Professional Documents
Culture Documents
------------------------------------------------------------ X
:
In re : Chapter 11
:
MALLINCKRODT PLC, et al., : Case No. 20–12522 (JTD)
:
Debtors.1 : (Jointly Administered)
:
Related Docket No. 2916
------------------------------------------------------------ X
1
A complete list of the Debtors in these chapter 11 cases may be obtained on the website of the Debtors’
claims and noticing agent at http://restructuring.primeclerk.com/Mallinckrodt. The Debtors’ mailing address
is 675 McDonnell Blvd., Hazelwood, Missouri 63042.
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526 Filed 08/02/21 Page 2 of 9
Aurelius Capital Master, Ltd. (“Aurelius”),2 solely in its capacity as a holder of 4.75%
Senior Notes due 2023 issued by Mallinckrodt International Finance S.A. (the “4.75% Notes”), by
and through its undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this preliminary limited objection (the
Mallinckrodt plc and Its Debtor Affiliates under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code [Docket No.
2916] (as it may be modified, amended, or supplemented from time to time, the “Plan”).3
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. Although the Plan suffers from a number of significant defects in respect of its
treatment of the holders of 4.75% Notes that render it unconfirmable as a matter of law, Aurelius
raises in this preliminary Limited Objection two of the critical flaws in the Plan, with the hope
that these and other issues can be resolved with the Debtors consensually prior to the
confirmation hearing.4 Over the last few months, Aurelius has repeatedly attempted to engage
with the Debtors to resolve these matters consensually, whether as part of the ongoing mediation
or otherwise, but the Debtors have so far been unwilling to entertain those discussions.
engagement with the Debtors. As a holder of the Debtor’s Guaranteed Unsecured Notes,
Aurelius twice reached agreements with the Debtors regarding an out-of-court restructuring and
then, as a leading member of the Unsecured Notes Ad Hoc Group since its inception, was an
original signatory to the Restructuring Support Agreement dated as of Oct. 11, 2020, and
2
Aurelius files this Limited Objection exclusively on its own behalf and does not assume any fiduciary or other
duties to any other entity or individual.
3
Capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Plan.
4
Aurelius reserves all of its rights to object to confirmation of the Plan on these and additional grounds in a
supplemental objection, in the event that Aurelius and the Debtors are unable to resolve Aurelius’s objections to
the Plan consensually. The pending mediation would be an appropriate vehicle for reaching such resolution, if
key stakeholders such as Aurelius and the indenture trustee for the 4.75% Notes are invited to participate.
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526 Filed 08/02/21 Page 3 of 9
amended as of March 10, 2021 (the “RSA”).5 Likewise, when the RSA was amended to obtain
support from Term Lenders, Aurelius in its capacity as a Term Lender joined in that support.
BACKGROUND
3. The Debtors’ Plan proposes to fund a fixed “pot” of $100 million (the “Shared
Funds”) to satisfy, on a pro rata basis, the claims of a large and heterogeneous universe of
unsecured creditors of many different Debtors (the “Combined Creditors”), all of which have
effectively been placed in a single class – Class 6 — General Unsecured Claims (the “Combined
Class”) – for distribution purposes (the “General Unsecured Claims Distribution”) without any
distinction in treatment based upon the assets and liabilities of their respective obligor Debtor.
Those Debtors are highly diverse in terms of their respective asset values and liabilities. Indeed,
the Debtors against which certain Combined Creditors assert their claims have almost no assets.
4. Moreover, measured by size of asserted claim, the vast majority in dollar amount
of claims by the Combined Creditors are highly disputed and unliquidated; only a small minority
(notably including the 4.75% Notes) are liquidated and undisputed. For the most part, the
disputed and unliquidated claims are litigation claims, including the asserted Acthar Claims ($2.8
billion asserted6), Asbestos Claims ($4.5 billion asserted), and Generics Price Fixing Claims ($4
5
The RSA makes clear that holders of the Guaranteed Unsecured Notes that signed the RSA remain free to take
issue with the Plan in respect of other claims or interests they may have. RSA, par. 4(a) (“[N]othing in this
Agreement shall limit or restrict any Supporting Party from asserting positions or objections to the Plan, the
Restructuring, or any other matter in the Chapter 11 Cases in such Supporting Party’s capacity as a holder of a
Claim or Interest in Mallinckrodt other than Specified Claims and Interests.”).
