Case KJC Doc 1305 Filed 01/30/14 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Transcription

1 Case KJC Doc 1305 Filed 01/30/14 Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: ) Chapter 11 ) EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES, ) Case No (KJC) ) Debtor. ) Objection Date: February 13, 4:00 p.m., ) Prevailing Eastern time ) Hearing Date: February 20, 2:00 p.m., Prevailing Eastern Time MOTION OF MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC POWER PRODUCTS, INC. TO EXTEND THE TIME WITHIN WHICH IT MAY FILE A PROOF OF CLAIM Mitsubishi Electric Power Products, Inc. ( MEPPI or Movant ), by its undersigned counsel, submits this Motion to Extend the Time Within Which It May File a Proof of Claim (this Motion ), pursuant to Fed.R.Bankr.P. 3003(c)(3). MEPPI holds a claim against Exide Technologies (the Debtor ) arising from the Debtor s sale to MEPPI of defective, industrial batteries that did not satisfy the specifications, and the Debtor s failure to honor its warranty with respect to such batteries. Movant here moves for entry of an order of this Court extending the time for MEPPI to file a proof of claim (the Claim ) for amounts owed by the Debtor, notwithstanding the passing of the general claims bar date. Although MEPPI was a known creditor that was listed on the Debtor s Schedules, the Debtor failed to serve Notice of the Bar Date upon MEPPI, and MEPPI was unaware of it. Due process therefore requires that MEPPI be entitled to file its proof of claim. Alternatively, the circumstances present cause for extending the time within which MEPPI should be allowed to file a proof of claim, pursuant to Bankruptcy Rules 3003(c)(3) and 9006(b)(1). In support of this Motion, Movant states as follows: JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157 and 1334.

2 Case KJC Doc 1305 Filed 01/30/14 Page 2 of The statutory predicate for the relief sought herein is 11 U.S.C. 501(a), and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3003(c)(3) and 9006(b). 3. This is a core matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(2)(B), and one over which this Court may enter a final order. Movant consents to the entry of a final order on this Motion, in the event that it were determined that this Court lacks authority under Article III to enter a final order on this matter absent consent of the parties. FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. MEPPI Is a Known Creditor of the Debtor 4. On June 10, 2013 (the Petition Date ), Exide Technologies filed a voluntary Chapter 11 petition for relief in this Court, and has continued to operate its business and manage its property as a debtor-in-possession. The Debtor describes itself as one of the world s largest producers and recyclers of lead-acid batteries. 5. MEPPI is a creditor of the Debtor, as a result of a transaction that began in 2012, in which MEPPI purchased 1, G29V GNB Absolyte batteries (the Batteries ) from the Debtor s GNB Industrial Power Division, at a purchase price of $965,246, for use in connection with the installation of a UPS system at a new ExxonMobil Data Center to be constructed in Spring, Texas. The last delivery of the Batteries occurred on or about October 22, Subsequently, the Batteries were timely tested and it was determined that the Batteries were defective, as they failed to hold a charge for the minimum amount of time set forth in the specifications. MEPPI promptly notified the Debtor, and requested replacements, in accordance with the contract terms and the Debtor s warranty, but the Debtor failed to honor its obligations, and MEPPI was forced to obtain replacements elsewhere. MEPPI therefore has a claim against

3 Case KJC Doc 1305 Filed 01/30/14 Page 3 of 13 the Debtor for breach of contract and breach of warranty. See Affidavit of Dean Datre (the Datre Affidavit ), 2-7. The Datre Affidavit is attached hereto as Exhibit A On June 11, 2013, the Debtor filed a List of Creditors (D.I. 59). MEPPI appears on the Debtor s List of Creditors. See Exhibit B, attached (excerpted page). 7. MEPPI did receive in the mail a copy of the Notice of the Commencement of the Debtor s Bankruptcy Case and Meeting of Creditors (D.I. 180). An Affidavit of Service filed in the Case by GCG, Inc., administrative agent for the Debtor in the case, reflects that it was mailed to MEPPI. D.I See Exhibit C, attached (excerpt from D.I. 207). 8. On August 9, 2013, the Debtor filed in Court its required Schedules (D.I. 498). MEPPI is included on the Debtor s Schedule F (unsecured creditors), where it is shown as having a disputed, contingent and unliquidated claim of undetermined amount. See Exhibit D, attached (excerpt from Debtor s Schedule F). B. MEPPI Did Not Receive, and Was Not Served, the Bar Date Notice 9. On September 13, 2013, the Court entered an Order (D.I. 696) (the Bar Date Order ) setting October 31, 2013 as the deadline for filing proofs of claim against the Debtor (the Bar Date ). 10. The Bar Date Order provides, inter alia: 16. The Debtor, with the assistance of GCG, is hereby authorized and directed to serve the following materials on all known Claimants holding actual or potential Claims no later than seven business days after the date of entry of this Order: (a) written notice of the Bar Dates in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit 2, (the "Bar Date Notice"); and (b) the Proof of Claim Form (collectively, the "Bar Date Package"). 17. GCG will serve the Bar Date Package by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, on the following parties:. i. All creditors and other known holders of Claims against the 3

