, (i) any other sources of recovery that may be available to satisfy creditors claims, and (j) the scope of the Debtors potential liabilities. See Committees Rule 2004 Motion, 1. On October 31, 2011, the Court entered an order granting the Committees Rule 2004 Motion. The Debtors submit that the Committees request for information was quite comprehensive and includes the information requested by the Archdioceses Amended Motion. At the Archdioceses request, the Debtors made arrangements to allow the Archdiocese to have
2

The Discovery Parties were defined in the Committees Rule 2004 Motion to include CBI, CBOI, Christian Brothers Foundation, Community Support Corporation, Edmund Rice Christian Brothers North American Province, and Mount Sion Community, Inc.

{Client/001718/BANK376/00537487.DOC;3 }

11-22820-rdd

Doc 456

Filed 10/09/12 Entered 10/09/12 15:28:32 Pg 6 of 12

Main Document

access to the Committees document management system. Notably, the Committee has not lodged complaints regarding the Debtors compliance with the Committees Rule 2004 Motion and the Debtors continue to provide documents on a rolling basis from a review of its archives.3 12. Prior to and after approval of the Committees Rule 2004 Motion, despite

the fact that the Debtors have a limited administrative staff, the Debtors did an exhaustive search of their records and provided the Committee thousands of pages of discovery, containing, among other things, organizational charts, constitutions, meeting minutes, personnel files and insurance policies, Brother data sheets, lists of schools where the Brothers had either taught or had significant involvement, and historical financial statements dating back to the 1950s. Further, the Debtors paraprofessionals have spent considerable time working with the Committees document management company, e-Stet, to coordinate and make available documents in the format requested by the Committee. The Debtors continue to upload documents to e-Stet on a rolling basis when discoverable information becomes available. In September 2012, copies of various sexual abuse proofs of claim that may implicate the Archdiocese were provided to the Archdiocese after it signed a confidentiality agreement. OBJECTION TO AMENDED MOTION 13. Bankruptcy Rule 2004 provides that on motion of any party-in-interest, Here, the Debtors submit that the

the Court may order the examination of any entity.

Archdiocese is not a party-in-interest because although they may be liable as a joint tortfeasor with the Debtors, their unsecured claim, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit A, must be disallowed under 502(e)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. See In re Chemtura Corporation, 443 B.R. 601, 617 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011) (analyzing several cases in Southern District of New York
3

Production of documents from the archives is a tedious process as paraprofessionals and attorneys must carefully review the documents to ensure that personal information regarding individual Brothers is not compromised in violation of various laws.

{Client/001718/BANK376/00537487.DOC;3 }

11-22820-rdd

Doc 456

Filed 10/09/12 Entered 10/09/12 15:28:32 Pg 7 of 12

Main Document

and elsewhere and finding that all 502(e)(1)(B) determinations support[] the conclusion that until and unless amounts are actually paid, the claims for reimbursement or contribution with respect to those amounts remain contingent for 502(e)(1)(B) purposes); see In re Lyondell Chemical Company, 442 B.R. 236, 258 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011) (disallowing claimants claims that are on account of future costs under CERCLA because such claims are contingent claims for reimbursement or contribution of an entity liable with debtor to a third party creditor). see In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group Inc., 146 B.R. 98, 105 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1992) (denying contribution claims of insurer and underwriter because the amount owed by debtor had not been fixed and were thus contingent and disallowed under section 502(e)(1)(B)); see In re Wedtech Corp., 87 B.R. 279, 283 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1988) (the weight of judicial authority concludes that joint tortfeasors contingent claims must be denied) (citing cases); see also In re BaldwinUnited Corporation, 55 B.R. 885, 891 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1985) (same). As such, the Archdiocese is likely not a creditor in these cases and therefore its standing to seek Rule 2004 relief is questionable. 14. In the event the Court determines the Archdiocese is a party-in-interest,

the Debtors acknowledge that Bankruptcy Rule 2004 allows for broad discovery, but there are limits to what is allowed under the rule. The examination must be relevant to the administration of the estate, and it may not be used as a tool for the purpose of abuse or harassment. See In re Wash Mut. Inc., 408 B.R. 45, 49 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009); In re Symington, 209 B.R. 678, 684-85 (Bankr. D. Md. 1997); In re Mittco, Inc., 44 B.R. 35, 36 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. 1984). While the scope of the examination is broad and can be in the nature of a fishing expedition, In re Bennett Funding Group, Inc., 203 B.R. 24, 28 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1996), such examinations are not allowed to be tools for abuse or attempts to create negotiating leverage. See In re Coffee

