Case KJC Doc 1119 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE.

Transcription

1 Case KJC Doc 1119 Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re DRAW ANOTHER CIRCLE, LLC, et al., 1 Debtors. Chapter 11 Case No.: (KJC) (Jointly Administered) Re: Docket No DEBTORS OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF ROBIN JON MUIR AND DAWNA MUIR FOR RELIEF FROM THE AUTOMATIC STAY PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. 362 The above-captioned debtors and debtors in possession (the Debtors ), by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby file this opposition (the Opposition ) to the Motion of Robin Jon Muir and Dawna Muir for Relief from the Automatic Stay Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 362 (the Lift Stay Motion ) and respectfully represent as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. The Lift Stay Motion should be denied because Robin Jon Muir ( Mr. Muir ) and Dawna Muir ( Ms. Muir and together, the Muirs ) have failed to establish cause for relief from the automatic stay to litigate an objection to a proof of claim filed on September 23, 2009 by Debtor Hastings Entertainment, Inc. ( Hastings ) in the Muirs bankruptcy case on account of a non-dischargeable judgment in favor of Hastings and against Mr. Muir stemming from various breaches of fiduciary duties and fraud committed by Mr. Muir during his employment by Hastings. 1 The Debtors and the last four digits of their respective federal taxpayer identification numbers are as follows: Draw Another Circle, LLC (2102); Hastings Entertainment, Inc. (6375); MovieStop, LLC (9645); SP Images, Inc. (7773); and Hastings Internet, Inc. (0809). The Debtors executive headquarters are located at 3601 Plains Boulevard, Amarillo, TX

2 Case KJC Doc 1119 Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of First, the Lift Stay Motion has no basis in fact or law. Hastings has a nondischargeable judgment (which allows interest to accrue) against Mr. Muir, entered by the Texas Bankruptcy Court (defined below) on February 9, This Judgment (defined below) unquestionably fixes the dollar amount of the Hastings Claim (defined below). Any assertion by the Muirs that Hastings somehow does not own the Judgment because of the 2014 leveraged buyout (the LBO ) is legally incorrect because the LBO simply affected the shareholders of Hastings, and not any of Hastings contracts, vendors or other assets. Thus, as reflected by Hastings amended schedules of assets and liabilities [D.I. 624] (the Schedules ), the Judgment has been, and continues to be, an asset of the Hastings bankruptcy estate under section 541 of Title 11 of the United States Code, 11 U.S.C. 101, et seq. (the Bankruptcy Code ). If there is any legitimate objection to this point (which there is not), it must be resolved by this Court, not the Texas Bankruptcy Court. 3. Further, the Debtors shrinking staff (only approximately 16 employees currently remain) and their professionals are currently focused on, among other things, (a) analyzing and reconciling numerous claims filed against the Debtors, including, but not limited to the Debtors administrative claims (including section 503(b)(9) claims and priority tax claims) and general unsecured claims (including complicated lease rejection damage claims), (b) establishing a protocol and preserving data to allow for the prosecution of preference claims, (c) assisting Rust Omni, the Debtors balloting agent, with soliciting acceptances on the Debtors and the Committee s Joint First Amended Plan of Liquidation (the Plan ) (confirmation is scheduled for February 14, 2017), (d) assisting contingency counsel with investigating and prosecuting potential avoidance actions, (e) finalizing their books and satisfying other year-end financial reporting requirements, and (f) transitioning the cases into the hands of a liquidating trustee. 2

