Case 8:10-bk-16743-TA

Doc 820 Filed 05/08/12 Entered 05/08/12 11:19:09 Main Document Page 1 of 16

Desc

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

RON BENDER (SBN 143364) TODD M. ARNOLD (SBN 221868) LEVENE, NEALE, BENDER, YOO & BRILL L.L.P. 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1700 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 229-1234; Facsimile: (310) 229-1244 Email: rb@LNBYB.com; tma@LNBYB.com Attorneys for Chapter 11 Debtors and Debtors in Possession and Estate Representative

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (SANTA ANA DIVISION) In re: WESTCLIFF MEDICAL LABORATORIES, INC., Debtor. __________________________________ BIOLABS, INC., Debtor. __________________________________ Affects Both Debtors Affects WESTCLIFF MEDICAL LABORATORIES, INC. only Affects BIOLABS, INC. only Post-Confirmation Status Conference: Date: May 9, 2012 Time: 10:00 a.m. Place: Courtroom 5B 411 West Fourth Street Santa Ana, CA 92701-4593 Lead Case No. 8:10-bk-16743-TA Jointly Administered with Case No. 8:10-bk16746-TA Chapter 11 Cases DEBTORS FIRST POST-CONFIRMATION STATUS REPORT

Case 8:10-bk-16743-TA

Doc 820 Filed 05/08/12 Entered 05/08/12 11:19:09 Main Document Page 2 of 16

Desc

1 2 3

Westcliff Medical Laboratories, Inc. and BioLabs, Inc. (collectively, the Debtors) hereby filed their First Post-Confirmation Status Report. A. Description and History of the Debtors Business and Events Leading to the

Debtors Chapter 11 Filings

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

BioLabs is the parent company to Westcliff, which was the operating company. The only material asset owned by BioLabs is its stock interest in the Debtor. Biolabs was organized for the purposes of acquiring 100% of the capital stock and other equity interests of Westcliff. Westcliff was the operator of approximately 170 branded, stand-alone, patient service center laboratories and STAT labs that provide various services, including clinical testing, pathology, reporting and support services for the benefit of thousands of out-patients

12

throughout California. The Debtors had nearly 1,000 employees.

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

After suffering significant operating losses in 2008 and 2009, the Debtors were unable to make any debt service payments to their senior secured lenders (Senior Lenders), and the Debtors were only able to survive financially since the beginning of 2009 because the Senior Lenders provided the Debtors with emergency funding to cover payroll and other vital expenses. It therefore became clear to the Debtors in early 2009 that the only viable option

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

available to the Debtors to avoid a shut down of their business and the loss of employment by all of the Debtors employees would be for the Debtors to sell their business as a going concern to the highest bidder. The Debtors therefore engaged in an active sale process since early 2009. To assist the Debtors with this sale process, the Debtors engaged MTS Health Partners, LP (MTS) in October, 2009 as a financial advisor to assist the Debtors with their sale process. MTS, working closely with the Debtors, conducted an exhaustive sale process, having

27 28

Case 8:10-bk-16743-TA

Doc 820 Filed 05/08/12 Entered 05/08/12 11:19:09 Main Document Page 3 of 16

Desc

1 2 3

prepared detailed sale materials and having had extensive discussions and interactions with numerous prospective buyers, both strategic buyers and financial buyers. After having engaged in substantial due diligence and negotiations with a number of

different prospective buyers over many months, MTS and the Debtors collectively concluded
5 6 7 8 9 10 11

that LabCorp was the optimal buyer of the Debtors assets for three primary reasons. First, LabCorp, which is in the same business as Westcliff but is a much larger company, expressed the greatest interest in purchasing the Debtors assets. Second, it was clear that LabCorp as a strategic buyer was willing to pay a substantially higher price for the Debtors assets than any other prospective buyer. Third, LabCorp clearly had the financial means to consummate its purchase of the Debtors assets.