6
This figure excludes certain amounts that are the subject of a pending objection filed by the Debtors.
-3-
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526 Filed 08/02/21 Page 4 of 9
LIMITED OBJECTION
5. The Debtors’ proposal to treat the disparate, cross-debtor claims of the Combined
Creditors on a pro rata basis in the General Unsecured Claims Distribution as though they were
in a single class, against a single debtor, participating in a fixed amount of Shared Funds, renders
the Plan unconfirmable because, among other violations of the Bankruptcy Code, (i) the plan
provides for what is, in effect, a partial substantive consolidation of the Debtors; and (ii) the
plan’s classification of the 4.75% Notes violates section 1122 by treating disparate creditors of
different Debtors as though they were in the same class, receiving distributions on a pro rata
The Plan Would Substantively Consolidate the Debtors, But Only as to Some Creditors.
Although proposed jointly for administrative purposes, the Plan constitutes a separate
Plan for each Debtor for the treatment and resolution of outstanding Claims and Interests
pursuant to the Bankruptcy Code. . . . The classifications of Claims and Interests set forth
in Article III of the Plan shall be deemed to apply separately with respect to each Plan
proposed by each Debtor, as applicable. The Plan does not contemplate substantive
consolidation of any of the Debtors.
Plan, p.1.
7. This statement is utterly inconsistent with the Plan’s treatment of the Combined
Creditors’ claims – providing them the same percentage recovery in the General Unsecured
Claims Distribution without regard to the circumstances of the respective Debtors against which
those claims have been or will be allowed. This is substantive consolidation, plain and simple.
Worse, it is substantive consolidation selectively applied to the Combined Creditors but not to
any other creditors of the same (or any other) Debtors. Neither is justified.
7
Notably, these structural defects in the Plan would not be remedied even if the “pot” of Shared Funds
available for distribution to the Combined Creditors were to be increased, short of payment in full.
-4-
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526 Filed 08/02/21 Page 5 of 9
8. The Debtors have admitted, as they must, that the Plan effects a substantive
consolidation of the Debtors in its treatment of the Combined Creditors’ claims. In their
Omnibus Reply filed in response to multiple objections to the Debtors’ motion to, among other
things, approve the Disclosure Statement [Docket No. 2075] (the “Disclosure Statement
Motion”), the Debtors stated: “The revised Plan proposes a $100 million pool to be distributed
pro rata to all Class 6 claims, regardless of which Debtor(s) carry the liability.” [Docket No.
2827-1, Ex. A, at p. 30] (citing Disclosure Statement, Art. IV.V) (emphasis in original).8
as to some creditors and not others. To the contrary, the Debtors recently opposed the Motion
Seeking Substantive Consolidation [Docket No. 2982], filed by certain Acthar claimants to
substantively consolidate the Debtors. The Debtors argued in their Preliminary Objection to that
motion that “the rare and extraordinary relief of substantive consolidation is not appropriate in
8
Several parties have already previewed objections to the Plan on the basis that the treatment described above
effects an improper, partial substantive consolidation of the Debtors’ respective assets and liabilities. See, e.g.,
Preliminary Objection of Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors to [Disclosure Statement Motion] [Docket
No. 2392, at par. 6] (“the Plan seemingly ignores that these Chapter 11 Cases are not being substantively
consolidated and that different creditors have claims against different Debtors that are in different states of
insolvency.”); see also The Ad Hoc Consortium of Equity Holders Objection to [Disclosure Statement Motion]
[Docket No. 2616, at par. 1] (“the Plan effects a de facto substantive consolidation of the Debtors, without a
legal basis or approval of the Bankruptcy Court”); Supplemental Statement of Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors to [Disclosure Statement Motion] [Docket No. 2852, at par. 5] (the “Supplemental Statement”) (“the
Revised Plan and Revised Disclosure Statement still do not tie the $1.6 billion Opioid Settlement, the $260
million Acthar Settlement Agreement, or the agreement to pay the Unsecured Notes Consideration to any
conception of present Plan Value or a demonstrable Debtor-by-Debtor waterfall – because they cannot.”);
Joinder of the Unsecured Notes Trustee to the Supplemental Statement [Docket No. 2856, at par. 3] (“the Plan
appears to provide for the partial substantive consolidation of the Debtors for distribution purposes with respect
to General Unsecured Claims, as holders of such claims share pro rata in the same recovery pool irrespective of
the Debtor against which they assert their claims.”).
