TCR_Public/171124.mbx          T R O U B L E D   C O M P A N Y   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, November 24, 2017, Vol. 21, No. 328


3982 CLUB DRIVE: Lease Income to Fund Proposed Plan
ACADIANA MANAGEMENT: PCO Files 2nd Interim Report for Tulsa
ADIRONDACK AUTO: To Pay Unsecureds Creditors 5% Over 5 Years
ALICE M. REDDING: Court Junks Bid to Modify Chapter 11 Plan
BLACK SQUARE: Taps Shraiberg Landau as Legal Counsel

CASTLE ARCH: Liquidating Trustee Did Not Commit Breach of Contract
RAINTREE HEALTHCARE: Court Official Unable to Appoint Committee
SOUTHERN SANDBLASTING: Property Sale Proceeds to Pay Creditors
VANITY SHOP: CPO OK's Proposed Sale and Transfer of Customer PII
W.R. GRACE: Former Worker Not Barred from Filing Actions vs BNSF

[^] BOOK REVIEW: Transnational Mergers and Acquisitions


3982 CLUB DRIVE: Lease Income to Fund Proposed Plan
3982 Club Drive, LLC, filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of Georgia a disclosure statement to accompany
its plan of reorganization.

The Plan proposes to cure the defaults under and reinstate the
debts to First National and Wiser under Note 1 and Note 2,
respectively. The result would be to restore the parties to their
respective pre-default positions, except that all payments required
from the date of default through the Effective Date of the Plan
will be made on or before the Effective Date.

The Plan further provides that all executory contracts and
unexpired leases to which Debtor is a party are deemed rejected on
the Effective Date unless expressly assumed under the Plan. Each
counter-party to an executory contract or unexpired lease rejected
under this Plan will have 30 days after the Effective Date to file
a proof of claim with the clerk of the Bankruptcy Court, and serve
such claim on counsel for Debtor, for any damages claimed to result
from such rejection.

The Debtor proposes to fund the Plan primarily from lease income,
but also from a capital infusion from the principal to fund the
cure payments required under the cure and reinstatement Plan, and,
ultimately, to fund a down payment for take-out financing.

A copy of the Disclosure Statement is available for free at:

                About 3982 Club Drive

3982 Club Drive, LLC, based in Atlanta, Georgia, filed a Chapter 11
petition (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Case No. 17-63460) on Aug. 1, 2017. David
A. Geiger, Esq., at Geiger Law, LLC, serves as bankruptcy counsel.

In its petition, the Debtor estimated $1 million to $10 million in
both assets and liabilities. The petition was signed by Allen
Miller, its manager.

ACADIANA MANAGEMENT: PCO Files 2nd Interim Report for Tulsa
Susan N. Goodman, the appointed patient care ombudsman for Acadiana
Management Group, LLC, submits her second interim report regarding
her evaluation of the quality of patient care provided at AMG
Specialty Hospital - Tulsa.

Tulsa's Plan of Removal for the three immediate jeopardy tags
issued on or about Oct. 5, 2017 in response to a Medicare patient
complaint was accepted on Oct. 24, 2017. The PCO remained in
contact with leadership during the corrective action process.

Although not reported pro-actively, the PCO was made aware of the
resignation of Tulsa's Chief Clinical Officer before the second
site visit. The CCO departure is assumed to be correlated to the IJ
process rather than to the bankruptcy process. CCO coverage on an
interim basis is being provided by a night charge nurse. Site
leadership reported that active recruiting efforts to replace the
CCO are underway. Because the Edmond closure was announced when the
PCO was at the Tulsa location, general discussions were had
regarding the possibility of interim nursing shift coverage
provided by affected Edmond/Mercy staff in lieu of hiring nurses
through an agency service. Such an approach could soften the
economic strain for affected staff through the holiday season and
provide skilled coverage during the same challenging time period.
The PCO will attempt to stay informed on whether or not such a plan
is actualized.

Although PCO did not observe care decline, a third site visit may
be necessary sooner than a 60-day cycle given the protracted length
of time between the placement of the IJ tags and the acceptance of
the removal plan, the departure of the CCO after only six months,
turnover in the wound nurse and pharmacy roles, and the possible
impact of the Edmond closure on staffing stability.

Patient census was 13 on the date of PCO's visit. Staff reported
that staffing levels remained within matrix, with 1 nurse to 5-6
patients being the norm on the day shift, going as high as 7-8
patients depending on patient acuity levels. Clinical staff
admitted that the higher nurse/patient ratios were ???difficult???
particularly when maintained over a period of several days, as was
the case just previous to PCO???s visit.