12

The Debtors engaged in extensive negotiations with LabCorp prior to the Petition Date
13 14 15 16 17 18 19

of May 19, 2010 over the details of an asset sale and the terms of a written asset purchase agreement (the LabCorp APA) and related documents. Shortly prior to the Petition Date, the Debtors and LabCorp executed the LabCorp APA and related documents. The Debtors

bankruptcy cases were commenced on the Petition Date to enable the Debtors to consummate their asset sale to LabCorp, as obtaining a bankruptcy free and clear sale order was a fundamental deal point for LabCorp.

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

B.

The Management of the Debtors Chapter 11 Cases and the Sale Process

The Debtors operated their business through the sale process and until the sale closing, and have managed their financial affairs and operated their bankruptcy estates as debtors in possession pursuant to sections 1107 and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code throughout these Chapter 11 cases. With the approval of the Court, Matthew Pakkala of FTI Consulting, Inc. has served as the Debtors Chief Restructuring Officer (CRO) during the pendency of the

27 28

Case 8:10-bk-16743-TA

Doc 820 Filed 05/08/12 Entered 05/08/12 11:19:09 Main Document Page 4 of 16

Desc

1 2 3

Debtors Chapter 11 cases. Laura Contreras has served as the Debtors Chief Financial Officer (CFO) during the pendency of the Debtors Chapter 11 cases. An Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the Committee) was formed shortly after the Petition Date comprised

of seven members (Specialty Laboratories; Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics; Roche

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Diagnostics Corporation; Diasorin Inc.; Qiagen; Irvine Corporate Center, LLC; and Genzyme Corporation). The Debtors and the Committee worked very closely throughout these cases in an effort to maximize the sale price paid for the Debtors assets, to insure a prompt closing of the sale, to maximize the recovery from the Debtors remaining assets, and to maximize the recovery for general unsecured creditors.

12

LabCorps pre-petition purchase price offer in the LabCorp APA was $57.5 million
13 14 15 16 17 18 19

subject to certain adjustments, while leaving with the Debtors, among other things, all of the Debtors accounts receivable (which the Debtors estimated would result in an additional net recovery of approximately $8,000,000 for the Debtors estates) and all of the Debtors cash. The LabCorp APA provided that the purchase price would be adjusted downward if there was a meaningful reduction in Westcliffs post-petition business volume pending the closing of the sale and if that reduction became too large LabCorp had the ability to walk away from this

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

transaction completely. The possibility of the Debtors suffering a reduction in revenue as a result of their bankruptcy filings in this very competitive industry and the resulting negative impact on the purchase price to be paid by LabCorp, or, worse, a complete walk away by LabCorp, is the reason why it was so critical that this sale transaction occur on a very expedited basis.

Case 8:10-bk-16743-TA

Doc 820 Filed 05/08/12 Entered 05/08/12 11:19:09 Main Document Page 5 of 16

Desc

1 2 3

The Debtors also agreed with LabCorp that in connection with the sale closing, the Debtors would be required to enter into a Transition Agreement with LabCorp. The purpose of the Transition Agreement was to facilitate as smooth a transition of the Debtors business and

their employees to LabCorp as possible under the circumstances at no additional cost to the
5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Debtors estates. To make absolutely certain that the highest price possible was paid for the Debtors assets, the Debtors and LabCorp agreed to various overbid procedures which were approved by the Bankruptcy Court. As the Debtors and MTS expected (given the extensive pre-petition marketing effort which was undertaken by MTS), no overbid was submitted. The Debtors requested and urged the Bankruptcy Court to approve the Debtors asset

12

sale to LabCorp on a very expedited basis because of the severe risk of a deterioration of
13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Westcliffs business resulting from the Debtors bankruptcy filings. This is a highly sensitive and extremely competitive industry, and the Debtors were extremely concerned that Westcliff would not be able to retain its customer base for any extended period of time while operating as a debtor in bankruptcy. At the urging of the Debtors (with the full support of the Committee and the Senior Lenders), the Bankruptcy Court approved the Debtors asset sale to LabCorp at a hearing held

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

on June 3, 2010, and the Bankruptcy Court entered an order approving the sale on June 9, 2010. Prior to the sale hearing and after extensive negotiations (which negotiations commenced between just the Debtor and the Senior Lenders prior to the Petition Date), the Debtors, the Committee and the Senior Lenders reached a critically important agreement on an allocation of the LabCorp purchase price and the balance of the Debtors assets (the Asset Allocation Agreement), which was acceptable to all parties and which was subsequently approved by the

