/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/TCR_Public/201029.mbx          T R O U B L E D   C O M P A N Y   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, October 29, 2020, Vol. 24, No. 302

                            Headlines

1069 RESTAURANT: Seeks to Tap Rosenfield as Financial Advisors
12 UNIVERSITY: Seeks Approval to Hire Allan D. NewDelman as Counsel
323-327 MAIN ST: Hires Norgaard O'Boyle as Attorney
38 MARKET ST: Hires Norgaard O'Boyle as Attorney
ALL TEXAS ELECTRICAL: Hires O'ConnorWechsler as Counsel

ALLIED FINANCIAL: Barreto Buying Aguadilla Property for $34K
ALLIED FINANCIAL: Selling Aguadilla Property for $46K
ANDREW P. CHAMBERLAND: $519K Sale of Forest Property to Kanes OK'd
ART VAN: Trustee's Dec. 10 Auction of Class Action Rights Set
ASTRIA HEALTH: $20M Sale of ARMC & MOB to Yakima MOBIC Approved

AVANTOR INC: S&P Rates $1.35BB Senior Secured Term Loan 'BB-'
BALBOA INTERMEDIATE: S&P Alters Outlook to Neg., Affirms 'B' ICR
BARFLY VENTURES: Sells HopCat Restaurant Assets for $17 Million
BENNINGTON CORP: Chapter 11 Trustee's Asset Sale Okayed
BERGIO INTERNATIONAL: Signs Note Settlement Agreement with Fidelis

BJ SERVICES: Argonaut Buys Cementing Business
BLACK AND WHITE: Seeks to Hire Cushner & Associates as Counsel
BLACKSTONE CAPITAL: Seeks Approval to Tap Mark S. Roher as Attorney
BLUE STAR DONUTS: In Chapter 11 Due to Covid-19
BROOKLYN ROASTING: Ends Up in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy

CALFRAC WELL: Shareholders, Unsec. Noteholders OK Amended Plan
CALFRAC WELL: Stops Wilks' Bid to Seek Insolvency
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Emerges From Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
CATALINA SEA RANCH: Assets Can Be Sold Free of Successor Liability
CHARLES EUGENE BARNETT: Court Allows Shellpoint to Amend Suit

CINEMEX HOLDINGS: Owners Can Seek Lien Extension, Court Rules
CLEVELAND IMAGING: Trustee's Nov. 17 Auction of Moparty Suit Claim
COSMOLEDO LLC: Committee Taps Hahn & Hessen as Legal Counsel
COTO INVESTMENTS: Seeks Approval to Tap Armory as Financial Advisor
COTO INVESTMENTS: Seeks to Hire Goe, Forsythe & Hodges as Counsel

CURTIS JAMES JACKSON: GSO Suit vs Boulevard Mgmt. Goes to Trial
DATASITE GLOBAL: S&P Places 'B' ICR on CreditWatch Negative
DEGRAF CONCRETE: Hudson Seeks $2.2MM Payment for Bond Losses
DEPAUL INDUSTRIES: Suit vs City of Eugene Goes to Trial
DRW HOLDINGS: Moody's Alters Outlook on Ba3 CFR to Positive

EASTERN CANAL: Seeks to Hire Cushner & Associates as Attorney
ELECTROMEDICAL TECH: Accumulated Losses Cast Going Concern Doubt
ENERGY ALLOYS: Gets Approval to Hire Akin Gump as Special Counsel
ENERGY ALLOYS: Gets Court Approval to Hire Hilco as Sales Agent
ENERGY ALLOYS: Sets Bid Procedures for Interests in EH Subsidiaries

ENERGY CONVERSION: Claims in Trust Suit vs Ovonyx et al. Narrowed
ENERGY FUTURE: Bergschneider, Heinzmann Asbestos Claims Tossed
EVEREST REAL ESTATE: Bankruptcy Filing Stays Suit vs AGC
EVOKE PHARMA: Reports Commercial Launch of Gimoti
EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Remaining 102 Acres Bought by Frisco City

FLUID END: $35.5K Sale of 2017 Ford F-250 to Southwest Car Approved
FORGE DRILLING: Seeks to Hire Pendergraft & Simon as Counsel
FORUM HEALTH: Unclaimed Funds Go to Bankruptcy Court Registry
FROGNAL HOLDINGS: Could Have New Owner Absent Loan
FROGNAL HOLDINGS: Seeks to Tap Land Advisors as Listing Agent

FRONTERA GENERATION: S&P Cuts Issue-Level Ratings to 'D'
GAINESVILLE ROAD: Appeal on Ch. 11 Trustee Appointment Dismissed
GARRETT MOTION: Hires Kurtzman Carson as Administrative Advisor
GARRETT MOTION: Hires Morgan Stanley as Financial Advisor
GARRETT MOTION: Jones Day Updates List of Shareholders

GARRETT MOTION: Ropes & Gray 2nd Update on Noteholder Group
GARRETT MOTION: Seeks to Hire Deloitte AG as Auditor
GENCANNA GLOBAL: Suit vs Jenco et al. Referred to Bankruptcy Court
GNC HOLDINGS: Posts $83.7M Net Loss for the Quarter Ended June 30
GOOD HEMP: Posts $653,000 Net Loss for the Quarter Ended June 30

HAROLD ROSBOTTOM: Ex-Wife's Fee Agreement Invalid, 5th Cir. Says
HELIUS MEDICAL: Posts $3.4-Mil. Net Loss for Quarter Ended June 30
HENRY FORD VILLAGE: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors
HERTZ GLOBAL: Creditors Question Proposed $1.65B Bankruptcy Loan
HIGHLAND CAPITAL: Need to Change Bankruptcy Plan to Solicit Votes

HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Emerges From Prepackaged Bankruptcy
I-LOGIC TECHNOLOGIES: S&P Assigns 'B' Issue-Level Ratings
IDEANOMICS INC: Invests in Calif.-based e-Tractor Company, Solectra
IMERYS TALC: Creditors Flagged Bankruptcy Disclosures as Deficient
INTELSAT SA: Taps Deloitte FAS to Provide Accounting Services

INTERSTATE COMMODITIES: NSC Minerals Buying 45 Railcars for $225K
J GROUP LLC: Case Summary & 2 Unsecured Creditors
JACK COOPER: Court Declines Bid to Alter July 8 Dismissal Order
JAMES HARDIE: S&P Alters Outlook to Stable, Affirms 'BB' ICR
JEMA GROUP: Seeks Approval to Tap Allen Barnes & Jones as Counsel

JOHN VARVATOS: Mediation of Tessa Knox Dispute Withdrawn
K.G. IM LLC: Seeks Approval to Hire Traxi LLC as Financial Advisor
K.G. IM LLC: Seeks to Tap Configure Partners as Investment Banker
KLAUSNER LUMBER ONE: Hires McCausland Keen as IP Counsel
KLAUSNER LUMBER TWO: Hires McCausland Keen as IP Counsel

KNIGHTHOUSE MEDIA: Hires White and Williams as Legal Counsel
LAZER TANK: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors
LRGHEALTHCARE: Hires Deloitte Transactions as Financial Advisor
LRGHEALTHCARE: Seeks Approval to Tap Nixon Peabody LLP as Counsel
LRGHEALTHCARE: Seeks to Tap Epiq as Claims Agent

LRGHEALTHCARE: Taps Kaufman, Hall & Associates as Financial Advisor
MARIANINA OIL: Hires Joseph A. Romano as Special Counsel
MARINER SEAFOOD: True North Completes Acquisition
MARRERO GLASS: Hires Gerald Gensiejewski as Accountant
MARTIN MIDSTREAM: Incurs $10.8 Million Net Loss in Third Quarter

MIDWAY MARKET: Case Summary & 12 Unsecured Creditors
MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Claims in Water Contamination Case Trimmed
NEIMAN MARCUS: Hopes for Magic During Holiday Season
NINE WEST: Court Dismisses Chapter 11 Fraud & Enrichment Claims
NPC INT'L: Creditors Oppose the 'Roulette Wheel' Bankruptcy Plan

NPC INTERNATIONAL: Driver Class Claimants Oppose Plan Disclosures
NS8 INC: Files for Chapter 11 as Founder Sued by SEC
OCCASION BRANDS: Nov. 13 Auction of Substantially All Assets
OCEAN VIEW: Seeks to Hire McDowell Law as Counsel
PARKING MANAGEMENT: Can Proceed Under Subchapter V of Chapter 11

PAVEROCK INC: Seeks to Hire Margaret M. McClure as Attorney
PEAK PROPERTY: Seeks to Tap Nguyen & Associates CPA as Accountant
PENNSYLVANIA REAL ESTATE: Disputes Default Claim of Wells Fargo
PORTERS NECK COUNTRY CLUB: McConnell Golf Is New Club Owner
PRO TANK: Samson's Nov. 6-11 Online Auction of Burdick Property OKd

PRO TANK: Samson's Nov. 6-11 Online Auction of Minot Property OK'd
QUARTER HOMES: Gets Court Approval to Hire Special Counsel
RGN-GROUP HOLDINGS: Chapel Hill Office Building Owner in Chapter 11
RIVER TO VALLEY: Seeks to Hire Pahnke Real Estate as Realtor
ROBERT J. AMBRUSTER: Hires Angela Redden-Jansen as Counsel

ROCKSTAR REMODELING: Cilfone Allowed to Represent in Suit v Brooks
ROYAL ALICE: Court Narrows Claims in Arrowhead Lawsuit
RUBIO'S COASTAL: Gets Court OK to Tap $4.5M Ch. 11 Financing
SAEXPLORATION HOLDINGS: Files Debt-for-Equity Plan
SARALAND LLLP: 11th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Suit v Trustee, LMIC

SEAN KEVIN RYON: Sale of Fort Worth Property to 4000 Hemphill OK'd
SHILOH INDUSTRIES: MiddleGround-Led Auction on Oct. 29 Set
SHREE MADHAV: Hires LMR CPA Associates as Accountant
SK FOODS: Status Conference in Bruce Foods Case Moved to December
SOUTHERN CONCRETE: Seeks Approval to Hire Fritz Law Firm as Counsel

STEWART STREET: Seeks Approval to Tap Scott B. Riddle as Attorney
T0WN SPORTS: Cancels Asset Auction Due to No Additional Bids
TA HOTEL: Vancouver's Trump Hotel Owner Seeks Bankruptcy
TAILORED BRANDS: Unsecureds Ask Consent to Sue Lenders Over Liens
TOTAL OILFIELD: Seeks to Hire Carrillo Law as Special Counsel

TRI-POINT OIL: Court Approves Liquidating Plan
TRI-POINT OIL: Court Enters Plan Confirmation Order
TUESDAY MORNING: Opts Not to Sell Assets in Chapter 11
UPSTREAM NEWCO: S&P Affirms 'B' ICR; Rating Off Watch Negative
US REAL ESTATE: Hires Phillips & Thomas as Bankruptcy Counsel

USA RUGBY: Exits Bankruptcy, Proceeds to Post-Bankruptcy Phase
USA RUGBY: Files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Plan
VEREGY INTERMEDIATE: S&P Assigns 'B-' ICR on Leveraged Buyout
VISTA PROPPANTS : Wins Court Approval of Restructuring Plan
VISTA PROPPANTS: Lenders, Usecureds Reach Plan Deal

WADE PARK: Developer Seeks Bankruptcy Protection
WEINSTEIN CO: Accusers Are Given Final Say on Chapter 11 Plan
WEINSTEIN CO: Accusers Label the Firm's Ch. 11 Plan as 'Offensive'
WEINSTEIN CO: Lawyers Present Revised Bankruptcy Plan to Court
WESTERN ROBIDOUX: Seeks to Hire German May as Special Counsel

WILTON ARMETALE: Trustee Allowed to Abandon Suit vs. Ex-Counsel
WJA ASSET: Seeks to Hire Cypress West as Broker
WOODLAWN COMMUNITY: Trustee Seeks Approval to Hire Special Counsel
YACHT CLUB: Gets Approval to Hire J. Jeschke as Appraiser
[*] Buchalter: Criticial Issues in Hotel Bankruptcies

[^] Recent Small-Dollar & Individual Chapter 11 Filings

                            *********

1069 RESTAURANT: Seeks to Tap Rosenfield as Financial Advisors
--------------------------------------------------------------
1069 Restaurant Group, LLC and its debtor affiliates seek approval
from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Florida
to employ Rosenfield and Company, PLLC as their financial
advisors.

The firm will render these professional services to the Debtors:

     (a) assistance with the Monthly Operating Reports for the
Debtors;

     (b) provide consulting regarding cash flow forecasts; and

     (c) general financial advice as needed.

Rosenfield will charge a range from $125 to $450 per hour. A
retainer of $50,000.00 was paid by the Debtors upon the engagement
of Rosenfield.

Robert B. Morrison, a partner of Rosenfield and Company, PLLC,
disclosed in court filings that the firm represents no adverse to
the Debtors in matters upon which it is to be engaged, and the
employment of Rosenfield would be in the best interest of the
estate.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     Robert B. Morrison
     Rosenfield & Company, PLLC
     301 East Pine Street, Suite 975
     Orlando, FL 32801
     Telephone: (407) 849-6400

                             About 1069 Restaurant Group

1069 Restaurant Group, LLC, is an operator of franchised buffet
restaurants. The group is the largest Golden Corral franchisee,
with 33 restaurants in Florida and Georgia.

1069 Restaurant Group and its affiliates concurrently filed
voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy
Code (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Lead Case No. 20-05582) on Oct. 5, 2020. The
petitions were signed by Eric A. Holm, manager. 1069 Restaurant
Group was estimated to have assets of $10 million to $50 million
and liabilities of $50 million to $100 million. The Hon. Lori V.
Vaughan is the case judge. The Debtors tapped Shuker & Dorris,
P.A., led by R. Scott Shuker, as counsel and Rosenfield and
Company, PLLC as financial advisors.


12 UNIVERSITY: Seeks Approval to Hire Allan D. NewDelman as Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------------------
12 University, LLC seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Arizona to employ Allan D. NewDelman, P.C. as
its counsel.

The firm will render these legal services to the Debtor:

     (a) give the Debtor legal advice with respect to all matters
related to this case;

     (b) prepare on behalf of the Debtor, as Debtor-In-Possession,
necessary applications, answers, orders, reports and other legal
papers; and

     (c) perform all other legal services for the Debtor which may
be necessary herein.

The hourly billing rates of the firm's attorneys and
paraprofessionals in this matter are as follows:

    Allan D. NewDelman          $475.00
    Roberta J. Sunkin           $395.00
    Paralegal          $150.00- $200.00

Allan D. New Delman, Esq., disclosed in court filings that Allan D.
NewDelman, P.C. represents no interest adverse to the Debtor or the
estate.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     Allan D. NewDelman, Esq.
     ALLAN D. NEWDELMAN, P.C.
     80 East Columbus Avenue
     Phoenix, AZ 85012
     Telephone: (602) 264-4550
     E-mail: anewdelman@adnlaw.net

                                About 12 University

12 University, LLC filed a voluntary petition for relief under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Ariz. Case No.
20-11567) on October 19, 2020. Judge Brenda Moody Whinery oversees
the case. Allan D. NewDelman, Esq., at Allan D. NewDelman, P.C.
serves as the Debtor's bankruptcy counsel.


323-327 MAIN ST: Hires Norgaard O'Boyle as Attorney
---------------------------------------------------
323-327 Main St., LLC, seeks authority from the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of New Jersey to employ Norgaard O'Boyle &
Hannon, as attorney to the Debtor.

323-327 Main St.requires Norgaard O'Boyle to:

   -- represent the Debtor in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy
      proceedings; and

   -- assist in the preparation of the petition, schedules,
      repors, motions, and the Plan of Confirmation.

Norgaard O'Boyle will be paid at these hourly rates:

     Partner                    $400 to $425
     Senior Associate               $350
     Associate                  $275 to $325
     Law Clerks                     $175
     Paralegals                 $90 to $125

Norgaard O'Boyle will also be reimbursed for reasonable
out-of-pocket expenses incurred.

38 Market St., LLC, a partner of Norgaard O'Boyle & Hannon, assured
the Court that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is
defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and does not
represent any interest adverse to the Debtor and its estates.

Norgaard O'Boyle can be reached at:

     Brian G. Hannon, Esq.
     John O'Boyle, Esq.
     NORGAARD O'BOYLE & HANNON
     184 Grand Avenue
     Englewood, NJ 07631
     Tel: (201) 871-1333
     E-mail: bhannon@norgaardfirm.com
             joboyle@norgaardfirm.com

                      About 323-327 Main St.

323-327 Main St LLC, based in Totowa, NJ, filed a Chapter 11
petition (Bankr. D.N.J. Case No. 20-21121) on Sept. 30, 2020.  In
the petition signed by Jennifer Iturralde Pina, member, the Debtor
disclosed $4,325,000 in assets and $4,232,013 in liabilities.
NORGAARD O'BOYLE & HANNON, serves as bankruptcy counsel to the
Debtor.


38 MARKET ST: Hires Norgaard O'Boyle as Attorney
------------------------------------------------
38 Market St., LLC, seeks authority from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of New Jersey to employ Norgaard O'Boyle & Hannon,
as attorney to the Debtor.

38 Market St requires Norgaard O'Boyle to:

   -- represent the Debtor in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy
      proceedings; and

   -- assist in the preparation of the petition, schedules,
      repors, motions, and the Plan of Confirmation.

Norgaard O'Boyle will be paid at these hourly rates:

     Partner                    $400 to $425
     Senior Associate               $350
     Associate                  $275 to $325
     Law Clerks                     $175
     Paralegals                 $90 to $125

Norgaard O'Boyle will also be reimbursed for reasonable
out-of-pocket expenses incurred.

38 Market St., LLC, partner of Norgaard O'Boyle & Hannon, assured
the Court that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is
defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and does not
represent any interest adverse to the Debtor and its estates.

Norgaard O'Boyle can be reached at:

     Brian G. Hannon, Esq.
     John O'Boyle, Esq.
     NORGAARD O'BOYLE & HANNON
     184 Grand Avenue
     Englewood, NJ 07631
     Tel: (201) 871-1333
     E-mail: bhannon@norgaardfirm.com
             joboyle@norgaardfirm.com

                      About 38 Market St.

38 Market St., LLC, based in Totowa, NJ, filed a Chapter 11
petition (Bankr. D.N.J. Case No. 20-21126) on Sept. 30, 2020.  In
the petition signed by Jennifer Iturralde Pina, sole member, the
Debtor disclosed $1,125,000 in assets and $4,135,229 in
liabilities.  NORGAARD, O'BOYLE & HANNON, serves as bankruptcy
counsel to the Debtor.




ALL TEXAS ELECTRICAL: Hires O'ConnorWechsler as Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------
All Texas Electrical Contractors, Inc., seeks authority from the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas to employ
O'ConnorWechsler PLLC, as counsel to the Debtor.

All Texas Electrical requires O'ConnorWechsler to:

   a. provide legal advice with respect to the Debtor's rights
      and duties as debtor in possession and continued business
      operations;

   b. assist, advise and represent the Debtor in analyzing the
      Debtor's capital structure, investigating the extent and
      validity of liens, cash collateral stipulations or
      contested matters;

   c. assist, advise and represent the Debtor in any cash
      collateral and/or postpetition financing transactions;

   d. assist, advise and represent the Debtor in the sale of its
      assets and/or a chapter 11 plan;

   e. assist, advise and represent the Debtor in any manner
      relevant to preserving and protecting the Debtor's
      bankruptcy estate;

   f. investigate and prosecute preference, fraudulent transfer
      and other actions arising under the Debtor's bankruptcy
      avoiding powers;

   g. prepare on behalf of the Debtor all necessary applications,
      motions, answers, orders, reports, and other legal papers;

   h. appear in Court and to protect the Debtor's interests
      before the Court;

   i. assist the Debtor in administrative matters;

   j. perform all other legal services for which the Debtor may
      be necessary and proper in these proceedings;

   k. assist, advise and represent the Debtor in any litigation
      matter;

   l. continue to assist and advise the Debtor in general
      corporate and other matters previously described in this
      application; and

   m. provide other legal advice and services, as requested by
      the Debtor, from time to time.

O'ConnorWechsler will be paid based upon its normal and usual
hourly billing rates.

O'ConnorWechsler received from the Debtor the amount of $65,000 as
retainer. As of the Petition Date, after deducting fees and
expenses the balance of the Retainer was $36,443.

O'ConnorWechsler will also be reimbursed for reasonable
out-of-pocket expenses incurred.

Annie E. Catmull, partner of O'ConnorWechsler PLLC, assured the
Court that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is
defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and does not
represent any interest adverse to the Debtor and its estates.

O'ConnorWechsler can be reached at:

     Annie E. Catmull, Esq.
     O'CONNORWECHSLER PLLC
     4400 Post Oak Plaza, Suite 2360
     Houston, TX 77027
     Tel: (281) 814-5977
     E-mail: aecatmull@o-w-law.com

              About All Texas Electrical Contractors

All Texas Electrical Contractors, Inc. --
http://www.alltexaselectrical.net/-- provides electrical
installation and services.

All Texas Electrical Contractors, Inc., based in Houston, TX, filed
a Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 20-34656) on Sept.
25, 2020.  In the petition signed by Arthur Montemayor, president,
the Debtor was estimated to have $1 million to $10 million in both
assets and liabilities.  The Hon. Eduardo V. Rodriguez presides
over the case.  O'CONNOR WECHSLER PLLC, serves as bankruptcy
counsel.



ALLIED FINANCIAL: Barreto Buying Aguadilla Property for $34K
------------------------------------------------------------
Allied Financial, Inc., asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Puerto Rico to authorize the sale of the lot of land
located at Barrio Aguacate in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico, Registered as
Property Num. 30,066, of Vol. 558 in Aguadilla Property Registry,
to Sandro Escobar Barreto for $34,000.

The Debtor listed in its Schedules an interest in the Property.
The Property has approximately 823.4915 square meters.  

The Debtor acquired the Property on Dec. 4, 2013, via Deed of
Judicial Sale and Cancelation of Mortgage Note by Notary Public
Shariann Morales Feliciano.  The Appraisal Report dated June 15,
2020 for the Property shows a value of $34,000.  The Restricted Use
Appraisal Reports have been used in the case because the intended
user of these reports, is for guidance in establishing disposition
and comparable prices and does not need to include details
typically included in Appraisal Reports, which in the case, upon
management experience is not necessary.  Notwithstanding it, the
appraisal values in these reports are based on comparable sales
information which is deemed to be adequately supported by the
evidence provided.

The Debtor has been actively marketing all of its real estate
assets through the resources of its principal stockholder who is a
licensed real estate broker with more than 45 years of experience
and who took over management of its business prior to the filing of
the bankruptcy for the purpose of managing and maximizing
distributions to creditors through the sale of the Debtor's real
estate assets.

The Debtor has identified the Purchaser as potential buyer for the
Property in the amount of $34,000, on the terns of the Purchase
Option Agreement.  The Purchaser has previously purchased real
estate from the Debtor on multiple occasions.  He is offering the
same price per square meter as the previous purchase of property.

The Property, as of the date, has property tax debt, in the total
amount of $ 1,220.  Any amounts owed to CRIM will be paid first
with the proceeds ofthe sale.  The Property also serves as
collateral to WM Capital Partners76, LLC, which will receive the
net proceed of the sale to be applied to the principal of its Claim
No. 1.

The Debtor has not asked authorization to retain the services of a
Notary because none is needed.  The notarial services are being
paid by Mr. Rafael Portela at no cost to the Debtor.  It is not
paying for notarial services nor other professionai services
related to the transaction.

The transfer of the Property shali be free and clear of all liens,
and exempt from the payment of taxes, stamps and vouchers, if the
transaction for some reason is delayed and takes place under the
Plan of Reorganization.

Each of the parties to the sale will assume its own payment of
expenses under the provisions of the Notary Law of Puerto Rico.

Furthermore, the Debtor received from Purchaser a check in the
amount of $1,700 as a good faith deposit under the purchase option,
which will be applied to the purchase price at the closing if the
Purchaser exercises the option and buys the property as per the
terms and conditions of the agreement.

The Purchase Option Agreement will expire 90 days from the date of
the agreement or 10 days from the date the sale is approved by the
Bankruptcy Court, whichever is later.

There are no common maintenance fees or homeowners' association
dues in relation to the Property, since such association does not
exist.

Pursuant to the Plan and section 1146(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, if
the sale for any reason, takes place after the confirmation of the
Plan, the transfer of the Property to the Purchaser, or its
designee, the cancellation of any liens and encumbrances over the
Property, or any other transactions contemplated under the Plan
will not be subject to any stamps, vouchers, real estate transfer,
mortgage recording, mortgage cancellation or other similar tax.

A copy of the Agreement is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y3oremvf from PacerMonitor.com free of charge.

                      About Allied Financial

Allied Financial, Inc. filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition
(Bankr. D.P.R. Case No. 16-00180) on Jan. 15, 2016.  At the time of
the filing, Debtor disclosed total assets of $10.3 million and
total debt of $9.14 million.  Judge Mildred Caban Flores oversees
the case.  C. Conde & Assoc. is the Debtor's legal counsel.


ALLIED FINANCIAL: Selling Aguadilla Property for $46K
-----------------------------------------------------
Allied Financial, Inc., asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Puerto Rico to authorize the sale of the lot of land
located at Barrio Aguacate in Aguadilla, Puerto Rico. Registered as
Property Num. 30,074, of Vol. 558 in Aguadilla Property Registry,
to Jorge L. Cruz Acevedo and Jacqueline Tirade Gonzalez for
$46,000.

The Debtor listed in its Schedules an interest in the Property.
The Property has approximately 823.4915 square meters.  

The Debtor acquired the Property on Dec. 4, 2013, via Deed of
Judicial Sale and Cancelation of Mortgage Note by Notary Public
Shariann Morales Feliciano.  The Appraisal Report dated June 15,
2020 for the Property shows a value of $46,000.  The Restricted Use
Appraisal Reports have been used in the case because the intended
user of these reports, is for guidance in establishing disposition
and comparable prices and does not need to include details
typically included in Appraisal Reports, which in the case, upon
management experience is not necessary.  Notwithstanding it, the
appraisal values in these reports are based on comparable sales
information which is deemed to be adequately supported by the
evidence provided.

The Debtor has been actively marketing all of its real estate
assets through the resources of its principal stockholder who is a
licensed real estate broker with more than 45 years of experience
and who took over management of its business prior to the filing of
the bankruptcy for the purpose of managing and maximizing
distributions to creditors through the sale of the Debtor's real
estate assets.

The Debtor has identified the Purchasers as potential buyers for
the Property in the amount of $46,000, on the terms of the Purchase
Option Agreement.

The Property, as of the date, has property tax debt, in the total
amount of $1,790.  Any amounts owed to CRIM will be paid first with
the proceeds of the sale.  The Property also serves as collateral
to WM Capital Partners76, LLC, which will receive the net proceed
of the sale to be applied to the principal of its Claim No. 1.

The Debtor has not asked authorization to retain the services of a
Notary because none is needed.  The notarial services are being
paid by Mr. Rafael Portela at no cost to the Debtor.  It is not
paying for notarial services nor other professional services
related to the transaction.

The transfer of the Property will be free and clear of all liens,
and exempt from the payment of taxes, stamps and vouchers, if the
transaction for some reason is delayed and takes place under the
Plan of Reorganization.

Each of the parties to the sale will assume its own payment of
expenses under the provisions of the Notary Law of Puerto Rico.

Furthermore, the Debtor received from the Purchasers a check in the
amount of $2,300 as a good faith deposit under the purchase option,
which will be applied to the purchase price at the closing if they
exercise the option and buys the property as per the terms and
conditions of the agreement.

The Purchase Option Agreement will expire 90 days from the date of
the agreement or 10 days from the date the sale is approved by the
Bankruptcy Court, whichever is later.

There are no common maintenance fees or homeowners' association
dues in relation to the Property, since such association does not
exist.

Pursuant to the Plan and section 1146(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, if
the sale for any reason, takes place after the confirmation of the
Plan, the transfer of the Property to the Purchaser, or its
designee, the cancellation of any liens and encumbrances over the
Property, or any other transactions contemplated under the Plan
will not be subject to any stamps, vouchers, real estate transfer,
mortgage recording, mortgage cancellation or other similar tax.

Objections, if any, must be filed within 21 days after the date of
service.

A copy of the Agreement is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2n99ezt from PacerMonitor.com free of charge.

                      About Allied Financial

Allied Financial, Inc. filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition
(Bankr. D.P.R. Case No. 16-00180) on Jan. 15, 2016.  At the time of
the filing, Debtor disclosed total assets of $10.3 million and
total debt of $9.14 million.  Judge Mildred Caban Flores oversees
the case.  C. Conde & Assoc. is the Debtor's legal counsel.


ANDREW P. CHAMBERLAND: $519K Sale of Forest Property to Kanes OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rebecca B. Connelly of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Western District of Virginia authorized Andrew Paul Chamberland's
sale of the real property known as 4064 Cottontown Road, Forest,
County of Bedford, Virginia, Tax Map No. 82-A-50A, to Jamie Kane
and Amber Kane for $519,000.

The Debtor owns the Property as tenants by the entireties with his
non-filing spouse, Courtney Chamberland.

Subsequent to entry of an Order granting the Motion, the Creditor,
Nationstar Mortgage, doing business as Mr. Cooper, by and through
its counsel of record, will provide an updated written payoff
demand to the Debtor, his counsel, and the designated settlement
agent with respect to its claim.

The Creditor's claim is undisputed and will be paid in full,
directly from escrow from the proceeds of the sale as the first
position secured Creditor in accordance with the terms and
provisions of its payoff demand or any subsequently updated payoff
demand provided prior to close of escrow.

Prior to any scheduled closing of escrow, the counsel for the
Creditor will be provided with a copy of the estimated HUD-1
Settlement/Closing Statement for review and approval.

The Creditor reserves the right to require an updated payoff demand
prior to any close of escrow to ensure its claim is paid in full.

The additional stay of F.R.B.P. 4001(a)(3) will not apply to the
Order.

The Debtor's attorney is directed to provide a copy of the Order to
the counsel for the Creditor, the settlement agent, the Subchapter
V Trustee, and the Debtor.

Andrew Paul Chamberland sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. W.D.
Va. Case No. 20-60300) on Feb. 21, 2020.  The Debtor tapped David
Cox, Esq., at Cox Law, PLLC, as counsel.                        


ART VAN: Trustee's Dec. 10 Auction of Class Action Rights Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Christopher S. Sontchi of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Delaware authorized the proposed bidding procedures of
Alfred T. Giuliano, the chapter 7 trustee to the estates of Art Van
Furniture, LLC and affiliates, in connection with the sale of the
rights of the Debtors' estates as putative class members in the
case styled In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and
Merchant-Discount Antitrust Litigation (Case No.
1:05-md-01720-JG-JO), free and clear of all liens, claims,
interests, and encumbrances.

The salient terms of the Bidding Procedures are:

     a. Bid Deadline: Dec. 4, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. (ET)

     b. Initial Bid: The. Minimum Overbid proposed by the Potential
Bid can include only cash and the aggregate consideration of the
Potential Bid must equal or exceed the Initial Bid plus the
required Overbid increment of $50,000 or such other amount as the
Trustee may determine in his business judgment.

     c. Deposit: 10% of the Purchase Price offered

     d. Auction: If, as of the Bid Deadline, the Trustee has
received one or more Qualified Bids, the Auction will take place
telephonically and/or via Zoom videoconference on Dec. 10, 2020 at
10:00 a.m. (ET) or such later time or other place as the Trustee
may determine.  In the event the Trustee designates a later time or
place for the Auction, he will (i) notify to all Qualified Bidders,
and (ii) file a notice of such change with the Court.

     e. Bid Increments: $50,000

     f. Sale Hearing: Dec. 18, 2020 at 3:00 p.m. (ET)

     g. Sale Objection Deadline: Dec. 11, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. (ET)

     h. The Potential Bidders acknowledge that the sale of the
Asset is a sale "as is, where is," and with all faults.

Promptly upon entry of the Order, the Trustee will commence service
of the Sale Notice and the Order to the Notice Parties.

The Trustee is authorized, but not directed, to select one or more
bidders to act as the Stalking Horse Bidder, and is further
authorized, but not directed, to enter into a Stalking Horse
Agreement with such Stalking Horse Bidder.  He may provide any
Stalking Horse Bidder with customary bid protections as may be
agreed between the Trustee and the Stalking Horse Bidder, in the
event the Stalking Horse Bid is contingent on such Bid Protections
being awarded; provided, however, the Bid Protections in the
aggregate will be no more than 3% of the cash amount of the
Purchase Price for the Asset.  The Bid Protections are approved in
their entirety and are payable in accordance with, and subject to
the terms of, any Stalking Horse Agreement.

No later than one business day after the selection of a Stalking
Horse Bidder (if such selection is made), the Trustee will file
with the Court, serve on the Objection Notice Parties the Stalking
Horse Selection Notice.  The Stalking Horse Selection Notice will
be filed no later than Nov. 24, 2020.  The Stalking Horse Objection
Deadline is seven calendar days after service of the Notice of
Stalking Horse Bidder.

A copy of the Bidding Procedures is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y2usvzsv from PacerMonitor.com free of change.

                    About Art Van Furniture

Art Van is a brick-and-mortar furniture and mattress retailer
headquartered in Warren, Michigan.  The Company operates 169
locations, including 92 furniture and mattress showrooms and 77
freestanding mattress and specialty locations.  The Company does
business under brand names, including Art Van Furniture, Pure
Sleep, Scott Shuptrine Interiors, Levin Furniture, Levin Mattress,
and Wolf Furniture.

The Company was founded in 1959 and was owned by its founder, Art
Van Elslander, until it was sold to funds affiliated with Thomas H.
Lee Partners, L.P. in March 2017. As part of this transaction, THL
acquired the operating assets of the Company and certain real
estate investment trusts, who closed the transaction alongside THL,
acquired the owned real estate portfolio of the Company, and
entered into long-term leases with Art Van.  The proceeds from the
sale-leaseback transaction were used to fund the purchase price
paid to the selling shareholders.

Art Van Furniture, LLC, and 12 affiliates sought Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 20-10553) on March 8,
2020.

Art Van was estimated to have $100 million to $500 million in
assets and liabilities as of the bankruptcy filing.

The Hon. Laurie Selber Silverstein is the case judge.

The Debtors tapped Benesch, Friedlander, Coplan & Aronoff LLP as
counsel.  Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC is the claims agent.

On April 6, 2020, the Court converted the Chapter 11 cases to
Chapter 7 effective April 7, 2020.


ASTRIA HEALTH: $20M Sale of ARMC & MOB to Yakima MOBIC Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Whitman L. Holt of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern
District of Washington authorized the proposed private sale by
Yakima HMA Home Health, LLC and SHC Medical Center - Yakima,
affiliates of Astria Health, of the real property located in the
City of Yakima, County of Yakima, Washington, commonly known as the
(i) Astria Medical Office Plaza and associated offsite parking
located at each of 1005 W Walnut St., 111 S. 11th Ave., 8-16 S.
10th Ave. and 7-15 S. 11th Ave. ("MOB"); and (ii) Astria Regional
Medical Center and associated offsite parking located at each of
12-14 S 9th Ave., 110 S 9th Ave., 8-16 S 10th Ave. and 905 W
Chestnut ("ARMC"), to Yakima MOBIC, LLC for $20 million, cash,
pursuant to their Commercial Property Purchase and Sale Agreement.

Notwithstanding other provisions of the Order, the Closing Date
under the terms of the Agreement is amended to occur by Dec. 1,
2020.

The sale is free and clear of any liens, claims, interests and/or
other encumbrances.

All personal property and furniture, fixtures and equipment located
at the Property will not be removed from the Property absent
agreement from the Buyer and the Debtors or Court order.

Under the terms of the Sale, after the payment broker fees and
related closing costs, net Sale proceeds will total approximately
$19 million.  The Net Sale Proceeds will be remitted at the closing
of the Sale to UMB Bank, N.A. ("Bond Trustee") as the trustee for
$27 million of tax-exempt Washington Health Care Facilities
Authority Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A and the $8.4 million of
tax-exempt Washington Health Care Facilities Authority Revenue
Bonds, Series 2017B, secured by the most senior lien against the
Property.  The Bond Trustee will apply the Net Sale Proceeds first
to pay in full all interest outstanding as of the closing date of
the Sale under the 2017 Bond Debt in the amount of approximately
$8.4 million and the remaining balance of the Net Sale Proceeds to
the current principal balance $35.4 million, thereby leaving a
principal balance under the 2017 Bond Debt of $24.8 million.  The
above numbers are approximate and may additionally vary depending
on the Sale closing date.   

For the avoidance of doubt, neither the Sale, the payment of the
Net Sales Proceeds under this Order constitute a redemption or
payment of other amount of the 2017 Bond Debt and will not trigger
any redemption premium, other prepayment premium or otherwise
increase the Debtors' financial obligations under the 2017 Bond
Debt.

The Agreement provides for a two-year lease of certain property
from the Buyers to the Sellers.  The Debtors are authorized,
without further order of the Court, to enter into a lease agreement
with the Buyer for the Lease Back Property under terms which will
be mutually agreed upon by the parties or, if the Buyer and the
Debtors cannot agree to the terms of the lease, the parties will
resolve such disputes before the Court.

For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in the Agreement, any
post-closing interim agreements or the activities of any of the
parties or their affiliates, will cause the Buyer (a) to be deemed
a successor to the Debtors, (b) to be deemed, de facto or
otherwise, to have merged with or into the Debtors, or (c) to be a
continuation of the Debtors or any of their enterprises.

Any stay under Rule 6004(h) of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy
Procedure, or otherwise, pertaining to the transfer of the Property
as set forth in the Motion and Agreement, is waived and will not
apply.

                      About Astria Health

Astria Health and its subsidiaries -- https://www.astria.health --
are a nonprofit health care system providing medical services to
patients who generally reside in Yakima County and Benton County,
Wash., through the operation of Sunnyside, Yakima, and Toppenish
hospitals, as well as several health clinics, home health
services,
and other healthcare services. Collectively, they have 315 licensed
beds, three active emergency rooms, and a host of medical
specialties. The Debtors have 1,547 regular employees.

Astria Health and 12 of its subsidiaries filed for bankruptcy
protection (Bankr. E.D.Wash. Lead Case No. 19-01189) on May 6,
2019.  In the petitions signed by John Gallagher, president and
CEO, the Debtors estimated assets and liabilities of $100 million
to $500 million.

The Hon. Frank L. Kurtz oversees the cases.

Bush Kornfeld LLP and Dentons US LLP serve as the Debtors' counsel.
Kurtzman Carson Consultants, LLC is the claims and noticing
agent.

Gregory Garvin, acting U.S. trustee for Region 18, on May 24, 2019,
appointed seven creditors to serve on an official committee of
unsecured creditors.  The Committee retained Sills Cummis & Gross
P.C. as its legal counsel; Polsinelli PC, as co-counsel; and
Berkeley Research Group, LLC as financial advisor.


AVANTOR INC: S&P Rates $1.35BB Senior Secured Term Loan 'BB-'
-------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned its 'BB-' issue-level and '3' recovery
ratings to Avantor Inc.'s proposed $1.35 billion senior secured
term loan. The '3' recovery rating indicated S&P's expectation for
meaningful (50%-70%; rounded estimate: 60%) recovery in the event
of a payment default. Avantor's subsidiary, Avantor Funding Inc.,
will issue the term loan. S&P understood the company plans on
issuing other secured debt to repay the remaining balance of
existing secured notes as part of this transaction. S&P has not
incorporated those plans into its analysis and it will provide a
rating when details become available. S&P expects the company will
use the term loan and secured debt (ranges from $500 million to
$650 million Euro equivalent) to repay its existing $1.5 billion 6%
secured notes and EUR500 million 4.75% secured notes, and to pay
related fees and expenses.

S&P's 'BB-' issuer credit rating on Avantor reflects its position
as one of the largest distributors of laboratory supplies, its
strong presence in North America and Europe, and its broader array
of products and services than many of its smaller, regional
competitors. It also reflects S&P's expectation of leverage below
5.5x and free cash flow generation of more than $600 million in
2020. The positive outlook reflects the potential for an upgrade as
S&P gains better visibility and if it believes the company will
maintain leverage below 4.5x.


BALBOA INTERMEDIATE: S&P Alters Outlook to Neg., Affirms 'B' ICR
----------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings revised its outlook on Balboa Intermediate
Holdings LLC (doing business as TIBCO) to negative from stable and
affirmed its 'B' issuer credit rating.

At the same time, S&P is lowering its issue-level rating on the
company's proposed upsized $2.37 billion first-lien credit term
loan to 'B' from 'B+' and revising the recovery rating to '3' from
'2' due to the increase in the company's first-lien debt. S&P is
also affirming its 'B-' issue-level rating on the company's
second-lien term loan.

S&P said, "The negative outlook reflects that we could lower our
ratings on TIBCO over the next 12 months if it underperforms our
base-case expectations such that we believe it will sustain
S&P-adjusted leverage of more than 8x or fail to generate at least
$100 million of free operating cash flow (FOCF)."

"TIBCO's operating performance and credit metrics over the first
nine months of fiscal year 2020 have been trending significantly
weaker than we previously anticipated. For the 12 months ended Aug.
31, 2020, we estimate that the company had S&P-adjusted leverage of
about 10.1x, which compares with 8.1x for the same period a year
ago. The increase in its leverage reflects the sharp decline in its
revenue, EBITDA margin, and cash flow generation through the first
three quarters of fiscal year 2020. TIBCO's revenue has declined by
approximately 15% year-over-year during this period due to the
effects of COVID-19, including purchase deferrals and pricing
concessions in its energy, retail, and transportation end markets,
its aggressive shift toward a subscription-based revenue model,
and--to a lesser extent--its adoption of the ASC 606 revenue
recognition standard. Despite its lower discretionary spending, the
company's S&P Global Ratings-adjusted EBITDA margin of about 30%
and S&P Global Ratings-adjusted cash flow generation of about $37
million were much weaker than during the same period last year (33%
and $141 million, respectively) due to decreased operating leverage
and about $72 million of restructuring costs to offshore its
research and development (R&D) activities to lower-cost regions,
which we expect will improve its cost structure in the future."

"The transition to a subscription-based model created near-term
revenue growth headwinds, though we expect this shift to benefit
its business over the longer term. Part of TIBCO's underperformance
during the first nine months of fiscal year 2020 relates to its
ongoing transition toward software as a service (SaaS) offerings
and away from license sales (license revenue was down roughly 50%
at about $70 million over this period)."

"SaaS bookings carry different revenue recognition and billing
characteristics than licensed bookings but typically feature the
same--if not better--economics over the life of a contract. We
expect the company to increase its recurring revenue base, which
accounts for about 80% of its total revenue, as it strengthens its
SaaS product offerings over time. While this may create near-term
headwinds for its revenue growth, the effects should lessen as its
overall proportion of license revenue decreases. Moreover, we
expect the visibility and predictability of TIBCO's future revenue
to improve over the longer term as it increases its subscription
revenue."

"We view Information Builders as a nice fit for TIBCO and expect
the acquisition to provide it with accretive cost synergies.
Information Builders is a leading provider of enterprise-grade
end-to-end data management, integration, and real-time analytics
solutions in a unified, easy to implement and deploy platform.
Given the product overlap, we think this transaction will enable
TIBCO to strengthen its product offerings, cross-sell Information
Builders' products to its existing customers, and realize cost
synergies. While management's synergy targets appear aggressive,
especially because they expect most of the savings to be
headcount-related, we believe they are mostly achievable given its
experience in undertaking such transitions. Moreover, we believe
the transaction would be accretive to TIBCO's credit metrics over
time if the company fully realizes these synergies given its use of
cash to pay for part of the acquisition."

"We forecast a rebound in TIBCO's operating performance and expect
its credit measures to improve over the next 12 months. Based on
the high-single-digit percent increase in its subscription revenue
in the third quarter of 2020 and the improving macroeconomic
environment, we anticipate the company's organic revenue growth
trends will improve. In fiscal year 2021, we expect TIBCO's
subscription revenue to rise by at least 20% and mitigate the
declines in its license and maintenance revenue. In our view, this,
alongside the efficiency improvements from its cost-savings
initiatives and the earnings accretion from the proposed
acquisition, will support its operating results and strengthen its
leverage ratio to about 8x by the end of 2021."

"The recovery prospects for TIBCO's first-lien lenders have
weakened due to the increase in its first-lien debt. Because of the
increased amount of first-lien debt in its capital structure, we
project the implied recovery prospects for its first-lien lenders
under our default scenario will be slightly weaker and forecast a
rounded estimate of 60%, which compares with previous expectation
of 70%."

"The negative outlook reflects that we could lower our ratings on
TIBCO over the next 12 months if it underperforms our base-case
expectations such that we believe it will sustain S&P-adjusted
leverage of more than 8x or fail to generate at least $100 million
of FOCF."

Specifically, S&P would lower its ratings on TIBCO if:

-- It fails to increase its subscription revenue to a sufficient
level to offset the corresponding declines in its license and
maintenance revenue;

-- The restructuring cuts it initiated in fiscal year 2020 do not
improve its EBITDA as S&P expected; or

-- The company experiences integration challenges with its
acquisition of Information Builders (including a failure to achieve
the expected cost synergies).

Based on its current credit metrics, S&P believes it has a minimal
cushion against such adverse developments because they would
undermine its deleveraging prospects.

S&P said, "We would revise our outlook on TIBCO to stable if it
reduces its S&P-adjusted leverage to the low 8x area and we see
prospects for further improvement. In this scenario, we would
expect the company to sustain organic revenue growth in the low- to
mid-single digit percent area, improve its profitability and cash
generation despite the near-term headwinds from its ongoing
transition to a subscription-based revenue model, and successfully
integrate Information Builders."


BARFLY VENTURES: Sells HopCat Restaurant Assets for $17 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melody Baetens of The Detroit News reports that after filing for
bankruptcy in June 2020, BarFly Ventures, the parent company of
several Michigan restaurants including the HopCat beer bars, is
under new ownership.

Through a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the Grand Rapids-based restaurant
group sold its assets to Congruent Investment Partners and Main
Street Capital with a bid of $17.5 million.  Both companies had
previously lent funds to BarFly.

HopCat craft beer bar on Woodward in Detroit.

"We know the business extremely well from our experiences over the
last five years. We strongly believe in each restaurant concept and
intend to return the company's focus to providing a unique,
best-in-class customer experience," said Travis Baldwin, founder of
Congruent Investment Partners, in a media release Tuesday
afternoon. "Our goal is to focus efforts around the company's key
markets and ensure HopCat, Stella's and Grand Rapids Brewing
Company remain a thriving part of these communities."

Customers will see the restaurants continue to focus on off-premise
sales, including delivery and carryout as indoor dining capacity
has been diminished due to COVID-19 safety regulations. The company
also says it's working on restoring hours of operation at all
locations, which include HopCat restaurants in Midtown Detroit, Ann
Arbor, East Lansing and elsewhere in Michigan and the Midwest.

BarFly was founded by Mark Sellers in 2008 with the opening of
HopCat Grand Rapids. He shut down all restaurants in mid-March 2020
when the pandemic hit.

"Because of the COVID shutdown, we're so far behind on our loan
payment and our rents, we don't really have a pathway of getting
out of that without a Chapter 11 reorganization," he told The
Detroit News in June 2020.

In late May 2020, word broke that HopCat Royal Oak would be moving
out of that location.

Besides the HopCat restaurants, the group also includes Stella's
Lounge in Grand Rapids and the Grand Rapids Brewing Company.

                   About BarFly Ventures LLC

BarFly Ventures LLC is the parent company of HopCat, Stella's
Lounge, and Grand Rapids Brewing Co. Founded in 2008, BarFly
Ventures operates a chain of restaurants.

Barfly Ventures and its affiliates sought Chapter 11 protection
(Bankr. W.D. Mich. Case No. 20-01947) on June 3, 2020. At the time
of the filing, Barfly Ventures was estimated to have $1 million to
$10 million in assets and $10 million to $50 million in
liabilities.

Judge James W. Boyd oversees the cases.

The Debtors tapped Warner Norcross + Judd, LLP and Pachulski Stang
Ziehl & Jones, LLP as legal counsel; Rock Creek Advisors, LLC, as
financial advisor; and Mastodon Ventures, Inc., as investment
banker.

A committee of unsecured creditors was appointed in Debtors'
Chapter 11 cases on June 23, 2020. The committee tapped Sugar
Felsenthal Grais & Helsinger, LLP, and Jaffe Raitt Heuer & Weiss,
P.C., as its legal counsel, and Amherst Partners, LLC, as its
financial advisor.


BENNINGTON CORP: Chapter 11 Trustee's Asset Sale Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Columbia has approved
the request of the Chapter 11 Trustee for The Bennington Corp. to:

     (a) sell real property -- SSL: 5351 0085 - 4559 & 4569 Benning
Road, SE, and 4480 C Street, SE, Washington, DC 20019 -- free and
clear of any and all liens and interests pursuant to 11 U.S.C.
section 363;

     (b)  assume and assign the leases of the residential real
property -- SSL: 5351 0085 - 4559 & 4569 Benning Road, SE, and 4480
C Street, SE, Washington, DC 20019 -- pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section
365.

The Court previously denied the District of Columbia's request to
convert the Chapter 11 case to a Chapter 7 liquidation.  Instead,
the Court approved the appointment of Marc E. Albert as Chapter 11
Trustee for The Bennington Corp., also upon the behest of the
District of Columbia, which commenced a receivership action against
the Debtor pre-petition.  The District made an oral motion for
appointment of the Chapter 11 Trustee.

Judge Elizabeth L. Gunn, who took over the case from Judge S.
Martin Teel, Jr., ruled in September that a Superior Court-ordered
receiver shall continue as custodian of the Debtor's Property.
Judge Gunn said funding of the repairs and costs at the Property
and funding of the Receiver's fees will be paid by money ordered by
the Superior Court to be paid and held by the Receiver.

                          Receivership

In October 2018, the Attorney General for the District of Columbia,
in accordance with D.C. Code Sec. 42-3651.03, filed an action in
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia to appoint a
receiver to address hazardous housing conditions that the Debtor
failed to abate pursuant to the Tenant Receivership Act, D.C. Code
Sections 42-3651.01-.08, and the Consumer Protection Procedures
Act, D.C. Code Sections 28-3901–3913. The District's action also
sought to provide injunctive relief, restitution to tenants, assess
penalties, and collect reasonable attorney's fees and costs for
violations of the CPPA, and to deter such violations from occurring
in the future.

At the conclusion of a January 2019 hearing, in lieu of appointing
a receiver at that time, the Court ordered the parties to submit an
Abatement Plan. The Abatement Plan -- consented to by Debtor
Bennington and Mehrdad Valibeigi, the 100% owner and president of
the Debtor -- set out a Court-supervised repair plan for the
Property that Bennington and Valibeigi were permitted by the
Superior Court to manage and oversee and were directed to
implement.

In consenting to the Abatement Plan, Debtor Bennington and
Valibeigi represented that they had the financial means to bring
the Property up to code and comply with District law.  Despite
having funds at their disposal, Bennington and Valibeigi made
little progress on complying with the Abatement Plan and making the
repairs as ordered by the Superior Court. After months of the
Debtor's failing to repair the Property or implement the Abatement
Plan, the District again moved for appointment of a receiver under
the TRA, in November 2019.

On November 21, 2019, the Superior Court granted the District's
request and appointed Catalyst and its manager, Paula Forshee, as
the temporary receiver over the Property.

The Court also directed Bennington and Valibeigi to pay $25,000 as
initial funding for the Receiver. While Bennington and Valibeigi
paid $5,000 into the Court registry, they never complied with the
Superior Court Order to provide the remaining $20,000 funding
required by the Court.

In response to the Defendants' failure to fund the receivership as
ordered, on December 5, 2019, the District filed a Motion to Show
Cause. During the contempt proceedings, Bennington and Valibeigi
argued that they had an inability to pay the remaining $20,000 to
fund the Receiver.

However, bank statements of Debtor Bennington and Valibeigi
revealed that two days before the Receiver was appointed,
Bennington received $64,000. Rather than devoting those funds
toward complying with the Superior Court's Order and satisfying
Bennington's obligation to fund the Receiver, Valibeigi used the
funds to pay his home mortgage and gamble at the MGM National
Harbor Resort & Casino. Because Defendants did not prove an
inability to fund the receivership, they were held in contempt for
failing to abide by the November 21, 2019 Order Appointing
Receiver. Valibeigi was ordered to spend five days in jail for his
defiance of the Superior Court's Order to fund the Receiver.

Pursuant to the Superior Court's November 21, 2019 Order Appointing
Receiver, the Debtor is expressly prohibited from overseeing any
repair obligations at the Property.  Instead, the Debtor is
instructed to fund Catalyst Property Solutions. While Catalyst has
made emergency repairs, the rents are insufficient to meet the cost
of the repair demands of the Property or pay bills as ordered by
the Superior Court. The Receiver has no funds with which to make
those payments.

                         Proper Service

Judge Teel previously directed the District of Columbia to make
proper service on the Debtor of the District's "Motion to Continue
Retention and Funding of State Court Ordered Receiver Pursuant to
Superior Court Orders."

The District of Columbia's Motion commenced a contested matter
under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014.  Under Rule 9014(b) the District of
Columbia was required to make service of the Motion in the manner
provided for service of a complaint under Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004.
The District of Columbia did not make service of the Motion in a
manner complying with Rule 7004.

Rule 7004(g) requires service not only on the debtor but also on
the debtor's counsel, but permits such service on the debtor's
counsel to be made in a manner authorized by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b).
The Notice of Electronic Filing generated upon the filing of the
Motion reflects that the Motion was served on the debtor's counsel
electronically, which complied with Fed. R. Bankr. P. 7004(g) and
Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E).

However, service on the debtor's attorney alone does not satisfy
the requirement of service on the debtor under Rule 7004, Judge
Teel said. The Motion did not include a certificate of service, and
thus there was no indication that the Motion was served on the
debtor in a manner authorized by Rule 7004. The accompanying notice
of the opportunity to oppose the Motion includes a certificate of
service reflecting that the notice was "served electronically using
the Court's Electronic Case Filing System" and does not reflect
service of the notice on the debtor in a manner complying with Rule
7004.

Even if the debtor had consented to receipt of papers
electronically (which it had not), and had received the Motion
electronically, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9036 makes clear that its
authorization of electronic service "does not apply to any . . .
paper required to be served in accordance with Rule 7004." Rule
7004 does not authorize electronic service on the debtor.
Accordingly, Judge Teel ordered that the District of Columbia must
make proper service on the debtor of the Motion accompanied by a
revised notice of the opportunity to oppose the Motion. Judge Teel
also shortened the debtor's time to oppose the Motion to five days
after the date of filing of the revised notice of the opportunity
to oppose the Motion.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision and Order is available at
https://bit.ly/2G4jWjP from Leagle.com.