Pharmacist coverage has been provided by the regional Pharmacy
Director since the departure of the former interim pharmacist for
reasons unrelated to the bankruptcy. The Pharmacist reported that
she discovered that the automated dispensing cabinet had not been
set up to run automated quality reports, with that correction now
in place. The Pharmacist denied issues related to quality data on
medication administration and adverse drug events.

The PCO concludes that remote monitoring follow-up will be
important at Tulsa. Staff stability post Edmond-closure and CCO
departure will be monitored. Quality data, once available, will be
reviewed to evaluate whether metrics other than those infection
control items associated with the IJ response, are remaining
stable. Whether affected Edmond staff are willing and/or able to
provide coverage at Tulsa, as compared to agency staff, will also
be an important metric as PCO assesses whether this facility
requires a third site visit in less than 60 days.

A full-text copy of the PCO's Second Interim Report for Tulsa dated
Nov. 10, 2017, is available at:

                 About Acadiana Management

Acadiana Management and several affiliates sought Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection (Bankr. W.D. La. Lead Case No. 17-50799) on
June 23, 2017.  The petitions were signed by August J. Rantz, IV,
president.  Acadiana Management estimated assets of less than
$50,000 and debt at $50 million and $100 million.

Judge Robert Summerhays presides over the cases.  Gold, Weems,
Bruser, Sues & Rundell, serves as the Debtors' bankruptcy counsel.

On July 28, 2017, the Office of the U.S. Trustee appointed an
official committee of unsecured creditors.

Susan Goodman was appointed as patient care ombudsman.

ADIRONDACK AUTO: To Pay Unsecureds Creditors 5% Over 5 Years
Adirondack Auto Brokers Inc. filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Northern District of New York a small business disclosure
statement, dated Nov. 9, 2017, describing its plan of
reorganization dated Nov. 3, 2017.

General unsecured creditors are classified in Class 2 and will
receive a distribution of 5% of their allowed claims to be
distributed quarterly over a period of 5 years.

Payments and distributions under the Plan will be funded by the
business revenues of the Debtor together with the infusion from the
Equity interest holders. The Plan Proponent's financial projections
show that the Debtor will have an aggregate annual average cash
flow, after paying operating expenses and post-confirmation taxes
of $120,000. The final Plan payment is expected to be paid on Jan.
1, 2023.

A full-text copy of the Disclosure Statement is available at:

Adirondack Auto Brokers, Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. Case No. 17-10562) on March 30, 2017,
and is represented by Richard H. Weiskopf Esq. of the Delorenzo Law

ALICE M. REDDING: Court Junks Bid to Modify Chapter 11 Plan
Judge Stephani W. Humrickhouse of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina entered an order denying Debtor
Alice M. Redding's motion to modify her chapter 11 plan.

Redding filed the motion on May 12, 2017, and amended on July 24,
2017.  A response in opposition was filed by America's Servicing
Company on June 5, 2017.  A hearing took place on August 12, 2017,
in Raleigh, North Carolina, at which the court took the matter
under advisement.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Murphy v.
O'Donnell (discussing analysis developed in In re Arnold), has held
that in order to evaluate whether post-confirmation modification is
warranted, a court must first determine whether "the debtor
experienced a 'substantial' and 'unanticipated' change in his
post-confirmation financial condition." This inquiry serves to
"inform the bankruptcy court on the question of whether the
doctrine of res judicata prevents modification of the confirmed
plan." "If the change in the debtor's financial condition was
either insubstantial or anticipated, or both, the doctrine of res
judicata will prevent the modification of the confirmed plan." If
both parts of the standard are satisfied, the court may then
consider whether the proposed modification satisfies the remaining
statutory requirements.

Here, the debtor argues that a possible increase in value and sale
of the Southern Avenue properties in Elizabeth City, North Carolina
constitutes a substantial change in her financial condition. Ms.
Redding bases her belief that the Southern Avenue properties will
be sold at a high price on an article in a local newspaper, which
states that the Town of Elizabeth City may receive grant money to
help its efforts to mitigate flooding. She states that the city may
be given grant money within the next two years and that the money
may be used to purchase the Southern Avenue properties. Based on
the amount Elizabeth City paid to purchase other properties, Ms.
Redding believes the properties will eventually be sold for 400%
more than their current market price, likely within the next two

While courts have deemed the actual sale of properties at a price
well above market value to be "substantial" because of the
improvement to a debtor's financial condition, there has been no
such sale in this case. A speculative change in circumstances that
may or may not occur in the next two years is not a "substantial"
change as contemplated by the Arnold analysis and is insufficient
to avoid res judicata. Because Ms. Redding has not met the first
prong of the Arnold standard, the court need not consider whether
the possible events surrounding the Southern Avenue properties also
were unanticipated.

