Free Appellee's Brief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 1 of 25

In re: )
STATE OF

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWAR

)

W. R. GRACE & CO., et at., )

Debtors. ))
)

Case No. 07-00536 (RLB) Hon. Ronald L. Buckwalter United States District Judge (by special designation)

NEW JERSEY, )

)

PROTECTION, ) Appellants, )
)

DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL )

v. )
)

W. R. GRACE & CO., et at. )

Appellees. )
)

)

On Appeal From The United States Bankptcy Court
For The Distrct of

Delaware (Fitzgerald, 1.)

Case No. 01-01139

BRIEF OF APPELLEES
David M. Bernick, P.C. Janet S. Baer Lori Sinanyan
KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
Laura Davis Jones (#2436)

Lewis Krger
Kenneth Pasquale Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038-4982 (212) 806-5400

James E. O'Neil (#4042)
PACHUSLKI, STANG, ZIEHL & JONES LLP 919 North Market Street, 17th FIr

200 East Randolph Drve P.O. Box 8705 Chicago, IL 60601 Wilmington, DE 19899-8705 (312) 861-2000 (302) 652-4100
Co-Counsel for Debtors

Co-Counsel for Debtors

Counsel for the Offcial Committee of Unsecured Creditors

Dated: November 26, 2007

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 2 of 25

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AN THE FACTS........................................................................2
ARGUMENT...................................................................................................................................9

i. The NJDEP Failed To Prove "Excusable Neglect" Or Even Neglect. ................................9

A. The NJDEP's Conscious Disregard ofthe Bar Date Does Not Constitute
Neglect. ..................................................................................................................1 0
(1) Prior to the Bar Date, the NJDEP knew of

but failed to file its claim.......................................................................................................... .11
a claim. ................ ..................................................................................... ..12

(2) After the Bar Date, the NJDEP missed several opportunities to file

B. The NJDEP Fails to Satisfy the Pioneer Four-Factor Test. ...................................15
(1) Prejudice.................................................................................................. ..17
(2) Other Three Pioneer Factors ........... .............. ......... ....... ......... ..... ...............18

II. The Remainder ofthe NJDEP's Arguments are Irelevant to this AppeaL. .......................19
CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................21

1

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 3 of 25

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Page(s)

Cases
Advanced Estimating Sys. Inc. v. Riney, 130 F.3d 996 (11th Cir. 1997) ......................................................................................... 13
Arificial Intellgence Corp. v. Casey (In re Casey),

198 B.R. 918 (Ban. S.D. Cal. 1996) .............................................................................. 10
In re Diaz, 330 B.R. 875 (Bank. M.D. Ga. 2005).............................................................................. 13

In re Enron Corp., 419 F.3d 115 (2d Cir. 2005).............................................................................................. 18
In re Enron, 2003 Bank. LEXIS 2113 (Bank. S.D.N.Y. 2003) .......................................................... 15

In re Grand Union Co., 204 B.R. 864 (Bank. D. DeL. 1997) ................................................................................. 13

In re Inn Horizons. Inc., 751 F.2d 1213 (11th Cir. 1985) ........................................................................................12
In re Keene Corp., 188 B.R. 903 (Ban. S.D.N.Y. 1995).............................................................................. 17

In re Krart Corp., 381 F.3d 709 (7th Cir. 2004) ............................................................................................18
In re Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., 28 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 1994) .............................................................................................. 13

In re O'Brien Environmental Energy. Inc., 188 F.3d 116 (3d Cir. 1999).............................................................................................. 17
In re Pigott, 684 F.2d 239 (3d Cir. 1982)..............................................................................................11

In re Southern Commodity Corp., 62 B.R. 4 (Bank. S.D. Fla. 1986)...... ...................... ........................... ..... ......................... 13 Jones v. Chemetron Corp., 212 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 2000).............................................................................................. 15
Katchen v. Landy,

382 U.S. 323 (1966).......................................................................................................... 10
11

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 4 of 25

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES (CONT'D)
Page(s)
Lowry v. McDonnel Douglas Corp., 211 F.3d 457 (8th Cir. 2000) ............................................................................................ 18
Matter of

Dewey Beach Enters.. Inc., 110 B.R. 681 (Ban. DeL. 1990). ......... ......... ................... ...... ......... ..................... ............ 12

Natl Steel Corp.,

316 B.R. 510, 518 (Ban. N.D. IlL. 2004) .................................................................12, 19

Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Bruswick Ass'n Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993)................................................................................................... passim

Trup Tai Mahal Assocs. v. Alibrahar (In re Trup Tai Mahal Assocs.), 156 B.R. 928 (Ban. D. N.J. 1993) ........................................................................... 18, 19
U.S. v. Torres, 372 F.3d 1159 (10th Cir. 2004) ........................................................................................ 18

Welch & Forbes. Inc. v. Cendant Corp. (In re Cendant Corp. Prides Litig.), 233 F.3d 188 (3d Cir. 2000).............................................................................................. 16

Statutes
Bankptcy Rule 3003( c )(2) ......................................................................................................... 13
Fed. R. Ban. P. 9006(b )(1)........................................................................................................... 9

11

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 5 of 25

INTRODUCTIONl
Despite the NJDEP's assertions that it was "impossible" for it to know that it had a claim
before the Bar Date, the NJDEP clearly was aware of its potential claim no later than November

2002, several months before the Bar Date. The NJDEP has conceded receiving notice ofthe
Grace Chapter 11 petitions, notice of the Bar Date, and copies of a memorandum from the EP A
that alerted the NJDEP of its potential claim well in advance of

the Bar Date. The NJDEP has

failed to satisfactorily explain why it did not file a timely claim based on such knowledge. The
fact that the NJDEP is a governental bureaucracy or that it made a mistake of law in

understanding when to file a claim, do not constitute "excusable neglect" permitting the NJDEP
to now fie a claim against the Debtors.

Further, the NJDEP has not justified its failure to file a claim for nearly four years after
the Bar Date, admitting that it was aware of its claim in the fall of2003. In "support" of

its four-

year delay, the NJDEP cites only one case, which is an unpublished opinion, not controlling in
the Third Circuit, and not on point because the claimant therein could not have known about its

claim prior to the bar date in that case and filed a claim within one and a half months of finding
out about its claim, not

four years. The NJDEP simply has no excuse.

In what appears to be a last ditch effort, the NJDEP attempts to taint this Court's review

by raising several new but irrelevant issues in this appeaL. The sole issue before this Cour is
whether the Bankptcy Court's finding that the NJDEP failed to satisfy the "excusable neglect"

standard for filing late claims should be sustained. The Bankptcy Cour correctly concluded
that the NJDEP failed to satisfy the relevant "excusable neglect" test set forth by the Supreme

Court in Pioneer. Accordingly, the Banptcy Cour's decision should be affirmed.

See Statement of the Facts section herein for definition of capitalized term.

K&E 12235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 6 of 25

STATEMENT OF THE CASE AND THE FACTS2
For over 30 years, W. R. Grace & Co.-Conn. ("Grace") operated a vermiculite processing

plant located in Hamilton Township, New Jersey (the "Hamilton Plant"). (A-118(a), ir 2). In
1995, Grace submitted a report regarding the environmental condition of

the Hamilton Plant (the
Environmental Protection (the

"1995 Grace Report") to the New Jersey Deparment of

"NJDEP"). (A-52(a)). The 1995 Grace Report was prepared by an environmental consultant on
behalf of Grace in connection with the closing of

the Hamilton Plant. (A-121(a), ir II(C)(1)).

Based on the 1995 Grace Report, the NJDEP issued no fuher action letters for the Hamilton

Plant in August and November 1995. See Appellant Brief at p. 7.
In the period from October 2000 to August 2001, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (the "EP A") sampled the Hamilton Plant and its suroundings, and found
concentrations of

asbestos in the soil at the Hamilton Plant. (A-116(a), ir II(A)(1)).

On April

2, 2001, Grace and its debtor affiiates (collectively, the "Debtors") fied
under chapter 11 oftitle 11 of

voluntary petitions for relief

the United States Code (the

"Bankptcy Code"). Pursuant to section 362 of the Bankptcy Code, an automatic stay
immediately went into effect, which prohibits the commencement of any actions against the
Debtors. Also, at that time, creditors, including various agencies within the State of

New Jersey,

received notice of

the bankptcy petitions. Ban. D.I. 279 - 286.3

On August 14,2001, a Deputy Attorney General for the State of

New Jersey, on behalf of
Papers and Other

the NJDEP, filed a Notice of Appearance and Request for Service of

Documents in these chapter 11 cases. Banrk. D.I. 837.

2
3

Citations to "A-_" herein refer to the designated pages in the Appendix to the Appellant Brief.

Bank. D.1. 279 - 286 are not imaged. The relevant pages from these docket entries are attached to ths Appellee Brief as Exhbit 1.

