Case Document 2627 Filed in TXSB on 09/30/16 Page 1 of 14

Transcription

1 Case Document 2627 Filed in TXSB on 09/30/16 Page 1 of 14 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION In Re: Chapter 11 TMT PROCUREMENT CORPORATION, Case No et al., 1 Debtors. Jointly Administered EXPEDITED FIRST OMNIBUS OBJECTION OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS TO CLAIMS OF NON-DEBTOR AFFILIATES OF THE DEBTORS BECAUSE (I) THE CLAIMS LACK SUPPORTING INFORMATION AND (II) THE CLAIMS ASSERT INTERESTS RATHER THAN CLAIMS TO THE FOLLOWING PERSONS WHO HAVE FILED ONE OR MORE PROOFS OF CLAIM AGAINST ONE OR MORE OF THE DEBTORS: A Elephant Corporation A Max Corporation Admirai Vista B Elephant Corporation B Ladybug Corporation Blue Whale Corporation C Elephant Corporation C Elephant Inc. C. Winner CE Duke Corporation CSCC Europe Ducky Sapphire E Duckling Corporation Excel Express Ltd F Duckling Corporation F2 Capital F7 Capital G Elephant Corporation Great Vision Management Ltd Modesta Shipping SA NOS Ship Agency Pte Ltd NOS Ship Management Co., Ltd. Ro Line Pte Ltd Segura Group Corporation Stella Lily Taiwan Maritime Transportation Co., Ltd. Terrace View Holdings Limited TMT Co., Ltd. TMT Co. Ltd. Panama S.A. THIS IS AN OBJECTION TO YOUR CLAIM(S). THE COMMITTEE IS ASKING THE COURT TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM(S) THAT YOU 1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are: (1) A Whale Corporation; (2) B Whale Corporation; (3) C Whale Corporation; (4) D Whale Corporation; (5) E Whale Corporation; (6) G Whale Corporation; (7) H Whale Corporation; (8) A Duckling Corporation; (9) F Elephant Inc.; (10) A Ladybug Corporation; (11) C Ladybug Corporation; (12) D Ladybug Corporation; (13) A Handy Corporation; (14) B Handy Corporation; (15) C Handy Corporation; (16) B Max Corporation; (17) New Flagship Investment Co., Ltd; (18) RoRo Line Corporation; (19) Ugly Duckling Holding Corporation; (20) Great Elephant Corporation; and (21) TMT Procurement Corporation.

2 Case Document 2627 Filed in TXSB on 09/30/16 Page 2 of 14 FILED IN THESE BANKRUPTCY CASES. YOU SHOULD IMMEDIATELY CONTACT THE COMMITTEE TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE. IF YOU DO NOT REACH AN AGREEMENT, YOU MUST FILE A RESPONSE TO THIS OBJECTION AND SEND A COPY OF YOUR RESPONSE TO THE COMMITTEE WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE OBJECTION WAS SERVED ON YOU. YOUR RESPONSE MUST STATE WHY THE OBJECTION IS NOT VALID. IF YOU DO NOT FILE A RESPONSE WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER THE OBJECTION WAS SERVED ON YOU, YOUR CLAIM MAY BE DISALLOWED WITHOUT A HEARING. AN EXPEDITED HEARING ON NOVEMBER 1, 2016 AT 1:30 P.M. CENTRAL TIME IN COURTROOM 404 AT THE U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT, 515 RUSK AVENUE, HOUSTON, TEXAS HAS BEEN REQUESTED IN THIS MATTER. IF THE COURT CONSIDERS THE OBJECTION ON AN EXPEDITED BASIS, THEN YOU WILL HAVE LESS THAN 30 DAYS TO ANSWER. IF YOU OBJECT TO THE RELIEF REQUESTED OR IF YOU BELIEVE THAT EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION IS NOT WARRANTED, THEN YOU SHOULD FILE AN IMMEDIATE RESPONSE. This Expedited First Omnibus Objection of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors to Claims of Non-Debtor Affiliates of the Debtors Because (I) the Claims Lack Supporting Information, and (II) the Claims Assert Interests Rather than Claims (the Objection ) objects to the general unsecured proofs of claim (each, an Affiliate Claim and, collectively, the Affiliate Claims ) filed by non-debtor affiliates (each, and Affiliate and, collectively, the Affiliates ) of the above-captioned debtors (the Debtors ), as listed on the attached Exhibit A, on two bases. First, each Affiliate Claim was presented in a form that does not comply with applicable rules and the Committee is unable to determine the validity of each Affiliate Claim because of that noncompliance. Second, each Affiliate Claim appears to be an equity interest rather than a claim. I. JURISDICTION 1. This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157 and This is a core proceeding within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 157(b). Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C and