                    About The Bennington Corp.

The Bennington Corp. is primarily engaged in renting and leasing
real estate properties. The Bennington Corp. sought Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. D.D.C. Case No. 20-00321) on July 30, 2020.  The
case is assigned to Martin S. Teel, Jr.  In the petition signed by
Mehrdad Valibeigi, president, the Debtor was estimated assets and
liabilities in the range of $1 million to $10 million.  The Debtor
tapped Wendell W. Webster, Esq., at Webster & Fredrickson, PLLC, as
counsel.



BERGIO INTERNATIONAL: Signs Note Settlement Agreement with Fidelis
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bergio International Inc., came to a note settlement agreement on
Oct. 16, 2020, with Fidelis Capital to settle its outstanding
convertible debt.

Under the terms of the Agreement, the Company and Fidelis agreed to
settle the balance of their note in four equal payments ending Nov.
30, 2020.

                   About Bergio International

Headquartered in Fairfield, NJ, Bergio International, Inc. --
https://bergio.com/ -- is engaged in the product design,
manufacturing, distribution of fine jewelry primarily in the United
States. The Company also have two retail stores located in Closter,
NJ and Atlantic City, NJ.

Bergio International reported a net loss of $3.03 million for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2019, compared to a net loss of $417,314 for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2018.  As of June 30, 2020, the Company had
$1.44 million in total assets, $2.40 million in total liabilities,
and a total stockholders' deficit of $958,599.

BF Borgers CPA PC, in Lakewood, CO, the Company's auditor since
2019, issued a "going concern" qualification in its report dated
May 15, 2020, citing that the Company's significant operating
losses raise substantial doubt about its ability to continue as a
going concern.


BJ SERVICES: Argonaut Buys Cementing Business
---------------------------------------------
Argonaut Private Equity, a Tulsa, Okla.-based private equity fund,
announced the acquisition of a cementing solutions business
following the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of BJ Services located in
Tomball, Texas.

Originally established in 1872, the cementing operation is now
doing business as American Cementing with an established footprint
in every major oil and gas basin throughout the United States. With
the acquisition complete, American Cementing leaders announced
early September 2020 the retention of 260 highly-skilled employees
related to the cementing business and procurement of company assets
and equipment, including bulk plants and technical labs located in
the field. No fracturing assets were acquired in the acquisition.

"The addition of American Cementing to the Argonaut Private Equity
portfolio combines our expertise in efficient operations management
with our experience in the oil and gas industry," said Steve
Mitchell, Argonaut CEO. "Argonaut's capital investment provides the
strength of our financial support to ensure American Cementing
continues its reputation as a leading cementing service provider to
upstream oil and gas companies throughout the United States. We are
excited to provide American Cementing with an unlevered platform
that is focused solely on cementing operations."

American Cementing services include in-depth laboratory testing,
precise blending at the bulk plant and dependable mixing and
pumping operations at the wellsite. Additionally, the Company
offers acidizing services and products that are engineered to
enhance production and remove well-bore damage to ensure integrity
for the lifetime of the well.

"We are pleased that American Cementing was able to retain the
talent and expertise needed to continue operations and provide a
seamless transition to our customers," said Aaron James, Chief
Operating Officer for American Cementing. "With the return to a
fiscally-stable business model and clean balance sheet, we can
build upon the standard of services and products for which we are
known. With the assistance of Argonaut, we have the capacity to
reach an even larger customer base within our major basin
locations."

Founded in 2002, Argonaut Private Equity manages investments across
multiple asset classes with $3 billion of capital deployed in
direct investments in key industry sectors including energy
services, manufacturing and industrials.

"We differentiate ourselves in the private equity industry because
we value the legacy established by our business enterprises and
work side-by-side as partners in their success," said Mitchell.
"This is our third acquisition within the past two months. Despite
the ongoing pandemic, Argonaut is actively reviewing opportunities
and looks forward to completing more transactions."

Simmons Energy, a division of Piper Sandler, served as the
exclusive M&A investment banker to BJ Services.

                    About Argonaut Private Equity

Argonaut understands the unique needs of individual businesses that
operate in the central region of the United States and other
underserved markets. Argonaut partners with companies to develop a
strategy for accelerating growth and enhancing operations.
Leveraging the collective strength of our historical investment
experience, industry advisors, current portfolio companies and
affiliates, Argonaut looks to share resources, best practices and
key relationships between investments to create synergistic
opportunities across the following sectors: energy services,
manufacturing and industrials.

In Q3 2019, Argonaut had a final close on Argonaut Private Equity
Fund IV, a $400 million fund that continues its strategy of
generating attractive investment returns through a disciplined
approach and aligning interests with those of their investors and
business partners. The fund is focused on partnering with companies
that provide services and products to the energy services,
manufacturing and industrial sectors.

Steve Mitchell has led Argonaut since 2004, and currently serves as
CEO. For more information, visit www.ArgonautPE.com.

                   About American Cementing

For more information, visit AmericanCementing.com for a complete
product and service listing and locations guide for our North and
South Operations.

                     About BJ Services

BJ Services, LLC and its affiliates -- https://www.bjservices.com/
-- are providers of pressure pumping and oilfield services for the
petroleum industry. Headquartered in Tomball, Texas, BJ Services
operates through two segments, hydraulic fracturing and cementing.
BJ primarily serves customers in upstream North American oil and
natural gas shale basins in the completion of new wells and in
remedial work on existing wells.

BJ Services and its affiliates sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr.
S.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 20-33627) on July 20, 2020.

In the petition signed by CEO Warren Zemlak, the Debtor was
estimated to have assets at $500 million to $1 billion and $500
million to $1 billion in debt.

The cases are assigned to Judge Marvin Isgur.

The Debtors tapped Joshua A. Sussberg, P.C., at Kirkland & Ellis
LP; Christopher T. Greco, P.C., at Kirkland & Ellis International
LP; Samantha G. Lawrence, Esq., and Joshua M. Altman, Esq., as
their general bankruptcy counsel.

The Debtors tapped Jason S. Brookner, Esq., Paul D. Moak, Esq.,
Amber M. Carson, Esq., at Gray Reed & McGraw LLP as their
co-bankruptcy counsel.  Ankura Consulting Group, LLC, is the
financial advisor.  Mr. Anthony Schnur of Ankura Consulting Group,
LLC, is the Debtors' CRO.


BLACK AND WHITE: Seeks to Hire Cushner & Associates as Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------------
Black and White Stripes, LLC seeks approval from the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to employ
the Law Office of Todd Cushner & Associates, P.C. as its counsel.

The firm will render these professional services to the Debtor:

     (a) advise the Debtor concerning the conduct of the
administration of this bankruptcy case;

     (b) prepare all necessary applications and motions as required
under the Bankruptcy Code, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure,
and Local Bankruptcy Rules;

     (c) prepare a disclosure statement and plan of reorganization;
and

     (d) perform all other legal services that are necessary to the
administration of the case.

The firm's hourly rates are as follows:

     Todd S. Cushner, Esq., Owner/Senior Attorney   $500.00
     James J. Rufo, Esq., Associate attorney        $350.00
     Charles A. Higgs, Esq., Of Counsel             $350.00
     Paralegals                                     $200.00

Cushner & Associates, P.C. has received $10.217.00 in connection
with the commencement of this Chapter 11 bankruptcy with $8,500.00
being applied to attorneys' fees and $1,717.00 being disbursed for
the chapter 11 filing fee.

James J. Rufo, an associate attorney at the Law Office of Todd
Cushner & Associates, P.C., disclosed in court filings that the
firm is a "disinterested person" as that term is defined in section
101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     James J. Rufo, Esq.
     Todd S. Cushner, Esq.
     CUSHNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     399 Knollwood Road Suite 205
     White Plains, NY 10603
     Telephone: (914) 600-5502
     Facsimile: (914) 600-5544
     E-mail: todd@Cushnerlegal.com
             jrufo@cushnerlegal.com

                            About Black and White Stripes

Black and White Stripes, LLC sought protection under Chapter 11 of
the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 20- 12439) on October
15, 2020. The petition was signed by Mauro La Villa, its managing
member. At the time of the filing, the Debtor estimated to have
less than $50,000 in assets and $1 million to $10 million in
liabilities. Cushner & Associates, P.C. serves as the Debtor's
counsel.


BLACKSTONE CAPITAL: Seeks Approval to Tap Mark S. Roher as Attorney
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Blackstone Capital Strategies, LLC seeks approval from the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida to employ
Mark S. Roher, Esq. of the law firm of Mark S. Roher, P.A., a/k/a
The Law Office of Mark S. Roher, P.A., as its attorney.

The attorney will render these legal services to the Debtor:

     (a) give advice to the Debtor with respect to its powers and
duties as Debtor-in-possession and the continued management of its
business operations;

     (b) advise the Debtor with respect to its responsibilities in
complying with the U.S. Trustee's Operating Guidelines and
Reporting Requirements and with the rules of the court;

     (c) prepare motions, pleadings, orders, applications,
adversary proceedings, and other legal documents necessary in the
administration of the case;

     (d) protect the interest of the Debtor in all matters pending
before the court; and

     (e) represent the Debtor in negotiation with its creditors in
the preparation of a plan.

Mark S. Roher, Esq., an attorney in the law firm of Mark S. Roher,
P.A., disclosed in court filings that he and the firm are
"disinterested persons" as that term is defined in section 101(14)
of the Bankruptcy Code.

The attorney can be reached at:
   
     Mark S. Roher, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MARK S. ROHER, P.A.
     150 S. Pine Island Road, Suite 300
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33324
     Telephone: (954) 353-2200
     E-mail: mroher@markroherlaw.com

                         About Blackstone Capital Strategies

Blackstone Capital Strategies, LLC filed a voluntary petition for
relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D. Fla.
Case No. 20- 20485) on September 28, 2020, listing under $1 million
in both assets and liabilities. Judge Scott M. Grossman oversees
the case. Mark S. Roher, Esq., of The Law Office of Mark S. Roher,
P.A., serves as the Debtor's counsel.


BLUE STAR DONUTS: In Chapter 11 Due to Covid-19
-----------------------------------------------
Brooke Jackson-Glidden of Eater.com reports that Blue Star Donuts,
the Portland brioche doughnut chain, has filed for chapter 11
bankruptcy protection, which essentially allows business owners to
restructure their debts. According to a statement from the company,
the decision to file was a result of the financial impact of
COVID-19. Blue Star has closed four locations since the pandemic
began, including the downtown, Multnomah Village, and NW 23rd
locations of the chain. The company plans to stay completely
operational at the other locations.

                    About Blue Star Doughnuts

Blue Star Doughnuts LLC -- https://www.bluestardonuts.com/ -- is in
the business of selling doughnuts.

Blue Star Doughnuts LLC, based in Portland, OR, filed a Chapter 11
petition (Bankr. D. Ore. Case No. 20-32485) on Aug. 26, 2020.  In
the petition signed by CFO Will Price, the Debtor was estimated to
have $1 million to $10 million in both assets and liabilities.  The
Hon. Peter C. Mckittrick presides over the case.  STOEL RIVES LLP,
serves as bankruptcy counsel.


BROOKLYN ROASTING: Ends Up in Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
---------------------------------------------------
Nick Brown of Daily Coffee News reports that New York City's
Brooklyn Roasting Company (BRC)has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
following a series of financial hardships, the latest stemming from
the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a New York district court filing, a company representative said
the 11-year-old specialty coffee company, which at its peak in 2017
operated seven retail cafes in Brooklyn and Manhattan, intends to
find solvency through wholesale roasting alone.

"BRC believes that if it is relieved of the rent obligations of its
shuttered cafes and is able to focus on its wholesale business, it
will remain a viable and healthy business with an opportunity to
grow again over time," BRC minority owner and business manager
Thomas Potter said in the bankruptcy filing. "Its production
facility, core management team, and good reputation in New York
remain intact."

Founded by the former general manager of Long Island's Dallis Bros.
Coffee Jim Munson, Brooklyn Roasting Company followed a trajectory
familiar to dozens of specialty-coffee-focused small roasting and
retail companies throughout the course of the 2010s. Flowing with
coffee's "Third Wave" movement, BRC grew through
direct-to-consumer, grocery and wholesale channels while expanding
further into branded retail.

By 2017, BRC sales had reached $9.9 million, split nearly evenly
between wholesale operations and its seven coffee shops, according
to court documents. In that same year, the company moved its
headquarters to the Brooklyn Navy Yard, where it opened a new
quality control lab, packaging line and a roastery.

In mid-2018, an investment group that included a former Dunkin' CEO
signed a letter of intent to purchase BRC outright for $22 million,
according to the Chapter 11 filing. That transaction never
materialized.

While the company lost money in 2018 as it ramped up operations in
preparation of the sale, it had rebounded by early 2020 enough to
consider another sale offering, according to the filing.

Then came COVID-19.

Like many shops in New York, BRC was forced to shut down its cafes
and by April it had laid off the vast majority of staff.

"The entire world was facing the hard realities of COVID-19, but
nowhere were the human and commercial costs higher than in New York
City, where the overwhelming majority of BRC revenue was sourced,"
the Chapter 11 filing states.

Despite receiving a $727,000 Paycheck Protection Program loan, the
company said it could eventually no longer afford to pay past-due
or upcoming rent for retail locations. According to a Sept. 30
balance sheet shared with the courts, BRC's outstanding liabilities
are just over $3.7 million, including $2.15 million to BRC manager,
board member and investor Michael Pollock.

                     About Brooklyn Roasting

Founded in 2009, Brooklyn Roasting Company is in the homegrown
coffee business, operating a handful of cafes in New York City and
servicing hundreds of high-end wholesale accounts.  The company
offers comprehensive wholesale coffee roasting, packaging,
delivery, and equipment sourcing services.

Brooklyn Roasting Works, LLC, and three affiliates sought Chapter
11 protection on Oct. 21, 2020 (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Case No.
20-43683).

Brooklyn Roasting Works listed total assets of $778,748 and total
liabilities of $3,107,230 as of the bankruptcy filing.

KLESTADT WINTERS JURELLER SOUTHARD & STEVENS, LLP, led by Tracy L.
Klestadt, is the Debtors' counsel.


CALFRAC WELL: Shareholders, Unsec. Noteholders OK Amended Plan
--------------------------------------------------------------
Calfrac Well Services Ltd. (TSX: CFW) announced Sept. 1, 2020, that
it has prevailed in its request for entry of a recognition order
under Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code ("Chapter
15"), despite Wilks Brothers LLC's ("Wilks Brothers") latest
attempt to seek a Calfrac insolvency.

On July 13, 2020, Calfrac and certain related entities applied for
recognition and Chapter 15 relief before the United States
Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of Texas, including
requesting: (a) a "provisional stay" of all enforcement actions by
certain categories of creditors, (b) recognition of Calfrac's
reorganization proceeding pending before the Court of Queen's Bench
of Alberta pursuant to the Canada Business Corporations Act (the
"CBCA Proceeding"), and (c) enforcement in the United States of the
preliminary interim order issued pursuant to the CBCA Proceeding
(the "Preliminary Interim Order").  On July 14, 2020, the U.S.
court granted Calfrac's request for the provisional stay, which
remained in effect pending a Chapter 15 recognition hearing before
the U.S. court that concluded yesterday.

In finding in favour of Calfrac, the U.S. court overruled Wilks
Brothers' objection to the requested Chapter 15 relief.  Wilks
Brothers has opposed Calfrac at every step, and Wilks Brothers'
opposition to the Chapter 15 recognition hearing represented yet
another attempt to undermine Calfrac's recapitalization transaction
(the "Recapitalization Transaction"), which is being advanced under
the CBCA Proceeding.

This stops the latest Wilks Brothers' effort to obstruct the
Recapitalization Transaction, including Wilks Brothers' argument to
the U.S. court that Calfrac should be subject to Chapter 11
insolvency proceedings (which if successful would have had the
effect of eliminating any potential recovery for shareholders).
Having secured this result, Calfrac remains committed to
implementing the Recapitalization Transaction for the benefit of
all of its stakeholders.

The ruling at the Aug. 30 recognition hearing will be followed in
the coming weeks by the entry of a Chapter 15 recognition order.
The recognition order is anticipated to fully enforce the
provisions of the Preliminary Interim Order and to effectively
block any enforcement actions against the U.S.-located assets of
Calfrac and its subsidiaries until the conclusion of the CBCA
Proceeding and the consummation of the Recapitalization
Transaction.

       Shareholders, Unsec. Noteholders OK Amended Plan

Calfrac Well Services Ltd. on Oct. 16, 2020, announced that
Calfrac's Shareholders and Unsecured Noteholders have
overwhelmingly approved the Company's Amended Recapitalization
Transaction to be implemented pursuant to a Plan of Arrangement
under Section 192 of the Canada Business Corporations Act.

At the meeting of Shareholders held today, each of the resolutions
in connection with the approval of the Amended Recapitalization
Transaction was approved. Excluding Common Shares voted by Wilks
Brothers, LLC, no more than 4% of the issued and outstanding Common
Shares were voted against any of such resolutions.

At the meeting of Unsecured Noteholders held Oct. 16, the Amended
Recapitalization Transaction was approved by approximately 99.8% of
the votes cast.

A report of voting results outlining the results of each of the
applicable Shareholder votes will be filed on the Company's profile
at www.sedar.com.

In addition, Calfrac announces that pursuant to the Amended
Recapitalization Transaction, Shareholders have elected to receive
the Shareholder Cash Election of $0.15 per Common Share in respect
of an aggregate of 6,061,561 Common Shares (each on a
pre-consolidation basis), representing an aggregate cash election
amount of approximately $910,000.

The hearing to seek Court approval of the Plan of Arrangement is
currently scheduled for 10:00 a.m. (MT) on October 28, 2020, or
such other date as may be set by the Court. Subject to obtaining
Court approval of the Plan of Arrangement and the satisfaction or
waiver of the other conditions to the implementation of the Plan of
Arrangement, the Company intends to complete the Amended
Recapitalization Transaction in early November.

Greg Fletcher, Calfrac's Lead Independent Director commented "We
are grateful for the support of our Noteholders and Shareholders in
this process and will now shift our focus to securing Court
approval for the Amended Recapitalization Transaction."

Lindsay Link, Calfrac's President and Chief Operating Officer added
"I want to thank our team and advisors for their efforts in
delivering this result. At the same time, I am proud of our
operations staff for continuing to deliver on Calfrac's Brand
Promise over these last several months. The strength of our client
and vendor relationships has been proven during this period, and
for those partnerships we are grateful."

                   About Calfrac Well Services

Calfrac Well Services Ltd. is a Calgary, Alberta-based provider of
hydraulic fracturing services to exploration and production (E&P)
companies.

Calfrac Well Services in missed its June 15, 2020 interest payment
on its senior unsecured notes due 2026.

Calfrac in July 2020 commenced in the Court of Queen's Bench of
Alberta (Calgary) proceedings under Sec. 192 of the Canadian
Business Corporation Act, R.S.C. 1985 ("CBCA").

Calfrac Well Services Corp. filed a Chapter 15 case (Bankr. S.D.
Tex. Case No. 20-bk-33529) on July 13, 2020, to seek recognition of
its Canadian proceedings.  The Hon. David R Jones is the case
judge.  Porter Hedges LLP is counsel in the U.S. case.


CALFRAC WELL: Stops Wilks' Bid to Seek Insolvency
-------------------------------------------------
Calfrac Well Services Ltd. (TSX: CFW) announced Sept. 1, 2020, that
it has prevailed in its request for entry of a recognition order
under Chapter 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Code ("Chapter
15"), despite Wilks Brothers LLC's ("Wilks Brothers") latest
attempt to seek a Calfrac insolvency.

On July 13, 2020, Calfrac and certain related entities applied for
recognition and Chapter 15 relief before the United States
Bankruptcy Court of the Southern District of Texas, including
requesting: (a) a "provisional stay" of all enforcement actions by
certain categories of creditors, (b) recognition of Calfrac's
reorganization proceeding pending before the Court of Queen's Bench
of Alberta pursuant to the Canada Business Corporations Act (the
"CBCA Proceeding"), and (c) enforcement in the United States of the
preliminary interim order issued pursuant to the CBCA Proceeding
(the "Preliminary Interim Order").  On July 14, 2020, the U.S.
court granted Calfrac's request for the provisional stay, which
remained in effect pending a Chapter 15 recognition hearing before
the U.S. court that concluded yesterday.

In finding in favour of Calfrac, the U.S. court overruled Wilks
Brothers' objection to the requested Chapter 15 relief.  Wilks
Brothers has opposed Calfrac at every step, and Wilks Brothers'
opposition to the Chapter 15 recognition hearing represented yet
another attempt to undermine Calfrac's recapitalization transaction
(the "Recapitalization Transaction"), which is being advanced under
the CBCA Proceeding.

This stops the latest Wilks Brothers' effort to obstruct the
Recapitalization Transaction, including Wilks Brothers' argument to
the U.S. court that Calfrac should be subject to Chapter 11
insolvency proceedings (which if successful would have had the
effect of eliminating any potential recovery for shareholders).
Having secured this result, Calfrac remains committed to
implementing the Recapitalization Transaction for the benefit of
all of its stakeholders.

The ruling at the Aug. 30 recognition hearing will be followed in
the coming weeks by the entry of a Chapter 15 recognition order.
The recognition order is anticipated to fully enforce the
provisions of the Preliminary Interim Order and to effectively
block any enforcement actions against the U.S.-located assets of
Calfrac and its subsidiaries until the conclusion of the CBCA
Proceeding and the consummation of the Recapitalization
Transaction.

                   About Calfrac Well Services

Calfrac Well Services Ltd. is a Calgary, Alberta-based provider of
hydraulic fracturing services to exploration and production (E&P)
companies.

Calfrac Well Services in missed its June 15, 2020 interest payment
on its senior unsecured notes due 2026.

Calfrac in July 2020 commenced in the Court of Queen's Bench of
Alberta (Calgary) proceedings under Sec. 192 of the Canadian
Business Corporation Act, R.S.C. 1985 ("CBCA").

Calfrac Well Services Corp. filed a Chapter 15 case (Bankr. S.D.
Tex. Case No. 20-bk-33529) on July 13, 2020, to seek recognition of
its Canadian proceedings.  The Hon. David R Jones is the case
judge.  Porter Hedges LLP is counsel in the U.S. case.



CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Emerges From Chapter 11 Bankruptcy
--------------------------------------------------------
California Resources Corporation (NYSE: CRC) announced Oct. 27,
2020, that it has completed its financial restructuring and emerged
from the bankruptcy process with a significantly stronger balance
sheet.  CRC's Joint Plan of Reorganization in its Chapter 11 case
cancelled pre-existing debt, consolidated CRC's ownership in the
Elk Hills power plant and cryogenic gas plant, and provided for the
payment in full of all valid and undisputed trade and contingent
claims in the ordinary course of business. Today, CRC will
officially conclude its reorganization after completing all
required actions and satisfying the remaining conditions of the
Plan.

Todd Stevens, President and CEO of CRC, noted, "With the full
support of our stakeholders and a much stronger balance sheet, the
restructured CRC is well designed to withstand price cycles and
continue delivering affordable, sustainable and reliable energy
that is so essential to Californians. You can expect CRC to build
upon the fundamental strengths of our business that provide us a
high degree of operating flexibility, including our low-decline
conventional oil production, low capital intensity, exposure to the
Brent crude oil markets, substantial mineral ownership in fee, and
integrated infrastructure. We believe the streamlined CRC and our
commitment to disciplined capital allocation will serve as a strong
foundation to deliver free cash flow. CRC is committed to fostering
sustainable energy production to meet the future needs of all
Californians. I would also like to thank our employees for their
dedication, focus and effort to sustain our proven track record of
safety, environmental stewardship and operational excellence during
the restructuring process."

As previously reported, CRC entered into a Settlement and
Assumption Agreement with certain affiliates of Ares Management
L.P. related to CRC's and Ares' Elk Hills joint venture.  Under
this agreement, CRC acquired the equity interests of the joint
venture and 100% ownership of the Elk Hills power plant and a
cryogenic gas processing plant in exchange for approximately 20.8%
of the new common stock in CRC and $300 million of secured notes
issued by EHP Midco Holding Company, LLC, a subsidiary of CRC.  As
a result, the joint venture's assets are now wholly owned by CRC.

Under the Plan approved by the bankruptcy court, approximately $4.4
billion of loans and notes outstanding as of June 30, 2020 have
been equitized. Additionally, all of the Company’s previously
existing equity interests have been cancelled and ceased to exist
after the market close on October 27, 2020. In connection with its
emergence, shares of the Company's new common stock have been
approved for listing on the New York Stock Exchange under the
ticker symbol "CRC" and trading is expected to commence on Oct. 28,
2020.  At emergence, CRC will have approximately 83.3 million
shares of new common stock issued and outstanding, which includes
shares representing 32.5% of our new common stock issued to holders
of loans and notes pursuant to the Plan, shares representing 45.7%
of our new common stock issued in connection with a fully
backstopped $450 million rights offering that was fully subscribed
and is effective upon emergence, as well as shares representing
20.8% of our new common stock issued in the Ares settlement
described above.  CRC also issued Tier 1 Warrants and Tier 2
Warrants (each as defined in the Plan) to acquire up to 2% and 3%
of new common stock, respectively, at a "strike price" to be
calculated using a $3 billion aggregate equity value, which are
valid for four years.

At emergence, CRC entered into a new revolving credit facility with
a $1.2 billion borrowing base and a commitment level of $540
million.  The facility matures on April 27, 2024.  CRC has a net
borrowed position of approximately $37 million on the facility at
emergence, which is net of unrestricted cash of $70 million and
$118 million used to cash collateralize on an interim basis certain
letters of credit outstanding under CRC's senior
debtor-in-possession credit facility.  CRC's capital structure also
includes a $200 million second lien term loan and $300 million of
secured notes due 2027 issued to Ares in connection with the Ares
settlement described above.  CRC is well-capitalized at emergence
with over $345 million of available liquidity.

New Capital Structure Summary

The following table shows CRC’s principal amount of debt and
mezzanine equity as of June 30, 2020 and at emergence:

                                            (in Millions)
  Capital Structure             As of June 30, 2020    At
Emergence
{Debt:}
2014 Old Revolving Credit Facility          $731             ---
NEW Revolving Credit Facility                ---            $225*
2017 Term Loan                            $1,300             ---
2016 Term Loan                            $1,000             ---
NEW Second Lien Term Loan                    ---            $200
8% Second Lien Notes due 2022             $1,808             ---
5.5% Unsecured Notes due 2021               $100             ---
6% Unsecured Notes due 2024                 $144             ---
NEW Secured Notes due 2027                   ---            $300

{Mezzanine Equity:}
Elk Hills Power Noncontrolling interest     $827             ---

Total Debt & Mezzanine Equity             $5,910            $725

(*) – Certain letters of credit outstanding under our senior
debtor-in-possession facility have been cash-collateralized on an
interim basis until transferred to our New Revolving Credit
Facility. This interim cash collateralization resulted in $118
million temporarily funded under the New Revolving Credit Facility.
Excluding this amount, the balance outstanding on our New Revolving
Credit Facility, net of unrestricted cash of $70 million, would
have been $37 million.

                Newly Appointed Board of Directors

In accordance with the Plan, CRC has a new Board of Directors.  The
new Board members are Chairperson Mark A. McFarland, Douglas E.
Brooks, Tiffany (TJ) Thom Cepak, James N. Chapman, Julio M.
Quintana, William B. Roby and Brian Steck. President and CEO Todd
Stevens will also continue to serve as a director of CRC. The Board
has standing Audit, Compensation, Nominating and Governance
Committees. The formation and composition of a Sustainability
Committee will be addressed following emergence.

                       About California Resources

California Resources Corporation is an oil and natural gas
exploration and production company headquartered in Los Angeles.
The company operates its resource base exclusively within
California, applying complementary and integrated infrastructure to
gather, process and market its production. Visit
http://www.crc.com/for more information.       

On July 15, 2020, California Resources and its affiliates sought
protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D.
Tex. Lead Case No. 20-33568). At the time of the filing, California
Resources disclosed assets of between $1 billion and $10 billion
and liabilities of the same range.

Judge David R. Jones oversees the cases.

The Debtors tapped Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP and Vinson & Elkins LLP
as their bankruptcy counsel, Perella Weinberg Partners as
investment banker, Alvarez & Marsal North America, LLC as
restructuring advisor, and Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC as
claims agent.


CATALINA SEA RANCH: Assets Can Be Sold Free of Successor Liability
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Douglas and Timothy (Tim) Hoffmann of Jones Day wrote an
article on JDSupra titled "Assets May Be Sold in Bankruptcy Free
and Clear of Successor Liability."

The ability of a bankruptcy trustee or chapter 11
debtor-in-possession ("DIP") to sell assets of the bankruptcy
estate "free and clear" of "any interest" in the property asserted
by a non-debtor is an important tool designed to maximize the value
of the estate for the benefit of all stakeholders. The U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California recently
examined whether such interests include "successor liability"
claims that might otherwise be asserted against the purchaser of a
debtor's assets. In In re Catalina Sea Ranch, LLC, 2020 WL 1900308
(Bankr. C.D. Cal. Apr. 13, 2020), the court joined the majority of
courts in holding that assets can be sold to an insider of a debtor
free and clear of successor liability claims within the plain
meaning of section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Free and Clear Bankruptcy Sales

Section 363(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code provides in relevant part
that "[t]he trustee, after notice and a hearing, may use, sell, or
lease, other than in the ordinary course of business, property of
the estate." Courts generally apply some form of a business
judgment test in determining whether to approve a proposed use,
sale, or lease of estate property under section 363(b)(1). See
ASARCO, Inc. v. Elliott Mgmt. (In re ASARCO, L.L.C.), 650 F.3d 593,
601 (5th Cir. 2011); In re Stearns Holdings, LLC, 607 B.R. 781, 792
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2019); In re Friedman's, Inc., 336 B.R. 891, 895
(Bankr. S.D. Ga. 2005); see generally Collier on Bankruptcy
("Collier") ¶ 363.02 (16th ed. 2020).

Under this deferential standard, a bankruptcy court will generally
approve a reasoned decision by a trustee or DIP to use, sell, or
lease estate property outside the ordinary course of business. See
In re Alpha Nat. Res., Inc., 546 B.R. 348, 356 (Bankr. E.D. Va.),
aff'd, 553 B.R. 556 (E.D. Va. 2016). However, when a transaction
involves an "insider," courts apply heightened scrutiny to ensure
that the transaction does not improperly benefit the insider at the
expense of other stakeholders. See In re Alaska Fishing Adventure,
LLC, 594 B.R. 883, 887 (Bankr. D. Alaska 2018); In re Family
Christian, LLC, 533 B.R. 600, 622, 627 (Bankr. W.D. Mich. 2015).

Section 363(f) of the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a trustee or DIP
to sell property "free and clear of any interest in such property
of an entity other than the estate," but only if:

applicable nonbankruptcy law permits sale of such property free and
clear of such interest; such entity consents;

such interest is a lien and the price at which such property is to
be sold is greater than the aggregate value of all liens on such
property;

such interest is in bona fide dispute; or

such entity could be compelled, in a legal or equitable proceeding,
to accept a money satisfaction of such interest.

11 U.S.C. § 363(f). A bankruptcy court's power to order sales free
and clear of a competing interest without the consent of the party
asserting the interest has been recognized for more than a century.
See Ray v. Norseworthy, 90 U.S. 128, 131–32 (1875). It promotes
the expeditious liquidation of estate assets by avoiding delay
caused by sorting out disputes concerning the validity and extent
of competing interests, which can later be resolved in a
centralized forum. It also facilitates the estate's realization of
the maximum value possible from an asset. A prospective buyer would
discount its offer significantly if it faced the prospect of
protracted litigation to obtain clear title to an asset. See In re
WBQ P'ship, 189 B.R. 97, 108 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1995); accord In re
Realia, Inc., 2012 WL 833372, at *10 (B.A.P. 9th Cir. Mar. 13,
2012) (noting that that "the purpose of the 'free and clear'
language is to allow the debtor to obtain a maximum recovery on its
assets in the marketplace"), aff'd, 569 F. App'x 544 (9th Cir.
2014).

Holders of such competing "interests" are provided with protections
by the Bankruptcy Code. Pending the bankruptcy court's resolution
of any disputes, the interest holder is entitled to "adequate
protection" of its interest. This most commonly takes the form of a
replacement lien on the proceeds of the sale. See generally Collier
at ¶ 363.06[9].

Courts have sometimes struggled to identify the outer limits of the
term "interest," which is not defined in the Bankruptcy Code or its
accompanying legislative history. Most courts reject the narrow
approach under which the reach of section 363(f) is limited to in
rem property interests (such as liens or security interests) or
only those claims that have already been asserted at the time the
property is sold. Id. at ¶ 363.06[1] (noting that "[o]bviously
there must be situations in which the interest is something other
than a lien; otherwise, section 363(f)(3) would not need to deal
explicitly with the case in which the interest is a lien").

Instead, the majority of courts have construed the term broadly to
encompass other obligations that may flow from ownership of
property, such as leasehold interests. See Pinnacle Rest. at Big
Sky, LLC v. CH SP Acquisitions, LLC (In re Spanish Peaks Holding
II, LLC), 872 F.3d 892 (9th Cir. 2017) (notwithstanding the tenant
protections set forth in section 365(h)(1), real property can be
sold by a debtor-lessor free and clear of a leasehold interest
under section 363(f)); Precision Indus., Inc. v. Qualitech Steel
SBQ, LLC, 327 F.3d 537 (7th Cir. 2003) (same)).

Many courts have concluded that "successor liability" claims are
also included within the scope of section 363(f). See Ind. State
Police Pension Trust v. Chrysler LLC (In re Chrysler LLC), 576 F.3d
108 (2d Cir.) (sale of assets to newly formed acquisition entity
free and clear of debtor's liability for certain vehicle defects),
vacated on other grounds, 558 U.S. 1087 (2009); In re Trans World
Airlines, Inc., 322 F.3d 283 (3d Cir. 2003) ("TWA") (employment
discrimination claims arising from conduct prior to a section 363
sale and travel vouchers settling same); UMWA 1992 Benefit Plan v.
Leckie Smokeless Coal Co. (In re Leckie Smokeless Coal Co.), 99
F.3d 573 (4th Cir. 1996) (debtor coal operators could sell their
assets free of successor liability that would otherwise arise under
the Coal Industry Retiree Health Benefit Act of 1992); In re K & D
Indus. Servs. Holding Co., Inc., 602 B.R. 16 (Bankr. E.D. Mich.
2019) (sale of chapter 11 debtors' assets free and clear of
successor liability claims for ERISA withdrawal liability); In re
White Motor Credit Corp., 75 B.R. 944, 948, 951 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio
1987) (declining to impose successor liability on an asset
purchaser because "[t]he successor liability specter would chill
and deleteriously affect sales of corporate assets, forcing debtors
to accept less on sales to compensate for this potential
liability"); see also Elliott v. Gen. Motors LLC (In re Motors
Liquidation Co.), 829 F.3d 135 (2d Cir. 2016) (agreeing that
successor liability claims can be "interests" when they flow from a
debtor's ownership of transferred assets, but ruling that certain
claims were not barred because they had not yet arisen at the time
a section 363(f) sale closed and certain other claimants received
inadequate notice of the sale); Olson v. Frederico (In re Grumman
Olson Indus., Inc.), 445 B.R. 243 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2011) (a section
363 sale order cannot exonerate purchasers from successor liability
claims by claimants who, at the time of the sale, had not yet been
injured and had no contact or relationship with the debtor or its
products).

In Catalina Sea Ranch, the bankruptcy court considered whether a
chapter 11 debtor could sell substantially all of its assets to an
affiliated company free and clear of successor liability claims
arising from a boating accident allegedly caused by one of the
debtor's fishing vessels.

Catalina Sea Ranch

Catalina Sea Ranch LLC ("CSR") was a seafood supplier specializing
in mussels. After CSR failed to sell its assets by means of an
assignment for the benefit of creditors, certain creditors filed an
involuntary chapter 7 case against the company, which the
bankruptcy court converted to chapter 11 after transferring venue
of the case to the Central District of California.

CSR filed a motion to sell substantially all of its assets at
auction to Pacific Mariculture, LLC ("Mariculture"), an insider
affiliate and a secured creditor, pursuant to sections 363(b) and
363(f). CSR's largest unsecured creditors were the estates of
various members of the Poynter family ("Poynters"). They asserted a
$10 million wrongful death claim arising from a prepetition
shipping accident involving one of CSR's vessels and objected to
the sale. They argued that CSR did not provide a sufficient
business justification for the sale to an insider at a "bargain
basement price" and that the sale should not be free and clear of a
"successor liability" claim they intended to pursue against
Mariculture.

The Bankruptcy Court's Ruling

Initially, the bankruptcy court found that, even though CSR's
unsecured creditors would not receive any distribution from the
estate if the proposed sale to Mariculture were approved, there was
no evidence of favoritism, bad faith, or inadequate consideration
in connection with the sale.

Next, the bankruptcy court noted that neither Mariculture nor any
other non-debtor (including CSR's insurers and directors) would be
released or discharged from any liability under applicable
non-bankruptcy law if the sale were approved. Rather, the court
wrote, "[t]he only issue presently before the Court is whether the
proposed sale of assets will be free and clear of successor
liability." 2020 WL 1900308, at *11.

The bankruptcy court explained that, under applicable
non-bankruptcy law (California law), the general rule is that a
company that acquires the assets of another company does not assume
the selling company's liabilities unless:

(1) there is an express or implied agreement of assumption, (2) the
transaction amounts to a consolidation or merger of the two
corporations, (3) the purchasing corporation is a mere continuation
of the seller, or (4) the transfer of assets to the purchaser is
for the fraudulent purpose of escaping liability for the seller's
debts.

Id. (quoting Fisher v. Allis-Chalmers Corp. Prod. Liab. Tr., 95
Cal. App. 4th 1182, 1188 (Cal. Ct. App. 2002)). Factors that may be
relevant in assessing whether a purchaser is a "mere continuation"
of the seller include whether there is inadequate consideration
paid or the buyer and the seller have common officers, directors,
or stockholders. Id. (citing Ray v. Alad Corp., 560 P.2d 3, 7 (Cal.
1977)).

The bankruptcy court concluded that any liability that would
otherwise follow assets sold in bankruptcy is an "interest" in the
assets within the meaning of section 363(f), in accordance with the
dictionary definition of the term, which includes a "legal share in
something" and a "claim, share [or] stake." Because successor
liability involves a challenge to the sale of estate property free
of a claim, the court reasoned, it fits within the common
understanding of an "interest," and a bankruptcy sale can be free
and clear of successor liability "under the plain meaning of §
363(f)."

According to the bankruptcy court, this conclusion is consistent
with other parts of section 363, which indicate that Congress did
not intend to limit the scope of "interests" in section 363(f) to
ownership interests, liens, or other "narrow types of 'interests'"
Id. at *12 (citing sections 363(f)(3), 363(g) and 363(h)). It also
comports with the rulings of numerous courts, including the Fourth
Circuit in Leckie and the Third Circuit in TWA, where the court
stated that "[t]o allow the claimants to assert successor liability
claims against [the purchaser] while limiting other creditors'
recourse to the proceeds of the asset sale would be inconsistent
with the Bankruptcy Code's priority scheme." TWA, 322 F.3d at 292.

Finally, the bankruptcy court in Catalina Sea Ranch explained, the
conclusion that "any interest" within the meaning of section 363(f)
includes successor liability is consistent with the broad policy of
the Bankruptcy Code to maximize the value of the estate's assets
for the benefit of all stakeholders and the important policy
considerations underpinning "free and clear" asset sales in
bankruptcy. "For all of these reasons," the court wrote, "a sale
free and clear of all interests in [a debtor's] property means a
sale free and clear of successor liability."

The bankruptcy court accordingly approved the sale to Mariculture
under: (i) section 363(f)(1), because California law permitted the
sale free and clear of the Poynters' successor liability claim; and
(ii) section 363(f)(5), because the claim was "subject to monetary
valuation" and the Poynters could be compelled "to accept a money
satisfaction" of their claim.

Outlook

The bankruptcy court's rationale in Catalina Sea Ranch regarding
the applicability of section 363(f) to successor liability claims
aligns with the approach taken by the majority of courts that have
considered the issue. To maximize the value of the bankruptcy
estate for all stakeholders, the scope of "interests" that can be
extinguished (albeit subject to provision of adequate protection)
by means of free and clear asset sales under section 363(f) has
been broadly construed.


CHARLES EUGENE BARNETT: Court Allows Shellpoint to Amend Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shellpoint Mortgage Servicing, LLC is the holder of a secured claim
in the approximate amount of $2,876,022.97, secured by the real
property located at 12510 Cross Canyon Lane, Cypress, Texas 77433.
Charles Eugene Barnett, Jr. sought to dismiss the complaint
captioned SHELLPOINT MORTGAGE SERVICING, LLC, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES
EUGENE BARNETT JR., et al, Defendant, Adversary No. 20-3116 (Bankr.
S.D. Tex.) filed by Shellpoint because, according to Barnett, the
complaint does not meet the particularity requirements of Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b); nor does it state a claim upon which
relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Shellpoint filed a motion for leave to amend its
complaint to remedy any deficiencies alleged in Barnett's motion to
dismiss.

Upon analysis, Bankruptcy Judge Eduardo V. Rodriguez granted
Shellpoint's motion for leave to amend its complaint where it has
successfully pled a claim under 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(2)(A) and
denied Barnett's motion to dismiss.

On Jan. 7, 2020, Charles Eugene Barnett, Jr. filed his initial
petition and schedules under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. On
March 30, 2020, Shellpoint filed its original complaint objecting
to dischargeability of debt pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section
523(a)(2)(A). On May 29, 2020, Barnett filed a single pleading
self-styled as "Defendant's Motion to Dismiss." On June 17, 2020,
Shellpoint filed a Motion to Amend its Complaint and filed an
Amended Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint the same day, along
with its proposed Amended Complaint for Determination of
Dischargeability and Objection to Discharge Pursuant to Section
523(A)(2).

The Court considered whether Shellpoint's Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint should be granted. Shellpoint reasoned that pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, which liberally allows
amendments, Shellpoint should be afforded leave to amend its
Complaint so it can remedy the alleged deficiencies pointed out by
Barnett.

The Court found that there is no undue delay, bad faith, or
dilatory motive on part of Shellpoint. Shellpoint filed its motion
19 days after Barnett's Motion to Dismiss. This does not constitute
undue delay. Second, this is Shellpoint's first amendment and the
intention of the amendment is to cure any deficiencies alleged by
Barnett, combatting any notion that this amendment is in bad faith.
As evidenced by Shellpoint's proposed amended complaint, Shellpoint
is not adding any claims or parties to its Complaint and thus, the
risk of undue prejudice to Barnett is nonexistent.

The Court also said the proposed amended complaint would not be
futile.  In the proposed amended complaint, Shellpoint put forth
factual assertions and documents that adequately explained its
factual allegations that Barnett's loan application: (1) lists a
Wells Fargo account and a Bank of America account, neither of which
ever existed; (2) Barnett submitted "falsified" bank statements;
and (3) a cashier's check was presented at closing from the Wells
Fargo account that never existed. Therefore, Shellpoint's Motion
for Leave to Amend Complaint was granted.

In his Motion To Dismiss, Barnett argued that Shellpoint's
Complaint does not adequately plead any claim under section
523(a)(2)(A) because the pleadings meet neither the particularity
requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) nor state a
claim upon which relief can be granted under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). As for Rule 9(b), Barnett argued that the
Complaint lists three alleged facts and then generally concludes
that the mortgage on the Property "was procured through false
pretenses, a false representation, or actual fraud within the
meaning of 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(2)(A)," but does not
specifically identify which of the facts constitute the alleged
fraud or explain how those facts relate to the elements of
Shellpoint's claim. This, Barnett insisted leaves him guessing as
to the exact nature of Shellpoint's claim.

The Court held that Shellpoint's proposed amended complaint,
remedies the inadequacies alleged in Barnett's Motion To Dismiss
and meets the particularity requirements of Rule 9(b). Shellpoint's
proposed amended complaint specified the who, what, when, where,
and how for each of its factual allegations with the detail
necessary to satisfy the pleading standard under Rule 9(b) in the
Fifth Circuit. Moreover,  Shellpoint detailed by whom and how it
was directly harmed by Barnett's conduct. Taking Shellpoint's
well-pleaded allegations as true, Shellpoint's complaint stated a
plausible claim for relief.

Moreover, Shellpoint's amended complaint pointed to conduct other
than a statement respecting Barnett's financial condition. The
misrepresentations and fraudulent activity alleged by Shellpoint do
not concern assets that "can help indicate whether a debtor is
solvent or insolvent, able to repay a debt or not." Because the
bank accounts, bank statements, and cashier's check were allegedly
falsified and presented to fraudulently obtain a mortgage on the
Property, they provide no insight into the actual financial
condition of Barnett. The allegedly falsified representations give
no indication as to whether Barnett has the ability to repay the
debt he owes to Shellpoint.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Opinion is available at
https://bit.ly/3iZSNxe from Leagle.com.

Charles Eugene Barnett, Jr, filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection (Bankr. S.D. Tex. , Case No. 20-30140) on Jan. 7, 2020.


CINEMEX HOLDINGS: Owners Can Seek Lien Extension, Court Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Hale of Law360 reports that a Florida bankruptcy judge said
Tuesday that the owner of two Minnesota movie theaters can seek an
extension on part of a lien against the parent company of insolvent
movie theater operator Cinemex Holdings USA Inc., but delayed
ruling on Cinemex stock the parent holds.

During a Zoom hearing, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Laurel M. Isicoff
granted MN Theaters 2006 LLC relief from the automatic stay
covering Cinemex's Chapter 11 reorganization case, over objections
from the debtor, based on assurances from MN Theaters that it is
simply trying to maintain the status quo in a $56 million case it
has pending in New York federal court against Cinemex's
Mexico-based parent, Grupo Cinemex SA de CV.

The Miami-based bankruptcy judge authorized MN Theaters to seek an
extension of a levy on loan payments Cinemex owes its parent
company that is part of an "attachment order" the New York court
issued allowing the landlord to seize and secure Grupo Cinemex's
U.S. assets during the case.

But she gave the parties until Wednesday to research the effect
that the attachment order has on Cinemex stock owned by Grupo
Cinemex. Cinemex's bankruptcy counsel expressed concern Tuesday
that an extension of the levy over the stock could jeopardize the
debtor's reorganization plan, which is due to come up for
confirmation on Nov. 24.

"The only thing that can happen by continuing the attachment with
respect to the shares is pure mischief," Patricia B. Tomasco of
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP told the court.

The company previously said it has laid off almost all of its 2,500
workers, leaving fewer than 20 employees to maintain the business.
At the time of its bankruptcy filing, its monthly lease obligations
were about $3.2 million in rent, plus an additional $700,000 in tax
and insurance, according to case filings.

Grupo Cinemex emerged as the only party willing to provide
emergency debtor-in-possession financing, advancing nearly $2
million in a first installment to Cinemex to cover its May
expenses, according to the company's case filings.

MN Theaters filed its case in New York against Grupo Cinemex on
July 28 and obtained the prejudgment order of attachment on July
30, providing the levy on Grupo Cinemex's U.S. assets, according to
case filings. When it moved on Aug. 13 to confirm the attachment
order to take possession of those assets, Cinemex responded a few
days later by filing an adversary proceeding asking the bankruptcy
court to rule that the automatic stay applies and to temporarily
block MN Theaters from advancing the New York case.

Judge Isicoff granted Cinemex a stay, saying that while the
district court proceedings, including the entry of the attachment
order, did not violate the automatic stay, "any continuation of
proceedings in the district court case to confirm the attachment
order or to take any other act that provides MN Theaters with
increased rights" with respect to Grupo Cinemex's interest in the
DIP financing to Cinemex and its ownership of Cinemex stock is
subject to the automatic stay.

MN Theaters said in its motion to the bankruptcy court that it
needs relief from the automatic stay or clarification on its
applicability because the levy can expire on Nov. 2 without a
further order from the New York district court.

During Tuesday's hearing, Tomasco said that with respect to the DIP
loan, Cinemex does not necessarily object to an extension of the
attachment but wanted it to be clear that any enforcement of the
loan would have to come through the bankruptcy court.

In regard to the stock, however, Tamasco argued that with Cinemex's
reorganization plan calling for the shares to be canceled, they are
worthless to MN Theaters, so an extension makes no sense.

The only thing that could happen as a result of the shares'
attachment would be a possible change of management or a transfer
of ownership, she said. A change in ownership, would cause problems
for Cinemex's reorganization plan, because it would bar the company
from using approximately $170 million in net operating losses that
it had reported as of the end of 2019 — plus possibly more
generated in 2020 — to offset future taxable income.

Scott A. Edelman of Milbank LLP, who is representing MN Theaters,
described the net operating losses issues as "murky," arguing that
Cinemex could have raised the issue when the judge issued the stay
order, but it did not. Edelman said he read the company's proposed
disclosure statement as saying it was not going to get that
benefit.

"I am suspicious that at the end of this process, that equity
interest will not be canceled, and if it's not, then our lien
should persist," he said.

Judge Isicoff said she was not clear whether the New York district
court's attachment order implied that a change of ownership had
already taken place, which she noted would be problematic for
Cinemex, and instructed Tamasco to look into that question before a
hearing set for Wednesday afternoon at which the court is also set
to consider Cinemex's disclosure statement.

Cinemex is represented by Brett M. Amron, Jeffrey P. Bast and Jaime
Burton Leggett of Bast Amron LLP, and Patricia B. Tomasco, Eric
Winston and Juan P. Morillo of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan
LLP.

MN Theaters is represented by Scott A. Edelman of Milbank LLP and
David L. Gay of Carlton Fields.

The case is In re: Cinemex USA Real Estate Holdings Inc. et al.,
case number 1:20-bk-14695, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of Florida. The New York case is MN Theaters 2006
LLC v. Grupo Cinemex SA de CV, case number 1:20-cv-05860, in the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.

                      About Cinemex Holdings

Cinemex operates 41 upscale dine-in movie theaters in 12 U.S.
states under the CMX Cinemas brand.  

Cinemex, which is jointly owned by Mexican companies Grupo Cinemex
and Operadora de Cinemas SA de CV, filed for Chapter 11 protection
in April, was affected by the government-mandated closures of
theaters during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Cinemex USA Real Estate Holdings Inc. and Cinemex Holdings USA,
Inc., a company that operates a movie theater chain, sought
protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D.
Fla. Case Nos. 20-14695 and 20-14696) on April 25, 2020. On April
26, 2020, CB Theater Experience, LLC, filed a Chapter 11 petition
(Bankr. S.D. Fla. Case No. 20-14699). The cases are jointly
administered under Case No. 20-14695.

At the time of the filing, the Debtors each disclosed assets of
between $100 million and $500 million and liabilities of the same
range.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP and Bast Amron, LLP serve as
the Debtors' bankruptcy counsel.


CLEVELAND IMAGING: Trustee's Nov. 17 Auction of Moparty Suit Claim
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marvin Isgur of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of Texas authorized the bidding procedures proposed by
Trust, Christopher L. Quinn, as Trustee of the CI Litigation Trust,
and Cleveland Imaging & Surgical Hospital, L.L.C., also known as
Doctors Diagnostic Hospital, in connection with the sale of claims
and causes of action in Moparty Adversary Proceeding.

A hearing on the Motion was held on Oct. 27, 2020.

In furtherance and satisfaction of his fiduciary duties to the
Trust, the Trustee will provide interested parties with the
opportunity to submit competing bids and participate in an auction
for those claims and causes of action asserted by the Trustee in
his Complaint filed against those certain defendants at Docket No.
1 in Adversary No. 19-03566 ("Moparty Adversary Proceeding").

Any party who desires to make a bid for the Claims must deliver a
bid that satisfies the requirements set forth in the bidding
procedures outlined in the Order.

The salient terms of the Bidding Procedures are:

     a. Bid Deadline: Nov. 16, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. (CT)

     b. Initial Bid: $300,000

     c. Deposit: $30,000

     d. Auction: In the event that he timely receives more than one
Qualifying Bids by the Bid Deadline, the Trustee will conduct the
Auction starting at 2:00 p.m. (CT) on Nov. 17, 2020 by telephone or
videoconference.   

     e. Bid Increments: $10,000

     f. Sale Hearing: Nov. 18, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. (CT)

     g. Sale Objection Deadline:

     h. Closing: Within seven days of entry of the Sale Order

The Trustee will notify each bidder whether they have been
determined to be a Qualifying Bidder by no later than 5:00 p.m.
(CT) on Nov. 16, 2020.

As soon as reasonably practicable after the conclusion of the
Auction, but not later than Nov. 18, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (CT), the
Trustee will file notice of the Successful Bidder.  

The sale will be "as is, where is, with all faults, and without any
warranty whatsoever, express or implied."

Upon funding the Purchase Price and closing the sale for the Claims
in the Moparty Adversary Proceeding, the Successful Bidder may
litigate and pursue the Claims against those Defendants to the
fullest extent permitted by applicable law and subject to all
defenses asserted by any of the Defendants in the Moparty Adversary
Proceeding.

Notwithstanding the possible applicability of Bankruptcy Rules
6004(h), 7062, 9014 or otherwise, or any Bankruptcy Local Rules of
the Court, the terms and conditions of the Order will be
immediately effective and enforceable upon its entry.

All time periods set forth in the Order will be calculated in
accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 9006(a).

                     About Cleveland Imaging

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, Cleveland Imaging & Surgical
Hospital, L.L.C., a/k/a Doctors Diagnostic Hospital, filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 14-
34974) on Sept. 4, 2014.  

In the petition signed by Douglas J. Brickley, the receiver, the
Debtor was estimated to have assets at $1 million to $10 million
and its liabilities at $10 million to $50 million.

Judge Jeff Bohm presides over the case.

Christopher Adams, Esq., at Okin Adams & Kilmer LLP, serves as the
Hospital's bankruptcy counsel.


COSMOLEDO LLC: Committee Taps Hahn & Hessen as Legal Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------
The official committee of unsecured creditors of Cosmoledo, LLC and
affiliates received approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Southern District of New York to retain Hahn & Hessen LLP as its
legal counsel.

The services to be rendered by Hahn & Hessen are as follows:

     a. advise the committee with respect to its duties and powers
in the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases;

     b. assist the committee in its investigation of the acts,
conduct, assets, liabilities, and financial condition of the
Debtors, the operation of the Debtors' businesses, the desirability
of continuance of such businesses, and any other matters relevant
to the cases or to the business affairs of the Debtors;

     c. advise the committee with respect to the proposed
debtor-in-possession financing;

     d. advise the committee with respect to any proposed sale of
the Debtors' assets or business and any other relevant matters;

     e. advise the committee with respect to any proposed plan of
reorganization or liquidation, the prosecution of claims against
third parties and any other matters relevant to the cases or to the
formulation of the plan;

     f. assist the committee in requesting the appointment of a
trustee or examiner; and

     g. perform other legal services related to the Debtors'
bankruptcy cases.

