Pg 1 of 15 NOTICE OF MOTION FOR STAY RELIEF, TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED, AND FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE PROOF OF CLAIM

Transcription

1 mew Doc 1739 Filed 11/13/17 Entered 11/13/17 16:46:44 MainDate Document Docket #1739 Filed: 11/13/2017 Pg 1 of 15 Hearing Date and Time: December 13, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. Objection Deadline: December 6, 2017 Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9th Floor Miami, Florida Tel: (305) Fax: (305) David L. Rosendorf Speights & Solomons 100 Oak Street, East Post Office Box 685 Hampton, South Carolina Tel: (803) Daniel A. Speights / A. Gibson Solomons - and - Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, L.L.C. Post Office Box 1368 Barnwell, SC Terry E. Richardson / Daniel S. Haltiwanger Strom Law Firm, LLC 2110 Beltline Blvd., Suite A Columbia, SC J. Preston Strom, Jr. Attorneys for Richard Lightsey and Jessica Cook UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK In re Chapter 11 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLC, et al, Case No (MEW) Debtors.1 (Jointly Administered) / NOTICE OF MOTION FOR STAY RELIEF, TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED, AND FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE PROOF OF CLAIM The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor s federal tax identification number, if any, are: Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (0933), CE Nuclear Power International, Inc. (8833), Fauske and Associates LLC (8538), Field Services, LLC (2550), Nuclear Technology Solutions LLC (1921), PaR Nuclear Holding Co., Inc. (7944), PaR Nuclear, Inc. (6586), PCI Energy Services LLC (9100), Shaw Global Services, LLC (0436), Shaw Nuclear Services, Inc. (6250), Stone & Webster Asia Inc. (1348), Stone & Webster Construction Inc. (1673), Stone & Webster International Inc. (1586), Stone & Webster Services LLC (5448), Toshiba Nuclear Energy Holdings (UK) Limited (N/A), TSB Nuclear Energy Services Inc. (2348), WEC Carolina Energy Solutions, Inc. (8735), WEC Carolina Energy Solutions, LLC (2002), WEC Engineering Services Inc. (6759), WEC Equipment & Machining Solutions, LLC (3135), WEC Specialty LLC (N/A), WEC Welding and Machining, LLC (8771), WECTEC Contractors Inc. (4168), WECTEC Global Project Services Inc. (8572), WECTEC LLC (6222), WECTEC Staffing Services LLC (4135), Westinghouse Energy Systems LLC (0328), Westinghouse Industry Products International Company LLC (3909), Westinghouse International Technology LLC (N/A), and Westinghouse Technology Licensing Company LLC (5961). The Debtors principal offices are located at 1000 Westinghouse Drive, Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania g's1+-k«

2 Pg 2 of 15 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE, that a hearing on Richard Lightsey and Jessica Cook s Motion for Stay Relief, to the Extent Required, and for Enlargement of Time to File Proof of Claim will be held before The Honorable Michael E. Wiles, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the United States for the Southern District of New York (the Bankruptcy Court ), in Room 617, One Bowling Green, New York, NY on December 13, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. (Prevailing Eastern Time) or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard. PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that any responses or objections ("Objections") to the Motion shall be in writing, shall conform to the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and the Local Bankruptcy Rules for the Southern District of New York, shall be filed with the Bankruptcy Court and received no later than December 6, 2017 at 4 p.m. (Eastern Time) (the "Objection Deadline"). DATED: November 13, /s/ David L. Rosendorf David L. Rosendorf Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9 th Floor Miami, Florida Tel: (305) Fax: (305) and - Speights & Solomons 100 Oak Street, East Post Office Box 685 Hampton, South Carolina Tel: (803) Daniel A. Speights / A. Gibson Solomons Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, L.L.C. Post Office Box 1368 Barnwell, SC Terry E. Richardson / Daniel S. Haltiwanger 2

3 Pg 3 of 15 Strom Law Firm, LLC 2110 Beltline Blvd., Suite A Columbia, SC J. Preston Strom, Jr. Attorneys for Richard Lightsey and Jessica Cook 3