2
K&E 12235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 7 of 25

The Debtors' schedules filed in June, 2001 (the "Schedules") contained multiple entres
for the NJDEP. All scheduled claims for the NJDEP were for environmental

liabilities, in

unkown amounts, and marked as contingent, unliquidated and disputed. Specifically, there are

11 entries on the Schedules for the NJDEP.4 Ban. D. i. 426.5
By an order dated April

22, 2002 (the "Bar Date Order"), this Cour set March 31,2003

as the last date for fiing proofs of claim for all pre-Petition Date claims relating to (i) asbestos

property-damage, (ii) non-asbestos claims (including all governental claims), and (iii) medical
monitoring claims (the "Bar Date"). Ban. D.I. 1963. The Bar Date Order provides as follows:

Any person holding an Asbestos Property Damage Claim, Medical Monitoring Claim or Non-Asbestos Claim who does not file a completed Proof of Claim Form on or before the Bar Date shall be forever barred to the extent of applicable law from (a) participating in the Debtors' estates; (b) voting with respect to any plan of reorganization filed in these cases; and ( c) receiving any distribution from the Debtors or any entity created pursuant to or in connection with any confirmed plan of reorganization in these
cases. . . .
Bank. D.I. 1963 at ir 6. The Bar Date Order further provides that, "notice of entry of

this Order

and of the Bar Date shall be deemed good, adequate and sufficient notice of the Bar Date and all

procedures and requirements in connection therewith if served together with the Bar Date Notice
Package. . . ." Ban. D.I. 1963 at ir 4.

The notice (the "Bar Date Notice") that was sent to all known claimants and published in
several national and local newspapers also makes it abundantly clear that the failure to file a

4

The following divisions or employees of the NJDEP were listed on the Schedules: Division of Responsible Part Site Remediation Att: Richard Burgos (Trenton, NJ), Division of Site Remediation Att: Gary Gruelich

5

(Project Manager) (West Orange, NJ), Southern Air Program Att: Harr Hornikel (Camden, NJ), Bureau of Fund Management Compliance & Recovery (Trenton, NJ), and the following employees: Deborah Cowell, Sergio Honl (Case Manager), Robert Shinn Jr. (Commssioner), and NJDEP Section Chief Bank. D.1. 426 is not imged and the Debtors had not included copies of the Schedules in their Objection to the NJDEP Late Claim Motion. Durg oral argument, Judge Fitzgerald requested copies of the Schedules. The
(Continued.. .)

3
K&E 12235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 8 of 25

claim by the Bar Date wil result in a forfeitue of such a claim against any of

the Debtors'

estates. Bank. D.I. 1960. The Bar Date Notice states in section 9, "EFFECT OF NOT FILING

A CLAIM":
AN HOLDER OF A (CLAIM)... WHO FAILS TO FILE A PROOF OF CLAIM ON OR BEFORE THE BAR DATE. . . ,

SHALL BE FOREVER BARRD, ESTOPPED AND ENJOINED

FROM ASSERTING AN SUCH CLAIMS (OR FILING A PROOF OF CLAIM WITH RESPECT TO SUCH CLAIMS) AGAINST AN OF THE DEBTORS, THEIR PROPERTY OR THEIR ESTATES. . . .

Ban. D.I. 1960 at ir 9 (emphasis added).
Once the detailed proof of claim forms were approved and the Bar Date Order was

entered, the Debtors spent over $4 milion serving and publishing the Bar Date Notice. Ban.
D.I. 1963.

On June 21,2002, the Debtors' servicing agent properly served the NJDEP with several

copies ofthe Bar Date Notice. (A-110(a)-113(a)).6 The NJDEP admits it received the Bar Date
Notice and had knowledge of

the Bar Date. (A-5(a):16-17).

In early November 2002, the EP A provided the NJDEP with copies of a fourteen-page

EP A Action Memorandum titled "Request for a Time Critical Removal Action at the former

W.R. Grace/Zonolite Site in Hamilton Township, Mercer County, New Jersey Action

Memorandum" (the "EPA Memorandum"). (A-128(a)). The NJDEP does not dispute receipt of
i

the EP A Memorandum. (A-177(a)-178(a), irir 9-10).

relevant pages of the Schedules were handed up in open cour. These pages are attached to this Appellee Brief as Exhbit 2.
6
Notice was sent to the New Jersey Departent of

Environmental Protection including the following divisions:

Division of Responsible Part Site Remediation, Division of Site Remediation Att: Gar Gruelich (Project Manager) (West Orange, NJ), Southern Air Program, Bureau of Fund Management Compliance & Recovery
(Trenton, NJ), and the following employees: Deborah Cowell, Robert Shi Jr. (Commssioner), and NJDEP
Section Chief.

4
K&E 12235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 9 of 25

The EP A Memorandum set forth a detailed analysis of, among other things, the Hamilton

Plant site conditions and background, environmental investigations conducted to date, alleged
releases or threatened releases of asbestos into the environment, and the alleged resultant threats

to the public health or welfare. (A-115(a)-134(a)). In a section ofthe EPA Memorandum
entitled "Potential for Continued State/Local Response," the EP A observed that:
State and local governents agencies are not able to undertake

timely response actions to eliminate the threats posed by the
(Hamilton Plant) Site. The state and local governents do not

have the resources to conduct the required cleanup actions. However, both organizations will support EP A during this removal action.
(A-122(a) at ir 8, § II(C)(2) (emphasis added)).

The EP A Memorandum also quotes statements contained in the 1995 Grace Report

submitted to the NJDEP. Specifically, the EP A Memorandum states that in reliance on the
statements in the 1995 Grace Report, the NJDEP issued a no further action letter. The EP A
Memorandum also contains an express statement by the EP A alleging that Grace's
representations in the 1995 Grace Report were inaccurate:

Based upon (the 1995 Grace Report) and in accordance with ISRA (J, no fuher action (N A) was approved by the NJDEP on November 15,1995.... It is EPA's viewpoint that the information described above, as contained in the (1995 Grace Report), is
inaccurate for the following reasons....

(A-121

(a)-122(a), ir II(C)(1)). Robert Van Fossen

and Janet Smolenski, who the Debtors

understand are both stil employed by the NJDEP, were copied on the EP A Memorandum.

(A-128(a)).
A November 6, 2002 entry on a chronology produced by the EP A, confirms that the EP A

Memorandum was forwarded to the NJDEP. (A-136(a)). That same entry states: "(NJDEP) also
kept abreast of

removal activities via (Pollution Reports)." (A-136(a)).

5
K&E 12235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 10 of 25

Despite receiving notice of

the Grace Chapter 11 petitions, notice of

the Bar Date, and

copies ofthe EP A Memorandum well in advance ofthe Bar Date, the NJDEP failed to file any
proofs of claim associated with the Hamilton Plant. Varous other New Jersey governental

entities filed eleven different timely proofs of claim.?

By its own admission, at the very latest, the NJDEP became aware of alleged contamination at the Hamilton Plant in or about the fall of 2003 when the NJDEP was asked by
the New Jersey Deparment of

Health and Senior Services to comment on a draft Health

Assessment for the Hamilton Plant. See Appellant Brief at p. 8. The NJDEP, however, did not
fie or seek leave to file a late proof of claim at that time.
Also by its own admission, "by 2003, the extent of

the contamination... was delineated

and excavation activities began." See Appellant Brief at p. 8. The EP A completed the first
phase of remediation at the Hamilton Plant site in April

2004. (A-138(a)). In conjunction with

the remediation, the EP A conducted "extensive sampling of residential properties surrounding
the (Hamilton Plant) site and found no asbestos above the level that sophisticated lab instrents

can reliably measure." (A-138(a)). The final stage of clean-up began in late 2006 and the
Debtors understand that the clean-up has been completed.
On June 1,2005, more than four years after the Petition Date, and more than two years

after the Bar Date, the NJDEP filed a state court action against Grace and certain of its
employees alleging that they had made misrepresentations and false statements in the 1995
Grace Report with respect to the closure of

the Hamilton Plant (the "New Jersey Action").8

7

8

Claim are identified as Proof of Claim Nos. 144,358,359, 785, 871, 1213, 1214, 15324,15351,17054,17055. See NJDEP v. W.R. Grace & Co., Inc., W.R. Grace & Co.-Conn., Grace-Conn. Successor, Jay H. Burril & Robert J. Bettacchi, (June 1,2005) (the "Complaint"). (A-315(a)-316(a), iiii 59,61). The NJDEP's complaint charges Grace with violating two state statutes, the Industrial Site Recovery Act and the New Jersey Spil, The New Jersey Proofs of

(Continued.. .)

6
K&E ¡ 2235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 11 of 25

(A-298(a)-321

(a)). In that Complaint, the NJDEP demanded over $800 milion in alleged

penalties. (A-318(a), irir (a)-(t)). Again, the NJDEP did not file or seek leave to fie a late proof

of claim at that time.
The New Jersey Action does not seek cessation of a public health, safety

or

environmental threat, remediation ofthe Hamilton Plant site, or recovery of clean-up costs. As
outlined above, the remediation of the Hamilton Plant site occured under the auspices of the

federal governent, with any and all oversight costs borne by the EP A and other potentially
responsible parties, and not the NJDEP. The Debtors understand that the remediation has been
completed. Therefore, the New Jersey Action only seeks to collect a penalty for the Debtors'
failure to "correct" the allegedly false 1995 Grace Report provided to the NJDEP over twelve
years ago.

In September 2005, the Debtors fied an adversary complaint in the Bankptcy Court,
and a motion for an injunction under sections 105 and 362 of

the Bankptcy Code, seeking to

enjoin the NJDEP from prosecuting the New Jersey Action (the "Injunction Motion").
(A-229(a)-247(a)).