4 Case KJC Doc 1305 Filed 01/30/14 Page 4 of Debtor as of the date of the Bar Date Order, if any, including all persons or entities listed in the Schedules as holding Claims against the Debtor;. Bar Date Order, 16, 17 (emphasis added). 11. Further, the Bar Date Order provides for the service of individually customized Proof of Claim Forms upon Claimants. The Bar Date Order directed the Debtor, with the assistance of GCG, Inc.: to include information reflected in the Schedules as to each creditor, such as, the amount of the creditor's Claim against the Debtor, the type of Claim held by such creditor (i.e., non-priority unsecured, priority unsecured, or secured), and whether such Claim is disputed, contingent, or unliquidated. Each creditor will have an opportunity to review the Proof of Claim Form provided by GCG and correct any information that is missing, incorrect, or incomplete in the name and address portion of such form. Bar Date Order, The Bar Date Order permitted supplemental mailings of the Bar Date Notice under limited circumstances, as follows: Bar Date Order, The Debtor is permitted, with the assistance of GCG, to make supplemental mailings of the Bar Date Package in the event that (a) notices are returned by the post office with forwarding addresses (unless notices are returned as "return to sender" without a forwarding address, in which cases the Debtor should not be required to mail additional notices to such creditors),... and (d) other similar circumstances at any time up to 21 days in advance of the General Bar Date, with any such mailings being deemed timely and providing actual notice and the General Bar Date being applicable to the recipient Claimants, if the General Bar Date is applicable. 13. The form of Bar Date Notice (D.I. 735) which was to be served on creditors was filed on September 18, MEPPI did not receive the Bar Date Notice. See Datre Affidavit, The Debtor or its administrative agent filed a set of initial and supplemental affidavits of service reflecting the parties on which the Bar Date Notice was served. The following 4

5 Case KJC Doc 1305 Filed 01/30/14 Page 5 of 13 affidavits of service attested, in whole or in part, to the service of the Bar Date Notice on designated parties on or before September 24, 2013 (D.I. 739 (filed on 9/19/13), 770 (filed on 9/26/13), 771 (filed on 9/26/13), (filed on 10/15/13), and (filed on 10/15/13). 16. MEPPI is not listed within any of the foregoing affidavits, or the exhibits attached to those affidavits and filed with the Court, as having been served with the Bar Date Notice. 17. Additionally, the Debtor or its administrative agent filed three more supplemental affidavits of service, reflecting service of the Bar Date Notice on the parties listed in the affidavits, on dates after September 24, 2013: D.I. 886 (filed on 10/15/13), 991 (filed on 10/29/13), and 1114 (filed on 11/22/13). MEPPI is not listed within any of these affidavits either, as having been served with the Bar Date Notice. 18. In other words, based on the information set forth in the pertinent affidavits filed by the Debtor or its administrative agent, MEPPI was not served with the Bar Date Notice. C. Other Developments in the Debtor s Bankruptcy Case 19. On October 17, 2013, the Court Clerk docketed a letter received from two California Senators who said they represent the communities surrounding the Debtor s lead battery recycling plant in Vernon, California which, they said, was the subject of great concern as to toxic pollution from the operations. Letter of California State Senators Kevin De Leon and Ricardo Lara (D.I. 896). They said that, in the prior week, their constituents received densely worded letters notifying them of the October 31, 2013 General Bar Date, and they requested 1 The Affidavit of Service docketed as D.I. 876 failed to attach an address list of parties served, but it states that it reflected service on the Vernon parties (i.e., personal injury claimants at the Debtor s Vernon, California facility). 2 The Affidavit of Service docketed as D.I. 883 did not attach any service lists referenced within the affidavit as exhibits thereto