4 Pg 4 of 15 Hearing Date and Time: December 13, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. Objection Deadline: December 6, 2017 Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, LLP Speights & Solomons 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9 th Floor 100 Oak Street, East Miami, Florida Post Office Box 685 Tel: (305) Hampton, South Carolina Fax: (305) Tel: (803) David L. Rosendorf Daniel A. Speights / A. Gibson Solomons - and - Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, L.L.C. Post Office Box 1368 Barnwell, SC Terry E. Richardson / Daniel S. Haltiwanger Attorneys for Richard Lightsey and Jessica Cook UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Strom Law Firm, LLC 2110 Beltline Blvd., Suite A Columbia, SC J. Preston Strom, Jr. In re Chapter 11 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLC, et al, Debtors. 1 Case No (MEW) (Jointly Administered) / 1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor s federal tax identification number, if any, are: Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (0933), CE Nuclear Power International, Inc. (8833), Fauske and Associates LLC (8538), Field Services, LLC (2550), Nuclear Technology Solutions LLC (1921), PaR Nuclear Holding Co., Inc. (7944), PaR Nuclear, Inc. (6586), PCI Energy Services LLC (9100), Shaw Global Services, LLC (0436), Shaw Nuclear Services, Inc. (6250), Stone & Webster Asia Inc. (1348), Stone & Webster Construction Inc. (1673), Stone & Webster International Inc. (1586), Stone & Webster Services LLC (5448), Toshiba Nuclear Energy Holdings (UK) Limited (N/A), TSB Nuclear Energy Services Inc. (2348), WEC Carolina Energy Solutions, Inc. (8735), WEC Carolina Energy Solutions, LLC (2002), WEC Engineering Services Inc. (6759), WEC Equipment & Machining Solutions, LLC (3135), WEC Specialty LLC (N/A), WEC Welding and Machining, LLC (8771), WECTEC Contractors Inc. (4168), WECTEC Global Project Services Inc. (8572), WECTEC LLC (6222), WECTEC Staffing Services LLC (4135), Westinghouse Energy Systems LLC (0328), Westinghouse Industry Products International Company LLC (3909), Westinghouse International Technology LLC (N/A), and Westinghouse Technology Licensing Company LLC (5961). The Debtors principal offices are located at 1000 Westinghouse Drive, Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania

5 Pg 5 of 15 UTILITY CUSTOMERS MOTION FOR STAY RELIEF, TO THE EXTENT REQUIRED, AND FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO FILE PROOF OF CLAIM Richard Lightsey and Jessica Cook, through undersigned counsel, on behalf of themselves and as putative class plaintiffs ( Utility Customers ) in the actions styled Lightsey v. South Carolina Electric and Gas Company, Case No CP , and Cook v. South Carolina Public Service Authority, South Carolina Electric and Gas, Palmetto Electric Cooperative, Inc. and Central Electric Power Cooperative, Inc., Case No CP , both pending in the Court of Common Pleas of Hampton County, South Carolina (the South Carolina Actions ), move for stay relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 362(d), to the extent required to pursue post-petition claims against the Debtors in the South Carolina Actions; and move pursuant to Fed.R.Bankr.P. 9006(b) for an enlargement of time to file proofs of claim, to the extent their claims are deemed pre-petition claims. In support, the Utility Customer Plaintiffs state: JURISDICTION AND VENUE The Court has jurisdiction over this motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157 and Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C and This matter is a core proceeding which may be determined by the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157(b)(2). The statutory predicates are 11 U.S.C. 362(d), 503(b)(1)(A), along with Fed. R. Bankr.P. 4001, 7001 and 9006(b). BACKGROUND The Utility Customers are residents of South Carolina who, for years, have paid separate and distinct charges on their electric utility bills to South Carolina Electric and Gas Company ( SCE&G ) or South Carolina Public Service Authority ( Santee Cooper ), which were imposed specifically to pay for a benefit in advance for capital costs associated with the construction of a nuclear power plant to be constructed by Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC ( Westinghouse ) 2