27 28

Case 8:10-bk-16743-TA

Doc 820 Filed 05/08/12 Entered 05/08/12 11:19:09 Main Document Page 6 of 16

Desc

1 2 3

Bankruptcy Court. The Asset Allocation Agreement paved the way for general unsecured creditors to receive a sizeable recovery in these cases. If not for the Asset Allocation

Agreement, all or nearly all of the sale proceeds and other assets of these estates would have
4

been paid to the Senior Lenders as they held a perfected security interest against all or nearly
5 6 7 8 9 10 11

all of the assets of these estates. The LabCorp APA required LabCorp to consummate its purchase of the Debtors assets within two days following entry of the LabCorp sale order, which was Friday, June 11, 2010. However, at some point prior to June 11, 2010, the Federal Trade Commission (the FTC) staff contacted Labcorp and the Debtors to request information related to the Debtors asset sale to LabCorp. The Debtors did not believe that this inquiry made by the FTC staff

12

constituted a Proceeding as that term is defined in the LabCorp APA that would have given
13 14 15 16 17 18 19

LabCorp any legitimate basis to refuse to close its purchase by Friday, June 11, 2010. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as a result of the FTC situation, LabCorp did not close its purchase of the Debtors assets as scheduled, and LabCorp initially advised the Debtors that it was not willing to close its purchase of the Debtors assets until the FTC situation was resolved. The Debtors were deeply concerned that such a delay would have resulted in the disintegration of the Debtors business.

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Quest is the largest participant in the marketplace of the Debtors' business (with significantly more market share than any other party); LabCorp is the second largest participant in the marketplace of the Debtors' business; and Westcliff was the third largest participant in the marketplace of the Debtors' business. The FTC staff told the Debtors that the FTC staff had concerns about whether a sale to LabCorp would lessen competition. The FTC staff told the Debtors that the FTC staff would not have concerns if the Debtors sold their assets to a buyer

27 28

Case 8:10-bk-16743-TA

Doc 820 Filed 05/08/12 Entered 05/08/12 11:19:09 Main Document Page 7 of 16

Desc

1 2 3

other than LabCorp or Quest. However, the FTC staff told the Debtors that they recognized the Debtors' grave financial predicament and dire financial need to consummate an asset sale on a very expedited basis.

The FTC staff suggested that the Debtors and MTS formulate a new sale process to be
5 6 7 8 9 10 11

conducted on a very expedited basis to see if there were any buyers other than Quest or LabCorp who could consummate a sale quickly and receive Bankruptcy Court approval of that sale (which necessarily would have required the consent of the Senior Lenders). The FTC staff approved the form of letter (the New Buyer Solicitation Letter) to be sent to parties who previously submitted a formal written indication of interest in purchasing Westcliffs business or its assets. The FTC staff gave the Debtors a preliminary indication that if no party other than

12

Quest or LabCorp could satisfy the foregoing, the FTC staff would likely not challenge the
13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Debtors sale to LabCorp, which the Court had already approved, and the Debtors sale to LabCorp could close immediately. Given that LabCorp had indicated to the Debtors that it was not going to close its purchase until the FTC situation was resolved, the Debtors had no choice but to proceed as the FTC suggested. The New Buyer Solicitation Letter provided that prospective new buyers had until 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday, June 17, 2010 to submit a written qualifying

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

purchase offer to the Debtors. As requested by the FTC, MTS sent the New Buyer Solicitation Letter to all parties who previously submitted a formal written indication of interest in purchasing Westcliffs business or its assets, and MTS (and the Debtors) facilitated due diligence with all such prospective buyers who desired to conduct due diligence. Given the extreme time exigencies in these cases, as the LabCorp APA set an outside closing date of June 23, 2010 and in any event the Debtors were on the brink of running out of

