Case CSS Doc 2032 Filed 01/03/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

Transcription

1 Case CSS Doc 2032 Filed 01/03/18 Page 1 of 9 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE x : In re : Chapter 11 : PARAGON OFFSHORE PLC, et al. : Case No (CSS) : : (Jointly Administered) Debtors. 1 : : : x Hearing Date: January 10, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. (ET) Objection Deadline: January 3, 2018 DEBTORS OBJECTION TO MOTION OF MICHAEL R. HAMMERSLEY TO REVOKE THE MODIFICATION ORDER Paragon Offshore plc ( Paragon Parent ) and its affiliated debtors in the abovecaptioned chapter 11 cases (collectively, the Debtors ) respectfully submit this objection (the Objection ) to the Motion of Michael R. Hammersley to Revoke the Order (I) Authorizing Modification of the Debtors Fifth Joint Plan of Reorganization Under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code Pursuant to Section 1127(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and (II) Determining that Further Disclosure and Resolicitation of Votes are not Required Pursuant to Section 1127(c) of the Bankruptcy Code [Docket No. 2000] (the Motion to Revoke ) and the related Supplement to the Motion of Michael R. Hammersley to Revoke the Order (I) Authorizing Modification of the 1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor s federal tax identification number, as applicable, are: Paragon Offshore plc (in administration) (6017); Paragon Offshore Finance Company (6632); Paragon International Finance Company (8126); Paragon Offshore Holdings US Inc. (1960); Paragon Offshore Drilling LLC (4541); Paragon FDR Holdings Ltd. (4731); Paragon Duchess Ltd.; Paragon Offshore (Luxembourg) S.à r.l. (5897); PGN Offshore Drilling (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd. (9238); Paragon Offshore (Labuan) Pte. Ltd. (3505); Paragon Holding SCS 2 Ltd. (4108); Paragon Asset Company Ltd. (2832); Paragon Holding SCS 1 Ltd. (4004); Paragon Offshore Leasing (Luxembourg) S.à r.l. (5936); Paragon Drilling Services 7 LLC (7882); Paragon Offshore Leasing (Switzerland) GmbH (0669); Paragon Offshore do Brasil Ltda.; Paragon Asset (ME) Ltd. (8362); Paragon Asset (UK) Ltd.; Paragon Offshore International Ltd. (6103); Paragon Offshore (North Sea) Ltd.; Paragon (Middle East) Limited (0667); Paragon Holding NCS 2 S.à r.l. (5447); Paragon Leonard Jones LLC (8826); Paragon Offshore (Nederland) B.V.; and Paragon Offshore Contracting GmbH (2832). The Debtors mailing address is 3151 Briarpark Drive, Suite 700, Houston, Texas Neville Barry Kahn and David Philip Soden, each of Deloitte LLP, are the joint administrators of Paragon Offshore plc (in administration) (the Joint Administrators ). The affairs, business and property of Paragon Offshore plc (in administration) are managed by the Joint Administrators.

2 Case CSS Doc 2032 Filed 01/03/18 Page 2 of 9 Debtors' Fifth Joint Plan of Reorganization Under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code Pursuant to Section 1127 (b) of the Bankruptcy Code and (II) Determining that Further Disclosure and Solicitation of Votes are Not Required Pursuant to Section 1127(c) of the Bankruptcy Code [Docket No. 2021] (the Supplement and, together with the Motion to Revoke, the Motion ) and respectfully represent the following: Relevant Background 2 1. On February 14, 2016, each of the Debtors commenced with this Court a voluntary case the Bankruptcy Code. The Debtors chapter 11 cases have been consolidated for procedural purposes only and are being jointly administered pursuant to Rule 1015(b) of the Bankruptcy Rules On May 31, 2017, a group of shareholders of Paragon Parent (the Unofficial Equity Committee ), including Mr. Hammersley, objected to confirmation of the Plan 4 [Docket No. 1562]. The Unofficial Equity Committee asserted, among other things, that the Debtors valuation analysis was flawed and, under a proper valuation, the shareholders were entitled to a recovery under the Plan. Id. at 49. At the June 7, 2017 hearing on confirmation of the Plan (the Confirmation Hearing ), after considering arguments by Mr. Hammersley on behalf of the Unofficial Equity Committee, the Debtors, and other parties in interest, the Court entered the Confirmation Order. 5 2 For additional background in these cases and the Prospector Cases (defined below), please refer to pages 4-10 of the Objection to the Equity Committee Motion filed in the Prospector Cases at Docket No On December 21, 2017, the Debtors filed the Debtors Motion for an Order Closing Certain Chapter 11 Cases [Docket No. 2023], which seeks to close the chapter 11 cases of all the Debtors other than Paragon Offshore plc. 4 Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Fifth Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Paragon Offshore plc and its Affiliated Debtors [Docket No. 1459] (the Plan ). 5 Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Confirming the Fifth Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Paragon Offshore plc and its Affiliated Debtors [Docket No. 1614]. 2