6 Pg 6 of 15 known as the V.C. Summer Project. Westinghouse has been the recipient of the funds collected by SCE&G and Santee Cooper from the Utility Customers. On March 29, 2017, Westinghouse and several affiliates ( Debtors ) filed voluntary Chapter 11 petitions commencing these cases. The Debtors continued to operate their business as debtors-in-possession, and filed motions and obtained court authority to continue work on the V.C. Summer Project during an Interim Assessment Period, which period was subsequently extended by agreement among the Debtors, SCE&G and Santee Cooper (ECF#5, ECF#68, ECF#385, ECF#778). On July 31, 2017, SCE&G and Santee Cooper announced the abandonment of the V.C. Summer Project. SCE&G and Santee Cooper have asserted that the abandonment was due to Westinghouse s refusal to complete performance of its contract for construction of the V.C. Summer Project (ECF#1172, 16). This marked the end of a decade of construction costs on the proposed nuclear facility. Both SCE&G and Santee Cooper had elected to charge Utility Customers in advance of any benefit conferred for the construction costs. Westinghouse had actual and constructive knowledge that the construction costs were being covered by the Utility Customers. Thus, when the project was abandoned, the Utility Customers were left having paid for the construction costs and the reality that no benefit would ever be conferred. Because of this, to protect the rights of the Utility Customers, counsel in this action filed Lightsey v. SCE&G on August 14, 2017 ( Lightsey ), then filed Cook v. Santee Cooper et al. on August 22, 2017 ( Cook ), and then filed Lightsey and Cook v. Toshiba on October 3, 2017 ( L&C ). These actions seek relief from costs that were in part or in whole generated by and paid to Westinghouse, which served as the contractor in charge for the V.C. Summer Project. In the South Carolina Actions, Mr. Lightsey and Ms. Cook seek to represent the class of all South 3

7 Pg 7 of 15 Carolina customers who have been charged and paid charges associated with, but in advance of the completion of, the abandoned V.C. Summer Project. Immediately prior to the abandonment of the V.C. Summer Project, on July 28, 2017, the Debtors filed a Notice of Filing of Settlement Agreement in this Court (ECF#1022), attaching a settlement agreement among Toshiba Corporation ( Toshiba ), SCE&G and Santee Cooper resolving the guarantee exposure of Westinghouse s parent, Toshiba, in connection with the V.C. Summer Project. As part of that settlement, Toshiba required that SCE&G and Santee Cooper could not solicit others, including their customers, to institute any actions or proceedings against Toshiba regarding any of the claims subject to the settlement. Although the settlement provides for the payment of more than $2 billion by Toshiba to SCE&G and Santee Cooper, there is no indication that any of those funds will be used to reimburse the Utility Customers whose funds were taken to pay for the project. RELIEF REQUESTED By this motion, the Utility Customers request that the Court (1) grant stay relief pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 362(d), to the extent required for the Utility Customers to pursue their post-petition claims against Westinghouse in the South Carolina Actions; and (2) grant an enlargement of time to file a proof of claim pursuant to Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9006(b), to the extent the Utility Customers claims are deemed pre-petition claims, such that a proof of claim shall be deemed timely if filed within fourteen days of the Court s order granting such relief. BASIS FOR RELIEF REQUESTED 1. The Utility Customers Should Be Permitted to Pursue Post-Petition Claims in the South Carolina Actions. The Bankruptcy Code distinguishes between pre-petition claims that arise prior to the commencement of the case, and post-petition claims arising during the administration of the case. 4

8 Pg 8 of 15 Claims that arise post-petition are, as a matter of law, not subject to the automatic stay. In re Chateaugay Corp., 86 B.R. 33, (S.D.N.Y. 1988) ( The automatic stay, however, does not apply to claims that arise post-petition. ); see also In re Ionosphere Clubs Inc., 124 B.R. 635, (S.D.N.Y. 1991) (In RICO action by pilots for post-petition embezzlement of payments due to them, Their alleged injury was suffered post-petition, and therefore their claims are post-petition claims and assertion of them did not violate the automatic stay. ); In re Television Studio School of New York, 77 B.R. 411, 412 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1987) ( The post-petition infringement claim, by definition, is not protected by 11 U.S.C ). Here, the Utility Customers claims against Westinghouse arise out of Westinghouse s post-petition abandonment of the V.C. Summer Project. It was only as a result of the abandonment of the project which occurred months after the Petition Date that the Utility Customers had any reason to assert claims against Westinghouse. Compare In re Enron Corp., 2003 WL , *3 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2003) (claim for post-petition conversion of property which debtor had received pre-petition was a post-petition administrative claim). Accordingly, the Utility Customers pursuit of post-petition claims against Westinghouse arising from the post-petition termination of the V.C. Summer Project is not stayed by 11 U.S.C. 362 (though the Utility Customers acknowledge that any collection on such claims from property of the estate would be subject to the stay). To the extent the Court nonetheless finds that such claims are subject to the automatic stay, the Utility Customers seek relief from the stay pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 362(d)(1) for cause to pursue such post-petition claims. 2 Section 362(d) of the Bankruptcy Code provides: On request of a party in interest and after notice and a hearing, the court shall grant relief from the stay... (1) 2 Recognizing that the timing of payment of an allowed administrative expense is subject to the Court s discretion, the Utility Customers presently seek authority only to prosecute their claims against Westinghouse to judgment, and not to collect on any judgment from property of the estate. 5