The Bankptcy Court heard the Injunction Motion on November 14, 2005 and observed
that "the fine is not the damage, it's simply a penalty. . . (s)o I'm not sure how that's not stayed
by 362." (A-281 (a):

18-22). The Court then issued "a temporary stay. . . so that the parties can

Compensation and Control Act. The Complaint alleges that Grace and two of its employees failed to disclose processing vermculite in a June 5, 1995 report submitted to the NJDEP. the Defendants (A-315(a)-317(a), iiii 60-64). The Complaint fuher alleges that "(sJince June 5, 1995, each of has continued to withold the correct inormtion that should have been included in the (report) and has failed to correct the misinformation provided in the (report)." (A-317(a), ii 65). The NJDEP asserts that the Defendants have commtted a separate violation of each statute for every "day Defendants failed to correct the
material facts concernng the risks of

false informtion." (A-317(a), ii 65). According to the NJDEP, these alleged violations could amount to over

$800 millon in penalties (civil penalty for each person, offcer or management offcial for not more than $75,000 per day for each offense starting in 1995 and each day the violation continues constitutes an additional and separate offense). (A-318(a), iiii (a)-(f).

7
K&E 12235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 12 of 25

meet and confer in an effort to resolve the issues that were discussed (at the hearng)
consensually." (A-287( a): 1-4).

Despite dialogue and inquiries from the Debtors, the NJDEP did not submit a settlement

demand to the Debtors until almost a year later on November 2,2006. On March 5, 2007,
representatives of

the Debtors and the NJDEP then met to discuss the settlement demand. The

matter was not resolved.
On April

2, 2007, the paries reargued the Injunction Motion. At that hearng, the

Banptcy Court stated that "I am stil pretty much convinced that because of the fact that this
is not an ongoing problem, that it is not going to be subject to the exception of

362(b)(4)."

(A-39(a):13-16). The Court took the Injunction Motion under advisement and the parties
currently await a ruling. The issue of

whether the New Jersey Action is stayed by section 362 of

the Banptcy Code or should be enjoined under section 105 of

the Banptcy Code is not

before this Cour.
More than six years after the Petition Date, nearly five years after learning of

its alleged

claim, more than four years after the expiration of the Bar Date, and almost two years after
commencing the New Jersey Action, on April

26, 2007, the NJDEP filed its Briefin Support of

Motion Seeking Order to File a Late Proof of Claim (the "NJDEP Late Claim Motion"). (A44(a)-88(a)). In the NJDEP Late Claim Motion, the NJDEP seeks leave to file a late proof of

claim in the amount of$30,035,577.00 for "estimated penalties." (A-60(a)). The late proof of
claim attached to the NJDEP Late Claim Motion contains no information regarding the basis for
the $30 millon figure. (A-61(a)-88(a)).

The Bankptcy Cour held a hearng on the NJDEP Late Claim Motion on July 23,2007.
After reviewing all of the pleadings and considering the arguments of counsel, the Bankptcy

8
K&E 12235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 13 of 25

Court denied the NJDEP Late Claim Motion. (A-29(a):12-14). That denial was memorialized in
an Order dated August 2,2007 (the "Order"). (A-1

(a)). The Banptcy Court found that the
the relevant factors needed to establish that the NJDEP met

NJDEP had not established any of

the "excusable neglect" standard to file a late proof of claim. (A-27(a):17 - 29(a):7). The

Bankptcy Court specifically stated the Debtors have been working to resolve all claims and if
the NJDEP's claim "were to be allowed in the amount of$31 million, that is a substantial claim

..., and as a result, I think it would be prejudicial to this estate ifit were to be allowed in that
amount." (A-29(a):3-7).
Durng oral argument on the NJDEP Late Claim Motion, the Bankptcy Cour stated,

several times, that creditors who receive notice of a bankptcy fiing, especially if they are listed
as having disputed, unliquidated and contingent claims, are required to investigate the claim and

that there is no exception or distinction for a governental entity. (A-10(a):14-15 and

A-12(a):19-20). The Bankptcy Court also rejected the NJDEP's contention that the filing of
the New Jersey Action in state court constituted an informal proof of claim. (A-7(a):10-19). On August 10, 2007, the NJDEP timely appealed the Order to this Court. (A-41(a)43(a)). By order of this Court, the NJDEP's appellant brief

was due on September 27,2007.

The NJDEP failed to file its appellant brief

by such date, stating that they had not received notice

of

the filing requirement. This Cour granted the NJDEP an extension after that deadline and the

NJDEP filed its appellant brief on November 5, 2007 (the "Appellant Brief').

ARGUMENT
I. The NJDEP Failed To Prove "Excusable Neidect" Or Even Neidect.

Bankptcy Rule 9006(b )(1) grants courts the authority to accept late filings of claims
where the movant's failure to comply with the bar date "was the result of excusable neglect."

Fed. R. Ban. P. 9006(b)(1). The Supreme Cour has held that, under this rule, cours are
9
K&E 12235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 14 of 25

permitted, where appropriate, to accept late filings caused by inadvertence, mistake or

carelessness, as well as intervening circumstances beyond the pary's control. See Pioneer Inv.
Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Ass'n Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 388 (1993).

In determining whether to allow late proofs of claim, the Supreme Cour has stated that
the court's "inquiry is guided by one of the principal puroses of

banptcy law, to secure
the debtor's

within a limited period the prompt and effectual administration and settlement of

estate." Katchen v. Landy, 382 U.S. 323,328 (1966).

The Bankptcy Cour rightfully determined that the NJDEP Late Claim Motion should
be denied because the NJDEP failed to satisfy the excusable neglect test set forth in Pioneer. The NJDEP does not dispute that Pioneer sets forth the appropriate standard to determine

whether or not the NJDEP should be granted leave to file a late proof of claim. See Appellant
Brief at p. 11.

A. The NJDEP's Conscious Disrel!ard of the Bar Date Does Not Constitute
N el!lect.

The NJDEP must establish neglect before the "excusable neglect" test can even be

applied. See Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 388 (stating that before it could determine what sorts of

neglect might be considered "excusable," it must first determine there was neglect). If a
claimant makes a conscious and informed decision not to file a claim before the bar date, there
can be no neglect, leaving the banptcy court with no discretion to grant an extension of time

for the claimant to fie a claim after the bar date has lapsed. See Arificial Intelligence Corp. v.

Casey (In re Casey), 198 B.R. 918,925 (Ban. S.D. Cal. 1996).
The NJDEP's actions leading up to the filing of

the NJDEP Late Claim Motion show a

consistent and conscious disregard for the Banptcy Cour and the Bankptcy Rules. Thus,
the NJDEP cannot possibly demonstrate neglect. For example:
10
K&E 12235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 15 of 25

. Prior to the Bar Date, the NJDEP was made aware on two separate occasions (notice ofthe Petition and notice of the Bar Date) that it may be a potential creditor of the Debtors;
. In 2001, the NJDEP was listed on the Debtors' Schedules 11

separate times as having contingent, unliquidated, disputed environmental claims; and
. In November 2002, the NJDEP received the EPA

Memorandum wherein the EP A made clear that the NJDEP had a potential claim, quoting allegedly inaccurate statements made in the 1995 Grace Report upon which the NJDEP had
based its no fuher action letters.

After the Bar Date, the NJDEP spent resources to fie the New Jersey Action in state cour, but
deliberately and consciously waited four years to seek to fie a claim in the Grace chapter 11
cases. By its own admission "for awhile there we thought we (would) file(J the complaint in

state cour and thought we would fix liability. We didn't think about filing a proof of claim."
(A-7(a):3-6).

(1) Prior to the Bar Date, the NJDEP knew of but failed to file its claim.
The NJDEP contends that its receipt of

the EPA Memorandum does not mean that the

NJDEP had any "reason to think that the (NJDEP) had a claim for the submittal of false

information committed by Grace." (A-177(a)-178(a), irir 9-10). However, as stated above, the
EP A Memorandum explicitly outlined the NJDEP's potential claim and specifically referred to

the 1995 Grace Report submitted to the NJDEP. The NJDEP either ignored the EPA
Memorandum or mistakenly concluded that it did not have to take action in the Chapter 11 cases
to assert any claim it may have.

The NJDEP argues, in effect, that it should be held to a different standard because it is a
governental bureaucracy. (See,~, A-8(a):16-20). But, the case law is clear -- governental

agencies receive no special treatment and must file claims like every other claimant. See In re

Pigott, 684 F.2d 239,244 (3d Cir. 1982) (stating that "bureaucratic ineptitude" does not grant the
11
K&E 12235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 16 of 25

claimant an extension of

the bar date) (abrogated on other grounds); see also, In re Intl

Horizons. Inc., 751 F.2d 1213, 1219 (11th Cir. 1985)(wherein the governent conceded that it
did not have reason to receive special consideration in determination of

its late claims); Matter of

Dewey Beach Enters.. Inc., 110 B.R. 681,686 (Bank. DeL. 1990) (stating that allowing a

governental entity an extension to file a claim because of a bureaucratic "mix-up" would allow

such entity to "be twisted into excusable neglect").