6 Case KJC Doc 1305 Filed 01/30/14 Page 6 of 13 that the Court should, at a minimum, extend the General Bar Date to at least another six months. Id. 20. On October 24, 2013, this Court entered an Order that extended the Claims Bar Date until January 31, 2014, for persons asserting personal injury claims relating to the Debtor s Vernon, California Facility. (D.I. 956). 21. On October 24, 2013, the Debtor filed a Motion to Implement Claims Resolution Procedures for Certain Contingent, Unliquidated, and/or Litigation Claims (D.I. 965). Formal objections to this motion were filed by the Creditors Committee and two creditors, while several other interested parties submitted informal comments and objections. See Hearing Agenda, item 2 (D.I. 1260). This motion remains unresolved; a hearing on it has been continued to February 20, In this bankruptcy case, there has been no proposed plan of reorganization or supporting disclosure statement filed yet. D. MEPPI Acted Promptly When It Became Aware of the Bar Date Order 23. On January 22, 2014, MEPPI contacted prospective outside counsel about its warranty claim against the Debtor. The following day, January 23, 2014, MEPPI became aware for the first time that a Claims Bar Date had been set in the Debtor s bankruptcy case, and that the Claims Bar Date had come and gone. See Datre Affidavit, MEPPI promptly engaged counsel to submit this Motion, seeking authority to file MEPPI s proof of claim (a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit E) as timely filed. See Datre Affidavit,

7 Case KJC Doc 1305 Filed 01/30/14 Page 7 of 13 RELIEF REQUESTED I. Movant Is Allowed to File Its Proof of Claim Because It Was Not Served With Notice of the Bar Date, Though a Known Creditor 25. It is well established that [k]nown creditors must be provided with actual written notice of a debtor's bankruptcy... bar claims date. Chemetron Corp. v. Jones, 72 F.3d 341, 346 (3d Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 517 U.S (1996) (emphasis added), citing City of New York v. New York, N.H. & H.R. Co., 344 U.S. 293, 296, (1953). Due process requires that a known creditor must have actual notice of bankruptcy proceedings, including notice of a claims bar date, before it can be barred from filing a late claim. See, New York v. N.Y., N.H. & H.R. Co., 344 U.S. at 297 (1953); Chemetron. v. Jones, 72 F.3d at This is true even where, as here, the creditor has actual knowledge of the pendency of bankruptcy proceedings generally.... In re Trans World Airlines, Inc., 96 F.3d 687, 690 (3d Cir. 1996), citing In re Harbor Tank Storage Co., 385 F.2d 111, (3d Cir.1967). As the First Circuit Court of Appeals explained: The majority rule... is that the fact that the creditor may... be generally aware of the pending reorganization, does not of itself impose upon him an affirmative burden to intervene in that matter and present his claim... [T]he creditor has a right to assume that proper and adequate notice will be provided before his claims are forever barred. In re Arch Wireless, Inc., 534 F.3d 76, 83 (1st Cir. 2008), quoting In re Intaco Puerto Rico, Inc., 494 F.2d 94, 99 (1st Cir.1974), and also citing Fogel v. Zell, 221 F.3d 955, 964 (7th Cir. 2000); In re Maya Constr. Co., 78 F.3d 1395, 1399 (9th Cir.1996); In re Unioil, 948 F.2d 678, 684 (10th Cir. 1991); In re Spring Valley Farms, Inc., 863 F.2d 832, 835 (11th Cir. 1989); and In re Harbor Tank Storage Co., 385 F.2d at Courts have held that, where a creditor received inadequate notice of a confirmation hearing, the claim of such creditor is not bound by the confirmed plan and, as a result, is not dischargeable. In re Maronda Homes, Inc., 2013 WL (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2013) (Fitzgerald, B.J.)