9 Pg 9 of 15 for cause.... Whether cause exists to lift the automatic stay is a decision within the discretion of the bankruptcy court on a case-by-case basis. In re Sonnax Indus., Inc., 907 F.2d 1280, 1286 (2d Cir. 1990); In re Mazzeo, 167 F.3d 139, 142 (2d Cir. 1999). A party seeking relief from the automatic stay has the initial burden of showing that cause exists for relief from the stay. Mazzeo, 167 F.3d at 142; Sonnax, 907 F.2d at Once the movant makes an initial showing of cause, the burden shifts to the debtor to establish that the stay should not be lifted. Sonnax, 907 F.2d at 1285; see also 11 U.S.C. 362(g). Because section 362(d) does not define cause, courts determine what constitutes cause based on the totality of the circumstances, a discretionary determination. Sonnax, 907 F.2d at In determining whether to lift the automatic stay, bankruptcy courts generally consider the twelve factors identified by the Second Circuit in Sonnax (each to the extent relevant in a particular case, see Mazzeo, 167 F.3d at 143): (1) whether relief would result in a partial or complete resolution of the issues; (2) lack of any connection with or interference with the bankruptcy case; (3) whether the other proceeding involves the debtor as a fiduciary; (4) whether a specialized tribunal with the necessary expertise has been established to hear the cause of action; (5) whether the debtor s insurer has assumed full responsibility for defending it; (6) whether the action primarily involves third parties; (7) whether litigation in another forum would prejudice the interests of other creditors; (8) whether the judgment claim arising from the other action is subject to equitable subordination; (9) whether movant s success in the other proceeding would result in a judicial lien avoidable by the debtor; (10) the interests of judicial economy and the expeditious and economical resolution of litigation; 6

10 Pg 10 of 15 (11) whether the parties are ready for trial in the other proceeding; and (12) impact of the stay on the parties and the balance of harms. Here, several of the enumerated factors support granting stay relief: (1) relief would result in complete resolution of the issues relating to Westinghouse s liability to the Utility Customers; (3) the proceeding does not involve the debtor as a fiduciary but rather as a postpetition operating company; (4) the South Carolina Supreme Court has designated one court and judge to address all issues relating to the V.C. Summer Project (a copy of the Supreme Court of South Carolina s October 31, 2017 Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A ); (6) the proceeding does substantially involve third parties other than the Debtors, namely SCE&G and Santee Cooper; (7) the litigation in another forum should not prejudice the interests of other creditors; (8) there is no basis for equitable subordination of any judgment obtained by the Utility Customers; (9) success in the action would not result in any avoidable judicial lien; (10) the interests of judicial economy and expeditious and economical resolution of litigation are supported by all litigation associated with the V.C. Summer Project proceeding in the one forum; (12) continuation of the stay will significantly harm the Utility Customers in obtaining complete relief for the damages they have sustained as a result of the termination of the V.C. Summer Project. Accordingly, the Utility Customers request that the Court grants stay relief, to the extent required, for them to pursue post-petition claims against Westinghouse in the South Carolina Actions. Alternatively, if this Court finds that the Utility Customers post-petition claims are subject to the automatic stay, and is not inclined to grant stay relief, then the Utility Customers would intend to pursue such claims through an adversary proceeding in this Court for allowance and payment of an administrative expense pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(A) on behalf of the Utility 7