27 28

Case 8:10-bk-16743-TA

Doc 820 Filed 05/08/12 Entered 05/08/12 11:19:09 Main Document Page 8 of 16

Desc

1 2 3

money, the Debtors requested the Bankruptcy Court to schedule a hearing to be held on Friday, June 18, 2010 to consider a sale of the Debtors assets to an alternative buyer if LabCorp refused to close without the consent of the FTC. The Bankruptcy Court accommodated the

Debtors and scheduled a hearing on the Debtors second sale motion to be held on Friday, June
5 6 7 8 9 10 11

18, 2010 at 2:00 p.m. The Debtors advised the Bankruptcy Court that the Debtors would not know until the bid deadline of June 17, 2010 at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time passed whether any new bids would be made for the Debtors assets and, if any new bids were made, the terms of those bids. The Debtors made clear in their second sale motion that the Debtors did not believe that they had the legal ability to sell their assets to a new buyer unless the net sale proceeds enabled the

12

Debtors to pay the full approximately $56 million owing to the Senior Lenders or the Senior
13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Lenders consented to that alternative sale. These were facts and legal standards that the FTC chose to ignore. On June 16, 2010, LabCorp elected to consummate its purchase of the Debtors assets, which rendered the Debtors second sale motion moot. The Debtors therefore withdrew their second sale motion. An important condition to the LabCorp APA was the ability of the Debtors to obtain

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Bankruptcy Court approval of a pre-bankruptcy settlement the Debtors reached with various qui tam litigants. The qui tam litigants asserted claims against the Debtors of more than $56 million. Absent a negotiated settlement, resolution of those litigation claims would have taken years, which would have made it impossible for the Debtors to consummate a going concern sale of their business. All other buyers would have required the same closing

condition because any buyer of the Debtors business would have insisted on knowing that it
27 28

Case 8:10-bk-16743-TA

Doc 820 Filed 05/08/12 Entered 05/08/12 11:19:09 Main Document Page 9 of 16

Desc

1 2 3

had no monetary liability to the qui tam claimants and no ongoing reporting requirements to the State of California. It would therefore not have been possible for the Debtors to have obtained LabCorps agreement to enter into the LabCorp APA had the Debtors not been able to obtain a

pre-bankruptcy settlement with the qui tam claimants, and LabCorp would never have been
5 6 7 8 9 10 11

willing to close its purchase of the Debtors assets had the Bankruptcy Court not approved the Debtors pre-bankruptcy settlement agreement with the qui tam claimants. Fortunately, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Debtors pre-bankruptcy settlement agreement with the qui tam claimants, pursuant to which the qui tam claimants were paid 10% of the net sale proceeds (after a deduction for all transaction expenses). Particularly given the expedited nature of this sale, both the Debtors and the Senior

12

Lenders recognized that it was very important that the sale of the Debtors assets to LabCorp
13 14 15 16 17 18 19

inure to the benefit of all creditors. The Debtors, the Senior Lenders and the Committee after it was formed therefore engaged in a substantial amount of discussion in order to achieve this result. While the Senior Lenders were owed approximately $56 million secured by a first priority lien against the Debtors assets, the Senior Lenders agreed to leave behind for the benefit of these estates a substantial amount of money to be used to pay to other creditors. This

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

was accomplished through the Asset Allocation Agreement reached between the Debtors, the Committee and the Senior Lenders which is referenced above and which was approved by the Bankruptcy Court. Since the closing of the Debtors asset sale to LabCorp, the Debtors have distributed the sale proceeds in accordance with the terms of the sale order and the Asset Allocation Agreement, and the Debtors continued to operate in accordance with the terms of the Transition

27 28

Case 8:10-bk-16743-TA

Doc 820 Filed 05/08/12 Entered 05/08/12 11:19:09 Main Document Page 10 of 16

Desc

1 2 3

Agreement with LabCorp. The Debtors have now completed the wind down and liquidation of the Debtors' remaining tangible assets, including the Debtors' accounts receivable, which were not sold to LabCorp. The Debtors' management team has done a masterful job in these efforts

as all financial results have come in well ahead of projections, which is going to result in a very
5 6 7 8 9 10 11

sizeable recovery for general unsecured creditors. C. The Confirmed Plan of Reorganization and the Present Status of the