{Client/001718/BANK376/00537487.DOC;3 }

11-22820-rdd

Doc 456

Filed 10/09/12 Entered 10/09/12 15:28:32 Pg 8 of 12

Main Document

Cupboard, Inc., 128 B.R. 509, 514 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1991); see also In re Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc., 169 B.R. 130 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 1994) (denying motions of creditors committee and equity committee seeking Rule 2004 discovery for the purpose of proposing alternative plan, noting that the debtor had the exclusive right to propose a plan). As the Court stated in In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group: Rule 2004 requires that we balance the competing interests of the parties, weighing the relevance of and necessity of the information sought by examination. That documents meet the requirement of relevance does not alone demonstrate that there is good cause for requiring their production. In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, 123 B.R. 702, 712 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1991) (citations omitted). Instead, a totality of the circumstances approach is required, taking into account all relevant factors. Id. at 393. 15. The burden of establishing good cause for taking the requested

discovery rests upon the moving party, in this case, the Archdiocese. See ePlus, Inc. v. Katz (In re Metioum, Inc.), 318 B.R. 263, 268 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004) ([T]he Bankruptcy Court was required to make a finding of good cause in order to uphold its Rule 2004 order.); In re Buick, 174 B.R. 299, 304 (Bankr. D. Colo. 1994 (moving party has burden to establish good cause). Bankruptcy Rule 2004 discovery is not a matter of right and its authorization lies in the discretion of the Court. See In re Enron, 281 B.R. 836, 840 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2002) (As the permissive language of the rule suggests, the Court has the discretion to grant a request for a Rule 2004 examination.). This burden cannot be met merely by showing that justice would not be impeded by production of the requested documents, Drexel Burnham, 123 B.R. at 712, or on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations, see generally In re Wilcher, 56 B.R. 428, 433 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 1985) (denying a Rule 2004 motion which sought discovery from the purchaser of an apartment complex for information relating to alleged irregularities surrounding the sale of the

{Client/001718/BANK376/00537487.DOC;3 }

11-22820-rdd

Doc 456

Filed 10/09/12 Entered 10/09/12 15:28:32 Pg 9 of 12

Main Document

complex because the allegations against the purchaser had not been substantiated; see also In re Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 384 B.R. 373, 393 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. 2008) (in determining good cause, courts should be mindful that Rule 2004 discovery may not be used as a device to launch into a wholesale investigation of a non-debtors private business). 16. The Archdiocese simply has not met its burden of showing good cause.

As stated, the Debtors have already produced thousands of pages of documents on e-Stet in response to the Committees Rule 2004 Motion, and the Archdiocese has had access to e-Stet since January 2012. Notably, the Committees Rule 2004 Motion, like the Archdioceses

Amended Motion, also seeks information related to non-debtor entities. To the extent that additional responsive documents become available, the Debtors will upload such documents to eStet soon thereafter. Thus, since the Archdiocese has had continuing access to e-Stet in order to review the Debtors documents, the Court should deny the Amended Motion as unnecessary. 17. Further, the Debtors object to the Archdioceses costly and overly

burdensome request for documents. A review of Exhibit A to the Archdioceses Amended Motion highlights the sheer magnitude of the documents requested. For instance, the first document request seeks all documents listing the names, addresses, and contact information of board members (without referencing board members of whom) dating back almost 80 years. The request seeks all documents related to transfers of individual employees or Christian Brothers to or from the states of California, Michigan, Illinois, New York, or Washington between 1935 and 2012. In short, the Archdiocese is attempting to utilize the 2004 discovery as a substitute for discovery that should have been conducted in litigation in Washington State court. Courts have found that the scope of a Rule 2004 inquiry should not be more disruptive and costly to the party to be examined than beneficial to the party seeking discovery. In re Countrywide Home Loans,