3 Case KJC Doc 1119 Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 14 Given the scope and time-consuming nature of these tasks, the Debtors would be prejudiced by having to shift their focus away from wrapping up their bankruptcy cases and instead litigating the Judgment with the Muirs in another forum. 4. Accordingly, and as explained more fully below, the Debtors urge this Court to deny the Lift Stay Motion. BACKGROUND 5. On June 13, 2016 (the Petition Date ), each of the Debtors commenced a voluntary case under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (the Chapter 11 Cases ). The Debtors are operating their businesses and managing their properties as debtors in possession pursuant to sections 1107(a) and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court has entered an order for joint administration of the Chapter 11 Cases [D.I. 57]. No trustee or examiner has been appointed in these Chapter 11 Cases. 6. On June 21, 2016, the Office of the United States Trustee for the District of Delaware appointed the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the Committee ) [D.I. 132]. 7. Hastings was a leading multimedia entertainment and lifestyle retailer, that, among other things, operated superstores that bought, sold, traded and rented various home entertainment products. MovieStop, LLC ( MovieStop ) was a value retailer of new and used movies based in Atlanta, Georgia. SP Images, Inc. ( SP Images ) was a full-service licensed distributor of sports and entertainment products, including items licensed by Major League Baseball, the National Football League, the National Hockey League, the National Basketball Association, Marvel Comics, DC Comics and others. Hastings, MovieStop and SP Images were each wholly-owned subsidiaries of Draw Another Circle, LLC. 3

4 Case KJC Doc 1119 Filed 01/12/17 Page 4 of The Debtors commenced these Chapter 11 Cases to (i) effectuate the sale of Hastings pursuant to a Court-approved bidding and auction process; (ii) complete the liquidation of the MovieStop business for the benefit of creditors; (iii) preserve the SP Images business through a going concern sale process; and (iv) liquidate all of the Debtors remaining assets and discontinue all business lines that could not be sold for value. THE NON-DISCHARGEABLE JUDGMENT 9. Mr. Muir was previously employed by Hastings as a real estate broker. Under the pertinent employment agreement, all commissions payable to Mr. Muir as broker would be immediately rebated to the company. 10. On June 3, 2009, the Muirs filed a joint petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, commencing Case No rlj (the Muir Bankruptcy Case ) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas (the Texas Bankruptcy Court ). 11. On June 16, 2009, Hastings commenced Adversary Proceeding No rlj in the Texas Bankruptcy Court, asserting claims for breach of contract, actual fraud and theft relating to Mr. Muir s failure to remit real estate commissions to Hastings while employed by Hastings, and for breach of fiduciary duty in connection with acting as a real estate consultant for another company, also while employed by Hastings. 12. On February 9, 2010, the Texas Bankruptcy Court entered a non-dischargeable judgment (the Judgment ) in favor of Hastings and against Mr. Muir. 2 The Judgment (i) awarded Hastings actual damages on the claims for breach of contract, actual fraud, theft and breach of fiduciary duty relating to Mr. Muir s failure to remit real estate commissions, in the sum of $428,247.00; (ii) awarded Hastings an additional $42, for Mr. Muir s breach of 2 A copy of the Judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 4

5 Case KJC Doc 1119 Filed 01/12/17 Page 5 of 14 fiduciary duty relating to his work for another company while employed by Hastings; and (iii) awarded pre-judgment interest in the amount of $35, and post-judgment interest... at the rate of $48.33 per day until [the] judgment is fully paid. 13. Mr. Muir also pled guilty to theft in connection with the facts underlying the Judgment. As a result, Mr. Muir is currently on felony deferred adjudication probation on account thereof. Pursuant to an Order of Deferred Adjudication, 3 Mr. Muir is required to pay $10, per year for ten (10) years on account of the Judgment. To date, Mr. Muir has paid $60, of this amount, and is required to pay an additional $40, over the next threeand-one-half years. The Debtors calculate the amount due under the Judgment to be $414,730.64, as of December 29, THE HASTINGS CLAIM IN THE MUIR BANKRUPTCY CASE 14. On September 23, 2009, Hastings filed Claim No. 8 in the Muir Bankruptcy Case on account of the Judgment in the amount of $550,00.00 (the Hastings Claim ). 15. While the Hastings Claim was originally filed as a secured claim, the chapter 7 trustee (the Trustee ) in the Muir Bankruptcy Case filed an objection asserting that the Hastings Claim should be reclassified as a general unsecured claim. Hastings and the Trustee thereafter reached an agreement to allow and reclassify the Hastings Claim as a general unsecured claim in the amount of $470, (the Agreed Order ). The Agreed Order was approved by the Texas Bankruptcy Court on November 15, Thus, the Hastings Claim was allowed pursuant to the Agreed Order which is now a final order of the Texas Bankruptcy Court. 3 A copy of the Order of Deferred Adjudication is attached hereto as Exhibit B. 4 A copy of the Debtors calculation of the outstanding amount unpaid on the Judgment and interest accrued through December 29, 2016 as attached hereto as Exhibit C. 5 A copy of the Agreed Order is attached hereto as Exhibit D. 5