3 Case CSS Doc 2032 Filed 01/03/18 Page 3 of 9 3. On July 11, 2017, the Debtors filed the Plan Modification Motion. 6 On the same day, the Debtors filed the Motion to Shorten Notice and Objection Periods. 7 The Court granted the Debtors Motion to Shorten Notice and Objection Periods [Docket No. 1762] and set the objection deadline and hearing on the Plan Modification Motion for July 17, On July 17, 2017, the Court held a hearing to consider the Plan Modification Motion. None of the shareholders of Paragon Parent, including Mr. Hammersley, filed an objection or appeared at the hearing. The Court entered an order approving the Plan Modifications on the same day [Docket No. 1775] (the Plan Modification Order ). On July 18, 2017, the Plan went effective [Docket No. 1792]. The Plan Modification Motion, the Motion to Shorten Notice and Objection Periods, the Order Shortening Notice and Objection Periods and the Notice of Hearing with Respect to the Debtors Plan Modification Motion [Docket No. 1763] were served on counsel of record to Mr. Hammersley, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP and Cozen O Connor, 8 via electronic mail and overnight mail [Docket Nos. 1773, 1784]. 5. On July 20, 2017, Prospector Offshore Drilling S.à r.l. ( Prospector Parent ), and its debtor affiliates, Prospector Rig 1 Contracting Company S.à r.l., Prospector Rig 5 Contracting Company S.à r.l. and Paragon Parent (the Prospector Debtors ) each commenced a voluntary case under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in this Court (the 6 Debtors Motion for Order (I) Authorizing Modification of the Debtors Fifth Joint Plan of Reorganization Under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code Pursuant to Section 1127(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and (II) Determining that Further Disclosure and Resolicitation of Votes Are Not Required Pursuant to Section 1127(c) of the Bankruptcy Code [Docket No. 1760]. 7 Debtors Motion for Entry of an Order Shortening Notice and Objection Periods Regarding Debtors Motion for Order (I) Authorizing Modification of the Debtors Fifth Joint Plan of Reorganization Under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code Pursuant to Section 1127(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and (II) Determining that Further Disclosure and Resolicitation of Votes are not Required Pursuant to Section 1127(c) of the Bankruptcy Code and Scheduling a Hearing Thereon [Docket No. 1761]. 8 On June 21, 2017, counsel for Mr. Hammersley filed a Notice of Appearance and Request for Service of Papers [Docket No. 1677]. 3