Additionally, as the Bankptcy Court stated during oral argument, creditors who are
listed on the Debtors' Schedules as having contingent, unliquidated and disputed claims have "a

duty to investigate what the claim is." (A-11(a):15-18). See also, Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 384
(implying duty of investigation when the Supreme Court stated "you must file a proof of claim if
your claim is scheduled as disputed, contingent or unliquidated, is unlisted or you do not agree
with the amount"); Natl Steel Corp., 316 B.R. 510, 518 (Bank. N.D. IlL. 2004) (stating that it is

a creditor's "responsibility to explore, investigate and fie a proof of claim against.. the debtors,
not the other way around. The debtors' actions or inactions are irrelevant."); Matter of Dewey

Beach Enters., 110 B.R. at 684. The NJDEP concedes it was listed on the Schedules in 11

different entres for contingent, unliquidated, disputed environmental claims. (A-9(a):20). It
simply ignored its obligation to investigate or file its potential claims against the Debtors.

(2) After the Bar Date, the NJDEP missed several opportunities to file a
claim.

Assuming, arguendo, that the NJDEP was not aware of its claim until after the Bar Date,

at the very least, by the NJDEP's own admission, it was aware ofthe alleged contamination that

forms the basis for its claim "in or about the Fall of2003." See Appellant Brief at p. 8. The
NJDEP offers no explanation for its failure to fie or seek leave to file a late proof of claim at that
time, which would have been only approximately six months after the Bar Date had lapsed.
12
K&E 12235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 17 of 25

Instead, the NJDEP offers two arguents to explain its four-year delay in filing the NJDEP Late

Claim Motion. Neither arguent equates to neglect. Instead, the arguents equate to either an
intentional plan to attempt to circumvent the Bar Date or a mistake in the law with respect to the
impact of the Bar Date.

First, the NJDEP states there was no need to fie a proof of claim because the NJDEP
intended to litigate and establish the amount of its claim in state cour ("there was no need to fie
(a motion seeking filing of a late proof of claim) if

the (NJDEP) were going to litigate to

establish liability as was the purose of

the complaint") (A-179(a), ir 12). The NJDEP is clearly

wrong -- a claimant must file a claim before the applicable bar date, even if the claim amount is
not yet fixed. See,~, In re Grand Union Co., 204 B.R. 864,871 (Ban. D. DeL. 1997) (citing

Banptcy Rule 3003(c)(2)) (stating any creditor whose claim is listed as disputed, contingent
or unliquidated is required to file a proof of claim before a bar date); In re Southern Commodity
~, 62 B.R. 4, 6 (Ban. S.D. Fla. 1986) (finding that governental claimant was obligated to

file an unliquidated claim and failed to otherwise show excusable neglect when its only excuse

for failure to fie a timely claim was that it was uncertain of its entitlement to a claim amount until such amount was recognzed and fixed during a separate criminal proceeding); see also, In
re Kyle v. Campbell Soup Co., 28 F.3d 928 (9th Cir. 1994) (mistake oflaw did not constitute

excusable neglect); In re Diaz, 330 B.R. 875, 879 (Bank. M.D. Ga. 2005) (citing Advanced
Estimating Sys. Inc. v. Riney, 130 F.3d 996 (11th Cir. 1997)).

Second, the NJDEP argued that fiing or seeking leave to fie a late proof of claim in
October 2003, would have had the same effect, and garner the same objection from the Debtors

as to the timeliness of filing, that now exists ("once we missed the bar date and once we decided

to tr to file a late proof of claim, I don't think the debtors - I think the debtors would have

13
K&E 12235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 18 of 25

objected whether it was one year late, or two years late, or four years late.") (A-20(a):23-25A-21(a): 1). The NJDEP essentially contends that the length of delay in filing a claim after the

Bar Date has past is irrelevant. The NJDEP is incorrect as a matter oflaw. "Length of delay" is
one of

the four factors cited in Pioneer. Therefore, the Banptcy Cour rightfully disagreed

with the NJDEP, stating "Even ifthe debtors had objected to a claim that's filed six months late
. .. that seems to me to make an argument for excusable neglect because you fied the claim
within what New Jersey would contend is a very short time after you found out about the claim,

but the problem I have now is, it's four years down the road, and I don't see what takes four

years to put together the fact that you have a claim...." (A-21(a):10-19).
The NJDEP also does not explain its failure to fie or seek leave to file a claim during the
ensuing three and a half

years, while the NJDEP (i) expended the time and resources to file the

New Jersey Action in violation of

the automatic stay, and (ii) filed numerous other pleadings in

the New Jersey state cour, the New Jersey district cour, and the Delaware Bankptcy Cour.9
Simply put, the NJDEP's failure to file its claim on a timely basis does not constitute
neglect that may be excused by the Cour. The NJDEP admitted receiving notice of

the Bar Date

and made a conscious decision not to file a claim for years. It only sought to file a claim when it

was unable to reach a settlement with the Debtors. (A-22(a):12-18).

9 The NJDEP fied:
New Jersey (A-298(a)-321 (a)); . motion to dismiss the Debtors' complaint in October 2005 in Delaware Bankptcy Cour (A-205(a)228(a)); · motion to remand to the New Jersey Superior Cour in October 2005 in the District Cour of New Jersey (A-322(a)-351(a)); . New Jersey Action in June 2005 in Superior Cour of

. reply to the Debtors' opposition to remand to New Jersey Superior Cour in October 2005 in the District

Cour in New Jersey (A-407(a)-417(a)); and
· opposition to the Debtors' motion to transfer venue in October 2005 in the Distrct Cour of

New Jersey (A-

363(a)-378(a)).

14
K&E 12235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 19 of 25

B. The NJDEP Fails to Satisfy the Pioneer Four-Factor Test.
As established above, the NJDEP has not demonstrated the requisite neglect with respect

to its failure to fie a timely claim. Thus, an inquiry into whether or not it has established
"excusable" neglect under the Pioneer four-factor test is unwarranted. However, assuming,
arguendo, that the NJDEP's failure to file a claim prior to the Bar Date constituted neglect, the

Bankptcy Cour rightfully determined such neglect was not excusable.
Whether neglect in failing to fie a timely claim is "excusable," is determined by the
following factors: (i) the danger of

the prejudice to the debtor; (ii) the length of delay and its

potential impact on judicial proceedings; (iii) the reason for delay, including whether it was

within the reasonable control ofthe movant; and (iv) whether the movant acted in good faith.
See Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 381. The burden of

proving excusable neglect lies with the movant.

See Jones v. Chemetron Corp., 212 F.3d 199,204 (3d Cir. 2000).

The Bankptcy Cour found that "excusable neglect" was determined by looking at the
totality of the circumstances and applied all of

the circumstances in reaching its decision.

(A-26(a):21-23). It found that three of

the four Pioneer factors clearly weighed against the

NJDEP. (A-27(a):18-19). Specifically, the Bankptcy Cour stated that "a very long time" had
past between the notices given to the NJDEP in 2002 and 2003 and the NJDEP's moving to fie a
late claim. It further found that the NJDEP failed to present any arguent "that indicates why

there was not some action to come forward in the Bankptcy Cour before this," other than the
NJDEP hoped to liquidate its claim through a settlement, a rationale that does not satisfy the

excusable neglect standard. (A-27(a):19 - A-28(a):5). The Bankptcy Court also found that the
fourth factor -- prejudice -- weighed in favor of

the Debtors. (A-28(a):7 - A-29(a):7).

The only case that the NJDEP cites to support its claim of excusable neglect is In re
Enron, 2003 Ban. LEXIS 2113 (Ban. S.D.N.Y. 2003). Enron is an unpublished opinion from
15
K&E 12235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 20 of 25

the Southern District of

New York and not controlling in the Third Circuit. Additionally, rather

than being on "all fours" as the NJDEP contends, Enron is easily distinguishable from the factual

circumstances present before this Court and does not support the NJDEP's position. In that case,
the claimant did not know, and even with the exercise of a greater degree of diligence could not
have known, of

the facts to support a claim until after the bar date. Additionally, the claimant

waited only one and a half months after learning about its claim to file a motion for leave. In
sharp contrast, as reflected above, if

the NJDEP had exercised due diligence, it should have

known of

its claim prior to the Bar Date, and the NJDEP waited nearly four years after it

unquestionably knew of its claim to file the NJDEP Late Claim Motion.

In presenting its case, the NJDEP attempts to morph the Pioneer four-factor test into a
one- factor test that revolves only around prejudice to the Debtors. Accordingly, the NJDEP
selectively cites the portion of

the Enron opinion that states that there was no significant

prejudice to the debtors because the debtors had not filed a disclosure statement or plan of
reorganization and that allowing the late claim would not have a disruptive effect upon the
debtor's plan.