Ms. Redding argues that even if she does not meet the Arnold
modification standard, she still may prevail because that standard
does not apply to modifications to an individual chapter 11 plan
under 11 U.S.C. section 1127(e). There is no language in section
1127(e) requiring the debtor to meet the standard, she reasons, and
because section 1127(e) separately applies to individual chapter 11
debtors, modifications under that section likewise should be
construed separately, and should not be held to the same
requirements as post-confirmation modification request under other
chapters of the code.

The court disagrees and concludes that a debtor must have
experienced a "substantial" and "unanticipated" change in order to
modify a plan pursuant to section 1127(e).

The bankruptcy case in re: ALICE M. REDDING, Chapter 11, Debtor,
Case No. 14-05812-5-SWH (Bankr. E.D.N.C.).

A full-text copy of Judge Humrickhouse's Order dated Nov. 7, 2017,
is available at from

Alice M. Redding, Debtor, represented by Laurie B. Biggs, Stubbs &
Perdue, PA, Joseph Zachary Frost, Stubbs & Perdue, P.A. & Trawick
H. Stubbs, Jr., Stubbs & Perdue, P.A.

BLACK SQUARE: Taps Shraiberg Landau as Legal Counsel
Black Square Financial, LLC seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of Florida to hire Shraiberg,
Landau & Page, P.A. as its legal counsel.

The firm will advise the Debtor regarding matters of bankruptcy
law; negotiate with creditors; assist in the preparation of a plan
of reorganization; and provide other legal services related to its
Chapter 11 case.

The firm's hourly rates for its attorneys range from $250 to $500.
Legal assistants charge $175 per hour.  Philip Landau, Esq., the
attorney who will be handling the case, will charge an hourly fee
of $500.

Prior to the petition date, Shraiberg received two payments as
retainer: $5,000 for general advice and $40,000 upon the Debtor's
election to file a Chapter 11 case.  Of the $40,000, $10,000 will
be used by the firm as a flat fee for pre-bankruptcy matters.

Mr. Landau disclosed in a court filing that no attorney in his firm
has any connection with the Debtor's creditors.

The firm can be reached through:

     Philip Landau, Esq.
     Shraiberg, Landau & Page, P.A.
     Shraiberg, Landau & Page, P.A.
     2385 NW Executive Center Drive, Suite 300
     Boca Raton, FL 33431
     Tel: 561-443-0800
     Fax: 561-998-0047

                  About Black Square Financial LLC

Black Square Financial, LLC sought protection under Chapter 11 of
the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D. Fla. Case No. 17-23562) on
November 8, 2017.  At the time of the filing, the Debtor disclosed
that it had estimated assets of less than $500,000 and liabilities
of less than $1 million.

Judge John K. Olson presides over the case.

CASTLE ARCH: Liquidating Trustee Did Not Commit Breach of Contract
Judge Tena Campbell of the U.S. District Court for the District of
Utah granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment in the
case captioned ROBERT D. GERINGER, Plaintiff, v. D. RAY STRONG, in
his capacity as Liquidating Trustee of the Liquidating Trust for
the Consolidated Legacy Debtors, the Liquidating Trust for Castle
Arch Opportunity Partners I, LLC, and the Liquidating Trust for
Castle Arch Opportunity Partners II, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:16-CV-391-TC. (D. Utah).

Plaintiff Robert Geringer alleges that Defendant D. Ray Strong
(Trustee) breached a contract to sell Mr. Geringer land in Smyrna,
Tennessee. He also brings a claim for breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Trustee filed a motion
for summary judgment on those claims.

The Trustee's two main arguments focus on the merger doctrine and
failure of proof of causation. First, the Trustee contends that the
Term Sheet was superseded by the Agreement, which has an
integration clause and does not contain the five-day notice
provision. Second, according to the Trustee, Mr. Geringer has
provided no evidence tying the Trustee's alleged breach to Mr.
Geringer's claimed damages.

Considering all the arguments, Judge Campbell agrees with the
Trustee that Mr. Geringer's claims rely on a notice provision that
is not legally binding. Specifically, that notice provision was set
forth in a preliminary agreement that, when merged into an
integrated contract, was extinguished and is not enforceable. Thus,
the Court grants the Trustee's motion.