4 Case CSS Doc 2032 Filed 01/03/18 Page 4 of 9 Prospector Cases ). 9 On October 17, 2017, Mr. Hammersley filed the Motion of Michael R. Hammersley for the Appointment of an Official Equity Committee [Prospector Docket No. 157] (the Equity Committee Motion ), to which the Prospector Debtors filed an objection (the Objection to the Equity Committee Motion ) on November 22, 2017 [Prospector Docket No. 231]. Following a reply filed by Mr. Hammersley [Prospector Docket No. 234] and a hearing held on November 30, 2017, the Court denied the Equity Committee Motion [Prospector Docket No. 242]. At the conclusion of the hearing on the Equity Committee Motion (the Equity Committee Hearing ), the Court indicated that the issues raised by Mr. Hammersley have already been decided and noted that there is a risk that if Mr. Hammersley takes further action, it may result in the Court awarding sanctions. Id. at 25: Two business days after the Court s ruling and more than four months after the Plan Modification Order was entered, on December 4, 2017, Mr. Hammersley filed the Motion to Revoke [Docket No. 2000], a pleading comprising forty-one (41) pages of text and seventeen (17) pages of exhibits. On December 20, 2017, Mr. Hammersley filed the Supplement to the Motion to Revoke [Docket No. 2021], a pleading comprising nineteen (19) pages of text and eight hundred forty-eight (848) pages of exhibits. 7. On December 20, 2017, the Debtors served on Mr. Hammersley a draft copy of the Debtors Motion for Sanctions Against Michael R. Hammersley (the Sanctions Motion ), along with a letter noting that pursuant to Rule 9011(c)(2) and Rule 11(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Mr. Hammersley had twenty-one (21) days to withdraw or appropriately correct the Motion to Revoke before the Debtors file the Sanctions Motion with the Court. 9 See In re Prospector Offshore Drilling S.à r.l., et al., Case No (CSS) (Bankr. D. Del). The docket of the Prospector Cases shall be referred to herein as [Prospector Docket No. ]. 4

5 Case CSS Doc 2032 Filed 01/03/18 Page 5 of 9 Objection I. The Motion Fails to Meet the Requirements of Section Though denying that he continues to seek a reversal of the Confirmation Order, Mr. Hammersley relies on 1144 of the Bankruptcy Code to revoke the Plan Modification Order. Section 1144 of the Bankruptcy Code provides that, on request of a party in interest, the court may revoke [the order of confirmation] if and only if such order was procured by fraud. 11 U.S.C (emphasis added). In order to prevail on his motion, Mr. Hammersley must point to, and prove, specific acts of fraud that were perpetrated against the Court in obtaining the Confirmation Order. In re Northfield Labs. Inc., 467 B.R. 582, 588 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010) ( To prevail under section 1144, a plaintiff must specifically allege facts showing fraud in the procurement of the confirmation order. ) (citing In re Longardner & Assocs., Inc., 855 F.2d 455, 462 (7th Cir. 1988)). Inference of fraud is insufficient. In re Nyack Autopartstores Holding Co., Inc., 98 B.R. 659, 662 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 1989) ( Fraud should not be inferred; the circumstances constituting the alleged fraud must be stated with particularity. ). 9. The stringent requirements for overturning confirmation is consistent with the policy of finality with respect to chapter 11 plans. See Kaufman v. Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H. (In re Pub. Serv. Co. of N.H.), 43 F.3d 763, 768 (1st Cir. 1995) ( [T]he willingness of future claimants and creditors to compromise in chapter 11 proceedings depends on giving the reorganization court s approval a due measure of finality. ). Thus, [a]bsent substantial new evidence of fraud, there is no reason why Congress would have wished, or the courts should permit, participants who actively participated in the reorganization to relitigate... previously raised issues... Id. 10. The Motion must be denied because Mr. Hammersley has not and cannot demonstrate fraud supporting revocation of the Confirmation Order (or the Plan Modification 5