6 Case KJC Doc 1119 Filed 01/12/17 Page 6 of On June 28, 2016, the Muirs filed the Objection to Claim Number 8 of Hastings Entertainment, Inc. and Request for Termination of Judgment [D.I. 138] (the Claim Objection ), 6 by which the Muirs asserted that the Texas Bankruptcy Court should disallow the Hastings Claim because Hastings does not exist and New Hastings has no connection or relationship to Hastings, the entity that filed the [Hastings Claim]. See Exh. E, Thereafter, on July 8, 2016, the Muirs filed the Debtors Motion to Withdraw Objection to Claim Number 8 of Hastings Entertainment, Inc. Without Prejudice to Refiling [D.I. 139] (the Motion to Withdraw ), recognizing that the [Hastings] Claim is potentially an asset of the Delaware Bankruptcy Estate in Hastings bankruptcy case. Indeed, and contrary to the Muirs assertion in paragraph 13 of the Lift Stay Motion, the Judgment was included on Question No. 74 of Hastings amended Schedules [D.I. 624]. WINDING DOWN THE DEBTORS ESTATES 18. At present, the Debtors and their professionals are focusing on a number of issues related to the winding down of the Debtors estates and transitioning the cases to a liquidating trustee. 19. For one, the Debtors staff (down to approximately 16 employees) and their professionals are focusing on the claims-reconciliation process, including the reconciliation of numerous administrative claims (including section 503(b)(9) claims and priority tax claims) and general unsecured claims (including claims arising from various complicated lease rejections). Further, the Debtors and Debtors special counsel are establishing a protocol for the prosecution of preference claims and assisting contingency counsel with investigating and prosecuting potential avoidance actions. 6 A copy of the Claim Objection is attached hereto as Exhibit E. 6

7 Case KJC Doc 1119 Filed 01/12/17 Page 7 of Crucially, the Debtors staff and their professionals are also working to confirm a plan of liquidation. Following the sales of substantially all of the Debtors assets, the Debtors worked with the Committee to prepare a plan of liquidation. An initial version of what is now the Debtors and the Creditors Committee s First Amended Joint Combined Disclosure Statement and Plan of Liquidation Under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (as amended, the Plan ) was filed on November 29, 2016, with modified versions thereof filed on December 14, 2016 and December 20, 2016, respectively [D.I. 1008, 1049, 1076]. The Plan provides for the creation of a liquidating trust (the Trust ) for the benefit of the Debtors creditors. The remaining assets of the Debtors, which include various claims and causes of action belonging to the Debtors and/or their respective estates, will be transferred to the Trust. 21. On December 19, 2016, the Court entered the Order (A) Approving the Disclosure Statement on an Interim Basis, (B) Establishing Procedures for Solicitation and Tabulation of Votes to Accept or Reject the First Amended Plan, (C) Approving the Form of Ballot and Solicitation Materials, (D) Establishing the Voting Record Date, (E) Scheduling a Plan Confirmation Hearing and Deadline for Filing Objections to Final Approval of the Disclosure Statement and Confirmation of the Plan, and (F) Approving the Related Form of Notice [D.I. 1067] (the Interim Approval and Procedures Order ). Pursuant to the Interim Approval and Procedures Order, the Debtors and their balloting agent commenced the solicitation of votes to accept or reject the Plan by distributing on Wednesday, December 21, 2016 the appropriate solicitation package to each record and beneficial holder of a claim entitled to vote on the Plan. 22. Under the Interim Approval and Procedures Order, the deadline for the receipt of votes from the holders of claims entitled to accept or reject the Plan is February 3, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. A hearing on confirmation of the Plan is scheduled for February 14, 2017 at 2:30 p.m. (the 7