3 Case Document 2627 Filed in TXSB on 09/30/16 Page 3 of 14 II. BACKGROUND 2. Pursuant to the Notice of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case, Meeting of Creditors, & Deadlines (ECF 64, the Commencement Notice ), the deadline to file proofs of claim for all creditors (except governmental entities) was scheduled for November 13, 2013, and the bar date for governmental entities for December 17, On August 5, 2013, the Debtors filed their respective schedules of assets and liabilities and statements of financial affairs (ECFs , in some cases as amended at ECFs , the Schedules ). 4. On August 16, 2013, an amended Commencement Notice and the form for filing proofs of claim were served on the creditor matrix in these cases (ECF 209). 5. On January 9, 2014, this Court entered an order establishing omnibus claims objection procedures (ECF 926, the Omnibus Claims Objection Order ) and authorized the Debtors to file omnibus claims objections pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 3007(d). 6. On September 16, 2016, the Debtors filed an omnibus objection to the Affiliate Claims on similar grounds to those asserted in this Objection (ECF 2617). On September 19, 2016, the Debtors withdrew their objection (ECF 2619) because of a limitation on the Debtors counsel s ability to undertake disputes with F3 Capital, Mr. Su, insiders, or affiliates of the Debtors (ECF 356). Any such dispute was assigned to the Committee. 7. As a result of that assignment, the Committee is authorized to file this omnibus Objection pursuant to the Omnibus Claims Objection Order. III. APPLICABLE BANKRUPTCY CODE SECTIONS, RULES AND FORMS 8. Bankruptcy Code 502(a) provides in relevant part: A claim or interest, proof of which is filed under section 501 of this title, is deemed allowed, unless a party in interest objects. 11 U.S.C. 502(a). 3

4 Case Document 2627 Filed in TXSB on 09/30/16 Page 4 of Bankruptcy Rule 3001(a) provides in relevant part: A proof of claim shall conform substantially to the appropriate Official Form. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001(a). 10. Bankruptcy Rule 3001 provides in relevant part as follows: (c) Supporting Information. (1) Claim Based on a Writing. Except for a claim governed by paragraph (3) of this subdivision, when a claim, or an interest in property of the debtor securing the claim, is based on a writing, a copy of the writing shall be filed with the proof of claim. If the writing has been lost or destroyed, a statement of the circumstances of the loss or destruction shall be filed with the claim. (f) Evidentiary Effect. A proof of claim executed and filed in accordance with these rules shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity and amount of the claim. Fed. R. Bankr. P Bankruptcy Rule 3007(d) provides in relevant part as follows: (d) Omnibus Objection. Subject to subdivision (e), objections to more than one claim may be joined in an omnibus objection if all the claims were filed by the same entity, or the objections are based solely on the grounds that the claims should be disallowed, in whole or in part, because:. (6) they were presented in a form that does not comply with applicable rules, and the objection states that the objector is unable to determine the validity of the claim because of the noncompliance; (7) they are interests, rather than claims. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007(d). 12. Official Form B10 provides in relevant part as follows: 2 7. Documents: Attached are redacted copies of any documents that support the claim, such as promissory notes, purchase orders, invoices, itemized statements of running accounts, contracts. If the documents are not available, please explain:. 2 The current Official Form for proofs of claim is B410A. B410A did not become effective until December 1, 2015 after the bar date here so former Official Form B10 applies here. 4