Hahn & Hessen will be paid at hourly rates as follows:

     Partners             $750 to $1,025
     Counsel              $520 to $720
     Associates           $350 to $690
     Legal Assistants     $110 to $290

The firm will also be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses
incurred.

Mark Power, Esq., a member of Hahn & Hessen, disclosed in a court
filing that he and his firm are "disinterested" as defined in
Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Hahn & Hessen can be reached through:

     Mark T. Power, Esq.
     Alison M. Ladd, Esq.
     488 Madison Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 478-7200
     Fax: (212) 478-7400
     Email: mpower@hahnhessen.com
     Email: aladd@hahnhessen.com

                        About Cosmoledo LLC

Cosmoledo, LLC and affiliates own and operate 16 fine casual bakery
cafes in New York City under the trade name "Maison Kayser."
Maison Kayser, a global brand, is an authentic artisanal French
boulangerie that has been doing business in New York since 2012.
For more information, visit https://maison-kayser-usa.com/

Cosmoledo and its affiliates, including Breadroll, LLC, sought
Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. S.D.N.Y Lead Case No. 20-12117) on
Sept. 10, 2020.

In the petitions signed by CEO Jose Alcalay, Debtors were estimated
to have assets in the range of $10 million to $50 million, and $50
million to $100 million in debt.

The Debtors have tapped Mintz & Gold LLP as their bankruptcy
counsel, and CBIZ Accounting, Tax and Advisory of New York LLC as
their financial advisor, accountant and consultant.  Donlin Recano
& Co., Inc. -- https://www.donlinrecano.com/Clients/mk/Index -- is
the claims agent.

The U.S. Trustee for Region 2 appointed a committee to represent
unsecured creditors in the Debtors' Chapter 11 cases.  The
committee is represented by Hahn & Hessen LLP.


COTO INVESTMENTS: Seeks Approval to Tap Armory as Financial Advisor
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Coto Investments, Inc., d/b/a O'Cairns Inn and Suites, seeks
approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of
California to employ Armory Consulting Co. as its financial
advisor.

The firm will perform the following services to the Debtor:

     (a) provide strategic guidance to prepare and assist the
Debtor through its Chapter 11 bankruptcy;

     (b) manage reporting requirements pertaining to the Bankruptcy
Court and the U.S. Trustee's office;

     (c) assist with negotiating and serving as a liaison between
the Debtor and its creditors or their representatives;

     (d) provide testimony before the Bankruptcy Court on matters
within Armory's expertise and consistent with Armory's scope of
services herein;

     (e) assist with the development of a plan of reorganization;

     (f) evaluate any executory contracts and unexpired leases;

     (g) assist in the evaluation and analysis of avoidance actions
and causes of action;

     (h) oversee analysis of creditors' claims; and

     (i) any other additional service as may be mutually agreed
upon in writing between the Debtor and Armory.

Prior to the filing of the petition, the firm received a retainer
from the Debtor in the amount of $25,000.00, of which $7,212.90
remains.

The firm's hourly rates are as follows:

     James Wong       $475
     Senior Staff     $375

James Wong, the principal of Armory Consulting Co., disclosed in
court filings that the firm is a "disinterested person" as that
term is defined in section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     James Wong
     ARMORY CONSULTING CO.
     3943 Irvine Blvd., Suite 253
     Irvine, CA 92602
     Telephone: (714) 222-5552
     E-mail: jwong@armoryconsulting.com

                                About Coto Investments

Coto Investments, Inc., d/b/a O'Cairns Inn and Suites, is a
privately held company in the traveler accommodation industry. It
owns and operates O'Cairns Inn & Suites, a family style boutique
hotel with hospitality and resort-like amenities.

Coto Investments, Inc. sought protection under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Case No. 20- 11239) on Oct. 13,
2020. The petition was signed by Tory O'Cairns, chief executive
officer. At the time of the filing, the Debtor disclosed $1 million
to $10 million in both assets and liabilities. Judge Deborah J.
Saltzman oversees the case. The Debtor tapped Goe Forsythe & Hodges
LLP as its counsel and Armory Consulting Co. as financial advisor.


COTO INVESTMENTS: Seeks to Hire Goe, Forsythe & Hodges as Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Coto Investments, Inc., d/b/a O'Cairns Inn and Suites, seeks
approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of
California to employ Goe, Forsythe & Hodges LLP as its general
bankruptcy counsel.

The firm will perform the following services to the Debtor:

     (a) advise and assist the Debtor with respect to compliance
with the requirements of the United States Trustee;

     (b) advise the Debtor regarding matters of bankruptcy law;

     (c) represent the Debtor in any proceedings or hearings in the
Bankruptcy Court and in any action in any other court where the
Debtor's rights under the Bankruptcy Code may be litigated or
affected;

     (d) conduct examinations of witnesses, claimants, or adverse
parties and to prepare and assist in the preparation of reports,
accounts, and pleadings related to this Chapter 11 case;

     (e) advise the Debtor concerning the requirements of the
Bankruptcy Court and applicable rules as the same affect the Debtor
in this proceeding;

     (f) assist the Debtor in negotiation, formulation,
confirmation, and implementation of a Chapter 11 plan of
reorganization;

     (g) make any bankruptcy court appearances on behalf of the
Debtor; and

     (h) take such other action and perform such other services as
the Debtor may require of the firm in connection with this Chapter
11 case.

The firm received a total pre-petition retainer of $90,000.00 from
the Debtor of which $56,024.91 remains in the firm's trust
account.

The hourly rates of the firm's attorneys and professionals are as
follows:

     Robert P. Goe, Partner                  $495.00
     Marc C. Forsythe, Partner               $495.00
     Ronald S. Hodges, Partner               $495.00
     John Kim, Associate                     $445.00
     Rafael R. Garcia-Salgado, Associate     $405.00
     Ryan S. Riddles, Associate              $325.00
     Jeffrey M. Yostanto, Associate          $295.00
     Charity J. Miller, Of Counsel           $355.00
     Elizabeth A. LaRocque, Of Counsel       $375.00
     Britney Bailey, Paralegal               $185.00
     Arthur Johnston, Paralegal              $195.00
     Kerry A. Murphy, Paralegal              $195.00
     Lauren Gillen, Paralegal                $150.00

Robert P. Goe, a partner in the law firm of Goe Forsythe & Hodges
LLP, disclosed in court filings that the firm is a "disinterested
person" as that term is defined in section 101(14) of the
Bankruptcy Code.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     Robert P. Goe, Esq.
     Charity J. Manee, Esq.
     GOE FORSYTHE & HODGES LLP
     18101 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 1200
     Irvine, CA 92612
     Telephone: (949) 798-2460
     Facsimile: (949) 955-9437
     E-mail: rgoe@goeforlaw.com
             cmanee@goeforlaw.com
     
                               About Coto Investments

Coto Investments, Inc., d/b/a O'Cairns Inn and Suites, is a
privately held company in the traveler accommodation industry. It
owns and operates O'Cairns Inn & Suites, a family style boutique
hotel with hospitality and resort-like amenities.

Coto Investments, Inc. sought protection under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. C.D. Cal. Case No. 20- 11239) on Oct. 13,
2020. The petition was signed by Tory O'Cairns, chief executive
officer. At the time of the filing, the Debtor disclosed $1 million
to $10 million in both assets and liabilities. Judge Deborah J.
Saltzman oversees the case. The Debtor tapped Goe Forsythe & Hodges
LLP as its counsel and Armory Consulting Co. as financial advisor.


CURTIS JAMES JACKSON: GSO Suit vs Boulevard Mgmt. Goes to Trial
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CURTIS JAMES JACKSON, III, Plaintiff, v. GSO
BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, LLC, JONATHAN SCHWARTZ, MICHAEL OPPENHEIM,
BERNARD GUDVI, NICHOLAS BROWN, and WILLIAM BRAUNSTEIN Defendants,
GSO BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff, v. BOULEVARD
MANAGEMENT, INC., Third-Party Defendant, Adv. Proc. No. 17-02068
(Bankr. D. Conn.), Bankruptcy Judge Ann M. Nevins denied Boulevard
Management's Motion for Summary Judgment as to Count II of the
Third-Party Complaint.

On July 13, 2015, Mr. Jackson filed a voluntary petition under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, commencing case number 15-21233.
Within the main bankruptcy case, Mr. Jackson sought and received
authority to employ GSO as a professional to "provide financial
advisory and accounting services," effective as of July 19, 2015.
Soon thereafter, in October 2015, Mr. Jackson fired GSO. On Nov. 3,
2015, Mr. Jackson filed an application seeking authority to employ
Boulevard to replace GSO as the professional entity providing
"financial advisory and accounting services" to the bankruptcy
estate, with an effective date of Nov. 1, 2015. Two creditors and
the United States Trustee filed objections to the Boulevard
Application. After the Debtor filed an amended application to
address the objections, an order was entered authorizing the Debtor
to employ Boulevard effective Nov. 1, 2015.

During the Chapter 11 proceedings, Boulevard filed two applications
for allowance of compensation for services rendered pursuant to 11
U.S.C. section 330; orders approving them entered after notice and
a hearing. GSO did not file an application for compensation and no
compensation for GSO was allowed pursuant to section 330.

The Debtor successfully completed a confirmed Chapter 11 plan of
reorganization and received a bankruptcy discharge in early 2017.

On Sept. 12, 2017, Mr. Jackson commenced the adversary proceeding
against GSO seeking damages due to GSO's alleged failure to make a
tax election on his behalf or on behalf of his Chapter 11 estate,
and from alleged wrongful payments by GSO to itself for fees during
the pendency of the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case without obtaining
bankruptcy court approval.

On Dec. 22, 2017, GSO filed a third-party complaint against
Boulevard and Neligan, LLP, asserting claims for contribution and
indemnification against Boulevard in Counts I and II and similarly
against Neligan in Counts III and IV.  In Count II, GSO asserted
that to the extent GSO is liable to Mr. Jackson on his claim that
GSO failed to make a timely tax election, Boulevard must indemnify
GSO because Boulevard replaced GSO as Mr. Jackson's accountant
before the deadline for making the tax election. Boulevard filed an
answer including affirmative defenses on March 12, 2018.

Boulevard filed the motion for summary judgment, but the court
directed all parties to participate in mediation. After it was
reported the mediation effort failed, the court scheduled oral
argument on the pending motion for summary judgment.

Because GSO has since conceded it cannot establish the elements
necessary to claim Count I at this time, Judge Nevins only
addressed Count II. Boulevard asserted no reasonable factfinder
could conclude that Boulevard had control of the situation to the
exclusion of GSO, and therefore it is entitled to judgment on Count
II.

In support of summary judgment, Boulevard argues GSO cannot prevail
on its common-law indemnification claim for negligence as a matter
of law and there is no basis for the claim to proceed to trial.

According to Judge Nevins, under Connecticut common law, a party
seeking indemnification against a third party must establish four
elements:

     (1) the third party against whom indemnification is sought was
negligent;

     (2) the third party's active negligence . . . was the direct,
immediate cause of the accident and the resulting harm;

     (3) the third party was in control of the situation to the
exclusion of the defendant seeking reimbursement; and

     (4) the defendant did not know of the third party's
negligence, had no reason to anticipate it, and reasonably could
rely on the third party to not be negligent.

Judge Nevins held that Boulevard's assertions regarding a
common-law indemnification claim failed to take into account the
exception described in Pellecchia v. Connecticut Light and Power
Co., and, Boulevard failed to meet its burden to show there are no
material facts in dispute when the Pellecchia exception is taken
into account. In Pellecchia, the Connecticut Appellate Court
summarized the way traditional notions of negligence apply to
common-law indemnification by saying, "where two parties with
independent duties to exercise reasonable care for the safety of
another person separately breach those duties ... equity permits
the shifting of all responsibility ... to the party who, by virtue
of its control of the dangerous condition to the exclusion of the
other negligent party, was the direct and immediate cause of the
accident."

In other words, a party seeking indemnification is not precluded
from recovering under common law indemnification so "long as [that
party was] chargeable with some negligence ... and as long as that
negligence was not active or primary."

Importantly, the court was unpersuaded, after drawing all factual
inferences in favor of the non-moving party, that GSO would be
unable to prove that Boulevard was actively negligent for failing
to make the § 1398 election, and, that GSO would be unable to
prove that Boulevard had exclusive control of the situation on the
Election Deadline.

According to Judge Nevins, the summary judgment standard carries
with it a hefty burden of proof on the moving party; one that
Boulevard ultimately failed to meet. While GSO bore the burden to
establish the four elements of indemnification at an eventual
trial, Boulevard bore the burden at this summary judgment stage to
establish that GSO could not do so based on undisputed facts in the
present record. Because Boulevard did not meet that burden here,
the motion for summary judgment was denied.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision is available at
https://bit.ly/3nmZewP from Leagle.com.

Imran H. Ansari, Esq. , Joseph P. Baratta, Esq. , Baratta, Baratta
& Aidala, LLP, New York, NY, Counsel for Curtis James Jackson, III,
Plaintiff.

John L. Cesaroni, Esq. , James Berman, Esq. , Christopher H. Blau,
Esq. , Zeisler and Zeisler, Bridgeport, CT Thomas K. McCraw, Esq. ,
Freeman, Mathis & Gary, LLP, Boston, MA, Counsel for GSO Business
Management, LLC, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff

Ilan Markus, Esq. , Barclay Damon LLP, New Haven, CT Robert W.
Cassot, Esq. , Timothy J. Holzman, Esq. , Morrison Mahoney LLP,
Hartford, CT, Counsel for Boulevard Management, Inc. Third-Party
Defendant

                           About 50 Cent

Born July 6, 1975, Curtis James Jackson III, known professionally
as 50 Cent, is an American rapper, actor, businessman, and
investor.

50 Cent filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D. Conn.
Case No. 15-21233) on July 13, 2015 with $32.5 million in debt. The
bankruptcy came days after a jury ordered him to pay $5 million to
rapper Rick Ross's ex-girlfriend Lastonia Leviston for a sex tape
scandal.

In July 2016, U.S. bankruptcy court judge approved a Chapter 11
reorganization plan for 50 Cent.  The Plan required 50 Cent to pay
$18 million to Sleek Audio to settle a judgment, $6 million to
Leviston, and about $4 million to settle a guarantee claim with Sun
Trust Bank, among paying off other creditors over a five-year
period.

In February 2017, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Ann Nevins discharged Mr.
Jackson's bankruptcy case.


DATASITE GLOBAL: S&P Places 'B' ICR on CreditWatch Negative
-----------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings placed all of its ratings on U.S.-based Datasite
Global Corp. (formerly known as Merrill Corp.), a
technology-enabled online document solutions business-to-business
service provider, including the 'B' issuer credit rating, on
CreditWatch with negative implications.

S&P said, "The CreditWatch placement reflects our belief that the
pending acquisition of Datasite by financial sponsor CapVest
Partners LLP will likely increase the level of debt in the
company's capital structure, which could result in a decline in the
company's credit metrics beyond our current downgrade threshold.
The transaction is expected to close in the fourth quarter of
2020."

"As of July 31, 2020 (the company has Jan. 31 year-end), adjusted
leverage was around the mid-4x area, but we forecast leverage to
increase to the high-4x area in fiscal 2021 because of flat
revenues and lower EBITDA as the company continues to make
investments to its platform and service offerings, which will
result in a modest decrease in EBITDA. In addition, we expect any
leverage improvement below 5x to be temporary given the company's
history of debt-financed dividends to existing financial sponsor
ownership. Any significant increase in debt levels following this
proposed acquisition by the new sponsor could result in
weaker-than-expected credit metrics."

"We will resolve the CreditWatch placement once we have details on
the acquisition and new capital structure to review the potential
impact on the company's credit metrics, and Datasite's growth
strategy and financial policy under its new owner. We could lower
the rating if the transaction is funded with incremental debt that
increases leverage above our 7x leverage threshold for the current
rating."


DEGRAF CONCRETE: Hudson Seeks $2.2MM Payment for Bond Losses
------------------------------------------------------------
Hudson Insurance Company by and through its attorneys Michael J.
Weber and Krysta K. Gumbiner of Dinsmore & Shohl, LLP moved for an
Order of Judgment against defaulted defendants North Light
Investment Group, Inc., and DeGraf Concrete Construction, Inc.
Hudson claims the Defaulted Defendants currently owe it
$2,205,284.46 for losses it incurred on the bonds issued on behalf
of DeGraf Concrete.  Together with attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses, North Light, DeGraf Concrete and Michael G. Pirron owe
Hudson the total amount of $2,239,118.14.

Hudson says it continues to accrue losses on open matters and bond
claims that are in litigation and will submit additional proofs in
the event it moves for a revised judgment.

Hudson asks the Court an Order of Judgment in the amount of
$2,239,118.14 be entered against the Defendants.

The case is in re: HUDSON INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware
corporation, Plaintiff, v. DEGRAF CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION, INC.,
NORTH LIGHT INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., an Illinois corporation,
MICHAEL G. PIRRON, an Illinois citizen, CYNTHIA PIRRON, an Illinois
citizen, ERNEST D. PIRRON, an Illinois citizen, SHANNON D. PIRRON,
an Illinois citizen, Defendants, Case No. 1:19-cv-06445 (N.D.
Ill.).

A copy of Hudson's Motion is available at  https://bit.ly/36137RN
from Leagle.com.

               About DeGraf Concrete Construction

DeGraf Concrete Construction, Inc. --
http://www.degrafconcrete.com/-- is a concrete construction
company specializing in heavy structural construction of
commercial, retail, institutional buildings.  It works in the seven
Chicagoland counties of Cook, Lake, DuPage, McHenry, Kane, Kendall
and Will.

DeGraf Concrete Construction sought protection under Chapter 11 of
the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Case No. 18-29069) on Oct.
16, 2018.  In the petition signed by Michael G. Pirron, president,
the Debtor estimated assets of $1 million to $10 million and
liabilities of $1 million to $10 million.  Judge Timothy A. Barnes
presides over the case.  The Debtor tapped Burke, Warren, MacKay &
Serritella, P.C. as its legal counsel.


DEPAUL INDUSTRIES: Suit vs City of Eugene Goes to Trial
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff DePaul Industries in the case captioned DEPAUL
INDUSTRIES, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF EUGENE, et al, Defendants, Civ.
No. 6:18-cv-00320-MC (D. Ore.) alleged that the City of Eugene and
a number of its employees violated the Plaintiff's Constitutional
and statutory rights by unlawfully annulling two security service
contracts between Plaintiff and the City. the Defendants moved for
partial summary judgment on Plaintiff's statutory claims,
Substantive and Procedural Due Process claims, breach of implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim, and negligence
claim. For their part, Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment
against the Defendants' counterclaims for breach of contract,
declaratory judgment, and attorney fees.

Upon analysis, District Judge Michael J. McShane denied the
Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and granted in
part and denied in part Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment.

The Plaintiff is a non-profit organization that administers a
variety of programs to assist Oregonians with disabilities in
receiving vocational training and finding work. As such, they meet
the statutory definition of a Qualified Rehabilitation Facility.
Under Oregon law, public agencies -- such as the City of Eugene --
must contract with a QRF if the QRF is able to supply a service
that meets the agencies' requirements. The Plaintiff is the only
QRF providing security services in Lane County.

The dispute involves two unarmed security service contracts between
Plaintiff and the City. Each contract was for a duration of 12
months. Pursuant to these contracts, Plaintiff provided security
services at: (1) 11 City-owned parking garages; and (2) the City's
downtown public library and the Hult Center for the Performing
Arts. The City renewed these contracts with Plaintiff each year for
approximately 13 consecutive years.

In a change of course, the City decided that security personnel at
some of the facilities covered in its contract with Plaintiff
should carry guns. The City sought bids for an armed security
services provider by publishing a Request for Proposal ("RFP") on
May 27, 2016. The RFP covered the library, the Hult Center, their
respective parking facilities, and other unnamed facilities that
may be "covered by a resulting contract." Because Plaintiff did not
provide armed security services as part of its vocational program,
they did not submit a proposal. The City ultimately awarded the RFP
to a non-QRF provider, Advanced Security, Inc., on June 23, 2016.
The Advanced Security, Inc. contract initially encompassed only the
library, the Hult Center, and their parking facilities. The City
later amended the contract to include the other sites covered in
Plaintiff's parking garage contract. Plaintiff's QRF contracts with
the city expired in the summer of 2016.

Plaintiff alleged that the switch to armed security was a ruse by
the City to avoid awarding the QRF contract to Plaintiff. They
alleged that the language of the RFP was purposely or negligently
drafted to avoid putting Plaintiff on notice that all of its QRF
contracts with the City were at risk. Underlying these claims is an
unrelated First Amendment retaliation lawsuit involving Plaintiff's
employee, Mark Cosby, who was a vocal critic of the City. The
Plaintiff claimed that the City retaliated against the Plaintiff
because the Plaintiff did not fire Mr. Cosby and rejected the
City's tender of the lawsuit.

Plaintiff alleged that the Defendants violated Oregon public
contracting laws and, alternatively, were negligent.

The Defendants first argued that the District Court lacks
jurisdiction over these claims. The District Court previously
addressed jurisdictional issues (administrative exhaustion,
judicial review, equitable estoppel, and futility) in ruling on
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and incorporates that discussion
here. Judge McShane held that the Defendants' related arguments,
including timeliness, fail.

The Defendants next argued that the District Court is the wrong
forum because the plain text of the relevant statutes grant
jurisdiction solely to Oregon circuit courts. The language of the
relevant provisions, however, is permissive and not mandatory
language. Additionally, "the states have no power directly to
enlarge or contract federal jurisdiction." Judge McShane,
therefore, denied the Defendants' Motion as to claims one and two.

The Defendants next argued that if the City has not violated the
Public Contracting Code or Plaintiff has not availed itself of
statutory remedies, the City has not violated any duty. Because the
Defendants' failure to exhaust arguments fail and there exists a
genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the City violated
the QRF statute, Judge McShane denied the Defendants' Motion as to
claim eight. The rest of the Defendant’s arguments also failed to
convince the Court, thus, the motion for partial summary judgment
was denied.

On their first counterclaim, the Defendants argued that its breach
of contract counterclaim only sought a setoff and recoupment
against any damages a jury may award Plaintiff and would not
provide independent relief. Generally, the bankruptcy code does not
affect a creditor's right to offset a mutual debt between a
creditor and debtor that arose before the commencement of a
bankruptcy case. Recoupment "is an equitable doctrine that exempts
a debt from the automatic stay when the debt is inextricably tied
up in the post-petition claim. Unlike setoff, recoupment is not
limited to pre-petition claims and thus may be employed to recover
across the petition date."

Judge McShane held that the Defendants properly state grounds for
setoff and recoupment in their breach of contract counterclaim. To
the extent the Defendants seek affirmative, independent relief for
breach of contract, Defendants' breach of contract counterclaim is
dismissed. "[A] party may amend its pleading only with the opposing
party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should
freely give leave when justice so requires." the Defendants were
granted 14 days to file an amended answer re-alleging their breach
of contract counterclaim as setoff and recoupment. The Plaintiff's
Motion as to the Defendants' counterclaim for breach of contract
was granted in part and denied in part.

The Defendants sought a declaratory judgment stating that the
Plaintiff breached the parking garage and library contracts and the
City was not required to continue contracting with the Plaintiff.
the Defendants also requested that the Plaintiff not "be allowed to
interfere or disrupt the City's contracts with [Advanced Security,
Inc.]." The Plaintiff argued that the Defendants failed to allege
facts regarding the Plaintiff's alleged breach of the library
contract or interference with or disruption of the City's contracts
with Advanced Security, Inc.  According to the Court, because there
are genuine issues of material fact in this case, the Court
declined to address declaratory relief at this stage. It will
better be addressed at a motion for directed verdict at the close
of Plaintiff's case. Plaintiff's Motion as to Defendants'
counterclaim for declaratory judgment was denied.

The Defendants sought attorney fees pursuant to Sections 22 of the
parking garage and library contracts. While Plaintiff has raised
several cogent arguments as to why the Defendants are not entitled
to attorney fees, the Court will address this issue post-judgment
in the event that the Defendants prevail at trial. Plaintiff's
Motion as to the Defendants' counterclaim for attorney fees is
denied.

A copy of the Court's Opinion and Order is available at
https://bit.ly/30Ag2qu from Leagle.com.

                     About DePaul Industries

DePaul Industries is a non-profit corporation based in Portland,
Ore., founded in 1971 with a mission of providing employment
opportunities for people with disabilities. DePaul Services, Inc.,
was formed in 2004 as a separate Oregon non-profit corporation to
segregate DPI's work for governmental entities from its
non-governmental work. DePaul lost a major $1 million spice
packaging customer in 2015.

DPI and DSI filed chapter 11 petitions (Bankr. D. Ore. Case Nos.
16-32293 and 16-32294) on June 10, 2016, and were represented by
Jeffrey C. Misley, Esq., and Thomas W. Stilley, Esq., at Sussman
Shank LLP in Portland. At the time of the filing, the Debtors
estimated their assets and liabilities at $1 million to $10
million.

Gail Brehm Geiger, acting U.S. trustee for Region 18, appointed
five creditors in the jointly administered Chapter 11 cases of
DePaul Industries and DePaul Services, Inc., to serve on the
official committee of unsecured creditors.  The Creditors'
Committee retained Cable Huston LLP as counsel.

The Court entered on May 1, 2017, an Order Confirming Debtors'
Third Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization Dated March 7, 2017 (as
Modified April 26, 2017).


DRW HOLDINGS: Moody's Alters Outlook on Ba3 CFR to Positive
-----------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Investors Service affirmed DRW Holdings, LLC's Ba3
Corporate Family Rating, B1 Issuer rating and B1 Senior Secured
Bank Credit Facility. Moody's has changed its outlook on DRW
Holdings, LLC to positive from stable, reflecting the firm's strong
performance in 2020 which is driving reduced leverage and lower
real estate and venture capital concentrations.

Affirmations:

Issuer: DRW Holdings, LLC

Senior Secured Bank Credit Facility, Affirmed B1

Issuer rating, Affirmed B1

Corporate Family Rating, Affirmed Ba3

Outlook Actions:

Issuer: DRW Holdings, LLC

Outlook, Changed to Positive from Stable

RATINGS RATIONALE

The affirmation of DRW's ratings reflect the firm's solid track
record of performance through various market environments and
emphasis on liquid instruments in most of its trading. DRW is also
diversified by trading strategy, asset class and venue. This
provides some cushion against market cycles. DRW is a
technology-driven trading and liquidity-providing organization in
operation since 1992. The firm commands strong market shares in
numerous futures and options contracts. Following the global
financial crisis, the firm also expanded into proprietary real
estate and venture capital investing.

The positive outlook reflects DRW's strong earnings performance
thus far in 2020, which has reduced leverage and real estate and
venture capital investments as a percentage of tangible equity.
Moody's expects this reduction in leverage and less-liquid asset
investments to be sustained and to continue, resulting in a greater
allocation of capital to DRW's core trading strategies.

The B1-rated Senior Secured Bank Credit Facility is issued by DRW's
holding company, and accordingly this rating is a notch below DRW's
Ba3 CFR because obligations at the holding company are structurally
subordinated to DRW's operating companies, where the preponderance
of the group's debt and debt-like obligations reside.

The Ba3 CFR reflects DRW's emphasis on trading and investing
activity and limited line-of-business diversification and the
inherently high level of operational risk of these activities. This
results in a capital-intensive business mix and could result in
losses and a deterioration in liquidity and funding in the event of
a risk management failure. Although DRW trades liquid instruments,
it displays high balance sheet leverage, and the firm has some
reliance on prime brokers with considerable discretion to change
financing terms. DRW mitigates this risk by diversifying amongst
prime brokers and calibrating financing terms with the prime
brokers that are consistent with its strategy.

DRW's three core trading strategies -- algorithmic,
liquidity-providing, and tactical opportunities- have performed
well in 2020. The liquidity provision and algorithmic strategies
result in a liquid rapidly-turning balance sheet with minimal
valuation risk to its trading positions. DRW's deliberative and
close-knit partnership culture and comprehensive risk controls is
also a credit strength. The members (most of whom have been
together for two decades) have demonstrated an ability to nimbly
respond to changing market conditions which has led to a positive
skew to trading revenues particularly within the
liquidity-provision and algorithmic strategies.

The firm's substantial portfolio of less-liquid commercial real
estate and venture capital investments also presents a challenge to
the Ba3 CFR. Mitigating this challenge is the fact that the
portfolio is diversified and is reducing in size. DRW also has a
solid track record of selling these investments for gains yet it
may be more challenging to continue to reduce this portfolio during
a general commercial real-estate or market downturn.

The coronavirus pandemic has caused economic and fiscal shocks, and
the magnitude and duration of these shocks remains fluid and
uncertain. Unlike many firms, these matters present less of a
credit challenge to DRW. Widespread uncertainty among market
participants has led to an increase in market volatility and
trading volumes, an environment where DRW's business thrives.

FACTORS THAT COULD LEAD TO AN UPGRADE OR DOWNGRADE OF THE RATINGS

(1) Maintenance of lower leverage levels and continued reduction of
the real estate and venture capital portfolio, leaving more equity
to support core trading operations could lead to an upgrade (2)
Substantial trading loss or risk control failure could lead to a
downgrade (3) Decline in liquidity or funding diversification or
substantial decrease in capital could lead to a downgrade

The principal methodology used in these ratings was Securities
Industry Market Makers Methodology published in November 2019.


EASTERN CANAL: Seeks to Hire Cushner & Associates as Attorney
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eastern Canal Film, LLC seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York to employ the Law
Office of Todd Cushner & Associates, P.C. as its attorney.

The firm will render these professional services to the Debtor:

     (a) advise the Debtor concerning the conduct of the
administration of this bankruptcy case;

     (b) prepare all necessary applications and motions as required
under the Bankruptcy Code, Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure,
and Local Bankruptcy Rules;

     (c) prepare a disclosure statement and plan of reorganization;
and

     (d) perform all other legal services that are necessary to the
administration of the case.

The firm's hourly rates are as follows:

     Todd S. Cushner, Esq., Owner/Senior Attorney   $500.00
     James J. Rufo, Esq., Associate attorney        $350.00
     Charles A. Higgs, Esq., Of Counsel             $350.00
     Paralegals                                     $200.00

Cushner & Associates, P.C. has received $10.217.00 in connection
with the commencement of this Chapter 11 bankruptcy with $8,500.00
being applied to attorneys' fees and $1,717.00 being disbursed for
the chapter 11 filing fee.

James J. Rufo, an associate attorney at the Law Office of Todd
Cushner & Associates, P.C., disclosed in court filings that the
firm is a "disinterested person" as that term is defined in section
101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     James J. Rufo, Esq.
     Todd S. Cushner, Esq.
     CUSHNER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     399 Knollwood Road Suite 205
     White Plains, NY 10603
     Telephone: (914) 600-5502
     Facsimile: (914) 600-5544
     E-mail: todd@Cushnerlegal.com
             jrufo@cushnerlegal.com
    
                              About Eastern Canal Film

Based in New York City, Eastern Canal Film, LLC --
https://www.easterncanal.com -- is a production company founded in
1995. Eastern Canal develops original feature films and
documentaries.

Eastern Canal Film filed a Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
Case No. 20-12440) on October 15, 2020. The petition was signed by
Mauro La Villa, managing member. At the time of the filing, the
Debtor estimated to have less than $50,000 in assets and $1 million
to $10 million in liabilities. Cushner & Associates, P.C. serves as
the Debtor's counsel.


ELECTROMEDICAL TECH: Accumulated Losses Cast Going Concern Doubt
----------------------------------------------------------------
Electromedical Technologies, Inc., filed its quarterly report on
Form 10-Q, disclosing a net loss of $840,255 on $136,755 of net
sales for the three months ended June 30, 2020, compared to a net
loss of $221,418 on $179,891 of net sales for the same period in
2019.

At June 30, 2020, the Company had total assets of $1,080,369, total
liabilities of $3,461,055, and $2,380,686 in total stockholders'
deficit.

The Company said, "Since inception, the Company has incurred
approximately $6.5 million of accumulated net losses.  In addition,
during the six months ended June 30, 2020, the Company used
$245,923 of cash from operations and had a working capital deficit
of $2,469,076.  These factors raise substantial doubt regarding the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern.  The Company
expects to obtain funding through additional debt and equity
placement offerings until it consistently achieves positive cash
flows from operations.  If the Company is unable to obtain
additional funding, it may not be able to meet all of its
obligations as they come due for the next twelve months.  The
continuing viability of the entity and its ability to continue as a
going concern is dependent upon the entity being successful in its
continuing efforts in growing its revenue base and/or accessing
additional sources of capital, and/or selling assets."

A copy of the Form 10-Q is available at:

                       https://is.gd/gu9uvQ

Electromedical Technologies Inc. (OTCMKTS: EMED) is a
bioelectronics manufacturing company. It designs and develops
simple-to-use bioelectronics therapy devices, which in most cases
provide immediate and long-lasting pain relief across the broadest
range of ailments.  Its focuses on improving global wellness for
people suffering from various painful conditions.


ENERGY ALLOYS: Gets Approval to Hire Akin Gump as Special Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Alloys Holdings, LLC and its affiliates received approval
from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to
employ Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP to serve as their
special counsel.

Akin Gump will provide the Debtors with legal advice on corporate,
transactional, finance, labor and securities matters.

The firm's hourly rates are as follows:

     Partners           $995 – $1,995
     Senior Counsel     $735 – $1,510
     Counsel            $820 - $1,090
     Associates         $535 – $960 f
     Paraprofessionals  $100 – $455 for

The attorneys who will be providing the services are:

     Scott Alberino (Partner)       $1,595
     Iain Wood (Partner)            $1,350
     Kevin Eide (Senior Counsel)    $1,195
     William Pelak (Associate)       $895
     Alison Steed (Associate)        $650
     Matthew Breen (Associate)       $615

Akin Gump received the sum of $200,000, of which $138,569.64 was
used to pay for the firm's pre-bankruptcy services.

Scott Alberino, Esq., a partner at Akin Gump, disclosed in a court
filing that the firm is "disinterested" as defined in Section
101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The firm can be reached through:

     Scott L. Alberino, Esq.
     Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP
     Robert S. Strauss Tower
     2001 K Street, N.W.
     Washington, DC 20006-1037
     Tel: +1 202-887-4027
     Fax: +1 202-887-4288
     Email: salberino@akingump.com

                    About Energy Alloys Holdings

Founded in 1995, Energy Alloys Holdings LLC and its affiliates are
privately-owned distributors and resellers of tube and bar products
sold into the oil and gas industry for the exploration of
hydrocarbons. Visit https://www.ealloys.com for more information.

On Sept. 9, 2020, Energy Alloys Holdings LLC and seven of its
affiliates filed for bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D. Del. Lead
Case No. 20-12088). Bryan Gaston, chief restructuring officer,
signed the petitions. Judge Mary Walrath presides over the cases.

The Debtors were estimated to have consolidated assets of $10
million to $50 million, and consolidated liabilities of $100
million to $500 million.

The Debtors have tapped Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., as
bankruptcy counsel, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP as corporate
counsel, Moelis & Company as investment banker, and Epiq Corporate
Restructuring LLC as claims and noticing agent. Ankura Consulting
Group, LLC provides interim management services.


ENERGY ALLOYS: Gets Court Approval to Hire Hilco as Sales Agent
---------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Alloys Holdings, LLC and its affiliates received approval
from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to
employ Hilco Valuation Services, LLC and four other firms as their
marketing and sales agent.

The other firms are Hilco Industrial, LLC, Hilco Industrial
Acquisitions Canada ULC, Hilco Real Estate, LLC and Hilco
Receivables, LLC, which are affiliates of Hilco Valuation Services.


The firms will market for sale the Debtors' assets, which include:

   (1) real properties located in Conroe and Houston, Texas, and in
Broussard, La.;

   (2) certain machinery, equipment, furniture, fixtures and other
personal
property used to operate the Debtors' businesses in Conroe and
Houston, Texas, Broussard, La., Tulsa, Okla., and Edmonton,
Alberta; and

   (3) inventory.

The firm's services also include the collection, servicing,
settlement or resolution of outstanding trade accounts receivable
for which Energy Alloys, LLC, an affiliate of Energy Alloys
Holdings, has the exclusive right to collect except for those
accounts receivable that are currently the subject of litigation or
collected prior to June 14, 2020.

The Debtors will compensate the firms as follows:

   1. For real properties sold, the firms will get 5 percent of the
gross sale proceeds.  The value of non-cash consideration paid for
the properties must be determined by mutual agreement between the
firms and the Debtors.  The firms are not required to pay a
referral fee or coop commission to a purchaser's agent from their
fees.

   2. For personal properties sold, the firms are entitled to
charge an industry standard buyer's premium of 18 percent of the
gross proceeds.  However, 6 percent of the buyer's premium
collected by the firms must be rebated to the Debtors.  All buyer's
premiums must be withheld by the firms upon collection of the sale
proceeds.

      The buyer's premium is a fee charged in addition to the sale
price of the personal properties and is paid for by the buyer.  

   3. The firms will get 8 percent of the gross proceeds from the
sale of inventory.  

   4. For services provided related to the receivables, the firms
are entitled to payment based on a commission structure, which is
contingent upon the aggregate amount of outstanding receivables
assigned to them equaling at least 10 million.  If the aggregate
amount of receivables assigned to the firms as of the date of
execution of the marketing agreement is less than $7 million, the
fee will be 3.5 percent of gross cash receipts collected.

     Gross Collections                   Fee

     $1 to $2,000,000                  2 percent
     $2000,001 to $4,000,000           3 percent
     $4,000,001 to $6,000,000          5 percent
     Over $6,000,000                   7 percent

Hilco and its affiliates are "disinterested" within the meaning of
Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code, according to court
filings.

The firms can be reached through:

     Sarah Baker
     Hilco Real Estate, LLC
     5 Revere Drive, Suite 206
     Northbrook, IL 60062
     Tel. (847) 504-2462
     Email: sbaker@hilcoglobal.com

                    About Energy Alloys Holdings

Founded in 1995, Energy Alloys Holdings LLC and its affiliates are
privately-owned distributors and resellers of tube and bar products
sold into the oil and gas industry for the exploration of
hydrocarbons. Visit https://www.ealloys.com for more information.

On Sept. 9, 2020, Energy Alloys Holdings LLC and seven of its
affiliates filed for bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D. Del. Lead
Case No. 20-12088). Bryan Gaston, chief restructuring officer,
signed the petitions. Judge Mary Walrath presides over the cases.

The Debtors were estimated to have consolidated assets of $10
million to $50 million, and consolidated liabilities of $100
million to $500 million.

The Debtors have tapped Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., as
bankruptcy counsel, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP as corporate
counsel, Moelis & Company as investment banker, and Epiq Corporate
Restructuring LLC as claims and noticing agent. Ankura Consulting
Group, LLC provides interim management services.


ENERGY ALLOYS: Sets Bid Procedures for Interests in EH Subsidiaries
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Alloys Holdings, LLC and its affiliates ask the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware to authorize the
bidding procedures in connection with the sale of all, or any
portion or combination of their equity interests in their
non-Debtor foreign subsidiaries with direct or indirect operations
in the United Kingdom, Singapore and Dubai.

The Debtors and their non-debtor affiliates are a privately-owned
distributor and reseller of tube and bar products sold into the oil
and gas industry for the exploration of hydrocarbons.  The Company
historically operated through two distinct business segments
governed largely by geography, with the Debtors having primarily
operated in the United States and Canada ("Western Hemisphere") and
the Non-Debtor Entities operating in Asia, Europe, and the Middle
East ("Eastern Hemisphere").

As of the Petition Date, the Debtors' primary assets include, among
other things, the Wingfoot and Conroe Properties and the EH Equity
Interests.  By the relief requested, the Debtors are asking to
monetize their EH Business, one of their final, key assets, through
the sale of their EH Equity Interests, for the benefit of their
stakeholders.

In May 2020, the Debtors began negotiations with the First Lien
Secured Parties regarding the orderly wind down of their Western
Hemisphere operations and disposition of the EH Business.  In July
2020, the Debtors retained Moelis & Co., LLC to assist them in
selling the EH Business.  In addition to distributing the Process
Letter, since the Petition Date, the Debtors have continued to
market and solicit offers for all or any portion of the EH Equity
Interests to a wide range of potential purchasers and will continue
to diligently work with all parties that have expressed an interest
in the EH Equity Interests to date.

The Debtors believe that the auction process and time periods set
forth in the Bidding Procedures are reasonable and will provide
parties with sufficient time and information necessary to formulate
a bid to purchase all or a portion of the EH Equity Interests.  
Given their prepetition marketing efforts, the proposed timeline is
more than sufficient to complete a fair and open sale process that
will maximize the value received for the EH Equity Interests.  

The Debtors ask authority, subject to the terms of the Bidding
Procedures Order, to designate one or more stalking horse bid(s)
for any or all of the EH Equity Interests and to enter into one or
more purchase agreements, which purchase agreements will be in form
and substance acceptable to the First Lien Agent in its sole
discretion with one or more potential bidders, upon consultation
with the Consultation Parties.   

Pursuant to the Bidding Procedures, upon the designation of a
Stalking Horse Bidder, the Debtors may ask to award a Stalking
Horse Bidder with Bid Protections not exceeding 3% of an applicable
Qualified Bid under certain circumstances.  The Debtors intend to
provide copies of the Stalking Horse Agreements, if applicable, and
form purchase agreements, if no Stalking Horse Agreement has been
entered into with respect to the EH Equity Interests, to all
parties who designate their interest in submitting a bid.

The salient terms of the Bidding Procedures are:

     a. Bid Deadline: Nov. 4, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. (ET)

     b. Initial Bid: To the extent that a Stalking Horse Agreement
is entered into in advance of the Auction, the bid has a value that
is greater than or equal to the sum of the value offered under the
applicable Stalking Horse Agreement, plus the amount of applicable
Bid Protections, if any (and, with respect to the Bid Protections,
the maximum amount thereof) provided to the applicable Stalking
Horse Bidder with respect to such EH Equity Interests, plus
$100,000.

     c. Deposit: 10% of the purchase price

     d. Auction: The Auction will be held (if necessary) on Nov. 5,
2020 at 10:00 a.m. (ET) (i) at the offices of Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld LLP, 2001 K Street N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006, (ii)
virtually at such other date, time and location as will be timely
communicated to all entities entitled to attend the Auction, or
(iii) at such other location as will be timely communicated to all
entities entitled to attend the Auction.

     e. Bid Increments: $100,000

     f. Sale Hearing: Nov. 16, 2020

     g. Sale Objection Deadline: Nov. 9, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. (ET)

     h. Closing: No later than Nov. 23, 2020

     i. The First Lien Agent will be entitled to redit bid.  Any
credit bid submitted by the First Lien Agent will be deemed a
Qualified Bid for all purposes, and the First Lien Agent will be
deemed to be a Qualified Bidder and may be Stalking Horse Bidder.

Within three business days after entry of the Bidding Procedures
Order, or as soon as reasonably practicable thereafter, the Debtors
will serve the Sale Notice upon the Sale Notice Parties.

In the interest of attracting the best offers, the EH Equity
Interests will be sold free and clear of any and all Liens, with
any such Liens attaching to the proceeds of the Sale.

As described , the Debtors believe that any Sale should be
consummated as soon as practicable to preserve and maximize value.
Accordingly, they respectfully ask that any Sale Order approving
the sale of the EH Equity Interests be effective immediately upon
entry of such order and that the Court waives the 14-day stay
imposed by Bankruptcy Rules 6004(h) and 6006(d).

A hearing on the Motion is set for Oct. 23, 2020 at 10:30 a.m.
(ET).  The Objection Deadline is Oct. 16, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. (ET).

A copy of the Bidding Procedures is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yyce4tcw from PacerMonitor.com free of charge.

                   About Energy Alloys Holdings

Founded in 1995, Energy Alloys Holdings LLC and its affiliates are
privately-owned distributors and resellers of tube and bar products
sold into the oil and gas industry for the exploration of
hydrocarbons. Visit https://www.ealloys.com/ for more information.

On Sept. 9, 2020, Energy Alloys Holdings LLC and seven of its
affiliates filed for bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D. Del. Lead
Case No. 20-12088). Bryan Gaston, chief restructuring officer,
signed the petitions. Judge Mary Walrath presides over the cases.

The Debtors were estimated to have consolidated assets of $10
million to $50 million, and consolidated liabilities of $100
million to $500 million.

The Debtors have tapped Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., as
bankruptcy counsel, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP as corporate
counsel, Moelis & Company as investment banker, and Epiq Corporate
Restructuring LLC as claims and noticing agent.  Ankura Consulting
Group, LLC, provides interim management services.

The U.S. Trustee appointed a committee of unsecured creditors on
Sept. 23, 2020.  The committee is represented by McDermott Will &
Emery, LLP.


ENERGY CONVERSION: Claims in Trust Suit vs Ovonyx et al. Narrowed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Thomas J. Tucker granted in part and denied in
part the Defendants' motion to dismiss the case captioned ENERGY
CONVERSION DEVICES LIQUIDATION TRUST, Plaintiff, v. OVONYX, INC.,
et al., Defendants, Adv. Pro. No. 18-4320 (Bankr. E.D. Mich.).

The Complaint alleges claims under Michigan law, including claims
of breach of contract; claims based on Michigan's alter ego and
successor liability doctrines; multiple claims of tortious
interference with contract; a claim for aiding and abetting
tortious interference with contract, and a claim of "actual"
fraudulent transfer (i.e., a transfer done with actual fraudulent
intent, rather than merely a constructive fraudulent transfer). The
Defendants' dismissal motions raise numerous issues about the
elements of the claims, and many other issues, including but not
limited to issues of contract interpretation and contract law; the
interplay between related contracts; and the effect of a Chapter 11
debtor's rejection of an executory contract under Bankruptcy Code
section 365.

The adversary proceeding was filed against five defendants by the
Energy Conversion Devices Liquidation Trust. The Plaintiff Trust
was created as a result of the confirmed liquidation Plan in the
Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases of Energy Conversion Devices, Inc. and
its wholly-owned operating subsidiary, United Solar Ovonic LLC. On
July 30, 2012, the Court confirmed a joint liquidating plan
proposed by the Debtors. The Plan included the substantive
consolidation of the ECD and USO estates. The effective date of the
Plan was August 28, 2012.

The Trust's First Amended Complaint alleged seven "causes of
action" against the Defendants. The Trust's claims are premised on
the Trust allegedly having certain contractual rights that were
breached. These alleged contractual rights arose under an agreement
made in 1998 by ECD and Defendant Tyler Lowrey, and an intellectual
property license agreement made in 1999 by ECD, Lowrey, and
Defendant Ovonyx, Inc. The Trust claims to have had the following
contractual rights: (1) a right to payment by Ovonyx of a quarterly
royalty of 0.5% of Ovonyx's revenues; and (2) a right of first
refusal for the sale of any stock of Ovonyx or any sale of assets
by Ovonyx.

Each of the five Defendants filed motions to dismiss the Trust's
First Amended Complaint. The motions dispute that the Trust had any
of the alleged contractual rights. Because of this, and for other
reasons, the motions argue that the First Amended Complaint fails
to state any plausible claims upon which relief can be granted.

The Trust alleged, in the first cause of action in the First
Amended Complaint, that Ovonyx breached ECD's First Refusal Right
under the 1999 License Agreement, by failing to "provide notice to
ECD [of the July 2015 Transactions] so that ECD could exercise the
First Refusal Right." Because the Court has found that the First
Refusal Right was extinguished by the 2000 Stockholders Agreement
-- Ovonyx agreement with each of its stockholders -- Ovonyx could
not have breached that right in July 201, such a right no longer
existed.

But even if the First Refusal Right had still existed in July 2015,
it would not have imposed any obligation on Ovonyx to honor ECD's
First Refusal Right, under the plain meaning of the language used
in the 1998 Contract, which allegedly was incorporated into the
1999 License Agreement. The First Refusal Right in the 1998
Contract only imposed obligations on ECD and Lowrey. The 1998
Contract stated, in relevant part that "both Mr. Lowrey and ECD
grants the other a right of first refusal. . . ."176 At the time
the 1998 Contract was signed, Ovonyx had not yet been formed, and
Ovonyx was not a signatory to that contract. In addition, there is
no provision in the 1998 Contract that expresses an intent that the
"Entity" to be formed have any duty to honor the First Refusal
Right, although there are many other provisions in the 1998
Contract that do express an intent to bind that "Entity" to other
obligations.

Because ECD's First Refusal Right was superceded by the 2000
Stockholders Agreement, and because there is no basis in the
language of the 1998 Contract (or the 1999 License Agreement) for
finding a contractual obligation on the part of Ovonyx to ECD under
the First Refusal Right, the Trust's breach of contract claim
against Ovonyx must be dismissed, to the extent it is based on a
breach of ECD's First Refusal Right.

In the second cause of action in the First Amended Complaint, the
Trust alleged that because Ovonyx "materially breached the 1999
License Agreement[,]" and Micron Technology, Inc. "acquired all of
the stock of Ovonyx in July 2015," Micron was the successor in
interest to Ovonyx and became "liable for the obligations of
Ovonyx. The Trust also alleged, in the alternative, that Micron is
the alter ego of Ovonyx and "abused the corporate form of Ovonyx by
causing Ovonyx to enter into the OMT Agreement and to orchestrate
transactions by which Micron and its joint venture partner Intel
would receive the benefit of a royalty-free license for Ovonyx's
technology relating to 3D XPoint [technology it was developing and
marketing,] without complying with the 1998 [Contract] and the 1999
[License] Agreement."

According to the Court, for the time period beginning in July 2015,
when Ovonyx became the 100% shareholder of Ovonyx under the Merger,
the First Amended Complaint does allege sufficient facts to
plausibly show the alter ego elements, with respect to breach of
ECD's Royalty Right. As 100% shareholder, of course, Micron had
complete control over Ovonyx. And the alter ego elements -- (1)
that Ovonyx was a mere instrumentality of Micron; (2) that Ovonyx
was used by Micron to commit a fraud or wrong; and (3) that the
Trust suffered an unjust loss -- are sufficiently pled, based on
the allegations and claims discussed in detail later in this
Opinion. For these reasons, the Trust's alter ego claim against
Micron will survive Micron's motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://bit.ly/3kjpRAT from Leagle.com.

                    About Energy Conversion

Based in Detroit, Energy Conversion Devices --
http://energyconversiondevices.com/-- was a pioneer in materials
science and renewable energy technology development.  The company
was awarded over 500 U.S. patents and international counterparts
for its achievements.  ECD's United Solar wholly owned subsidiary
was a global leader in building-integrated and rooftop
photovoltaics for over 25 years.  The company manufactured, sold
and installed thin-film solar laminates that convert sunlight to
clean, renewable energy using proprietary technology.

ECD and affiliate United Solar Ovonic LLC sought Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. E.D. Mich. Case No. 12-43166 and 12-43167) on
Feb. 14, 2012.  Affiliate Solar Integrated Technologies, Inc.,
filed a petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code
(Bankr. E.D. Mich. Case No. 12-43169) on the same day.

William Christopher Andrews, chief financial officer and executive
vice president, signed the petitions.

Judge Thomas J. Tucker presided over the cases.  

Aaron M. Silver, Esq., Judy B. Calton, Esq., and Robert B. Weiss,
Esq., at Honigman Miller Schwartz & Cohn LLP, in Detroit, Michigan,
served as counsel to the Debtors.

ECD estimated assets and debt between $100 million and $500 million
as of the Petition Date.  ECD had estimated in court papers that it
was worth $986 million, based on nearly $800 million of investment
in the manufacturing unit.

An official committee of unsecured creditors was represented by
Foley and Lardner, LLP, as counsel and Scouler & Company, LLC, as
financial advisor.

The Debtors canceled an auction to sell USO as a going concern and
discontinued the court-approved sale process after failing to
receive an acceptable qualified bid by the bid deadline.  Quarton
Partners served as the companies' investment banker.  The Debtors
also hired auction services provider Hilco Industrial to prepare
for an orderly sale of the companies' assets.

In August 2012, the Debtors won confirmation of their Second
Amended Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation.  The Plan was declared
effective in September 2012.  Under the Plan, unsecured creditors
owed up to $337 million in claims were to expect a recovery between
50.1% and 59.3%.  The Plan created a trust to sell remaining assets
and distribute proceeds in the order of priority laid out in
bankruptcy law.


ENERGY FUTURE: Bergschneider, Heinzmann Asbestos Claims Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the bankruptcy case captioned In re: ENERGY FUTURE HOLDINGS
CORP., et al., Chapter 11 Debtors, Case No. 14-10979 (CSS) (Bankr.
D. Del.), Chief Bankruptcy Judge Christopher S. Sontchi denied the
motions of Denis and Meri Bergschneider and Kaye Heinzmann,
surviving spouse of David Heinzmann, seeking permission to file
proofs of claim after the deadline.

Both the Bergschneider claim and the Heinzmann claim relate to
asbestos-related illnesses diagnosed after the so-called
Unmanifested Bar Date. Nonetheless, the Motions were filed 41
months and 29 months after the Movants' respective diagnoses,
during the entirety of which time the Movants were participating
actively in litigation and appeals related to the Asbestos Bar
Date.

In 2014, the Debtors sought to establish a process to notify
potential asbestos claimants of the bankruptcy and a deadline for
them to submit proof of claims.

Various personal injury law firms objected to the Debtors' motion
to establish a bar date, arguing that it "would violate the
fundamental due process rights of thousands of potential asbestos
claimants." The objecting law firms argued that providing adequate
notice for Unmanifested Asbestos Claimants was not possible. On
August 13 and Oct. 28, 2014, the Court held two hearings and
ordered additional briefing on the issue.

On Jan. 7, 2015, the Court issued a written opinion in which it
held that it had the power and jurisdiction to establish a bar date
for Unmanifested Asbestos Claims and found that an appropriate
notice program could satisfy due process concerns. The Court stated
that the discharge of the Debtors' liability for Unmanifested
Asbestos Claims could be consistent with due process and found
that, for Unmanifested Asbestos Claims under Third Circuit law,
"publication notice may be sufficient to satisfy due process."

The Bar Date Opinion required that the Debtors devise a
comprehensive notice program to inform potential asbestos
claimants, including "Unmanifested Asbestos Claimants," of their
rights to file proofs of claim. To that end, the Debtors and the
E-side Committee each retained noticing experts and engaged in
extensive diligence. Two asbestos claimants, including one of the
Kazan Law's clients, sat on the E-side Committee throughout the
cases.