8 Case KJC Doc 1119 Filed 01/12/17 Page 8 of 14 Confirmation Hearing ). Accordingly, the Debtors and their professionals are presently devoting a substantial amount of time attending to the Plan solicitation process and preparing for the Confirmation Hearing. 23. Given the foregoing, and as explained further below, because the Debtors staff and their professionals are consumed with completing numerous tasks required to confirm the plan and transition the Debtors assets to the Trust, they would be unfairly prejudiced by having to re-litigate the Hastings Claim a claim that has already been allowed by a final order of the Texas Bankruptcy Court and been determined to be non-dischargeable pursuant to the Judgment. LEGAL STANDARD AND ARGUMENT 24. A primary vehicle for enforcement of the bankruptcy court s jurisdiction is the automatic stay under section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code. In particular, section 362(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code provides in relevant part as follows: (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, a petition filed under section 301, 302 or 303 of this title... operates as a stay, applicable to all entities, of (1) the commencement or continuation, including the issuance or employment of process, of a judicial, administrative, or other action or proceeding against the debtor that was or could have been commenced before the commencement of the case under this title, or to recover a claim against the debtor that arose before the commencement of the case under this title The legislative history of section 362 of the Bankruptcy Code indicates that Congress intended the scope of the automatic stay to be sweeping in order to protect both debtors and creditors: The automatic stay is one of the fundamental debtor protections provided by the bankruptcy laws. It gives the debtor a breathing spell from his creditors. It stops all collection efforts, all harassment, and all foreclosure actions. It permits the debtor to attempt a repayment or reorganization plan, or simply to be relieved of the financial pressures that drove him into bankruptcy. 8

9 Case KJC Doc 1119 Filed 01/12/17 Page 9 of 14 H.R. Rep. No, 595, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. 340 (1977); S. Rep. No. 989, 95th Cong., 2d Sess. 49 (1978), reprinted in 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 5787, , 5963; see also In re W.R. Grace & Co., 475 B.R. 34, 147 (D. Del. 2012) (quoting A.H. Robins Co. v Piccinin (In re A H. Robins Co.), 788 F.2d 994, 998 (4th Cir. 1986)) (stating that the automatic stay is to protect the debtor from an uncontrollable scramble for its assets in a number of uncoordinated proceedings in different courts, to preclude one creditor from pursuing a remedy to the disadvantage of other creditors, and to provide the debtor and its executives with a reasonable respite from protracted litigation, during which they may have an opportunity to formulate a plan of reorganization for the debtor ). 26. The automatic stay broadly extends to all matters which may have an effect on a debtor s estate, in order to provide a debtor with the opportunity to rehabilitate and reorganize or liquidate their operations. See, e.g., S.I. Acquisition, Inv. v. Eastway Delivery Serv. Inc. (In re S.I. Acquisition, Inc.), 817 F.2d 1142, 1146 (5th Cir. 1987) (stating that the automatic stay imposes a moratorium on all actions against the debtor or its property and assets and thereby ensures a respite for the debtor so that it may attempt to reorganize or decide to liquidate and promotes the overriding policy of equal distribution of a debtor s assets among creditors ). 27. The Muirs request relief from the automatic stay pursuant to section 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Code, which provides, in pertinent part: On request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court shall grant relief from the stay... (1) for cause.... Whether cause exists to lift the automatic stay is a decision within the sound discretion of the bankruptcy court, and one that is made on a case-by-case basis. See, e.g., In re SCO Group, Inc., 395 B.R. at 856; In re Brown, 311 B.R. 409, 412 (E.D. Pa. 2004). Because section 362(d) does not define cause, the courts are left to determine what constitutes such cause based on the 9