5 Case Document 2627 Filed in TXSB on 09/30/16 Page 5 of Bankruptcy Rule 9009 provides that the Official Forms shall be observed. Fed. R. Bankr. P IV. COMPLIANCE WITH OMNIBUS OBJECTION REQUIREMENTS 14. In accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 3007(b), this Objection does not include a demand for relief of a kind specified in Bankruptcy Rule Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007(b). 15. In accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 3007(d), the objections in this Objection are based solely on the grounds that the claims should be disallowed pursuant to Bankruptcy Rules 3007(d)(6) and (d)(7). Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007(d). 16. In accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 3007(e), this Objection is in compliance with each of the requirements listed in Bankruptcy Rule 3007(e)(1)-(6). Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007(e). 17. In compliance with Bankruptcy Local Rule (f), the Debtors obtained Court approval to file omnibus objections pursuant to the Omnibus Claims Objection Order, and the Committee is the Debtors assignee with respect to this Objection. In compliance with the Omnibus Claims Objection Order, this Objection asserts objections based on Bankruptcy Rule 3007(d). BLR (f). 18. In compliance with Bankruptcy Local Rule (b), attached as Exhibit B is an affidavit from Mr. Esben Christensen in support of this Objection. BLR (b). 19. This Objection is properly filed in omnibus form pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 3007(d), because the first ground for objection comes within Bankruptcy Rule 3007(d)(6) and the second ground for objection comes within Bankruptcy Rule 3007(d)(7). Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007(d). 20. In compliance with Bankruptcy Rules 2002(g)(1)(A) and 2002(p)(3), and as verified in the certificate of service attached hereto, this Objection is being served by international courier to the mailing address specified in each Affiliate Claim. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2002(g)(1)(A) and 2002(p)(3). 5

6 Case Document 2627 Filed in TXSB on 09/30/16 Page 6 of 14 V. FIRST OBJECTION: INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION 21. The Committee has reviewed all general unsecured proofs of claim that are, or appear to be, Affiliate Claims. 3 In accordance with Bankruptcy Local Rule (b), each Affiliate Claim is appropriately identified and described on Exhibit A to this Objection. 4 All Affiliate Claims are stamped as having been received by Epiq Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC on November 13, As a result of this review process, the Committee has determined that none of the Affiliate Claims attach the writing (if any) on which such claims were based, as required by Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(1) and Official Form 10B 7. To the extent that the Affiliate Claims are not based on a writing, none of the Affiliate Claims provide an explanation as to why there are no writings, as required by Official Form 10B 7, or any other explanation except Related Party Payable. 23. The Committee does not currently have access to any information supporting the Affiliate Claims, other than the fact that some of them are listed on the Schedules as contingent, unliquidated, and disputed. AlixPartners was also aware at the time of management s preparation of the Schedules that many of the Affiliate Claims were listed in the Debtors books and records, but without detail required to assess their validity. As a result, the Committee is unable to 3 The Committee believes all of the claims listed on Exhibit A are Affiliate Claims because they: (i) all describe the basis of the claim as Related Party Payable; (ii) all list the same address for notices; (iii) were all signed by Mr. Greene Hung, a person known to the Debtors as an employee of one or more of the Debtors during these cases; and (iv) were all filed on the same day. See Affidavit of Esben Christensen in Support of First Omnibus Objection of the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors to Claims of Non-Debtor Affiliates of the Debtors Because (I) the Claims Lack Supporting Information and (II) the Claims Assert Interests Rather than Claims, attached hereto as Exhibit B. 4 Although Exhibit F-2 to each of the Schedules also lists claims of Affiliates, each such claim is described as contingent, unliquidated, and disputed. Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 3003(b)(1), therefore, the scheduling of such claims does not constitute prima facie validity of such claims. 6

7 Case Document 2627 Filed in TXSB on 09/30/16 Page 7 of 14 determine the validity of the Affiliate Claims because of their noncompliance with Bankruptcy Rule 3001(a), Bankruptcy Rule 3001(c)(1), Bankruptcy Rule 9009, and Official Form B Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 3001(f), the Affiliate Claims do not present prima facie evidence as to their validity or amount. Instead, each Affiliate has the burden of proof with respect to the validity and amount of its Affiliate Claim(s). See ecast Settlement Corp. v. Tran (In re Tran), 369 B.R. 312, 318 (S.D. Tex. 2007) ( because ecast s claim had no presumption of validity, [the debtor] had no evidentiary burden to overcome in objecting to ecast s claim. Therefore, under Fifth Circuit law, the burden rightfully shifted to ecast to prove the validity of its claim. ) (internal citation omitted); see also In re DePugh, 409 B.R. 84, 93 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2009) ( [t]he published opinion in Tran is binding authority on [the Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas] ). 25. Accordingly, the Committee objects to the allowance of each of the Affiliate Claims and puts the Affiliates to their proofs. VI. SECOND OBJECTION: THE AFFILIATE CLAIMS ARE INTERESTS 26. Pursuant to Grossman v. Lothian Oil Inc. (In re Lothian Oil Inc.,), 650 F.3d 539, 543 (5th Cir. 2011), this Court has the authority under Bankruptcy Code 502(b) to recharacterize the Affiliate Claims as equity interests ( [t]aken together, Butner [v. United States, 440 U.S. 48 (1979)] and 502(b) support the bankruptcy courts authority to recharacterize claims. ). To determine whether a claim should be recharacterized as equity, the bankruptcy court should apply the eleven-factor test set forth in Jones v. United States, 659 F.2d 618, 622 n.12 (5th Cir. 1981). See Lothian, 650 F.3d at 544 (also cites to the thirteen-factor test set forth in Estate of Mixon v. United States, 464 F.2d 394, 402 (5th Cir. 1972)). In applying this test, we consider all the factors and weigh the evidence favoring the characterization of the [interest] as debt or equity, 7