A full-text copy of Judge Campbell's Order and Memorandum Decision
dated Nov. 7, 2017, is available at from

Robert D. Geringer, Plaintiff, represented by Adam H. Reiser -- -- COHNE KINGHORN PC.

Robert D. Geringer, Plaintiff, represented by George B. Hofmann, IV
Nicholson, BROWNE GEORGE ROSS LLP -- -- pro
hac vice, Kerry C. Fowler, JONES DAY -- --
pro hac vice, Paul T. Moxley -- -- COHNE
KINGHORN PC & Richard L. Wynne, JONES DAY -- Richard L. Wynne,
JONES DAY -- pro hac vice.

D. Ray Strong, Defendant, represented by Sarah E. Goldberg -- -- DORSEY & WHITNEY, John Jeffrey Wiest
-- -- DORSEY & WHITNEY, Milo Steven Marsden
-- -- DORSEY & WHITNEY & Nathan S. Seim -- -- DORSEY & WHITNEY.

               About Castle Arch Real Estate

Castle Arch Real Estate Investment Company, LLC, in Salt Lake City,
Utah, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Bankr. D. Utah Case No.
11-35082) on Oct. 17, 2011, together with several affiliates. The
petitions were signed by Trent Waddoups, CEO/president.  Judge Joel
T. Marker presides over the case.  Michael L. Labertew, Esq., at
Labertew & Associates, LLC, served as counsel to the Debtors.  In
its petition, Castle Arch Real Estate Investment Company scheduled
$2,818,931 in assets, and $40,863,600 in debt.

The other filing affiliates are CAOP Managers, LLC; Castle Arch
Kingman, LLC; Castle Arch Secured Development Fund, LLC; Castle
Arch Smyrna, LLC; Castle Arch Star Valley, LLC; Castle Arch
Opportunity Partners I, LLC; and Castle Arch Opportunity Partners
II, LLC (Case Nos. 11-35082, 11-35237, 11-35243, 11-35242 and
11-35246, (Substantively Consolidated), Case Nos. 11-35241 and
11-35240, (Jointly Administered).

On May 3, 2012, the Court entered an order appointing D. Ray Strong
as the Chapter 11 bankruptcy Trustee for CAREIC, and in that
capacity he managed each of the other Legacy Debtors.  Peggy Hunt,
Esq., and Chris Martinez, Esq., at Dorsey & Whitney LLP, in Salt
Lake City, Utah, argue for the Chapter 11 Trustee.

On Feb. 8, 2013, the Court entered an Order substantively
consolidating the Legacy Debtors.  Bankruptcy Judge Joel T. Marker
confirmed the First Amended Plan of Liquidation dated Feb. 25,

RAINTREE HEALTHCARE: Court Official Unable to Appoint Committee
William, the bankruptcy administrator for the Middle District of
North Carolina, announced on Nov. 17 that no official committee of
unsecured creditors has been appointed in the Chapter 11 case of
Rain Tree Healthcare of Forsyth LLC.

            About Rain Tree Healthcare of Forsyth

Rain Tree Healthcare of Forsyth LLC sought protection under Chapter
11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. M.D.N.C. Case No. 17-51237) on
November 16, 2017.  At the time of the filing, the Debtor disclosed
that it had estimated assets and liabilities of less than $1

SOUTHERN SANDBLASTING: Property Sale Proceeds to Pay Creditors
Southern Sandblasting & Coatings, Inc., filed with the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas a disclosure
statement accompanying its proposed plan of reorganization.

The Debtors' Plan is liquidating in nature.  It divides the claims
into 17 classes.  The Debtor will sell the Property located at 8458
FM 1960 E, Dayton, Texas 77535. The proceeds from the sale of the
8458 Property net of the sales expenses will be distributed to
creditors. The Debtor will also distribute the Receivable and any
remaining assets, including cash, net of any costs to liquidate
such assets, to creditors.

Class 17 consists of all unpaid, pre-petition, allowed, unsecured,
non-priority claims against the Debtor. Based on the Debtor???s
schedules and the proofs of claim currently filed with the
Bankruptcy Court, the Debtor estimates that the total amount of
claims in this class is $2,325,000. In addition, the Debtor
estimates that there may be unpaid priority claims from Classes
9-16 that will be treated as if they were claims in Class 17. The
Debtor will pay this class all of the other assets remaining after
payment to Class 1 and Classes 9-16. The payment to this class will
be divided among the claims pro rata, in proportion to the amount
of the claim. Payments will be paid within 30 days after all
payments to Classes 1-16 have been made.