10 Case KJC Doc 1119 Filed 01/12/17 Page 10 of 14 totality of the circumstances. In re Wilson, 116 F.3d 87, 90 (3d Cir. 1997); In re George, 315 B.R. 624 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2004). 28. Here, the Muirs seek stay relief to re-file the Claim Objection in the Texas Bankruptcy Court. The Muirs inexplicably try to argue in the Lift Stay Motion that the Hastings Claim does not constitute property of the Hastings bankruptcy estate because of the LBO and because it was not referenced on the Debtors Schedules. However, the LBO is irrelevant to the ownership of the Hastings Claim and was included in the Debtors Schedules. Of course, the Hastings Claim constitutes property of Hastings bankruptcy estate in the case pending in Delaware pursuant to section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code and, as such, stay relief is required in order for the Muirs to prosecute the Claim Objection. As set forth in more detail below, stay relief is not warranted. 29. This Court has developed a three-prong balancing test to determine whether to grant relief from the stay to pursue litigation in another forum : 1. Whether any great prejudice to either the bankrupt estate or the debtor will result from the continuation of the civil suit; 2. Whether the hardship to the non-bankrupt party by maintenance of the stay considerably outweighs the hardship to the debtor; and 3. The probability of the creditor prevailing on the merits. In re ABC Learning Centres, Ltd., 445 B.R. 318, 337 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010); see also In re Scarborough-St. James Corp., 535 B.R. 60, (Bankr. D. Del. 2015) (same). Under this standard, the Muirs fail to and indeed cannot establish any of the elements necessary to show cause for granting relief from stay. 30. First, the Debtors, their bankruptcy estate and estate professionals would be prejudiced if forced to focus on the Claim Objection. The Debtors, as liquidating debtors, have an ever-shrinking shrinking staff (approximately 16 people to date), and, as explained supra, 10

11 Case KJC Doc 1119 Filed 01/12/17 Page 11 of 14 what staff remains is focused currently (and for the foreseeable near future) on (a) analyzing and reconciling the Debtors administrative claims (including section 503(b)(9) claims and priority tax claims) and general unsecured claims (including complicated lease rejection damage claims), (b) establishing a protocol to allow for the prosecution of preference claims, (c) soliciting acceptances for the Plan, (d) assisting contingency counsel with investigating and prosecuting potential avoidance actions, and (e) ultimately effectuating a smooth transition to the contemplated liquidating trust. Given the Debtors bare-bones staff and the fact that such staff and the estate professionals respective attention is focused on, among other things, the items discussed above, it would be inappropriate to grant stay relief, which would distract the staff and professionals from their efforts to conclude these bankruptcy cases. Thus, the first prong of the aforementioned balancing test weighs against granting stay relief. 31. Second, denying the Lift Stay Motion will not result in any hardship to the Muirs. No hardship can be said to exist where the issues underlying the Judgment were fully and fairly litigated in a jury trial, and where the Hastings Claim was allowed by the Agreed Order a final order of the Court. Thus, because Hastings has an allowed claim based on a non-dischargeable Judgment, there is simply nothing left to litigate, and no reason to lift the automatic stay. Accordingly, the second prong of the above-cited test further weighs against granting stay relief. 32. Third, with respect to the Muirs likelihood of success on the merits of the Claim Objection, as explained above, the Hastings Claim was allowed pursuant to a final order of the Texas Bankruptcy Court. Thus, the allowance of the Hastings Claim has already been litigated, and further litigation thereof is barred by res judicata principles. See, e.g., Fox v. Congress Fin. Corp. (In re Target Indus., Inc.), 328 B.R. 99, 115 (Bankr. D.N.J. 2005) ( [R]es judicata has been held applicable to... claims allowance orders.... ); In re Gonzalez, 372 B.R. 837,