8 Case Document 2627 Filed in TXSB on 09/30/16 Page 8 of 14 while realizing that the various factors are not of equal significance and that no one factor is controlling. Lothian, 650 F.3d at 544 (quoting from Mixon). 27. Because recharacterization in the Fifth Circuit is based on Bankruptcy Code 502(b) rather than 105(a), the Fifth Circuit s cautious view of 105(a) is inapplicable. See Lothian, 650 F.3d at 543. The Supreme Court s decision in Law v. Siegel limiting the ability of bankruptcy courts to utilize 105(a) or their inherent power as courts of equity is also inapplicable. Law v. Siegel, 134 S. Ct (2014). Also, because recharacterization focuses on the true nature of a claim rather than on inequitable conduct of the creditor, it is not necessary for courts to be concerned about the interpretive implications of the bankruptcy court s equitable subordination power expressed in 11 U.S.C. 510(c). Lothian, 650 F.3d at As a prelude to a discussion of each of the eleven factors in Jones, the following are examples of testimony to the effect that Mr. Su s family subsidized various non-debtor companies, which in turn subsidized other non-debtor companies, which in turn subsidized certain Debtors so that the Debtors could make payments to their lenders. This testimony evidences that the Affiliate Claims are based on equity contributions to the Debtors, not loans. The following testimony is from the transcript of the hearing in these cases held on July 17, 2013, the relevant portions of which are attached hereto as Exhibit C: 23:8 23:11 (Attorney Melko): Where did Blue Whale get the money to lend to Great Elephant Corporation? (Mr. Su): So is money you come from Su s family. (Attorney Melko): Okay from Su s family. 24:12 24:15 (Attorney Melko): When I say Panama, I mean does the money that comes through TMT Company Limited Panama, SA, does that come from your family? (Answer from Mr. Su): Yes, sir. 32:5 32:7 (Mr. Su): Su s family subsidizes E Elephant Corporation so that E Elephant Corporation paid money to Blue Whale Corporation and Blue Whale Corporation paid money to banks. 74:3 74:9 (Attorney Melko): You recall when we talked about this in your 8