The Debtors retained Hilsoft Notifications to design a
comprehensive plan to provide notice of the bar date. Hilsoft is a
nationally recognized leader in providing notice and has experience
in some of the largest, most complex, and most significant cases,
including litigation arising from the BP oil spill in the Gulf of
Mexico. Hilsoft also has experience with asbestos-related
bankruptcy and non-bankruptcy cases. The E-side Committee retained
its own asbestos noticing expert, Kinsella Media, LLC.

The E-side Committee provided extensive feedback on the proposed
notice plan, virtually all of which the Debtors incorporated into
their noticing program.

On July 30, 2015, the Court entered the "Asbestos Bar Date Order"
approving the Notice Plan for distributing the Asbestos Bar Date
Notice and setting Dec. 14, 2015 as the "Asbestos Bar Date." The
Asbestos Bar Date Order and Notice Plan were designed to
comprehensively address any due process concerns, both by the means
of distribution and the content of the notice.

Following entry of the Asbestos Bar Date Order, the Debtors
provided notice in various forms as set forth in the Notice Plan,
which included: (i) direct mailing to known asbestos claimants with
"personalized" proof of claim forms; (ii) nearly 75,000 direct
mailings to former employees and known asbestos claimants; (iii)
extensive publication notice in consumer publications, local
newspapers, national newspapers, trade publications, and union
labor publications (with a total combined circulation of
69,893,892); (iv) dedicated website and toll-free number; (v)
internet banner advertising and sponsored search listings
(resulting in 436,346,154 gross online impressions); (vi)
informational release to approximately 4,200 print and broadcast
media outlets and 5,500 online outlets; and (vii) targeted outreach
to labor unions.

Hilsoft determined that the comprehensive publication notice
program would "reach approximately 90.1% of men aged 65+ in the
U.S. an average of 3.4 times each, 89.4% of adults aged 45+ in the
U.S. an average of 3.5 times each, and approximately 85.7% of
adults aged 18+ in the U.S. an average of 3.1 times each."

In all, the Debtors spent approximately $2.5 million implementing
the Notice Plan.

In addition to the Debtors' efforts, Kazan Law took out Google
search advertisements linked to the search terms "efh case info,"
"efh bankruptcy," and "efh restructuring."

The notice package attached to the Asbestos Bar Date Order outlined
six different methods by which Unmanifested Asbestos Claimants
could submit their proofs of claim and clearly explained the
substantive requirements for filing a proof of claim.

Approximately 30,000 proofs of claim were filed in response to
notice of the Asbestos Bar Date. Of that, approximately 14,000 were
Unmanifested Asbestos Claims, of which approximately 10,000 were
filed against the EFH/EFIH Debtors.

The Movants argued they never received notice of the bar date and,
as a result, they did not have due process of the Asbestos Bar
Date.

The bankruptcy court may allow the filing of an untimely Proof of
Claim after the bar date only where the claimant's failure to
timely file a Proof of Claim was due to excusable neglect.

In Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates Limited
Partnership, a creditor's attorney received notice of a creditors
meeting from the bankruptcy court shortly after the debtor filed
its chapter 11 cases. The notice also contained the bar date for
filing claims in the cases. The attorney was in the middle of
withdrawing from his law firm and did not appreciate that the
creditors meeting notice also contained the bar date and failed to
timely file a claim. The attorney filed the claim and a motion to
allow a late-filed proofs of claim only 20-days after the bar date.
The Supreme Court found four relevant factors that courts should
consider in evaluating "excusable neglect": "the danger of
prejudice to the debtor, the length of the delay and its potential
impact on judicial proceedings, the reason for the delay, including
whether it was within the reasonable control of the movant, and
whether the movant acted in good faith."

After a thorough analysis, Judge Sontchi concluded that publication
notice of the bar date was adequate for the Movants who were
"unknown creditors" of the Debtors. Furthermore, the Pioneer
factors weigh against a finding of excusable neglect. Although the
prejudice to the Debtors is minimal, the length of delay, impact on
the judicial proceedings, and lack of good faith all weigh heavily
in favor of finding that the neglect in missing the bar date was
not excusable. Furthermore, the Movants' Notices of Intent are not
informal proofs of claim. As a result, the Court denied both
Motions.

A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://bit.ly/3jwVGWN from Leagle.com.

                        About Energy Future

Energy Future Holdings Corp., formerly known as TXU Corp., is a
privately held diversified energy holding company with a portfolio
of competitive and regulated energy businesses in Texas. Oncor, an
80%-owned entity within the EFH group, was the largest regulated
transmission and distribution utility in Texas. The Company
delivers electricity to roughly three million delivery points in
and around Dallas-Fort Worth. EFH Corp. was created in October 2007
in a $45 billion leverage buyout of Texas power company TXU in a
deal led by private-equity companies Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
and TPG Inc.

On April 29, 2014, Energy Future Holdings and 70 affiliated
companies sought Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection (Bankr. D. Del.
Lead Case No. 14-10979) after reaching a deal with some key
financial stakeholders to keep its businesses operating while
reducing its roughly $40 billion in debt.

The Debtors' cases have been assigned to Judge Christopher S.
Sontchi (CSS).

As of Dec. 31, 2013, EFH Corp. reported assets of $36.4 billion in
book value and liabilities of $49.7 billion. The Debtors had $42
billion of funded indebtedness as of the bankruptcy filing.

EFH's legal advisor for the Chapter 11 proceedings is Kirkland &
Ellis LLP, its financial advisor is Evercore Partners and its
restructuring advisor is Alvarez & Marsal. The TCEH first lien
lenders supporting the restructuring agreement are represented by
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, LLP as legal advisor, and
Millstein & Co., LLC, as financial advisor.

The EFIH unsecured creditors supporting the restructuring Agreement
are represented by Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, as legal
advisor, and Centerview Partners, as financial advisor. The EFH
equity holders supporting the restructuring agreement are
represented by Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, as legal advisor,
and Blackstone Advisory Partners LP, as financial advisor. Epiq
Systems is the claims agent.

Wilmington Savings Fund Society, FSB, the successor trustee for the
second-lien noteholders owed about $1.6 billion, is represented by
Ashby & Geddes, P.A.'s William P. Bowden, Esq., and Gregory A.
Taylor, Esq., and Brown Rudnick LLP's Edward S. Weisfelner, Esq.,
Jeffrey L. Jonas, Esq., Andrew P. Strehle, Esq., Jeremy B. Coffey,
Esq., and Howard L. Siegel, Esq.

On May 13, 2014, the U.S. Trustee appointed the Official Committee
of TCEH Unsecured Creditors in the Chapter 11 Cases. The TCEH
Committee is composed of (a) the Pension Benefit Guaranty
Corporation; (b) HCL America, Inc.; (c) BNY, as Indenture Trustee
under the EFCH 2037 Notes due 2037 and the PCRBs; (d) LDTC, as
Indenture Trustee under the TCEH Unsecured Notes; (e) Holt Texas
LTD, d/b/a Holt Cat; (f) ADA Carbon Solutions (Red River); and (g)
Wilmington Savings, as Indenture Trustee under the TCEH Second
Lien
Notes. The TCEH Committee retained Morrison & Foerster LLP as
counsel; Polsinelli PC as co-counsel and conflicts counsel; Lazard
Freres & Co. LLC as investment banker; FTI Consulting, Inc., as
financial advisor; and Charles River Associates as an energy
consultant.

On Oct. 27, 2014, the U.S. Trustee appointed the Official
Committee
of Unsecured Creditors representing the interests of the unsecured
creditors for EFH, EFIH, EFIH Finance, and EECI, Inc. The EFH/EFIH
Committee is composed of (a) American Stock Transfer & Trust
Company, LLC; (b) Brown & Zhou, LLC c/o Belleair Aviation, LLC;
(c)
Peter Tinkham; (d) Shirley Fenicle, as successor-in-interest to
the
Estate of George Fenicle; and (e) David William Fahy. The EFH/EFIH
Committee retained Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhodes, LLP, as
co-counsel and conflicts counsel; AlixPartners, LLP, as
restructuring advisor; Sullivan & Cromwell LLC as counsel;
Guggenheim Securities as investment banker; and Kurtzman Carson
Consultants LLC as noticing agent for both the TCEH Committee and
the EFH/EFIH Committee.

Given the size and complexity of the Chapter 11 Cases, the U.S.
Trustee proposed, and the Debtors and the TCEH Committee agreed,
to
recommend that the Bankruptcy Court appoint a committee to, among
other things, review and report as appropriate on fee applications
and statements submitted by the professionals paid for by the
Debtors' Estates. The Fee Committee is comprised of four members:
(a) one member appointed by and representative of the Debtors
(Cecily Gooch, Vice President and Special Counsel for
Restructuring, Energy Future Holdings); (b) one member appointed
by
and representative of the TCEH Creditors' Committee (Peter
Kravitz,
Principal and General Counsel, Province Capital); (c) one member
appointed by and representative of the U.S. Trustee (Richard L.
Schepacarter, Trial Attorney, Office of the United States
Trustee);
and (d) one independent member (Richard Gitlin, of Gitlin and
Company, LLC). The Fee Committee retained Godfrey & Kahn, S.C., as
counsel; and Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A., as co-counsel.

On Aug. 29, 2016, Judge Sontchi confirmed the Chapter 11 exit
Plans
of two of Energy Future Holdings Corp.'s subsidiaries, power
generator Luminant and retail electricity provider TXU Energy Inc.
(the "T-Side Debtors"). The Plan became effective on Oct. 3, 2016.

On Aug. 20, 2017, Sempra Energy (NYSE:SRE) announced an agreement
to acquire EFH. Under the agreement, Sempra Energy will pay
approximately $9.45 billion in cash to acquire EFH and its
ownership in Oncor, while taking a major step forward in resolving
Energy Future's long-running bankruptcy case. The enterprise value
of the transaction is approximately $18.8 billion, including the
assumption of Oncor's debt.

On Nov. 3, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order closing the
Chapter 11 cases of 40 affiliate debtors. The claims asserted
against, and interests asserted in, the Closing Cases are
transferred to the lead case of Texas Competitive Electric
Holdings
Company LLC, Case No. 14-10978


EVEREST REAL ESTATE: Bankruptcy Filing Stays Suit vs AGC
--------------------------------------------------------
The Texas Court of Appeals has stayed the case captioned Everest
Real Estate Investments, LLP d/b/a Icon Hospital, v. AGC
Investments, LLC, No. 01-20-00466-CV (Tex. App.) pursuant to the
Suggestion of Bankruptcy, advising the court that a voluntary
petition under Chapter 11 was filed by appellant, Everest Real
Estate Investments, LLP, on August 14, 2020.

Until the parties notify the court that the bankruptcy has been
concluded and move to reinstate the case, the court will take no
further action other than to receive and hold any documents
tendered during the period of suspension.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://bit.ly/3nlbr5j
from Leagle.com.

             About Everest Real Estate Investments

Everest Real Estate Investments, LLP -- http://www.setexaser.com/
-- is a health care services provider established in Humble, Texas
specializing in general acute care hospital. It offers completely
comprehensive medical care, treating both major and minor
injuries.

Everest Real Estate Investments sought protection under Chapter 11
of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 20-34077) on Aug.
14, 2020.  Thomas Vo, M.D., majority owner of the Debtor's managing
partner, signed the petition.  At the time of the filing, the
Debtor had estimated assets of between $10 million and $50 million
and liabilities of the same range.

Judge Christopher M. Lopez oversees the case.

The Gerger Law Firm PLLC is the Debtor's legal counsel.



EVOKE PHARMA: Reports Commercial Launch of Gimoti
-------------------------------------------------
Evoke Pharma, Inc. and Eversana Life Science Services, LLC, the
Company's commercial partner, announced the commercial launch of
Gimoti (metoclopramide) nasal spray for the relief of symptoms in
adults with acute and recurrent diabetic gastroparesis.

GIMOTI is specifically designed to address the unique needs of
adult patients with diabetic gastroparesis by delivering an
established treatment as a nasal spray that bypasses the GI tract.
Adults suffering from diabetic gastroparesis may have unpredictable
stomach emptying and may vomit their medications.  For these
reasons, oral administration may be problematic since drug
absorption in the small intestine requires gastric emptying.
GIMOTI, which was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration
in June 2020, is the first and only treatment for diabetic
gastroparesis that enters the bloodstream through the nasal
mucosa.

                        About Evoke Pharma

Headquartered in Solana Beach, California, Evoke --
http://www.evokepharma.com/-- is a specialty pharmaceutical
company focused primarily on the development of drugs to treat GI
disorders and diseases.  The Company is developing Gimoti, a nasal
spray formulation of metoclopramide, for the relief of symptoms
associated with acute and recurrent diabetic gastroparesis in adult
women.

Evoke Pharma recorded a net loss of $7.13 million for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2019, compared to a net loss of $7.57 million for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2018.  As of June 30, 2020, the Company had
$8.27 million in total assets, $8.64 million in total liabilities,
and a total stockholders' deficit of $373,676.

BDO USA, LLP, in San Diego, California, the Company's auditor since
2014, issued a "going concern" qualification in its report dated
March 12, 2020, citing that the Company has suffered recurring
losses from operations and has not generated revenues or positive
cash flows from operations.  These factors raise substantial doubt
about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern.


EXIDE TECHNOLOGIES: Remaining 102 Acres Bought by Frisco City
-------------------------------------------------------------
DFW CBS Local reports that the City of Frisco and its Community
Development Corporation have acquired ownership of the remaining
102-acres of the Exide property, which was the industrial
facilities of the former battery recycling plant.

As a result, the city and its FCDC will take over cleanup of the
site, the city said in a news release Tuesday, October 27, 2020
night.

The City of Frisco and the FCDC closed on the property on Monday,
October 26, 2020.

The Frisco City Council unanimously voted earlier this month to
approve an agreement to take over remediation and ownership of the
Exide property.

The total, estimated cost to clean up the site is $29 million.

                    About Exide Technologies

Exide Technologies LLC was founded in 1888 and headquartered in
Milton, Georgia, Exide.  It is a stored electrical energy solutions
company and a producer and recycler of lead-acid batteries.  Across
the globe, Exide batteries power cars, boats, heavy duty vehicles,
golf carts, powersports, and lawn and garden applications.  Its
network power solutions deliver energy to vast telecommunication
networks in need of uninterrupted power supply.

Exide Technologies first sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. Del.
Case No. 02-11125) on April 14, 2002, and exited bankruptcy two
years after.  Matthew N. Kleiman, Esq., and Kirk A. Kennedy, Esq.,
at Kirkland & Ellis, and James E. O'Neill, Esq., at Pachulski Stang
Ziehl & Jones LLP, represented the Debtors in their successful
restructuring.

Exide returned to Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Bankr. D. Del. Case No.
13-11482) on June 10, 2013 and emerged from bankruptcy in 2015.  In
the 2013 case, Exide tapped Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, and Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP as counsel; Alvarez &
Marsal as financial advisor; Sitrick and Company Inc. as public
relations consultant.  The official creditors committee retained
Lowenstein Sandler LLP and Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP as
co-counsel, and Zolfo Cooper, LLC served as its bankruptcy
consultants and financial advisors.

Exide Holdings, Inc., and its affiliates, including Exide
Technologies LLC, sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. D. Del. Lead
Case No. 20-11157) on May 19, 2020.  Exide Holdings was estimated
to have $500 million to $1 billion in assets and $1 billion to $10
billion in liabilities.

In the newest Chapter 11 case, Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP is
serving as legal counsel to Exide, Houlihan Lokey is serving as
investment banker, and Ankura is serving as financial advisor.
Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., is the local counsel.  Prime Clerk
LLC is the claims agent, maintaining the page
https://cases.primeclerk.com/Exide2020/



FLUID END: $35.5K Sale of 2017 Ford F-250 to Southwest Car Approved
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Janice D. Loyd of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma authorized Fluid End Sales, Inc., doing
business as Five Star Rig & Supply Co., Inc., to sell its 2017 Ford
F-250 (VIN 8638) to Southwest Car Sales for $35,500.

Upon the closing of the sale, the Vehicle will be transferred to
the Purchaser free and clear of all rights, claims, liens, security
interests, and other encumbrances, with any such valid claims,
liens, security interests, and other encumbrances to attach to the
proceeds of the sale of the Vehicle in the same relative order of
priority and with the same validity, force, and effect as existed
with respect to the Vehicle.

The Debtor is authorized to use the proceeds of the sale of the
Vehicle to satisfy the outstanding debt owed to Ford Motor Credit
Co. encumbering the Vehicle.

Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h), the Order will not be stayed
for 14 days after its entry and will be effective immediately upon
entry, and the Debtor and the Purchaser are authorized to close the
transaction immediately upon entry of the Order.  

The Debtor, its officers, employees, and agents are authorized to
take or refrain from taking such acts as are necessary and
appropriate to implement and effectuate the relief granted.

                       About Fluid End Sales

Fluid End Sales, Inc., which conducts business under the name Five
Star Rig & Supply Co., Inc., is an Oklahoma-based company that is
engaged in the business of wholesale distribution of construction
or mining cranes, excavating machinery and equipment.

Fluid End Sales, Inc., filed a voluntary petition with this Court
pursuant to Subchapter V of Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code
(Bankr. W.D. Okla. Case No. 20-12777) on Aug. 20, 2020.  The
petition was signed by Jason Clayton, president. At the time of
filing, the Debtor was estimated to have $1 million to $10 million
in both assets and liabilities.

Judge Janice D. Loyd oversees the case.

The Debtor tapped Clayton D. Ketter, Esq., at Phillips Murrah P.C.
as counsel and RSM US LLP as accountant.


FORGE DRILLING: Seeks to Hire Pendergraft & Simon as Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------
Forge Drilling Tools, LLC seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of Texas to employ Pendergraft &
Simon, LLP as its bankruptcy counsel.

The firm will render these legal services to the Debtor:

     (a) Analyze the financial situation, and render advice and
assistance to the Debtor in determining whether to file petitions
under Title 11, United States Code;

     (b) Advise the Debtor with respect to its powers and duties as
a Debtor-in-Possession;

     (c) Conduct appropriate examinations of witnesses, claimants
and other persons;

     (d) Prepare and file all appropriate petitions, schedules of
assets and liabilities, statements of affairs, answers, motions and
other legal papers; and to consult with and advise the
Debtor-in-Possession in connection with the operation of or the
termination of the operation of the business of the Debtor.

     (e) Represent the Debtor at the meeting of creditors and such
other services as may be required during the course of the
bankruptcy proceedings;

     (f) Represent the Debtor-in-Possession in all proceedings
before the Court and in any other judicial or administrative
proceeding where the rights of the Debtor may be litigated or
otherwise affected;

     (g) Prepare, file, negotiate and prosecute a Disclosure
Statement and Plan of Reorganization;

     (h) Advise and consult with the Debtor-in-Possession
concerning questions arising in the conduct of the administration
of the estate and concerning the Debtor's rights and remedies with
regard to the Estate's assets and the claims of secured, priority
and unsecured creditors;

     (i) Investigate pre-petition transactions and prosecution, if
appropriate, preference and other avoidance actions arising under
the Debtor-in-Possession's avoidance powers or any other causes of
action held by the Estate;

     (j) Defend, if necessary, any motions to lift the automatic
stay, contested matters and/or adversary proceedings, and, analyze
and prosecute any objections to claim;

     (k) Appear on behalf of the Debtor-in-Possession before this
Court;

     (l) Advise and assist the Debtor-in-Possession with real
estate and business organizations issues related to this case; and

     (m) Assist the Debtor in any matters relating to or arising
out of the captioned case.

The hourly rates for the firm's counsel and staff are as follows:

     Leonard Simon                         $500
     William P. Haddock                    $300
     Senior paralegal/senior law clerk     $200
     Junior paralegal/senior law clerk     $100

In addition, the firm will seek reimbursement for reasonable and
necessary expenses incurred in connection to this representation.

On August 26, 2020, the Debtor paid Pendergraft & Simon a retainer
of $15,000.00. The source of these funds was the Debtor. The
retainer was deposited into the firm's trust account. The firm
rendered a bill in the amount of $990.00, representing legal
services rendered up to the date the Debtor filed its voluntary
petition. This sum has not been withdrawn from the firm's trust
account, pending approval of this application.

Leonard H. Simon, an attorney of Pendergraft & Simon, LLP,
disclosed in court filings that he and the firm are "disinterested
persons" as that term is defined in section 101(14) of the
Bankruptcy Code.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     Leonard H. Simon, Esq.
     William P. Haddock, Esq.
     PENDERGRAFT & SIMON, LLP
     2777 Allen Parkway, Suite 800
     Houston, TX 77019
     Telephone: (713) 528-8555
     Facsimile: (713) 868-1267

                             About Forge Drilling Tools

Forge Drilling Tools, LLC -- https://forgedrillingtools.com -- is
in the business of metalworking machinery manufacturing.

Forge Drilling Tools sought protection under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 20-34294) on August 26,
2020. The petition was signed by Greg Ward, its manager. At the
time of the filing, the Debtor estimated to have less than $50,000
in assets and $1 million to $10 million in liabilities. Judge
Jeffrey P. Norman oversees the case. Pendergraft & Simon, LLP, led
by Leonard H. Simon, Esq., serves as the Debtor's counsel.


FORUM HEALTH: Unclaimed Funds Go to Bankruptcy Court Registry
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge John P. Gustafson has directed Dalton T. Edgecomb,
the Liquidating Trustee in the bankruptcy case of Forum Health, et
al., to transmit unclaimed funds to the Bankruptcy Court Registry.

Edgecomb had filed a Notice Regarding Unclaimed Funds, stating he
retained $10,258.96 in unclaimed distributions and requested
instructions regarding the remittance of those unclaimed funds to
the court.

Forum Health's Second Amended Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation was
confirmed by an Order entered by the Hon. Kay Woods on July 21,
2011. The Plan stated that: "Any distributions that are made on the
Final Distribution Date and that are undeliverable or (in the event
of a distribution made by check) remain uncashed for 180 days after
the Final Distribution Date shall be remitted to the Bankruptcy
Court as unclaimed funds."

Judge Gustafson says in a Chapter 11 reorganization proceeding, 11
U.S.C. section 347(b) provides that unclaimed funds shall become:
"property of the debtor or of the entity acquiring the assets of
the debtor under the plan, as the case may be." While this
provision might arguably apply in a liquidating Chapter 11 case,
"[s]ection 347(b) may not provide a particularly satisfactory
result in a liquidating chapter 11 case of a corporate debtor in
which no entity acquires most of the debtor's assets and the debtor
essentially ceases to exist. Although there may remain a corporate
shell to which assets can be returned, doing so may serve no useful
purpose."

The problem of what to do with funds in a liquidating Chapter 11
case is longstanding, and has been addressed in different ways by
different courts. Some courts have local rules that a plan may
direct the distribution of such funds to a charity. Other courts
direct that the funds be deposited into the Bankruptcy Court
Registry, and treated like unclaimed funds under section 347(a) as
in the case of In re Premiere Holdings of Texas LP, 393 B.R. 156,
159 (Bankr. S.D. Tex. 2008).

According to Judge Gustafson, this case is not as difficult as
Premiere Holdings because, unlike that case, here there is a plan
provision intended to control the disposition of unclaimed funds.
The language used appears to be intended to provide for the use of
the Bankruptcy Court Registry for the deposit of the unclaimed
funds, and the treatment of the unclaimed funds in this Chapter 11
liquidation in the same manner as in a Chapter 7 liquidation.

Accordingly, Judge Gustafson directed the Liquidating Trustee to
transmit the funds to the clerk of the bankruptcy court with the
information required by Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 3011,
and those funds will be held, and administered, under 28 U.S.C.
chapter 129.

The Liquidating Trustee was also directed to do the following:

     1) The unclaimed funds check must be submitted to the court by
mail using the United States Postal Service, addressed to the
attention of the Clerk of Court, Howard M. Metzenbaum U.S.
Courthouse, 201 Superior Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44114-1235.

     2) The unclaimed funds check must be made payable to Clerk,
U.S. Bankruptcy Court

     3) The unclaimed funds check must be submitted to the court
with a case captioned unclaimed funds transmittal sheet stating the
total amount of unclaimed funds being submitted, and listing each
claimant's name, their associated claim numbers, and the amount for
each claim.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://bit.ly/2StDdyr
from Leagle.com.

                       About Forum Health

Forum Health and its affiliates filed for Chapter 11 protection on
March 16, 2009 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio Lead Case No. 09-40795).  In its
petition, Forum Health estimated $100 million to $500 million in
assets and debts.

McDonald Hopkins LLC and Nadler, Nadler and Burdman Co., L.P.A.,
served as the Debtors' chapter 11 co-counsel.  Huron Consulting
Services LLC served as the Debtors' Chief Restructuring Officer and
Financial Support Personnel.  Houlihan Lokey Howard and Zukin
Capital, Inc. were the Debtors' investment bankers.  Ernst & Young
LLP acted as the Debtors' independent auditor.  Baker and Hostetler
and Thompson Hine LLP served as special counsel.  Squire, Sanders &
Dempsey LLP served as the bond counsel.  Kurtzman Carson
Consultants LLC acted as the claims and notice agent.

Alston & Bird LLP served as counsel to the Official Committee of
Unsecured Creditors.  Grant Thornton LLP served as the financial
advisor to the Creditors Committee.

Forum Health, which operated Trumbull, Northside Medical Center and
Hillside hospitals in Ohio, sold most of its assets at an auction
in August 2010 to CHS Community Health Systems Inc. for $120
million.  Secured bonds were paid in full from the sale.


FROGNAL HOLDINGS: Could Have New Owner Absent Loan
--------------------------------------------------
Rachel Riley of Herald Net reports that backers of the
controversial Frognal Estates subdivision are exploring selling the
undeveloped property if they can’t work out wrinkles in the
embattled project’s financing plan.

Developer John Lakhani expects the 22 acres near Picnic Point Road
could go for $22 million to $27 million "as-is" if his team can't
get another loan to advance the project further, he said during a
hearing held via teleconference as part of bankruptcy court
proceedings.

"We have received several inquiries.  We have given the information
out," said Lakhani, of Frognal Holdings LLC, which last month filed
for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the hopes of reviving the project's
faltering financials.  "We are in the process of getting ourselves
organized to appoint an agent who will market the property and get
as many offers as possible."

It's unclear what a sale now would mean for the planned 112-home
subdivision, 15 years in the making.  Permits for the project could
also be sold to the new landowner if such a transaction were to
occur, Snohomish County planning officials have said.

"The end game is to deliver finished lots," Lakhani, the president
and CEO of Everett-based Integral Northwest, said in a Friday text
message. But getting the financing to deliver those lots will
require cooperation from contractors, some preliminary lot sales
and “all permits in hand, he said.

"We are working concurrently on all options," he added.

The subdivision still needs a key approval from the Alderwood Water
and Wastewater District for its sewer system.

The project has been a source of controversy since the first permit
applications were submitted under the name Horseman’s Trail in
2005.

The developer won a series of court battles to advance the plan,
despite objections from neighbors, who have argued that Frognal
Estates would create landslide risks on steep and environmentally
sensitive terrain south of Mukilteo.

The land, once forested, has already been cleared in preparation
for construction.

Frognal's backers purchased the property with one loan and planned
to obtain a second loan to finance construction and pay off the
first loan. But the developer was unable to get that second loan
after a deal fell through with a national homebuilder that was
going to purchase the lots, Lakhani said during the hearing.

In accordance with Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, Frognal
Holdings is formulating a plan to pay the more than $11.3 million
that it owes to more than a dozen creditors. The developer intends
to file that plan within 90 days, representatives said during the
hearing.

Lakhani told creditors that $12.5 million to $13 million will be
needed to build infrastructure on the property before home
construction can begin.

A foreclosure auction of the property, which was slated for Friday,
was again postponed due to the bankruptcy proceedings.

The project's construction permits don't expire until summer 2022,
and they could be extended, according to county Planning and
Permitting Supervisor Ryan Countryman.

                       About Frognal Holdings

Frognal Holdings, LLC is a single asset real estate (as defined in
11 U.S.C. Section 101(51B)) whose principal property is located at
13500 60th Ave., West Edmonds, Wash.  The property is a 112-lot
residential subdivision having an appraised value of $30.8
million.

Frognal Holdings filed its voluntary petition for relief under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. W.D. Wa. Case No. Frognal
Holdings, LLC) on July 23, 2020.  At the time of filing, Debtor
disclosed $30,921,624 in assets and $11,302,231 in liabilities.
Christine M. Tobin-Presser, Esq., at Bush Kornfeld LLP, is
Debtor's
legal counsel.






FROGNAL HOLDINGS: Seeks to Tap Land Advisors as Listing Agent
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frognal Holdings, LLC seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Western District of Washington to employ Land Advisors
Organization as exclusive listing agent for the sale of its
property that consists of a 112-lot proposed subdivision on 22.34
acres in Edmonds, Washington.

Under the Listing Agreement, Land Advisors will receive a 1.5%
commission.

Scott Cameron, a co-founding principal of Land Advisors
Organization, disclosed in court filings that the firm does not
have any connection with the Debtor, its creditors or any other
party-in-interest, or their respective attorneys; are not creditors
of this estate; and represent no interest adverse to the estate in
matters upon which it is to be employed and retained.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     Scott Cameron
     LAND ADVISORS ORGANIZATION
     11400 SE 8th Street, Suite 205
     Bellevue, WA 98004
     Telephone: (425) 445-0887
     E-mail: scameron@landadvisors.com

                               About Frognal Holdings

Frognal Holdings, LLC is a Single Asset Real Estate (as defined in
11 U.S.C. Section 101(51B)), whose principal assets are located at
13500 60th Avenue West Edmonds, WA 98026. The Property is a
proposed 112-lot residential subdivision having an appraised value
of $30.8 million.

Frognal Holdings filed its voluntary petition for relief under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. W.D. Wash. Case No.
20-11966). The petition was signed by Abdul Latif Lakhani,
president of Integral Northwest Corporation, manager. At the time
of the filing, the Debtor disclosed total assets of $30,921,624 and
total liabilities of $11,302,231. Judge Timothy W. Dore oversees
the case. Bush Kornfeld LLP serves as the Debtor's counsel.


FRONTERA GENERATION: S&P Cuts Issue-Level Ratings to 'D'
--------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings lowered its issue-level ratings on Frontera
Generation Holdings, LLC to 'D' from 'CCC'. S&P also revised the
recovery rating on the debt to '3' from '2'.

The downgrade reflects Frontera Generation's decision to not make
the Oct. 20, 2020 interest payment on its term loan B due in 2025.
In the context of very weak power prices in Mexico and diminished
liquidity, S&P expects the company will seek a restructuring.


GAINESVILLE ROAD: Appeal on Ch. 11 Trustee Appointment Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William J. Fung of the U.S. District for the Middle District
of Florida dismissed an appeal captioned GAINESVILLE ROAD COMMUNITY
TRUST, Appellant/Debtor, v. ONE FAMILY FLORIDA PARTNERS, L.P., et.
al., Appellees/Creditors, Bankr. Case No. 8:20-bk-3888-CPM, which
challenges a bankruptcy court order appointing a Chapter 11 trustee
for the trust.

Judge Fung said if the trust's former management wished to appeal
the Chapter 11 trustee's appointment, they could have certainly
done so as "aggrieved persons."

Debtor Gainesville Road Community Trust is a corporate entity that
owns and runs a trailer park. In May 2020 the Debtor filed a
voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, seeking to reorganize.
The Debtor continued to operate the business as Debtor in
Possession, through its main owner, Caleb J. Walsh. In June 2020
One Family Florida Partners et al. moved to have a Chapter 11
trustee appointed for the Debtor, and divest Mr. Walsh of control
of the trailer park as Debtor in Possession. Mr. Walsh objected to
the motion, and the bankruptcy court held a three-day evidentiary
hearing on the matter, concluding August 7, 2020.

Upon conclusion of the three-day hearing, the bankruptcy court
ruled from the bench, granting the creditors' motion on August 7
and stating that the order was effective immediately. In this
lengthy oral order, the court held that a trustee was appropriate
under both 11 U.S.C. section 1104(a)(1) and section 1104(a)(2)2.  A
formal, written order granting trusteeship over the debtor was
entered on August 11, 2020. The Appellant filed a notice of appeal
on August 18, 2020. This notice was improperly labeled upon filing
but was corrected on August 24. On August 19, 2020 the formal
notice of appointment of trustee was filed, with Dr. Stephen Oscher
appointed as Chapter 11 Trustee.

On August 24, the Appellant filed a "statement of issues on appeal"
in the bankruptcy court pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 8006. All
issues listed in this statement were based under the involuntary
servitude provisions of the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.  Also on August 24, 2020, the Appellant filed a
motion in the bankruptcy court to stay its order appointing a
trustee pending appeal. In the motion to stay, the Appellant stated
"the crux of the appeal" was the involuntary servitude argument
under the Thirteenth Amendment. The bankruptcy court held a hearing
and denied the motion to stay on Sept. 8, 2020.

This appeal, ostensibly on behalf of the Debtor, is brought by the
former Debtor in Possession, the Caleb Walsh interests. This
includes Mr. Walsh, who has several investment or operations
companies, including entities known as John Ruth Capital, and Parks
Management. Also possibly allied with Mr. Walsh is one of his
investors Joshua Craven (through CRG Properties, Inc.).

The Debtor, however, is controlled by the Chapter 11 Trustee Dr.
Stephen Oscher. The Trustee was appointed after detailed
evidentiary hearings, by a lengthy and quite sound order of the
bankruptcy judge.

The bankruptcy judge reviewed the Appellant's motion to stay the
trustee order pending appeal and denied it on the merits.

Litigation of the Debtor Gainesville Road Community Trust is
controlled by its lawfully appointed Chapter 11 Trustee Oscher, not
by former management. The Trustee wants this appeal, brought by
those divested managers, dismissed. That resolves this issue as to
the Debtor.

This is not to say that Mr. Walsh and his interests were without
remedy, Judge Fung says. If former management wished to appeal the
appointment of the Trustee, they could have certainly done so as
"aggrieved persons." They did not choose this route. The motion to
dismiss, therefore, is granted.

A copy of the District Court's Order is available at
https://bit.ly/34eYzGo from Leagle.com.

             About Gainesville Road Community Trust

Gainesville Road Community Trust sought protection under Chapter 11
of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. M.D. Fla. Case No. 20-03888) on May
19, 2020.  At the time of the filing, Debtor was estimated to have
assets of between $1 million and $10 million and liabilities of the
same range.  Judge Catherine Peek McEwen oversees the case. Dion R.
Hancock, P.A. is Debtor's legal counsel.

Steven S. Oscher was appointed as Chapter 11 trustee for Debtor's
bankruptcy estate on Aug. 19, 2020. The trustee has tapped Trenam,
Kemker, Scharf, Barkin, Frye, O'Neill & Mullis, P.A. as his legal
counsel and Oscher Consulting, P.A. as his accountant.



GARRETT MOTION: Hires Kurtzman Carson as Administrative Advisor
---------------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Motion Inc., and its debtor-affiliates, seek authority from
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to
employ Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC, as administrative advisor
to the Debtors.

Garrett Motion requires Kurtzman Carson to:

   (a) assist with, among other things, solicitation, balloting
       and tabulation of votes, and prepare any related reports,
       as required in support of confirmation of a chapter 11
       plan, and in connection with such services, process
       requests for documents from parties in interest,
       including, if applicable, brokerage firms, bank back-
       offices and institutional holders;

   (b) prepare an official ballot certification and, if
       necessary, testify in support of the ballot tabulation
       results;

   (c) assist with the preparation of the Debtors' schedules of
       assets and liabilities and statements of financial affairs
       and gather data in conjunction therewith, to the extent
       this requirement is not waived;

   (d) provide a confidential data room, if requested;

   (e) manage and coordinate any distributions pursuant to a
       chapter 11 plan; and

   (f) provide such other processing, solicitation, balloting and
       other administrative services described in the Engagement
       Agreement, but not included in the Section 156(c)
       Application, as may be requested from time to time by the
       Debtors, the Court or the Office of the Clerk of the
       Bankruptcy Court (the "Clerk").

Kurtzman Carson will be paid at these hourly rates:

     Securities Director/Solicitation Lead     $204
     Solicitation Consultant                   $195
     Consultant/Senior Consultant              $65-$185
     Technology Consultant                     $35-$90
     Analyst                                   $30-$47

Kurtzman Carson will be paid a retainer in the amount of $75,000.

Kurtzman Carson will also be reimbursed for reasonable
out-of-pocket expenses incurred.

Sean Deason, partner of Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC, assured
the Court that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is
defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and does not
represent any interest adverse to the Debtor and its estates.

Kurtzman Carson can be reached at:

     Robert Jordan
     Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC
     1290 Avenue of the Americas, 9th Floor
     New York, NY 10104
     Tel: (917) 281-4800

                      About Garrett Motion

Based in Switzerland, Garrett Motion Inc. (NYSE: GTX) designs,
manufactures and sells highly engineered turbocharger and
electric-boosting technologies for light and commercial vehicle
original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") and the global vehicle
and independent aftermarket.

Garrett Motion and its affiliates sought Chapter 11 protection
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 20-12212) on Sept. 20, 2020.

Garrett disclosed $2,066,000,000 in assets and $4,169,000,000 in
liabilities as of June 30, 2020.

The Debtors tapped Sullivan & Cromwell LLP as counsel, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP as co-counsel, Perella Weinberg
Partners and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC as investment bankers, and
AlixpartnersLP as restructuring advisor. Kurtzman Carson
Consultants LLC is the claims agent.

The U.S. Trustee for Region Region 2 on Oct. 5, 2020, appointed a
committee to represent unsecured creditors in the Chapter 11 case.


GARRETT MOTION: Hires Morgan Stanley as Financial Advisor
---------------------------------------------------------
Garrett Motion Inc., and its debtor-affiliates seek authority from
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to
employ Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, financial advisor and investment
banker to the Debtors.

Garrett Motion requires Morgan Stanley to:

   a. assist the Debtors in reviewing and analyzing any potential
      Transaction;

   b. advise and assist the Debtors in identifying and/or
      evaluating potential acquirers or investors and developing
      a strategy to solicit proposals from potential acquirers or
      investors;

   c. assist the Debtors in negotiating any potential
      Transaction;

   d. advise the Debtors on the terms of securities it may offer
      in any potential Transaction;

   e. advise the Debtors with its preparation of marketing
      materials for any potential Transaction;

   f. assist the Debtors in contacting and meeting with third
      parties in connection with any potential Transaction;

   g. attend meetings, as reasonably requested, of Garrett
      Motion's Board of Directors and its committees with respect
      to matters on which Morgan Stanley has been engaged
      to advise the Debtors;

   h. assist the Debtors with the design, coordination, strategy
      and implementation of communications with third parties,
      including key stakeholders, acquirers, investors,
      employees, media, customers, suppliers, vendors,
      governmental bodies and others, related to a potential
      Transaction and related restructuring matters;

   i. participate in hearings, including providing testimony,
      before the applicable bankruptcy court, as necessary and
      agreed between the Debtors and Morgan Stanley, with respect
      to matters on which Morgan Stanley has been engaged to
      advise the Debtors;

   j. provide other customary services for a Transaction of this
      type; and

   k. provide such other financial advisory and investment
      banking services in connection with any Transaction as may
      be agreed upon by the Debtors and Morgan Stanley and
      that is within the scope of this engagement.

Morgan Stanley will be paid as follows:

   -- Sale Transaction Fee. Upon consummation of a Sale
      Transaction, the Firm will receive a fee of $10 million.
      A Sale Transaction resulting in any third party(ies) or its
      (or their) shareholders owning or controlling more than 50%
      of the issued share capital of the Debtors, shares carrying
      more than 50% of the voting rights of the Debtors, or a
      sale of some or all of the assets of the Debtors represents
      a completed Sale Transaction. For the avoidance of doubt,
      the foregoing includes, but is not limited to, a sale
      through a plan, an order pursuant to section 363 of the
      Bankruptcy Code, and/or a change of control transaction
      effectuated through a rights offering resulting in more
      than 50% of the issued share capital of the Debtors or
      shares carrying more than 50% of the voting rights of
      the Debtors being owned or controlled by any third party.

   -- Restructuring Transaction Fee. Upon consummation of a
      Restructuring Transaction, the Firm will receive a fee of
      $10 million. All Reimbursed Expenses are fully credited,
      to the extent not previously credited, against the
      Restructuring Transaction Fee.

   -- Acquisition Transaction Fee. Although as of the date
      hereof, the Debtors' are currently pursuing a Sale
      Transaction and Restructuring and not an Acquisition
      Transaction, (a) if an Acquisition Transaction is pursued,
      the Firm will receive $2 million upon the Debtors reaching
      any definitive agreement with respect to an Acquisition
      Transaction and (b) upon consummation of an Acquisition
      Transaction, the Firm will receive a fee of $15 million.
      All Reimbursed Expenses are fully creditable against the
      Acquisition Transaction Fee. The Firm may also request a
      "Discretionary Fee" of up to $5 million, payable in the
      Debtors' sole discretion upon completion of any Acquisition
      Transaction.

   -- Discretionary Acquisition Transaction Fee. The Firm may
      request a Discretionary Fee of up to $5,000,000 which shall
      be payable at the Debtors' sole discretion upon completion
      of any Acquisition Transaction. In exercising its
      discretion, the Debtors shall have regard to the outcome of
      the Acquisition Transaction and the Firm's performance of
      its services hereunder in connection with such Acquisition
      Transaction. The Debtor may decline a request for a
      "Discretionary Fee" for any reason or no reason and without
      providing an explanation;

In the 90 days prior to the Petition Date, the Debtors paid $10
million in fees and $168,587 in expenses, inclusive of an expense
retainer of $30,000.

Morgan Stanley will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses incurred.

Chrisopher R. Lee, partner of Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, assured the
Court that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is
defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and does not
represent any interest adverse to the Debtor and their estates.

Morgan Stanley can be reached at:

     Chrisopher R. Lee
     MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC
     1585 Broadway
     New York, NY 10036
     Tel: (212) 761-4000

              About Garrett Motion Inc.

Based in Switzerland, Garrett Motion Inc. (NYSE: GTX) designs,
manufactures and sells highly engineered turbocharger and
electric-boosting technologies for light and commercial vehicle
original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") and the global vehicle
and independent aftermarket.

Garrett Motion and its affiliates sought Chapter 11 protection
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 20-12212) on Sept. 20, 2020.

Garrett disclosed $2,066,000,000 in assets and $4,169,000,000 in
liabilities as of June 30, 2020.

The Debtors tapped Sullivan & Cromwell LLP as counsel, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP as co-counsel, Perella Weinberg
Partners and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC as investment bankers, and
AlixpartnersLP as restructuring advisor. Kurtzman Carson
Consultants LLC is the claims agent.

The U.S. Trustee for Region Region 2 on Oct. 5, 2020, appointed a
committee to represent unsecured creditors in the Chapter 11 case
of Garrett Motion Inc. and its affiliates.



GARRETT MOTION: Jones Day Updates List of Shareholders
------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure,
the law firm of Jones Day submitted an amended verified statement
to disclose an updated list of Shareholders that it is representing
in the Chapter 11 cases of Garrett Motion Inc., et al.

In September 2020, certain Shareholders retained Jones Day to
advise them following Garrett Motion's August 26, 2020 announcement
that it was exploring alternatives for a balance sheet
restructuring.  The Shareholders beneficially own, or manage or
advise funds and/or accounts that beneficially own disclosable
economic interests in relation to the Debtors.  On Sept. 28, 2020,
Jones Day filed its Verified Statement of Jones Day Pursuant to
Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2019 [ECF 97].

As of Oct. 22, 2020, each Shareholder and their disclosable
economic interests are:

Attestor Value Master Fund LP
PO Box 309
Ugland House
Grand Cayman
KY1-1104
Cayman Islands

* Equity Interests: 2,661,970 shares

The Baupost Group, L.L.C.
10 St. James Ave., Suite 1700
Boston, MA 02116

* Equity Interests: 3,575,000 shares

Cyrus Capital Partners, L.P.
65 East 55th Street, Floor 35
New York, NY 10022

* Term Loan B Obligations: $7,000,000
* Senior Note Obligations: €15,379,000
* Equity Interests: 10,220,254 shares

FIN Capital Partners LP
336 W 37th Street Suite 200
New York, NY 10018

* Equity Interests: 369,861 shares

Hawk Ridge Master Fund, LP
12121 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 900
Los Angeles, CA 90025

* Equity Interests: 1,796,437 shares

IngleSea Capital
7800 Red Rd., #308
Miami, FL 33143

* Senior Note Obligations: €2,185,000
* Equity Interests: 300,000 shares

Keyframe Capital Partners, L.P.
65 East 55th Street, Floor 35
New York, NY 10022

* Senior Note Obligations: €6,621,000
* Equity Interests: 1,506,050 shares

Newtyn Management, LLC
60 East 42nd Street, 9th Floor
New York, NY 10165

* Equity Interests: 1,655,000 shares

Sessa Capital (Master), L.P.
888 7th Ave 30th floor
New York, NY 10106

* Equity Interests: 6,912,204 shares

Whitebox Multi-Strategy Partners, L.P.
3033 Excelsior Blvd., Suite 500
Minneapolis, MN 55416

* Equity Interests: 750,000 shares

Jones Day submits this First Amended Statement in an abundance of
caution and without conceding that Bankruptcy Rule 2019 applies.
Jones Day does not represent the Shareholders as a "committee" and
does not undertake to represent the interests of, and is not a
fiduciary for, any other creditor, party in interest or other
entity. In addition, as of the date of this First Amended
Statement, no Shareholder represents or purports to represent any
other entity in connection with these chapter 11 cases.

Jones Day reserves the right to amend or supplement this First
Amended Statement in accordance with the requirements of Bankruptcy
Rule 2019 with any additional information that may become
available.

Counsel for Certain Shareholders of Garrett Motion Inc. can be
reached at:

          JONES DAY
          Anna Kordas, Esq.
          250 Vesey Street
          New York, NY 10281
          Telephone: (212) 326-3939
          Facsimile: (212) 755-7306
          E-mail: akordas@jonesday.com

             - and -

          JONES DAY
          Bruce Bennett, Esq.
          Joshua M. Mester, Esq.
          555 S. Flower St., 50th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489-3939
          E-mail: bbennett@jonesday.com
                  jmester@jonesday.com

A copy of the Rule 2019 filing, downloaded from PacerMonitor.com,
is available at https://bit.ly/34B34uV

                       About Garrett Motion

Based in Switzerland, Garrett Motion Inc. (NYSE: GTX) designs,
manufactures and sells highly engineered turbocharger and
electric-boosting technologies for light and commercial vehicle
original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") and the global vehicle
and independent aftermarket.

Garrett Motion and its affiliates sought Chapter 11 protection
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 20-12212) on Sept. 20, 2020.

Garrett disclosed $2,066,000,000 in assets and $4,169,000,000 in
liabilities as of June 30, 2020.

The Debtors tapped SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP as counsel; QUINN
EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP as co-counsel; PERELLA WEINBERG
PARTNERS as investment banker; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC as
investment banker; and ALIXPARTNERS LLP as restructuring advisor.
KURTZMAN CARSON CONSULTANTS LLC is the claims agent.


GARRETT MOTION: Ropes & Gray 2nd Update on Noteholder Group
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to Rule 2019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure,
the law firm of Ropes & Gray LLP submitted a corrected supplemental
verified statement to disclose an updated list of Ad Hoc Group of
Secured Noteholder that it is representing in the Chapter 11 cases
of Garrett Motion, Inc., et al.

The Ad Hoc Group of Secured Noteholders, by and through their
undersigned counsel, of 5.125% Senior Notes due 2026 issued
pursuant to that certain Indenture, dated as of September 27, 2018,
together with any other agreements or documents executed in
connection therewith, by and among Garrett L X I S.À.R.L. and
Garrett Borrowing LLC, Garrett Motion Inc., the Guarantors party
thereto, Deutsche Trustee Company Limited, as indenture trustee,
Deutsche Bank AG, London Branch, as security agent and paying
agent, and Deutsche Bank Luxembourg S.A., as registrar and transfer
agent.

During September 2020, members of the Ad Hoc Group of Secured
Noteholders retained attorneys with the firm of Ropes & Gray LLP to
represent them as counsel in connection with the outstanding debt
obligations of the above-captioned debtors and debtors in
possession.

On October 20, 2020, Ropes & Gray, on behalf of the Ad Hoc Group of
Secured Noteholders, filed the Supplemental Verified Statement of
the Ad Hoc Group of Secured Noteholders Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule
2019 [Dkt No. 250]. This Corrected Supplemental 2019 Statement
supersedes the Supplemental 2019 Statement.

Upon information and belief formed after due inquiry, Ropes & Gray
does not hold any disclosable economic interests in relation to the
Debtors.

As of Oct. 21, 2020, members of the Ad Hoc Group of Secured
Noteholders and their disclosable economic interests are:

AllianceBernstein L.P.
150 4th Avenue N.
Nashville, TN 37219

* Term Loan B Obligations ($): $3,085,413
* Note Obligations (€): 35,121,000
* Equity Interests (Shares): 37

Bardin Hill Investment Partners LP
299 Park Avenue
New York, NY 10171

* Note Obligations (€): 27,475,000
* Equity Interests (Shares): 1,112,071

Benefit Street Partners LLC
9 W. 57th Street
Suite 4920
New York, NY 10019

* Note Obligations (€): 9,000,000
* Equity Interests (Shares): 1,439,839

Diameter Capital Partners LP
24 W. 40th Street
5th Floor
New York, NY 10018

* Term Loan B Obligations (€): 34,924,410
* Term Loan B Obligations ($): 24,423,712
* Note Obligations (€): 66,525,000

KSAC Europe Investments S.a.r.l.
1A, rue Thomas Edison
Strassen L-1445
Luxembourg

* Note Obligations (€): 40,655,000

Lord, Abbett & Co LLC
90 Hudson Street
Jersey City, NJ 07302-3973

* Note Obligations (€): 14,100,000

P. Schoenfeld Asset Management LP
1350 Avenue of the Americas
21st Floor
New York, NY 10019

* Term Loan B Obligations ($): 8,500,000
* Note Obligations (€): 20,000,000
* Equity Interests (Shares): 2,100,000

Robeco Institutional Asset Management B.V.
P.O. Box 973
3000 AZ
Rotterdam
The Netherlands

* Note Obligations (€): 34,990,000

Ropes & Gray does not represent or purport to represent any other
entities in connection with the Debtors' chapter 11 cases. Ropes &
Gray does not represent the Ad Hoc Group of Secured Noteholders as
a "committee" is not a fiduciary for, any creditor, party in
interest, or other entity that has not signed a retention agreement
with Ropes & Gray. No member of the Ad Hoc Group of Secured
Noteholders represents or purports to represent any other member or
entity in connection with the Debtors' Chapter 11 Cases. In
addition, each member of the Ad Hoc Group of Secured Noteholders
(a) does not assume any fiduciary or other duties to any other
member of the Ad Hoc Group of Secured Noteholders and (b) does not
purport to act or speak on behalf of any other member of the Ad Hoc
Group of Secured Noteholders in connection with these Chapter 11
Cases.

Nothing contained in this Supplemental 2019 Statement is intended
or shall be construed to constitute: (i) a waiver or release of the
rights of the members of the Ad Hoc Group of Secured Noteholders to
have any final order entered by, or other exercise of the judicial
power of the United States performed by, an Article III court; (ii)
a waiver or release of the rights of the members of the Ad Hoc
Group of Secured Noteholders to have any and all final orders in
any and all non-core matters entered only after de novo review by a
United States District Judge; (iii) consent to the jurisdiction of
the Court over any matter; (iv) an election of remedies; (v) a
waiver or release of any rights the members of the Ad Hoc Group of
Secured Noteholders may have to a jury trial; (vi) a waiver or
release of the right to move to withdraw the reference with respect
to any matter or proceeding that may be commenced in these chapter
11 cases against or otherwise involving the members of the Ad Hoc
Group of Secured Noteholders; (vii) any affect or impairment of any
claims against the Debtors held by any member of the Ad Hoc Group
of Secured Noteholders, (viii) a limitation upon, or waiver of, any
rights of any member of the Ad Hoc Group of Secured Noteholders to
assert, file, and/or amend any proof of claim in accordance with
applicable law, or (ix) a waiver or release of any other rights,
claims, actions, defenses, setoffs or recoupments to which the
members of the Ad Hoc Group of Secured Noteholders are or may be
entitled, in law or in equity, under any agreement or otherwise,
with all such rights, claims, actions, defenses, setoffs or
recoupments being expressly reserved. This Supplemental 2019
Statement may be amended or supplemented as necessary in accordance
with Bankruptcy Rule 2019.

Counsel to the Ad Hoc Group of Secured Noteholders can be reached
at:

          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          Mark I. Bane, Esq.
          Matthew M. Roose, Esq.
          Daniel G. Egan, Esq.
          1211 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036-8704
          Telephone: 212.596.9000
          Facsimile: 212.596.9090
          Email: mark.bane@ropesgray.com
                 matthew.roose@ropesgray.com
                 daniel.egan@ropesgray.com

A copy of the Rule 2019 filing, downloaded from PacerMonitor.com,
is available at https://bit.ly/37SgULo

                    About Garrett Motion

Based in Switzerland, Garrett Motion Inc. (NYSE: GTX) designs,
manufactures and sells highly engineered turbocharger and
electric-boosting technologies for light and commercial vehicle
original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") and the global vehicle
and independent aftermarket.

Garrett Motion and its affiliates sought Chapter 11 protection
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 20-12212) on Sept. 20, 2020.

Garrett disclosed $2,066,000,000 in assets and $4,169,000,000 in
liabilities as of June 30, 2020.

The Debtors tapped SULLIVAN & CROMWELL LLP as counsel; QUINN
EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP as co-counsel; PERELLA WEINBERG
PARTNERS as investment banker; MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC as
investment banker; and ALIXPARTNERS LLP as restructuring advisor.
KURTZMAN CARSON CONSULTANTS LLC is the claims agent.


GARRETT MOTION: Seeks to Hire Deloitte AG as Auditor
----------------------------------------------------
Garrett Motion Inc., and its debtor-affiliates, seek authority from
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to
employ Deloitte AG, as auditor to the Debtors.

Deloitte AG will render the following services:

   -- Audit Engagement Agreement

   (a) perform an integrated audit in accordance with the
       standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board
       (PCAOB) (United States) (the "PCAOB Standards") and
       expressing an opinion on (i) whether the Debtors'
       financial statements for the year ending December 31, 2020
       is presented fairly in all material respects, in
       accordance with accounting principles generally accepted
       in the United States of America and (ii) the effectiveness
       of the Debtors' internal control over financial reporting
       as of December 31, 2020; and

   (b) review the Debtors' condensed interim financial
       information in accordance with the PCAOB Standards for
       each of the quarters in the year ending December 31, 2020,
       prepared for submission to the Securities and Exchange
       Commission.