{Client/001718/BANK376/00537487.DOC;3 }

11-22820-rdd

Doc 456

Filed 10/09/12 Entered 10/09/12 15:28:32 Pg 10 of 12

Main Document

384 B.R. at 393. [I]f the cost and disruption to the examinee attendant to a requested examination outweigh the benefits to the examiner, the request should be denied. Eagle-Picher Indus., 169 B.R. at 134; In re Express One Intl, Inc., 217 B.R. 215, 217 (Bankr. E.D. Tex. 1998) (same); In re Texaco, Inc., 79 B.R. 551, 556 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987) (same). Recognizing the costs and burdens of Rule 2004 relief, if discovery is appropriate, courts will often fashion appropriate relief to minimize costs. See Recoton Corp., 307 B.R. 751, 756 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2004) (carefully crafting proposed order to prevent duplication or other burdens on parties to the examination and requiring depositions only if necessary after completion of document review with movant to work with target of examination to manage administrative burden); see also In re Deshetler, 453 B.R. 295, 311 (Bankr. S.D. Ohio 2011) (oral examination required only, if necessary, after review of documents). Fortunately, because the Debtors have already produced thousands of pages of documents on e-Stet and granted the Archdiocese access to such system, the Court can easily fashion appropriate relief here by requiring the Archdiocese to conduct a diligent review of e-Stet for any documents it is seeking. see e.g. In re Duratech Indus., Inc., 241 B.R. 283 (E.D.N.Y. 1999) (denying Rule 2004 motion where information sought was available from public sources). To the extent that the documents are not on e-Stet, the

documents simply do not exist or are not currently in the possession of the Debtors. 18. The stated basis upon which the Amended Motion rests is the

Archdioceses desire to determine whether there are any non-debtor entities that should be consolidated or otherwise required to contribute monies towards a plan of reorganization. The real driving force behind the Archdioceses request for discovery is to somehow insulate itself from joint and several liability as a joint tortfeasor. Rather than pursuing a scorched earth discovery process, the Debtors submit the Archdiocese is better served by participating in the

{Client/001718/BANK376/00537487.DOC;3 }

10

11-22820-rdd

Doc 456

Filed 10/09/12 Entered 10/09/12 15:28:32 Pg 11 of 12

Main Document

plan negotiations and otherwise attempting to resolve the proofs of claim which implicate the Archdiocese.4 As such, the Archdiocese should be required to wait for the plan process to

unfold. If the Archdiocese is not satisfied with the plan, the Archdiocese will have the right to conduct appropriate discovery prior to plan confirmation. Second, the Archdioceses desire for non-debtor contributions under a plan is being addressed by the Committee, an active participant in these cases. Like the Archdiocese, the Committee also has an interest in determining whether there are non-debtor entities that should provide contributions towards a confirmable plan and, upon information and belief, this investigation is underway. Indeed, the Committees Rule 2004 Motion seeks significant discovery, including the information requested in the Archdioceses Amended Motion. It is respectfully submitted that it is the Committee, a fiduciary for unsecured creditors, not the Archdiocese, a co-defendant in various litigations that is in a better position to ascertain, what, if any, contributions from non-debtors should be made in a plan context. 19. Finally, if the Court is inclined to grant the Amended Motion, the Debtors First, the Debtors note that

submit that the proposed order should be revised as follows.

paragraph 4 of the proposed order attached to the Amended Motion would authorize the Archdiocese to issue subpoenas on any person and/or entity that the Archdiocese believes may have Information, for oral examination with respect to the subject matter of the Information. Nothing in Bankruptcy Rule 2004 allows for such open-ended authority to issue subpoenas without previously specifying the parties to provide the discovery or the information sought. The parties required to comply with the relief requested should be limited to the parties reflected in the Amended Motion and the attached proposed subpoena. Second, paragraph 9 of the proposed order appears to properly preserve a partys rights to object to the subpoena or seek
4

Less than fifty sexual abuse proofs of claim have been filed which possibly implicate the Archdiocese. As of the date of this objection, all but two of the claims have been provided to counsel to the Archdiocese with the consent of the claimants or their counsel.