11 Pg 11 of 15 Customers and all claimants within the class. The Code provides that [a]fter notice and a hearing, there shall be allowed administrative expenses, other than claims allowed under section 502(f) of this title, including the actual, necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate [.] 11 U.S.C. 503(b)(1)(A). Pursuant to this section, expenses that a debtor-in-possession incurs during its reorganization effort are entitled to first priority payment by the debtor. In re Enron Corp., 2003 WL , *3 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2003), citing In re Jartran, Inc., 732 F.2d 584 (7th Cir. 1984). While administrative expense status is typically dependent on providing a benefit to the estate, there is a well-recognized exception for torts committed by a debtor-in-possession during the course of a Chapter 11 case. Id., citing In re Puerto Rican Food Corp., 41 B.R. 565, (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. 1984), citing Reading Co. v. Brown, 31 U.S. 471, 482, 88 S.Ct. 1759, 1765, 20 L.Ed.2d 751 (1968). Consistent with that well recognized exception, the Court in Enron determined that a claim arising from the post-petition conversion by a debtor of property was an administrative expense claim, rather than a pre-petition claim, even though the conversion arose out of a pre-petition contract for storage of the property at issue. Id. At *8-9. Similarly here, the Utility Customers claims arise as a result of the post-petition abandonment of the V.C. Summer Project, and constitute administrative expense obligations of the estate, which the Utility Customers are entitled to pursue through an adversary proceeding if stay relief is not granted. 2. The Utility Customers Should be Granted an Enlargement of Time to File a Proof of Claim. On June 28, 2017 prior to the abandonment of the V.C. Summer Project this Court had entered an Order Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 502(b)(9), Fed. R. Bankr. P and 3003(c)(3), and Local Rule 3003-I (I) Establishing Deadline for Filing Proofs of Claim and Procedures Relating Thereto and (II) Approving Form and Manner of Notice Thereof ( Bar Date Order, ECF#788). 3 3 The docket does not reflect the filing of a motion or notice of a hearing on the entry of the Bar Date Order. 8

12 Pg 12 of 15 The Bar Date Order set a deadline of September 1, 2017 for the filing of claims against the Debtors which arose prior to the March 29, 2017 Petition Date. 4 On July 11, 2017, the Debtors claims and noticing agent filed an Affidavit of Service regarding service of notice, on July 5, 2017, of the proof of claim deadline set by the Bar Date Order (ECF#881). The Affidavit of Service does not reflect that it was served on Mr. Lightsey, Ms. Cook, or any other Utility Customers whose funds were received by Westinghouse. Westinghouse had actual and constructive knowledge that it had received moneys taken from the Utility Customers as prepayment for the benefit that would be conferred by the completion of the V.C. Summer Project, and had reason to know that the Utility Customers might have claims against it as a result of the termination of the project prior to completion. As known claimants, the Utility Customers were entitled to actual notice, by direct mail or some equivalent, before their claims could possibly be barred by the Bar Date Order. See Matter of Motors Liquidation Co., 829 F.3d 135, (2d Cir. 2016) (finding that Old GM had sufficient knowledge to know of potential claims of ignition switch claimants, such that those claimants were entitled to actual notice before their claims could be barred by a 363 sale order). The Affidavit of Service of notice of the Bar Date Order reflects that no such actual notice was provided to Mr. Lightsey or Ms. Cook, or any of the other Utility Customers whose funds were received by Westinghouse. Accordingly, to the extent the Utility Customers claims against Westinghouse are prepetition claims, rather than post-petition administrative claims, such claims cannot be barred by 4 The Bar Date Order does not purport to address post-petition administrative claims against the estate, and the notice served by the claims agent specifically noted that any holder of a claim allowable under section 503(b) and 507(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code as an administrative expense (other than a holder of a section 503(b)(6) claim) was not required to file a proof of claim. ECF#881, p. 6. 9

13 Pg 13 of 15 the Bar Date Order as a matter of due process. DPWN Holdings (USA) Inc. v. United Air Lines Inc., 747 F.3d 145, 150 (2d Cir. 2014) ( [A] claim cannot be discharged if the claimant is denied due process because of lack of adequate notice. ). To the extent the Court determines that the Utility Customers claims are pre-petition claims rather than post-petition administrative expense claims, and that the enforcement of the Bar Order against them is not precluded as a matter of due process, then the Utility Customers respectfully move for an enlargement of time under Fed. R. Bankr.P. 9006(b) to file such claims. Rule 9006(b) authorizes such an enlargement, after the deadline has expired, where the failure to act was the result of excusable neglect. The standard for excusable neglect was set forth by the Supreme Court in Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P ship, 507 U.S. 380, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993). In Pioneer, the Court identified four relevant factors: (1) the danger of prejudice to the debtor; (2) the length of delay and its potential impact on judicial proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay, including whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant; and (4) whether the movant acted in good faith. Id. At 395. Here, starting with the third factor, the reason the Utility Customers did not timely file a proof of claim against Westinghouse is because: (1) the V.C. Summer Project was not terminated until several months after the Petition Date, and indeed after the Bar Date Order had already been entered and served by the claims agent; accordingly the Utility Customers had not been informed that the benefit paid for would not be delivered and therefore any reason to assert a pre-petition claim against Westinghouse had not been discovered; and (2) the Utility Customers did not receive actual notice of the Bar Date Order or of any obligation to file a Proof of Claim in connection with their damages arising from termination of the V.C. Summer Project, because the Debtors did not provide them with such notice. In such circumstances, the failure to timely file a Proof of Claim 10