   -- Statutory Audit Engagement Agreement

   (a) perform an ordinary statutory audit with the objective of
       expressing an opinion as to whether the financial
       statements – comprising balance sheet, income statement
       and notes – and the proposed appropriation of available
       earnings comply with Swiss law and the Company's articles
       of incorporation and (ii) to confirm the existence of an
       internal control system that has been designed for the
       preparation of financial statements.

Deloitte AG will be paid at these hourly rates:

     Partner                   $790 to $860
     Senior Manager            $550 to $600
     Manager                   $450 to $490
     Assistant Manager         $340 to $370
     Senior                    $240 to $260
     Staff                     $200 to $220

In the 90 days prior to the Petition Date, the Debtors paid
Deloitte AG of $1,453,000 for services performed and to be
performed for the Debtors.

Deloitte AG will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses incurred.

Matthias Gschwend, and David McNeil, partners of Deloitte AG,
assured the Court that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the
term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and does
not represent any interest adverse to the Debtors and their
estates.

Deloitte AG can be reached at:

     Matthias Gschwend
     David McNeil
     DELOITTE AG
     General-Guisan-Quai 38
     Zurich 8022, Switzerland
     Tel: +41 58 279 8193

                     About Garrett Motion

Based in Switzerland, Garrett Motion Inc. (NYSE: GTX) designs,
manufactures and sells highly engineered turbocharger and
electric-boosting technologies for light and commercial vehicle
original equipment manufacturers ("OEMs") and the global vehicle
and independent aftermarket.

Garrett Motion and its affiliates sought Chapter 11 protection
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 20-12212) on Sept. 20, 2020.

Garrett disclosed $2,066,000,000 in assets and $4,169,000,000 in
liabilities as of June 30, 2020.

The Debtors tapped Sullivan & Cromwell LLP as counsel, Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP as co-counsel, Perella Weinberg
Partners and Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC as investment bankers, and
AlixpartnersLP as restructuring advisor. Kurtzman Carson
Consultants LLC is the claims agent.

The U.S. Trustee for Region Region 2 on Oct. 5, 2020, appointed a
committee to represent unsecured creditors in the Chapter 11 case.


GENCANNA GLOBAL: Suit vs Jenco et al. Referred to Bankruptcy Court
------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Danny Reeves granted the request of GenCanna
Global USA, Inc. to lift the stay and refer the matter captioned
GENCANNA GLOBAL USA, INC., Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant, v.
JENCO INDUSTRIAL SALES & SERVICES, LLC, et al.,
Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs, Civil Action No. 5:19-387-DCR
(E.D. Ky.) to the Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of
Kentucky.  Judge Reeves says the case conceivably relates to
GenCanna's pending bankruptcy proceeding.

On Sept.  23, 2019, GenCanna filed suit in the District Court
against Jenco Industrial Sales & Services, LLC and Edward Sieja
based on their alleged failure to deliver equipment needed for the
plaintiff's CBD business. The defendants filed counterclaims
alleging that GenCanna breached the parties' agreement.

Approximately four months after the Complaint was filed, Jenco and
Sieja tendered a Suggestion of Bankruptcy and Notice of Automatic
Stay, indicating that GenCanna was the putative debtor in an
involuntary Chapter 11 case in the United States Bankruptcy Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky The defendants/counterclaim
plaintiffs advised the Court that they would not take further steps
in pursuing their civil claims against GenCanna at that time.
GenCanna agreed that the stay should apply to its claims against
Jenco and Sieja, and the matter was stayed for 90 days. The Court
subsequently granted the parties' request to extend the stay until
Sept. 18, 2020.

GenCanna has filed a motion to lift the stay and refer the matter
to the Bankruptcy Court.

GenCanna reported that it consented to the involuntary bankruptcy
petition in February 2020, and its debtors filed their own
voluntary chapter 11 petitions, which are being jointly
administered for procedural purposes by the bankruptcy court. It
suggested that this matter is related to the bankruptcy action
because it is working within the bankruptcy proceeding to assist
the buyer of its assets "with the orderly transition of the
ownership of the business and acquired assets." Further, after
consulting with the buyer, "the [d]ebtors have determined that it
is appropriate and in the interest of all parties and judicial
economy to seek to resolve this litigation in the context of the
[d]ebtors' Chapter 11 cases."

According to Judge Reeves, the defendants expressed skepticism that
GenCanna maintains the right to prosecute this action and/or that
GenCanna actually sold its causes of action to the buyer of its
assets. While these are issues of significant concern, the
defendants did not assert that the outcome of the proceeding could
not have an effect on the estate being administered in the
bankruptcy proceeding. Given the relatively low threshold for
relatedness and the defendant's failure to object to transfer, the
Court concluded that it is conceivable that the outcome of the
litigation could have some effect on the bankruptcy estate.
Accordingly, the matter was referred to Bankruptcy Court for the
Eastern District of Kentucky for further proceedings.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Order is available at
https://bit.ly/3kHhZcs from Leagle.com.

                     About GenCanna Global

GenCanna Global USA, Inc. -- https://www.gencanna.com/ -- is a
vertically-integrated producer of hemp and hemp-derived CBD
products with a focus on  delivering social, economic and
environmental impact through seed-to-scale agricultural
production.

GenCanna Global USA was the subject of an involuntary Chapter 11
proceeding (Bankr. E.D. Ky. Case No. 20-50133) filed on Jan. 24,
2020.  The involuntary petition was signed by alleged creditors
Pinnacle, Inc., Crawford Sales, Inc., and Integrity/Architecture,
PLLC.  

On Feb. 6, 2020, GenCanna Global USA consented to the involuntary
petition and on Feb. 5, 2020, two affiliates, GenCanna Global Inc.
and Hemp Kentucky LLC, filed their own voluntary Chapter 11
petitions.

Laura Day DelCotto, Esq., at DelCotto Law Group PLLC, represents
the petitioners.

The Debtors tapped Benesch Friedlander Coplan & Aronoff, LLP and
Dentons Bingham Greenebaum, LLP as legal counsel, Huron Consulting
Services, LLC as operational advisor, and Jefferies, LLC as
financial advisor.  Epiq is the claims agent, which maintains the
page https://dm.epiq11.com/GenCanna

The Office of the U.S. Trustee appointed a committee of unsecured
creditors on Feb. 18, 2020.  The committee tapped Foley & Lardner
LLP as its bankruptcy counsel, DelCotto Law Group PLLC as local
counsel, and GlassRatner Advisory & Capital Group, LLC as financial
advisor.

                         *     *     *

GenCanna won court approval to sell substantially all assets to
funds managed by its long-term investor, MGG Investment Group.
Following the sale GenCanna Global, Inc., was renamed to OGG, Inc.
and GenCanna Global USA, Inc., was renamed to OGGUSA, Inc.


GNC HOLDINGS: Posts $83.7M Net Loss for the Quarter Ended June 30
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GNC Holdings, Inc., filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q,
disclosing a net loss of $83,669,000 on $343,538,000 of revenue for
the three months ended June 30, 2020, compared to net income of
$16,058,000 on $533,997,000 of revenue for the same period in
2019.

At June 30, 2020, the Company had total assets of $1,243,062,000,
total liabilities of $1,511,387,000, and $479,720,000 in total
shareholders' deficit.

The Company said, "The Chapter 11 Cases and adverse impacts from
COVID-19 have deteriorated our operational results and cash flows
and may continue to do so in the future.  We have continued to
experience negative same store sales and declining gross profit.
We have closed underperforming stores under its store optimization
strategy and implemented cost reduction measures to help mitigate
the effect of these declines and improve its financial position and
liquidity.  These factors raise substantial doubt about our ability
to continue as a going concern."

A copy of the Form 10-Q is available at:

                       https://is.gd/j0Jnni

                       About GNC Holdings Inc.

GNC Holdings Inc. -- http://www.gnc.com/-- is a global health and
wellness brand with a diversified omni-channel business.  In its
stores and online, GNC Holdings sells an assortment of performance
and nutritional supplements, vitamins, herbs and greens, health and
beauty, food and drink, and other general merchandise, featuring
innovative private-label products as well as nationally recognized
third-party brands, many of which are exclusive to GNC Holdings.

GNC Holdings and its affiliates sought protection under Chapter 11
of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 20-11662) on
June 23, 2020. The Debtors disclosed $1,415,957,000 in assets and
$895,022,000 in liabilities as of March 31, 2020.

Judge Karen B. Owens oversees the cases.

The Debtors tapped Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP and Latham
& Watkins, LLP as legal counsel; Evercore Group, LLC as investment
banker and financial advisor; FTI Consulting, Inc., as financial
advisor; and Prime Clerk as claims and noticing agent. Torys LLP is
the legal counsel in the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act case.


GOOD HEMP: Posts $653,000 Net Loss for the Quarter Ended June 30
----------------------------------------------------------------
Good Hemp, Inc. filed its quarterly report on Form 10-Q, disclosing
a net loss of $652,671 on $210,903 of net sales for the three
months ended June 30, 2020, compared to a net loss of $34,084 on
$106,937 of net sales for the same period in 2019.

At June 30, 2020, the Company had total assets of $3,055,465, total
liabilities of $3,240,122, and $184,657 in total stockholders'
deficit.

The Company had a working capital deficit of $2,896,657 at June 30,
2020, and had a loss of $841,222 for the six months ended June 30,
2020, which raises substantial doubt as to the Company's ability to
continue as a going concern for a period of one year from the
issuance of these financial statements.

A copy of the Form 10-Q is available at:

                       https://is.gd/XSzsgx

Good Hemp, Inc., is a North Carolina based company that is made up
of industry veterans focused on exploiting niche markets in the
hemp industry.


HAROLD ROSBOTTOM: Ex-Wife's Fee Agreement Invalid, 5th Cir. Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Wiener, Weiss & Madison and Kantrow, Spaht, Weaver & Blitzer sued
Leslie Fox to enforce the terms of the parties' contingency fee
agreement. Fox argued that the agreement was unenforceable because,
among other things, it violated certain rules of professional
responsibility. The district court disagreed and granted summary
judgment in favor of the Firms.

Upon review, the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
found that the agreement violates Louisiana Rule of Professional
Conduct 1.8(a).  The Appeals Court thus vacated and remanded.

In 2009, four years after Fox filed for divorce from her husband,
Harold L. Rosbottom, Jr., the divorce court appointed a receiver to
assume control of the couple's community estate, which consisted
primarily of "state-licensed gaming enterprises" that operated in
Louisiana. Less than one hour after the appointment, Rosbottom
filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Western District of Louisiana, effectively transferring the
contested property division from Texas family court to federal
bankruptcy court.  So Fox engaged the Firms.

The Firms originally agreed to represent Fox in connection with the
bankruptcy cases and any and all matters related to those
bankruptcy cases at an hourly rate. But because her assets were
tied up in the bankruptcy proceedings, the Firms agreed to seek
their fees directly from the court, payable from the community
estate. On March 1, 2010, the Firms filed a "Substantial
Contributions Application," seeking more than $1.2 million in fees.
The bankruptcy court approved the application, and the Firms were
paid their $1.2 million, plus interest.

Because the Firms believed it was "highly unlikely" that the court
would approve another substantial contribution claim, but there was
work left to be done, the Firms and Fox entered into a contingency
fee agreement. The agreement assigned the Firms up to a 35%
interest in the gross proceeds (whether cash or property) that Fox
received for her claims against the bankruptcy estate and as an
equity owner of the bankruptcy estate of her husband.

By 2013, the Community Entities, whose assets had been depleted by
Rosbottom's mismanagement, were enjoying a positive cashflow and
had satisfied much of their debt. And on May 1, 2013, the
bankruptcy court approved a proposed Plan of Reorganization for the
Community Entities. The Plan granted Fox a 100% interest in ABC
Holding, LLC -- later renamed Louisiana Truck Stop and Gaming
(LTSG) -- a holding company comprised of the Community Entities.
However, Fox could not receive her entire interest until all
creditors were paid, Louisiana gaming authorities approved the
transfer, and Fox obtained a final, unappealable divorce decree and
community partition.

Following the Plan's approval, the Firms informed Fox their work
was complete and that, if Fox "wanted them to stay on," she had "to
increase the contingency percentage." The Firms then provided her
with a revised contingency agreement, which increased the Firms'
contingency fee to 40% of the gross proceeds, including her
proceeds as the full equity owner of LTSG, from the bankruptcy
proceedings. Fox agreed.

After the new agreement -- the 2013 CFA -- was signed, the Firms
worked to expedite the Plan's consummation, including by searching
for a lender to loan LTSG funds to pay the Community Entities'
remaining creditors. Business First Bank ultimately provided two
loans to LTSG, which Fox, exclusively, guaranteed.

In early 2016, before Fox received full ownership and control of
LTSG from the bankruptcy court, the Firms asked her to execute a
new agreement. Having determined that the 2013 CFA was "unwieldy
for LTSG as well as the [F]irms," and "convinced that it was not
the best approach for [Fox] or the companies," the Firms sought to
amend the 2013 CFA so that the "[F]irms receive 40% of any
distributions of property or cash that [Fox] receive[s] rather than
any outright ownership." Though they had not done so with the
previous agreements, the Firms recommended that Fox seek
independent legal advice about whether to execute this new, 11-page
contingency agreement. Fox did just that, and her independent
counsel advised against executing the revised agreement -- advice
Fox took.

Presumably (though the parties don't say exactly) relations soured
between Fox and the Firms after she declined to sign the revised
agreement, and the Firms eventually filed suit against Fox for
breach of contract and to enforce specific performance of the 2013
CFA. In the alternative, the Firms raised a quantum meruit claim.
Fox answered, in relevant part, that the Firms' claims are "barred
because their fee agreements violate the Louisiana Rules of
Professional Conduct" and "are void due to vagueness and
ambiguity."

The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment
concerning Fox's claim that the Firms' failure to comply with
Louisiana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8(a) invalidated the 2013
CFA as a matter of law. On March 20, 2018, the district court
granted partial summary judgment for the Firms, concluding that
Rule 1.8(a), which concerns entering into business transactions
with clients, did not apply to the 2013 CFA.

Two years later, the parties again filed cross-motions for summary
judgment, this time concerning whether the fee-agreement
modifications were "fair and reasonable" and whether the Firms' fee
was "reasonable" in compliance with Rule 1.5(a). The Firms also
moved to strike Fox's experts. The district court struck the
experts and again granted summary judgment in favor of the Firms.
Based on this ruling, the district court entered its final judgment
and ordered Fox "to specifically perform her obligations under the
[2013 CFA] . . . and pay all fees, costs, and expenses due to the
Firms."

In her appeal, Fox argued, among other things, that the Firms
failed to comply with Rule 1.8(a) of the Louisiana Rules of
Professional Conduct, invalidating the 2013 CFA.

The Firms argue -- and the district court concluded -- that the
2013 CFA was not a business transaction because it did not convey
an interest in property; it only provided the Firms a future claim
to 40% of the proceeds of the bankruptcy proceedings, to the extent
there were any. According to the Fifth Circuit, this strained
definition of "business transaction" deprives Rule 1.8(a) of its
very purpose and borders on (if not crosses over into) absurdity.
As members of this court have urged, Rule 1.8(a) exists to impose
"prohibitions and restrictions aimed at preventing . . . conflicts"
between the client's and the lawyer's own interests. And as the
Nevada Supreme Court ably explained, "[a] business transaction
occurs when an attorney places himself in a position wherein the
exercise of his professional judgment on behalf of his clients
would be affected by his own financial interest."

The Fifth Circuit stated that contrary to the Firms' suggestion
otherwise, it seems such potential conflicts are rarely more
present than during a contingency fee relationship where the
attorney seeks to gain a property interest in the client's business
at the end of the representation. At bottom, the risk of conflict,
and in turn the appearance of impropriety, is certainly no less
present where an attorney possesses a future interest in a client's
property as opposed to a present interest.

Louisiana has not squarely answered whether a contingency fee
agreement for an ownership interest in a client's company raises
Rule 1.8(a) concerns, but it has recognized that at least some
contingency fee agreements implicate the Rule, irrespective of the
fact that contingency fee agreements, by their nature, provide a
future interest. This conclusion alone belies the Firms' argument
that future interests cannot amount to business transactions.

And though few courts have addressed the exact question, those who
have expressly reject the Firms' argument. For instance, the
Eleventh Circuit determined that a contingency fee agreement
providing counsel stock in the client's corporation amounts to a
business transaction. The court reasoned that such an agreement
carries the risk that the attorney will overreach in advising his
client because of his own financial interests in the matter. The
Southern District of New York, the Western District of Kentucky,
and a California state court all reached the same result.
Similarly, the American Bar Association recognizes that a fee
arrangement that results in an attorney receiving stock in exchange
for his services is subject to Model Rule of Professional Conduct
1.8(a), a substantively identical rule to Louisiana's Rule 1.8(a).

The Fifth Circuit agreed with these courts that a contingency fee
arrangement resulting in an attorney owning part of the client's
business is a business transaction under Rule 1.8(a). Because the
terms of the 2013 CFA give the Firms an ownership interest in LTSG,
Rule 1.8(a) applies, and the Firms were required to advise Fox to
seek the advice of independent counsel. Fox did not have to take
this advice, but the Firms were obligated to give it. Thus, the
2013 CFA is void. To the extent the Firms seek to revert to the
original CFA, executed in 2010, it is likewise void for the same
reason.

The district court misapplied Louisiana Rule of Professional
Conduct 1.8(a), thus, the Fifth Circuit vacated the final judgment,
granted partial summary judgment in favor of Fox, and remanded to
the district court for consideration of the Firms' alternative
quantum meruit claim.

The appellate case is captioned Wiener, Weiss & Madison, A
Professional Corporation; Kantrow Spaht Weaver & Blitzer,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Leslie B. Fox, Defendant-Appellant, No.
19-30688 (5th Cir.).

A copy of the Court's Ruling is available at https://bit.ly/3hJA9YU
from Leagle.com.

                  About Harold L. Rosbottom

Harold L. Rosbottom, Jr., filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection (Bankr. W.D. La. Case No. 09-11674) on June 9, 2009,
estimating its assets at between $1 million and $10 million. The
petition was signed by Mr. Rosbottom, Jr. Patrick S. Garrity, Esq.,
who has an office in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, served as the Debtor's
bankruptcy counsel.


HELIUS MEDICAL: Posts $3.4-Mil. Net Loss for Quarter Ended June 30
------------------------------------------------------------------
Helius Medical Technologies, Inc., filed its quarterly report on
Form 10-Q, disclosing a net loss of $3,361,000 on $133,000 of total
operating revenue for the three months ended June 30, 2020,
compared to a net loss of $186,000 on $518,000 of total operating
revenue for the same period in 2019.

At June 30, 2020, the Company had total assets of $8,704,000, total
liabilities of $2,308,000, and $6,396,000 in total stockholders'
equity.

Helius Medical said, "As of June 30, 2020, the Company had cash of
$5.3 million.  For the six months ended June 30, 2020, the Company
had an operating loss of $7.7 million, and as of June 30, 2020, its
accumulated deficit was $112.9 million.  For the six months ended
June 30, 2020, the Company had $0.3 million of revenue from the
commercial sale of products or services.  The Company expects to
continue to incur operating losses and net cash outflows until such
time as it generates a level of revenue to support its cost
structure.  There is no assurance that the Company will achieve
profitable operations, and, if achieved, whether it will be
sustained on a continued basis.  These factors indicate substantial
doubt about the Company's ability to continue as a going concern
within one year after the date the financial statements are filed.
The Company's condensed consolidated financial statements have been
prepared on the basis of continuity of operations, realization of
assets and satisfaction of liabilities in the ordinary course of
business.

"The Company intends to fund ongoing activities by utilizing its
current cash on hand, cash received from the sale of its PoNS(TM)
device in Canada and by raising additional capital through equity
or debt financings.  There can be no assurance that the Company
will be successful in raising that additional capital or that such
capital, if available, will be on terms that are acceptable to the
Company.  If the Company is unable to raise sufficient additional
capital, the Company may be compelled to reduce the scope of its
operations and planned capital expenditures."

A copy of the Form 10-Q is available at:

                       https://is.gd/4OiauK

Helius Medical Technologies, Inc., a neurotechnology company,
focuses on developing, licensing, or acquiring noninvasive
technologies for the treatment of symptoms caused by neurological
disease or trauma. The company's product is Portable
Neuromodulation Stimulator, a medical device in Canada for the
treatment of chronic balance deficit associated with a mild to
moderate traumatic brain injury. Its PoNS device treats
neurostimulation of cranial nerves via the tongue to restore lost
function.  Helius Medical Technologies is headquartered in Newtown,
Pennsylvania.


HENRY FORD VILLAGE: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Debtor: Henry Ford Village, Inc.
        15101 Ford Road
        Dearborn, MI 48126

Business Description: Henry Ford Village, Inc. --
                      https://henryfordvillage.com -- is a not for
                      profit, non-stock corporation established to
                      operate a continuing care retirement
                      community located at 15101 Ford Road,
                      Dearborn, Michigan.  The Debtor provides
                      senior living services comprised of 853
                      independent living units, 96 assisted living

                      unites and 89 skilled nursing beds.

Chapter 11 Petition Date: October 28, 2020

Court: United States Bankruptcy Court
       Eastern District of Michigan

Case No.: 20-51066

Judge: Hon. Mark A. Randon

Debtor's Counsel: Sheryl Toby, Esq.
                  DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
                  39577 Woodward Avenue 300
                  Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
                  Tel: 248-203-0700
                  Email: stoby@dykema.com

Debtor's
Notice,
Claims &
Balloting
Agent:            KURTZMAN CARSON CONSULTANTS, LLC
                  https://www.kccllc.net/hfv/document/list/5397

Debtor's
Financial
Advisor:          FTI CONSULTING, INC.

Estimated Assets: $50 million to $100 million

Estimated Liabilities: $100 million to $500 million

The petition was signed by Chad Shandler, chief restructuring
officer.

A copy of the petition is available for free at PacerMonitor.com
at:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/NWKYEEY/Henry_Ford_Village_Inc__miebke-20-51066__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA

List of Debtor's 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors:

   Entity                          Nature of Claim    Claim Amount
   ------                          ---------------    ------------
1. Life Care Companies LLC            Contract          $2,791,048
Capital Square 400
Locust St
Suite 820
Des Moines, IA 50309 -2334
Attn: Richard L Funk
Tel: 314-200-8628
Email: funkrichard@lcsnet.com

2. Plumley Settlement               Class Action          $800,000
David Honigman (P33146)               Lawsuit
& Jonathan N. Ajlouny
(P82030)
1361 E. Big Beaver Road
Troy, MI 48083
Attn: Mantese Honigman, P.C.
Tel: 248-457-9200
Email: dhonigman@manteselaw.com;
jajlouny@manteselaw.com

3. One Care Pharmacy LLC           Contract/Trade         $742,924
1945 Heide Dr. Suite A
Troy, MI 48084
Attn: Pierre Boutros
Tel: 248-663-2273
Email: pboutros@onecareltc.com

4. Former Resident                  Entrance Fee          $307,778
Number 20242                      Refund Claimant
Redacted

5. Former Resident                  Entrance Fee          $307,000
Number 20276                      Refund Claimant
Redacted

6. Former Resident                  Entrance Fee          $244,000
Number 20494                      Refund Claimant
Redacted

7. Former Resident                  Entrance Fee          $239,000
Number 20059                      Refund Claimant
Redacted

8. Former Resident                  Entrance Fee          $236,000
Number 20453                      Refund Claimant
Redacted

9. Former Resident                  Entrance Fee          $234,950
Number 20325                      Refund Claimant
Redacted

10. Former Resident                 Entrance Fee          $225,000
Number 20191                      Refund Claimant
Redacted

11. Former Resident                 Entrance Fee          $221,568
Number 20501                      Refund Claimant
Redacted

12. Former Resident                 Entrance Fee          $221,000
Number 20440                      Refund Claimant
Redacted

13. Former Resident                 Entrance Fee          $219,000
Number 20496                      Refund Claimant
Redacted

14. Former Resident                 Entrance Fee          $217,076
Number 20208                      Refund Claimant
Redacted

15. Former Resident                 Entrance Fee          $216,000
Number 20045                      Refund Claimant
Redacted

16. Former Resident                 Entrance Fee          $214,702
Number 20571                      Refund Claimant
Redacted

17. Former Resident                 Entrance Fee          $212,851
Number 20174                      Refund Claimant
Redacted

18. Former Resident                 Entrance Fee          $207,509
Number 20197                      Refund Claimant
Redacted

19. Former Resident                 Entrance Fee          $206,453
Number 20175                      Refund Claimant
Redacted

20. Former Resident                 Entrance Fee          $203,000
Number 20459                      Refund Claimant
Redacted


HERTZ GLOBAL: Creditors Question Proposed $1.65B Bankruptcy Loan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Chutchian of Reuters reports that Hertz junior creditors are
questioning the car rental company's proposed $1.65 billion
bankruptcy loan, saying the terms of the deal are overly beneficial
to lenders and that a competing offer may be on the table in the
next few days.

The company's unsecured creditors' committee, represented by Kramer
Levin Naftalis & Frankel, raised its objections in court papers
filed on Friday, October 23, 2020, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the District of Delaware. Hertz's request for the loan comes five
months into its Chapter 11 case, which it filed with $19 billion in
debt as travel demand plummeted amid the COVID-19 pandemic.

                        About Hertz Corp.

Hertz Corp. and its subsidiaries -- http://www.hertz.com/--
operate a worldwide vehicle rental business under the Hertz,
Dollar, and Thrifty brands, with car rental locations in North
America, Europe, Latin America, Africa, Asia, Australia, the
Caribbean, the Middle East, and New Zealand.  The Company also
operates a vehicle leasing and fleet management solutions
business.

On May 22, 2020, The Hertz Corporation  and certain of its U.S. and
Canadian subsidiaries and affiliates filed voluntary petitions for
reorganization under Chapter 11 in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
(Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 20-11218).

The Hon. Mary F. Walrath is the presiding judge.

White & Case LLP is serving as legal advisor, Moelis & Co. is
serving as investment banker, and FTI Consulting is serving as
financial advisor. Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., is the local
counsel. Prime Clerk LLC is the claims agent, maintaining the page
https://restructuring.primeclerk.com/hertz


HIGHLAND CAPITAL: Need to Change Bankruptcy Plan to Solicit Votes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wolf of Bloomberg Law reports that Highland Capital Management
LP must make changes to its reorganization plan before the bankrupt
alternative investment firm can distribute the plan to creditors
for a vote, a judge ruled.

The Dallas-based company needs to specify the mechanics of the
Chapter 11 plan's proposed litigation releases as they relate to
the employees and claims affected, Judge Stacey Jernigan of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas said at a
hearing Tuesday, October 27, 2020.

The current drafting is "completely unworkable," Jernigan said,
upholding an objection from the committee of unsecured creditors.

                  About Highland Capital Management

Highland Capital Management LP was founded by James Dondero and
Mark Okada in Dallas in 1993. Highland Capital is the world's
largest non-bank buyer of leveraged loans in 2007. It also manages
collateralized loan obligations. In March 2007, it raised $1
billion to buy distressed loans. Collateralized loan obligations
are created by bundling together loans and repackaging them into
new securities.

Highland Capital Management, L.P., sought Chapter 11 protection
(Bank. D. Del. Case No. 19-12239) on Oct. 16, 2019. Highland was
estimated to have $100 million to $500 million in assets and
liabilities as of the bankruptcy filing.  

On Dec. 4, 2019, the case was transferred to the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Northern District of Texas and was assigned a new
case number (Bank. N.D. Tex. Case No. 19-34054).

Judge Stacey G. C. Jernigan is the case judge. The Debtor's counsel
is James E, O'Neill, Esq., at Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP.
Foley & Lardner LLP, as special Texas counsel. Kurtzman Carson
Consultants LLC is the claims and noticing agent. Development
Specialists Inc. CEO Bradley Sharp as a financial adviser and
restructuring officer.

The Office of the U.S. Trustee appointed a committee of unsecured
creditors on Oct. 29, 2019. The committee tapped Sidley Austin LLP
as bankruptcy counsel; Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP as
co-counsel with Sidley Austin; and FTI Consulting, Inc. as
financial advisor.


HORNBECK OFFSHORE: Emerges From Prepackaged Bankruptcy
------------------------------------------------------
Maritime Executive reports that OSV operator Hornbeck Offshore has
emerged from a prepackaged Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding,
shedding or reconfiguring all of its preexisting debt. From the
first filing to exit, the process took less than four months.

All of the firm's trade creditors and vendors have been paid in
full, Hornbeck said, and all debtor-in-possession financing has
been converted into a new senior secured loan. All of the firm's
preexisting secured loans and unsecured senior bond notes have been
canceled for a combination of new secured debt, new equity and new
equity warrants or cash. Hornbeck's preexisting shareholders have
lost all equity interest.

In addition, Hornbeck closed on a rights offering that gives it
$100 million in new equity capital, with participation led by Ares
Management, Whitebox Advisors and Highbridge.

"The quick completion of our reorganization and emergence from
Chapter 11 is a significant achievement, particularly given the
currently very challenging economic environment," said Todd M.
Hornbeck, chairman, president and CEO of Hornbeck Offshore
Services. "I want to thank our employees, customers, vendors,
lenders and note holders for their steadfast support, which allowed
us to maintain normal operations during this process. We will now
go forward with a stronger financial foundation and are well
positioned for long-term success."

The firm also has a new board. Founder Larry D. Hornbeck has been
named chairman emeritus, and Todd Hornbeck has taken the top post
as chairman. Other new members include former Louisiana Governor
Bobby Jindal, former chief of naval operations Adm. John Richardson
(USN, ret'd) and former Tidewater CEO John T. Rynd.

The offshore sector has been deeply affected by a soft,
oversupplied market for the past five years. Many of the largest
operators have filed for bankruptcy, including Bourbon, Gulfmark,
Tidewater, Hermitage, Harvey Gulf and Toisa, shedding debt or
preparing for consolidation.

                 About Hornbeck Offshore Services

Hornbeck Offshore Services, Inc. provides marine transportation
services to exploration and production, oilfield service, offshore
construction and U.S. military customers. Hornbeck and its
affiliates were incorporated in 1997 and are headquartered in
Covington, La.

On May 19, 2020, Hornbeck Offshore Services and its affiliates
sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Lead Case No.
20-32679). Hornbeck Offshore disclosed total assets of
$2,691,806,000 and total liabilities of $1,493,912,000 as of Sept.
30, 2019.

The Hon. David R. Jones is the case judge.

The Debtors tapped Kirkland & Ellis, LLP as general bankruptcy
counsel; Winstead PC as co-counsel; Guggenheim Securities, LLC as
financial advisor; and Portage Point Partners, LLC as restructuring
advisor.  Stretto is the claims agent.


I-LOGIC TECHNOLOGIES: S&P Assigns 'B' Issue-Level Ratings
---------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings affirmed its 'B' issuer credit rating on
U.K.–based Dealogic and assigned its 'B' issue-level ratings to
I-Logic Technologies BidCo Ltd., the borrower of the company's
proposed first-lien senior secured credit facility, which includes
a $20 million revolver maturing 2027 and a $1.85 billion term loan
B maturing 2027. The '3' recovery rating indicated S&P's
expectation of meaningful recovery (50%-70%; rounded estimate:
60%).

Dealogic is combining with U.K.-based financial content provider,
Acuris, forming ION Analytics, which combines the strengths of
capital markets data, content, and intelligence. Both entities are
portfolio holdings of ION Investment Group (IIG) since 2017 and
2019, respectively. ION Analytics will have revenues of about $500
million and S&P Global Ratings—adjusted EBITDA of about $250
million-$275 million for fiscal year 2021.

S&P said, "Our ratings affirmation reflects our positive view of
the Acuris acquisition, and our expectation for good cash flow
generation over the next 12 months as the combined company benefits
from the improved product portfolio and ION Analytics expertise in
business and digital transformation. The acquisition reduces
I-logics historical customer concentration, improves its revenue
scale, but more importantly extends its coverage beyond investment
banking deal origination, strategy, and distribution to new areas
such as fixed-income content and research, mergers and acquisitions
(M&A) transaction, event-driven trading strategies and regulatory
and compliance solutions such as know your customer (KYC). The
acquisition provides ION Analytics the ability to provide its
various user communities with a more comprehensive view of the
capital markets, and modern technology driven decision-making
capabilities. In our opinion, it will allow the company to more
effectively compete with much larger and better capitalized
financial services information services competitors such as
Bloomberg, Factset, or IHS Markit (Ipreo) and emerging
financial-technology (fintech) data and analytics companies.
Nevertheless, we continue to view ION Analytics has having a
relatively small revenue scale and narrow market focus."

"We view the company's unique data sets and information technology
development and lean management technical know-how as an important
factor in facilitating the Acuris integration and ION Analytics
future growth. Furthermore, ION Analytics has demonstrated solid
operating performance following its leveraged buyout (LBO) by ION
Investment Group in December 2017 and we expect the company to
demonstrate the same execution expertise as it integrates Acuris.
As of June 30, 2020, adjusted leverage has declined to the mid-6x
area, from 10x following the acquisition, and EBITDA margins, which
we view as industry leading, have grown an impressive 500 basis
points to the mid 40% range. Over this time period, the company
completed a fundamental reorganization of its business (e.g.,
significant headcount reductions, office consolidation, sales force
and technology development reengineering, and cost cuts) while it
maintained its high renewal rates and good revenue growth despite
market volatility."

S&P's rating on ION Analytics reflects the following key risks and
strengths.

Key credit risks:

-- High debt tolerance and financial-sponsor control will likely
result in adjusted leverage being sustained above 7x.

-- Execution risk integrating the larger Acuris business and
achieving its aggressive cost-reduction program, despite its good
track record of implementing aspirational business transformation
and cost-cutting initiatives.

-- Niche software and information services company facing stiff
competition from much larger or better capitalized competitors such
as Bloomberg, Factset, or IHS Markit (Ipreo).

-- Significant end-market exposure to the financial services
sector.

Key credit strengths:

-- The Acuris acquisition reduces customer concentration and
improves the company's access to unique multi-asset-class data
sets.

-- High revenue visibility resulting from its high 91% recurring
subscription-based revenue profile and 95% customer retention
rate.

-- Above-average profit margins and good cash conversion.

-- Well-established portfolio of global brands.

However, I-Logic's debt burden will likely remain high for the 'B'
rating as it pursues its growth and shareholder return objectives.


S&P said, "Our assessment of ION Analytics' reflects its high
financial sponsor risk tolerance and pro forma starting adjusted
leverage over 12x as of June 30, 2020. Given the company's
financial policy track record since the 2017 LBO we expect leverage
to be sustained in the 7x-8x range as the company continues to grow
both revenue and EBITDA and returns capital to its shareholders. We
note that leverage above 7x is often indicative of a lower issuer
rating; however, ION Analytics' solid revenue visibility and growth
prospects, high EBITDA margins, and good free cash conversion
result in payback credit measures--such as FOCF to debt of more
than 5% through 2022 support our rating."

Additionally, I-Logic's ambitious cost cutting measures might prove
to be difficult to sustain over the longer term.

S&P said, "We view the company's acquisition integration risk as
high, given Acuris' larger revenue scale and broader end-market.
Acuris' greater reliance on specialist reporters and analysts and
its multi-line product portfolio addresses the needs of various
user communities. Accordingly, we believe missteps as the company
implements its significant cost-cutting initiatives to streamline
its business workflow could potentially hurt quality."

"The stable outlook reflects our view that the company will
demonstrate solid operating performance, high renewal rates, and
cash synergies realization over the next 6-18 months leading to
low- to mid-single-digit organic revenue growth and EBITDA margins
expanding from the high-40% to mid-50% range. This results in
leverage falling comfortably below the 8x area and FOCF to debt
improving to the mid- to high-single-digit area by year-end 2021."

S&P could lower its ratings if:

-- S&P expects adjusted leverage to remain above 8x, or

-- The FOCF-to-debt ratio approached the low- to mid-single-digit
percent area.

This could occur if the company has difficulty integrating the
businesses, a slower-than-expected realization of synergies, or
pursued debt-financed dividends or acquisitions. S&P could also
lower its rating if ION Analytics experienced a spike in customer
attrition or a decline in EBITDA margins as a result of increased
competition.

S&P could raise its ratings if the company reduced its leverage
below 5x on a sustained basis, with FOCF to debt greater than 10%.
However, S&P believes this is unlikely given its financial-sponsor
ownership and the associated releveraging risk.


IDEANOMICS INC: Invests in Calif.-based e-Tractor Company, Solectra
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ideanomics Inc. has acquired 15% of California-based Solectrac,
Inc. for the consideration of $1.3 million.  Solectrac develops,
assembles and distributes 100% battery-powered electric
tractors—an alternative to diesel tractors—for agriculture and
utility operations.  With this investment in Solectrac, Ideanomics
expands its global footprint in the electric vehicle (EV) industry,
specifically in the category of specialty commercial vehicles.
This investment marks its first in an existing US-based OEM, and
Ideanomics will assume a seat on Solectrac's Board of Directors.

"We are very impressed with Steve Heckeroth, CEO, his team, and
their deep knowledge of the agricultural sector.  We have been
interested in this industry for some time because we knew EVs could
have an immediate impact without the need for extensive
infrastructure," says Alf Poor, CEO of Ideanomics.  "Solectrac is a
pioneer in the electric tractor market and shares our motivation
and passion for a cleaner tomorrow."

According to Research And Markets, the global agricultural tractor
market is currently valued at $75 billion, with the North American
agricultural tractor market expected to reach $20 billion by 2023.
The largest segment for agricultural tractors is the below-40HP
segment, where Solectrac's initial three models address the broad
needs of the market.  Its tractors are specifically designed to
serve the needs of community-based farms, vineyards, orchards,
equestrian arenas, greenhouses, and hobby farms.

"With our zero-emission electric tractors, tractor operators don't
have to choose between power and environmentally friendly
practices," says Steve Heckeroth, CEO and founder of Solectrac and
visionary in the renewable energy and EV industry.  "My life's work
has been dedicated to creating clean, renewable alternatives to
fossil fuels.  Now -- with Ideanomics and the company's unique
experience and industry perspective -- we are well-positioned to
achieve these goals."

Founded in 2012 to take small, farm-electric tractors into
commercial production, Solectrac was incorporated as a California
Benefit Corp in 2019.  It has received grants from the Indian U.S.
Science and Technology Fund (IUSSTF) and the National Science
Foundation (NSF).  Earlier this year, Solectrac received the World
Alliance Solar Impulse Efficient Solutions label from the Solar
Impulse Foundation.  The label was awarded for being one of the one
thousand most efficient and profitable solutions that can
transition society to being economically viable while being
environmentally sustainable.

                           About Ideanomics

Headquartered in New York, NY, with offices in Beijing and Qingdao,
China, Ideanomics is a global company focused on facilitating the
adoption of commercial electric vehicles and developing next
generation financial services and Fintech products.  Its electric
vehicle division, Mobile Energy Global (MEG) provides group
purchasing discounts on commercial electric vehicles, EV batteries
and electricity as well as financing and charging solutions.
Ideanomics Capital includes DBOT ATS and Intelligenta which provide
innovative financial services solutions powered by AI and
blockchain. MEG and Ideanomics Capital provide its global customers
and partners with better efficiencies and technologies and greater
access to global markets.

Ideanomics reported a net loss of $96.83 million for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2019, compared to a net loss of $28.42 million for the
year ended Dec. 31, 2018.  As of June 30, 2020, the Company had
$147.99 million in total assets, $56.12 million in total
liabilities, $1.26 million in convertible redeemable preferred
stock, $7.26 million in redeemable non-controlling interest, and
$83.35 million in total equity.

B F Borgers CPA PC, in Lakewood, Colorado, the Company's auditor
since 2018, issued a "going concern" qualification in its report
dated March 16, 2020, citing that the Company incurred recurring
losses from operations, has net current liabilities and an
accumulated deficit that raise substantial doubt about its ability
to continue as a going concern.


IMERYS TALC: Creditors Flagged Bankruptcy Disclosures as Deficient
------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Gill of Bloomberg Law reports that the creditors,
co-defendants and insurers object to its bankruptcy disclosures
saying explanations inadequate and vague.

Imerys Talc America Inc. is meeting the same objections to its
bankruptcy plan disclosures that it faced in three prior
iterations.

The disclosure statement, which should give voting creditors
adequate information to decide whether to support a proposed plan,
is utterly lacking, according to seven objections filed Monday and
Tuesday, October 27, 2020, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
District of Delaware.

Among the objectors is Johnson & Johnson, a co-defendant in
thousands of cases brought by users of the corporate giant's talcum
powder products who claim asbestos-related injuries.

                    About Imerys Talc America

Imerys Talc and its subsidiaries --
https://www.imerys-performance-additives.com/ -- are in the
business of mining, processing, selling, and distributing talc.
Talc is a hydrated magnesium silicate that is used in the
manufacturing of dozens of products in a variety of sectors,
including coatings, rubber, paper, polymers, cosmetics, food, and
pharmaceuticals. Its talc operations include talc mines, plants,
and distribution facilities located in: Montana (Yellowstone,
Sappington, and Three Forks); Vermont (Argonaut and Ludlow); Texas
(Houston); and Ontario, Canada (Timmins, Penhorwood, and Foleyet).
It also utilizes offices located in San Jose, California and
Roswell, Georgia.

Imerys Talc America, Inc., and two subsidiaries, namely Imerys Talc
Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada Inc., sought Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 19-10289) on Feb. 13,
2019.

The Debtors were estimated to have $100 million to $500 million in
assets and $50 million to $100 million in liabilities as of the
bankruptcy filing.

The Hon. Laurie Selber Silverstein is the case judge.

The Debtors tapped Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., and Latham &
Watkins LLP as counsel; Alvarez & Marsal North America, LLC as
financial advisor; and Prime Clerk LLC as claims agent.


INTELSAT SA: Taps Deloitte FAS to Provide Accounting Services
-------------------------------------------------------------
Intelsat S.A. and its debtor affiliates seek approval from the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to employ
Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP (Deloitte FAS) as their
fresh start accounting services provider.

The firm will render these fresh start accounting services to the
Debtors:

     (a) Planning for Fresh Start Accounting. Deloitte FAS will
assist the Debtors' management in its development of an
implementation approach for fresh start accounting, which includes
any necessary training support and culminates in a strategy and
work plan for the project. Deloitte FAS will advise and provide
recommendations to management in connection with its determination
of any plan of reorganization (POR) adjustments necessary to record
the impact of the POR to the books of entry of the appropriate
legal entities. Deloitte FAS will also assist management in its
determination of asset and liability fair values and other fresh
start adjustments as necessary to comply with the accounting and
reporting requirements of Accounting Standards Codification 852,
Reorganizations, which will be coordinated among bankruptcy,
accounting, tax and valuation specialists.

     (b) Other Related Advice and Assistance with Accounting and
Financial Reporting. Deloitte FAS will advise the Debtors'
management as it prepares accounting information and disclosures in
support of public and/or private financial filings, such as 10-K or
10-Q's or lender statements. Deloitte FAS will also assist the
Debtors' management with other valuation matters as it deems
necessary for financial reporting disclosures. Deloitte FAS will
advise the Debtors' management as it evaluates existing internal
controls and/or develops new controls for fresh start accounting
implementation, and will assist management with its responses to
questions or other requests from the Debtors' external auditors
regarding bankruptcy accounting and reporting matters.

     (c) Application Support. Deloitte FAS will assist the Debtors'
management in its preparation and implementation of the accounting
treatments and systems updates for its fresh start accounting
implementation as of the fresh start reporting date.

     (d) Valuation Services. Deloitte FAS will assist the Debtors
by providing observations, advice, and recommendations to assist
management with its identification of tangible and intangible
assets, as well as liabilities to be revalued at their fair value
for fresh start accounting purposes. Deloitte FAS will also provide
observations and recommendations regarding fair value estimates or
other valuations performed by others, if any, and assist management
in identifying additional efforts required to address open items.
Deloitte FAS will provide advice and recommendations to assist
management to estimate the fair value of specific assets,
liabilities, reporting units, and legal entities as identified by
management, and coordinate valuation information for auditor
review. Deloitte FAS will advise management as it addresses
company-specific issues surrounding value allocation to specific
assets, legal entities, cost centers, operating segments and/or
reporting units, and will provide advice and recommendations to
assist the Debtors with their financial reporting activities
related to any interim impairment testing for long-lived and/or
indefinite-lived assets.

Under the Engagement Letter, Deloitte FAS will be assisted by
certain of its affiliates as necessary, including Deloitte
Consulting LLP, Deloitte Tax LLP, and Deloitte & Touche LLP.

Deloitte FAS' hourly rates are as follows:

     Partner/Principal/Managing Director      $725 - $970
     Senior Manager/Senior Vice President     $650 - $690
     Manager/Vice President                          $550
     Senior Associate                         $400 - $485
     Associate                                $290 - $390

In the event that any valuation services are needed, Deloitte Tax
will charge the Debtors for such services at the hourly rates
below:

     Partner/Principal/Managing Director      $510 - $590
     Senior Manager                           $480 - $530
     Manager                                  $450 - $500
     Senior Associate                         $400 - $445
     Associate                                $290 - $390

In addition, Deloitte FAS will seek reimbursement for anu
reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in connection with these
Chapter 11 cases.

Prior to the Petition Date, Deloitte Tax LLP provided professional
services to the Debtors and received approximately $1,480,500 for
services performed. As of the Petition Date, approximately $244,525
was outstanding with respect to the invoices issued by Deloitte Tax
to the Debtors and $129,966 of the retainer amounts remained
outstanding as of such date. On May 14, 2020, the Debtors paid
Deloitte Tax $75,000 on account of a prepetition retainer invoice
issued by Deloitte Tax, which the firm will apply to fees for
post-petition services.

Michael C. Sullivan, a managing director of the firm of Deloitte
Financial Advisory Services LLP, disclosed in court filings that
the firm is a "disinterested person" as that term is defined in
section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code, as modified by section
1107(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     Michael C. Sullivan
     DELOITTE FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES LLP
     100 Kimball Drive
     Parsippany, NJ 07054
     Telephone: (347) 899-6036
     E-mail: michsullivan@deloitte.com

About Intelsat

Intelsat S.A. -- www.intelsat.com -- is a publicly held operator of
satellite services businesses, which provides a diverse array of
communications services to a wide variety of clients, including
media companies, telecommunication operators, internet service
providers, and data networking service providers. The Company is
also a provider of commercial satellite communication services to
the U.S. government and other select military organizations and
their contractors. The Company's administrative headquarters are in
McLean, Virginia, and the Company has extensive operations spanning
across the United States, Europe, South America, Africa, the Middle
East, and Asia.

Intelsat S.A. and its debtor affiliates concurrently filed
voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy
Code (Bankr. E.D. Va. Lead Case No. 20-32299) on May 13, 2020. The
petitions were signed by David Tolley, executive vice president,
chief financial officer, and co-chief restructuring officer. At the
time of the filing, the Debtors disclosed total assets of
$11,651,558,000 and total liabilities of $16,805,844,000 as of
April 1, 2020.  

Judge Keith L. Phillips oversees the cases. The Debtors tapped
Kirkland & Ellis LLP and Kutak Rock LLP as legal counsel; Alvarez &
Marsal North America, LLC as restructuring advisor; PJT Partners LP
as financial advisor & investment banker; Deloitte LLP as tax
advisor; and Deloitte Financial Advisory Services LLP as fresh
start accounting services provider. Stretto is the claims and
noticing agent.

The Office of the U.S. Trustee appointed a committee of unsecured
creditors on May 27, 2020. The committee tapped Milbank LLP and
Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP as legal counsel; FTI Consulting, Inc. as
financial advisor; Moelis & Company LLC as investment banker; Bonn
Steichen & Partners as special counsel; and Prime Clerk LLC as
information agent.


INTERSTATE COMMODITIES: NSC Minerals Buying 45 Railcars for $225K
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Interstate Commodities, Inc. asks the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
Northern District of New York to authorize the private sale of
interests in 45 railcars to NSC Minerals, Ltd. for $225,000.

The Debtor intends to file a Plan of Liquidation that provides for
the continued selling or otherwise monetizing its assets through
the protections offered by the Bankruptcy Code.  It proposes a
private sale of the Railcars due to a unique circumstance.  The
Property is currently held by the Purchaser which will either
purchase or insist on the Debtor taking back the Railcars.

The Debtor had a longstanding relationship with the parent company
of NSC.  When NSC was looking to lease railcars, the Debtor shipped
NSC the cars and expected the leases to be finalized.  Some of the
cars received by NSC were in need of repair and were rejected
without providing the Debtor with an opportunity to repair or
replace them with other cars.  The lease with NSC was not
consummated and the Debtor's railcars were already at NSC.  The
Debtor expected to receive lease payments for the cars and NSC
wanted the Debtor to remove the cars or pay freight and storage
charges.  These issues were never resolved and the railcars remain
in Canada.

The proposed sale of the 45 railcars to NSC resolves all of the
issues between NSC and the Debtor while allowing the Debtor to
recover fair value for the sale of the cars.  If the Debtor was to
try to auction the cars, it would likely have to have them moved to
the United States.  In addition, the state of disrepair may affect
the net prices obtained at auction, and the Debtor will also save
auctioneer's commissions.  For these reasons, the Debtor asks
approval of the sale of these 45 railcars through a private sale.

The sale will be in "As Is" "'here Is" without any representation
or warranties of any kind, free and clear of all Liens, with such
Liens to attach to the proceeds of the Sale.

The Debtor expects that the proposed private sale will provide a
fair and expeditious process to maximize the value of the Railcars
for the benefit of creditors and the Debtor.  It had extensive
expertise in the marketing and sale of Railcars prior to the filing
of the case.

A copy of the Agreement is available at https://tinyurl.com/y6ckwmf
from PacerMonitor.com free of charge.

                   About Interstate Commodities

Interstate Commodities Inc. engages in the merchandise of
commodities.  It offers whole corn, soybean meal, soybeans, soy
hulls, soyhull pellets, corn gluten meal, canola meal, sunflower
meal, beet pulp pellets, citrus pulp pellets, and wheat.

Interstate Commodities filed a voluntary petition for relief under
chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. Case No.
20-11139 on Aug. 26, 2020.  The petition was signed by Michael G.
Piazza, chief operating officer.  At the time of filing, the Debtor
disclosed $12,558,336 in assets and $25,513,305 in liabilities.
Gerard R. Luckman, Esq., at FORCHELLI DEEGAN TERRANA LLP, is the
Debtor's counsel.


J GROUP LLC: Case Summary & 2 Unsecured Creditors
-------------------------------------------------
Debtor: J Group LLC
        4370 West Round Lake Road
        Arden Hills, MN 55112

Business Description: J Group LLC is primarily engaged in renting
                      and leasing real estate properties.  The
                      Company is the owner of fee simple title
                      to a property commonly known as 317 S
                      Main Street, Stillwater, MN.

Chapter 11 Petition Date: October 27, 2020

Court: United States Bankruptcy Court
       District of Minnesota

Case No.: 20-32511

Judge: Hon. Kathleen H. Sanberg

Debtor's Counsel: John D. Lamey III, Esq.
                  LAMEY LAW FIRM, P.A.
                  980 Inwood Ave N
                  Oakdale, MN 55128-7094
                  Tel: 651-209-3550
                  Email: jlamey@lameylaw.com

Total Assets: $2,044,810

Total Liabilities: $1,113,734

The petition was signed by John Koch, chief manager.

A copy of the petition containing, among other items, a list of the
Debtor's two unsecured creditors is available for free at
PacerMonitor.com at:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/2PPVFWQ/J_GROUP_LLC__mnbke-20-32511__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA


JACK COOPER: Court Declines Bid to Alter July 8 Dismissal Order
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SHAWN ABERCROMBIE, Plaintiff, v. JACK COOPER
TRANSPORT CO., INC., Defendant, Civil No. 1:19cv503 (N.D. Ind.),
District Judge William C. Lee denied the Defendant's motion to
alter or amend the July 8, 2020 judgment granting the Defendant's
bid to dismiss the suit.

Jack Cooper filed the motion to dismiss on June 4, 2020, asserting
that (a) Plaintiff alleged claims for employment discrimination
arising out of his employment with the Defendant from October 2018
to March 2019; (b) the Defendant filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy
petition in August 2019, and Plaintiff did not file the lawsuit
until late November 2019; and (c) Plaintiff's claims against
Defendant were therefore discharged as a result of the bankruptcy,
such that Plaintiff's Complaint failed to state a viable claim for
relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

On July 8, 2020, the Court granted the Defendant's Motion to
Dismiss, finding that "Plaintiff's claims were discharged in the
bankruptcy." The Court entered judgment in favor of the Defendant.

The Defendant filed a Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment to
correct an erroneous statement in Defendant's Motion to Dismiss,
namely, that Plaintiff's claims were discharged as a result of the
bankruptcy, when in fact they were invalid and/or voidable as a
result of the bankruptcy.

As stated in the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, on August 6, 2019,
Jack Cooper Ventures, Inc., and all of its U.S. and Canadian direct
and indirect subsidiaries, including Defendant, voluntarily filed
Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions in the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Northern District of Georgia, Atlanta Division. The
Bankruptcy Court approved the sale by auction of all of the
Debtors' assets (including the Defendant's) in an order dated Sept.
3, 2019, and the sale closed on Nov. 4, 2019, with an effective
closing date of Nov. 2, 2019. After the sale, Defendant had no
assets, and the Chapter 11 cases were subsequently dismissed.

Pursuant to Section 1141(d)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code, a corporate
debtor in a Chapter 11 case may not receive a discharge of debts,
only an individual may. 11 U.S.C. section 1141(d)(3). However, as
the Defendant explained, Plaintiff's lawsuit was nevertheless filed
in violation of the stay, such that it is voidable or invalid. The
Defendant further explained that, although the Defendant's Motion
to Dismiss characterized Plaintiff's claims as being discharged as
a result of the bankruptcy, when in fact they were invalid and/or
voidable as a result of the bankruptcy, this erroneous statement
had no real impact on the ultimate outcome of the lawsuit, and
dismissal was nevertheless appropriate.

Judge Lee stated that the Defendant's motion is improper. The
Judgment merely recited that "This case is dismissed", and that
"This action was decided by Judge William C. Lee on a Motion to
Dismiss by Defendant." The Defendant has not pointed to any error
of fact or law in the Judgment. Therefore, Judge Lee denied
Defendant's motion to alter or amend the judgment is as moot.

A copy of the Court's Order and Opinion is available at
https://bit.ly/32VRxFC from Leagle.com.

                   About Jack Cooper Ventures

Jack Cooper Ventures, Inc., was a specialty transportation and
other logistics provider and one of the largest over-the-road
finished vehicle logistics companies in North America.