The Third Circuit has held that a totality of circumstances analysis is the appropriate test

in reviewing the Pioneer factors. See Welch & Forbes. Inc. v. Cendant Corp. (In re Cendant Corp. Prides Litig.), 233 F.3d 188, 196 (3d Cir. 2000). Considering the four factors set forth in
Pioneer, as applied to this case:
. the danger of prejudice to the Debtors is great;

. the four-year delay in filing a motion seeking leave to file a late

proof of claim is not explained, reflecting an apparent indifference to the NJDEP's obligation to file a proof of claim, and would negatively impact the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases;
. the reason for delay in fiing a proof of claim was entirely in

the reasonable control of the NJDEP as it admittedly had notice
16
K&E 12235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 21 of 25

of the Bar Date and was made aware of its potential claim well before the filing ofthe NJDEP Late Claim Motion; and

· the NJDEP did not act in good faith as, on the one hand, it blamed its delay on governental bureaucracy and yet, on the other hand, admitted it did not think about fiing a claim hoping instead to liquidate the claim in the New Jersey Action and reach a settlement in which its claim would be allowed.
(1) Prejudice

The Supreme Court in Pioneer noted that". .. were there any evidence of prejudice to (the
debtor) ... we could not say that the Bankptcy Cour abused its discretion in declining to find
the neglect to be 'excusable.'" Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 398 (emphasis added). The Third Circuit

set forth a number of factors that bankptcy courts must consider in examining prejudice:
(1) the size ofthe claim with respect to the rest of

the estate; (2) whether allowing the late claim would have an adverse impact
the case; (3) whether the plan was

on the judicial administration of

filed or confirmed with knowledge of the existence of the claim; (4) the disruptive effect that the late filing would have on the plan or upon the economic model upon which the plan was based; and (5) whether allowing the claim open the floodgates to other similar claims.

In re O'Brien Environmental Energy. Inc., 188 F.3d 116, 126 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing In re Keene

Corp., 188 B.R. 903, 912-13 (Ban. S.D.N.Y. 1995)).
The NJDEP's attempt to spin the facts to support its position, ignores that there is
prejudice to the Debtors if

the NJDEP's late claim is permitted. The Debtors have a Chapter 11

Plan and Disclosure Statement on file. Bank. D.I. 7559 and 7560. The Plan calls for the
payment of all allowed general unsecured claims in fulL. Upon concluding its curent Asbestos Personal Injury Estimation Proceedings, the Debtors intend to move to confirm their Plan. The

NJDEP's proposed claim of approximately $30 millon is sizable and could very well adversely

impact distrbutions to other general unsecured creditors. Additionally, overtrning the

Banptcy Cour's denial ofthe NJDEP Late Claim Motion would encourage uncertainty and
17
K&E 12235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 22 of 25

deprive the Debtors of any assurance of

the scope of

their liabilities, which was the fundamental

purpose behind the Bar Date. Allowing the NJDEP's late claim to be filed now may open the

"flood gates" for other late claims and render the Bar Date meanngless.
In order to progress towards confirmation of a plan, the Debtors need a degree of

certainty with respect to the potential claims that wil have to be satisfied. Accordingly, while

the Debtors prepare for a tral on the estimation of their asbestos personal injur liabilities, the
Debtors have adjudicated the great majority of

their other claims.io Permitting the NJDEP to

assert such a substantial claim this late in the process wil certainly be prejudicial to the Debtors
and their creditors that have abided by the Bar Date.
(2) Other Three Pioneer Factors

There is no dispute that the NJDEP received notice ofthe Bar Date yet waited over four
years after its expiration to file the NJDEP Late Claim Motion. There is also clear proof

that the

NJDEP should have known of

its alleged claim at least several months before the Bar Date.
Pioneer.

Cours nationwide have "taken a hard line" in applying the "reason for delay" factor of

See,~, In re Enron Corp., 419 F.3d 115, 122 (2d Cir. 2005); see also, U.S. v. Torres, 372 F.3d

1159, 1162-63 (lOth Cir. 2004); In re Krart Corp., 381 F.3d 709, 715 (7th Cir. 2004) ("(I)n this
case, the factor is immensely persuasive."); Lowry v. McDonnel Douglas Corp., 211 F.3d 457,
463 (8th Cir. 2000).

Cours have found that a claimant's additional and conscious delay weighs against a

finding of excusable neglect. See Trup Tai Mahal Assocs. v. Alibraham (In re Trup Tai
Mahal Assocs.), 156 B.R. 928, 930-32 (Bank. D. N.J. 1993) (denying motion for leave because

18
K&E 12235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 23 of 25

claimants waited more than one year after the bar date to file state court lawsuits instead of

claims); Nat'l Steel Corp., 316 B.R. at 519 (banptcy cour "cannot and wil not ignore"
claimant's additional five month delay in fiing a motion after learning of potential

liability as

the claimant "sat on its hands and did nothing.").

The NJDEP's delay is analogous to the creditors' delay in Tai Mahal. The NJDEP Late
Claim Motion was filed over four years after the Bar Date, which is three years longer than the

creditors' "significant" delay in Tai Mahal. Tai Mahal, 156 B.R. at 938. The NJDEP admits that
it was aware of

its alleged claim in the fall of2003. Stil, the NJDEP sat on its hands for almost

two years thereafter and then filed not a claim but the New Jersey Action. It waited nearly two

more years after that before it fied the NJDEP Late Claim Motion. Thus, the Bankptcy Court
properly found that the NJDEP had not established excusable neglect.

II. The Remainder of the NJDEP's Ar2uments are Irrelevant to this Appeal.
The NJDEP spends the remaining 10 pages of its Appellant Brief discussing topics that

are irrelevant to this appeaL. Since it canot establish excusable neglect, the NJDEP attempts to paint Grace in a bad light, apparently to sway this Cour into thinking that the NJDEP is a
"victim" and should be given leave to file its late claim. However, Grace's alleged actions
regarding the underlying claim are not at issue. As discussed above, the issue is whether the

NJDEP has satisfied the excusable neglect standard in Pioneer. Accordingly, this Court should
ignore the entire second half ofthe NJDEP's Appellant Brief.
Specifically, in Point II of

the Appellant Brief, the NJDEP discusses the environmental
New Jersey (ISRA) and the magntude of the State of

clean-up laws in the State of

New Jersey's

10 Out ofa total

3259 non-asbestos claims filed to date, the Debtors have resolved all but approximately 300 non-

asbestos claims. In the past 15 months alone, the Debtors reduced the outstanding total of non-asbestos claims
by nearly 1000. Additionally, of

the approximately 4,035 asbestos propert damage claims filed to date, the
(Continued.. .)

19
K&E 12235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 24 of 25

hazardous waste problem. The NJDEP states "Decades of industral activity have left this state
with a legacy of

hazardous waste. That legacy continues to threaten the State's public health and

ecology." See Appellant Brief at p. 17. The NJDEP also states "the State penalty action clearly
involves critical issues of public health, safety and the environment." See Appellant Brief at p. 19. (emphasis added) These statements are irrelevant to the issue on appeal and somewhat
disingenuous. All remediation work at the Hamilton Plant has been performed by the EP A or
other potentially responsible paries. The NJDEP did not perform nor pay for the clean-up, nor

did it have to expend any significant administrative resources to assure its performance. And,
now that the Debtors understand that the clean-up of

the Hamilton Plant is complete, there is no

public health, safety or environmental concern that exists. The NJDEP's claim is, as the NJDEP
itself admits, simply a penalty action meant to punish the Debtors by hitting their pocketbook.

The NJDEP also attempts to portay itself in a positive light when, in Point III ofthe
Appellant Brief, the NJDEP discusses whether or not the New Jersey Action is an exercise of

its

police power exempted from the automatic stay of section 362 of

the Banptcy Code. That

issue is currently pending before the Banptcy Cour, has not been decided, and is not ripe for
review by this Cour. The only relevance ofthe underlying litigation is to illustrate the NJDEP's
knowledge of its potential claim and attempt to do an end ru around the bankptcy process to

liquidate it. The fact is, the NJDEP decided in 2005 to expend resources to file the New Jersey

Action in state cour, but still did not attempt to fie or seek leave to fie a late proof of claim in

the Bankptcy Court. Instead, the NJDEP waited nearly two more years after filing the New
Jersey Action, to finally seek leave to file its proof of claim. This extremely lengthy delay,

Debtors have resolved or expunged, or the claimants have withdrawn, all but approximately 200 asbestos
propert damage claims.

20
K&E 12235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 25 of 25

despite repeated opportnities, is in part what led the Bankruptcy Cour to find that the NJDEP
failed to show "excusable neglect."

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth herein, the Banptcy Court did not abuse its discretion in
concluding that the NJDEP failed to establish excusable neglect in failing to fie a timely proof

of claim. Thus, the Bankruptcy Court's decision to deny the NJDEP permission to fie such
claim should be sustained.

November 26, 2007

Respectfully submitted,

~ .'Ô
L r. Davis Jones (#2436)

J l.. E. O'Neil (#4042) s PACHUSLKI, STANG, ZIEHL & JONES LLP

919 North Market Street, 1 ih FIr P.O. Box 8705 Wilmington, DE 19899-8705 (302) 652-4100
and

David M. Bernick, P.C.
Janet S. Baer

Lori Sinanyan KIRAND & ELLIS LLP 200 East Randolph Dr.
Chicago,IL 60601

(312) 861-2000 Co-Counsel for the Debtors

l~J~~ l~r (A6Kl
Lewis Krger
Kenneth Pasquale Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038-4982 (212) 806-5400 Counsel for the Offcial Committee of Unsecured Creditors

21
K&E 12235440.9

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15-2

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 1 of 8

EXHIBIT 1

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15-2

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 2 of 8

UNITED STATES BANUPTCY COURT . FOR THE DISTRCT OF DELA WAR

Inre:
W. R. GRACE &. CO., et al

§ § §
§
Chapter 11

§

Debtors.

§ §

Case No. 01-01139

(Jointly Admstered)

CERTIFCATE OF SERVICE

. I hereby certif that the applicable documents, more fuly described on the atached
Exhibit" A," was

served April 25, 2001 via United States fist class mai or applicable foreign

postage, on the pares listed on the accompanyig seivce lit.