-5-
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526 Filed 08/02/21 Page 6 of 9
request for substantive consolidation must necessarily fail under applicable Third Circuit
precedent. See In re Owens Corning, 419 F.3d 195, 211 (3d Cir. 2005); see also In re
HH Liquidation, LLC, 590 B.R. 211, 257 (Bankr. D. Del. 2018).
10. The Debtors correctly cited the Third Circuit’s decision in Owens Corning for the
allowing them recovery only from the pooled assets of the consolidated entities and forcing them
to share the assets of the subsidiary with which they dealt, thus ‘raising the specter . . . of a
significant distribution diminution.’” Id. at 9 (quoting Owens Corning, 419 F.3d at 206). Yet,
that is precisely the effect of the Debtor’s proposed Plan on holders of the 4.75% Notes.
Moreover, the Plan would selectively impose substantive consolidation on some creditors and
not others of the same Debtor – an egregious measure that is fundamentally incompatible with
11. The treatment of the Combined Class is not merely impermissible. It is highly
prejudicial to the 4.75% Notes, wreaking havoc on both the amount and the timing of their
recovery. According to the Debtors, there are only $293 million of valid claims that will be
payable from the Shared Funds. See Disclosure Statement, at 8-9. The 4.75% Notes represent
the single largest component of this amount and would receive a 34% recovery if only these
valid claims were considered. See id. Yet, the Plan proposes to include in the same distribution
class other, highly disputed and unliquidated claims asserted in amounts totaling approximately
$11.7 billion, virtually none of which are asserted against the issuer of the 4.75% Notes. If those
claims were somehow to be allowed in the amounts asserted against the Shared Funds, the 4.75%
12. To add insult to injury, holders of the 4.75% Notes cannot expect to receive their
recovery until all other claims in the Combined Class – including highly-disputed claims asserted
-6-
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526 Filed 08/02/21 Page 7 of 9
against entirely separate Debtors – have been resolved. Thus, even if those other claims were
ultimately disallowed in full, the lengthy process of litigating to that result would further
diminish the present value of the recovery to holders of the 4.75% Notes. While the Court could
estimate these disputed claims at confirmation, this would at most increase the minimum
recovery the 4.75% Notes might receive (from the present level of 0.8%); it would not avoid the
very substantial delay in paying the 4.75% Notes the very large balance of their expected
13. The Plan’s treatment of the Asbestos Claims noted above illustrates these
concerns. Those claims appear to be asserted against Mallinckrodt US Holdings LLC and no
other Debtor. See Transcript of 10/14/2020 Hrg, at p. 22:14 – 23:1 (Excerpt attached as Exhibit
A) (“THE COURT: And which of the debtor entities have the asbestos liabilities? . . . . MS.
Schedules of Assets and Liabilities [Docket No. 1020], Mallinckrodt US Holdings LLC has no
operations and only $18.4 million of assets. Even if the Asbestos Claims were to be allowed in
full against that entity, and even if all the other claims asserted against that Debtor (which are
substantial) were to be ignored, the Asbestos Claims would recover only a tiny fraction of their
asserted amounts (approximately 0.4%). By placing those claims in the Combined Class,
however, they would dilute the recoveries on the 4.75% Notes, effectively stealing value from
Debtors against which they have no recourse. If the roles were reversed, no one would suggest
that the asbestos claimants (or any other creditors) should subsidize the recovery on the 4.75%
Notes.
