Free Motion to Vacate - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

000292STATE-BK Preemption
Grant H. Goodman
From: sent:
To: Grant Goodman [[email protected]) Friday, February 22, 2008 7:43 PM 'Nancy Forty'; 'Alan M. Levinsky'; 'Carlos M. Arboleda'; 'Craig J. Bolton'; 'Daniel P. Beeks'; 'Darren A. Pascarella'; 'David N. Ingrassia'; 'DaVid S. Mork, CIRA'; 'Denise Ann Faulk'; 'Dewain D. Fox'; 'Don C. Fletcher'; 'Edward M. McDonough'; 'Gregory W. Falls'; 'Howard C. Meyers'; 'J. Phillip Glasscock'; 'James A. Tiemstra'; 'James Edward Shively'; 'Jeffrey H. Levinson'; 'Jeffrey R. Parker'; 'John G. Sinodis'; 'John J. Hebert'; 'John R. Clemency'; 'Joseph F. Musumeci'; 'Joshua R. Foresf; 'Julio M. zapata'; 'Larry G. HOOdy'; 'Mark Sifferman'; 'Mark W. Roth'; 'Mary B. Artigue'; 'Michael R. Law'; 'Michelle H. Tong'; 'Paul Sala'; 'Rebecca K. O'Brien'; 'Renee 5andler-5hamblin'; 'Richard C. Cole, Jr.'; 'Robert J. Miller'; 'Scott Gibson'; 'Scott K. Brown'; 'Sean P. O'Brien'; 'Sleven M. Cox'; William Novotny'; 'William Scott Jenkins' 'Grant Goodman'; 'Teri Goodman' RE: In re: GTI Capital Holdings, LLC; In re: G.H. Goodman Investment Companies, L.L.C., Adv. No. 2:07-ap-00031 - David M. Reaves, Trustee, vs. Comerica Bank-ealifomia

Cc:
Subject:

Messrs. Carmel, Reeves, Clemency: As requested, please proVide an accounting and probable distribution breakdown per Administrative Priority Ciaimant; per Estate Professional; and per unsecured/secured Proof of Claim claimant. Please assume in your calculations allOWing for the few hundred dollars in costs, and the $300,000.00+ in fees based upon SSC examining and concluding that a rough sketch of the attorney time involved equates proximately to the costs expended, reflective of the time billed at $300,000.00+ sought for collection from the estates. I noted your personal representations under the so-called Woodson standards. Creditors have, apparently, endorsed the settlement, and that the creditors "interests" were, and are, preserved. On behalf of my clients, at least, my duties require minimally, a formal request for the "Broad Release" and attendant agreements, releasing Comerica and those in privity with Comerica from damages in this proceeding, and interestingly, in "other claims" the estates hold, outside oj the bonkruptcy. Please detail those "other" claims before relinqUishment on behalf of the "creditors" and the "estates" for Comerica's exclusive benefit. This case was centered upon a Complaint, arising out of a two-hour hearing, followed by a few interrogatories and Requests to Admit, followed by 2 "depositions" lasting, in combination, about 1 hour. The Haines oversight was, I presume, non-binding, lasted a couple of hours, was not enforceable, nor were the discussions recorded or admissible for use in further proceedings, as a guess only. Was the use of Mr. Haines name as a judge to add to the Woodson factors or the integrity of the settlement relative to the Woodson analysis? If so, have you waived, by consent of Comerica and the estates, any confidentiality associated with the so-called "mediation" to add to the transparency so vital to the process? Your warranties on the inherent "risk" and "uncertainty of litigation" may be a stretch under the above lack of litigation, or at least under Woodson, were unknowing or unknowable at the filing of your attestations. I represent entities with unsecured and subordinated claims exceeding $3,000,000.00. I was not contacted. Maybe the rest were. In sum, the Woodson standards cannot be applied in a vacuum. No attorney representing a client diligently is simply going to take your word for it, and without contesting your veracity or motivations for the "quick sale", my clients want, and are entitled, to the balance of the estimated distribution schedule predicated upon settlement which includes cash on deposit, at $637,000.00, as a residual which would have been distributed to the very same creditors and professionals in any event. Apparently the net result to the estotes, the estate professionals (except yourself), the Administrative Claimants, and the Proof of Claim Claimants will actually be less, than had you, or other estate professionals never gotten involved. How do the mathematical realities satisfy Woodson? That any client would ask for less than that requested here is not reasonable, probable, and presumably would breach that degree of fiduciary trust reposed in respective counsel of