Debtors Chapter 11 Cases At a hearing held on February 8, 2012, the Court confirmed the Debtors First Amended Chapter 11 Liquidating Plan of Reorganization (Plan). Under the Plan, the two Debtors are being treated as one consolidated legal entity as there was no practical way to separately

12

allocate the assets (comprised almost entirely of cash) of the two estates between them. As a
13 14 15 16 17 18 19

result, the holder of an allowed claim of a specific priority and amount against one of the Debtors will receive the identical treatment under the Plan as the holder of an allowed claim with the same priority and amount against the other Debtor, and duplicative claims filed against both estates will automatically be treated as one single claim against the substantively consolidated Debtor. The Plan provided that the Effective Date of the Plan (the Effective Date) will be the

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

first business day which is at least fifteen days following the date the Bankruptcy Court enters the Plan confirmation order (unless there is a stay in effect with the order which did not occur). The Court entered the Plan confirmation order on April 2, 2012, which means that the Effective Date occurred on April 17, 2012. The Plan provides for the initial distribution to general unsecured creditors (defined as class 4 under the Plan) to be made within thirty days following the entry of a Court order

27 28

10

Case 8:10-bk-16743-TA

Doc 820 Filed 05/08/12 Entered 05/08/12 11:19:09 Main Document Page 11 of 16

Desc

1 2 3

resolving the final remaining disputed claim (unless the Estate Representative obtains an order of the Court following notice and a hearing authorizing the Estate Representative to make an interim distribution to holders of class 4 allowed claims because of the time delay that is

expected to be incurred in resolving any outstanding disputed claims).

5 6 7 8 9 10 11

The Debtors have filed all remaining objections to claims and a Court hearing is scheduled to be held on May 30, 2012 with respect to these claims objections. Unless the Court continues the hearing on any of these claims objections, all of the claims that the Debtors are disputing will be resolved at the hearing on May 30, 2012 and a Court order resolving all such claims objections will presumably be entered shortly thereafter. As a result, subject to that set forth in the next paragraph, the Debtors expect that the Estate Representative will be in

12

a position to make the initial distribution to holders of class 4 allowed claims by around July
13 14 15 16 17 18 19

15, 2012. A new issue arose recently in these cases. The claims chart used by the Debtors to estimate the distribution to creditors assumed an allowed class 4 claim in favor of Parthenon (an insider of the Debtors) in the amount of approximately $1,684,000 (the Parthenon Claim). It turns out that the Debtors inadvertently scheduled the Parthenon Claim in the Debtors bankruptcy schedules filed at the commencement of their Chapter 11 cases as a

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

disputed claim, which is something the Debtors only realized recently. Parthenon therefore filed a motion with the Court seeking allowance of the Parthenon Claim or for authority to file a proof of claim for the Parthenon Claim notwithstanding the fact that the claims bar date has long since passed. The Committee filed an objection to the Parthenon motion. A hearing was held on April 25, 2012 with respect to the Parthenon motion at which the Court denied Parthenons request to have the Parthenon Claim be deemed allowed, but the Court did grant

27 28

11

Case 8:10-bk-16743-TA

Doc 820 Filed 05/08/12 Entered 05/08/12 11:19:09 Main Document Page 12 of 16

Desc

1 2 3

Parthenon leave for authority to file a proof of claim on account of the Parthenon Claim. The Committee recently filed an order with respect to the Parthenon Claim which provides Parthenon with fourteen days following entry of the Court order to file a proof of claim on

account of the Parthenon Claim. The Debtors expect that Parthenon will file such a proof of
5 6 7 8 9 10 11

claim. The Plan provides that some or all of the members of the Committee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to form a post-confirmation committee (the Post-Confirmation Committee) for purposes of monitoring the post-confirmation activities of the Estate Representative and these estates. The Debtors have been advised that at least some of the members of the Committee do intend to form a Post-Confirmation Committee (or have already