-7-
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526 Filed 08/02/21 Page 8 of 9
14. Either the Debtors should be treated as one or they should not be. If (contrary to
Aurelius’s view) they should, then the 4.75% Notes (with claims against only two Debtors)
should receive at least the same recovery as the Guaranteed Unsecured Notes (which have claims
15. Section 1122(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides that “. . . a plan may place a
claim or an interest in a particular class only if such claim or interest is substantially similar to
the other claims or interests of such class.” 11 U.S.C. § 1122(a). Pursuant to Section 1122(a),
claims asserted against different individual Debtors, like dissimilar claims asserted against the
same Debtor, must be treated separately, rather than as de facto members of the same class for
distribution purposes.
16. Moreover, the Plan places the 4.75% Notes in the same voting sub-class as claims
held by creditors against an entirely different Debtor. See Plan, at p. 53 (placing the 4.75%
Notes in the same voting class, Class 6(d), as holders of other “Legacy Unsecured Notes
Claims,” which include claims held against only Debtor Ludlow LLC, and not against the
Debtors obligated under the 4.75% Notes). The Plan thereby impairs the voting rights of holders
of the 4.75% Notes, who hold valid claims against Debtors with valuable assets. If the holders of
4.75% Notes choose to reject the Plan because it artificially and improperly provides those
holders with a reduced recovery, their valid votes should not be diluted by the votes of creditors
of a distinct Debtor with a different profile of assets and liabilities. Such a voting scheme is
transparently illegal.
17. The Plan’s failure to comply with section 1122 severely prejudices the holders of
the 4.75% Notes, as well as other individual creditors, for the reasons described above.
-8-
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526 Filed 08/02/21 Page 9 of 9
18. The Plan is, therefore, not confirmable as proposed. Aurelius remains prepared to
find a consensual resolution and would welcome the opportunity to participate in the pending
Reservation of Rights
19. Aurelius reserves all rights to supplement this Limited Objection and to object to
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE, for the Limited Objection, Aurelius respectfully requests that the Court
enter an order denying confirmation of the Plan, and granting such other and further relief as the
-9-
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 1 of 4
EXHIBIT A
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-1 Filed 08/02/21 Page 2 of 4
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
. Chapter 11
IN RE: .
. Case No. 20-12522(JTD)
MALLINCKRODT PLC, et al, .
.
. 824 Market Street
. Wilmington, Delaware 19801
Debtors. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wednesday, October 14, 2020
MALLINCKRODT PLC, et al, .
. Adv. Proc. No. 20-50850(JTD)
vs. .
.
STATE OF CONNECTICUT, et al. .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
(Appearances Continued)
6 about that?
22 I just kind of saw that and was interested in it, that's why
3 foreign entity.
9 of this year. The company had spent many months before then
13 no easy task, given how far apart the parties were at the
------------------------------------------------------------ X
:
In re : Chapter 11
:
MALLINCKRODT PLC, et al., : Case No. 20–12522 (JTD)
:
Debtors.1 : (Jointly Administered)
:
------------------------------------------------------------ X
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Laura Davis Jones, hereby certify that on the 2nd day of August, 2021, I caused
a copy of the following document(s) to be served on the individuals on the attached service list(s)
1
A complete list of the Debtors in these chapter 11 cases may be obtained on the website of the Debtors’ claims
and noticing agent at http://restructuring.primeclerk.com/Mallinckrodt. The Debtors’ mailing address is 675
McDonnell Blvd., Hazelwood, Missouri 63042.