8 Case KJC Doc 1305 Filed 01/30/14 Page 8 of The burden is on the Debtors to show that they satisfied the notice requirements. In re La Rouche Indus., Inc., 307 B.R. 774, 778 (D. Del. 2004). 28. In this case, based on the Debtor s affidavits of service with respect to the Bar Date Notice, it should be undisputed that MEPPI did not receive notice of the Bar Date. 29. Due process precludes the barring of MEPPI s claim where MEPPI, a known creditor, did not receive notice of the Bar Date. 30. Accordingly, cause exists, within the meaning of Fed.R.Bankr.P. 3003(c)(3), for this Court to extend the time within which MEPPI may file its proof of claim. The Court should allow MEPPI to file its proof of claim as timely, notwithstanding the passing of the Bar Date. II. In the Alternative, Movant Should Be Allowed to File Its Proof of Claim Because the Pioneer v. Brunswick Associates Standard Is Satisfied 31. The Movant submits that it is entitled to file its proof of claim, based on the principles of constitutional due process discussed in the previous section, without the need for application of any further equitable balancing. See In re Grand Union Co., 204 B.R. 864, 870 (Bankr. D.Del. 1997) ( inadequate notice of the bar date, in and of itself, is a separate ground upon which a late proof of claim is allowed to be filed ). However, in the event that the Debtor should come forward with credible evidence that it did indeed mail the Bar Date Notice to MEPPI, Movant submits that it would equally be entitled to file its proof of claim upon application of the standard for excusable neglect In Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P ship, 507 U.S. 380 (1993). the Supreme Court determined that a Chapter 11 creditor was entitled to file its proof of 4 Where a known creditor did not receive actual notice of the claims bar date, the failure to file a proof of claim by the bar date is not the result of neglect. In re Durango Georgia Paper Co., 475 B.R. 755, 758 (Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2004). Under such circumstances, it is not appropriate to apply the factors enumerated in Pioneer and put the burden on [the Claimant] to demonstrate excusable neglect. Id

9 Case KJC Doc 1305 Filed 01/30/14 Page 9 of 13 claim after the deadline set by the bar date because its failure to file timely was the result of excusable neglect within the meaning of Rule 9006 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. See Manus Corp. v. NRG Energy, Inc. (In re O'Brien Environmental Energy, Inc.), 188 F.3d 116, 125 (3d Cir. 1999) (discussing Pioneer). 33. The Supreme Court explained that Congress, through Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(1), plainly contemplated that the courts would be permitted, where appropriate, to accept late filings caused by inadvertence, mistake, or carelessness, as well as by intervening circumstances beyond the party s control. 507 U.S. at 388. The Court noted that the determination of excusable neglect is at bottom an equitable one, taking account of all relevant circumstances surrounding the party s omission. Id. at The Supreme Court in Pioneer listed four factors for courts to consider in making the excusable neglect determination: the danger of prejudice to the debtor, the length of the delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and whether the movant acted in good faith. Id. at 395. See also O Brien Envtl, 188 F.3d at Based on a fair application of these factors, the filing of MEPPI s proof of claim should be allowed. A. There Is No Prejudice to the Debtor If the Claim Is Filed 36. With respect to the prejudice factor in the Pioneer standard, the Third Circuit has held: [P]rejudice is not an imagined or hypothetical harm; a finding of prejudice should be a conclusion based on facts in evidence. O'Brien Envtl., 188 F.3d at In many cases where the prejudice factor is considered, a debtor s assertion of prejudice turns on the status of a plan of reorganization that has already been filed and in many cases also confirmed. See generally O'Brien Envtl., 188 F.3d at Analysis of