The Debtor believes that the proposed plan is feasible. It requires
that the Debtor liquidate its assets and distribute the proceeds.
The Debtor has already employed a real estate broker to sell the
8458 Property.

A full-text copy of the Disclosure Statement is available at:

           About Southern Sandblasting & Coatings

Southern Sandblasting & Coatings, Inc., based in Humble, TX, filed
a Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 17-30823) on
February 7, 2017. The Hon. Jeff Bohm presides over the case. Reese
W. Baker, Esq., at Baker & Associates, serves as bankruptcy

In its petition, the Debtor estimated $500,000 to $1 million in
assets and $1 million to $10 million in liabilities. The petition
was signed by Ernest W. Watson, Jr., president.

VANITY SHOP: CPO OK's Proposed Sale and Transfer of Customer PII
Luis Salazar, the duly appointed Consumer Privacy Ombudsman for the
estate of Vanity Shop of Grand Forks, Inc., submits a report to the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of North Dakota.

On October 3, 2017, Vanity Shops filed Debtor's Motion for Entry of
an Order, (I) Approving Bid/Sale Procedures, (II) Authorizing the
Sale of Certain Intellectual Property Free and Clear of Liens,
Claims, Encumbrances, and Other Interests, and (III) Granting
Related Relief, which, among other things, sought to sell certain
intellectual property including customer files and related data,
including contact information and email addresses, and other
purchasing history and related information. Vanity Shops agreed
that the Intellectual Property may contain "Personally Identifiable
Information" or "PII."

After review of the facts and circumstances of this proposed sale,
the Ombudsman respectfully recommends that the Court may approve
the proposed sale and transfer of the Customer PII subject to the
following conditions to be set forth in any sale order:

   * Customer PII may be sold and transferred, provided that Vanity
Shops demonstrates that such sale and transfer is to a "Qualified
Buyer." A "Qualified Buyer" means an entity that: (a) agrees to
operate Vanity Shops' as a going concern, (b) expressly agrees to
be bound by and succeed to substantially similar terms as contained
in Vanity Shops' existing privacy policies; and (c) agrees to be
responsible for any violation of existing privacy policies;

   * The Qualified Buyer must agree to be bound by and
substantially meet the standards established by Vanity Shops'
privacy policies, to maintain at least the same level of
information security currently maintained by Vanity Shops and
comply with applicable privacy laws and regulations governing the
transfer, storage, maintenance, and access to Customer PII;

   * Vanity Shops and the Qualified Buyer agree to provide notice
to any consumer whose Customer PII is being sold and transferred.
That notice may be provided by a posting on Vanity Shops' website
or in any initial contact email or communication;

   * Vanity Shops and the Qualified Buyer agree to provide
consumers with an opportunity to opt-out as part of the
notification process, to the extent required by law; and

   * The Qualified Buyer shall file a certification within 30 days
confirming their compliance with the conditions the Court may
impose, or the Court may direct the Ombudsman to file a final
report confirming such compliance.

If for any reason the Customer PII is sold to any other entity that
would not meet the requirements of "Qualified Buyer," then the
Court should require that:

   * The purchaser must, at a minimum, agree to abide by or
substantially meet the standards of Vanity Shops' existing privacy

   * Vanity Shops and the purchaser must provide notice to any
consumer whose PII it holds of the proposed transfer; and

   * As part of the notification, Vanity Shops and such a purchaser
must provide customers with the opportunity to opt-in to the
transfer, or their information would not be transferred but instead
be destroyed.

These proposed conditions are consistent with applicable precedent
in this area, including Federal Trade Commission rulings and prior
Consumer Privacy Ombudsman recommendations in other bankruptcy

A full-text copy of the CPO's Report dated Nov. 7, 2017, is
available at:

              About Vanity Shop of Grand Forks

Based in Fargo, North Dakota, Vanity Shop of Grand Forks, Inc.,
filed a Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. D. N.D. Case No. 17-30112) on
March 1, 2017, after announcing plans to close 137 Vanity stores in
27 states.  The petition was signed by James Bennett, chairman of
the Board of Directors.  In its petition, the Debtor estimated
assets of less than $100,000 and liabilities of $10 million to $50

Judge Shon Hastings presides over the case.  

Caren Stanley, Esq., at Vogel Law Firm, serves as the Debtor's
bankruptcy counsel.  The Debtor hired Eide Bailly, LLP as auditor;
Bell Bank as trustee for the ERISA Plan; and Jill Motschenbacher as

On March 10, 2017, the Office of the U.S. Trustee appointed an
official committee of unsecured creditors.  The committee hired Fox
Rothschild LLP as bankruptcy counsel, BGA Management, LLC, as
financial advisor, and Brady Martz & Associates PC, as accountant.