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT

Document 1 132-8

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 1 of 6

000293STATE-BK Preemption
record. Please provide immediate responses to the above with the agreements, records, documents, and calculations requested. Thanks for your immediate and professional cooperation in this matter.

GRANT H. GOODMAN, PLLC 4156 N. 49th Street Phoenix, AZ 85018 [email protected] (60Z)840-2393 (602)999-9789

From: Nancy Forty [mailto:[email protected]]

sent: Friday, february 22, 2008 4:35 PM
To: 'Alan M. Levinsky'; 'Carlos M. Arboleda'; 'Craig J. Bolton'; 'Daniel P. Beeks'; 'Darren A. Pascarella'; 'David N. Ingrassia'; 'David S. Mork, CIRA'; 'Denise Ann Faulk'; 'Dewain D. Fox'; 'Don C. Fletcher'; 'Edward M. McDonough'; 'Grant H. Goodman'; 'Gregory W. Falls'; 'Howard C. Meyers'; 'J. Phillip Glasscock'; 'James A. nemstra'; 'James Edward Shively';
'Jeffrey H. Levinson'; 'Jeffrey R. Parker'; 'John G. Sinodis'; 'John J. Hebert'; 'John R. CIemency'; 'Joseph F. Musumed'; 'Joshua R. Forest'; 'Julio M. Zapata'; 'Larry G. Haddy'; 'Mark Sifferman'; 'Mark W. Roth'; 'Mary B. Artigue'; 'Michael R. Law'; 'Michelle H. Tong'; 'Paul Sala'; 'Rebecca K. O'Brien'; 'Renee Sandler-Shamblin'; 'Richard C. Cole, Jr,'; 'Robert J. Miller'; 'Scott Gibson'; 'Scott K. Brown'; 'Sean P. O'Brien'; 'Steven M. Cox'; 'William Novotny'; 'William Scott Jenkins' SUbject: In re: GTI Capital Holdings, LLC; In re: G.H. Goodman Investment Companies, L.L.C., Adv. No. 2:07-ap-00031 David M. Reaves, Trustee, vs. Comertca Bank-<:alifornia Attached find: 1. Molion to Approve 8elliement Agreement with Comerica Bank (Docket No. 40) 2. Notice of Filing Motion to Approve 8elliement Agreement with Comerica Bank and Notice of Hearing (Docket No.
41)

Nancy G. Forty Legal Assistant

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT

Document 2132-8

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 2 of 6

000294STATE-BK Preemption
Grant H. Goodman

From:
Sent:

To:
Cc:
SUbJect:

Grant Goodman ([email protected]] Friday, February 22, 2008 11 :33 AM 'Michael Carmel'; 'Grant Goodman' 'David Reaves'; 'Bob Miller'; 'Jack Hebert'; 'McDonough, Edward M.'; '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' RE: Objection to Motion to "Quash" MicroSupporl Obstructive Conduct

