Case MFW Doc Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Transcription

1 Case MFW Doc Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 5 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re Chapter 11 WASHINGTON MUTUAL, INC., et al., 1 Case No (MFW) (Jointly Administered) Debtors. WMI LIQUIDATING TRUST Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY BOZZUTI, Adversary Proc. No (MFW) CHANDAN SHARMA, Adversary Proc. No (MFW) EDWARD F. BACH, Adversary Proc. No (MFW) HENRY J. BERENS, Adversary Proc. No (MFW) JOHN M. BROWNING, Adversary Proc. No (MFW) KEITH O. FUKUI, Adversary Proc. No (MFW) MARC MALONE, Adversary Proc. No (MFW) MICHAEL R. ZARRO, Adversary Proc. No (MFW) RACHEL M. MILEUR a/k/a Adversary Proc. No (MFW) RACHELLE M. MILEUR, THOMAS E. MORGAN, Adversary Proc. No (MFW) 1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases along with the last four digits of each Debtor s federal tax identification number are (i) Washington Mutual, Inc. (3725); and (ii) WMI Investment Corp. (5395). The principal offices of WMILT, as defined herein, are located at 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, Washington

2 Case MFW Doc Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 5 ANN TIERNEY Adversary Proc. No (MFW) TODD H. BAKER Adversary Proc. No (MFW) GENNADIY DARAKHOVSKIY Adversary Proc. No (MFW) ROBERT BJORKLUND, DARYL DAVID, Adversary Proc. No (MFW) DEBORA HORVATH, JEFFREY JONES, JOHN MCMURRAY, CASEY NAULT, MICHAEL REYNOLDSON, DAVID SCHNEIDER, BRUCE ALAN WEBER, AND JEFFREY WEINSTEIN, Defendants. CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL REGARDING FOURTH JOINT ORDER FURTHER AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDERS WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYEE CLAIMS HEARING AND ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS The undersigned certifies as follows 1. On October 15, 2012, the Court entered the Agreed Order Establishing Procedures and Deadlines Concerning Hearing on Employee Claims and Discovery in Connection Therewith [D.I ] (the Employee Claims Scheduling Order ), with respect to, among other things, the conduct of discovery in connection with a hearing on the Employee Claims (as defined therein) filed by certain former employees of WMI or WMB, as the case may be (the Claimants ). 2. On November 13, 2012, the Court entered the Scheduling Order with respect to the above-captioned adversary proceedings (the Adversary Proceeding Scheduling Order ). 3. On January 8, 2013, the Court entered the Agreed Order Amending Scheduling Orders With Respect to Employee Claims Hearing and Adversary Proceedings dated January 8, 2013 [D.I. No ] (the First Amended Scheduling Order ).

3 Case MFW Doc Filed 01/05/15 Page 3 of 5 4. On September 24, 2013, the Court entered the Joint Order Further Amending Scheduling Orders with Respect to Employee Claims Hearing and Adversary Proceedings [D.I. 1400] (the Second Amended Scheduling Order ). 5. On May 27, 2014, the Court entered the Second Joint Order Further Amending Scheduling Orders with Respect to Employee Claims Hearing and Adversary Proceedings [D.I ] (the Third Amended Scheduling Order ). 6. On September 22, 2014, the Court entered the Third Joint Order Further Amending Scheduling Orders with Respect to Employee Claims Hearing and Adversary Proceedings [D.I ] (the Fourth Amended Scheduling Order, and, together with the Employee Claims Scheduling Order, the Adversary Proceeding Scheduling Order, the First Amended Scheduling Order, the Second Amended Scheduling Order, and the Third Amended Scheduling Order, the Scheduling Orders ). 7. WMI Liquidating Trust ( WMILT ), the Claimants, and the above-captioned adversary proceeding defendants (the Defendants and, together with the Claimants and WMILT, the Parties ) had been engaging in discovery as contemplated by the Scheduling Orders. 8. On December 18, 2014, Stephen W. Spence, Esq., writing on behalf of his clients and several additional Claimants, ed counsel for WMILT and proposed that the dates and deadlines in the Scheduling Orders be adjourned six (6) months. 9. Following the December 23, 2014 Omnibus Hearing, Mr. Spence and counsel to WMILT met and conferred regarding the proposed six (6) month adjournment of the dates and deadlines in the Scheduling Orders. On December 29, 2014, counsel for WMILT distributed to Mr. Spence, with instructions to distribute to the wider Claimant group with whom he had