14 Pg 14 of 15 should be considered a faultless omission to act which is encompassed within the meaning of excusable neglect. See Pioneer, 507 U.S. at 388. Each of the other factors likewise support granting relief. The length of delay was not significant the Bar Date was only two months ago the Utility Customers have filed this motion in good faith, and there is little danger of prejudice to the Debtors, who have only recently commenced the process of reviewing filed claims, and have not yet proposed a plan much less completed the voting and confirmation process. 5 Accordingly, to the extent that the Utility Customers claims against Westinghouse arising from the termination of the V.C. Summer Project are determined to be pre-petition claims, and this Court holds that the Bar Date Order applies to the Utility Customers notwithstanding the Debtors failure to provide actual notice, then the Utility Customers respectfully request an enlargement of time of fourteen days from the Court s entry of an order granting such relief for the Utility Customers to file proofs of claim in these cases. NOTICE Notice of this Motion has been provided to parties in interest in accordance with the Order Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 105(a) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 1015(c), 2002(m), and 9007 Implementing Certain Notice and Case Management Procedures, dated April 4, 2017 (ECF#101). The Utility Customers respectfully submit that, in view of the facts and circumstances, such notice is sufficient and no other or further notice need be provided. 5 In a filing on October 31, 2017 seeking to establish procedures for review and resolution of administrative claims under 11 U.S.C. 503(b)(9) (for goods provided to the Debtors within 20 days prior to the Petition Date), the Debtors reported that they have begun the claims reconciliation process, and have over 3,000 proofs of claim, including over (b)(9) claims, to review. (ECF#1667, p. 2-3). 11

15 Pg 15 of 15 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Utility Customers respectfully requests that the Court enter an order (1) granting relief from stay for the Utility Customers to pursue post-petition claims against Westinghouse in the South Carolina actions, or alternatively, to pursue such claims through an adversary proceeding in this Court; and (2) granting an enlargement of time to file proofs of claim on behalf of the Utility Customers to the extent their claims are deemed pre-petition claims, such that a proof of claim shall be deemed timely filed if filed within fourteen days of the Court s order granting such relief. DATED: November 13, /s/ David L. Rosendorf David L. Rosendorf Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9 th Floor Miami, Florida Tel: (305) Fax: (305) and - Speights & Solomons 100 Oak Street, East Post Office Box 685 Hampton, South Carolina Tel: (803) Daniel A. Speights / A. Gibson Solomons Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, L.L.C. Post Office Box 1368 Barnwell, SC Terry E. Richardson / Daniel S. Haltiwanger Strom Law Firm, LLC 2110 Beltline Blvd., Suite A Columbia, SC J. Preston Strom, Jr. Attorneys for Richard Lightsey and Jessica Cook 12