{Client/001718/BANK376/00537487.DOC;3 }

11

11-22820-rdd

Doc 456

Filed 10/09/12 Entered 10/09/12 15:28:32 Pg 12 of 12

Main Document

entry of an order quashing or limit[ing] the scope of the subpoena. For the avoidance of any doubt, the Debtors reserve their rights in this regard. WHEREFORE, the Debtors respectfully request that this Court (i) deny the Amended Motion consistent with this Objection, and (ii) grant such other and further relief as is just and appropriate. Dated: New York, New York October 9, 2012 TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP Attorneys for The Christian Brothers Institute, et al. Debtors and Debtors-in-Possession By: /s/ Scott S. Markowitz Scott S. Markowitz Rocco A. Cavaliere 1350 Broadway, 11th Floor New York, New York 10018 (212) 216-8000

{Client/001718/BANK376/00537487.DOC;3 }

12

11-22820-rdd

Doc 456-1 Filed 10/09/12 Entered 10/09/12 15:28:32 Archdioceses Proof of Claim Pg 1 of 5

Exhibit A -

EXHIBIT A

11-22820-rdd B 10 (Official Form 10) (04/10)

11-22820-rdd Claim 33 Filed 03/20/12 Pg 1 of 2 Doc 456-1 Filed 10/09/12 Entered 10/09/12 15:28:32 Archdioceses Proof of Claim Pg 2 of 5 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT __________ DDistrict ofFNew York Southern ISTRICT O __________
Name of Debtor:

Exhibit A PROOF OF CLAIM

Case Number:

The Christian Brothers' Institute, et al

11-22820 (RRD)

NOTE: This form should not be used to make a claim for an administrative expense arising after the commencement of the case. A request for payment of an administrative expense may be filed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 503. Name of Creditor (the person or other entity to whom the debtor owes money or property): Check this box to indicate that this Corporation of the Catholic Archbishop of Seattle claim amends a previously filed claim. Name and address where notices should be sent:

Attn: Michael A. Patterson Patterson Buchanan Fobes Leitch & Kalzer, Inc., P.S. 2112 Third Avenue, Suite 500, Seattle, WA 98121
Telephone number:

Court Claim Number:______________ (If known)

(206) 462-6700
Name and address where payment should be sent (if different from above):

Filed on:_____________________ Check this box if you are aware that anyone else has filed a proof of claim relating to your claim. Attach copy of statement giving particulars. Check this box if you are the debtor or trustee in this case. 5. Amount of Claim Entitled to Priority under 11 U.S.C. 507(a). If any portion of your claim falls in one of the following categories, check the box and state the amount. Specify the priority of the claim. Domestic support obligations under 11 U.S.C. 507(a)(1)(A) or (a)(1)(B). Wages, salaries, or commissions (up to $11,725*) earned within 180 days before filing of the bankruptcy petition or cessation of the debtors business, whichever is earlier 11 U.S.C. 507 (a)(4). Contributions to an employee benefit plan 11 U.S.C. 507 (a)(5). Up to $2,600* of deposits toward purchase, lease, or rental of property or services for personal, family, or household use 11 U.S.C. 507 (a)(7). Taxes or penalties owed to governmental units 11 U.S.C. 507 (a)(8). Other Specify applicable paragraph of 11 U.S.C. 507 (a)(__). Amount entitled to priority: $_______________ *Amounts are subject to adjustment on 4/1/13 and every 3 years thereafter with respect to cases commenced on or after the date of adjustment.
FOR COURT USE ONLY

(same)

Telephone number: 1. Amount of Claim as of Date Case Filed: $_______________________________ unknown

If all or part of your claim is secured, complete item 4 below; however, if all of your claim is unsecured, do not complete item 4. If all or part of your claim is entitled to priority, complete item 5. Check this box if claim includes interest or other charges in addition to the principal amount of claim. Attach itemized statement of interest or charges. 2. Basis for Claim: _____________________________ contribution, indemnification, (See instruction #2 on reverse side.) other common law & civil claims 3. Last four digits of any number by which creditor identifies debtor: ______ 3a. Debtor may have scheduled account as: ____________________ (See instruction #3a on reverse side.) 4. Secured Claim (See instruction #4 on reverse side.) Check the appropriate box if your claim is secured by a lien on property or a right of setoff and provide the requested information. Nature of property or right of setoff: Describe: Real Estate Motor Vehicle Other