~\~~
R.R. DONNLLEY & SONS

-!. I i

PamelaD. Fackler'
1842 Colonial Vilage Lane
Lancaster, P A 17605 717/390-7369
Dated: L\\d5 \ö \

",

~rn.~
No Se
'F!!! M.1:ay, Nota Puic Eas ..ii'l, LastConty
My Commllii/øn £)l Dec. 6, 203
. Membtt,"Pësy Of

NoIits

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15-2

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 3 of 8

UNTED STATES BANUPTCY COURT FOR TH DISTRICT OF DELAWAR

Inre:
W. R GRACE & CO., et a1

§ § § § §
Chapter 11

Debtors.

d§ §

Case No. 01-01139

(Jointly Admstered)

EXHIT "A" TO CERTIICATE OF SERVICE

1. Notice of Commencement of Chapter 11 Banptcy Cases, Meeting of Credtors and Fixig of Certn Dates

. ¡ I i i

W.R. Grace Co.
Service li

Dale: 04251001

Notice of Commencement and Meeting of Creditors

Time: 13:01 :37

. Person Code

Name
Alln 837 S. GLASTER ST. C/O SRD TUPELO MS 38802' Atln 837 S. GLASTER ST. C/O SRD TUPELO MS 38802
elLIJAY

N. MISS:

MEDICAL CENTER

~
Alln C/O ASC SHERTON ROAD EVANSTON IL6001
POBOX 128 EAST

N. MISS. MEDICAL CENTER

N. WESTeRN UNIVERSITY

GA3039

1588402 1588471 '1597966 1589282 1589283
HWV 282 EAST EAST ELLIJAY GA 30

N.A. WEST BLOCK' N.A. WEST BLOCK
HGWV. 282 EAST ELLIJAY GA 3053
PO BOX 11398 NEWARK NJ 7101

N.A. WEST BLOCK CO.

1611080 1554196
2780 JETPORT RD., SUITE A KINSTON NC 28504

N.B.M.U.A.

160
A lTN: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE RALEIGH NC 27611
PO BOX 40399 RALEIGH NC 27629"(399
479 BROADWAY RD. DRACUT MA 1826
678 IPPONMATSU. NUMAZU SHIZUOKA IT 99999999 JAPAN

N.C. GLOBAL TRANPARK ATH.

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

N.C. PRODUCTS N.C.M.C.A

1585129 1553828 1585142 1112808

N.E. CEMENT BLOCK

N.E. CHEMCAT

N.e. CHEMCAT

1115658 1553751 1587667 1553231
678 IPPONMATSU, NUMAZ SHIZUOKA 410..31T 999.99999 JAPAN PO BOX 962 ANGEL FIRE NM 8n10 RTE 30 FRAINGHAM MA 1701 50 BURROUGHS STEET BOSTON. MA MA 2130
Att INDUSTRIAL DRIVE INDUSTRIAL PARK BLYTHEVIllE AR 72315

N.E. PICQUeT N.E. READY MIX CONCRETE CORP.

N.E.C.O.EM.
Alln AlTN: PURCHASING PO BOX 124 BLYTHEVILLE AR 72316 4 BAlTERYMARCH PARK QUINCY MA 2169
12 INDUSTRIAL PARK DRIVE CONCORD NH 3301

1111721-

N.E.R. DATA PRODllCTS N.E.R. DATA PRbDUCTS

N.F.P.A. C/O EAST COAST

Document 15-2

1115448 1601253 1602558
P.O. BOX 349 OWINGS MILLS MD 21117

N.H. WILBERT VAULT CO.

-1602561
PO BOX 311 WESTWOOD MA 2090

N.J. DEPT. OF STATE BLDG

Alln CIO NEW ENGLAND FIREPROOFING 200 ENTERPRISE AVE TRENTON NJ 86

N.L.P. ENTERPRISES INC.

N.M.FALES,INC

1592544 1555970 1617431 1098667
76 9TH AVENUE 'NEW YORK NY 10011
Alln C/O oi YMPIC WAll

N.N.E.C.P.A. N.P.A.. INC.

PO BOX 6427 SCARBOROUGH ME 0470-627 Alln NAVIERAS PO BOX 80 PHILADELPHIA PA 19101.8069

N.S. LOWE COMPANY. INC.

157230 160084
PO BOX 1026 THREE RIVERS MI !l9093

N.S.P.

414 NICHOLET MAL MINNEAPOLIS MN 5540

1555273

N~T. FASTENERS & SUPPLY

15861.37

N.T. GARGIULOIDRESICK

Alln 3530 W. SHAW AVENUE PHOENIX COATINGS FIREBAUGH CA 93622
Alln HUBART. HUNT & NICHOLS SITE C/O J.L. MANTA 2700 MIDFIELD DRIVE DETROIT MI48242
Alln CLO BAHL, INC. 85TH AVENUE OFF OF 1-94 MAPLE GROVE MN 5536
1531 SAINT JAMES STREET RICHMOND VA 23222

Filed 11/26/2007

16020 16080

157937

1587942

N.W. AIRLINESIETROIT-MIDFIELD TERM N.W. ATHLETIC CLUB N.W. MARTIN BROTHERS N.W. PIPE COMPANY

1617555

N.W. WAll & CEILING BUREAU

12351 RANCHO RD. ADELAO CA 92301 1032-A NE 65TH STREET SEA lTLE WA 98115
Alln CHURCH STREET STATIQN P.O. BOX 9097 NEW YORK NY 1029097

154181

N.Y.C. DEPT. OF FINANCE

1587097

Noo18102

111173

N002160

Atln NORFOLK NAVAL SHIPYARD RECEIVING OFFICER, BLDG. 276 PORTSMOUT VA 23709-5 Atln RECEIVING OFFICER. MS-31 SUPPLY DEPT. BLDG. 665 PATUXEN RIVER MD 20670-56
N57W24728 NIGHTHAWK CT. SUSSEX WI 5309-509

Page 4 of 8

1097901

N57

15541

11204

NAANRMCA NASA K DAS .

P.O. BOX 7943 BALTIMORE MD 21279.0433 36 MELLOR VALLEY CT ELLCOlT CIT MD 2104-3759 .

Page: 262801 4145

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15-2

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 5 of 8

~ ~
C5 t!

§ ..
ÎD j

~õ
~ I~ tl
ei
C'

a:

on

;i

~ Cl
Z
¡¡

;:

CD w e 0 C'~ ~ fß ~5 g

~ a: =i z I- Z ~ ff ~

., z g a:

~ z~ C

a

~
lì

~
Li

~ ~~!H ~

c( z c(

tJ

~

~ c(
(/

lS (/
3:

æ
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ¡; ts

~
W

I-

~
l:
0""

.,õ

° 'l:: i w 0....... e .... .. .. ~ ° .. ~~~~~~~ ff I 3: c(CI c(wCDa: 8 :. ~ J z ¡; e l'!! ff:; 5i 5i (/ 5 !i ;; .~ ~ z z ¿; ë ! II co ~~~ai~~c( i CDin::z' ezc(c( Cl .~ ë:
15

Ò

ui ~ ~oiã~ ü is.. ~ u.N;!! ~ a: ~a:)-:æ ¡g ::~a: ~ C ;) ii (/ a ir :: I- .; õ .1 a ië~ ~~~~ ~0.!S ~~ff~l~ tJtJ..wa:~""ini1 ~ .~ lñ g: c( ~ ~ ¡:.. A z g l- :i ~g;ts Ci ,. ff ~ .. ì :i _~
'" i:

.. I ~ 2! °

o

! C ~ '"
úi

i

Ii '" ~

a: ~
ff '"

~ 0

¡; S¡;
8 M: N

~ tJ

ii~:: ~ S ¡¡ 3:~liLiI- it~ li '" ..w ~I- Li~Ci c( W fl ¡:ui ~ ~ ~ wCi ¡:~~:: CD~ ti~ (/;:a: 8 Li tE(/ c( a: ~a ~Clw ff ~ ~;" ~5~ i ~N~ i= Wz l:~~ I-Ii ã5
i-~i-i:-"'!Q

~Õ ~ 0.::gza g~æ a:ßzz ~ z ."f~(/W :: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~ ô:g 'il ;: i= Z ;; æ ~
8

;:z~ i=5~ ff ~

~ ~ wWI- ;) !! ..z- !z N rn. ~us

~ :i ~ (/ S gioo z°l: a

:3 ~ ~ .f£ 0

l8 oõ~ (/

C;t?Ë
.:¡ 8

8 õ co
o
:s z

~

¡ ~Wzzzzzzzz i- 5 i eelS ~::a:a:a:a:a:iia:a: ff~ l:
i ~~~ i3~ffffffffffa:ffff~¡¡I:~ru!i1: oI~ I,. ~~.~ ~~~~~~~~~~Clgw ~w: ~
! 0i-i-i- ..zi-I-I-I-I-~l-l-tJ..a:iia:a:ii wff
i gcc(/~(/(/(/(/(/(/(/(/(/(/~(/(/(/(/ cici_ci_~o~
i .. ~ a: a: a: a: a: ~ a: a: a: a: a: a: a: a: a: a: a: a: ~ l: W w w w w (/ (/

! "'o(/ fß ~ ~ ig ig ig ig ig -ig ig ff :r 1-0-

¡ ~~t;t;t;~ ~~~~~ :, u
i i I !