DOCS_DE:235502.1 05772/017
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 2 of 22
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 3 of 22
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017 2
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 4 of 22
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017 3
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 5 of 22
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017 4
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 6 of 22
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017 5
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 7 of 22
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017 6
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 8 of 22
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017 7
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 9 of 22
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017 8
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 10 of 22
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017 9
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 11 of 22
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017 10
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 12 of 22
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017 11
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 13 of 22
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017 12
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 14 of 22
ELECTRONIC MAIL
ELECTRONIC MAIL (Counsel to Governmental Plaintiff Ad Hoc
(Counsel to Dr. Eric Hestrup, in His Committee)
Individual Capacity and as a Representative Morris James LLP
of the Putative Classes of Purchasers of Attn: Jeffrey R. Waxman, Brya M. Keilson,
Private Health Insurance that He Proposes to Sarah Ennis
Represent) 500 Delaware Avenue
Morgan & Morgan, P.A. Suite 1500
Attn: James D. Young Wilmington , DE 19801
Complex Litigation Unit Email: Jwaxman@morrisjames.com;
76 South Laura Street, Suite 1100 Bkeilson@morrisjames.com;
Jacksonville, FL 32202 Sennis@morrisjames.com
Email: jyoung@forthepeople.com
ELECTRONIC MAIL
ELECTRONIC MAIL (Counsel to Humana, Inc.)
(Counsel to Dr. Eric Hestrup, in His MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT &
Individual Capacity and as a Representative TUNNELL LLP
of the Putative Classes of Purchasers of Attn: Donna L. Culver, Robert J. Dehney,
Private Health Insurance that He Proposes to Matthew B. Harvey
Represent) 1201 North Market Street, 16th Floor
Morgan & Morgan, P.A. P.O. Box 1347
Attn: Juan R. Martinez Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
Complex Litigation Unit Email: dculver@morrisnichols.com;
201 North Franklin Street, 7th Floor rdehney@morrisnichols.com;
Tampa, FL 33602 mharvey@morrisnichols.com
Email: juanmartinez@forthepeople.com
ELECTRONIC MAIL
ELECTRONIC MAIL (Counsel to Deutsche Bank Trust Company
(Counsel to Cotter Corporation (N.S.L.)) Americas as Indenture Trustee under the
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 2014 Indenture, 2015 Indenture, and the
Attn: Jody C. Barillare 5.625% Senior Notes Indenture )
1201 N. Market St. Moses & Singer LLP
Suite 2201 Attn: Alan E. Gamza, Kent C. Kolbig
Wilmington, DE 19801 The Chrysler Building
Email: jody.barillare@morganlewis.com 405 Lexington Avenue
New York , NY 10174
Email: agamza@mosessinger.com;
kkolbig@mosessinger.com
ELECTRONIC MAIL
(Counsel to IPT Peachtree DC LLC)
Munsch Hardt Kopf & Harr, P.C.
Attn: Deborah M. Perry
500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3800
Dallas, TX 75201-6659
Email: dperry@munsch.com
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017 13
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 15 of 22
ELECTRONIC MAIL
ELECTRONIC MAIL (Counsel to the State of Texas, by and
(Counsel to Alex Davis, Tonia Anderson, through the Office of the Attorney General
and Patricia Robbins) of Texas)
Napoli Shkolnik PLLC Office of the Attorney General of Texas,
Attn: Paul J. Napoli, R. Joseph Hrubiec, Bankruptcy & Collections Division
Hunter J. Shkolnik, Shayna E. Sacks, Attn: Rachel R. Obaldo, Jason B. Binford
Salvatore C. Badala, Joseph Ciaccio P. O. Box 12548- MC 008
360 Lexington Avenue Austin, TX 78711-2548
Eleventh Floor Email:
New York, NY 10017 Public.Information@Oag.State.Tx.Us;
Email: PNapoli@NSPRLaw.com; rachel.obaldo@oag.texas.gov;
Hunter@NapoliLaw.com; jason.binford@oag.texas.gov
SSacks@NapoliLaw.com;
SBadala@NapoliLaw.com; ELECTRONIC MAIL
JCiaccio@NapoliLaw.com; (Counsel to the Governmental Acthar
RHrubiec@NapoliLaw.com Rebate Committee)
Otterbourg P.C.