6 Case CSS Doc 2032 Filed 01/03/18 Page 6 of 9 Order). Despite acknowledging that he is required to establish that the Confirmation Order was obtained by fraud (see Motion to Revoke at 9), Mr. Hammersley fails to even make the conclusory allegation that the Debtors or any other party committed fraud against the Court, much less point to specific acts evidencing actual fraudulent intent. The Motion should be denied for this reason alone. II. The Motion Propounds Arguments this Court has Already Rejected and Should be Denied 11. The Motion recycles the same arguments that this Court has considered and rejected time and time again, some of which were addressed by the Court as recently as November 30, In at least five other pleadings filed in either the Prospector Cases or these cases, Mr. Hammersley has argued that the shareholders of Paragon Parent are entitled to a meaningful distribution from Paragon Parent. 10 The Court has continuously rejected this assertion. 11 Nevertheless, Mr. Hammersley continues to argue that the Restricted Subsidiary 10 Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of pleadings filed by Mr. Hammersley (in his individual capacity or as a member of the Unofficial Equity Committee), in many of which he asserts that the shareholders of Paragon Parent are entitled to a distribution in the context of objecting to the Debtors motion to extend exclusivity, objecting to confirmation of the Plan, seeking a stay of the Confirmation Order pending Appeal, and motions seeking the appointment of an official equity committee in these cases and the Prospector cases. Each has been denied, overruled, or withdrawn. 11 Specifically, the Court made the following findings either on the record or through approval of the Plan that equity was not entitled to a recovery: [E]quity was never in the money in this case. March 27, 2017 Hr g Tr. at 66:1. The problem is twofold; one, equity is so under the money -- out of the money, excuse me, or underwater that it would take, literally, a billion dollars or significantly more, maybe a billion three, a billion four, to put equity in the money... So there is no substantial likelihood of a material recovery to equity. Id. at 68:6-10, 69:7-8. And since they re not getting everything they re entitled to, equity is not entitled to any recovery. June 7, 2017 Hr g Tr. at 149:19-21 (emphasis added). All Parent Interests shall be deemed valueless and shall not receive any distribution under the Plan. Parent Interests shall be treated in accordance with the U.K. Administration. Plan 4.8 (emphasis added). [T]here is nothing that has fundamentally changed as a result of the post-confirmation adjustment in the previous case, and this case as well, that changes the fundamental precept behind the Court s refusal to appoint an equity committee in the prior case, as well as its confirmation of that plan, which is that equity of PLC is fundamentally out of the money to the tune of over a billion dollars. Equity Committee Hearing November 30, 2017 Hr g Tr. at [23:2-8]. 6

7 Case CSS Doc 2032 Filed 01/03/18 Page 7 of 9 Creditors did not fall within the spectrum of the absolute priority rule concerning Prospector, which solely pertained to Prospector s own creditors and shareholders. Motion to Revoke at 5, The Court rejected this argument as recently as the Equity Committee Hearing on November 30, The shareholders of Paragon Parent, including Mr. Hammersley, are not entitled to recovery from Paragon Parent s assets before Paragon Parent s secured and unsecured creditors. No ill-conceived and self-serving interpretation of the terms restricted, unrestricted and excluded and imprecise use of shareholder can defeat the absolute priority rule. 12. Mr. Hammersley also alleges that the assets and equity of Prospector Offshore were not included in valuing the Paragon estates. Id. at Likewise, as the Court pointed out at the Equity Committee Hearing, the Court has considered Mr. Hammersley s valuation arguments, rejecting the bald-faced assertion that the Prospector entities were not included in the Debtors valuation. 13 Mr. Hammersley also erroneously claims that the shareholders of Paragon Parent are also shareholders of Prospector Parent. See id. at 5. This assertion is incorrect as a matter of basic corporate law, as the Court found at the Equity Committee Hearing held only two business days before the Motion to Revoke was filed Mr. Hammersley further asserts, for various reasons, that the Debtors did not have authority to transfer the Prospector entities to Reorganized Paragon. See Motion to Revoke at 3, 19, 33; Supplement at Notwithstanding Mr. Hammersley s arguments to the contrary, (i) the Plan clearly contemplated transferring the Prospector entities to Reorganized 12 See Equity Committee Hearing November 30, 2017 Hr g Tr. at 22:14:15; 23:19-21 (finding that you can t get around the absolute priority rule... Whether the assets of Prospector were restricted or unrestricted and outside or inside the ability of the creditors to attach. ). 13 See id. at 23: See id. at 24:13-18 (holding that [t]he argument really comes down to a misunderstanding of the law and that is that the equity holders of PLC somehow own equity of the Prospector equities. It s just incorrect as a matter of corporate law. ). 7