CD ~iiC'C'8i: i! 8 a s; ° 0:: C C.. olDc . __ locofi:~o.Q.~";:!~ c(~o. ¡¡:É:É~aao ~~~ ~~~:;~ ~:~n~.5s:É~:É~:Éz:É ",0. - c( S :¡ c( c( l3 c( I- "(. 0 c(

.. fOooßj:::: 1"C!I~-.: ~o ~ g g z ~ ~ ~

~5l~S~~ ~ff s~fß :: lQ ~ÎD o.~ c(o. ~ N w~ ~~ a:wf: !f ~ zo.~ -:: :¡=i:: u. i :!~::i-g::wzz I- ., 9 WO~8ClClCl ~ ~~~~Æs~ Zl- ~ito =iu. 8lD~ ~C';;~gi:a:c(~ Q¡¡ ~~ë ~ g:ld~ I xacioëãf::S~oa ff ~ õ ::a::i"zzc( j 1i00:iO..i-Cl~~ U =i i ~ff:iI!ã!ii!z l:!~~~~~~~ ! ~~~~~~fÈce ig l: I- CIa:z._aiCli- ~zg~Qff~ffff ~o ::¡¡!3 =i ~.¡! 5 Cf z ..:oCl(/=i=i:s ~~Cl ~ ¡¡ i lñ~~t~a:~gg z ~ ~ ~~~g~~~ cC(/æ~~z::~ gg: tJ~~ ~ i-.,(/ ~ ig:i -,OlD lD",~ZN j ts~C§~eit:;z(5 wo.o. ~(/ãiii~~; -i8~c::::~w:: c(Q z:tC 03:oIl:t¡c(c(~z Ii rn3:a:oC-C'gl- .. W ~ ~äi~~~~i ~~~~31:litiff w-' ~~~ ~~Lii5'" :iLi-'CD..(/l'ciCl ff ~ ;: c(u.::cio.~a:;i1- ~~ aii(5 -8itF-~ i c(lDc(C'Øi::"'~:: oza:~llff8~~ cia: t;~iiZa: =iwwc(zzai I WNi-XX;:I-c(c( 5 ~ ~ c1~~ig88~ a!¡:oa:wciC3'¡~ w ci ñõ ~ -a: w z a w: a ."W"'a:zwa:a: i ~ ii x o!z!zlDoo:i g;x~§æ~~":a ~~. ä: ii ii ~H) ~ ~ ¡: it a a a ¡!ww::oog ::o()w~::::z() o 0 ai :¡ClN~;:;:~g:!z()8~
a:w ~ '"
Nc(c(.. '"

z z z a a a ~ ~ ~

000

0. 0. 0. :: ;: ;:

a a a:~a:

l: l:o l:

~ Z W :: z

..

z W W

C! (/ ~

9 c3 il
s 15 a
lD ;: ¡¡

a a:
~
u.

I ~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~rnit~~g~~ tuu. , 000 oooouooooo~(/;)oc(l:l:~l:~~tsO' i ~zao~ gg~~~~~~~~i~55888ei5e

z W Li Z z W
u. u. u.

~ g c

l: ~ (¡

(/ ° Q

o a a

I- I- I0. 0. 0.

a
W

~ ~ ~

¡ ~S~§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§§~~~i~i~~~ ¡ aaoaaooooaoooaooaaaaoz!z!z!z!zmffff
I ~I~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i i i i i i ~ ~

C C C )- ;) ;) W W W
(/ (/ (/ .. .. .. .~ ~ ~

Li W W

b:
Li

C )-

~ ~ fd
;) )- ;)

b: ° ~

~ a: w W w ii

a:
W

(/

..
:¡

~~ê W w w
.. .. ., 3: 3: 3:

Li W W

°1 m W il wm ID w w w W Li Li m w W æ w w w w w w w w W W Li W Li W W

zzzzzzz z zz zzz zzzzzz zzzzzzzz zzz Z
.. CI

z z z
'" ., C'

w

Z

W Li W

Z Z Z

!~
jg
I f! : ..

.§ 10. I ~ ~ l II ~ I ; i ~ I l Iii ; l I i ~ i ~ I ~ ~ ~ ~.

.. CD '"

~ U;

~~

i j ~ -~~ * II.. ~ ~
RëDCõ

l § ~

~

I I I

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15-2

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 6 of 8

~ ~ .~ õ

ò ~
o ¡:

l ~

.8

'"

~

~ ~ CD ci :i ~

~ lo0
i s ~ l

æqWio aiio~&l

j! l a. 8

~ CD
in
81

~I
ò

-g i '" ..:!",~~g¡ Õ l 0 CD~fà=l=lz
~ ~

loow
'" .... w
CD CD

'88'"&l '" '"

'"

õ ! ¡ ~ "81 ui :; s= ~ In o ;tll~og¡ffffri .. .~ II o C1OWWWin oo õi ~~g:¡ffff~~ ci

3:,

i I ~ .~ ë II a: 1I .,. ., E .
l! .,

.il

õ ..

gI

l I
i i

jl-woo¡:i8°8~tt o f:o~a:a: ~ "' ~ OJ ~ ~ Ooo~S::;: ciZ !~12;e a:.. ~ wo a:oxiSoooooW N ~ ~ ~
~ ffg ;) ~ ~ ã: ~

ül9a:~liliz'" i.;)w~oo.q~&l

w

::

~õ~figi5~ a:g¡ai:¡olzz ~oft~'7~~~ iiwWUlwga: ~~~~~i~ æ.-~ In 0S:o ~ ~ Ii'~ ~,:r ~ ~ ~5.._a:~~~1- ~ ~ ~b; o~;cg;~~~~eõ '" Zw ~ff..~~ ~I/ 5wozwl-0o",oos :¡ ~o ¡~wgit)~~u.fßm lOZa:ZF :¡:¡_wS 0 ~ ~ æoooi2gg¡!EW~Wts:re ~æ~~~g¡9~~~'" ~~~~_~a:" g::o:::iow-zoj I-"'al~~a:;t i-0i-ovw~i-o: "" oo-i~~~~~oZ~lØa:~~ ~ )- I/ ~ ffi'i1OOa:Õ~tJëó :¡;¡xwoow Go ci I/ ~ 0 w ~ ci i- i- In :: In :: In i-wooa. Wwool-wa:cia:W..a." iS~::~~~~~5 ~~w~~~~~l~Õ~~~~~~~~ :iin 0 w N 0 wI/ ~:: o:i ~ lØ 0:i oo:i 0 I-

~~ ~ g ~~

5 ,! 8 ~~-~ lO~ U;~~ _~ ~ 3 ~~ ~
W

o

-

~ ~ 8 ~

OJ

z

N~a:;i-lò ooã:l-o~.8.. :¡ 0 ~ ¡: v'"

sa;ffai~!p

lis~~

W ~ .~ oo x Z ~

Õ Z i ~

~~lD::::llã: oo ~ ff I/~ ~ ~ ~ ~ :i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 9 g¡ U ~ z W:ËZa:a:ff5 ~ ~ x ~ a:a:w õzI/86:~::s:g-oo~w~~ ~!3R;¡!icilI~~ ~ f3 I/w"'i3i3"')- §ÕSl~ ff~a: a:~ooozcil/~xa:w:¡o", ~ 0 s: z rn æl/ 0 :i ! ~I~ ~:¡ 5 ~:1:: ° a.CDOai ~ ~ i! i! ~~8 ~ ß ~:: ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~.~ ~ ~ 5 g iee ..=;.,::""Za:
oo i! ~ I-

I _

.. a: 0 x 0 ~ a: ~ Q ~ :¡ ai 0 Z oo ~ Õ a:b; .~a:a:)-o ~ I/ Z Z ~ oo ~ g ~ ~ ~)- wowXo ~ ~ ~ ~ oo N :i b;~ l¡ii0~:¡~:¡!I~ a:aiWwoa:O--i ~",-:ioooo~a: ala.OO ai is 0 ~ a. ~ ~ g ai ~ ai ~ ~ b; I/ ~ 8 ~ 0 W::oi~OOOw.. o¡r~tü~~gw '" ~ I/ æ ~w~Z!!~!!!¡ii
æ ~ ~ lO :i ci ¡: ~ w 0' ~ a:::ai--a:8 6:'1- a. ~ 6:CD"'a:~OX~~1/oo I- oo lO a. ~ ~.. ~~a:õzoz~s: l-::cilOa.m o::ci.,z~z~o

CD ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i :¡ ~ Z 1I ~ s: b; w

~l;~"~I-~li8 :¡zoZ:¡o:¡l-ai
ooza:wï:Wï::io

,§,§,§,§,§§lO l; ~ ~ 0 ¡ll ~ oo oo oo oo oo oo g: oo :i a. a.
i oo
I i I i I i ! i ! i ¡

,¡ l; S; § c c CD N S; C us l; 0 i: W.a. c i: ~ooeoo~~~~~~~~ooa.~isæ~~ g!¡~~ft(3ft~~

~ ~
t5 t5

a.
:i .