Jack Cooper Ventures and 18 affiliates and subsidiaries sought
Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. N.D. Ga. Lead Case No. 19-62393). The
Hon. Paul W. Bonapfel is the case judge.

Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP and King & Spalding
LLP served as legal counsel to Jack Cooper, Houlihan Lokey, Inc.,
served as investment banker and financial advisor, and AlixPartners
LLP as restructuring advisor. The Debtors tapped Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., as labor counsel, and Osler, Hoskin &
Harcourt LLP, as Canadian restructuring counsel. Prime Clerk LLC
served as claims agent.

On August 19, 2019, the U.S. Trustee for Region 21 appointed the
Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors.  The Committee retained
Scroggins & Williamson, P.C., as counsel, Sidley Austin LLP, as
co-counsel, and FTI Consulting, Inc., as financial advisor.

The Bankruptcy Court approved the sale by auction of all of the
Debtors' assets in an order dated Sept. 3, 2019, and the sale
closed on Nov. 4, 2019, with an effective closing date of Nov. 2,
2019. After the sale, the Debtors had no assets, and the Chapter 11
cases were subsequently dismissed.


JAMES HARDIE: S&P Alters Outlook to Stable, Affirms 'BB' ICR
------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings revised its outlook on James Hardie
International Group Ltd. to stable from negative and affirmed its
'BB' issuer credit rating.

The stable outlook reflects S&P's view that steady demand
conditions will enable James Hardie to sustain adjusted leverage of
about 3x over the next 12 months.

S&P said, "Resilient demand for new residential construction and
increased repair and remodeling spending will support a stronger
recovery and faster growth than we previously expected. We now
expect James Hardie to report a slight 1%-3% increase in its
revenue for fiscal 2021, ending Mar. 31, 2021 and EBITDA of between
$625 million and $675 million. This compares with our previous
forecast in spring 2020, when the COVID-19 related lockdowns began,
for a 15% drop in its revenue and EBITDA of about $470 million.
While the company's sales initially declined at the onset of the
COVID-19 pandemic in the U.S. in April, its performance has
steadily recovered since on improved demand from homebuilders and
contractors. Low mortgage rates and rising demand for more spacious
suburban homes have been the primary impetus for the increased
level of new residential construction. Similarly, the diversion of
consumer spending toward home improvements has fueled the elevated
demand in the repair and remodeling markets. The performances of
the company's foreign operations in Europe and the Asia-Pacific
region have also rebounded. In the company's fiscal first quarter,
its European and Asia-Pacific net sales were down 10% and 12%,
respectively, compared with last year. However, we now expect its
net sales in both segments to increase by 5%-10% in its fiscal
second quarter due to volume growth and sustained price increases.
In addition, we expect these positive trends to continue to support
its results for the rest of the year."

"We expect James Hardie's adjusted leverage to be about 3x over the
next 12 months, which compares with prior expectation of 4x and
above. We expect the company to maintain leverage in the 2.5x-3.0x
range as of the end of fiscal year 2021, which is close to the 2.9x
level it reported in its fiscal 2020. Management took steps to
control its expenses and preserve cash early in the COVID-19
crisis, which have benefitted its earnings and cash flow. For
example, the company suspended its dividend in fiscal year 2021,
reduced its planned capital expenditures, and attempted to preserve
cash while cutting costs through its LEAN manufacturing initiative.
James Hardie has also benefited from the deflationary pressures
affecting raw material prices, specifically for pulp, and freight
costs, which have aided its margins and cash flow. We expect the
company to generate free cash flow in the $375 million to $475
million range in its fiscal year 2021. James Hardie paid down the
$130 million outstanding on its revolving credit facility in its
fiscal first quarter; however, this was slightly offset by an
increase in its unfunded net asbestos liability to $633
million--from $544 million as of the end of its fiscal year
2020--due to unfavorable foreign-exchange movements and income tax
payables. In addition, while we previously expected the company's
leverage to reach 4x or above, its gross margins would now need to
decline by 700 basis points (bps) from our current projections to
reach this level."

"James Hardie has a large asbestos liability that we view as debt
and incorporate into our calculation of its net leverage ratio. We
treat the unfunded portion of the company's asbestos liability as
debt. James Hardie contributes up to 35% of its annual free cash
flow to the Asbestos Injuries Compensation Fund (AICF) in
accordance with the amended and restated final funding agreement
(AFFA). This commitment to fund the AICF extends to at least 2045
with recurring automatic 10-year extension periods if required.
James Hardie makes these contributions through quarterly payments
and we expect it to contribute about $150 million to the fund in
its fiscal year 2021."

The company has a leading market share in the cement fiberboard
segment but competes against lower-priced alternatives, such as
vinyl, in the siding industry. Being the No. 1 player in the North
American fiber cement market positions the company to further
penetrate the region's siding market. Although fiber cement has
gained share over the past decade, it still only accounts for about
25% of new single-family homes. Cement fiberboard also faces stiff
competition from lower-priced siding materials, specifically
engineered wood products and vinyl siding. These lower-priced, more
traditional products--such as vinyl and wood--continue to make up
about 50% of the total market. S&P believes there is a risk
consumers might choose these alternatives in weaker economic
environments.

S&P said, "The stable outlook reflects our view that James Hardie's
adjusted debt to EBITDA will be about 3x over the next 12 months.
We expect the current favorable market conditions, including
elevated repair and remodeling spending and rising demand for new
home construction, across the company's end markets to support its
earnings and leverage despite the operating headwinds stemming from
the COVID-19 pandemic."

S&P could lower its rating on James Hardie over the next 12 months
if:

-- There is a prolonged reduction in economic activity,
particularly a continued pullback in discretionary consumer
spending; and

-- The decline causes the company's debt to EBITDA to trend above
4x with reduced interest coverage metrics and negative cash flow
generation.

S&P could upgrade James Hardie over the next 12 months if:

-- It improves its adjusted debt to EBITDA below 3x on a sustained
basis. The company could achieve this if it sustains gross margins
of 40% on higher volumes and improved operating leverage; or

-- It further reduces its debt balances or unfunded asbestos
liability.


JEMA GROUP: Seeks Approval to Tap Allen Barnes & Jones as Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
JEMA Group Holdings, LLC seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Arizona to employ Allen Barnes & Jones,
PLC as its counsel.

Allen Barnes & Jones will render these professional services to the
Debtor:

     (a) Provide the Debtor with legal advice with respect to its
reorganization;

     (b) Represent the Debtor in connection with negotiations
involving secured and unsecured creditors;

     (c) Represent the Debtor at hearings set by the Court in the
Debtor's bankruptcy case; and

     (d) Prepare necessary applications, motions, answers, orders,
reports or other legal papers necessary to assist in the Debtor's
reorganization.

The firm's professionals presently designated to represent the
Debtor and their current rates are:

     Hilary L. Barnes, Member              $425.00
     Philip J. Giles, Member               $325.00
     Cody D. Vandewerker, Associate        $300.00
     David B. Nelson, Associate            $285.00
     Paralegals and Law Clerks      $115.00-195.00

The firm did not receive a retainer prior to the Petition Date. It
received a post-petition retainer from a third party, Triple 2,
LLC, in the amount of $10,000.

Hilary L. Barnes, a member of Allen Barnes & Jones, PLC, disclosed
in court filings that the firm is a "disinterested person" as
defined in section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and has no
connection with the creditors, or any other interested party, or
their respective attorneys.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     Hilary L. Barnes, Esq.
     Philip J. Giles, Esq.
     ALLEN BARNES & JONES, PLC
     1850 N. Central Ave., Suite 1150
     Phoenix, AZ 85004
     Telephone: (602) 256-6000
     Facsimile: (602) 252-4712
     E-mail: hbarnes@allenbarneslaw.com
             pgiles@allenbarneslaw.com

                            About JEMA Group Holdings

JEMA Group Holdings, LLC filed a voluntary petition for under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Ariz. Case No. 20-
10703) on Sept. 22, 2020. The petition was signed by Jean E.
Gonzvar, trustee, JEMA Group Holdings Trust, sole member. At the
time of the filing, the Debtor disclosed $1 million to $10 million
in both assets and liabilities. Allen Barnes & Jones, PLC serves as
the Debtor's counsel.


JOHN VARVATOS: Mediation of Tessa Knox Dispute Withdrawn
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Colm F. Connolly accepted Magistrate Judge Mary Pat
Thynge's recommendation that the bankruptcy appeal captioned TESSA
KNOX, Individually and as Certified Representative of the Class of
Judgment Creditors, Appellant, v. LION/HENDRIX CAYMAN LIMITED, et
al., Appellees, Civil Action No. 20-937-CFC (D. Del.) be withdrawn
from the mandatory referral for mediation and proceed through the
appellate process of the court.

Judge Connolly said the bankruptcy appeal must proceed in
accordance with the following schedule:

     1. Appellant's brief in support of the appeal was due on or
before Sept. 25, 2020.

     2. Appellees' brief in opposition to the appeal is due on or
before Oct. 26, 2020.

     3. Appellant's reply brief is due on or before Nov. 9, 2020.

On July 14, 2020, District Judge MaryEllen Noreika entered an order
denying Appellant's Emergency Motion for Expedited Hearing of
Appeal of the Bankruptcy Court's July 10, 2020 Order, which
dismissed with prejudice Appellant's claim for equitable
subordination against Appellee Lion/Hendrix Cayman Limited
("LHCL"). The Motion to Expedite also sought to dispense with the
District Court's mandatory mediation process.

On Feb. 1, 2017, Appellant commenced a civil action against debtor
John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc. ("JVE") in the Southern District of
New York, alleging that a JVE clothing policy discriminated against
female sales employees.

On June 8, 2020, Appellant initiated an adversary proceeding
seeking to equitably subordinate the LHCL Debt claims under 11
U.S.C. section 510(c), alleging LHCL "encouraged" or "facilitated"
the JVE Clothing Policy. Appellant's Complaint did not allege that
LHCL itself engaged in any direct conduct. Rather, Appellant's
allegations generally referred to an undifferentiated "Lion"
defined in the Complaint to be LHCL and its non-debtor affiliates.

After briefing and oral argument, the Bankruptcy Court dismissed
Appellant's Complaint with prejudice.

The Appellant argued that its appeal must be heard before the
Bankruptcy Court approves the proposed asset sale. The only harm
cited by Appellant is that "failure to resolve this appeal has the
potentially [sic] to severely jeopardize the Class of Judgment
Creditors' recovery efforts." Appellee argued that the Bankruptcy
Court correctly dismissed with prejudice Appellant's threadbare
equitable subordination claim, and that Appellant has failed to
establish any immediate or irreparable harm that would justify
departure from the Court's Standing Order or require consideration
of this appeal ahead of other matters and in such an extremely
truncated time frame.

Judge Noreika said the Motion to Expedite fails to point to any
facts that justify the Court's "considering [its] appeal ahead of
other matters" much less any immediate or "irreparable harm" that
is required for its appeal to be considered on an emergency,
expedited basis.

                      About John Varvatos

John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc. is an American international luxury
men's lifestyle brand founded by fashion designer John Varvatos in
1999. It operates retail stores in the United States and other
countries worldwide. It sells, manufactures and designs fashion
products for men such as sweaters, knits, tees, tailored clothing,
jeans, pants, jackets, and accessories.

John Varvatos Enterprises generates revenue through the sale of
merchandise through department store and specialty wholesale
distribution, a transactional globally accessible website, and its
27 brick and mortar retail locations.

John Varvatos Enterprises, Inc. and its affiliates sought Chapter
11 protection (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 20-11043) on May 6,
2020.

John Varvatos Enterprises was estimated to have $10 million to $50
million in assets and $100 million to $500 million in liabilities
as of the bankruptcy filing.

The Hon. Mary F. Walrath is the case judge.

The Debtors tapped Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP as counsel;
Clear Thinking Group as financial advisor; MMG Advisors, Inc. as
investment banker; and Omni Agent Solutions as claims agent.


K.G. IM LLC: Seeks Approval to Hire Traxi LLC as Financial Advisor
------------------------------------------------------------------
K.G. IM, LLC and its debtor affiliates seek approval from the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to employ
Traxi, LLC as financial advisor.

The firm will render these professional services to the Debtors:

     (a) familiarize itself, to the extent it deems appropriate,
with the business, operations, properties, condition (financial and
otherwise) and prospects of the Company;

     (b) assist the Debtors in the preparation of restructuring
related materials that describes the Debtors' operations and
financial information and other appropriate information in such
detail as may be appropriate under the circumstances;

     (c) assist the Debtor in review, update and development of
rolling thirteen-week cash flows and introduce potential DIP
Lenders;

     (d) assist the management of the Debtors in making
presentations;

     (e) advise and assist the Debtors during negotiation of
transactions and will participate in such negotiations as
requested;

     (f) provide testimony on behalf of the Debtors related to the
restructuring, sale or wind down process or any other matters
related to Traxi's assignment for the Debtors; and

     (g) provide such other financial advisory services as the
Debtors and it may agree are appropriate in the circumstances.

The Debtors intend for Traxi's services to complement, and not
duplicate, the
services to be rendered by any other professional retained in these
cases.

Traxi will invoice the Debtors based on the hours worked by
personnel at the following agreed-upon hourly rates:

     Managing Directors          $475 - $595
     Director / Senior Manager   $350 - $475
     Senior Associate            $250 - $350
     Administrative Support      $100 - $150

In addition, the firm will be reimbursed for out-of-pocket expenses
it incurs in accordance with its customary billing practices.

In the 90 days prior to the Petition Date, Traxi received $100,000
as a retainer pursuant to the Engagement Letter. A portion of the
retainer, $70,000, was paid by non-Debtor affiliate Il Mulino
Gramercy LLC. The remaining $30,000 of the retainer was paid by
Debtor IM Payroll, LLC. As a condition to its retention and payment
of fees requested in its first and final fee application, Traxi has
agreed to voluntarily reduce and cap its fees to $70,000 and to
return the $30,000 portion of the retainer to IM Payroll, LLC.

Robert J. Iommazzo, a managing director with Traxi, LLC, disclosed
in court filings that the firm is a "disinterested person" as
defined in section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     Robert J. Iommazzo
     TRAXI, LLC
     18 Bank Street, Suite 200,
     Summit, NJ 07901
     Telephone: (212) 465-0770
     Facsimile: (212) 465-1919
     E-mail: info@traxi.com
     
                                  About K.G. IM LLC

K.G. IM, LLC, based in New York, NY, and its affiliates operate a
chain of restaurants that focuses on Italian cuisine.

K.G. IM, LLC and its debtor affiliates concurrently filed voluntary
petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 20-11723) on July 29, 2020. The
petitions were signed by Gerald Katzoff, manager. At the time of
the filing, K.G. IM, LLC was estimated to have $50 million to $100
in assets and $10 million to $50 million in liabilities.

The Hon. Martin Glenn presides over the cases.

The Debtors tapped Alston & Bird LLP as bankruptcy counsel; Davis &
Gilbert LLP as special counsel; Traxi, LLC as financial advisors;
and Configure Partners, LLC as investment banker.


K.G. IM LLC: Seeks to Tap Configure Partners as Investment Banker
-----------------------------------------------------------------
K.G. IM, LLC and its debtor affiliates seek approval from the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York to employ
Configure Partners, LLC as investment banker.

The firm will render these professional services to the Debtors:

     (a) M&A Transaction Services. Provide advice and assistance to
the Debtors and act as investment banker to the Debtors in
connection with the proposed sale of the Debtors' assets
contemplated by the Debtors' Motion for Entry of an Order (I)
Establishing Bidding Procedures and Section 365 Procedures, (II)
Approving the Sale of Substantially all of the Debtors' Assets,
(III) Authorizing the Entry into and Performance under the Stalking
Horse under the Stalking Horse Asset Purchase Agreement, (IV)
Granting Related Relief (Dkt. No. 211) and the related stalking
horse asset purchase agreement between the Debtors and BSP Agency
LLC (BSP) for the purchase of the Debtors' assets for the
consideration set forth therein (the Initial Bid Amount), however
achieved, whether directly or indirectly, and through any form of
transaction, including, without limitation, merger, reverse merger,
liquidation, stock sale, asset sale, asset swap, recapitalization,
reorganization, consolidation, amalgamation, sale under section 363
of the Bankruptcy Code, spin-off, split-off, joint venture,
strategic partnership, license, or other similar transaction. For
the avoidance of doubt, M&A Transaction and the M&A Transaction
services are limited to an M&A Transaction in connection with the
Sale Motion and services and fees in connection with any additional
transactions shall be subject to separate engagement letters and
Bankruptcy Court approval.

Configure and the Debtors have agreed on the following terms of
compensation and expense reimbursement:

     (a) Monthly Fee(s). A non-refundable fee of $50,000 per month
for the months of October and November, 2020.

     (b) M&A Transaction Fee(s). Promptly upon the closing of an
M&A Transaction with BSP, a non-refundable cash fee equal to the
sum of (i) $325,000 and (ii) 3.5% of the credit bid portion of the
consideration to be paid for the M&A Transaction greater than the
Initial Credit Bid Amount, if any (i and ii, together the BSP M&A
Fee).

     (c) Third Party M&A Fee. Promptly upon the closing of an M&A
Transaction with any party other than BSP (the Non-BSP Party), a
non-refundable cash fee equal to the sum of (i) the Minimum Fee and
(ii) 7.5% of the cash portion of the consideration to be paid by
such Non-BSP Party that is greater than the Initial Credit Bid
Amount (i and ii, together the Third Party M&A Fee); provided,
however, to the extent that BSP agrees to provide financing to a
Non-BSP Party in connection with such M&A Transaction, the Third
Party M&A Fee payable on account of such M&A Transaction shall be
equal to the sum of (i) the Minimum Fee and (ii) 5.5% of the
portion of the M&A Transaction Value greater than the Initial
Credit Bid Amount.

     (d) Pursuant to the Engagement Letter, M&A Transaction Value
means: (a) the aggregate amount of cash and the fair market value
of any securities or other property or consideration directly or
indirectly paid or payable in connection with an M&A Transaction.

     (e) Expense Reimbursement. In addition to any fees or other
compensation that may be paid to Configure under the Engagement
Letter, whether or not any M&A Transaction occurs, the Debtors
shall reimburse Configure, promptly upon receipt of an invoice
therefor, for all reasonable and documented out-of-pocket expenses.
Configure agrees that it will not incur any such fees or expenses
in the aggregate amount great than $20,000, excluding expenses of
counsel, without obtaining the prior written approval of the
Debtors.

The Debtors intend for Configure's services to complement, and not
duplicate, the services to be rendered by any other professional
retained in these chapter 11 cases.

Vin Batra of Configure Partners, LLC disclosed in court filings
that the firm is a "disinterested person" as defined in section
101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     Vin Batra
     CONFIGURE PARTNERS, LLC
     Midtown Manhattan 368 9th Ave.
     New York, NY 10001
     Telephone: (646) 690-9353
     E-mail: info@configurepartners.com
     
                                  About K.G. IM LLC

K.G. IM, LLC, based in New York, NY, and its affiliates operate a
chain of restaurants that focuses on Italian cuisine.

K.G. IM, LLC and its debtor affiliates concurrently filed voluntary
petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code
(Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 20-11723) on July 29, 2020. The
petitions were signed by Gerald Katzoff, manager. At the time of
the filing, K.G. IM, LLC was estimated to have $50 million to $100
in assets and $10 million to $50 million in liabilities.

The Hon. Martin Glenn presides over the cases.

The Debtors tapped Alston & Bird LLP as bankruptcy counsel; Davis &
Gilbert LLP as special counsel; Traxi, LLC as financial advisors;
and Configure Partners, LLC as investment banker.


KLAUSNER LUMBER ONE: Hires McCausland Keen as IP Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------
Klausner Lumber One LLC seeks authority from the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware to employ McCausland Keen +
Buckman to provide legal advice on intellectual property matters.

McCausland's hourly rates are as follows:

     Partners                        $315–580
     Associates and Special Counsel  $290–525
     Paraprofessionals                 $215

McCausland is a "disinterested person" pursuant to Sections 327(a)
and 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code, according to court filings.

The firm can be reached through:

     Robert Prusak
     McCausland Keen + Buckman
     80 W Lancaster Ave.
     Devon, PA 19333
     Phone: +1 610-341-1000

                     About Klausner Lumber One

Klausner Lumber One, LLC is a privately-held company in the lumber
and plywood products manufacturing industry.  It is 100% owned by
non-debtor Klausner Holding USA, Inc.

Klausner Lumber One sought protection under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 20-11033) on April 30,
2020. At the time of the filing, Debtor disclosed assets of between
$100 million and $500 million and liabilities of the same range.

Debtor has tapped Westerman Ball Ederer Miller Zucker & Sharfstein,
LLP as its bankruptcy counsel, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell,
LLP as local counsel, Asgaard Capital, LLC as restructuring
advisor, and Cypress Holdings, LLC as investment banker.

The Office of the U.S. Trustee appointed a committee to represent
unsecured creditors in Debtor's Chapter 11 case.  The committee is
represented by Foley & Lardner LLP.


KLAUSNER LUMBER TWO: Hires McCausland Keen as IP Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------
Klausner Lumber Two, LLC seeks authority from the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware to employ McCausland Keen +
Buckman to provide legal advice on intellectual property matters.

McCausland's hourly rates are as follows:

     Partners                        $315–580
     Associates and Special Counsel  $290–525
     Paraprofessionals                 $215

McCausland is a "disinterested person" pursuant to Sections 327(a)
and 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code, according to court filings.

The firm can be reached through:

     Robert Prusak
     McCausland Keen + Buckman
     80 W Lancaster Ave.
     Devon, PA 19333
     Phone: +1 610-341-1000

                     About Klausner Lumber Two

Klausner Lumber Two, LLC, a sawmill company in Enfield, N.C.,
sought protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr.
D. Del. Case No. 20-11518) on June 10, 2020.  Robert Prusak, chief
restructuring officer, signed the petition.  At the time of the
filing, Debtor had estimated assets of between $10 million and $50
million and liabilities of between $100 million and $500 million.

Judge Karen B. Owens oversees the case.

Debtor has tapped Westerman Ball Ederer Miller Zucker & Sharfstein,
LLP and Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, LLP as its bankruptcy
counsel, Asgaard Capital LLC as restructuring advisor, and Cypress
Holdings LLC as investment banker.

The U.S. Trustee for the District of Delaware appointed a committee
of unsecured creditors in Debtor's Chapter 11 case on June 25,
2020.  The committee has tapped Elliott Greenleaf, P.C. as its
legal counsel and EisnerAmper LLP as its financial advisor.


KNIGHTHOUSE MEDIA: Hires White and Williams as Legal Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------
Knighthouse Media, Inc. seeks authority from the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Delaware to hire White and Williams, LLP
as its legal counsel.

The services that White and Williams will render are as follows:

     (a) take all necessary actions to protect and preserve the
Debtor's estate, including the prosecution of actions on the
Debtor's behalf, the defense of any actions commenced against the
Debtor, the negotiation of disputes in which the Debtor is
involved, and the preparation of objections to claims filed against
the estate;

     (b) prepare legal papers;

     (c) formulate and seek confirmation of a proposed Subchapter V
plan; and

     (d) perform all other necessary legal services in connection
with the Debtor's Chapter 11 case.

The principal attorneys, paralegals, and clerks presently
designated to represent the Debtor will be paid at hourly rates as
follows:

     Steven E. Ostrow     $615
     Marc S. Casarino     $550
     Amy E. Vulpio        $565
     James C. Vandermark  $445
     Paralegals           $250

White and Williams is a "disinterested person" within the meaning
of Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code, according to court
filings.

The firm can be reached through:

     Amy E. Vulpio, Esq.
     White and Williams LLP
     1650 Market Street
     One Liberty Place, Suite 1800
     Philadelphia, PA 19103-7395
     Tel: 215-864-7000
     Fax: 215-864-7123
     Email: vulpioa@whiteandwilliams.com

                   About Knighthouse Media Inc.

Headquartered on North Michigan Avenue in Chicago with a regional
office in Beverly, Mass., Knighthouse Media is a B2B content
marketing company that also publishes original content and
advertising programs through its portfolio of integrated media
brands.  Visit https://www.knighthousemedia.com for more
information.

Knighthouse Media filed its voluntary petition for relief under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Del. Case No.
20-12448) on Oct. 2, 2020. Korry Stagnito, chief executive officer,
signed the petition.  At the time of filing, the Debtor estimated
$500,000 to $1 million in assets and $1 million to $10 million in
liabilities.

Judge John T. Dorsey oversees the case.  

White and Williams LLP serves as Debtor's legal counsel.


LAZER TANK: Case Summary & 20 Largest Unsecured Creditors
---------------------------------------------------------
Debtor: Lazer Tank Lines Incorporated
        7015 Adamo Drive
        Tampa, FL 33619

Chapter 11 Petition Date: October 28, 2020

Court: United States Bankruptcy Court
       Middle District of Florida

Case No.: 20-08024

Debtor's Counsel: Buddy D. Ford, Esq.
                  BUDDY D. FORD, P.A.
                  9301 West Hillsborough Avenue
                  Tampa, FL 33615-3008
                  Tel: (813) 877-4669
                  Fax: (813) 877-5543
                  E-mail: All@tampaesq.com

Estimated Assets: $0 to $50,000

Estimated Liabilities: $1 million to $10 million

The petition was signed by Mickey D. Howe, president.

A copy of the petition containing, among other items, a list of the
Debtor's 20 largest unsecured creditors is available for free  at
PacerMonitor.com at:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/KCUJHWQ/Lazer_Tank_Lines_Incorporated__flmbke-20-08024__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA


LRGHEALTHCARE: Hires Deloitte Transactions as Financial Advisor
---------------------------------------------------------------
LRGHealthcare seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of New Hampshire to employ Deloitte Transactions and
Business Analytics LLP (DTBA) as financial advisor and valuation
services provider.

The firm will render these financial advisory services to the
Debtor:

     (a) Assist the Debtor in its preparation and refinement of its
cash management and cash flow forecasting process;

     (b) Assist the Debtor in understanding the business and
financial impact of various operational, financial, and strategic
restructuring alternatives;

     (c) Advise the Debtor in connection with the Debtor's
communications and negotiations with other parties, including
customers and suppliers;

     (d) Advise and assist the Debtor with respect to establishing
its financial system cut-off procedures, as well as protocols for
capturing pre- and post-petition financial information;

     (e) Advise and assist the Debtor in preparing filing
information, first day motions and supporting documentation
associated with the commencement of a potential chapter 11
bankruptcy case;

     (f) Advise the Debtor in connection with its preparation of
various financial reports for submission to the Court;

     (g) Assist the Debtor in its evaluation of and reconciliation
of lease termination, disputed and other claims asserted during a
chapter 11 bankruptcy case;

     (h) Assist the Debtor in its review and assessment of
executory contracts;

     (i) Assist the Debtor in connection with its execution of
various location closure activities;

     (j) Advise the Debtor in connection with its Court hearings
and meetings on matters within the scope of the Services to be
performed under the FA Engagement Letter; and

     (k) Provide advice and assistance concerning employee
retention and severance issues; and

     (l) Provide advice and recommendations with respect to other
related matters as the Debtor may request from time to time, as
agreed to by DTBA.

The firm will render these valuation services to the Debtor:

     (a) Assist the Debtor by developing an estimate of the fair
market business enterprise value of the Debtor's operations; and

     (b) Assist the Debtor by analyzing the range of liquidation
values of the real and personal property of the Debtor.

The services performed by DTBA will not unnecessarily duplicate or
overlap with the other services performed by the Debtor's other
retained professionals and advisors.

The applicable hourly billing rates by personnel classification
will range from $300 - $795. Notably, DTBA has agreed that its
combined blended rate will not exceed $400 per hour.

Pursuant to the terms of the Valuation Engagement Letter, DTBA
agreed to charge the Debtor a fee of $95,000 for the services
described therein.

In the 90 days prior to the Petition Date, DTBA received
approximately $663,919. As of the Petition Date, no amounts were
outstanding with respect to the invoices issued by DTBA prior to
the Petition Date.

Todd Michael Patnode, a managing director at Deloitte Transactions
and Business Analytics LLP, disclosed in court filings that the
firm is a "disinterested person" as defined in section 101(14) of
the Bankruptcy Code.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     Todd Michael Patnode
     DELOITTE TRANSACTIONS AND BUSINESS ANALYTICS LLP
     2200 Ross Ave., Suite 1600
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Telephone: (214) 707-8871
     E-mail: tpatnode@deloitte.com

                                About LRGHealthcare

LRGHealthcare -- www.lrgh.org -- is a not-for-profit healthcare
charitable trust operating Lakes Region General Hospital, Franklin
Regional Hospital, and numerous other affiliated medical practices
and service programs.

LRGH is a community based acute care facility with a licensed bed
capacity of 137 beds, and FRH is a 25-bed critical access hospital
with an additional 10-bed inpatient psychiatric unit. In 2002,
Lakes Region Hospital Association and Franklin Regional Hospital
Association merged, with the merged entity renamed LRGHealthcare.
LRGHealthcare offers a wide range of medical, surgical, specialty,
diagnostic, and therapeutic services, wellness education, support
groups, and other community outreach services.

LRGHealthcare filed a Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. D.N.H. Case No.
20-10892) on October 19, 2020. The petition was signed by Kevin W.
Donovan, president and chief executive officer. At the time of the
filing, the Debtor estimated to have $100 million to $500 million
in both assets and liabilities.

Judge Bruce A. Harwood oversees the case.

The Debtor tapped Nixon Peabody LLP as counsel; Deloitte
Transactions and Business Analytics LLP and Kaufman, Hall &
Associates, LLC as financial advisors; and Epiq Corporate
Restructuring, LLC as claims, noticing, solicitation, and
administrative agent.


LRGHEALTHCARE: Seeks Approval to Tap Nixon Peabody LLP as Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
LRGHealthcare seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of New Hampshire to employ Nixon Peabody LLP as counsel.

The firm will render these professional services to the Debtor:

     (a) Advise the Debtor with respect to its powers and duties as
Debtor-in-possession in the continued operation of its businesses;

     (b) Advise the Debtor with respect to all general bankruptcy
matters;

     (c) Prepare on behalf of the Debtor all necessary
applications, answers, orders, reports, and papers in connection
with the administration of its estate;

     (d) Represent the Debtor at all critical hearings on matters
relating to its affairs and interests as Debtor-in-possession
before this Court, any appellate courts, and the United States
Supreme Court, and protect the interests of the Debtor;

     (e) Prosecute and defend litigated matters that may arise
during this case;

     (f) Prepare and file the disclosure statement and negotiate,
present, and implement a plan of reorganization;

     (g) Negotiate appropriate transactions and prepare any
necessary documentation related thereto;

     (h) Represent the Debtor on matters relating to the assumption
or rejection of executory contracts and unexpired leases;

     (i) Advise the Debtor with respect to general corporate,
securities, real estate, litigation, environmental, labor,
regulatory, tax, health care, and other legal matters that may
arise during the pendency of this case; and

     (j) Perform all other legal services that are necessary for
the efficient and economic administration of this case.

Nixon Peabody is prepared to work closely with each professional
retained by the Debtor to ensure there is no duplication of effort
or cost.

The Debtor has requested to compensate Nixon Peabody on an hourly
basis, subject to a blended hourly cap of $625 per hour, plus
reimbursement of actual and necessary expenses incurred in
connection with its representation of the Debtor in this case.

Victor Milione, a partner with Nixon Peabody LLP, disclosed in
court filings that the firm is a "disinterested person" as defined
in section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     Victor Milione, Esq.
     Christopher M. Desiderio, Esq.
     Christopher J. Fong, Esq.
     NIXON PEABODY LLP
     55 West 46th Street
     New York, NY 10036-4120
     Telephone: (212) 940-3000
     Facsimile: (212) 940-3111
     E-mail: vmilione@nixonpeabody.com
             cdesiderio@nixonpeabody.com
             cfong@nixonpeabody.com

                                About LRGHealthcare

LRGHealthcare -- www.lrgh.org -- is a not-for-profit healthcare
charitable trust operating Lakes Region General Hospital, Franklin
Regional Hospital, and numerous other affiliated medical practices
and service programs.

LRGH is a community based acute care facility with a licensed bed
capacity of 137 beds, and FRH is a 25-bed critical access hospital
with an additional 10-bed inpatient psychiatric unit. In 2002,
Lakes Region Hospital Association and Franklin Regional Hospital
Association merged, with the merged entity renamed LRGHealthcare.
LRGHealthcare offers a wide range of medical, surgical, specialty,
diagnostic, and therapeutic services, wellness education, support
groups, and other community outreach services.

LRGHealthcare filed a Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. D.N.H. Case No.
20-10892) on October 19, 2020. The petition was signed by Kevin W.
Donovan, president and chief executive officer. At the time of the
filing, the Debtor estimated to have $100 million to $500 million
in both assets and liabilities.

Judge Bruce A. Harwood oversees the case.

The Debtor tapped Nixon Peabody LLP as counsel; Deloitte
Transactions and Business Analytics LLP and Kaufman, Hall &
Associates, LLC as financial advisors; and Epiq Corporate
Restructuring, LLC as claims, noticing, solicitation, and
administrative agent.


LRGHEALTHCARE: Seeks to Tap Epiq as Claims Agent
------------------------------------------------
LRGHealthcare seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of New Hampshire to employ Epiq Corporate Restructuring,
LLC as claims, noticing, solicitation, and administrative agent.

The firm will render these claims and administrative services to
the Debtor:

     (a) prepare and serve required notices and documents in the
Chapter 11 Case in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code, the
Bankruptcy Rules, and the Bankruptcy Local Rules in the form and
manner directed by the Debtor and/or the Court;

     (b) prepare and file or cause to be filed with the Clerk an
affidavit or certificate of service for all notices, motions,
orders, other pleadings, or documents served within seven business
days of service;

     (c) assist the Debtor with administrative tasks in the
preparation of their bankruptcy Schedules of Assets and Liabilities
and Statement of Financial Affairs;

     (d) assist the Debtor in managing the claims reconciliation
and objection process;

     (e) maintain (i) a list of all potential creditors, equity
holders, and other parties-in-interest, and (ii) a core mailing
list consisting of all parties described in Bankruptcy Rule 2002
and those parties that have filed a notice of appearance pursuant
to Bankruptcy Rule 9010;

     (f) if a claims bar date is established, furnish a notice to
all potential creditors of the last date for filing proofs of claim
and a form for filing a proof of claim, after such notice and form
are approved by the Court, and notify potential creditors of the
existence, amount, and classification of their respective claims as
set forth in the Schedules (if applicable), which may be effected
by inclusion of such information (or the lack thereof, where the
Schedules indicate no debt due to the subject party) on a
customized proof of claim form provided to potential creditors;

     (g) maintain a post office box or address for the purpose of
receiving claims and returned mail, and processing all mail
received;

     (h) process all proofs of claim received and maintain the
original proofs of claim in a secure area;

     (i) maintain the official claims register for the Debtor on
behalf of the Clerk and upon the Clerk's request, provide the Clerk
with a certified, duplicate unofficial Claims Register; and specify
in the Claims Register the following information for each claim
docketed: (i) the claim number assigned; (ii) the date received;
(iii) the name and address of the claimant and agent, if
applicable, who filed the claim; (iv) the amount asserted; (v) the
asserted classification(s) of the claim (e.g., secured, unsecured,
priority, etc.); and (vi) any disposition of the claim;

     (j) periodically file with the Court a notice of the list of
claims that have been filed with Epiq;

     (k) implement necessary security measures to ensure the
completeness and integrity of the Claims Register and the
safekeeping of the original claims;

     (l) record all transfers of claims and provide any notices of
such transfers as required by Bankruptcy Rule 3001(e);

     (m) relocate, by messenger or overnight delivery, all of the
court-filed proofs of claim to the offices of Epiq, not less than
weekly;

     (n) upon completion of the docketing process for all claims
received to date for each case, turn over to the Clerk copies of
the Claims Register for the Clerk's review;

     (o) monitor the Court's docket for all notices of appearance,
address changes, and claims-related pleadings and orders filed, and
make necessary notations on and/or changes to the Claims Register;

     (p) assist in the dissemination of information to the public
and respond to requests for administrative information regarding
the cases, as directed by the Debtor and/or the Court;

     (q) 30 days prior to the close of the Chapter 11 Case, to the
extent practicable, request that the Debtor submit to the Court a
proposed order dismissing Epiq and terminating Epiq's services upon
completion of its duties and responsibilities and upon the closing
of the Chapter 11 Case;

     (r) at least seven days before entry of an order closing the
Chapter 11 Case, Epiq shall reconcile all proofs of claim with the
Court, to ensure that all claims received by Epiq are accounted for
on the Claims Register.

     (s) at the close of the Chapter 11 Case, box and transport all
original documents, in proper format, as provided by the Clerk's
office, to (i) the National Archives at Boston, 380 Trapelo Road,
Waltham, Massachusetts 02452 or (ii) any other location requested
by the Clerk's Office.

     (t) coordinate publication of certain notices in periodicals
and other media;

     (u) to the extent necessary, distribute claim acknowledgement
cards to creditors having filed a proof of claim or interest, as
applicable;

     (v) provide balloting, solicitation, and tabulation services,
produce personalized ballots, assist in the production of
solicitation materials, tabulate creditor ballots on a daily basis,
prepare a certification of voting results, and provide court
testimony with respect to balloting, solicitation, and tabulation
matters;

     (w) provide state-of-the-art call center facility and
services;

     (x) create and maintain a public access website setting forth
pertinent case information and allow access to electronic copies of
proofs of claim or proofs of interest;

     (y) provide the Debtor with consulting and computer software
support regarding the reporting and information management
requirements of the bankruptcy administration process;

     (z) educate and train the Debtor in the use of support
software, as necessary;

     (aa) generate, assist with, and provide strategic
communications advice, strategy, and expertise, as needed;

     (bb) if requested by the Debtor, act as disbursing agent in
connection with the distributions required under a confirmed
chapter 11 plan; and

     (cc) provide such other claims processing, noticing, and
related administrative services as may be requested from time to
time by the Debtor.

The Debtor proposes to compensate Epiq on substantially the terms
and conditions set forth in the Engagement Agreement, upon receipt
of reasonably detailed invoices setting forth the services provided
by Epiq during the prior month and the rates charged for such
services performed.

Prior to the Petition Date, the Debtor provided Epiq a retainer in
the amount of $25,000, which Epiq applied to all prepetition
invoices.

Jaymi Helen Cook, a consulting and communications director at Epiq
Corporate Restructuring, LLC, disclosed in court filings that the
firm is a "disinterested person" as defined in section 101(14) of
the Bankruptcy Code.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     Jaymi Helen Cook
     EPIQ CORPORATE RESTRUCTURING, LLC
     777 Third Avenue
     11th and 12th Floors
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (212) 225-9200

                                About LRGHealthcare

LRGHealthcare -- www.lrgh.org -- is a not-for-profit healthcare
charitable trust operating Lakes Region General Hospital, Franklin
Regional Hospital, and numerous other affiliated medical practices
and service programs.

LRGH is a community based acute care facility with a licensed bed
capacity of 137 beds, and FRH is a 25-bed critical access hospital
with an additional 10-bed inpatient psychiatric unit. In 2002,
Lakes Region Hospital Association and Franklin Regional Hospital
Association merged, with the merged entity renamed LRGHealthcare.
LRGHealthcare offers a wide range of medical, surgical, specialty,
diagnostic, and therapeutic services, wellness education, support
groups, and other community outreach services.

LRGHealthcare filed a Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. D.N.H. Case No.
20-10892) on October 19, 2020. The petition was signed by Kevin W.
Donovan, president and chief executive officer. At the time of the
filing, the Debtor estimated to have $100 million to $500 million
in both assets and liabilities.

Judge Bruce A. Harwood oversees the case.

The Debtor tapped Nixon Peabody LLP as counsel; Deloitte
Transactions and Business Analytics LLP and Kaufman, Hall &
Associates, LLC as financial advisors; and Epiq Corporate
Restructuring, LLC as claims, noticing, solicitation, and
administrative agent.


LRGHEALTHCARE: Taps Kaufman, Hall & Associates as Financial Advisor
-------------------------------------------------------------------
LRGHealthcare seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of New Hampshire to employ Kaufman, Hall & Associates, LLC
as financial advisor.

The firm will render these professional services to the Debtor:

Phase I – Initiating Transaction Process:

     (a) Drafting of notifications and initiation of contact to
interested parties.

     (b) Organization of discussions and/or site visits with
potential interested parties.

     (c) Tracking, organization and delivery of any appropriate
supplementary data requests by potential interested parties
evaluation or negotiation of any associated protections and auction
mechanics (break-up fees, minimum overbids, bid increments, etc.).

     (d) Discussions with interested parties of any draft or
preliminary bid elements in response to the "Stalking Horse" bid.

Phase II Work – Completing the Transaction

     (a) Creditor notification of bids and appropriate market
exposure time for competing bids to the "Stalking Horse" proposal,
if appropriate.

     (b) Management of the suitor universe to ensure the
information required for competing bids is accurate and complete.

     (c) Proactive interactions with suitors offering the most
attractive terms, relative to the "Stalking Horse" proposal.

     (d) Supporting legal counsel to assess the impact to the
estate of the various transaction proposals, such as the impact on
the creditor claims.

     (e) Management of the auction/plan process (if appropriate) to
result in a final bid for the assets or restructuring of the debt.

     (f) Associated financial reporting of the transaction to the
key stakeholders of the bankruptcy case.

     (g) Clarification or completion of any remaining diligence
and/or business terms of the proposed transaction.

     (h) Assistance with legal counsel in further documentation,
pre-closing support and in other activities to complete the
proposed transaction.

Kaufman Hall will work together with any other professionals
retained by the Debtor to minimize and avoid duplication of
services.

The Debtor and Kaufman Hall have agreed to the following
compensation and expense reimbursement:

     (a) A fixed monthly fee of $75,000 per month, which will be
billed in the last business week of each month for the following
month of work, beginning when bankruptcy is filed until Kaufman
Hall's services are completed or efforts discontinued.

     (b) A fixed milestone fee of $200,000, which is to be billed
at or near the completion of Phase II, if a bid is received from a
party other than the stalking horse bid;

     (c) A fixed milestone fee at the closing of a transaction, at
which point the assets of LRG are conveyed to a new owner or LRG's
existing debt is restructured:

        (i) If the Stalking Horse Bid prevails, the Debtor will pay
Kaufman Hall a fixed milestone fee of $300,000; or

        (ii) if an alternative, more lucrative asset sale or debt
restructuring proposal prevails, $300,000 plus 2.5% of the proceeds
in excess of those contemplated by the Stalking Horse Bid.

     (d) The Debtor will reimburse Kaufman Hall for its reasonable
out-of-pocket expenses.

Anu Singh, a managing director at Kaufman, Hall & Associates, LLC,
disclosed in court filings that the firm is a "disinterested
person" as defined in section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     Anu Singh
     KAUFMAN, HALL & ASSOCIATES, LLC
     10 S. Wacker, Suite 3375
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: (847) 441-8780

                                 About LRGHealthcare

LRGHealthcare -- www.lrgh.org -- is a not-for-profit healthcare
charitable trust operating Lakes Region General Hospital, Franklin
Regional Hospital, and numerous other affiliated medical practices
and service programs.

LRGH is a community based acute care facility with a licensed bed
capacity of 137 beds, and FRH is a 25-bed critical access hospital
with an additional 10-bed inpatient psychiatric unit. In 2002,
Lakes Region Hospital Association and Franklin Regional Hospital
Association merged, with the merged entity renamed LRGHealthcare.
LRGHealthcare offers a wide range of medical, surgical, specialty,
diagnostic, and therapeutic services, wellness education, support
groups, and other community outreach services.

LRGHealthcare filed a Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. D.N.H. Case No.
20-10892) on October 19, 2020. The petition was signed by Kevin W.
Donovan, president and chief executive officer. At the time of the
filing, the Debtor estimated to have $100 million to $500 million
in both assets and liabilities.

Judge Bruce A. Harwood oversees the case.

The Debtor tapped Nixon Peabody LLP as counsel; Deloitte
Transactions and Business Analytics LLP and Kaufman, Hall &
Associates, LLC as financial advisors; and Epiq Corporate
Restructuring, LLC as claims, noticing, solicitation, and
administrative agent.


MARIANINA OIL: Hires Joseph A. Romano as Special Counsel
--------------------------------------------------------
Marianina Oil Corp., seeks authority from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the Southern District of New York to employ the Law Offices of
Joseph A. Romano, P.C., as special counsel to the Debtor.

The Debtor is party to several environmental actions and
proceedings involving, inter alia, (a) NYSDEC and (b) The City of
White Plains (the "Litigations"). Joseph A. Romano represented the
Debtor in the Litigations prior to the Petition Date.

Joseph A. Romano will render the following services:

   a. continue to represent the Debtor with respect to the claims
      and issues asserted in the Litigations;

   b. assist and advise the Debtor and Debtor's bankruptcy
      counsel, in connection with settling and/or adjudicating
      the claims raised in the Litigations;

   c. appear before this Court and any other Federal or State or
      Administrative Court, as the Debtor deems necessary and/or
      appropriate; and

   d. perform all other necessary legal services requested or
      required by the Debtor in this case as it relates to the
      Litigations and any related claims.

Joseph A. Romano will be paid based upon its normal and usual
hourly billing rates. The firm will also be reimbursed for
reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred.

Philip DeCaro, partner of Joseph A. Romano, P.C., assured the Court
that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in
Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and does not represent any
interest adverse to the Debtor and its estates.

Joseph A. Romano can be reached at:

     Philip DeCaro, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH A. ROMANO, P.C.
     1776 Eastchester Rd.
     The Bronx, NY 10461
     Tel: (855) 965-1515

                     About Marianina Oil Corp.

Marianina Oil Corp. is engaged in activities related to real
estate. The company is the owner of fee simple title to a property
located at 34 East Post Road, White Plains, NY 10601, valued at
$1.6 million.

Marianina Oil Corp. filed a Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
Case No. 20-23070) on Sept. 23, 2020. The Hon. Robert D. Drain is
the case judge. DAVIDOFF HUTCHER & CITRON LLP, led by Robert L.
Rattet, Esq., is the Debtor's counsel. In the petition signed by
Frank Codella, president, the Debtor disclosed total assets of
$1,600,000 and total liabilities of $14,215,000 as of the filing.


MARINER SEAFOOD: True North Completes Acquisition
-------------------------------------------------
Cliff White of SeafoodSource reports that True North Seafood, the
processing division and flagship brand of Blacks Harbour, New
Brunswick, Canada-based Cooke Inc., has acquired the business of
Mariner Seafood, a seafood processor headquartered in New Bedford,
Massachusetts, U.S.A.

Cooke CEO Glenn Cooke confirmed the acquisition in a press
release.

"It has long been a dream of our family seafood company to have a
presence in the number-one value fishing port in the nation, New
Bedford," Cooke said. "We now have over 4,000 Cooke employees in 22
U.S. states and we will continue to invest and grow our New Bedford
processing operations to supply our customers with healthy,
top-quality True North Seafood products."

True North declared its intention to serve as the stalking horse
bidder for Mariner's assets after it filed for Chapter 11
bankruptcy protection on Monday, 14 September 2020.

According to a purchase agreement filed with the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court in the Eastern District of Massachusetts, True North will pay
US$2.75 million in cash as well as an additional US$200,000 in cure
costs on an equipment loan.  Of the total, True North has agreed to
pay up to US$2.2 million of the accounts receivable, plus an
additional US$550,000 for the costs of the purchase, including
US$300,000 of the to Tully and Holland, an investment bank that
organized the sale of Mariner's assets.

Founded in 2001, Mariner operates two processing facilities -- a
32,000-square-foot facility that handles scallops, haddock, cod,
and shrimp, and a 14,000-square-foot plant specializing in salmon
processing.  It is capable of processing more than 8,000 metric
tons of seafood annually, and has a workforce of approximately 170
employees. The company's GO WILD brand specializes in in the
packaged-case ready-tray segment and its MarSelect brand is
primarily focused on scallops.

"We're very pleased to welcome True North Seafood to New Bedford
and we look forward to supporting Cooke's continued growth as a
global seafood leader," New Bedford Mayor Jon Mitchell said in a
press release. "The Port of New Bedford serves as the city's
greatest natural resource and the economic engine of southeastern
Massachusetts, stimulating investment, attracting new industry, and
creating jobs. True North will be a welcome addition to the port."

                    About Mariner Seafood LLC

Mariner Seafood, LLC, is in the business of buying and selling
seafood inventory from third party importers to domestic and
Canadian seafood processors and food service distributors.

Mariner Seafood sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. D. Mass. Case
No. 20-11870) on Sept. 14, 2020.  In the petition signed by John P.
Flynn, president and manager, the Debtor was estimated to have
assets and liabilities in the range of $10 million to $50 million.
The Debtor tapped Christopher M. Condon, Esq., at Murphy & King,
Professional Corp., as counsel.


MARRERO GLASS: Hires Gerald Gensiejewski as Accountant
------------------------------------------------------
Marrero Glass and Metal, Inc., seeks authority from the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to employ
Gerald Gensiejewski, as accountant to the Debtor.

Marrero Glass requires Gerald Gensiejewski to:

   a. assist the Debtor in the preparation of monthly reports;

   b. prepare on behalf of the Debtor all necessary projections
      and other financial information required for the Chapter 11
      Plan;

   c. perform routine bookkeeping services for the Debtor; and

   d. prepare all necessary local, state and federal tax returns.

Gerald Gensiejewski will be paid at the hourly rate of $250.

Gerald Gensiejewski will also be reimbursed for reasonable
out-of-pocket expenses incurred.

Gerald Gensiejewski assured the Court that the firm is a
"disinterested person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of
the Bankruptcy Code and does not represent any interest adverse to
the Debtor and its estates.

Gerald Gensiejewski can be reached at:

     Gerald Gensiejewski
     3658 Chimney Swift Drive
     Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
     Tel: (215) 947-4940

                  About Marrero Glass and Metal

Marrero Glass and Metal, Inc. is a family-owned and operated
company that provides commercial glazing subcontracting services.
It also offers broken glass and door repair. Visit
https://marrerogminc.com for more information.

Marrero Glass filed its voluntary petition for relief under Chapter
11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Case No. 20-13762) on
Sept. 17, 2020.  Marrero Glass's Jaime V. Marrero signed the
petition.

At the time of filing, the Debtor estimated $100,000 to $500,000 in
assets and $1 million to $10 million in liabilities.

Judge Magdeline D. Coleman oversees the case.  Diana M. Dixon,
Esq., at Dixon Law Office, serves as Debtor's legal counsel.


MARTIN MIDSTREAM: Incurs $10.8 Million Net Loss in Third Quarter
----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Midstream Partners L.P. filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission its Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q disclosing a
net loss of $10.82 on $152.53 million of total revenues for the
three months ended Sept. 30, 2020, compared to net income of $13.25
million on $177.90 million of total revenues for the three months
ended Sept. 30, 2019.

For the nine months ended Sept. 30, 2020, the Company reported a
net loss of $4.21 million on $492.05 million of total revenues
compared to a net loss of $181.59 million on $605.25 million of
total revenues for the same period during the prior year.

As of Sept. 30, 2020, the Company had $626.34 million in total
assets, $670.80 million in total liabilities, and a total
partners'deficit of $44.46 million.

A full-text copy of the Form 10-Q is available for free at:

https://www.sec.gov/ix?doc=/Archives/edgar/data/1176334/000117633420000147/mmlp-20200930.htm

                       About Martin Midstream

Martin Midstream Partners L.P. is a publicly traded limited
partnership with a diverse set of operations focused primarily in
the United States Gulf Coast region.  The Partnership's primary
business lines include: (1) terminalling, processing, storage, and
packaging services for petroleum products and by-products; (2) land
and marine transportation services for petroleum products and
by-products, chemicals, and specialty products; (3) sulfur and
sulfur-based products processing, manufacturing, marketing and
distribution; and (4) natural gas liquids marketing, distribution
and transportation services.

Martin Midstream reported a net loss of $175.0 million for the year
ended Dec. 31, 2019, compared to net income of $55.66 million for
the year ended Dec. 31, 2018.  As of June 30, 2020, the Company had
$617.0 million in total assets, $650.8 million in total
liabilities, and a total partners' deficit of $33.81 million.

                          *     *     *

As reported by the TCR on Aug. 17, 2020, Moody's Investors Service
upgraded Martin Midstream Partners L.P.'s Corporate Family Rating
to Caa1 from Caa3.  "The upgrade of MMLP's ratings reflect the
extended debt maturity profile and improved liquidity," said
Jonathan Teitel, a Moody's analyst.


MIDWAY MARKET: Case Summary & 12 Unsecured Creditors
----------------------------------------------------
Debtor: Midway Market Square Elyria LLC
        501 Chestnut Ridge Road
        Suite 209
        Spring Valley, NY 10977

Business Description: Midway Market Square Elyria LLC is a Single
                      Asset Real Estate debtor (as defined in 11
                      U.S.C. Section 101(51B)).  The Company is
                      the owner of fee simple title to a property
                      located at 1180 West River Road Elyria, OH,
                      having a current value of $25 million.

Chapter 11 Petition Date: October 27, 2020

Court: United States Bankruptcy Court
       Southern District of New York

Case No.: 20-23142

Debtor's Counsel: Scott S. Markowitz, Esq.
                  TARTER KRINSKY & DROGIN LLP
                  1350 Broadway
                  11th Floor
                  New York, NY 10018
                  Tel: (212) 216-8000
                  Email: smarkowitz@tarterkrinsky.com

Total Assets: $27,502,148

Total Liabilities: $20,251,166

The petition was signed by Chaim Lobl, vice president/managing
member.