On June 16, 2017, Hilco IP Services, LLC d/b/a Hilco Streambank,
was appointed as the Debtor's Intellectual Property Disposition
Consultant, nunc pro tunc to May 12, 2017.

On Aug. 2, 2017, Diamond B Technology Services, LLC, was appointed
as IT Consultant.

W.R. GRACE: Former Worker Not Barred from Filing Actions vs BNSF
In the case captioned KELLY G. WATSON, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
and DOES A-Z, Defendants and Appellees, No. DA 17-0229 (Mont.),
Watson appeals the Jan. 25, 2017 order by the Eighth Judicial
District Court, Cascade County, granting Defendant Burlington
Northern and Sante Fe Railway Company's motion for summary judgment
on Watson's asbestos-related disease claim, brought under the
Federal Employers' Liability Act. The dispositive issue in this
matter is whether the Bankruptcy Court's Order enjoining claims
against W.R. Grace and other Affiliated Entities, including BNSF,
tolled the statute of limitations on Watson's claim.

The Supreme Court of Montana reverses and remands for further

On Jan. 25, 2017, the District Court granted BNSF's motion for
summary judgment. The District Court held the statute of
limitations barred Watson's claim because Watson's claim accrued on
Oct. 22, 2007, and he should have filed his FELA claims by Oct. 22,
2010. The District Court concluded that "[w]hile the bankruptcy
court's injunction stayed pending cases against BNSF, nothing in
the injunction prohibited a plaintiff from suing," and "[t]here is
nothing in the original bankruptcy court injunction, BNSF expanded
injunction, or associated briefing referenced by the parties that
precludes filing new cases to preserve the statute of limitations."
The District Court also concluded that "there is nothing in the
plain language of the bankruptcy court's original injunction or
expanded BNSF injunction that enjoins the 'commencement of an
action' to trigger section 27-2-406, MCA." Section 27-2-406, MCA,
tolls a limitations period "[w]hen the commencement of an action is
stayed by injunction or other order of the court or judge or
statutory prohibition."

Watson argues the period of limitations for his action against BNSF
should be deemed tolled because the commencement of an action
against BNSF was enjoined by the Bankruptcy Court's Injunction and
section 27-2-406, MCA, applies. Watson asserts the District Court
erroneously concluded that the Bankruptcy Court Injunction did not
bar the "commencement" of a new action, such as Watson's, because:
(a) the Injunction was modified on Jan. 22, 2002, to "reinstate the
bar against the commencement of actions"; (b) the Injunction was
expanded to bar not only certain "Montana Actions" but "all other
similar actions that have been or may be filed" against BNSF; (c)
the purpose of expanding the Injunction to include BNSF was to
prevent the tender of defense to Debtor W.R. Grace that would be
triggered by the filing of a complaint against BNSF; and (d) the
Bankruptcy Court and the parties, including BNSF, repeatedly
acknowledged the Injunction as a bar against the "commencement" of

The Court holds that Watson's claim accrued in October 2007. While
his claim was still well within the FELA's three-year statute of
limitations, the Bankruptcy Court issued its April 22, 2008 Order
expanding the Injunction to include BNSF as a Nondebtor Affiliate.
This Injunction, as modified by the Bankruptcy Court's January 22,
2002 Order, "bar[red] . . . the commencement of new actions against
affiliates." Effective upon the issuance of the Bankruptcy Court's
April 22, 2008 Order, therefore, Watson was barred from commencing
his asbestos-related disease action against BNSF. The Bankruptcy
Court's Injunction was lifted on Feb. 3, 2014, at which time
Watson's statute of limitations resumed running. Watson amended his
Complaint to include BNSF on Nov. 28, 2014. Approximately six
months passed between Oct. 22, 2007, when Watson's claim against
BNSF accrued, to April 11, 2008, when the Bankruptcy Court's
Injunction was expanded to include BNSF. Approximately ten months
passed between Feb. 3, 2014, when the Bankruptcy Court's Injunction
was lifted, until Nov. 28, 2014, when Watson amended his Complaint
to include BNSF. After excluding the time that Watson was enjoined
from commencing an action against BNSF, he amended his Complaint to
include a claim against BNSF approximately 16 months after his
claim accrued. This was well within the FELA's three-year statute
of limitations.

The District Court erred in its conclusion that the Bankruptcy
Court's Injunction did not bar the commencement of new actions
against BNSF.