~ ~ o

w

o ~

oi

~ Q Q ¡: ¡:

zzz~~

w z W a ~

ci ci a: a:

w z w 0 ~

~ a:
oo

ci z

~ ~ w

OUbOO wwwww
l5 l5 l5 l5 l5 a: a: a: a: a: a. a. a. a. a.

i !

a: w w. w W W w )I/ W ¡f~;c5: ff~a:wwo ei~ w.LL U. ~ ~ ~ W a: w - z f: f: ff I/ Q ~ oo oo .a: a: ff ~ ~ i: ~ lLOOOOO oo ai 0 W :i :¡ :: w z z z z z z'~ :¡ oo Ii Ii Ii Ii Ii oo .. ~.~ ~ ~ Z~a. w w a: W l- :i :i ~ ~:i Z z ;i :iwwwww I- w I- l~ a: a: .. _ oo 0 0 ~ ~ ~ ~.~ x x X X X X as 2S x x x x x..x ~.:i ~ ~ :i ~ z :! Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z .z Z Z Z Z ~I z
I/
W

I/ I/ :: ::

'x :I x :Ë :Ë w:S:Ë )- )-

~ ~

oi ~
¡¡ w

00

xxx

ci:i.,~i-:i::fg zzzzz xxxxxx i; oaooao 000000 ~ xxxxx zzzzz zzzzzzzz zzzzz

g ~ wa:w - W:i

~ :: ci g ff

w ff :Ë

o~:i~~:i ;¡ci~~ i-oo

~ s: æ

~s;s;s;s;s;

.,
"8

¡Iii iiilli III iii~ mllllli~l1 li liiil ~

~~ie~~~ m=¡;~!~ in",CDlOlØlO

-*i"*i*

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15-2

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 7 of 8

8.. ~ t'
~ ~

,:, õí .~ C~.

.. êD S!

g :i
l' o "" -i l!

I

.. ..
~ ~
co (t CD ~ ~

z~~% ~~ ~: ~zzz~ 0æ ~li~ ~5 ~~ ~~5§ffOJ

I ~ ~~~~¡¡ ~i~;~ ~ 10~~~5~~ ~ ~~~ ... ~ Q o..w~
~ 8l

0

J: ~ 1l i"" Z

in C\ .; '"

° Õ
go

.8 :: -g
f! GI ai

ó: ° 'l::
""

5 OJ i- w 0 ~ ff ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ G5 0 w a: C\ æ ~. ~ ~:: z g ~ :i ~ : ~ :i 0 ~ ~ ~ c ~ a:Q z i- ..!) z z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ 0 i-Co CI-a:~~::w 8a:ci~~:: ~ ci ~ mz~w~a:~ Ulæ~ Ul ~g5ówS -i~~~w~ w :: Õ ° z ~ C\~:i~c(~~ i ~ z~ ii~ G5 ~a:~~a.~:i ~~~ ~ -:: ~iw ~~~~oc:: ~ C\ ~ ~ ° w :: zza:a: ~c~w~~;w~ ~~~ 5 ~w~8w:- ~::ZC\Oa: ~~ w~m a: ~ ri ll ~:::: -iz~~z~~8~~~ ff ~~~b~~ æ8~§~~OJc~ ~~ 1-i\;:¡ l: ci
oW .. a:

j ~ i ~ .~ ~ ~ l i ¡o: ~;a: i ~ ~ ~ I ~o~ I ~

~ ",:i z

ci 0 E

Ii rJ ~ ~L8

"" a: a a. a. w
Ul
1=

o Õ ., .!I Õ Z

i: ~ E o

:: 5~a.a. ~ æ g; -i-i0 wci ~ ~OJ w-iUl~ ~.' ~ = ~oc 0 ~ ~ c ~ ff ~ .. :ë ~ 9 ~ ~ ~ § ~ ~ ! ~ ~ rJ ~ ~ c( ~ ~ S ~ ~ ~ % W :: ~ c( z .. c( W c( -i ~ c( ~ ~ 5 Õ ~ b ~~ ::~ ~ ~ ~ :g ~ g z ~ a:Z%cii-~g :: gc(::~ c(~:-~%:-w~8w~wci~-i%ci::xz rJ -i
w c ~ w a:
¡¡

~ ~ ~ § ~ ~ ~ ~ l§ ~ ~ ~ g ~ ;.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~g:~l§ ~ ~ g ~ ff m ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~! ~ § ~ ~ ~ !z ~ ~ ~ 0 ~¡ ~8~~~~~~ff~C\ ~ ..i "~alci ~ ~ a: ~UlOO
z t; ¡¡ w Od w w ¡¡ w
:- VI a: a:
c( ii u. u.'

l

.~ w ~s:a:a: ~ :: 9 8 ~ æ ~ ci D ~ D ~ ~ g ~:::: g ~ i ~ i ~~:: 5 Q g 0 ~ ci !I~ a. :: a. a. ~ :: :- -i ::= 0D c~% -i l§ 0 ci 0 5 ~ x w 0 ~ x ~ - ~ ~ ~ - 0 ~ Z x D ~ ~ D0c( ~ ~ i: c g 0 = = C\ ¡: ~ ~ :i ff .._c(c( c( c( c( c(.... ci a. c( c( c( Nc( a. ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ _ _ c( ~ ~ ~ z a. c( c( ~ ~
o ¡;

o ~ !z :: c( :: :: ~ G5 :: ~ ~ ~ ~ u. 0

u.

b :i a: ~

K%~~gæl§G~æ~~ci~~%~~~~ff~::Qza:a:ci~a:c( ~ ~ æ 2 ci w Ul c( a: w d li ci ~ 0 t ~ ~ c W ~ a: Q ci ~ ~ w ~ u. W z
~ li ~ ~ c( ~ ~ S ~ ~ ! ~ 8 a. ~ ~¡ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i

~:-oo

~w::w~o~~w~ ~C\8c(ciww _~~ci~Owe _a:~~~a: ~~æ~w~w..o~~oc~w~~ c(~~w .~~a:~~::~w~C( sæ ææ~~~aæææ~éoSS=oé S5~ é=S=~o iê'" i:~
! i-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C\ ~ ~ 3: ! l: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 a. ci ~ ~ ~ § w8 $ ~ ~ ~ ci ~

z o
ci ¡: :ë
~ ~ 1=

~

o ~ æ °
a: w w

a:

;;

w w :i wd-ic( ¿ ~ ~ z
~ ~ ~ o z o o

~ ~ ::

w -i -i W

..

~ ~ ~
~ li ¡!

:i ci ::

o ~ w o
w

g;::~ u. w w o :: ~ ~iz
u. a: a:

~ ~~~~~
;:0 ~ ff Ul w w -i ozã:ã:ir

;; a:

w

~ æ ~
c( a. !L

~ &~titili
z z z

a::iwww

x ~ :: a: ~ c(

~~!z!z0 ~~~~~!z c(~õõ9 a:c(W-i.. go ~z~~~in O. z~o-o
~ ~ o c
a: a:

8-a:o~~m ai ci c(

i=~~~ 51! I! ~ wee Ò ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ cia:a:õ :izw?s~~ wu:i_a:a:
c(-:~wcici

rJ a: w

~ z w o ;: ~
!e

~:i :i z:i
~

~ ~ EI~ Æ ~ ~~ .. .. ..

.~ ~ ~ 8~555 o~a:o ~ ¡: ~ ~ ff ff :: 0 i5c(::c(wa: ~ c( ~ % %:i % % Z~~W~~~ -i -i :: :i z z ci c .. .. ~ z ~zC(c""Y4 o ês 0 ~~êsêsê§ -i -i -i z z z z z z 000000 oóddôd z z z zzzzz zzzzzz zzzzzz ~.~ ~ ~ Z Z Z

~~!.~~~ a: z o~~~~~ o~ff~~~

-i c( Z

Q

~ c; w z z § :S!a-i-i%
w w

z æ ~ ~ ~ I!

C::-i~o

~ ~~g~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~E~~ i ~ g~ ~~! 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~~ ~~~í~!æ
i i ¡ I ) ~~

~ ~! I ~ ~ § ~ ~ ~! g ~ ~! l ~ ~ ~ § l m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~!!; ~~; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l

Case 1:07-cv-00536-RLB

Document 15-2

Filed 11/26/2007

Page 8 of 8

~ ~ ~ 0
~ ~ C ¡:

! t!

~~ . C!~Ul I- Zc 0 I- ~ SN;~ ~~~~~~~~~I- Z &l ~ ~~ ~v Õg:i z ~ ~ Z ~

OJ~ 0 ~ ~m ùS ~ ~ ~~ ãi v Z .. z u.~NN~CC ß~ ~ZS 0. ff8 c( w Z ~NN- Z~ UlG w_i-c( ß z C! :: ~ ~v
~ N OJ'" 51 ~ - &0 SR S! C\ .. 0 ~ ~ ~ - 51 ö, CD "
in in

~m ö,g:i ~S~8a:ca:- ~"~ ~ CD U W ~ N~ i~~ S~)(Ñ~~~~ ~8 ~ ~ a ~

. ~Sio ~~~ow~~~:E~~~~g~ ~ g~~ w~.. ~ I ~~ ~~~ §g8~~§~~ ~S- ~ ~ C
! _ gC! ~ ij ~ ~ a = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a:8 ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~,IO ~ ~
Ii ~gwuw Ul~~ ~",a:w~-~~ ~~"~o~~ l:r~õÖ uz m~~ ~~I~:igu.w ~~C! w_wuc(