9 Case Document 2627 Filed in TXSB on 09/30/16 Page 9 of 14 deposition telling me that the reason that A Handy company had borrowed more money from its affiliates or related parties than it had paid down on the bank debt was because you said charter rates were low and, therefore, it was losing money? Do you recall that? Yes or no? (Mr. Su): Yes, sir. 128:3 129:5 (Attorney Mitchell): So if Blue Whale is operating at a loss TMT Panama who I think you referred to the Su family makes up the difference by advances to Blue Whale, is that right? (Mr. Su): Difference of principal plus interest. (Attorney Mitchell): Difference in principal plus interest? (Mr. Su): Correct. (Attorney Mitchell): What about other expenses at Blue Whale, if they're insufficient? (Mr. Su) Su family subsidized. (Attorney Mitchell): Okay. So they're both subsidized by the Su family? (Mr. Su): Yes, sir. (Attorney Mitchell): And when you say Su family, you mean TMT Panama? (Mr. Su): Or other companies. (Attorney Mitchell): Other companies that are non-debtors? (Mr. Su): Or Debtors. (Attorney Mitchell): All affiliated companies advanced to Blue Whale? (Mr. Su): It s the record is there, yes. (Attorney Mitchell) Okay. The predominant to Blue Whale though to cover these shortfalls in TMT? (Mr. Su): Yes, sir. 134:20 134:23 (Mr. Su responding to several questions from Attorney Mitchell): This is like a bank. There wasn t any branches in any divisions, right. And you have liquidity, so you have to borrow the money from one bank, on[e] division, and give this money to another divisions. 145:1 145:6 (Mr. Su reading from a D Ladybug financial statement): Other receivables represents amount received by the related parties on behalf of the company or paid by the company on behalf of related parties for related parties operating costs and expenses. (Attorney Mitchell): Correct. (Mr. Su): These receivables are not interest bearing. 29. The Name of the Instrument Memorializing the Transaction. The Affiliate Claims do not attach an instrument evidencing the claims and, presumably, there is no instrument evidencing such claims. Instead, the Affiliate Claims simply describe the basis of the claim as Related Party Payable. To the extent the Affiliate Claims refer to accounts payable, there is no evidence of where the related party payables are recorded or how they are named. Jones, 659 F. 2d at Definitiveness of Maturity Date. Assuming that the Affiliate Claims are only memorialized by a notation somewhere of a Related Party Payable, there would not appear to be any maturity date at all. Id. 9

10 Case Document 2627 Filed in TXSB on 09/30/16 Page 10 of Source of Payments. It appears from the above testimony from Mr. Su that, when money was needed to fund the Debtors debt service and other obligations, the source was Mr. Su s family, with Mr. Su treating all of his entities as divisions of a single business rather than as stand-alone corporate entities. Given this source, the Affiliate Claims would appear to be equity injections from the ultimate shareholders. Id. at 622 n Right to Enforce Payments. There is no evidence from the Affiliate Claims that the Affiliates have any right to enforce payments on the Affiliate Claims. Id. 33. Participation in Management. As discussed above, the ultimate source of the funds were Mr. Su and his family. Mr. Su was the president of each of the Debtors. Mr. Su and his family were, directly or indirectly, the 100% owners of the Debtors. See Hr g Tr. July 16, 2013, attached hereto as Exhibit D, at 109:13 109:15 (The Court: This question is about you, Mr. Su. You, Mr. Su, what is your general relationship to these Debtor entities? Mr. Su: I am the shareholders, I am the president. ). Id. 34. Relationship of Would-Be Creditors to General Creditors. The primary general creditors in these cases are non-insider lenders and general unsecured third-party creditors. Mr. Su s testimony indicates that, when the Debtors had insufficient funds to pay their non-insider lenders, the Affiliates would step in and provide money to the Debtors, through funding by the Su family, which would then be used to satisfy the Debtors debt obligations with the non-insider lenders. It appears that, unlike the Debtors loans with the non-insider lenders which were properly recorded, the equity infusions provided by the Affiliates were never memorialized by loan agreements and, therefore, although there was no express subordination, the Affiliates would not be entitled to payments at the same time or before the non-insider lenders were repaid. Id. at

11 Case Document 2627 Filed in TXSB on 09/30/16 Page 11 of Intent of the Parties. Mr. Su s testimony indicates that the intent of the Affiliates was to obtain funds from Mr. Su s family in order to provide funds to the Debtors to pay their debt service when needed. The absence of loan documentation or a maturity date suggests that these funds were intended to be equity investments. Id. at 622 n Adequacy of Capitalization. As Mr. Su testified, the Debtors did not have sufficient capital to service their debt to the Lenders. In addition, given the quantum of the Affiliate Claims in the aggregate $530 million (see Exhibit A) there is nothing in the record to suggest that the Debtors had sufficient capital to repay the Affiliate Claims. Id. at Identity of Ownership. Based on Mr. Su s testimony that his family injected the funds into the Affiliates, it can be inferred that he and his family owned the Affiliates in addition to owning the Debtors. Id. at Source of Interest Payments. There is neither any evidence in the Affiliate Claims or in the record of these cases that the Affiliate Claims included a charge for interest, nor evidence that any interest was paid. Id. at 622 n.12. In addition, at the hearing on July 17, 2013, Mr. Su stated that [t]hese receivables are not interest bearing. Hr g Tr. July 17, 2013, attached hereto as Exhibit C, at 145:1 145: Ability of Corporation to Obtain Loans Elsewhere. Given the $530 million in Affiliates Claims in the aggregate, it appears unlikely that the Debtors had the ability to obtain any funds from anyone else other than the Affiliates who, in turn, obtained the funds from Mr. Su and his family. Id. 40. The following are the two additional factors from the Fifth Circuit s earlier decision in Mixon, 464 F.2d at