Mike: I wasn't debating the merits with you. I thought I was clear. The "settlement" appears a white wash, it appears deficient to cover your fees/costs, and other professional fees/costs in the first instance; the "settlement" doesn't address funding, and in what amounts, to satisfy admin. prof./creditor claims, together with new U.S. Supreme Court rulings which allow creditor attorney fees in many cases, when asserted. Certainly the interests of the unsecured creditors won't be touched, and apparently creditors accepting the deal must cut their expectations back. These are my observations which may be incorrect. I want data and an accounting together with the contract documents. This is not a policy debate. These were (and are) simple questions of disclosure, candor, a request for an accounting breakdown of fees/costs minus benefit (cost benefit analysis), together with the contract language disclosed, well in advance of the hearing. The settlement with its "Broad release" language is not in the estates best interests, not in the best interests of creditors (secured, unsecured, administrative priority), does not appear to pay the estate fiduciaries in full (although you must have had express agreement from the estate fiduciaries you copied above), and I assume given the protracted litigation, certain administrative creditors must have also approved the settlement on these terms. Again these issues are apparent to me, and may be incorrect. For example, will anyone above disclose whether the $659,999.99 already earmarked for creditor-professional fees, on deposit, is part of, or in excess of, the "$959,999.99 settlement"? These are not complicated issues of disclosure, nor should you misconstrue my intent. As weak as the proposal appears, I, my clients, the "insiders",. the estates preViously owned by the Goodman entities, and the related Goodman entities simply want to be assured that your conduct does not affect my cases, in this forum, or others. I want to ensure that your conduct, and that of any estate fiduciary does not interfere or preclude litigation which may be filed against the Bank, or which has been filed against the Bank, and those in privity Or an agency relationship with the Bank. I assume all copied above have this information readily accessible. Can anyone please simply provide the facts, and documents, as requested, on an expedited basis. I simply want an informed basis upon which to object, or whether to object at all. If Comerica, and all of the former and current estate fiduciaries, which made millions in fees dissecting the carcasses I owned can't provide answers, can we at least meet with the DOJ representative from the U.S. Trustee's Office to get some clarity? The issue of receipt of a timely, informed, and meaningful opportunity to be heard in a meaningful timeframe through hearing, with enough information to present an informed decision is all that is asked. I do not care about your financial motivations/machinations at the expense of the creditors or others. That is Clemency'S bailiwick, and with some minor exceptions, John knows the estate fiduciaries cannot wage a war of financial attrition against a Bank, just as you Mike, did not have the financial reserves to do anything other than merely create the appearance of litigation, without really litigating anything at all. Then again, I may be wrong. Please provide the factual data as requested twice now in 24 hours. -----Original Message----Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT Document 1 132-8 Filed 06/13/2008 Page 3 of 6

000295STATE-BK Preemption
F~om:

Michael

Ca~mel [mailto:michael@mca~mellaw.com]

Sent: F~iday, Feb~ua~y 22, 2808 19:39 AM To: 'G~ant Goodman' Cc: 'David Reaves'; Bob Mille~; 'Jack Hebe~t'; 'McDonough, Edwa~d M.'; 'G~egg Subject; RE; Objection to Motion to "Quash" Mic~oSuppo~t Obst~uctive Conduct
G~ant,

Cu~~y'

I will not debate the

me~its

with you.

If you have an objection you should file it and Judge Curley will su~ely conside~ you~ position at the Ma~ch 11 hea~ing. If you do not file an objection I will let JUdge Cu~ley know you sent me the email, and if she wants it to be pa~t of the reco~d I will have a copy fo~ her. Mike Michael w. Ca~mel 89 E. Columbus Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85912 Ph. (692) 264.4965 Fax (692) 277-9144

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE CIRCULAR 239 Disclosu~e: As provided fo~ in Treasury Regulations, advice (if any) ~elating to federal taxes that is contained in this communication (including attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the pu~pose of (1) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code, or (2) promoting, marketing o~ ~ecommending to another pa~ty any plan or a~rangement addressed herein. NOTE; This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is add~essed. It may contain info~mation that is privileged, confidential, or otherwise p~otected from disclosure unde~ applicable law. If the ~eade~ of this message is not the intended recipient, o~ the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly p~ohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to the sender of this E-Mail at [email protected], or by telephone at (692) 264-4965.
-----O~iginal Message----From: Grant Goodman [mailto;[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2808 9;11 PM To; [email protected] Cc; [email protected]; [email protected]; 'Grant Goodman'; [email protected] Subject; RE: Objection to Motion to "Quash" MicroSupport Obstructive Conduct