ELECTRONIC MAIL Attn: Melanie L. Cyganowski, Peter
(Counsel to Deutsche Bank AG New York Feldman, Jennifer S. Feeney
Branch) 230 Park Avenue
Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP New York, NY 10169
Attn: Howard S. Beltzer, James A. Copeland Email: mcyganowski@otterbourg.com;
1301 Avenue of the Americas pfeldman@otterbourg.com;
New York, NY 10019-6022 jfeeney@otterbourg.com
Email:
howard.beltzer@nortonrosefulbright.com ELECTRONIC MAIL
; (Counsel to Commonwealth of
james.copeland@nortonrosefulbright.co Pennsylvania, Department of Human
m Services)
PA Office of Attorney General
ELECTRONIC MAIL Attn: Carol E. Momjian, Denise A. Kuhn
(Counsel to The Texas Comptroller of Senior Deputy Attorney General
Public Accounts and The Texas Workforce 1600 Arch Street, Suite 300
Commission) Philadelphia, PA 19103
Office of the Attorney General of Texas, Email: cmomjian@attorneygeneral.gov;
Bankruptcy & Collections Division dkuhn@attorneygeneral.gov
Attn: John Mark Stern
MC 008 ELECTRONIC MAIL
P.O. Box 12548 (Counsel to Commonwealth of
Austin, TX 78711-2548 Pennsylvania)
Email: bk-jstern@oag.texas.gov PA Office of Attorney General
Attn: Lauren A. Michaels
1251 Waterfront Place
Pittsburgh, PA 15222
Email: Lmichaels@attorneygeneral.gov
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017 14
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 16 of 22
ELECTRONIC MAIL
ELECTRONIC MAIL (Counsel to Lubbock Central Appraisal
(Counsel to Merck & Co., Inc. and Intervet, District)
Inc.) Perdue, Brandon, Fielder, Collins & Mott,
Parkowski, Guerke & Swayze, P.A. L.L.P.
Attn: Michael W. Teichman, Elio Battista, Attn: Laura J. Monroe
Jr. P.O. Box 817
1105 N. Market St., 19th Floor Lubbock, TX 79408
Wilmington, DE 19801 Email: lmbkr@pbfcm.com
Email: mteichman@pgslegal.com;
ebattista@pgslegal.com ELECTRONIC MAIL
(Counsel to the City of Marietta)
ELECTRONIC MAIL Pomerantz LLP
(Counsel to the Ad Hoc Group of Holders of Attn: Ari Y. Basser, Jordan L. Lurie
The Debtors’ Unsecured Notes and to the 1100 Glendon Avenue
Unsecured Notes Ad Hoc Group) Los Angeles , CA 90024
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison Email: abasser@pomlaw.com;
LLP jllurie@pomlaw.com
Attn: Andrew N. Rosenberg; Alice Belisle
Eaton; Claudia R. Tobler; & Neal Paul ELECTRONIC MAIL
Donnelly (Counsel to Deerfield Partners L.P.)
1285 Ave of The Americas Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
New York, NY 10019-6031 Attn: Christopher M. Samis, Aaron H.
Email: Arosenberg@Paulweiss.Com; Stulman, D. Ryan Slaugh
Aeaton@Paulweiss.Com; 1313 N. Market Street
Ctobler@Paulweiss.Com; 6th Floor
Ndonnelly@Paulweiss.Com Wilmington , DE 19801-3700
Email: csamis@potteranderson.com;
ELECTRONIC MAIL astulman@potteranderson.com;
(Counsel to Richardson ISD, Plano ISD, rslaugh@potteranderson.com
Arlington ISD, City of Grapevine,
Grapevine-Colleyville ISD) ELECTRONIC MAIL
Perdue, Brandon, Fielder, Collins & Mott, (Counsel to Wilmington Savings Fund
L.L.P. Society, FSB, as Indenture Trustee)
Attn: Eboney Cobb Pryor Cashman LLP
500 E. Border Street, Suite 640 Attn: Seth H. Lieberman, Patrick Sibley,
Arlington, TX 76010 Matthew W. Silverman, Sameer M. Alifarag
Email: ecobb@pbfcm.com 7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Email: slieberman@pryorcashman.com;
psibley@pryorcashman.com;
msilverman@pryorcashman.com;
SAlifarag@pryorcashman.com
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017 15
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 17 of 22
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017 16
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 18 of 22
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017 17
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 19 of 22
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017 18
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 20 of 22
ELECTRONIC MAIL
(Counsel to Dr. Eric Hestrup, in His ELECTRONIC MAIL
Individual Capacity and as a Representative (Counsel to the Ad Hoc Committee of NAS
of the Putative Classes of Purchasers of Children)
Private Health Insurance that He Proposes to The Creadore Law Firm, P.C.