12 Case KJC Doc 1119 Filed 01/12/17 Page 12 of (Bankr. W.D. Tex. 2007) ( [W]hen a bankruptcy court enters an order on claim allowance, that order is a final judgment on the merits for res judicata purposes.... ). Further, the basis for the Hastings Claim is the Judgment entered by the Texas Bankruptcy Court, which determined the amount of the claim at that time and that it was not dischargeable. Accordingly, the Muirs cannot show that they have any likelihood of success on the merits of any renewed objection to the Hastings Claim. 33. The Muirs contention, espoused in the Claim Objection, that the Judgment [must] be terminated for the reason that Hastings does not exist and that New Hastings has no connection or relationship to Hastings, see Exh., E, 8, is baseless and a red herring. As referenced above, the LBO like any leveraged buyout had the effect of merely changing the identity of Hastings shareholders, and had no effect on Hastings corporate status or the nature or amounts of debts owed to it. See generally United States v. Tabor Court Realty Corp., 803 F.2d 1288, 1292 (3d Cir. 1986) ( A leveraged buy-out is not a legal term of art. It is a shorthand expression describing a business practice wherein a company is sold to a small number of investors, typically including members of the company s management, under financial arrangements in which there is a minimum amount of equity and a maximum amount of debt. The financing typically provides for a substantial return of investment capital by means of mortgages or high risk bonds, popularly known as junk bonds. ). The Muirs have not provided and cannot provide any legal argument or evidence that the LBO had any legal effect on the debt owing by the Muirs to Hastings. Further, this contention is also directly refuted by the Debtors inclusion of the Judgment on their Schedules. Thus, the Muirs contention that the LBO somehow wiped out the Judgment made without citation to any supporting legal authority is a legal falsehood. 12

13 Case KJC Doc 1119 Filed 01/12/17 Page 13 of The Debtors acknowledge that certain payments have been made on account of the Judgment, and such payments should, as the Muirs assert, reduce the amount owed by Mr. Muir to Hastings on account of that Judgment. However, because the Judgment is nondischargeable, interest has also accrued and continues to accrue until payment of the Judgment in full. To this point, counsel for the Debtors has repeatedly communicated to the Muirs its desire to resolve the amount of the Hastings Claim and the Judgment. Specifically, undersigned counsel has communicated the Debtors position with respect to the amounts they view are due to Hastings, giving the Muirs full credit for payments made and credits they now claim they need stay relief to assert as well as including the Debtors calculation of interest accruals to date. 7 To date, despite several attempts, counsel to the Muirs has not responded to the Debtors calculation of amounts outstanding. Given that the Debtors have been willing to give the Muirs what they purport would at least partially constitute success on the merits of the Claim Objection credits for payments received by Hastings on account of the Judgment it is clear that the Motion is nothing more than an attempt to strong-arm the Debtors into settling the nondischargeable Hastings Claim and the Judgment on more favorable terms than they are entitled. Stay relief is especially unwarranted given such posturing. WHEREFORE, the Debtors respectfully request that the Court enter an order denying the Lift Stay Motion. [remainder of page intentionally blank] 7 See Exhibit E. 13

14 Case KJC Doc 1119 Filed 01/12/17 Page 14 of 14 Dated: January 12, 2017 Wilmington, Delaware Respectfully submitted, /s/ L. Katherine Good Christopher M. Samis (No. 4909) L. Katherine Good (No. 5101) Chantelle D. McClamb (No. 5978) WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON L.L.C. The Renaissance Centre, Suite North King Street Wilmington, Delaware Telephone: (302) Counsel for the Debtors and Debtors in Possession

15 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 4 Exhibit A (Judgment)

16 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 4

17 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 4

18 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/12/17 Page 4 of 4

19 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 5 Exhibit B (Order of Deferred Adjudication)

20 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 5

21 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/12/17 Page 3 of 5

22 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/12/17 Page 4 of 5

23 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/12/17 Page 5 of 5

24 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/12/17 Page 1 of 2 Exhibit C (Amounts Outstanding as of December 29, 2016)