A copy of the petition is available for free at PacerMonitor.com
at:

https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/JI5SCFQ/Midway_Market_Square_Elyria_LLC__nysbke-20-23142__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA

List of Debtor's 12 Largest Unsecured Creditors:

   Entity                          Nature of Claim    Claim Amount
   ------                          ---------------    ------------
1. Ulmer & Berne LLP                 Legal Fees            $60,000
420 Lexington Avenue
Suite 2733
New York, NY 10170
Robin M Wilson
Tel: 216-583-7360
Email: rwilson@ulmer.com

2. N.E.S. Corp.                         Trade              $37,165
2981 Independence Road
Cleveland, OH 44115

3. Day One Lighting                     Trade              $37,000
355 Spook Rock Road
Suffern, NY 10901

4. Reiss Sheppe LLP                  Legal Fees            $35,000
Attn: Stephen Friedman
425 Madison Avenue, 19th Fl.
New York, NY 10017
Stephen Friedman
Tel: (212) 753-2424 x109
Email: sfriedman@reisssheppe.com

5. QPS                                   Trade              $4,935
45085 Telegraph Road
Elyria, OH 44035

6. TG Consultants, Inc.                  Trade              $4,349
185 Wheeler Avenue
Staten Island, NY 10314

7. Commercial Roofing                    Trade              $3,526
P.O. Box 73
Garrettsville, OH 44231

8. Mozes Guttman CPA                 Professional           $3,500
2 Skillman Street                        Fees
Suite 217
Brooklyn, NY 11205

9. Kutak Rock LLP                        Trade                $861
P.O. Box 30057
Omaha, NE 68103

10. North Coast Fire                     Trade                $710
Protection In
1260 North Park Avenue
Warren, OH 44483

11. Maintenance System of                Trade                $237
N. Ohio
42208 Albrecht Rd.#1
Elyria, OH 44035

12. Space Comfort Co.                    Trade                $185
5201 Clark Avenue
Cleveland, OH 44102


MOTORS LIQUIDATION: Claims in Water Contamination Case Trimmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TERRY MOORE, ELLEN MOORE, DAVID O'NIONS,
DIANE O'NIONS, JOELLEN PISARCZYK, and MARVIN PISARCZYK,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant-Appellant,
Nos. 348579, 349727 (Mich. App.), the Michigan Court of Appeals
reversed the order of the trial court denying the defendant summary
disposition of Counts I and II of the plaintiffs' Second Amended
Complaint. The appeals court held that the counts are barred by the
statute of limitations.

The Court also reversed the order of the trial court denying the
defendant summary disposition of Counts VIII and IX of the Second
Amended Complaint seeking relief under Michigan's Natural Resources
and Environmental Protection Act because the plaintiffs did not
comply with the notice provisions of the statute.

The Court reversed the order of the trial court regarding the
remaining claims (Counts X, XI, XIII, and IV, being fraud,
negligence, private nuisance, and public nuisance), and remanded
those counts to the trial court to permit plaintiffs to move to
amend their complaint to cure the deficiencies that otherwise
entitle the defendant to summary disposition of these counts.

The interlocutory appeals arose from a proposed class action in
which plaintiffs sought damages and injunctive relief for
contamination of their residential well water. Terry and Ellen
Moore, David and Diane O'Nions, and Joellen and Marvin Pisarczyk
are three couples who own or owned homes in The Oaks, a residential
subdivision in Milford, Michigan. Plaintiffs alleged that the well
water at their Milford homes is contaminated with sodium and
chloride, and that the source of the contaminants is the
defendant's car testing facility in Milford, known as the Milford
Proving Grounds. The plaintiffs alleged that the contamination was
and is caused by the excessive use of de-icing road salt at the
Proving Grounds.

The Milford Proving Grounds were owned by General Motors
Corporation (Old GM) from 1924 until July 9, 2009. On June 1, 2009,
Old GM initiated Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The Defendant,
also referred as New GM, purchased the Proving Grounds from the
bankruptcy estate of Old GM, and since July 10, 2009, has owned and
operated the Proving Grounds. Plaintiffs allege that before July
10, 2009, Old GM, and since July 10, 2009, New GM, released
hundreds of thousands of tons of de-icing salt at the Proving
Grounds, resulting in extremely high concentrations of sodium and
chloride in surface and groundwater at the Proving Grounds, which
migrated into groundwater beneath plaintiffs' properties. The salt
was used at the Proving Grounds to de-ice the extensive system of
roads, parking lots, and sidewalks, and was also used in the
testing facility to test the corrosive effect of the de-icing
chemicals on test cars.

The parties entered into an agreement on July 1, 2016, tolling as
of that date the limitations period for any complaint arising from
the alleged contamination. On Nov. 30, 2017, plaintiffs initiated
this action alleging that the defendant violated Michigan's NREPA1
and Michigan's EPA, and also alleging fraud, negligence, trespass,
and private and public nuisance.

The Defendant removed the plaintiffs' complaint to the Federal
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, seeking to
enforce the Sale Order entered by the federal bankruptcy court for
the Southern District of New York to effectuate the sale of Old
GM's assets, including the Proving Grounds, to New GM, and thereby
seeking to bar plaintiffs' claims in this case. Under the terms of
the Sale Order, New GM agreed to assume certain liabilities of Old
GM related to the real property Old GM transferred to New GM,
including liabilities arising under environmental laws, while
expressly excluding certain liabilities.

The bankruptcy court held that under its Sale Order, the plaintiffs
are precluded from pursuing against New GM common law claims
arising from Old GM's contamination of plaintiffs' groundwater.
However, recognizing that groundwater migration from the Proving
Grounds may have taken place over time, the bankruptcy court held
that plaintiffs could pursue claims arising from groundwater
contamination that occurred after the bankruptcy, even if the
contamination was caused by Old GM prior to the bankruptcy, and
could also pursue claims arising from New GM's conduct. The
bankruptcy court also held that with regard to claims for damages
based on violation of statutorily-based environmental laws, New GM
assumed liability only for compliance with such laws after it
purchased the Proving Grounds, including liability for remediation
or clean-up for contamination caused by Old GM.

The bankruptcy court explained that although its role was not to
decide the claims that were pending in this case before the federal
district court, its role as "gatekeeper" was to decide what claims
and allegations would get through the "gate" under the bankruptcy
Sale Order.

After the bankruptcy court issued its decision, the federal
district court remanded this case to the trial court. In light of
the bankruptcy court's decision, plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Complaint, alleging violations of the NREPA by New GM but
relating to conduct of Old GM, alleging violations of the NREPA by
New GM, and also alleging against New GM fraud, negligence,
trespass, private nuisance, and public nuisance. Defendant moved
for summary disposition of the Second Amended Complaint under MCR
2.116(C)(7), (8), and (10), contending that plaintiffs' claims were
barred by the statute of limitations, that plaintiffs failed to
comply with a statutory notice provision of NREPA, that plaintiffs
lacked standing, that defendant's use of salt at the Proving
Grounds was legally authorized, that plaintiffs failed to state a
claim for recovery of response activity costs under NREPA, and that
plaintiff failed to adequately allege fraud and trespass.

The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary
disposition of the plaintiffs' trespass claim pursuant to the
parties' stipulation, but denied the defendant's motion in all
other respects. The trial court held that plaintiffs' claims were
not barred by the statute of limitations.

The trial court also rejected the defendant's additional arguments
for summary disposition, and thereafter entered an order denying in
part the motion for summary disposition. After the plaintiffs were
deposed during discovery, the defendant again moved for summary
disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), (8), and (10), arguing that the
plaintiffs' depositions produced information negating the
plaintiffs' claims. The Defendant also requested that the trial
court rule on the bases for summary disposition asserted in the
defendant's first motion for summary disposition that the trial
court had not specifically ruled upon. The trial court denied the
motion, finding material issues of fact and holding that summary
disposition was not warranted at that time.

In Counts I and II of plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint,
plaintiffs sought to hold New GM liable under the NREPA (including
claims under Michigan's EPA) based upon the alleged releases of the
sodium and chloride by Old GM. In the factual allegations of their
Second Amended Complaint plaintiffs allege that the chemicals were
present in the water under their properties at least by 1997. The
Defendant argued that because plaintiffs asserted that the
contaminants reached their groundwater before July 1, 2010 (the
earliest date on which the claim could accrue and still be
actionable), these counts are barred by the statute of
limitations.

According to the Appeals Court, the burden of proving that a claim
is barred by the statute of limitations rests with the party
asserting that defense. Here, the defendant correctly asserted that
the plaintiffs alleged in their Second Amended Complaint that
contamination by Old GM reached plaintiffs' groundwater in the
1990s. Any claim against Old GM based upon the alleged
contamination accrued at the time of that harm, and the statute of
limitations began to run at that point. Defendant therefore
accurately argued that plaintiffs' claims based upon the conduct of
Old GM in this case are barred by the statute of limitations,  and
it is entitled to summary disposition of Counts I and II of the
Second Amended Complaint under MCR 2.116(C)(7).

In the remaining counts of the Second Amended Complaint alleging
fraud, nuisance, and negligence, plaintiffs sought to hold New GM
liable for its own conduct after it purchased the Proving Grounds.
The plaintiffs alleged that since it purchased the Proving Grounds
on July 10, 2009, New GM has been dumping contaminants at the
Proving Grounds that are migrating to plaintiffs' groundwater.

The Appeals Court said the Plaintiffs did not specifically allege
when contaminants from New GM reached their groundwater for the
first time. To successfully allege a claim that is not barred by
the statute of limitations, plaintiffs must allege that the
contaminants released by New GM reached their groundwater for the
first time after July 1, 2010, for purposes of their claims of
fraud and after July 1, 2013, for their claims of negligence and
nuisance. Because plaintiffs have not done so, plaintiffs have
failed to state claims for fraud, negligence, and nuisance, and the
defendant is entitled to summary disposition of those claims under
MCR 2.116(C)(8).

The Defendant argued that the plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint
does not adequately allege fraud, and therefore fails to state a
claim for fraud under MCR 2.116(C)(8). The Appeals Court agreed.
Actionable fraud, also known as fraudulent misrepresentation,
requires that (1) the defendant made a material representation, (2)
the representation was false, (3) at the time the defendant made
the representation, the defendant knew it was false or made it
recklessly, without knowing whether it was true, and as a positive
assertion, (4) the defendant intended that the plaintiff relies
upon the representation, (5) the plaintiff acted in reliance upon
the representation, and (6) the plaintiff suffered damage. The
plaintiff must also establish that reliance upon the defendant's
representations was reasonable.

In Count X of the plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, the
plaintiffs alleged that (1) the defendant knew that the
contamination was migrating from the Proving Grounds as of the day
they took possession, (2) the defendant failed to notify the
plaintiffs, (3) the defendant denied that the source of the
contamination was the Proving Grounds, (4) the defendant made
positive assertions that the source of the contamination was not
the Proving Grounds, (5) the defendant made the assertions with the
intent to defraud or reckless disregard for the truth, and (6)
plaintiff suffered damages as a result of the defendant's fraud.
The Second Amended Complaint failed, however, to allege that
plaintiffs acted in reliance upon the defendant's representations,
and thus is missing an element necessary to state a prima facie
case of fraud. The Plaintiffs also failed to allege that defendant
had a duty to disclose the material facts allegedly suppressed, and
thus is missing an element necessary to state a prima facie case of
silent fraud.  According to the Appeals Court, the trial court
erred by failing to grant defendant summary disposition of the
plaintiffs' fraud claim.

A copy of the Court's Ruling is available at https://bit.ly/3cYO6Bu
from Leagle.com.

                       About General Motors

With its global headquarters in Detroit, Michigan, General Motors
-- http://www.gm.com/-- is one of the world's largest automakers,
traces its roots back to 1908.

General Motors Co. was formed to acquire the operations of General
Motors Corp. through a sale under 11 U.S.C. Sec. 363 following Old
GM's bankruptcy filing.  The U.S. government provided financing.
The deal was closed July 10, 2009, and Old GM changed its name to
Motors Liquidation Co.

Old GM -- General Motors Corporation -- filed for Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No. 09-50026) on June 1,
2009.  The Honorable Robert E. Gerber presides over the Chapter 11
cases.  The Debtors tapped Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP, Jenner &
Block LLP, and Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP as counsel;
and Morgan Stanley, Evercore Partners and the Blackstone Group LLP
as financial advisor.  Garden City Group served as claims and
notice agent of the Debtors.

The U.S. Trustee appointed an Official Committee of Unsecured
Creditors and a separate Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors
Holding Asbestos-Related Claims.  Lawyers at Kramer Levin Naftalis
& Frankel LLP served as bankruptcy counsel to the Creditors
Committee.  Attorneys at Butzel Long served as counsel on supplier
contract matters.  FTI Consulting Inc. served as financial advisors
to the Creditors Committee.  Elihu Inselbuch, Esq., at Caplin &
Drysdale, Chartered, represented the Asbestos Committee.
Legal Analysis Systems, Inc., served as asbestos valuation
analyst.

The Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming the Debtors'
Second Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan on March 29, 2011.  The Plan
was declared effect on March 31, 2011.

On Dec. 15, 2011, Motors Liquidation was dissolved.  On the
Dissolution Date, pursuant to the Plan and the Motors Liquidation
Company GUC Trust Agreement, dated March 30, 2011, between the
parties thereto, the trust administrator and trustee -- GUC Trust
Administrator -- of the Motors Liquidation Company GUC Trust,
assumed responsibility for the affairs of and certain claims
against MLC and its debtor subsidiaries that were not concluded
prior to the Dissolution Date.


NEIMAN MARCUS: Hopes for Magic During Holiday Season
----------------------------------------------------
Jane L. Levere of Adweek reports that after bankruptcy, Neiman
Marcus is hoping for holiday magic in all its digital campaign.
It's also the first campaign since Darren "Daz" McColl was
officially named CMO of the retailer.

Going forward, Neiman Marcus' digital strategy is to meet customers
in a variety of channels.

What a difference a year makes.

Last October 2020, luxury retailer Neiman Marcus unveiled its 2019
Christmas Book, a curated selection of almost 800 holiday gifts.
Among these were its legendary Fantasy Gifts, a franchise whose
60th anniversary was celebrated at an event at the retailer's
then-new store at New York City's Hudson Yards, with presents such
as a 007 Aston Martin designed by Daniel Craig on display.

Fast forward to today: The U.S. economy has been crippled by the
Covid-19 pandemic, its society riven by political and social
strife, and Neiman Marcus has filed for Chapter 11, reorganized and
emerged from bankruptcy. The process included closing its Hudson
Yards store, among others, as well as 17 of its 22 Last Call
stores; its two Bergdorf Goodman stores remain open.

It is against this backdrop—and daunting challenges facing all
brick-and-mortar retailers across the country—that Neiman Marcus
is unveiling its 2020 holiday campaign.

Not surprisingly, it is a continuation of its digital
transformation strategy, underway before the pandemic. Featuring
the theme "Make It Magic," the campaign, which launches today, will
be promoted on the retailer’s website, Hulu (a new partner) and
YouTube, as well as social media and email.

A new spot, created in-house in 30- and 60-second versions,
features five adults, a young girl and a dog cavorting in a
contemporary home decorated with a large white Christmas tree and
lights. They pass among themselves a small, rectangular white box,
tied with a red ribbon, illuminated from within and trailing a
stream of small, sparkling, white CGI stars. At the end of the
spot, one of the men gives the box to one of the women; she appears
overjoyed when she opens it and the two kiss.

"Neiman Marcus: Make it magic," the ad says. "There's magic in
coming home, where memories (and mischief) are made. There's magic
in being together. There's magic in giving … delighting everyone
on your list. There’s magic in you."

Darren "Daz" McColl, who was named Neiman Marcus' interim chief
marketing officer in January and was given the post permanently
last week, said the campaign is "about intimacy, connection with
family, bringing back traditions, bringing the magic to Christmas."
He said the retailer hopes to inspire people and enable them to
"connect with the thoughtfulness of giving, the joy of spreading
joy. These are moments we believe are really important."

The retailer is also creating 10 different virtual holiday
stories—the first being the spot launching today—which will be
released through the end of 2020. It also will create some 55
additional pieces of content, such as editorial and gift advisor
emails, to illustrate each story.

In addition to the digital campaign, each Neiman Marcus store will
have a gift lounge where sales associates will show customers a
curated selection of merchandise. The stores’ window displays
also will illustrate the "Make It Magic" theme.

The retailer said it would offer some 3,000 holiday gifts. McColl
said the gifts are "based on customer needs today, which have
changed in the last 12 months." Because of the pandemic, he said
there is greater demand for leisurewear, shoes and handbags, and
more shopping by men.

"Trends are not as predictable by season; they are way more
fluid,” he added.

The campaign, McColl said, "is built around our customer, and
recognizes a desire to come together this year, in whatever form it
takes to connect, to enjoy traditions new and old in a magical way.
The stories we tell throughout the season were developed to
inspire, celebrate and bring the magic of Neiman Marcus to our
customers, however they shop with us this season."

                    About Neiman Marcus Group

Neiman Marcus Group LTD, LLC -- https://www.neimanmarcus.com/ -- is
a luxury omni-channel retailer conducting store and online
operations principally under the Neiman Marcus, Bergdorf Goodman,
and Last Call brand names. It also operates the Horchow e-commerce
website offering luxury home furnishings and accessories. Since
opening in 1907 with just one store in Dallas, Neiman Marcus and
its affiliates have strategically grown to 67 stores across the
United States.

Weeks after being forced to temporarily shutter stores due to the
coronavirus pandemic, Neiman Marcus Group and 23 affiliates sought
Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 20-32519) on
May 7, 2020, after reaching an agreement with a significant
majority of our creditors to undergo a financial restructuring that
will substantially reduce the Company's debt load, and provide
access to considerable financing to ensure business continuity.

Kirkland & Ellis LLP is serving as legal counsel to the Company,
Lazard Ltd. is serving as the Company's investment banker, and
Berkeley Research Group is serving as the Company's financial
advisor. Stretto is the claims agent, maintaining the page
https://cases.stretto.com/NMG

Judge David R. Jones oversees the cases.

The Extended Term Loan Lenders are represented by Wachtell, Lipton,
Rosen & Katz as legal counsel, and Ducera Partners LLC as
investment banker.

The Noteholders are represented by Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP as legal counsel and Houlihan Lokey as investment
banker.


NINE WEST: Court Dismisses Chapter 11 Fraud & Enrichment Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that a New York federal judge has dismissed more
than $1.1 billion in fraudulent transfer and unjust enrichment
claims against shareholders, officers and directors of women's
clothing retailer Nine West, ending a group of lawsuits filed by a
Chapter 11 litigation trustee and creditors of the company.

In his opinion Thursday, August 27, 2020, U.S. District Judge Jed
Rakoff said the payments are protected by the safe harbor
provisions included in Section 546(e) of the federal Bankruptcy
Code, which allows for settlement payments to be made to holders of
stock if made by or through a qualifying financial institution.

                      About Nine West

Nine West Holdings Inc. is a footwear, accessories, women's
apparel, and jeanswear company with a portfolio of brands that
includes Nine West, Anne Klein, and Gloria Vanderbilt. The company
is a wholesale partner to major U.S. retailers and has
international licensing arrangements covering more than 1,200
points of sale around the world.

In April 2014, Sycamore Partners Management, L.P., acquired The
Jones Group Inc. for $2.2 billion via leveraged buyout. As part of
the transaction, The Jones Group merged with several affiliates,
and the newly merged company was renamed as Nine West Holdings.

On April 6, 2018, Nine West Holdings, Inc., and 10 affiliates
sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Lead Case No.
18-10947) to right size their balance sheet, sell the Nine West
Group's assets, and execute on their turnaround strategy to
concentrate exclusively on their One Jeanswear Group, Kasper
Group,
The Jewelry Group, and Anne Klein businesses.

In addition to the chapter 11 cases, Jones Canada, Inc., and Nine
West Canada LP commenced foreign insolvency proceeding under the
Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act in Canada.

The Hon. Shelley C. Chapman is the U.S. case judge.

The Debtors tapped Kirkland & Ellis LLP as counsel; Lazard Freres &
Co. as investment banker; Alvarez & Marsal North America LLC as
interim management and financial advisory services provider;
Consensus Advisory Services LLC and Consensus Securities LLC as
investment banker in connection with the sale of intellectual
property associated with the Nine West and Bandolino brands;
Deloitte Tax LLP as tax services provider; and BDO USA, LLP, as
auditor and accountant.

Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP is serving as the company's independent
counsel, rendering services at the direction of independent
directors Alan Miller and Harvey Tepner. Berkeley Research Group is
serving as independent financial advisor, rendering professional
services at the direction of the Independent Directors.

Prime Clerk LLC is the claims and noticing agent.

The Ad Hoc Group of Secured Term Loan Lenders tapped Davis Polk &
Wardwell LLP as counsel; and Ducera Partners LLC as financial
advisor.

The Ad Hoc Crossover Group of Secured and Unsecured Term Loan
Lenders tapped King & Spalding LLP as counsel and Guggenheim
Securities, LLC, as financial advisor.

Brigade Capital Management, LP, a party to the RSA tapped Kramer
Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP as counsel.  

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors tapped Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP as counsel; Houlihan Lokey Capital, Inc.,
as investment banker; and Protiviti Inc. as financial advisor and
forensic accountant.

Sycamore Partners Management, L.P., owner of 90.2% of the equity
interests in the debtors, tapped Proskauer Rose LLP as counsel.
Authentic Brands, which bought Nine West's IP assets, tapped DLA
Piper Global Law Firm as counsel.





NPC INT'L: Creditors Oppose the 'Roulette Wheel' Bankruptcy Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Saul of Bloomberg News reports that the unsecured creditors of
restaurant operator NPC International Inc. object to the company's
disclosure statement saying the current bankruptcy plan has too
many potential outcomes for creditors to decide whether to support
it.

The sale and reorganization processes contemplated under the plan
could result in a reorganization around Pizza Hut or a sale of the
entire business, including sales of all or part of its Pizza Hut
and Wendy's businesses: filing.

"While chapter 11 plans which 'toggle' between sales and a
reorganization are not uncommon, the Debtors' Plan more closely
resembles a roulette wheel than a traditional toggle plan,"
according to filing.

                      About NPC International

NPC International, Inc. -- https://www.npcinternational.com/ -- is
a franchisee company with over 1,600 franchised restaurants across
two iconic brands -- Wendy's and Pizza Hut -- spanning 30 states
and the District of Columbia.

NPC International and its affiliates sought protection under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Lead Case No.
20-33353) on July 1, 2020. At the time of the filing, Debtors
disclosed assets of between $1 billion and $10 billion and
liabilities of the same range.  

Judge David R. Jones oversees the cases.

The Debtors tapped Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, as bankruptcy
counsel; Alixpartners, LLP as financial advisor; Greenhill & Co.,
LLC as investment banker; and Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC as
claims, noticing and solicitation agent and administrative advisor.


NPC INTERNATIONAL: Driver Class Claimants Oppose Plan Disclosures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kristin Marshall, Romie Campbell, et al., in their individual and
representative capacities (and with the class members,
collectively, the "Driver Class Claimants"), submit this objection
to the Debtors' Motion for Entry of an Order (I) Approving proposed
Disclosure Statement; and (II) Other related reliefs filed by NPC
International, Inc. and its debtor affiliates.

The Driver Class Claimants point out that the Disclosure Statement
fails to provide adequate information.

The Driver Class Claimants object to the adequacy of the Disclosure
Statement and to the Approval Motion on the following grounds:

  * The Disclosure Statement fails to provide an Estimated Allowed
Amount and
Approximate Percentage Recovery for Class 5 creditors under either
the Sale
Transaction or Reorganization Transaction contemplated under the
Plan.

  * The Disclosure Statement must be amended to disclose the Driver
Class Claimants' (1) prepetition Action for federal and state wage
law violations, (2) motion seeking authority to file a class proof
of claim on behalf of all the Driver Class Claimants in all states
and territories of the United States (the "Class Claim Motion"),
and (3) the Officer FLSA Litigation;

  * The Plan Release, Exculpation and Injunction provisions need to
be clarified and explained because they are vague and unclear (and
the Driver Class Claimants believe they are improper).

  * The Disclosure Statement fails to describe and the Plan fails
to provide an adequate protocol for the preservation of the
Debtors' books and records post-confirmation.

The Driver Class Claimants further point out that:

  * The Disclosure Statement must be modified to disclose the
driver class claimants' prepetition class action, class claim
motion and the officer FLSA Litigation.

  * To the extent the Plan releases, injunction and exculpation
provisions may adversely affect parties in interest, they are
improper, ambiguous and, at the very least, require clarification.


The Driver Class Claimants do not understand how the Debtors'
Release can be approved by this Court. First, neither the
Disclosure Statement nor Plan provide any evidence or detail that
the Released Parties are providing any consideration to the Debtors
in exchange for the Debtors' Release. Second, and critically, the
Debtors have failed to show they conducted any type of
investigation to determine whether the Debtors or their estates
have any claims against any of the Released Parties, including
breach of fiduciary duty, corporate mismanagement, or any similar
actions.

The Driver Class Claimants assert that the Disclosure Statement
must be amended and the provisions at issue must be explained and
made clear rather than forcing an affected creditor or interest
holder to navigate through multiple provisions and definitions,
some of which are ambiguous or contradictory or buried.

                         Books and Records

The Driver Class Claimants complain that the Disclosure Statement
fails to describe and the Plan fails to provide an appropriate
mechanism for preserving the Debtors' books and records.

According to the Claimants, the Disclosure Statement should
describe and the Plan must provide a mechanism for the Debtors or
any transferee of the Debtors' Books and Records to maintain and
preserve those Books and Records and to advise parties in interest
of their intention with respect to the Books and Records.

The Claimants aver that the Disclosure Statement should not be
approved because the Plan is not confirmable.

Counsel for the Driver Class Claimants:

     Seth A. Meyer
     KELLER LENKNER LLC
     150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
     Chicago, Illinois 60606
     Tel: (312) 741-5220
     sam@kellerlenkner.com

     Paul Botros
     MORGAN & MORGAN PA
     16255 Park Ten Pl Suite 500
     Houston, TX 77084
     Tel: (346) 214-4324
     pbotros@forthepeople.com

     Nicholas F. Kajon
     Constantine D. Pourakis
     STEVENS & LEE, P.C.
     485 Madison Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, New York 10022
     Tel: (212) 319-8500
     nfk@stevenslee.com
     cp@stevenslee.com

                     About NPC International

NPC International, Inc. -- https://www.npcinternational.com/ -- is
a franchisee company with over 1,600 franchised restaurants across
two iconic brands -- Wendy's and Pizza Hut -- spanning 30 states
and the District of Columbia.

NPC International and its affiliates sought protection under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Lead Case No.
20-33353) on July 1, 2020. At the time of the filing, the Debtors
disclosed assets of between $1 billion and $10 billion and
liabilities of the same range.  

Judge David R. Jones oversees the cases.

The Debtors tapped Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP, as bankruptcy
counsel; Alixpartners, LLP as financial advisor; Greenhill & Co.,
LLC as investment banker; and Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC as
claims, noticing and solicitation agent and administrative advisor.


NS8 INC: Files for Chapter 11 as Founder Sued by SEC
----------------------------------------------------
Cyberfraud prevention firm NS8 Inc. filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
on Tuesday, October 28, 2020, listing assets of at least $10
million and liabilities of at least $100 million.

NS8 announced mid-September that its founder and former CEO Adam
Rogas was charged with fraud in September by federal prosecutors,
who accused him of faking company financial statements and
misleading investors to raise more than $100 million.

"The NS8 Board of Directors has learned that much of the
company’s revenue and customer information had been fabricated by
Mr. Rogas. These events created significant cash flow issues for
the company and required a significant downsizing impacting all of
its employees. The remaining NS8 leadership and Board of Directors
is working to determine financial options for the company and its
stakeholders going forward," the Company said.

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced Sept. 17, 2020
that it filed an emergency action against Adam Rogas, seeking an
asset freeze and charging Rogas with defrauding investors by
falsely claiming millions of dollars in revenue.

According to the SEC's complaint, from at least 2018 through June
2020, Rogas altered NS8's bank statements to show millions of
dollars in payments from customers. Rogas allegedly sent the
falsified bank statements and revenue figures on a monthly basis to
NS8's finance department, which used them to prepare NS8's
financial statements.  In at least two securities offerings, NS8
and Rogas allegedly provided investors and prospective investors
the false financial statements, showing millions of dollars in
revenue and assets and other information incorporating the
falsified revenue figures. The SEC alleges that as a result of
Rogas's fraud, NS8 raised approximately $123 million in 2019 and
2020, and that Rogas ultimately pocketed at least $17.5 million of
investor funds.

"As alleged in our complaint, Rogas falsely presented NS8 as a
successful business by fabricating revenue figures and providing
them to investors," said Kurt L. Gottschall, Director of the SEC's
Denver Regional Office. "Investors are entitled to accurate
information about a company's financial condition and the SEC is
committed to holding accountable corporate executives who deceive
investors."

                          About NS8 Inc.

Las Vegas-based NS8 Inc. -- https://www.ns8.com/ -- is a developer
of a comprehensive fraud prevention platform that combines
behavioral analytics, real-time scoring, and global monitoring to
help businesses minimize risk.

NS8 Inc. sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. D. Del. Case No.
20-12702) on Oct. 27, 2020.  The petition was signed by Daniel P.
Wikel, the chief restructuring officer.

The Debtor was estimated to have $10 million to $50 million in
assets and $100 million to $500 million in liabilities.

The Hon. Christopher S. Sontchi is the case judge.

The Debtor tapped BLANK ROME LLP and COOLEY LLP as counsel; and FTI
CONSULTING, INC. as financial advisor.  STRETTO is the claims
agent.


OCCASION BRANDS: Nov. 13 Auction of Substantially All Assets
------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Stuart M. Bernstein of U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern
District of New York authorized Occasion Brands, LLC's proposed
bidding procedures in connection with the sale of substantially all
assets, other than Retained Assets, to an affiliate of Milestone
Partners and David Wilkenfeld for $3.5 million, subject to
overbid.

The Debtor's selection of an affiliate of Milestone Partners and
David Wilkenfeld (or one or more entities formed to effectuate the
transaction) as the Stalking Horse Bidder is approved.  The
Stalking Horse Bid is deemed a Qualified Bid for all purposes of
the Bidding Procedures and the Stalking Horse Bidder will be and is
deemed a Qualified Bidder for all purposes of the Bidding
Procedures.   

The salient terms of the Bidding Procedures are:

     a. Bid Deadline: Nov. 12, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. (EST)

     b. Initial Bid: A Bid for all or substantially all of the
Debtor's assets must propose a minimum purchase price, that in the
Debtor's reasonable business judgment, has a value greater than
$3.71 million or the sum of (i) the Aggregate Purchase Price of
$3.5 million (consisting of the Stalking Horse Bidder's
satisfaction and waiver of its allowed secured claim of $1.5
million, plus $400,000 cash, plus the currently projected Net Sale
Payout estimated by the Stalking Horse Bidder at $1.6 million, each
of which remain subject to adjustment as set forth in the Stalking
Horse Agreement), (ii) the Expense Reimbursement of up to $200,000,
and (iii) $10,000.

     c. Deposit: 10% of the Bid

     d. Auction: The Auction, if necessary, will take place on Nov.
13, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (EST) at the offices of counsel for the
Debtor, Sills Cummis & Gross, P.C., 101 Park Avenue, 28th Floor,
New York, New York 10178, or such other place and time and manner
(including via video or any similar manner) as the Debtor will
notify all Qualified Bidders that have submitted Qualified Bids
(including the Stalking Horse Bidder) and the Consultation Parties.


     e. Bid Increments: $50,000

     f. Sale Hearing: Nov. 19, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. (EST)

     g. Sale Objection Deadline: Nov. 11, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. (EST)

     h. Expense Reimbursement: $200,000

The sale will be free and clear of encumbrances including successor
liability claims.

The Expense Reimbursement described in the Bidding Procedures and
Motion and set forth in the Stalking Horse Agreement is approved as
set forth in the Stalking Horse Agreement.

The Sale Notice is approved.  Within two business days following
the entry of the Order, or as soon as reasonably practicable
thereafter, the Debtor will cause the Sale Notice to be served on
the Sale Notice Parties.

The Assumption Procedures regarding the assumption and assignment
of the executory contracts proposed to be assumed by the Debtor and
assigned to the Stalking Horse Bidder are approved.  No less than
seven calendar days prior to the Assumption and Assignment Service
Deadline, the Debtor will serve the Contract/Lease Assumption
Notice on all counterparties to all potential Assumed Contract and
Assumed Leasehold Interests and provide a copy of the same to the
Stalking Horse Bidder, the Committee and the Consultation Parties.


On Aug. 11, 2020, the Debtor filed an adversary proceeding against
American Clothing Express, Inc. ("ACE") [Adv. Pro. No. 20-01205
(SMB)].  The Debtor and ACE reserve all rights with respect to the
matters to be adjudicated in the ACE Adversary Proceeding.

Notwithstanding Bankruptcy Rule 6004(h), the terms and conditions
of the Order are immediately effective and enforceable upon its
entry.

A copy of the Bidding Procedures is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y5e5oath from PacerMonitor.com free of charge.

                      About Occasion Brands

Founded in 1998, Occasion Brands, LLC is a family of e-commerce
websites that focuses on prom, homecoming, bridal, and other
special occasion events.  It is a pure-play e-commerce platform for
prom dresses and operates its business through three web
properties: promgirl.com, simplydresses.com, and
KleinfeldBridalParty.com. teen events.  On the Web:
https://www.occasionbrands.com/

Occasion Brands sought protection under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D.N.Y., Case No. 20-11684) on July 22,
2020.  Robert Nolan, chief restructuring officer, signed the
petition.

At the time of the filing, the Debtor was estimated to have assets
of $1 million to $10 million and liabilities of $10 million to $50
million.

S. Jason Teele, Esq. and Daniel J. Harris, Esq., of Sills Cummins &
Gross P.C. serve as Debtor's counsel.  Insight Partners, LLC, is
the Debtor's Restructuring Advisor, and Omni Agent Solutions is the
claims and noticing agent.


OCEAN VIEW: Seeks to Hire McDowell Law as Counsel
-------------------------------------------------
Ocean View Motel, LLC, seeks authority from the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of New Jersey to employ McDowell Law, PC, as
counsel to the Debtor.

Ocean View requires McDowell Law to provide all required advice to
the Debtor as debtor-in-possession, and assist in formulating and
confirming the Plan of Reorganization.

McDowell Law will be paid at the hourly rates of $275 to $425.

McDowell Law will be paid a retainer in the amount of $10,000

McDowell Law will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses incurred.

Ellen M. McDowell, a partner of McDowell Law, PC, assured the Court
that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is defined in
Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and does not represent any
interest adverse to the Debtor and its estates.

McDowell Law can be reached at:

     Ellen M. McDowell, Esq.
     MCDOWELL LAW, PC
     46 West Main Street
     Maple Shade, NJ 08052
     Tel: (856) 482-5544

                      About Ocean View Motel

Ocean View Motel, LLC, filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition
(Bankr. D.N.J. Case No. 20-21165) on Sept. 30, 2020, disclosing
under $1 million in both assets and liabilities.  The Debtor is
represented by McDowell Law, PC.


PARKING MANAGEMENT: Can Proceed Under Subchapter V of Chapter 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Thomas J. Catliota ruled that Parking Management,
Inc. is eligible to proceed as a debtor under the new Subchapter V
of chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

The new Subchapter V of Chapter 11 offers small business debtors a
streamlined Chapter 11 procedure that is intended to be less costly
and time-consuming than a traditional case. To be eligible for
Subchapter V, a debtor must have "noncontingent liquidated secured
and unsecured debts as of the date of the filing of the petition .
. . in an amount not more than $7,500,000." The dispute before the
court was whether the debtor Parking Management Inc. meets this
eligibility test.

Parking Management filed for Chapter 11 relief on May 7, 2020. On
the petition, it designated itself a debtor "as defined in 11
U.S.C. section 1182(1), its aggregate noncontingent liquidated
debts (excluding debts owed to insiders or affiliates) are less
than $7,500,000" and "it chooses to proceed under Subchapter V of
Chapter 11."

The debtor is one of the largest parking operators in the
Mid-Atlantic area. As of April 30, 2020, it leased or managed
approximately 100 parking facilities throughout Northern Virginia,
Washington D.C., and Baltimore, Maryland metropolitan areas, and
employs 191 people. The debtor uses two basic structures for its
parking operations. Under the first structure, the debtor leases a
parking lot from a property owner, operates the parking facility,
and pays rent to the owner. Under the second structure, the debtor
manages a parking facility for the property owner pursuant to a
management agreement and receives a management fee as compensation
for doing so.

Prior to the petition, the debtor determined it should reject 12
parking leases. On the petition date, it filed a motion to reject
the leases as of that date. The debtor stated it closed the
facilities before the petition due to diminished revenues resulting
from the COVID-19 pandemic and asked that it be allowed to reject
the leases as of the petition date. After notice, no party objected
to the rejection of the leases, but several landlords objected to
the request to reject the leases as of the petition date. On May
21, 2020, the court issued two orders resolving the motion. Without
objection by the pertinent landlords, the court authorized the
rejection of seven of the leases "as of" the petition date. By
agreement with landlords for five of the leases, the court
authorized the rejection of the remaining leases as of May 12,
2020. Landlords representing five of the seven leases that were
rejected as of the petition date have filed proofs of claim for the
rejection damages in the aggregate amount of $1,765,542.63.

Prior to the petition, the debtor applied for small business
funding under the PPP, and received $1,862,723.84 on April 30,
2020, from Trust Bank. To evidence the PPP loan the debtor executed
a Paycheck Protection Program Promissory Note in that amount.

The debtor and JBGS have been involved in an ongoing dispute during
the case that is the subject of JBGS Management OP, L.P. v. Parking
Management, Inc., Adversary Proceeding No. 20-00195. There, it was
established that the debtor and JBGS entered into a parking
management agreement dated Jan.  1, 2006, as subsequently amended,
under which the debtor manages and operates 42 parking facilities
on behalf of JBGS. The debtor collects parking revenue, pays
certain authorized expenses, pays itself a management fee, and
remits the net parking revenues to JBGS. JBGS argued that on the
petition date, the debtor held $2,803,376 of its net monthly
parking revenues that the debtor failed to pay to it. In the
adversary proceeding, it sought the imposition of a constructive
trust over the funds. As pertinent here, JBGS argued it holds a
noncontingent, liquidated claim in that amount until its claim is
satisfied.

The debtor filed its original schedules on May 20, 2020. It listed
no secured claims on Schedule D, and $6,169,500.01 of priority and
unsecured claims on Schedule E/F.  The debtor listed the JBGS claim
as contingent in an "unknown" amount. It included a claim of
$1,862,723.84 in favor of Trust Bank for "Paycheck Protection
Program" that was not designated as contingent or unliquidated. The
debtor also listed unpaid prepetition rent claims due on its leases
as of the petition date. JBGS timely objected to the debtor's
designation as a small business under Subchapter V, arguing that
its claim was neither unknown nor contingent. It argued that if the
debtor listed its claim on the schedules as noncontingent and
liquidated, the debtor would exceed the debt limits.

On July 8, 2020, the debtor filed amended schedules, again showing
it was below the debt limits of §1182. On Schedule D, it listed
noncontingent liquidated secured claims of $50,997.39. On Schedule
E/F, it listed total priority and unsecured claims of
$8,871,931.56, but that amount included the JBGS claim in the
amount of $2,655,942.11, which the debtor designated as contingent
and disputed. The amount also included the $1,862,723.84 claim of
Truist Bank, describing it as "Paycheck Protection Program
(Grant)," also designated as contingent, unliquidated and disputed.
The debtor again included unpaid prepetition rent claims due on its
leases as of the petition date and did not list lease rejection
claims.

Creditor JBGS Management OP, L.P., and John P. Fitzgerald, III, the
Acting United States Trustee for Region 4, joined by Union
Investment Real Estate GmbH and 2201 Limited Partnership II and
Connecticut/DeSales, LLC, argued the resulting lease rejection
damages should be included in the eligibility determination.

Further, prior to the petition, the debtor obtained approximately
$1.8 million in funds under the Paycheck Protection Program (the
"PPP") created by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act ("CARES Act"). JBGS, but not the UST, argued that the
PPP obligation should be included in the debt limit determination.

According to Judge Catliota, if either the lease rejection claims
or the PPP claim is included in the debt limit determination, the
debtor would exceed the limit in section 1182. The court concluded
that the lease rejection claims were contingent as of the date of
filing, and the PPP claim was contingent and unliquidated as of
that date. Therefore, neither is included in the debt limit
determination and the debtor is eligible to proceed under
Subchapter V.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum Decision is available at
https://bit.ly/2GIYP6Z from Leagle.com.

                    About Parking Management

Parking Management, Inc. -- https://www.pmi-parking.com/ -- is a
parking operator in Washington, DC.  It operates 88 leased or
managed properties throughout the Washington, DC and Baltimore
metropolitan areas, specializing in complex mixed-use properties
and has experience in all levels of commercial and residential
parking operations.

Parking Management sought protection under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Md. Case No. 20-15026) on May 7, 2020.
At the time of the filing, the Debtor disclosed assets of between
$1 million and $10 million and liabilities of the same range.
Judge Thomas J. Catliota oversees the case.  Shulman, Rogers,
Gandal, Pordy & Ecker, PA, is the Debtor's counsel.  JW Infinity
Consulting, LLC, is the Debtor's financial advisor.


PAVEROCK INC: Seeks to Hire Margaret M. McClure as Attorney
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paverock, Inc. seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of Texas to employ Margaret M. McClure as its
attorney.

The Debtor desires to employ Ms. McClure to give the debtor legal
advice with respect to the Debtor's powers and duties as
debtor-in-possession in the continued operation of the Debtor's
business and management of the Debtor's property and to perform all
legal services for the debtor-in-possession which may be necessary
herein.

Ms. McClure charges an hourly fee of $400.00 per hour for attorney
time and $150.00 per hour for paralegal time, plus expenses.

She received a total retainer of $25,000.00 from the Debtor, of
which $9,655.30 was earned pre-petition. The retainer balance
consists of $1,717.00 for the filing fee and $13,627.70 to be
applied to services rendered or expenses incurred in connection
with representing the debtor in the bankruptcy proceeding, subject
to court approval.

Margaret M. McClure, Esq., disclosed in court filings that she is a
"disinterested person" as that term is defined in section 101(14)
of the Bankruptcy Code.

The attorney can be reached at:
   
     Margaret M. McClure, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MARGARET M. MCCLURE
     909 Fannin, Suite 3810
     Houston, TX 77010
     Telephone: (713) 659-1333
     Facsimile: (713) 658-0334
     E-mail: margaret@mmmcclurelaw.com

                                 About Paverock Inc.

Paverock, Inc. filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter
11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 20-
34982) on October 13, 2020, listing under $1 million in both assets
and liabilities. Judge Eduardo V. Rodriguez oversees the case.
Margaret M. McClure, Esq. serves as the Debtor's counsel.


PEAK PROPERTY: Seeks to Tap Nguyen & Associates CPA as Accountant
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Peak Property Group, LLC seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of Colorado to employ Ryan Nguyen and Nguyen
& Associates CPA, Inc. as accountants to provide accounting and tax
services to the Debtor during the Chapter 11 proceedings.

The hourly billing rates for accountants are as follows:

     Ryan Nguyen        $400
     Accounting Staff   $250

Ryan Nguyen, the owner of Nguyen & Associates CPA, Inc., disclosed
in court filings that the firm is a "disinterested person" as that
term is defined in section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     Ryan Nguyen
     NGUYEN & ASSOCIATES CPA, INC.
     9000 E. Nichols Avenue, Suite 225
     Centennial, CO 80112
     Telephone: (720) 819-6109
     E-mail: rnguyen@nguyencpas.com

                              About Peak Property Group

Peak Property Group LLC owns four properties in Denver, Colo., and
La Quinta, Calif., having an aggregate comparable sale value of
$1.09 million.

Peak Property Group sought protection under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Colo. Case No. 20-16088) on Sept. 12,
2020. The petition was signed by Kip Korthuis, sole member. At the
time of the filing, the Debtor had total assets of $1,102,686 and
total liabilities of $1,685,781.

Judge Kimberley H. Tyson oversees the case. The Debtor tapped
Shilliday Law, P.C. as legal counsel and Nguyen & Associates CPA,
Inc., led by Ryan Nguyen, as accountants.


PENNSYLVANIA REAL ESTATE: Disputes Default Claim of Wells Fargo
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patch reports that the owner of Cherry Hill Mall is disputing a
claim by one of its lenders that it is in breach of a recent
agreement it reached for an additional $150 million to support its
continuing operations, according to court filings.

Wells Fargo Bank N.A. is claiming the Pennsylvania Real Estate
Investment Trust (PREIT) is in violation of an agreement the mall
owner reached with 80 percent of its lenders because it failed to
seek bankruptcy protection as described in the agreement by Oct.
18, 2020, according to a recent filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC).

Wells Fargo also claims that as a result of this default,
cross-defaults related to the agreement were also triggered, which
should result in PREIT accruing interest as of Saturday, October
23, 2020.

When the agreement was reached earlier this month, PREIT had said
it would need to reach an agreement with the remaining 20 percent
of its lenders to avoid filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

In disputing Wells Fargo's claim, PREIT said it is talking with its
lenders about an amendment to the deal that would extend the
deadline for PREIT to seek bankruptcy protections.

PREIT owns the Moorestown Mall, the Cherry Hill Mall and the
Cumberland Mall, and is a part owner of the Gloucester Premium
Outlets. It had been hoping to secure the deal by the end of the
month.

Under the deal, PREIT would have access to $150 million in new
capital to strengthen the business and provide financial
flexibility. The banks would convert PREIT's existing credit into a
$150 million first lien senior secured facility, a $919 million
facility consisting of a first lien senior secured term loan
facility and a second lien secured term loan facility all of which
will have a two-year term with a 1-year extension option.

The deal was announced about two weeks after the New York Stock
Exchange warned PREIT that it is in non-compliance with the
exchange's listing standards. Failure to come into compliance may
result in PREIT being de-listed.

                    About Cherry Hill Mall

The Cherry Hill Mall, was formerly called Chery Hill Shopping
Center, was owned by Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust. It
is considered as the first reported indoor, climate-controlled
shopping center east of the Mississippi River in the United States,
and opened on October 11, 1961.


PORTERS NECK COUNTRY CLUB: McConnell Golf Is New Club Owner
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cece Nunn of WilmingtonBiz reports that Raleigh-based McConnell
Golf is the new owner of Porters Neck Country Club after a $4
million transaction that closed Monday.

The change in ownership was the result of a Chapter 11 bankruptcy
plan filed last year by Porters Neck Country Club Inc.

The northern New Hanover County property includes an 18-hole golf
course, a clubhouse, a driving range, tennis courts, swimming pools
and other amenities.

Some of the issues leading up to the bankruptcy filing included
hurricane damage, frequent flooding, litigation with the club
developer since 2014 and having its membership initiation fees
retained by the developer, according to a letter last year sent to
members.

For example, Hurricane Florence in 2018 left the club with $7.5
million in losses.

According to a 2018 IRS database, Porters Neck Country Club
reported it had more than $10.7 million in assets, nearly $5
million in income and $4.78 million in revenue at the time of the
IRS filing.

In a notice to members dated Aug. 18 of this year, club general
manager Jason Seehafer stated, "This week, the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
officially approved the motion for the private sale of real and
personal property as filed by the club.  . . . This is a historic
milestone for the club, and I know you are looking forward to a new
beginning."

McConnell Golf announced in May last year that it had entered into
a partnership with Porters Neck Country Club to manage the club.

McConnell Golf Chief Operating Officer Christian Anastasiadis said
Tuesday he could not talk about the club's bankruptcy proceedings.
But he did explain why McConnell officials felt Porters Neck
Country Club was a worthwhile acquisition.

"I think it's a fantastic property; it's a strategic fit for our
portfolio. It tremendously enhances the opportunities to play
McConnell Golf properties within the Carolinas," Anastasiadis
said.

It's one of 15 golf properties McConnell now owns and/or manages in
North and South Carolina and Tennessee, "and it will be the third
one on the coast," he said.

He said Porters Neck members now have access to other McConnell
Golf properties.

Seehafer also said in the notice, "I personally can't tell you how
relieved we all are of this ruling, as it will ensure a bright
future for the members of the club. I want to take the opportunity
to recognize the Board of Trustees and all volunteers that have
worked very hard and long hours."

                 About Porters Neck Country Club

Porters Neck Country Club, Inc. --
https://www.portersneckcountryclub.com/ -- is a full-service
country club, boasting an 18-hole, Tom Fazio-designed golf course,
in Wilmington, North Carolina. The club, which promotes a
family-oriented environment, also has seven state-of-the-art
Har-Tru tennis courts, a swimming complex, a fitness center and
dining facilities.

Porters Neck Country Club sought Chapter 11 protection (Bankr.
E.D.N.C. Case No. 19-04309) on Sept. 19, 2019, in Wilmington, N.C.
The club was estimated to have $1 million to $10 million in assets
and liabilities as of the bankruptcy filing.  

Judge Joseph N. Callaway oversees the cases.  Hendren Redwine &
Malone, PLLC serves as Porters Neck Country Club's legal counsel.

On Dec. 17, 2019, two special committees were formed to represent
current and former members of Porters Neck Country Club who hold
equity membership certificates.  Ayers & Haidt, PA, represents the
committee comprised of current members of the club while Stubbs &
Perdue, P.A., represents the special committee of the club's former
members.


PRO TANK: Samson's Nov. 6-11 Online Auction of Burdick Property OKd
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Benjamin P. Hursh of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Montana authorized Richard J. Samson, the Liquidating
Agent of Pro Tank Products, Inc., to sell the real properties
located (i) at 906 & 950 44th St. SE, Minot, North Dakota; and (ii)
4400 & 4450 Burdick Expressway East, Minot, North Dakota, via
online auction, free and clear of all liens and encumbrances.

The Liquidating Agent is authorized to consummate the proposed
sales transaction on the terms and conditions set forth in the
Motion

An auction sale currently scheduled for Nov. 6, 2020 at 8:00 a.m.
(CST) through Nov. 11, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. (CST).  Due to COVID-19
concerns, the auction will be structured as an "on-line" auction
and will be conducted by Pifer's Auction and Realty of Moorhead,
MN.  Interested bidders can obtain more information from Dave
Keller, Pifer’s Auction and Realty, at (877) 700-4099 or
dkeller@pifers.com.

The Liquidating Agent will promptly file a Report of Sale as
required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 6004(f)(1) upon completion of said
sale.

                     About Pro Tank Products

Pro Tank Products is a privately held company based in Plentywood,
Montana, that manufactures tanks and tank components.

Pro Tank is affiliated with Marsh Land & Livestock, Inc. and Marsh
Resources, LLC, both of which sought bankruptcy protection on Oct.
17 and Oct. 13, 2016, respectively (Bankr. D. Mont. Case Nos.
16-60999 and 16-61010).

Pro Tank filed a Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. D. Mont. Case No.
17-61181) on Dec. 12, 2017.  In the petition signed by Todd J.
Marsh, its president, the Debtor estimated $1 million to $10
million in both assets and liabilities.  The Hon. Benjamin P. Hursh
presides over the case.  Gary S. Deschenes, Esq., at Deschenes &
Associates Law Offices, serves as bankruptcy counsel.


PRO TANK: Samson's Nov. 6-11 Online Auction of Minot Property OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Benjamin P. Hursh of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the
District of Montana authorized Richard J. Samson, the Liquidating
Agent of Pro Tank Products, Inc., to sell the real property located
at 5015 E. Railway Ave., Minot, North Dakota, via online auction,
free and clear of all liens and encumbrances.

The Liquidating Agent is authorized to consummate the proposed
sales transaction on the terms and conditions set forth in the
Motion.

An auction sale currently scheduled for Nov. 6, 2020 at 8:00 a.m.
(CST) through Nov. 11, 2020 at 12:00 p.m. (CST).  Due to COVID-19
concerns, the auction will be structured as an "on-line" auction
and will be conducted by Pifer's Auction and Realty of Moorhead,
MN.  Interested bidders can obtain more information from Dave
Keller, Pifer’s Auction and Realty, at (877) 700-4099 or
dkeller@pifers.com.

The Liquidating Agent will promptly file a Report of Sale as
required by Fed. R. Bankr. P. 6004(f)(1) upon completion of said
sale.

                    About Pro Tank Products

Pro Tank Products is a privately held company based in Plentywood,
Montana, that manufactures tanks and tank components.

Pro Tank is affiliated with Marsh Land & Livestock, Inc. and Marsh
Resources, LLC, both of which sought bankruptcy protection on Oct.
17 and Oct. 13, 2016, respectively (Bankr. D. Mont. Case Nos.
16-60999 and 16-61010).

Pro Tank filed a Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. D. Mont. Case No.
17-61181) on Dec. 12, 2017.  In the petition signed by Todd J.
Marsh, its president, the Debtor was estimated to have $1 million
to $10 million in both assets and liabilities.  The Hon. Benjamin
P. Hursh presides over the case.  Gary S. Deschenes, Esq., at
Deschenes & Associates Law Offices, serves as bankruptcy counsel.


QUARTER HOMES: Gets Court Approval to Hire Special Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------
Quarter Homes, LLC received approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court
for the District of Arizona to employ Byron Goff, Esq., an attorney
practicing in Phoenix, Ariz., as special counsel.

The Debtor requires legal assistance as it proceeds with more
formal procedures against its tenants, including the filing of a
forcible entry and detainer action.

Mr. Goff is willing to accept a $500 flat fee to handle the matter
from filing the complaint through the hearing. If a complaint is
filed and no hearing is required, the attorney will reduce his fee
to $250.

Mr. Goff disclosed in court filings that he does not represent
interests adverse to the Debtor's bankruptcy estate.

The attorney holds office at:

     David Goff, Esq.
     11811 N Tatum Blvd Ste 3031
     Phoenix, AZ 85028-1621

                        About Quarter Homes

Quarter Homes LLC owns commercial real estate, undeveloped land and
residential properties in Arizona.

On June 11, 2020, Quarter Homes filed a petition for relief under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Ariz. Case No.
20-07065).  Quarter Homes President David Turcotte signed the
petition.  At the time of the filing, the Debtor disclosed assets
of between $1 million and $10 million and liabilities of the same
range.  

Judge Daniel P. Collins oversees the case.  

The Debtor has tapped Osborn Maledon, P.A. as its legal counsel,
Mark Harnden, CPA as tax accountant, and A&M Management of Arizona
as real estate broker.


RGN-GROUP HOLDINGS: Chapel Hill Office Building Owner in Chapter 11
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Brighton McConnell of Chapelboro.com reports that RGN Group
Holdings LLC a Chapel Hill office building is part of the holdings
affected by a recent filing for bankruptcy filed by RGN Group
Holdings LLC.

According to a report by the Triangle Business Journal, the company
that operates Regus shared office suits voluntarily filed for
Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last month.  Regus has an
affiliate in Chapel Hill included in the filing, which runs the
Spaces Station At East 54 office building off South Hamilton Road.
That location reported revenues of around $665,000 and expenses of
about $1.3 million, according to the report.

The report says the filing references challenges the ongoing
COVID-19 pandemic has made for co-working spaces as more people
work from home. The filing said the pandemic has "severely
disrupted business plans and operations for certain locations
within the company's U.S. portfolio. With the near universal
adoption of work-from-home policies by U.S. businesses during the
early months of the pandemic, demand for temporary office space has
been depressed."

According to its website, Spaces works as a shared office space
that offers co-working memberships, private offices and team
offices short-term leases. Approved in 2016, the building was part
of a $3.3 million public-private partnership between the Town of
Chapel Hill and East West Partners, which also built the new Fire
Station 2 building. The space was planned to be near a stop on the
Durham-Orange Light Rail, but the project was canceled in early
2019 after numerous challenges.