Value of Property:$________________ Annual Interest Rate_________% Amount of arrearage and other charges as of time case filed included in secured claim, if any: $__________________ Basis for perfection: ____________________

Amount of Secured Claim: $__________________ Amount Unsecured: $__________________ 6. Credits: The amount of all payments on this claim has been credited for the purpose of making this proof of claim. 7. Documents: Attach redacted copies of any documents that support the claim, such as promissory notes, purchase orders, invoices, itemized statements of running accounts, contracts, judgments, mortgages, and security agreements. You may also attach a summary. Attach redacted copies of documents providing evidence of perfection of a security interest. You may also attach a summary. (See instruction 7 and definition of redacted on reverse side.) DO NOT SEND ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS. ATTACHED DOCUMENTS MAY BE DESTROYED AFTER SCANNING. If the documents are not available, please explain: (See attached Exhibit A)

Date: D

03/20/2012

Signature: The person filing this claim must sign it. Sign and print name and title, if any, of the creditor or other person authorized to file this claim and state address and telephone number if different from the notice address above. Attach copy of power of attorney, if any.

/s/ Michael A. Patterson, Patterson Buchanan Fobes Leitch & Kalzer, Inc., P.S.
Penalty for presenting fraudulent claim: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. 152 and 3571.

11-22820-rdd Doc 456-1 Filed 10/09/12 Filed 03/20/12 Pg 2 of 2 Claim 33 Entered 10/09/12 15:28:32 Exhibit A B 10 (Official Form 10) (04/10) Cont.11-22820-rdd Archdioceses Proof of Claim Pg 3 of 5 INSTRUCTIONS FOR PROOF OF CLAIM FORM The instructions and definitions below are general explanations of the law. In certain circumstances, such as bankruptcy cases not filed voluntarily by the debtor, there may be exceptions to these general rules. Items to be completed in Proof of Claim form Court, Name of Debtor, and Case Number: 4. Secured Claim: Fill in the federal judicial district where the bankruptcy case was filed (for Check the appropriate box and provide the requested information if example, Central District of California), the bankruptcy debtors name, and the the claim is fully or partially secured. Skip this section if the claim is bankruptcy case number. If the creditor received a notice of the case from the entirely unsecured. (See DEFINITIONS, below.) State the type and bankruptcy court, all of this information is located at the top of the notice. the value of property that secures the claim, attach copies of lien documentation, and state annual interest rate and the amount past due on the claim as of the date of the bankruptcy filing. Creditors Name and Address: Fill in the name of the person or entity asserting a claim and the name and address of the person who should receive notices issued during the bankruptcy case. A 5. Amount of Claim Entitled to Priority Under 11 U.S.C. 507(a). separate space is provided for the payment address if it differs from the notice If any portion of your claim falls in one or more of the listed address. The creditor has a continuing obligation to keep the court informed of its categories, check the appropriate box(es) and state the amount current address. See Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure (FRBP) 2002(g). entitled to priority. (See DEFINITIONS, below.) A claim may be partly priority and partly non-priority. For example, in some of the categories, the law limits the amount entitled to priority. 1. Amount of Claim as of Date Case Filed: State the total amount owed to the creditor on the date of the Bankruptcy filing. Follow the instructions concerning whether to 6. Credits: complete items 4 and 5. Check the box if interest or other charges are An authorized signature on this proof of claim serves as an acknowledgment included in the claim. that when calculating the amount of the claim, the creditor gave the debtor credit for any payments received toward the debt. 2. Basis for Claim: State the type of debt or how it was incurred. Examples include 7. Documents: goods sold, money loaned, services performed, personal Attach to this proof of claim form redacted copies documenting the existence injury/wrongful death, car loan, mortgage note, and credit card. If the claim is of the debt and of any lien securing the debt. You may also attach a summary. based on the delivery of health care goods or services, limit the disclosure of You must also attach copies of documents that evidence perfection of any the goods or services so as to avoid embarrassment or the security interest. You may also attach a summary. FRBP 3001(c) and (d). disclosure of confidential health care information. You may be required If the claim is based on the delivery of health care goods or services, see to provide additional disclosure if the trustee or another party in interest instruction 2. Do not send original documents, as attachments may be files an objection to your claim. destroyed after scanning.
3. Last Four Digits of Any Number by Which Creditor Identifies Debtor: State only the last four digits of the debtors account or other number used by the creditor to identify the debtor. 3a. Debtor May Have Scheduled Account As: Use this space to report a change in the creditors name, a transferred claim, or any other information that clarifies a difference between this proof of claim and the claim as scheduled by the debtor. Date and Signature: The person filing this proof of claim must sign and date it. FRBP 9011. If the claim is filed electronically, FRBP 5005(a)(2), authorizes courts to establish local rules specifying what constitutes a signature. Print the name and title, if any, of the creditor or other person authorized to file this claim. State the filers address and telephone number if it differs from the address given on the top of the form for purposes of receiving notices. Attach a complete copy of any power of attorney. Criminal penalties apply for making a false statement on a proof of claim.