A full-text copy of Court's Opinion dated Nov. 14, 2017, is
available at from

Allan M. McGarvey, John F. Lacey, McGarvey, Heberling, Sullivan, &
Lacey, PC, Kalispell, Montana, for Appellant.

Chad M. Knight -- -- Knight Nicastro,
LLC, Boulder, Colorado, for Appellees.

                     About W.R. Grace

Headquartered in Columbia, Maryland, W.R. Grace & Co. (NYSE:GRA) -- supplies catalysts and silica products,
especially construction chemicals and building materials, and
container products globally.  Grace employs approximately 6,500
people in over 40 countries and had 2012 net sales of $3.2

The company and its debtor-affiliates filed for chapter 11
protection on April 2, 2001 (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 01-01139).

The Debtors are represented by Adam Paul, Esq., and John Donley,
P.C., Esq., at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, in Chicago, Illinois; Roger
Higgins, Esq., at The Law Offices of Roger Higgins, in Chicago,
Illinois; and Laura Davis Jones, Esq., James E. O'Neill, Esq., and
Timothy P. Cairns, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, LLP, in
Wilmington, Delaware.

The Debtors hired Blackstone Group, L.P., for financial advice.
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP is the Debtors' accountant.

Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, LLP, and Duane Morris, LLP, represent
the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  The Creditors
Committee tapped Capstone Corporate Recovery LLC for financial

Roger Frankel serves as legal representative for victims of
asbestos exposure who may file claims against W.R. Grace.  Mr.
Frankel, a partner at Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, replaces
David Austern, who was appointed to that role in 2004.  Mr. Frankel
has served as legal counsel for Mr. Austern who passed away in May
2013.  The FCR is represented by Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
as counsel; Phillips Goldman & Spence, P.A., as Delaware
co-counsel; and Lincoln Partners Advisors LLC as financial

Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP and Phillips Goldman & Spence, PA.
Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, and Marla
R. Eskin, Esq., at Campbell & Levine, LLC, represent the Official
Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants.  The Asbestos
Committee of Property Damage Claimants tapped Scott Baena, Esq.,
and Jay M. Sakalo, Esq., at Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod,
LLP, to represent it.  Thomas Moers Mayer, Esq., at Kramer Levin
Naftalis & Frankel, LLP, represents the Official Committee of
Equity Security Holders.

W.R. Grace obtained confirmation of a plan co-proposed with the
Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants, the
Official Committee of Equity Security Holders, and the Asbestos
Future Claimants Representative.   The Chapter 11 plan is built
around an April 2008 settlement for all present and future asbestos
personal injury claims, and a subsequent settlement for asbestos
property damage claims.

District Judge Ronald Buckwalter on Jan. 31, 2012, entered an order
affirming the bankruptcy court's confirmation of the Plan.
Bankruptcy Judge Judith Fitzgerald had approved the Plan on Jan.
31, 2011.

W.R. Grace defeated four appeals from approval of the Plan.  A
fifth appeal was by secured bank lenders claiming the right to $185
million of interest at the contractual default rate.  Pursuant to a
settlement announced in December 2013, lenders are to receive $129
million in settlement of the claim for additional interest.

W.R. Grace & Co. and its debtor affiliates notified the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware that they have
satisfied or waived conditions to the occurrence of the effective
date of the First Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization co-proposed
by the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants,
the Asbestos PI Future Claimants' Representative, and the Official
Committee of Equity Security Holders.  The effective date of the
Plan occurred on Feb. 3, 2014.

[^] BOOK REVIEW: Transnational Mergers and Acquisitions
Author:     Sarkis J. Khoury
Publisher:  Beard Books
Softcover:  292 pages
List Price: $34.95
Review by Gail Owens Hoelscher

Order your personal copy today at

Transnational Mergers and Acquisitions in the United States will
appeal to a wide range of readers.  Dr. Khoury's analysis is
valuable for managers involved in transnational acquisitions,
whether they are acquiring companies or being acquired themselves.

At the same time, he provides a comprehensive and large-scale look
at the industrial sector of the U.S. economy that proves very
useful for policy makers even today.  With its nearly 100 tables
of data and numerous examples, Khoury provides a wealth of
information for business historians and researchers as well.