10 Case KJC Doc 1305 Filed 01/30/14 Page 10 of 13 prejudice may include, for example, whether the debtor was surprised or caught unaware by the assertion of a claim that it had not anticipated; whether the payment of the claim would force the return of amounts already paid out under the confirmed Plan or affect the distribution to creditors; whether payment of the claim would jeopardize the success of the debtor's reorganization; whether allowance of the claim would adversely impact the debtor actually or legally; and whether allowance of the claim would open the floodgates to other future claims. Pro-Tec Serv., LLC v. Inacom Corp. (In re Inacom Corp.), 2004 WL at *4 (D. Del. Oct. 4, 2004), citing O Brien Envtl., 188 F.3d at None of these factors can apply here. The Debtor cannot fairly be caught unaware; it listed MEPPI as a scheduled creditor on its Schedule F There can be no cognizable impact on the Debtor s plan, or any distributions thereunder, where no plan has yet been filed. In fact, pursuant to an Order of this Court (D.I. 880), the Debtor s exclusivity period for filing a plan has been extended to July 24, 2014 nearly six months hence. Plainly, if the Debtor is even working on a plan at this point, it is only in the development stage. MEPPI s claim could not possibly be held to jeopardize the success of an inchoate future plan. 40. Unless the Debtor failed to serve the Bar Date Notice on a lot of known creditors, there is no basis here for arguing that the proverbial floodgates would be opened. But if the Debtor in fact did fail to serve notice on a lot of known creditors, they would all be entitled to 5 In Inacom, the District Court held that the Bankruptcy Court abused its discretion when it determined that Pro Tec was not entitled to reconsideration of its claim based upon excusable neglect WL at *8. 6 Furthermore, shortly after the Petition Date (and before the Debtor filed its motion to set the claims bar date), MEPPI sent a letter to the Debtor s bankruptcy counsel regarding its pre-petition demand for replacements for the defective Batteries, but received no response. See Datre Affidavit,

11 Case KJC Doc 1305 Filed 01/30/14 Page 11 of 13 file proofs of claim. B. The Length of the Delay Is Not Significant and Will Not Affect the Efficient Administration of the Case 41. In this case, MEPPI s Motion and claim are being submitted approximately three months after the Bar Date. In terms of the stage of the Debtor s bankruptcy case, the submission of the claim is still very early. This is a bankruptcy case that has been progressing not hastily but deliberately. The Debtor has presumably been making use of the automatic stay that bankruptcy affords to address various issues outside the view of the Court. While the general bar date for most creditors passed at the end of October, little has occurred in the case since then. 42. Further, the bar date for the claims of personal injury claimants affected by the Debtor s Vernon, California facility was extended to January 31, 2014 the day after the filing of this Motion after two California state senators objected by letter that the bar date afforded their constituents inadequate time to submit claims. The Debtor has filed a motion to set procedures for sales of de minimus assets, but there have been no motions for sales of substantial assets. 43. Again, there has been no plan of reorganization promulgated yet. 44. An addition to the pool of claims at this stage can hardly be treated as significant, especially given that it is often the case that the range in the total amount of claims is subject to substantial variance based on contingent, disputed and unliquidated claims. Indeed, the Debtor filed a motion seeking to establish special procedures for handling contingent, disputed and unliquidated claims (D.I. 965), to which a number of parties objected, and the hearing on that motion will not occur until February 20, Measured from the point at which MEPPI learned of the Bar Date, the length of time to filing this Motion is very small one week. As such, the length of the so-called delay is not

12 Case KJC Doc 1305 Filed 01/30/14 Page 12 of 13 significant. C. The Timing of the Filing of the Claim Is Due to Lack of Notice, Which Was Beyond the Reasonable Control of the Movant 46. The reason for the gap in time between the Bar Date and the filing of this Motion has already been amply explained: MEPPI was not served, and did not receive, the Bar Date Notice, even though MEPPI is in the category of known creditors, having been listed on the Debtor s creditor matrix and on Schedule F. Per the Court s Bar Date Order, MEPPI was supposed to be served with a customized proof of claim form. But MEPPI did not receive one. 47. Based on the case law discussed in Part I of the Argument, supra, a known creditor is entitled to actual notice of a claims bar date, and its claim cannot be barred if actual notice was not furnished. 48. It is beyond the range of MEPPI s knowledge to explain why or how the Debtor failed to serve it with the Bar Date Notice. But such service was certainly beyond MEPPI s reasonable control. 49. If the Debtor contends that, despite what the filed affidavits say, the Debtor or its agent did send a Bar Date Notice to MEPPI, then MEPPI will demand strict proof of same, which it is the burden of the Debtor to prove. 50. In any event, MEPPI did not receive any Bar Date Notice. It would have filed a proof of claim before the Bar Date if only it had received timely notice of the Bar Date. Datre Affidavit, D. The Movant Has Acted At All Times in Good Faith 51. Although aware that the Debtor was in a chapter 11 proceeding, MEPPI was unaware of the Bar Date. MEPPI had not entered an appearance in the bankruptcy case; had not engaged