4 Case MFW Doc Filed 01/05/15 Page 4 of 5 previously conferred, a revised draft amended scheduling order with respect to certain discovery dates and deadlines relating to the Employee Claims litigation (the Joint Proposed Scheduling Order ). A copy of the Joint Proposed Scheduling Order is annexed hereto as Exhibit A. 10. On December 31, 2014, Mr. Spence ed counsel for WMILT representing that he distributed the Joint Proposed Scheduling Order to all counsel for Claimants for whom he had addresses and, as of December 31, 2014, certain counsel for certain Claimants (collectively, the Agreeing Parties 2 ) confirmed that they agreed to the dates and deadlines in the Joint Proposed Scheduling Order. Further, Mr. Spence represented that, as of December 31, 2014, he had not received any objection to the Joint Proposed Scheduling Order from any Party. 2 Specifically, the Agreeing Parties include Claimants represented by Michael Busenkell, Esq., of the firm Gellert Scali Busenkell & Brown, LLC, Gayle E. Bush, Esq. of the firm Bush Strout & Kornfeld LLP, Michael J. Joyce, Esq. of the firm Cross & Simon, LLC, Stephan E. Kyle, Esq. of the firm Kyle Law Corporation, Abbe A. Miller, Esq. of the firm Weir & Partners LLP, Robyn Sokol, Esq. of the firm Ezra Brutzkus Gubner LLP, Stephan W. Spence, Esq. of the firm Phillip, Goldman & Spence, P.A., and Thomas M. Pinney, Esq. of the firm White and Williams LLP.

5 Case MFW Doc Filed 01/05/15 Page 5 of 5 WHEREFORE WMILT respectfully requests that the Court enter the Joint Proposed Scheduling Order, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Dated January 5, 2015 Wilmington, Delaware /s/ Amanda R. Steele Mark D. Collins (No. 2981) Paul N. Heath (No. 3704) Amanda R. Steele (No. 5530) RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A. One Rodney Square 920 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware Telephone (302) Facsimile (302) and Brian S. Rosen, Esq. WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, New York Telephone (212) Facsimile (212) and Robert A. Johnson, Esq. AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP One Bryant Park New York, New York Telephone (212) Attorneys for WMI Liquidating Trust

6 Case MFW Doc Filed 01/05/15 Page 1 of 6 EXHIBIT A

7 Case MFW Doc Filed 01/05/15 Page 2 of 6 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re Chapter 11 WASHINGTON MUTUAL, INC., et al., 1 Case No (MFW) (Jointly Administered) Debtors. WMI LIQUIDATING TRUST Plaintiff, v. ANTHONY BOZZUTI, Adversary Proc. No (MFW) CHANDAN SHARMA, Adversary Proc. No (MFW) EDWARD F. BACH, Adversary Proc. No (MFW) HENRY J. BERENS, Adversary Proc. No (MFW) JOHN M. BROWNING, Adversary Proc. No (MFW) KEITH O. FUKUI, Adversary Proc. No (MFW) MARC MALONE, Adversary Proc. No (MFW) MICHAEL R. ZARRO, Adversary Proc. No (MFW) RACHEL M. MILEUR a/k/a Adversary Proc. No (MFW) RACHELLE M. MILEUR, THOMAS E. MORGAN, Adversary Proc. No (MFW) 1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases along with the last four digits of each Debtor s federal tax identification number are (i) Washington Mutual, Inc. (3725); and (ii) WMI Investment Corp. (5395). The principal offices of WMILT, as defined herein, are located at 1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3000 Seattle, Washington RLF V.1

8 Case MFW Doc Filed 01/05/15 Page 3 of 6 ANN TIERNEY Adversary Proc. No (MFW) TODD H. BAKER Adversary Proc. No (MFW) GENNADIY DARAKHOVSKIY Adversary Proc. No (MFW) ROBERT BJORKLUND, DARYL DAVID, Adversary Proc. No (MFW) DEBORA HORVATH, JEFFREY JONES, JOHN MCMURRAY, CASEY NAULT, MICHAEL REYNOLDSON, DAVID SCHNEIDER, BRUCE ALAN WEBER, AND JEFFREY WEINSTEIN Defendants. FOURTH JOINT ORDER FURTHER AMENDING SCHEDULING ORDERS WITH RESPECT TO EMPLOYEE CLAIMS HEARING AND ADVERSARY PROCEEDINGS RLF V.1 The Court having entered (a) the Agreed Order Establishing Procedures and Deadlines Concerning Hearing on Employee Claims and Discovery in Connection Therewith, dated October 15, 2012 [D.I ] (the Employee Claims Scheduling Order ), with respect to, among other things, the conduct of discovery in connection with the hearing on the claims of the claimants subject to the Employee Claims Scheduling Order (the Claimants; and the Claimants together with WMI Liquidating Trust WMILT and Defendants (as defined below), the Parties ), (b) the Scheduling Order, dated November 13, 2012, with respect to the abovecaptioned adversary proceedings (the Adversary Proceeding Scheduling Order ), (c) the Agreed Order Amending Scheduling Orders With Respect to Employee Claims Hearing and Adversary Proceedings, dated January 8, 2013 [D.I. No ] (the First Amended Scheduling Order ), (d) the Joint Order Further Amending Scheduling Orders with Respect to Employee Claims Hearing and Adversary Proceedings, dated September 24, 2013 [D.I ] (the Second Amended Scheduling Order ); (e) the Second Joint Order Further Amending Scheduling Orders 2