25 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/12/17 Page 2 of 2 Hastings Entertainment, Inc. Restitution received for Robin J. Muir Case Check Date Date Rec'd Deposit Date Amount Check # Payor Notes 10/14/ /22/ /22/ , Chase Bank-Cashier's Check Payable to Potter County Community Supervision and endorsed to Hastings 12/6/ /30/ /30/ Community Supervision & Corrections Dept 12/6/ /30/ /30/2010 4, Community Supervision & Corrections Dept 12/22/2010 1/12/2011 1/12/2011 4, Community Supervision & Corrections Dept 12/22/2010 1/12/2011 1/12/2011 1, Community Supervision & Corrections Dept 6/1/2011 6/6/2011 6/7/ , Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts 12/12/ /20/ /20/2011 3, Community Supervision & Corrections Dept 6/7/2012 6/15/2012 6/18/2012 5, Community Supervision & Corrections Dept 12/6/ /14/ /14/2012 5, Community Supervision & Corrections Dept 6/11/2013 6/17/2013 6/18/2013 5, Community Supervision & Corrections Dept 12/13/ /20/ /20/2013 5, Community Supervision & Corrections Dept 6/5/2014 6/9/2014 6/10/2014 5, Community Supervision & Corrections Dept 12/16/ /30/ /30/2014 5, Community Supervision & Corrections Dept 6/5/2015 6/16/2015 6/17/2015 5, Community Supervision & Corrections Dept 12/15/ /30/ /31/2015 5, Community Supervision & Corrections Dept 6/5/2016 6/23/2016 6/23/2016 5, Community Supervision & Corrections Dept Total Received 192, Case # RLJ-7 428, , , Actual Damages 35, Pre-judgment interest 505, Total Judgment % Post-judgment interest rate 3.75% Balance 2010 Payments 37, , Annual Interest 15, , Days 2011 Payments 109, , Annual Interest 13, , Payments 10, , Recap Annual Interest 14, , , Total Judgement 2013 Payments 10, , , Total Payments Annual Interest 14, , , Total Annual Interest 2014 Payments 10, , Annual Interest 14, , , Total Liability COB 12/29/ Payments 10, , Annual Interest 14, , Daily 2 days 2016 Payments 5, , , Total Liability COB 12/31/2016 Annual Interest 14, , Days Updated: 12/29/2016

26 Exhibit D (Agreed Order)

27 Case rlj7 Doc 96 Filed 11/15/11 Entered 11/15/11 12:46:05 Page 1 of 2 U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ENTERED TAWANA C. MARSHALL, CLERK THE DATE OF ENTRY IS ON THE COURT'S DOCKET The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described. Signed November 15, 2011 United States Bankruptcy Judge IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION IN RE: ROBIN J. and DAWNA L. MUIR, CASE NO RLJ-7 Debtors. AGREED ORDER ON OBJECTION TO CLAIM NUMBER 8 OF HASTINGS ENTERTAINMENT INC. On this day came on for consideration the objection of Kent Ries, Trustee of the referenced bankruptcy estate, to Claim Number 8 of Hastings Entertainment Inc. ( Hastings"). Claim Number 8 was filed by Hastings as secured claim in the total amount of $550, The Court finds jurisdiction over the subject matter and has been advised that the parties have reached an agreement in response to the Trustee s Objection. The Court is of the opinion that the agreement of the parties is in order and should be allowed. It is therefore

28 Case rlj7 Doc 96 Filed 11/15/11 Entered 11/15/11 12:46:05 Page 2 of 2 ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED, that Claim Number 8 of Hastings, filed as a secured claim in the amount of $550, is hereby allowed and reclassified as an unsecured claim in the amount of $470, against this bankruptcy estate. Prepared By: Kent Ries, Attorney at Law State Bar No I-40 West, Suite 101 Amarillo, Texas (806) (806) Fax COUNSEL FOR TRUSTEE # # # End of Order # # # AGREED: Sprouse Shrader Smith, P.C. P.O. Box Amarillo, Texas (806) By: /s/ David Jones David Jones, Attorney for Hastings