12

done so). The Debtors and the Committee have agreed that the Post-Confirmation Committee
13 14 15 16 17 18 19

will be the entity to represent these Estates in regards to the Parthenon Claim in light of Parthenons insider status with the Debtors. The Debtors do not yet know whether a quick settlement of the Parthenon Claim dispute will be reached between Parthenon and the Post-Confirmation Committee or whether litigation will ensue. If a quick settlement is reached, then the timing of the distribution to holders of class 4 allowed claims will be unaffected. If litigation is to ensue between

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

Parthenon and the Post-Confirmation Committee over the Parthenon Claim, then the timing of the distribution to holders of class 4 allowed claims will be delayed unless the Estate Representative seeks and obtains Court authority to make an early interim distribution to holders of class 4 allowed claims and establish a reserve for the Parthenon Claim, which is a decision that the Estate Representative will make (in consultation with the Post-Confirmation Committee) after the Estate Representative is advised as to the position the Post-Confirmation

27 28

12

Case 8:10-bk-16743-TA

Doc 820 Filed 05/08/12 Entered 05/08/12 11:19:09 Main Document Page 13 of 16

Desc

1 2 3

Committee intends to take with respect to the proof of claim that Parthenon will presumably be filing within the next several weeks. Also, on a related matter, the Plan provides for the establishment of a reserve (the

Administrative Reserve Fund) of $250,000 out of which the Estate Representative shall have
5 6 7 8 9 10 11

the authority to pay his fees and expenses, the fees and expenses of any additional employees whom the Estate Representative determines are necessary and appropriate to enable him to carry out his duties, the fees and expenses of professionals incurred after the Effective Date which the Estate Representative determines are necessary and appropriate to enable him to continue with the administration of the Debtors estates and ultimately to close out the Debtors Chapter 11 cases through the entry of final decrees. The Estate Representative has

12

already advised counsel to the Post-Confirmation Committee that if the Post-Confirmation

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Committee intends to engage in substantive litigation with Parthenon over the Parthenon Claim, the Estate Representative will need to file a motion with the Court seeking Court approval of a post-confirmation modification to the Plan to increase the amount of the Administrative Reserve Fund because the amount provided in the Plan did not contemplate any such litigation between the Post-Confirmation Committee and Parthenon over the Parthenon Claim.

20 21 22 23 24 25 26

As of the date of this Post-Confirmation Status Report (May 8, 2012), there is a total of $8,143,000 in these estates, all of which is unencumbered, comprised primarily from the Debtors retained portion of the LabCorp sale proceeds and collections from outstanding accounts receivable. Other than any litigation recoveries which are obtained by these estates, the Debtors have already liquidated all of the assets of these estates. Nearly all preference lawsuits have already been filed. The last few will be filed shortly. Counsel for the Debtors is

27 28

13

Case 8:10-bk-16743-TA

Doc 820 Filed 05/08/12 Entered 05/08/12 11:19:09 Main Document Page 14 of 16

Desc

1 2 3

pursuing the preference lawsuits on a contingency basis, which means that the ultimate recovery for general unsecured creditors can only increase (not decrease) from the pursuit of preference actions.

The Estate Representative suggests that the Court scheduled a continued post5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

confirmation status conference for late August, 2012 or early September, 2012. Dated: May 8, 2012 LEVENE, NEALE, BENDER, YOO & BRILL L.L.P.

By:

/s/ Ron Bender Ron Bender Todd M. Arnold Attorneys for Chapter 11 Debtors and Debtors in Possession and Estate Representative

14

Case 8:10-bk-16743-TA

Doc 820 Filed 05/08/12 Entered 05/08/12 11:19:09 Main Document Page 15 of 16

Desc

NOTE: When using this form to indicate service of a proposed order, DO NOT list any person or entity in Category I. Proposed orders do not generate an NEF because only orders that have been entered are placed on the CM/ECF docket.