9 Case MFW Doc Filed 01/05/15 Page 4 of 6 with Respect to Employee Claims Hearing and Adversary Proceedings, dated May 24, 2014 [D.I ] (the Third Amended Scheduling Order ); (f) the Third Joint Order Further Amending Scheduling Orders with Respect to Employee Claims Hearing and Adversary Proceedings, dated Sept. 22, 2014 [D.I ] (the Fourth Amended Scheduling Order, and, together with the Employee Claims Scheduling Order, the Adversary Proceeding Scheduling Order, the First Amended Scheduling Order, the Second Amended Scheduling Order, the Third Amended Scheduling Order, and the Fourth Amended Scheduling Order, the Scheduling Orders ); and counsel for WMILT, counsel for certain Claimants and certain counsel for the above-captioned adversary proceeding defendants (the Defendants, collectively, the Agreeing Parties 2 ) having met and conferred for the purpose of amending the deadlines provided for by the Scheduling Orders; and the Agreeing Parties having agreed to modify the deadlines and dates provided for by the Scheduling Orders; and after due deliberation, it is ORDERED that the Parties shall complete any efforts to meet and confer regarding any prior productions and produce any additional documents resulting therefrom no later than July 17, 2015; and it is further ORDERED that all outstanding, previously filed Notices of Deposition are adjourned until such time as specified in Amended Notices of Deposition to be served no later than July 24, 2015; and it is further 2 Specifically, the Agreeing Parties include WMILT, Claimants represented by Michael Busenkell, Esq. of the firm Gellert Scali Busenkell & Brown, LLC, Gayle E. Bush, Esq. of the firm Bush Strout & Kornfeld LLP, Michael J. Joyce, Esq. of the firm Cross & Simon, LLC, Stephan E. Kyle, Esq. of the firm Kyle Law Corporation, Abbe A. Miller, Esq. of the firm Weir & Partners LLP, Robyn Sokol, Esq. of the firm Ezra Brutzkus Gubner LLP, Stephan W. Spence, Esq. of the firm Phillip, Goldman & Spence, P.A., and Thomas M. Pinney, Esq. of the firm White and Williams LLP. RLF V.1 3

10 Case MFW Doc Filed 01/05/15 Page 5 of 6 ORDERED that the Parties may serve any additional Notices of Deposition, as described in paragraph 8 of the Employee Claims Scheduling Order, on or before July 24, 2015; and it is further ORDERED that the Parties shall complete all non-expert depositions no later than October 30, 2015; and it is further ORDERED that the Parties shall serve expert reports, 3 if any, on all Parties no later than November 6, 2015; and it is further ORDERED that the Parties shall serve Notices of Deposition for any expert witness no later than November 13, 2015; and it is further ORDERED that the Parties shall complete all expert depositions no later than December 4, 2015; and it is further ORDERED that the Parties shall serve on all Parties a list of witnesses whom they intend to call to testify at the Hearing no later than December 11, 2015; and it is further ORDERED that any Party may depose any intended Hearing witness, who was identified by a Party pursuant to the preceding paragraph, if that witness was not previously deposed in connection with the Employee Claims Litigation, and any such deposition shall occur no later than December 23, 2015; and it is further ORDERED that the Parties shall file a list of intended Hearing exhibits no later than January 8, 2016; and any objection to any intended Hearing exhibit shall be filed no later than January 15, 2016; 4 and it is further 3 Notwithstanding the deadlines relating to expert witnesses, nothing in this scheduling order is intended to prevent the Parties from stipulating that no Party shall call any expert witness or otherwise use expert witness testimony at the Hearing. 4 Pursuant to paragraph 13 of the Employee Claims Scheduling Order, the Court shall discuss the pre-admission of any intended Hearing exhibit at the Pre-Hearing Conference. RLF V.1 4

11 Case MFW Doc Filed 01/05/15 Page 6 of 6 ORDERED that the pre-hearing briefs, 5 if any, described in paragraph 12 of the Employee Claims Scheduling Order shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) days prior to the Hearing, or as so ordered by the Court; and it is further ORDERED that the pre-hearing conference described in paragraph 13 of the Employee Claims Scheduling Order shall be held on a date to be agreed upon by the Parties and the Court, but in no event shall such date be less than seven (7) days prior to the Hearing; and it is further ORDERED that the Hearing, as described in paragraphs 15 and 16 of the Claims Scheduling Order, shall be held on February, 2016; and it is further ORDERED that the post-trial memorandum described in paragraph 14 of the Employee Claims Scheduling Order shall remain due within fourteen (14) days after the Hearing; and it is further ORDERED that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the Scheduling Orders, the deadlines in the Scheduling Orders, as modified herein, other than for (i) filing a pre-hearing brief, (ii) the Hearing, and (iii) filing a post-trial memorandum, may be further modified by agreement of the Parties without an order of the Court; and it is further ORDERED that except as amended herein or by further Order of the Court, the Scheduling Orders shall remain in full force and effect; and it is further ORDERED that the Court shall retain jurisdiction to hear and determine all matters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, or enforcement of this Order. Dated Wilmington, Delaware THE HONORABLE MARY F. WALRATH UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE 5 Nothing contained herein shall constitute a waiver of any of the Parties rights to file a motion for summary judgment prior to the filing of pre-hearing briefs and such rights are expressly reserved hereunder. RLF V.1 5