12 Case Document 2627 Filed in TXSB on 09/30/16 Page 12 of The Extent to Which the Advance Was Used to Acquire Capital Assets. The Debtors capital assets were the vessels. From Mr. Su s testimony, the Affiliate Claims were funded to pay debt service and other obligations, not to acquire capital assets. Id. at The Failure of the Debtor to Repay on the Due Date or to Seek a Postponement. There is no evidence that there was any due date at all with respect to the Affiliate Claims. 43. As noted above, Jones instructs that not all of the factors are weighed equally and not all of the factors need to be satisfied. Nevertheless, here, all of the factors appear to be satisfied and all weigh in favor of disallowing the Affiliate Claims because they are properly characterized as equity interests. Id. VII. RESPONSES TO OBJECTIONS 44. PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY RULE 3007(E)(1), THE AFFILIATES IDENTIFIED IN THE INTRODUCTION TO THIS OBJECTION AND LISTED IN EXHIBIT A SHOULD READ THIS OBJECTION CAREFULLY AND LOCATE THEIR NAMES AND CLAIMS IN THE EXHIBITS. PURSUANT TO BANKRUPTCY LOCAL RULE AND THE OMNIBUS CLAIMS OBJECTION ORDER, EACH AFFILIATE MUST FILE AND SERVE A RESPONSE TO THE OBJECTION WITHIN 30 DAYS OF SERVICE OF THIS OBJECTION. THE RESPONSE MUST STATE WHY THE OBJECTION TO ITS AFFILIATE CLAIM(S) IS NOT VALID. IF AN AFFILIATE DOES NOT FILE A TIMELY RESPONSE, ITS AFFILIATED CLAIM(S) MAY BE DISALLOWED WITHOUT A HEARING. 12

13 Case Document 2627 Filed in TXSB on 09/30/16 Page 13 of The Omnibus Claims Objection Order does not require the Committee to attach copies of the proofs of claim included in this Objection. However, the Committee will provide copies upon request by an Affiliate made by the claimant to: Kelley Drye & Warren LLP Attn: Scott Fleischer 101 Park Avenue New York, NY Telephone: (212) Facsimile: (212) VIII. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 46. The Committee reserves the right to object to any and all of the Affiliate Claims on further and different grounds. IX. EXPEDITED CONSIDERATION REQUESTED 47. The Committee requests expedited consideration of this Objection and asserts that the Affiliates rights to review and respond to this Objection shall not be abrogated if the Court grants that request. 48. The Committee is seeking a shortening of the notice period by only two days, from 33 days to 31 days. The Affiliates will still have 31 days to respond to this Objection, which response will be due on October 31, In addition, as discussed above, the Debtors previously filed a substantially similar objection (ECF 2617) to the Affiliate Claims, which they attempted to serve on the notice party listed in all of the Affiliate Claims before such objection was withdrawn. Per the Certification of Failure of Service (ECF 2626) filed by the Debtors, an international courier attempted twice to serve that objection on the notice party listed in all of the Affiliate Claims, but it was an empty house and the courier could not locate a forwarding address. The Debtors objection was also 13

14 Case Document 2627 Filed in TXSB on 09/30/16 Page 14 of 14 served on Mr. Su via at his last known address. Therefore, the Affiliates should have already received a copy and been able to review it; service at this point is just a formality. X. CONCLUSION The Committee respectfully requests that the Court (i) disallow the Affiliate Claims because they do not provide sufficient information, the Committee is unable to determine the validity of the Affiliate Claims, and the Affiliate Claims represent interests, not claims, and (ii) grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Dated: September 30, 2016 New York, New York KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP By: /s/ James S. Carr James S. Carr (admitted pro hac vice) Kristin S. Elliott (admitted pro hac vice) Jennifer D. Raviele Scott Fleischer 101 Park Avenue New York, New York Telephone: (212) Facsimile: (212) jcarr@kelleydrye.com kelliott@kelleydrye.com jraviele@kelleydrye.com sfleischer@kelleydrye.com COUNSEL FOR THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS 14