8 Case CSS Doc 2032 Filed 01/03/18 Page 8 of 9 Paragon, 15 (ii) the shareholders of Paragon Parent are bound by both the Confirmation Order and the Plan Modification Order, 16 and (iii) the Joint Administrators had the authority to transfer the Prospector entities to Reorganized Paragon under English law. 17 As noted above and in previous filings, each of these arguments is meritless. 14. In short, Mr. Hammersley has unfortunately continued to abuse the Debtors and the Court through repeated assertions of arguments that have been repeatedly and decisively rejected more than once already. 15 The Prospector entities are included in the definition of Paragon Entities and Transferred Subsidiary under the Plan. See Plan Mr. Hammersley has previously argued, at both the Equity Committee Hearing and the Confirmation Hearing, that the Debtors were required to obtain the consent from the shareholders of Paragon Parent. At the Confirmation Hearing, the Court rejected this argument: I believe the appropriate consents of the board, when necessary; the U.K. Administrator, where necessary; and not necessary [for] the shareholders, as argued by the unofficial equity committee, I think all of the appropriate consents have been in place. June 9, 2017 Hr g Tr. at 150: In the Supplement, Mr. Hammersley makes a number of inaccurate statements with respect to English law and the powers of the Joint Administrators pursuant to the Administration Order. For example, Mr. Hammersley incorrectly asserts that the Joint Administrators were appointed for the purpose of carrying out the provisions of the Original Confirmed Fifth Amended Plan of the Bankruptcy Court. On Mr. Hammersley s argument, the Joint Administrators would be required to go back to the English Court to apply for permission to consummate a plan other than the Original Confirmed Fifth Amended Plan (such as the Modified Confirmed Fifth Amended Plan). See Supplement at However, this misconstrues the Administration Order. The Joint Administrators were not appointed to consummate any particular plan of reorganization. The English Court simply appointed the Joint Administrators to their office, subject to the broad powers described in the Administration Order, including, inter alia, the power to sell or otherwise dispose of the property of the Company by public auction or private contract... See the Administration Order at 5. The powers derived from the Administration Order are not limited to implementing any particular plan of reorganization and, in fact, the Joint Administrators have the power to implement either of those plans. Given the terms of the English Court s Administration Order, there is no need to seek further permission from the English Court. 8

9 Case CSS Doc 2032 Filed 01/03/18 Page 9 of 9 Conclusion 15. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein and in previous filings, the Court should deny the Motion. Dated: January 3, 2018 Wilmington, Delaware /s/ Mark D. Collins RICHARDS, LAYTON & FINGER, P.A. Mark D. Collins (No. 2981) Amanda R. Steele (No. 5530) Joseph C. Barsalona II (No. 6102) One Rodney Square 920 North King Street Wilmington, Delaware Telephone: (302) Facsimile: (302) and- WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP Gary T. Holtzer (admitted pro hac vice) Stephen A. Youngman (admitted pro hac vice) Alfredo R. Pérez (admitted pro hac vice) 767 Fifth Avenue New York, New York Telephone: (212) Facsimile: (212) Attorneys for the Debtors 9

10 Case CSS Doc Filed 01/03/18 Page 1 of 3 Exhibit A List of Mr. Hammersley s Objections to Treatment under the Plan and Related Documents Arguing Similar Content in Paragon and Prospector Cases