Represent) Attn: Donald Creadore
Stevens & Lee, P.C 450 Seventh Avenue – 1408
Attn: Nicholas F. Kajon, Constantine D. New York, NY 10123
Pourakis Email: donald@creadorelawfirm.com
485 Madison Avenue
20th Floor ELECTRONIC MAIL
New York , NY 10022 (Counsel to the Canadian Elevator Industry
Email: nfk@stevenslee.com; Pension Trust Fund)
cp@stevenslee.com The Law Offices of Joyce, LLC
Attn: Michael J. Joyce
ELECTRONIC MAIL 1225 King Street, Suite 800
(Counsel to Deerfield Partners L.P.) Wilmington , DE 19801
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP Email: mjoyce@mjlawoffices.com
Attn: James L. Bromley, Benjamin S. Beller,
Thiago Nascimento dos Reis ELECTRONIC MAIL
125 Broad Street (Counsel to HealthCor Offshore Master
New York, NY 10004-2498 Fund, L.P., HealthCor Sanatate Offshore,
Email: bromleyj@sullcrom.com; Master Fund, L.P., Blackstone Alternative
bellerb@sullcrom.com; Multi-Strategy Fund, Blackstone Alternative
nascimentot@sullcrom.com Investment Fund PLC, and Beren
Therapeutics, P.B.C., and MANDOS LLC)
ELECTRONIC MAIL The Rosner Law Group LLC
(Counsel to the Ad Hoc First Lien Notes Attn: Jason A. Gibson, Frederick B. Rosner,
Group) Zhao (Ruby) Liu
Sullivan Hazeltine Allinson LLC 824 N. Market Street
Attn: William D. Sullivan, William A. Suite 810
Hazeltine Wilmington, DE 19801
919 North Market Street, Suite 420 Email: gibson@teamrosner.com;
Wilmington , DE 19801 rosner@teamrosner.com;
Email: bsullivan@sha-llc.com; liu@teamrosner.com
whazeltine@sha-llc.com
ELECTRONIC MAIL
ELECTRONIC MAIL (Counsel to the Ad Hoc Committee of NAS
(Counsel to The Board of Education of Children)
Chicago Public Schools) Thompson Barney Law Firm
Terell Hogan, P.A. Attn: Kevin W. Thompson, David R.
Attn: Wayne Hogan, Leslie Goller Barney, Jr.
233 E. Bay Street, #804 2030 Kanawha Boulevard, East
Jacksonville, FL 32202 Charleston, WV 25311
Email: hogan@terrellhogan.com; Email: Kwthompsonwv@gmail.com
lgoller@terrellhogan.com
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017 19
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 21 of 22
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017 20
Case 20-12522-JTD Doc 3526-2 Filed 08/02/21 Page 22 of 22
ELECTRONIC MAIL
(Proposed counsel to Roger Frankel, the
legal representative for future claimants (the
“Proposed Future Claimants’
Representative”))
Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
Attn: James L. Patton, Jr. Robert S. Brady,
Edwin J. Harron
1000 North King Street
Willmington, DE 19801
Email: bankfilings@ycst.com;
jpatton@ycst.com; rbrady@ycst.com;
eharron@ycst.com
DOCS_DE:235497.1 05772/017 21