Mike; That's emba~rassing, and disappointing. Based on your contingency, you'll receive approximately $380,999.99-$499,999.99 for a period of nine months o~ less, not haVing litigated or tried a thing, except a two hou~ hearing, that I am awa~e of, and the 25 pages of deposition testimony taken from 2 witnesses a couple of weeks ago. If I am mistaken let me know. The "estates"
Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT Document 2 132-8 Filed 06/13/2008 Page 4 of 6

000296STATE-BK Preemption

will receive about $500,OOO.OO, maybe (see below), that they were not already entitled to. As long as all the secured and unsecured creditors are with you, and full disclosure of the fees and net result obtained from the settled claims for the affected creditors has been fully and fairly disclosed, as required, and as long as the Goodman creditors, Goodman "insiders", and Goodman entities outside of the BK are expressly reserving, by agreement, all issues, claims, and damages, outside of the BK, there should be no need to file formal objections and litigate the appropriateness of the agreement. In the absence of full, candid, and specific disclosure regarding the above (and below), the settlement will be litigated on the merits by the "insiders", by the Goodman creditors of the estates, (Stirling Bridge; New York-Newport; Triad; and the Goodmans as guarantors/sureties) on the issues of res judicata, collateral estoppel, (issue/claim preclusion principles). The entities I represent and the Goodmans are not approving the settlement in any way, shape, or form. As long as my objections are expressly recorded, and reserved, in the "settlement" documents for issue/claim preclusion purposes then, I suppose, there is nothing more I can do about the so-called settlement. However, absent these conditions incorporated into the release documents ("Broad releases"), and settlement agreements (which I need immediate copies of for review) then we will approach the hearing requiring and/or requesting the Court to incorporate the above to eliminate any speculation as to the effect of the agreements as the cases proceed, in this, and other forums. I want to see the release and agreement language regarding stipulated facts, stipulated damages, if any, stipulated liability, and stipulations as to conduct expressed and approved in the Complaint, as well as references to the Court's Order of August 39, 2907, if any. Lastly, the estate funds on deposit were in the range of $659,999.99. I assume the "settlement" is payment of $950,990.99 in addition to the estates keeping the $659,099.99 away fram Camerica for payment to the secured/unsecured creditors. If that assumption is incorrect please advise. Clemency has been copied so that in the event the above limitations on settlement are litigated, it will be you, John, Camerica Bank, Greenberg Traurig, and David Reaves, versus the Goodman entities on the issue/claim preclusive effect of any stipulated judgment, settlement, settlement agreement and or waiver and release contracts. Thanks for your immediate attention to the above. Please provide this email to Mr. Reaves, as well as Alan Costello. -----Original Message----From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2998 1:51 PM To: Grant Goodman SUbject: Re: Objection to Motion to "Quash" MicroSupport Obstructive Conduct Grant, We settled with Comereica yesterday. 950,099. Broad releases for all estate claims wherever asserted. The Motion will be filed tomorrow and scheduled for hearing on March 11 @10:00. Mike Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile -----Original Message----From: "Grant Goodman" Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2998 12:44:17 To:"'Robert S. Porter '" ,"'Kent Turley'" ,"'David J. Catanese'"
Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT Document3132-8 Filed 06/13/2008 Page 5 of 6

000297STATE-BK Preemption

... ·Michael Carmel'" ,"'Grant Goodman'" Cc:,,, SUbject: Objection to Motion to "Quash" MicroSupport Obstructive Conduct Please see attached. This electronic copy will be your only copy. Original and court copies may be manually confirmed through review of the docket, and or direct file review at the Clerk's office. GRANT H. GOODMAN, PLLC 4156 N. 49th Street Phoenix, AZ 85018 [email protected] (602)840-2393 (602)999-9789

_ _ _ _ NOD32 2894 (20080221) Information This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system. http://www.eset.com

_

Case 2:03-cv-01587-JAT

Document4132-8

Filed 06/13/2008

Page 6 of 6