11 Case CSS Doc Filed 01/03/18 Page 2 of 3 List of Mr. Hammersley s Objections to Treatment under the Plan and Related Documents Arguing Similar Content in Paragon and Prospector Cases 1. Request of the Unofficial Equity Committee of the Shareholders of Paragon Offshore, plc for the Appointment of an Official Equity Committee (Mar. 9, 2017) (Paragon D.I. 1223) and Omnibus Reply of the Unofficial Equity Committee of the Shareholders of Paragon Offshore, plc to the Objections Regarding the Entry of an Order Appointing an Official Equity Committee and Proposed Order for the Appointment of an Official Equity Committee (Mar. 24, 2017) (Paragon D.I. 1285). Request denied by the Bankruptcy Court in Order Denying Request of Unofficial Equity Committee to Appoint an Official Equity Committee (Mar. 28, 2017) [Paragon Docket No. 1297]. 2. Objection of the Unofficial Equity Committee of the Shareholders of Paragon Offshore, plc to the Debtors Fifth Motion for Entry of an Order Extending the Exclusive Periods Pursuant to Section 1121(d) of the Bankruptcy Code (Apr. 17, 2017) (Paragon D.I. 1358). Objection voluntarily withdrawn on April 17, 2017 [Paragon Docket No. 1420]. 3. Reply of the Unofficial Equity Committee of the Shareholders of Paragon Offshore, plc in Support of their Proof of Claim Nos. 422 through 447 and in Response to the Objection filed by the Debtors (May, 11, 2017) [Paragon Docket No. 1491]. Unofficial Equity Committee s proofs of claim invalidated by Bankruptcy Court in Order Sustaining Debtors Objection to Unofficial Equity Committee s Proofs of Claim Nos. 422 through 447 Pursuant to Section 510(b) of the Bankruptcy Code (May 30, 2017) [Paragon Docket No. 1552]. 4. Objection of the Unofficial Equity Committee to Confirmation of the Fifth Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Paragon Offshore plc and Its Affiliated Debtors (May 31, 2017) [Paragon Docket No. 1564] and Reply of the Unofficial Equity Committee of the Shareholders of Paragon Offshore, plc in Support of their Objection to Confirmation of the Fifth Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Paragon Offshore plc and Its Affiliated Debtors (June 5, 2017) [Paragon Docket No. 1595]. Objection overruled by the Bankruptcy Court in the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and Order Confirmation the Fifth Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Paragon Offshore and Its Affiliated Debtors (June 7, 2017) [Paragon Docket No. 1614]. Appeal to the Bankruptcy Court s confirmation order voluntarily dismissed on July 18, 2017 [Paragon Docket No. 1787]. 5. Motion for Stay of Order Confirming the Fifth Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Paragon Offshore plc and Its Affiliated Debtors Pending Appeal (June 27, 2017) [Paragon Docket No. 1712]. Denied by the Bankruptcy Court in its Order Denying the Motion for Stay of Order Confirming the Fifth Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Paragon Offshore plc and Its Affiliated Debtors Pending Appeal (July 5, 2017) [Paragon Docket No. 1736]. The Unofficial Equity Committee immediately appealed this decision to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware in its Emergency Motion for Stay of Order Confirming the Fifth Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Paragon Offshore plc and Its Affiliated Debtors Pending Appeal (July 5, 2017) [Docket No. 6]. The District Court denied this emergency motion only two days later, on July 7, 2017 [Docket No. 9].

12 Case CSS Doc Filed 01/03/18 Page 3 of 3 6. Limited Objection of the Unofficial Equity Committee of the Shareholders of Paragon Offshore, plc to the Motion of New Debtors for (I) Interim and Final Authority to (A) Continue Existing Cash Management System, (B) Maintain Business Forms and Existing Bank Accounts, and (C) Continue Intercompany Arrangements; (II) Waiver of the Requirements of Section 345(b) of the Bankruptcy Code; and (III) Related Relief (August 16, 2017) [Prospector Docket No. 58]. Objection voluntarily withdrawn on August 22, 2017 [Prospector Docket No. 78]. 7. Motion of Michael R. Hammersley for the Appointment of an Official Equity Committee (October 17, 2017) [Prospector D.I. 157] and Reply of Michael R. Hammersley to the Debtors' Objection to the Motion of Michael R. Hammersley for the Appointment of an Official Equity Committee (November 27, 2017) [Prospector Docket No. 234]. Motion denied by the Bankruptcy Court following a hearing on November 30, 2017 [Prospector Docket No. 242]. 8. Motion of Michael R. Hammersley to Revoke the Order (I) Authorizing Modification of the Debtors Fifth Joint Plan of Reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code Pursuant to Section 1127(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and (II) Determining that Further Disclosure and Resolicitation of Votes Are Not Required Pursuant to Section 1127(c) of the Bankruptcy Code (December 4, 2017) [Paragon Docket No. 2000] and the related Supplement to the Motion of Michael R. Hammersley to Revoke the Order (I) Authorizing Modification of the Debtors' Fifth Joint Plan of Reorganization Under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code Pursuant to Section 1127 (b) of the Bankruptcy Code and (II) Determining that Further Disclosure and Solicitation of Votes are Not Required Pursuant to Section 1127(c) of the Bankruptcy Code (December 20, 2017) [Docket No. 2021]. Motion is currently pending. 2