__________DEFINITIONS__________ Debtor A debtor is the person, corporation, or other entity that has filed a bankruptcy case. Creditor A creditor is a person, corporation, or other entity owed a debt by the debtor that arose on or before the date of the bankruptcy filing. See 11 U.S.C. 101 (10) Claim A claim is the creditors right to receive payment on a debt owed by the debtor that arose on the date of the bankruptcy filing. See 11 U.S.C. 101 (5). A claim may be secured or unsecured. Proof of Claim A proof of claim is a form used by the creditor to indicate the amount of the debt owed by the debtor on the date of the bankruptcy filing. The creditor must file the form with the clerk of the same bankruptcy court in which the bankruptcy case was filed. Secured Claim Under 11 U.S.C. 506(a) A secured claim is one backed by a lien on property of the debtor. The claim is secured so long as the creditor has the right to be paid from the property prior to other creditors. The amount of the secured claim cannot exceed the value of the property. Any amount owed to the creditor in excess of the value of the property is an unsecured claim. Examples of liens on property include a mortgage on real estate or a security interest in a car. A lien may be voluntarily granted by a debtor or may be obtained through a court proceeding. In some states, a court judgment is a lien. A claim also may be secured if the creditor owes the debtor money (has a right to setoff). Unsecured Claim An unsecured claim is one that does not meet the requirements of a secured claim. A claim may be partly unsecured if the amount of the claim exceeds the value of the property on which the creditor has a lien. Claim Entitled to Priority Under 11 U.S.C. 507(a) Priority claims are certain categories of unsecured claims that are paid from the available money or property in a bankruptcy case before other unsecured claims. Redacted A document has been redacted when the person filing it has masked, edited out, or otherwise deleted, certain information. A creditor should redact and use only the last four digits of any social-security, individuals taxidentification, or financial-account number, all but the initials of a minors name and only the year of any persons date of birth. Evidence of Perfection Evidence of perfection may include a mortgage, lien, certificate of title, financing statement, or other document showing that the lien has been filed or recorded.

______INFORMATION______ Acknowledgment of Filing of Claim To receive acknowledgment of your filing, you may either enclose a stamped self-addressed envelope and a copy of this proof of claim or you may access the courts PACER system (www.pacer.psc.uscourts.gov) for a small fee to view your filed proof of claim. Offers to Purchase a Claim Certain entities are in the business of purchasing claims for an amount less than the face value of the claims. One or more of these entities may contact the creditor and offer to purchase the claim. Some of the written communications from these entities may easily be confused with official court documentation or communications from the debtor. These entities do not represent the bankruptcy court or the debtor. The creditor has no obligation to sell its claim. However, if the creditor decides to sell its claim, any transfer of such claim is subject to FRBP 3001(e), any applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code (11 U.S.C. 101 et seq.), and any applicable orders of the bankruptcy court.

11-22820-rdd Doc 456-1 Claim10/09/122 Entered 10/09/12 Pg 1 of 2 11-22820-rdd Filed 33 Part Filed 03/20/12 15:28:32 Archdioceses Proof of Claim Pg 4 of 5

Exhibit A -

11-22820-rdd Doc 456-1 Claim10/09/122 Entered 10/09/12 Pg 2 of 2 11-22820-rdd Filed 33 Part Filed 03/20/12 15:28:32 Archdioceses Proof of Claim Pg 5 of 5

Exhibit A -