PROOF OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENT

I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding. My business address is: 10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1700, Los Angeles, CA 90067 A true and correct copy of the foregoing document described as DEBTORS FIRST POST-CONFIRMATION STATUS REPORT will be served or was served (a) on the judge in chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) in the manner indicated below: I. TO BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF) Pursuant to controlling General Order(s) and Local Bankruptcy Rule(s) (LBR), the foregoing document will be served by the court via NEF and hyperlink to the document. On May 8, 2012, I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined that the following person(s) are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at the email address(es) indicated below: Service information continued on attached page II. SERVED BY OVERNIGHT MAIL OR U.S. MAIL (indicate method for each person or entity served): On May 8, 2012, I served the following person(s) and/or entity(ies) at the last known address(es) in this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope in the United States Mail, first class, postage prepaid, and/or with an overnight mail service addressed as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that mailing to the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed. Service information continued on attached page III. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY (indicate method for each person or entity served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on May 8, 2012, I served the following person(s) and/or entity(ies) by personal delivery, or (for those who consented in writing to such service method), by facsimile transmission and/or email as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that personal delivery on the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed. Served by Overnight Mail The Hon. Theodor C. Albert United States Bankruptcy Court 411 West Fourth Street Santa Ana, CA 92701 Service information continued on attached page I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. May 8, 2012 Date Lourdes Cruz Type Name /s/ Lourdes Cruz Signature

This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. August 2010

F 9013-3.1.PROOF.SERVICE

Case 8:10-bk-16743-TA

Doc 820 Filed 05/08/12 Entered 05/08/12 11:19:09 Main Document Page 16 of 16

Desc

I. TO BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF) Raymond G Alvarado ralvarado@alvaradosmith.com Todd M Arnold tma@lnbyb.com Phillip Ashman mgolod@mcqueenashman.com, pashman@mcqueenashman.com;bkumamoto@mcqueenashman.com Richard L Barnett rick@barnettrubin.com, rlbsec@barnettrubin.com Ron Bender rb@lnbyb.com Eric S Bershatski ericbershatski@tilemlaw.com Ronald K Brown rkbgwhw@aol.com Donald H Cram dhc@severson.com Jennifer Witherell Crastz jcrastz@hemar-rousso.com Ryan S Fife ryan.fife@dbr.com, mary.avila@dbr.com;docket_la@dbr.com Carol J Fogleman mfrost@bwslaw.com Anthony A Friedman aaf@lnbrb.com John-patrick M Fritz jpf@lnbrb.com Jeffrey K Garfinkle bkgroup@buchalter.com, jgarfinkle@buchalter.com;jmealeyhatch@buchalter.com;docket@buchalter.com Fredric Glass fglass@fairharborcapital.com Nancy S Goldenberg nancy.goldenberg@usdoj.gov D Edward Hays ehays@marshackhays.com, ecfmarshackhays@gmail.com Michael J Heyman michael.heyman@klgates.com Mark D Houle mark.houle@pillsburylaw.com Jacqueline L James jlj@lnbyb.com Jeff D Kahane jkahane@duanemorris.com Andy Kong Kong.Andy@ArentFox.com Rodger M Landau rlandau@lgbfirm.com, kmoss@lgbfirm.com Matthew A Lesnick matt@lesnicklaw.com Michael B Lubic michael.lubic@klgates.com Frank F McGinn ffm@bostonbusinesslaw.com Elissa Miller emiller@sulmeyerlaw.com, asokolowski@sulmeyerlaw.com Kerry A Moynihan kerry.moynihan@hro.com, raul.morales@hro.com Aram Ordubegian ordubegian.aram@arentfox.com Ernie Zachary Park ernie.park@bewleylaw.com Richard Park Richard.Park@usdoj.gov Justin E Rawlins jrawlins@winston.com, docketla@winston.com Benjamin Seigel bseigel@buchalter.com, IFS_filing@buchalter.com David B Shemano dshemano@pwkllp.com Philip E Strok pstrok@wgllp.com United States Trustee (SA) ustpregion16.sa.ecf@usdoj.gov Howard J Weg hweg@pwkllp.com Sharon Z Weiss sharon.weiss@hro.com, raul.morales@hro.com Joseph M Welch jwelch@buchalter.com, jmealey-hatch@buchalter.com;docket@buchalter.com Johnny White , seb@blakeleyllp.com;bblakeley@blakeleyllp.com;rclifford@blakeleyllp.com

This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California. August 2010

F 9013-3.1.PROOF.SERVICE