16 mew Doc Filed 11/13/17 Entered 11/13/17 16:46:44 Exhibit A Pg 1 of 2

17 mew Doc Filed 11/13/17 Entered 11/13/17 16:46:44 Exhibit A Pg 2 of 2

18 mew Doc Filed 11/13/17 Entered 11/13/17 16:46:44 Certificate of Service Pg 1 of 7 Hearing Date and Time: December 13, 2017 at 11:00 a.m. Objection Deadline: December 6, 2017 Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, LLP Speights & Solomons 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9 th Floor 100 Oak Street, East Miami, Florida Post Office Box 685 Tel: (305) Hampton, South Carolina Fax: (305) Tel: (803) David L. Rosendorf Daniel A. Speights / A. Gibson Solomons - and - Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, L.L.C. Post Office Box 1368 Barnwell, SC Terry E. Richardson / Daniel S. Haltiwanger UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Strom Law Firm, LLC 2110 Beltline Blvd., Suite A Columbia, SC J. Preston Strom, Jr. Attorneys for Richard Lightsey and Jessica Cook In re Chapter 11 WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC COMPANY LLC, et al, Debtors. 1 Case No (MEW) (Jointly Administered) / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor s federal tax identification number, if any, are: Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (0933), CE Nuclear Power International, Inc. (8833), Fauske and Associates LLC (8538), Field Services, LLC (2550), Nuclear Technology Solutions LLC (1921), PaR Nuclear Holding Co., Inc. (7944), PaR Nuclear, Inc. (6586), PCI Energy Services LLC (9100), Shaw Global Services, LLC (0436), Shaw Nuclear Services, Inc. (6250), Stone & Webster Asia Inc. (1348), Stone & Webster Construction Inc. (1673), Stone & Webster International Inc. (1586), Stone & Webster Services LLC (5448), Toshiba Nuclear Energy Holdings (UK) Limited (N/A), TSB Nuclear Energy Services Inc. (2348), WEC Carolina Energy Solutions, Inc. (8735), WEC Carolina Energy Solutions, LLC (2002), WEC Engineering Services Inc. (6759), WEC Equipment & Machining Solutions, LLC (3135), WEC Specialty LLC (N/A), WEC Welding and Machining, LLC (8771), WECTEC Contractors Inc. (4168), WECTEC Global Project Services Inc. (8572), WECTEC LLC (6222), WECTEC Staffing Services LLC (4135), Westinghouse Energy Systems LLC (0328), Westinghouse Industry Products International Company LLC (3909), Westinghouse International Technology LLC (N/A), and Westinghouse Technology Licensing Company LLC (5961). The Debtors principal offices are located at 1000 Westinghouse Drive, Cranberry Township, Pennsylvania

19 mew Doc Filed 11/13/17 Entered 11/13/17 16:46:44 Certificate of Service Pg 2 of 7

20 mew Doc Filed 11/13/17 Entered 11/13/17 16:46:44 Certificate of Service Pg 3 of 7

21 mew Doc Filed 11/13/17 Entered 11/13/17 16:46:44 Certificate of Service Pg 4 of 7

22 mew Doc Filed 11/13/17 Entered 11/13/17 16:46:44 Certificate of Service Pg 5 of 7

23 mew Doc Filed 11/13/17 Entered 11/13/17 16:46:44 Certificate of Service Pg 6 of 7 VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL: Weil Gotshal & Manges, LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY Attn: Gary T. Holtzer, Garrett A. Fail and Robert Lemons Office of the United States Trustee 201Varick Street, Suite 1006 New York, NY Attn: Paul Swartzberg, Esquire Togut, Segal & Segal, LLP One Penn Plaza New York, NY Attn: Albert Togut & Kyle Ortiz, Esquire Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, CA Attn: Van C. Durrer, II and Annie Li Latham & Watkins, LLP 300 N. Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800 Chicago, IL Attn: Zulfiqar Bokhari, Esquire Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP 1285 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY Attn: Jeffrey D. Saferstein, Esquire Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP 2001 K Street NW Washington, DC Attn: Claudia R. Tobler, Esquire Shearman & Sterling, LLP 599 Lexingon Avenue New York, NY Attn: Fredric Sosnick, Esquire and Ned Schodek, Esquire

24 mew Doc Filed 11/13/17 Entered 11/13/17 16:46:44 Certificate of Service Pg 7 of 7 Martin J. Bienenstock, Esquire Timothy Q. Karcher, Esquire Vincent Indelicato, Esquire Proskauer Rose, LLP Eleven Times Square New York, NY DATED: November 13, /s/ David L. Rosendorf David L. Rosendorf Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, LLP 2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, 9 th Floor Miami, Florida Tel: (305) Fax: (305) and - Speights & Solomons 100 Oak Street, East Post Office Box 685 Hampton, South Carolina Tel: (803) Daniel A. Speights / A. Gibson Solomons Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman, L.L.C. Post Office Box 1368 Barnwell, SC Terry E. Richardson / Daniel S. Haltiwanger Strom Law Firm, LLC 2110 Beltline Blvd., Suite A Columbia, SC J. Preston Strom, Jr. Attorneys for Richard Lightsey and Jessica Cook