13 Case KJC Doc 1305 Filed 01/30/14 Page 13 of 13

14 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES, Debtors Chapter 11 Case No (KJC) Objection Deadline: 2/13/14 at 4:00 p.m. Hearing Date: 2/20/14 at 2:00 p.m. NOTICE OF MOTION TO: THE DEBTOR, UNITED STATES TRUSTEE, OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF UNSECURED CREDITORS, AND ALL INTERESTED PARTIES THAT REQUESTED NOTICE. PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT the undersigned counsel has filed the within Motion of Mitsubishi Electric Power Products, Inc. to Extend the Time Within Which It May File a Proof of Claim (the Motion ) 1 with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (the Court ). PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT any response or objection to the Motion must be filed with the Court and served upon the undersigned counsel so as to be received on or before February 13, 2014 at 4:00 p.m. prevailing Eastern Time (the Objection Deadline ). PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE THAT a hearing on the Motion is set for February 20, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. prevailing Eastern Time before the Honorable Kevin J. Carey, United States Bankruptcy Court, for the District of Delaware, 824 North Market Street, 5 th Floor, Courtroom # 5, Wilmington, Delaware IF YOU FAIL TO RESPOND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS NOTICE, THE COURT MAY GRANT THE RELIEF DEMANDED BY THE MOTION WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE OR HEARING. 1 The Motion with the accompanying exhibits has been served upon counsel for (i) the Debtor, (ii) the Creditors Committee, (iii) JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., (iv) Wells Fargo Capital Financing, LLC, and (v) the United States Trustee. All other parties that requested notice have been served the Motion without the accompanying exhibits. Any party that did not receive the exhibits to the Motion may request a copy from the undersigned counsel /

15 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 2 of 2 Dated: January 30, 2014 MORRIS JAMES LLP /s/ Stephen M. Miller Stephen M. Miller (Bar No. 2610) Douglas N. Candeub (Bar No. 4211) 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 P.O. Box 2306 Wilmington, Delaware Telephone: (302) Facsimile: (302) smiller@morrisjames.com dcandeub@morrisjames.com Attorneys for Mitsubishi Electric Power Products, Inc / 2

16 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 1 of 4 Exhibit A

17 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 2 of 4

18 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 3 of 4

19 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 4 of 4

20 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 1 of 4

21 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 2 of 4

22 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 3 of 4

23 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 4 of 4

24 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 1 of 5

25 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 2 of 5

26 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 3 of 5

27 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 4 of 5

28 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 5 of 5

29 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 1 of 2

30 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 2 of 2

31 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 1 of 24

32 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 2 of 24

33 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 3 of 24

34 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 4 of 24

35 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 5 of 24

36 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 6 of 24

37 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 7 of 24

38 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 8 of 24

39 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 9 of 24

40 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 10 of 24

41 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 11 of 24

42 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 12 of 24

43 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 13 of 24

44 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 14 of 24

45 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 15 of 24

46 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 16 of 24

47 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 17 of 24

48 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 18 of 24

49 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 19 of 24

50 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 20 of 24

51 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 21 of 24

52 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 22 of 24

53 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 23 of 24

54 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 24 of 24

55 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT F

56 Case KJC Doc Filed 01/30/14 Page 2 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re: ) Chapter 11 ) EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES, ) Case No (KJC) ) Debtor. ) ) Ref: D.I. ORDER GRANTING MOTION OF MITSUBISHI ELECTRIC POWER PRODUCTS, INC. TO EXTEND THE TIME WITHIN WHICH IT MAY FILE A PROOF OF CLAIM This matter having come before the Court on the motion (the Motion ) filed by Mitsubishi Electric Power Products, Inc. ( MEPPI ) for an Order to extend the time within which MEPPI may file a proof of claim; and upon considering the Motion and any responses thereto; and after notice of the Motion and a hearing thereon; and upon finding that MEPPI has shown that it is a known creditor but that it did not receive, and was not served, the Bar Date Notice in this case; and it appearing to the Court that cause within Fed. R. Bank. P. 3003(c)(3) has been shown for the relief sought in the Motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, that the Motion is GRANTED, and MEPPI is hereby granted an extension of time to file its Proof of Claim through and including March, Dated:, 2014 The Honorable Kevin J. Carey United States Bankruptcy Court Judge