Until the late 1960s, we Americans were confident (some might say
smug) in our belief that U.S. direct investment abroad would
continue to grow as it had in the 1950s and 1960s, and that we
would dominate the other large world economies in foreign
investment for some time to come.  And then came the 1970s, U.S.
investment abroad stood at $78 billion, in contrast to only $13
billion in foreign investment in the U.S.  In 1978, however, only
eight years later, foreign investment in the U.S. had skyrocketed
to nearly #41 billion, about half of it in acquisition of U.S.
firms.  Foreign acquisitions of U.S. companies grew from 20 in
1970 to 188 in 1978.  The tables had turned an Americans were
worried.  Acquisitions in the banking and insurance sectors were
increasing sharply, which in particular alarmed many analysts.

Thus, when it was first published in 1980, this book met a growing
need for analytical and empirical data on this rapidly increasing
flow of foreign investment money into the U.S., much of it in
acquisitions.  Khoury answers many of the questions arising from
the situation as it stood in 1980, many of which are applicable
today: What are the motives for transnational acquisitions? How do
foreign firms plans, evaluate, and negotiate mergers in the U.S.?
What are the effects of these acquisitions on competition, money
and capital markets;  relative technological position; balance of
payments and economic policy in the U.S.?

To begin to answer these questions, Khoury researched foreign
investment in the U.S. from 1790 to 1979.  His historical review
includes foreign firms' industry preferences, choice of location
in the U.S., and methods for penetrating the U.S. market.  He
notes the importance of foreign investment to growth in the U.S.,
particularly until the early 20th century, and that prior to the
1970s, foreign investment had grown steadily throughout U.S.
history, with lapses during and after the world wars.

Khoury found that rates of return to foreign companies were not
excessive.  He determined that the effect on the U.S. economy was
generally positive and concluded that restricting the inflow of
direct and indirect foreign investment would hinder U.S. economic
growth both in the short term and long term.  Further, he found no
compelling reason to restrict the activities of multinational
corporations in the U.S. from a policy perspective.  Khoury's
research broke new ground and provided input for economic policy
at just the right time.

Sarkis J. Khoury holds a Ph.D. in International Finance from
Wharton.  He teaches finance and international finance at the
University of California, Riverside, and serves as the Executive
Director of International Programs at the Anderson Graduate School
of Business.


Monday's edition of the TCR delivers a list of indicative prices
for bond issues that reportedly trade well below par.  Prices are
obtained by TCR editors from a variety of outside sources during
the prior week we think are reliable.  Those sources may not,
however, be complete or accurate.  The Monday Bond Pricing table
is compiled on the Friday prior to publication.  Prices reported
are not intended to reflect actual trades.  Prices for actual
trades are probably different.  Our objective is to share
information, not make markets in publicly traded securities.
Nothing in the TCR constitutes an offer or solicitation to buy or
sell any security of any kind.  It is likely that some entity
affiliated with a TCR editor holds some position in the issuers
public debt and equity securities about which we report.

Each Tuesday edition of the TCR contains a list of companies with
insolvent balance sheets whose shares trade higher than $3 per
share in public markets.  At first glance, this list may look like
the definitive compilation of stocks that are ideal to sell short.
Don't be fooled.  Assets, for example, reported at historical cost
net of depreciation may understate the true value of a firm's
assets.  A company may establish reserves on its balance sheet for
liabilities that may never materialize.  The prices at which
equity securities trade in public market are determined by more
than a balance sheet solvency test.

On Thursdays, the TCR delivers a list of recently filed
Chapter 11 cases involving less than $1,000,000 in assets and
liabilities delivered to nation's bankruptcy courts.  The list
includes links to freely downloadable images of these small-dollar
petitions in Acrobat PDF format.

Each Friday's edition of the TCR includes a review about a book of
interest to troubled company professionals.  All titles are
available at your local bookstore or through  Go to order any title today.

Monthly Operating Reports are summarized in every Saturday edition
of the TCR.

The Sunday TCR delivers securitization rating news from the week

TCR subscribers have free access to our on-line news archive.
Point your Web browser to use
the e-mail address to which your TCR is delivered to login.


S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Troubled Company Reporter is a daily newsletter co-published
by Bankruptcy Creditors Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  
Jhonas Dampog, Marites Claro, Joy Agravante, Rousel Elaine
Tumanda, Valerie Udtuhan, Howard C. Tolentino, Carmel Paderog,
Meriam Fernandez, Joel Anthony G. Lopez, Cecil R. Villacampa,
Sheryl Joy P. Olano, Psyche A. Castillon, Ivy B. Magdadaro, Carlo
Fernandez, Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman,

Copyright 2017.  All rights reserved.  ISSN: 1520-9474.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.  Information contained
herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but is
not guaranteed.

The TCR subscription rate is $975 for 6 months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Peter A.
Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.

                   *** End of Transmission ***