Chapel Hill's Regus affiliate was not the only one listed in the
bankruptcy filing. Triangle Business Journal reports affiliates in
cities like Chicago and Fort Lauderdale were also included. Another
Regus-owned location in Chapel Hill, listed at 1340 Environ Way in
the same East 54 shopping area, was not in the impacted portfolio.
                     About RGN-Group Holdings

RGN-Group Holdings, LLC and its affiliates are primarily engaged in
renting and leasing real estate properties.

On Aug. 17, 2020, RGN-Group Holdings and its affiliates sought
protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Del.
Lead Case No. 20-11961).  At the time of the filing, RGN-Group
Holdings disclosed total assets of $1,005,956,000 and total
liabilities of $946,016,000.  

Judge Brendan Linehan Shannon oversees the cases.

The Debtors have tapped Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP as their
bankruptcy counsel, Alixpartners as financial advisor, Duff &
Phelps LLC as restructuring advisor, and Epiq Corporate
Restructuring LLC as claims and noticing agent.


RIVER TO VALLEY: Seeks to Hire Pahnke Real Estate as Realtor
------------------------------------------------------------
River to Valley Initiatives, Inc. seeks approval from the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Wisconsin to employ
Jim Pahnke and Pahnke Real Estate LLC as realtors.

The Debtor desires to retain the firm to advertise, market, arrange
showings, and assist in closing the sales of the Debtor's property
located at 225 Division St., Platteville, Wisconsin.

Pahnke Real Estate will receive a commission rate of 4.5% for a
co-brokered deal or 2% if the buyer is also represented by the
firm.

Jim Pahnke, a realtor with the firm of Pahnke Real Estate LLC,
disclosed in court filings that he and the firm are "disinterested
persons" as that term is defined in section 101(14) of the
Bankruptcy Code.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     Jim Pahnke
     PAHNKE REAL ESTATE LLC
     207 W. Water St.
     Shullsburg, WI 53586
     Telephone: (608) 778-5935
     E-mail: jim@pahnkerealestate.com

                           About River to Valley Initiatives

River to Valley Initiatives, Inc. filed a voluntary petition for
relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. W.D. Wis.
Case No. 20-12125) on August 17, 2020. At the time of the filing,
the Debtor had estimated assets of between $100,001 and $500,000
and liabilities of between $500,001 and $1 million. Judge Catherine
J. Furay oversees the case. Krekeler Strother, S.C., led by John P.
Driscoll, Esq., is the Debtor's legal counsel.


ROBERT J. AMBRUSTER: Hires Angela Redden-Jansen as Counsel
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Ambruster, Inc. has filed an amended application with the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri seeking
approval to hire Angela Redden-Jansen, Esq., as counsel.

Robert J. Ambruster requires Angela Redden-Jansen to:

   (a) analyze the Debtor's financial condition and rendering
       advice in determining whether to file a petition in
       bankruptcy;

   (b) prepare and file any petition, schedules, statement of
       financial affairs, plan, disclosure statement and all
       other papers which may be necessary or appropriate in the
       bankruptcy proceeding;

   (c) represent the Debtor at the meeting of creditors, the
       hearing and any adjourned hearings thereof;

   (d) represent the Debtor in adversary proceedings and other
       contested bankruptcy matters; and

   (e) assist in the Federal and state court lawsuits and
       administrative proceedings related or ancillary to the
       bankruptcy proceeding.

Angela Redden-Jansen's standard hourly rate is $325 per hour, while
the rate of paralegals ranges from $140 to $245 per hour. In
addition to the standard hourly rates to be charged, the Debtor
will pay all actual expenses incurred by the firm.

The firm received a retainer of $15,000, of which $5,107.50 was
paid at the time of the filing of the Chapter 11 petition.

Angela Redden-Jansen does not represent interest adverse to the
Debtor in the matters upon which she is to be engaged as attorney
for the Debtor.

Angela Redden-Jansen can be reached at:

     Angela Redden-Jansen, Esq.
     3350 Greenwood Blvd
     Maplewood, MO 63143-4221
     Telephone: (314) 645-5900

                   About Robert J. Ambruster

Based in Saint Louis, Mo., Robert J. Ambruster, Inc. operates as
funeral home and has been in the funeral business for more than 100
years.

Robert J. Ambruster sought protection under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. E.D. Mo. Case No. 20-44289) on Sept. 3,
2020. At the time of the filing, the Debtor had estimated assets of
up to $50,000 and liabilities of between $100,001 to $500,000.
Judge Bonnie L. Clair oversees the case. Angela Redden-Jansen is
Debtor's legal counsel.


ROCKSTAR REMODELING: Cilfone Allowed to Represent in Suit v Brooks
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Craig A. Gargotta overruled Kyle Brooks' objection
to the order approving the employment of special litigation counsel
in Debtor Rockstar Remodeling and Diamond Decks, LLC's suit versus
Brooks.

Pre-petition, on April 29, 2020, Kyle Brooks filed a lawsuit
against Donald Ferguson individually in state court styled Kyle
Brooks v. Donald Ferguson, Cause No. 2020-CI-07942.  Brooks alleged
that he is sole managing member of Rockstar, and that Ferguson
engaged in a series of actions designed to improperly increase
Ferguson's control over Rockstar's cash flow and client
relationships. Brooks brought causes of action against Ferguson
individually for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent
transfer, and breach of contract. Ferguson, who alleged that he is
the managing member of Rockstar through his role as Trustee of the
Rockstar Remodeling Trust, filed a counterclaim against Brooks for
breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, actual fraud under the Texas
Business Corporation Code, conversion, and Texas Civil Theft.
Rockstar filed a Petition in Intervention on the grounds that it
has a justiciable interest in the lawsuit and that its interests
are affected by the litigation.

Initially, Charlie J. Cilfone and William G. Weiss of Plunkett,
Griesenbeck & Mimari, Inc. represented both Ferguson and Rockstar
in the State Court Lawsuit. Brooks filed a Motion to Disqualify,
which Presiding Judge Mary Lou Alvarez granted on May 18, 2020. The
Order on Plaintiff's Motion to Disqualify ("DQ Order") provided
that Cilfone and Weiss were disqualified from "further
representation of [Rockstar] in [Cause No. 20-CI-07942]." Cilfone
filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus seeking to vacate Judge
Alvarez's DQ Order. The Fourth Court of Appeals abated the mandamus
proceeding, which was still pending disposition, when Rockstar
filed for bankruptcy.

Post-petition, Rockstar removed the State Court Lawsuit to the
Bankruptcy Court. Brooks filed a Motion to Remand that Bankruptcy
Court granted. The State Court Lawsuit was remanded back to the
285th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas. The Parties
have informed the Court that Rockstar has since filed a notice of
non-suit and, as such, is no longer a party in the State Court
Lawsuit.

In the Bankruptcy Court, Rockstar filed a Complaint for Declaratory
Relief against Brooks on June 4, 2020, which initiated the
adversary proceeding styled Rockstar Remodeling and Diamond Decks,
LLC v. Kyle Brooks.  The Adversary Proceeding is a separate cause
of action from the State Court Lawsuit. The Adversary Proceeding
sought declaratory relief from the Court that: (a) Brooks has been
properly and validly removed as a member of Rockstar; (b) a
determination that any interest that Brooks has in Rockstar is
forfeited; (c) that Rockstar be awarded damages against Brooks; (d)
recovery by Rockstar of all reasonable and necessary attorney's
fees and costs; and (e) all other relief to which Rockstar shows
itself justly entitled. Rockstar filed its Application to Approve
Employment of Special Litigation Counsel to employ Cilfone as its
special litigation counsel in the Adversary Proceeding to which
Brooks objected.

Brooks argued that Cilfone cannot represent Rockstar as special
litigation counsel in the Adversary Proceeding because Cilfone's
concurrent representation of Ferguson in the State Court Lawsuit
poses an unwaivable and irreconcilable conflict of interest. Brooks
further argued that Judge Alvarez's justification for disqualifying
Cilfone from representing Rockstar in the State Court Lawsuit --
that it poses a conflict of interest for Cilfone to represent one
of two members of an LLC, while also representing the LLC itself
--is also applicable in the Adversary Proceeding. Brooks urged the
Court to consider the conflict of interest prospectively. Brooks
posited that, hypothetically, the State Court Lawsuit could result
in Ferguson being required to pay damages to Rockstar because a
component of the State Court Lawsuit is Brooks' allegation that
Ferguson embezzled and/or fraudulently transferred $200,000 from
Rockstar's account. According to Brooks, Cilfone cannot zealously
advance Ferguson's individual interest in the State Court Lawsuit
while advancing Rockstar's interests in the Adversary Proceeding.

In response, the Debtor argued that Brooks has not satisfied his
burden in establishing the existence of an actual conflict under
Rule 1.06 of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct.
The Debtor contends that even if Kyle Brooks can establish an
actual conflict, that conflict was resolved through consent of the
affected parties pursuant to Rule 1.06(c) because Rockstar and
Ferguson have filed consent affidavits that waive any potential
conflicts. Moreover, the Debtor argued that Judge Alvarez's DQ
Order entered in the State Court Lawsuit was incorrectly decided
and, regardless, the DQ Order has no bearing on the conflicts
determination here because the Debtor is no longer a party to the
State Court Lawsuit. Finally, the Debtor cited to Texas Supreme
Court case In re Murrin Bros. 1885, Ltd. to support its argument
that an attorney can simultaneously represent an LLC and a member
of that LLC when there is no evidence of prejudice.

According to Judge Gargotta, Texas courts often look to the
Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct to decide whether an
attorney should be disqualified. The Disciplinary Rules, however,
are "merely guidelines -- not controlling standards -- for
disqualification motions." If the movant establishes that an
attorney has violated a Disciplinary Rule, the movant still "must
demonstrate that the opposing lawyer's conduct caused actual
prejudice that requires disqualification."

Here, Brooks did not submit evidence regarding the likelihood of
Cilfone divulging confidential information obtained in the State
Court Lawsuit to gain an advantage in the Adversary Proceeding or
vice versa.

The comments to the Disciplinary Rules advise that representation
of one client is "directly adverse" to the representation of
another client under Rule 1.06(b)(1) "if the lawyer's independent
judgment on behalf of a client or the lawyer's ability or
willingness to consider, recommend or carry out a course of action
will be or is reasonably likely to be adversely affected by the
lawyer's representation of, or responsibilities to, the other
client." In the State Court Lawsuit, Brooks is suing Ferguson
individually for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent
transfer, and breach of contract -- causes of action rooted in
Brooks' allegations that Ferguson committed bad acts against
Rockstar that thereby injured Brooks. In the Adversary Proceeding,
Rockstar seeks declaratory relief that Brooks is no longer a member
of Rockstar due to his violation of certain provisions of
Rockstar's company agreement. Ultimately, in both lawsuits, Cilfone
soughtto advocate for clients with legal arguments that are adverse
to Brooks. Therefore, at this juncture, the Court could not find
that Ferguson's individual interests in the State Court Lawsuit and
Rockstar's interests in the Adversary Proceeding are "materially
and directly adverse" to one another.

Rule 1.06(b)(2) prohibited an attorney from representing a person
if it "reasonably appears to be or become adversely limited by the
lawyer's . . . responsibilities to another client. . . ." Brooks
argued that Cilfone cannot represent Ferguson individually and
Rockstar because Cilfone could, hypothetically, be in a situation
where he is forced to make a decision that is favorable to one of
his proposed clients but not the other. The Court noted, however,
that a "potential possible conflict does not itself necessarily
preclude the representation." Moreover, Brooks has not offered
evidence demonstrating that Cilfone's representation has caused
actual prejudice.

At this time, Brooks has not met his burden to disqualify Cilfone
from representing Rockstar in the Adversary Proceeding. The Court
further concluded that, in this circumstance, it is not obligated
to give comity to Judge Alvarez's DQ Order because the language of
the order states that the parameters of Cilfone's disqualification
from representing Rockstar relates only to that cause number. The
Court said it will not foreclose Brooks from bringing a future
motion to disqualify Cilfone from representing Rockstar in the
Adversary Proceeding if Brooks can support the conflict with
evidence of actual prejudice.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://bit.ly/35PlSIa
from Leagle.com.

                     About Rockstar Remodeling and Diamond Decks

Rockstar Remodeling and Diamond Decks, LLC, a San Antonio,
Texas-based company that provides construction services, filed a
Chapter 11 petition (Bankr. W.D. Tex. Case No. 20-50997) on May 27,
2020.  Donald Ferguson, managing member of Rockstar Remodeling
Trust, signed the petition.

At the time of the filing, Debtor was estimated to have assets of
less than $50,000 and liabilities of between $1 million and $10
million.

Judge Craig A. Gargotta oversees the case.

The Debtor has tapped James S. Wilkins, P.C. as its legal counsel,
Plunkett Griesenbeck & Mimari, Inc. as special counsel, and Blaise
C. Bender, P.C. as accountant.


ROYAL ALICE: Court Narrows Claims in Arrowhead Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge Meredith S. Grabili granted in part and denied in
part Debtor Royal Alice Properties LLC's Motion and Incorporated
Memorandum to Dismiss the case captioned ARROWHEAD CAPITAL FINANCE,
LTD, Plaintiff, v. ROYAL ALICE PROPERTIES, LLC, Defendant, Adv. No.
20-1022 (Bankr. E.D. La.). The Court granted in part and denied in
part the Debtor's request for Judicial Notice. Arrowhead's Request
for Judicial Notice was also granted in part and denied in part.
The Court also granted the Debtor's Motion to Strike.

The Debtor filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy relief under
chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code on August 29, 2019. The Debtor's
only assets consist of three real estate properties in the French
Quarter neighborhood in New Orleans, Louisiana: (a) 900-902 Royal
Street; (b) 906 Royal Street, Unit E; and (c) 910-912 Royal Street,
Unit C. Only two creditors have filed proofs of claim against the
Debtor's estate. One of those creditors, Arrowhead, filed a proof
of claim for $1 million and also initiated the adversary
proceeding, alleging in both that the Debtor is liable under
alter-ego and/or single-business-enterprise theories, among others,
for the unsatisfied obligations of several non-debtor affiliates of
the Debtor against which Arrowhead has obtained money judgments.

The Debtor filed the Motion To Dismiss on April 22, 2020, pursuant
to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and filed
the Debtor's Request for Judicial Notice, asking the Court to take
judicial notice of seven exhibits attached to its Motion To
Dismiss. Arrowhead opposed the Debtor's Motion To Dismiss, as well
as the Debtor's Request for Judicial Notice, and filed its own
Request for Judicial Notice, asking the Court to take judicial
notice of two exhibits attached to its opposition to the Motion To
Dismiss. The Debtor filed a reply brief in support of its own
Request for Judicial Notice and responding to the Arrowhead Request
for Judicial Notice. After the Debtor filed a Reply Brief in
support of its Motion To Dismiss, Arrowhead filed the Sur-Reply.
The Debtor filed its Motion To Strike the Sur-Reply filed by
Arrowhead, which Arrowhead opposed.

On April 13, 2020, Arrowhead filed a 61-page Verified Complaint,
attaching 39 exhibits. The Complaint sought to hold the Debtor
liable for debts owed to Arrowhead by certain non-debtor affiliates
of the Debtor. Specifically, Arrowhead obtained two money
judgments: (i) one awarded by the Supreme Court of the State of New
York, New York County against Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment
Limited, Seven Arts Pictures Inc., Deal Investments LLC, Deal
Productions LLC, Rectifier Productions LLC, and Pool Hall
Productions LLC in the amount of $2,496,159.50, plus 9% interest
per annum from Oct. 10, 2012, until paid; and (ii) the second by
the U.S District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Seven Arts Entertainment Inc. and Seven Arts Filmed
Entertainment Louisiana LLC in the amount of $1,933,809, plus 9%
interest per annum from January 3, 2020, until paid. Arrowhead
recorded the NY State Court Judgment in Louisiana on May 2, 2014,
and the NY Federal Court Judgment in Louisiana on Jan. 31, 2020.

The Judgments stemmed from the business relationship between
Arrowhead's predecessor, Arrowhead Consulting Group, Inc. and
certain of the Seven Arts Companies, all of which are affiliates of
and are controlled by Peter Hoffman, who is married to Susan
Hoffman, the sole member of the Debtor, and who, Arrowhead alleged,
actually controls the Debtor. Memorialized in a promissory note and
a Master Agreement, ACG agreed to finance movie productions of the
Seven Arts Companies and, in exchange, each of the Seven Arts
Companies granted a continuing first priority perfected security
interest in certain collateral, including, but not limited to:
distribution fees payable in connection with certain films; the
Seven Arts Companies' rights, title, and interest in and to certain
screenplays, scripts, and domestic and foreign copyrights; 8.1
million shares of one of the Seven Arts Companies; and a junior
security interest in an affiliate's film library.

Pursuant to the Master Agreement, all proceeds of the Collateral
were to be deposited by the Seven Arts Companies in an account at
Chase Manhattan Bank, New York, in trust for the sole benefit ACG,
and, later, Arrowhead. The Master Agreement contained a
choice-of-law provision, indicating that it "shall be governed by
and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of New
York," and a venue provision that stated that the parties to the
agreement "irrevocably submit to the jurisdiction of the state and
federal courts located in the Borough of Manhattan, The City of New
York, in the State of New York, for the resolution of any and all
disputes arising hereunder."

In time, the relationship soured and on May 5, 2010, Arrowhead
filed suit in New York state court, alleging breach of and default
under the promissory note, the Master Agreement, and related
documents for failing to pay monies due and payable to Arrowhead.
Throughout the NY State Court Action and afterward, the Seven Arts
Companies refused to provide Arrowhead an accounting or other
information regarding the Collateral Proceeds that they were
required to hold in trust and remit to Arrowhead. Ultimately,
Arrowhead obtained the NY State Court Judgment; however, while the
NY State Court Action progressed, Peter Hoffman transferred or
arranged the transfer of the assets of certain of the Seven Arts
Companies to a newly created affiliate, Seven Arts Entertainment,
Inc., leaving the parties to the Master Agreement judgment proof.

In July 2014, Arrowhead filed suit in the SDNY against Seven Arts
Entertainment, Inc., and, thereafter, Seven Arts Entertainment,
Inc. transferred its assets to its affiliate, Seven Arts Filmed
Entertainment Louisiana, LLC, of which Peter Hoffman was the sole
managing member. Arrowhead then joined Seven Arts Filmed
Entertainment Louisiana, LLC in the suit against Seven Arts
Entertainment, Inc., and eventually obtained the NY Federal Court
Judgment, in which the SDNY found that Arrowhead had proven "de
facto merger[s]" between Seven Arts Entertainment, Inc., and at
least one of the Seven Arts Companies as well as between Seven Arts
Entertainment, Inc. and Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment Louisiana,
LLC. The SDNY held those defendants jointly and severally liable
with certain of the Seven Arts Companies that were parties to the
Master Agreement and judgment debtors under the NY State Court
Judgment.

As with the NY State Court Action, the defendants to the SDNY
Action, all entities controlled by Peter Hoffman, refused to
provide bank statements or other records that would account for the
Collateral Proceeds that were to be deposited in trust and paid to
Arrowhead under the Master Agreement. The SDNY held Peter Hoffman,
Seven Arts Entertainment, Inc., and Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment
Louisiana, LLC in contempt for failure to provide an accounting and
ordered that they pay sanctions to Arrowhead. Arrowhead alleges
that Peter Hoffman and the Seven Arts Companies have never paid any
of the Judgments or sanctions, nor have they purged their contempt.
Relying on bank statements obtained through Arrowhead's own
efforts, the SDNY found that funds held by Seven Arts
Entertainment, Inc., and Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment Louisiana,
LLC, included Collateral Proceeds that should have been placed in
trust and paid to Arrowhead, but had instead been used by Peter
Hoffman for his own benefit.

Through post-judgment discovery of third parties, Arrowhead
discovered that the Seven Arts Companies (now including Seven Arts
Entertainment, Inc. and Seven Arts Filmed Entertainment Louisiana
LLC) continued to earn income from their interests in the
Collateral, but they did not deposit those proceeds in the Trust
Account or otherwise pay Arrowhead pursuant to the Judgments. To
date, none of the Seven Arts Companies or their affiliates, such as
another of Peter Hoffman's companies, PicturePro, LLC  have
provided financial information or an accounting of the Collateral
Proceeds that were to be deposited in trust and paid to Arrowhead;
rather, Arrowhead alleged that Peter Hoffman, his family members,
and representatives have stymied all requests for information and
an accounting.

Arrowhead's claim for relief in Count III seeks damages and an
accounting of the Collateral Proceeds under a breach-of-trust
theory.  Arrowhead alleged that it has never received an accounting
of the proceeds of the Collateral that are held in trust by the
Seven Arts Companies. Therefore, taking Arrowhead's allegations as
true, Arrowhead's claim has not prescribed in Louisiana; in fact,
the prescription period has not even begun to accrue. Similarly,
under New York law, "[i]t is a well-settled principal that the
statute of limitations on enforcement of a trustee's obligations
begins to run from the time the trustee repudiates such
obligations.

Pursuant to the liberative prescription analysis required by
article 3549 of the Louisiana Civil Code, Count III has not
prescribed and may proceed. The Court found that Arrowhead has
alleged facts in Count III that, when viewed in the light most
favorable to it, could entitle Arrowhead to relief; therefore, the
Court denied the Motion To Dismiss as to Count III.

In Counts VII and VIII, Arrowhead sought to avoid allegedly
fraudulent conveyances of the Collateral Proceeds. In Count X,
Arrowhead alleged that the Seven Arts Companies (and the Debtor as
a member of the single business enterprise) fraudulently concealed
transfers of the Collateral Proceeds that were to be held in trust
and paid to Arrowhead.

Under New York law, a plaintiff must commence a fraudulent
conveyance claim "within either six years from the date of the
fraud, or two years from the date of her discovery of the fraud."
Based upon the timeline alleged in the Complaint, Arrowhead must
have commenced its action for constructive fraudulent conveyance by
May 2016 and actual fraudulent conveyance by May 2012; therefore
Counts VII and VIII are prescribed.

Based on the foregoing, the Court granted the Debtor's Motion To
Dismiss as to Counts VII and VIII for constructive and actual
fraudulent conveyance as prescribed, and Count X for fraudulent
concealment for failure to state a claim.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://bit.ly/2F43dx4
from Leagle.com.

                  About Royal Alice Properties

Royal Alice Properties, LLC, owns, manages and rents the building
and real estate located on the 900 block of Royal Street in the
French Quarter, New Orleans, Louisiana.  The condominium units are
located at 906, 910-12 Royal St. New Orleans, LA 70116.

Royal Alice Properties sought protection under Chapter 11 of the
U.S. Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. E.D. La. Case No. 19-12337) on Aug.
29, 2019. In the petition signed by Susan Hoffman, member/manager,
the Debtor was estimated $1 million to $10 million in both assets
and liabilities.

The case is assigned to Judge Elizabeth W. Magner.

Leo D. Congeni, Esq., at Congeni Law Firm, LLC, represents the
Debtor.


RUBIO'S COASTAL: Gets Court OK to Tap $4.5M Ch. 11 Financing
------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the bankrupt parent of eatery chain Rubio's
Coastal Grill received permission Tuesday, October 27, 2020, from a
Delaware judge to borrow $4.5 million of its debtor-in-possession
financing despite her concerns that unsecured creditors had not yet
had a chance to weigh in on the loan.

During a virtual first-day hearing, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Mary F.
Walrath clashed with attorneys for Rubio's Restaurants Inc. over a
request in the DIP motion to extend liens to the post-petition
lenders on previously unencumbered assets, saying they could be the
only source of recovery for general unsecured creditors.  

                 About Rubio's Coastal Grill

Rubio's Coastal Grill, formerly known as Rubio's Fresh Mexican
Grill -- http://www.rubios.com/-- is a fast casual "Fresh Mex" or
"New Mex" restaurant chain specializing in Mexican food, with an
emphasis on fish tacos. Rubio's began as a walk-up taco stand in
Mission Bay in 1983.  Headquartered in Carlsbad, Calif., Rubio's
Restaurants, Inc., and its affiliates are operators and franchisors
of 170 limited service restaurants in California, Arizona, and
Nevada under the Rubio's Coastal Grill concept.  

Rubio's Restaurants, Inc., doing business as Rubio's Coastal Grill
and Rubio's Fresh Mexican Grill, along with its affiliates, sought
Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 20-12688) on Oct.
26, 2020.

Rubio's Restaurants was estimated to have $50 million to $100
million in assets and $100 million to $500 million in liabilities.

The Hon. Mary F. Walrath is the case judge.

The Debtors tapped ROPES & GRAY LLP as bankruptcy counsel; YOUNG
CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP, as Delaware counsel; MACKINAC
PARTNERS LLC as restructuring advisor; and GOWER ADVISERS as
investment banker.  B. RILEY FINANCIAL, INC., is the real estate
advisor.  STRETTO is the claims agent.


SAEXPLORATION HOLDINGS: Files Debt-for-Equity Plan
--------------------------------------------------
SAExploration Holdings, Inc. and its Debtor Affiliates filed with
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division, a Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization dated August
28, 2020.

Class 4 Credit Agreement Claims -- allowed in the amount of
$20,500,000 -- will each receive (i) its Pro Rata share of
participation in the Second Lien Exit Facility in an amount equal
to such Allowed Credit Agreement Claim; (ii) the right to purchase
pursuant to the Rights Offering up to its Pro Rata share (measured
by reference to the aggregate amount of Allowed Credit Agreement
Claims) of 78% of (A) the term loans under the First Lien Exit
Facility and (B) the New First Lien Exit Facility Equity; and (iii)
the payment in full in Cash on the Effective Date of all Accrued
Interest as of the Effective Date.

Class 5 Term Loan Claims -- allowed in the amount of $29,000,000 --
will each receive (i) its Pro Rata share (measured by reference to
the aggregate amount of Allowed Term Loan Claims) of 60% of the New
Equity under the Plan, subject to dilution by the (a) New First
Lien Exit Facility Equity, (b) New Equity issued pursuant to the
First Lien Exit Facility Put Option Premium, and (c) awards related
to the New Equity issued under the Management Incentive Plan,  and
(ii)  the  right  to  purchase  pursuant  to  the  Rights Offering
up to its Pro Rata share (measured by reference to the aggregate
amount of Allowed Term Loan Claims) of 12.5% of (A) the term loans
under the First Lien Exit Facility and (B) the New First Lien Exit
Facility Equity.

Class 6 Convertible Notes Claims -- allowed in the amount of
$60,000,000 plus any accrued and unpaid interest thereon payable
through the Petition Date -- will each  receive (i) its  Pro  Rata
share of 40% of the New Equity under the Plan, subject to  dilution
by the (a) New First Lien Exit Facility Equity, (b) New Equity
issued pursuant to the First Lien Exit Facility Put Option Premium
and (c) awards related to the New Equity issued under the
Management Incentive Plan, and (ii) the right to purchase pursuant
to the Rights Offering up to its Pro Rata share (measured by
reference to the aggregate amount of Allowed Convertible Notes
Claims) of 9.5% of (A) the term loans under the First Lien Exit
Facility and (B) the New First Lien Exit Facility Equity.

Class 7 PPP Loan Claims are unimpaired in the Plan.

Class 8 General Unsecured Claims will receive from the General
Unsecured Claims Distribution, the lesser of (i) payment in full in
cash of the unpaid portion of such Allowed General Unsecured Claim,
and (ii) its pro rata share of the General Unsecured Claims
Distribution on the Effective Date.

Class 12 SAE Holdings Interests will be extinguished and the
Holders of SAE Holdings Interests shall not receive or retain any
distribution, property, or other value on account of their SAE
Holdings Interests.

The New Equity, including the New First Lien Exit Facility Equity,
the First Lien Exit Facility Put Option Premium, and options, or
other equity awards, if any, reserved under the Management
Incentive Plan, shall be authorized on the Effective Date without
the need for any further corporate action and without any further
action by the Debtors, the Reorganized Debtors, or Holders of
Claims or Interests.

All of the shares of New Equity issued pursuant to the Rights
Offering, the Backstop Agreement, and the Plan shall be duly
authorized, validly issued, fully paid, and non-assessable.  Each
distribution and issuance of the New Equity under the Rights
Offering, the Backstop Agreement, and the Plan shall be governed by
the terms and conditions set forth in the Rights Offering, the
Backstop Agreement, and the Plan applicable to such distribution or
issuance and by the terms and conditions of the instruments
evidencing or relating to such distribution or issuance, which
terms and conditions shall bind each Entity receiving such
distribution or issuance.

On the Effective Date, the Reorganized Debtors shall enter into the
First Lien Exit Facility, the terms of which will be set forth in
the First Lien Exit Facility Documents. The First Lien Exit
Facility will take the form of a first lien term loan facility in
an aggregate principal amount outstanding equal to $15 million on
the Effective Date. Each lender under the First Lien Exit Facility,
in consideration for the aggregate purchase price paid by such
lender pursuant to the Rights Offering and the Backstop Agreement,
as applicable, will receive (a) loans under the First Lien Exit
Facility in an aggregate principal amount equal to such purchase
price, and (b) its Pro Rata share of the New First Lien Exit
Facility Equity.

The GUC Administrator shall make distributions to Holders of
Allowed General Unsecured Claims to be funded from Cash from the
General Unsecured Claims Distribution in accordance with the GUC
Administrator Agreement.

A full-text copy of the Plan of Reorganization dated August 28,
2020, is available at https://tinyurl.com/y3pn2lzk from
PacerMonitor.com at no charge.

Proposed Attorneys for the Debtors:

          PORTER HEDGES LLP
          John F. Higgins
          Eric M. English
          M. Shane Johnson
          Megan Young-John
          1000 Main Street, 36th Floor
          Houston, Texas 77002

                   About SAExploration Holdings

Based in Houston, Texas, SAExploration Holdings, Inc. and
affiliates are full-service global providers of seismic data
acquisition, logistical support and processing services to their
customers in the oil and natural gas industry that operate through
wholly-owned subsidiaries, branch offices and variable interest
entities in North America, South America, Asia Pacific, West Africa
and the Middle East.  For more information, visit
https://www.saexploration.com/

SAExploration Holdings, Inc. and affiliates sought protection under
Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Lead Case No.
20-34306) on August 27, 2020.  The petitions were signed by Michael
Faust, chairman, chief executive officer, and president.

At the time of the filing, Debtors had estimated assets of between
$1 million to $10 million and liabilities of between $100 million
to $500 million.

Judge Marvin Isgur oversees the case.

The Debtors have tapped Porter H Edges LLP as their bankruptcy
counsel, Imperial Capital, LLC and Winter Harbor LLC as financial
advisors, and Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC as claims,
noticing, solicitation and administrative agent.


SARALAND LLLP: 11th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Suit v Trustee, LMIC
------------------------------------------------------------------
Lister Harrell, Paradise Farms, Inc., and Saraland, LLLP took an
appeal from a bankruptcy court order dismissing their adversary
complaint against Todd Boudreaux and Liberty Mutual Insurance
Company. The complaint alleged that Boudreaux breached his duties
as trustee in Saraland's bankruptcy case. Boudreaux and Liberty
Mutual, which issued a bond covering Boudreaux in the performance
of his trustee obligations, filed motions to dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6).

The bankruptcy court granted the motions, and the district court
affirmed. After a thorough review, the United States Court of
Appeals, Eleventh Circuit affirmed as well.

On March 29, 2012, Lister Harrell filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy
petition on behalf of Saraland, LLLP. Harrell, as limited partner,
controls 99% of Saraland. Paradise Farms, Inc., as general partner,
owns the remaining 1%.

On March 29, 2013, the bankruptcy court appointed Boudreaux as
trustee of Saraland's Chapter 11 case. Liberty Mutual issued a
surety bond covering Boudreaux's performance of his duties as
trustee. The bankruptcy court converted Saraland's case to Chapter
7 on Dec. 30, 2015. Boudreaux continued on as trustee until Dec.
27, 2016, when he was replaced following his resignation as a
Chapter 7 trustee in the Southern District of Georgia.

On April 4, 2018, Harrell, Saraland, and Paradise Farms commenced
an adversary proceeding against Boudreaux and Liberty Mutual. Their
complaint alleged that on April 10, 2013, Harrell and his attorney
met with Boudreaux to discuss the payment in full of Saraland's
creditors and the dismissal of its bankruptcy case. One week later,
Boudreaux let Harrell know it would take $6 million to pay off
Saraland's creditors in full and asked that the two meet on April
22, 2013 to discuss Harrell's plan to satisfy Saraland's debts.

At that meeting, Harrell told Boudreaux about a commitment from
H.G. Youmans, of Youmans Wood and Timber, to purchase timber on
property owned by Saraland. Harrell planned to use those proceeds
to pay Saraland's obligations to its creditors. But, according to
Harrell, Boudreaux didn't do anything to investigate the viability
of Youman's commitment. Instead, on May 1, 2013, "aided by Dodge
County District Attorney Tim Vaughn," Boudreaux "unlawfully and
illegally seized property from" Harrell's home and sold it. Two
days later, on May 3, 2013, Harrell "was illegally and unlawfully
arrested and incarcerated as a result of actions by Dodge County
District Attorney Tim Vaughn."  However, Harrell's complaint did
not specify of which crimes he was allegedly accused. Harrell
remained incarcerated until Oct. 7, 2013, when he was released on
bond. Meanwhile, on May 31, Boudreaux "filed an interim report with
the" bankruptcy court in which he "wrongfully accused" Harrell "of
crimes, misappropriation of property and other wrongful acts." This
report, Harrell complained, made no mention of Youman's commitment
to purchase timber from Saraland's property.

From these allegations, Harrell raised six counts: (1) breach of
fiduciary duty; (2) commingling funds; (3) conversion; (4) fraud;
(5) accounting; and (6) breach of bond. The complaint also sought
punitive damages, payment of attorneys' fees, and to hold Liberty
Mutual liable under Boudreaux's surety bond. On May 29, 2018,
Boudreaux and Liberty Mutual filed separate motions under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss the complaint in its
entirety for failure to state a claim. The bankruptcy court granted
the motions. The district court affirmed, and this timely appeal
followed.

The Eleventh Circuit says it is unpersuaded by Harrell's argument
that the bankruptcy court failed to rule on Harrell's one fraud
count, and, thus, that this count still remains live. When
presented with this argument, the district court held that it
"utterly fail[ed] to comprehend Appellants' assertion that the
Bankruptcy Court did not address the fraud claim." The Eleventh
Circuit agrees with the district court. As the record reflects, and
Harrell himself conceded, the bankruptcy court "dismissed the
entire complaint," and thus, it "obviously" dismissed "each and
every" count in the complaint. Indeed, in its thorough, 67-page
opinion, the bankruptcy court squarely held that the doctrines of
res judicata and collateral estoppel bar "the claims set forth in
the complaint." On this record, the bankruptcy court need not have
said anything more.

Harrell's only other claim on appeal is that the bankruptcy court
erred in concluding that the fraud claim against Boudreaux was time
barred. The district court declined to address this argument, and
the Eleventh Circuit says it need not address it either. Harrell
has not challenged the bankruptcy court's holding that res judicata
and collateral estoppel compel dismissal of his lawsuit. That means
he has abandoned any challenge to the bankruptcy court's ruling on
that score, and "nothing we say about any statute of limitations
could affect the outcome of this appeal," the Eleventh Circuit
says. Accordingly, the Eleventh Circuit affirms.

The appellate case is UNITED STATES OF AMERICA FOR THE USE OF
LISTER HARRELL, SARALAND, LLLP, and PARADISE FARMS, INC.
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TODD BOUDREAUX, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE
CO., Defendants-Appellees, No. 19-14721 (11th Cir.).

A copy of the Eleventh Circuit's Ruling is available at
https://bit.ly/2HntMhP from Leagle.com.

Saraland, LLLP, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy (Bankr. S.D. Ga.
Case No. 12-30113) in Dublin on March 29, 2012. The case was
converted to Chapter 7 on Dec. 30, 2015.


SEAN KEVIN RYON: Sale of Fort Worth Property to 4000 Hemphill OK'd
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Mark X. Mullin of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern
District of Texas authorized Sean Kevin Ryon and Dixie Lee Ryon to
sell the real property located at 2707 N. Main St., Fort Worth,
Texas to 4000 Hemphill, LLC.

The Debtors will pay to Bay Mountain Fund I, LLC the sum of $5,500
to be received on Oct. 26, 2020 at 4:00 p.m. and conditioned upon
the timely receipt of such payment has Bay Mountain agreed to pass
the November foreclosure of the Property.  They pay Bay Mountain
the sum of $5,500 to be received on Nov. 16, 2020 at 4:00 p.m.  All
payments will be made to Bay Mountain at 3710 Rawlins, Ste 1390,
Dallas, TX 75219, Attn: Angie Arrington.

Bay Mountain may repost the Property for foreclosure sale to take
place on Dec. 1, 2020, and thereafter, in its sole discretion.

Pursuant to the Order, the Debtors are assigning to Bay Mountain
the rights to receive the earnest money under the pending sale
contract with 4000 Hemphill concerning the Property, and, in the
event that the proposed sale does not take place, the earnest money
payable under the Contract to the Seller will be paid to Bay
Mountain.  

Bay Mountain may contact the Buyer and the Buyer's broker to verify
the validity of the sale and the interest of the Buyer to move
forward with the purchase.  Bay Mountain agrees not to interfere
with the Contract between the Debtors and the Buyer.

If the Contract is terminated prior to Nov. 30, 2020, the Debtor
agrees that it will not enter into any new contracts or ask any
affirmative relief to interfere with the foreclosure sale of the
Property scheduled for Dec. 1, 2020.  If they fail to timely pay
Bay Mountain the second payment of $5,500 on Nov. 16, 2020, the
Debtors agree that they will not ask any affirmative relief to
interfere with the foreclosure sale of the Property scheduled for
Dec. 1, 2020.

If, after Nov. 23, 2020, the Contract is still in effect and on
schedule to close on Dec. 7, 2020, the Debtors may reset the
hearing on the preliminary injunction to be heard on Nov. 30, 2020
and Bay Mountain agrees to have such hearing heard on not less than
48-hour notice.

Nothing in the Order will be deemed to impair the rights of Bay
Mountain to pursue its foreclosure rights in the Property (to post
and conduct a foreclosure sale) relating to foreclosure sales
scheduled on Dec. 1, 2020.

Bay Mountain is not waiving any of its rights, other than as
expressly set forth in the Order.

The terms of the Order will be binding on the Debtors and the
Chapter 13 Trustee.  

The deadline for Bay Mountain to answer or otherwise plead in
response to the Complaint initiating the adversary proceeding will
be  extended until Jan. 15, 2021.

Counsel for the Debtors:

          Steve Stasio, Esq.
          303 Main Street, Suite 302
          Fort Worth, TX 76102-4069
          Telephone: (817) 332-5113
          Facsimile: (817) 870-0335
          E-mail: Steve.stasio@stasiolawfirm.com

The Chapter 13 bankruptcy case is In re Sean Kevin Ryon and Dixie
Lee Ryon (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Case No. 20-41620-MXM).


SHILOH INDUSTRIES: MiddleGround-Led Auction on Oct. 29 Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Shiloh Industries, Inc. (OTCMKTS: SHLOQ), an environmentally
focused global supplier of lightweighting, noise and vibration
solutions, on Sept. 25, announced that it has received approval
from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware for the
bidding procedures and stalking horse protections in connection
with its previously announced stock and asset purchase agreement
with Grouper Holdings, LLC, a subsidiary of MiddleGround Capital
LLC.  The Company also received final approval for a number of its
"First Day" motions related to the Company's voluntary Chapter 11
petitions filed on August 30, 2020.

Under the approved bidding procedures, interested parties must
submit qualified bids to acquire the Company no later than 5:00 PM
ET on Oct. 26, 2020. The court-supervised auction is scheduled to
be held on Oct. 29, 2020. A final sale approval hearing is expected
to take place on Nov. 10, 2020, with the anticipated closing of the
successful bid to occur before the end of the year, subject to
receipt of applicable regulatory approvals and the satisfaction or
waiver of other customary closing conditions. Shiloh’s operations
will continue throughout the sale process and the Company will
continue to meet customers’ needs.

“The Court approvals received today represent an important
milestone for our Company as we continue to work toward improving
Shiloh’s financial position for the long term through this
court-supervised sale process,” said Cloyd J. Abruzzo, interim
chief executive officer of Shiloh. “We continue to take pride in
serving our customers and meeting their needs as the automotive
industry recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic. We appreciate the
support of our customers, partners, and above all, our employees
throughout this process.”

The Company also noted that it agreed to an adjournment of the
Court hearing regarding final approval for the Company to access
$123.5 million in committed debtor-in-possession (“DIP”)
financing from its existing lenders, in order to provide the
recently formed Creditors’ Committee sufficient time to review
the proposed order. Shiloh continues to have sufficient liquidity
to operate its business, with access to up to $18.1 million in DIP
financing for which the Court previously granted interim approval.

Additional information is available on Shiloh’s restructuring
website at www.shilohrestructuring.com, or by calling Shiloh’s
Restructuring Hotline at (877) 462-4380 (toll-free in the U.S. and
Canada) or (347) 817-4091 (for calls originating outside the U.S.
and Canada). Court documents and additional information about the
court-supervised process are available on a separate website
administered by Shiloh’s claims agent, Prime Clerk, at
https://cases.primeclerk.com/shiloh.

Jones Day is serving as legal counsel to Shiloh, Houlihan Lokey
Capital Inc. is serving as financial advisor, and Ernst & Young LLP
is serving as restructuring advisor.

                     About Shiloh Industries

Shiloh Industries, Inc. and its subsidiaries are global innovative
solutions providers focusing on lightweighting technologies that
provide environmental and safety benefits to the mobility markets.

On Aug. 30, 2020, Shiloh Industries and its subsidiaries sought
protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Del.
Lead Case No. 20-12024). The petitions were signed by Lillian
Etzkorn, authorized person.

The Debtors reported total consolidated assets of $664,170,000 and
total consolidated debts of $563,360,000 as of April 30, 2020.

The Debtors have tapped Jones Day and Richards, Layton & Finger
P.A. as their legal counsel; Houlihan Lokey Capital Inc. as
financial advisor, Ernst & Young LLP as restructuring advisor, and
Prime Clerk LLC as claims and noticing agent.


SHREE MADHAV: Hires LMR CPA Associates as Accountant
----------------------------------------------------
Shree Madhav Laundry, LLC, seeks authority from the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the District of New Jersey to employ LMR CPA Associates,
as accountant to the Debtor.

Shree Madhav requires LMR CPA Associates to assist in the tax
return preparation, monthly operating reports, and provide general
accounting services.

LMR CPA Associates will be paid $3,000 as a consolidated Annual Fee
for the year 2020.

LMR CPA Associates will also be reimbursed for reasonable
out-of-pocket expenses incurred.

To the best of the Debtor's knowledge the firm is a "disinterested
person" as the term is defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy
Code and does not represent any interest adverse to the Debtor and
its estates.

LMR CPA Associates can be reached at:

     LMR CPA Associates
     21 Hamilton Lane North
     Plainsboro, NJ 08536
     Tel: (609) 775-3114

                   About Shree Madhav Laundry

Shree Madhav Laundry, LLC, filed a Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition
(Bankr. D.N.J. Case No. 20-20449) on Sept. 10, 2020, disclosing
under $1 million in both assets and liabilities.  The Debtor is
represented by The Kelly Firm, P.C.


SK FOODS: Status Conference in Bruce Foods Case Moved to December
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRUCE FOODS CORPORATION, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SK FOODS, L.P.,
INGOMAR PACKING COMPANY, LOS GATOS TOMATO PRODUCTS, SCOTT SALYER,
STUART WOOLF and GREG PRUETT, Defendants, Case No. 09-cv-00027 KJM
EFB (E.D. Cal.), District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller approved the
parties' stipulation that the Sept. 24, 2020 status conference be
continued until Dec. 10, 2020, or any other date convenient for the
Court to address status of the final distributions to the Class in
the Consolidated Cases.

On Sept. 16, 2014, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the
Eastern District of California entered an order confirming the
"Second Amended Joint Plan of Liquidation of SK Foods, L.P. and its
Substantively Consolidated Affiliates in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy
action filed by Defendant SK Foods, L.P.

Class counsel has informed Defendant Scott Salyer of the following
facts relating to SK Foods bankruptcy proceedings.

All funds from the Class settlements with Ingomar Packing Company,
Los Gatos Tomato Products, Stuart Woolf and Greg Pruett have been
paid and distributed to the Class and Final Judgment has been
entered as to these Defendants in the consolidated cases Four in
One Company v. SF Foods, LP, et al. (Case No.
2:08-cv-03017-KJM-EFB), Diversified Foods and Seasoning, Inc. v. SK
Foods, et al. (Case No. 2:08-cv-03074 KJM-EFB), Bruce Foods
Corporation v. SK Foods, LP, et al. (Case No.
2:09-cv-00027-KJM-EFB), and Cliffstar Corporation v. SK Foods, LP,
et al. (Case No. 2:09-cv-00442-KJM-EFB) (the "Consolidated
Cases").

A portion of the funds previously recovered through the SK Foods
bankruptcy action have been paid and distributed to the Class in
the Consolidated Cases, and the only remaining distributions to the
Class are additional funds recovered pursuant to the SK Foods
Bankruptcy Plan in the bankruptcy action.

On Jan. 13, 2020, the Chapter 11 Trustee mailed a check to the
escrow agent of Class Counsel for $306,954.36, an amount
representing the second distribution to the Class of the Allowed
General Unsecured Claim Amount of $10.6 million based on a
distribution rate of 2.895796%, which was deposited into the escrow
account for this case held by Class Counsel (the "Escrow Account
Funds"), and has informed Class Counsel the Chapter 11 Trustee has
made final distributions of bankruptcy funds to unsecured creditors
and the Class.

The Chapter 11 Trustee is performing outreach regarding uncashed
checks after which time the Trustee will file a motion to address
any unclaimed funds or redistributions, if needed, and close the
case. The Chapter 11 Trustee informs Class Counsel that there could
be one final distribution not expected to be material which would
consist of a redistribution of the funds from the uncashed checks
and any funds left over in the administrative reserve after closing
the case.

Pursuant to the SK Foods Bankruptcy Plan, Class Counsel is in the
process of making a pro rata distribution of the Escrow Account
Funds to Class members in accordance with the plan of allocation
approved by this Court, subject to the fees awarded to Class
Counsel by the bankruptcy court, and that approximately 87% of the
total check value issued has been cashed with 14 checks which
remain uncashed.

The claims administrator has determined additional outreach to the
available contacts for the uncashed checks would not be fruitful at
this time, due to the continued unavailability of some employees as
a result of Covid-19, and that additional outreach can be resumed
in late September and early October.

In a 2009 ruling with regard to the consolidation of the cases,
Judge Morrisson England stated that the cases stem from alleged
violations of antitrust law that arise from claimed anticompetitive
conduct by numerous common defendants involved in the processed
tomato products market. The March 2009 ruling is available at
https://bit.ly/2TdmI9T from Leagle.com.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://bit.ly/3kjku4R
from Leagle.com.

                         About SK Foods

SK Foods LP ran a tomato processing facility.  It filed for Chapter
11 bankruptcy protection after being dropped by its lending group.
Creditors filed an involuntary Chapter 11 petition against SK Foods
LP and affiliate RHM Supply/ Specialty Foods Inc. (Bankr. E.D. Cal.
Case No. 09-29161) on May 8, 2009.  SK Foods had said it was
preparing to file a voluntary Chapter 11 petition when the
creditors initiated the involuntary case.  The Company later put
itself into Chapter 11 and Bradley D. Sharp was appointed as
Chapter 11 trustee.  The Debtors were authorized on June 26, 2009,
to sell the business for $39 million cash to a U.S. arm of
Singapore food processor Olam International Ltd.  The replacement
cost for the assets is $139 million, according to Olam. In February
2010, a federal grand jury returned a seven-count indictment
charging Frederick Scott Salyer, former owner and CEO of SK Foods,
with violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act, in connection with his direction of various
schemes to defraud SK Foods' corporate customers through bribery
and food misbranding and adulteration, and with wire fraud and
obstruction of justice.

Salyer supporters launched a Web site which can be accessed from
two addresses: http://www.operationrottentomato.com/and
http://www.scott-salyer.com/


SOUTHERN CONCRETE: Seeks Approval to Hire Fritz Law Firm as Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Southern Concrete Company, LLC seeks approval from the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Alabama to employ Fritz
Law Firm, LLC as counsel.

The firm will render these legal services to the Debtors:

     (a) give Debtors legal advice with respect to powers and
duties as the debtor-in-possession in the continued operation of
said business and management of the property owned;

     (b) prepare on behalf of the debtor-in-possession necessary
applications, schedules, answers, orders, reports and other legal
papers;

     (c) present and represent the debtor-in-possession in all
bankruptcy hearings;

     (d) assist in preparation of the Disclosure Statement and
Chapter 11 Plan;

     (e) perform all other legal services for debtor-in-possession
which may be necessary herein.

The firm has agreed to accept employment on behalf of the
debtor-in-possession, subject to the approval of the court, at the
hourly rate of $290.00 plus expenses for Michael A. Fritz, Sr.

On September 11, 2020, the Debtor paid the firm a retainer in the
amount of $7,622.00. On October 1, 2020, the firm received another
retainer in the amount of $2,400.00. On September 25, 2020 the
filing fee of $1,717.00 was paid to the Clerk of Court. The firm
has $9,030.00 held in its trust account until an application for
professional fees has been filed and approved by this Court.

Michael A. Fritz, Sr., an attorney of Fritz Law Firm, LLC,
disclosed in court filings that he and the firm "disinterested
persons" as that term is defined in section 101(14) of the
Bankruptcy Code.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     Michael A. Fritz, Sr., Esq.
     FRITZ LAW FIRM, LLC
     25 South Court Street, Suite 200
     Montgomery, AL 36104
     Telephone: (334) 230-9790
     Facsimile: (334) 230-9789
     E-mail: bankruptcy@fritzlawalabama.com

                           About Southern Concrete Company

Southern Concrete Company, LLC filed a voluntary petition for
relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. M.D. Ala.
Case No. 20- 32021) on September 24, 2020, listing under $1 million
in both assets and liabilities. Fritz Law Firm, LLC serves as the
Debtor's counsel.


STEWART STREET: Seeks Approval to Tap Scott B. Riddle as Attorney
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stewart Street Academy and Childcare, LLC seeks approval from the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia to
employ the Law Office of Scott B. Riddle, LLC and Scott B. Riddle,
Esq., as its attorneys.

The firm will render these legal services to the Debtor:

     (a) advise the Debtor with respect to its rights, powers,
duties, and obligations as a Debtor-In-Possession in the
administration of this case, the operation of its business, and the
management of its property;

     (b) prepare pleadings, applications, and conduct examinations
incidental to administration;

     (c) advise and represent the Debtor in connection with all
applications, motions, or complaints for reclamation, adequate
protection, sequestration, relief from stay, appointment of a
trustee or examiner, and all other similar matters;

     (d) develop the relationship of the status of
Debtor-in-Possession to the claims of creditors in these
proceedings;

     (e) advise and assist the Debtor-in-Possession in the
formulation and presentation of a Plan of Reorganization pursuant
to chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code and concerning any and all
matters relating thereto; and

     (f) perform any and all other legal services incident and
necessary herein.

On August 31, 2020, Scott B. Riddle, LLC received a total of
$7,300.00 from the Debtor, which the firm allocated as $1,717.00
court filing fee and $5,583.00 retainer.

Scott B. Riddle will be paid at his hourly rate of $365.00.

Scott B. Riddle, the managing member of the Law Office of Scott B.
Riddle, LLC, disclosed in court filings that neither him nor any
partner, associate or other employee of the firm has any connection
with the Debtor, creditors, any other party-in-interest, their
respective attorneys and accountants, the United States Trustee, or
any person employed in the Office of the United States Trustee.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     Scott B. Riddle, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF SCOTT B. RIDDLE, LLC
     Suite 1800
     3340 Peachtree Road NE
     Atlanta, GA 30326
     Telephone: (404) 815-0164
     E-mail: scott@scottriddlelaw.com

                       About Stewart Street Academy and Childcare

Stewart Street Academy and Childcare, LLC filed a voluntary
petition for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr.
N.D. Ga. Case No. 20- 11216) on September 1, 2020. The petition was
signed by Randall Kimball, managing member. At the time of the
filing, the Debtor estimated to have $1 million to $10 million in
both assets and liabilities. Judge W. Homer Drake oversees the
case. Scott B. Riddle, Esq., at the Law Office of Scott B. Riddle,
LLC serves as the Debtor's counsel.


T0WN SPORTS: Cancels Asset Auction Due to No Additional Bids
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Hill and Katherine Doherty of Bloomberg News reports that
bankrupt Town Sports International Holdings canceled a scheduled
auction for its assets, leaving its lenders as the sole bidders.

A hearing to approve the going-concern sale to its lenders, which
include Tacit Capital, is scheduled for Nov. 3, 2020, according to
court papers.

Town Sports received no qualified offers other than the credit bid,
per court papers.


                   About Town Sports International

Town Sports International, LLC and its subsidiaries are owners and
operators of fitness clubs in the United States, particularly in
the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic regions. As of Dec. 31, 2019, the
Company operated 186 fitness clubs under various brand names,
collectively serving approximately 605,000 members. Town Sports
owns and operates brands such as New York Sports Clubs, Boston
Sports Clubs, Philadelphia Sports Clubs, Washington Sports Clubs,
Lucille Roberts and Total Woman.

Town Sports and several of its affiliates filed for bankruptcy
protection (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 20-12168) on Sept. 14,
2020. The petitions were signed by Patrick Walsh, chief executive
officer.

The Debtors were estimated to have $500 million to $1 billion in
consolidated assets and consolidated liabilities.

The Hon. Christopher S. Sontchi presides over the cases.

Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP, and Kirkland & Ellis LLP have
been tapped as bankruptcy counsel to the Debtors. Houlihan Lokey,
Inc., serves as financial advisor and investment banker to the
Debtors, and Epiq Corporate Restructuring LLC acts as claims and
noticing agent to the Debtors.


TA HOTEL: Vancouver's Trump Hotel Owner Seeks Bankruptcy
--------------------------------------------------------
TA Hotel Management Limited Partnership, which owns Vancouver's
Trump International Hotel, filed for bankruptcy on Aug. 17, 2020,
listing approximately CA$4.9 million in liabilities, including
CA$3.2 million to Maxfine International Limited.

Grant Thornton is the bankruptcy trustee.

Rick Archer of Law360 reports that TA Hotel said August 28, 2020,
that the property's extended closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic
had sent it into insolvency with what it told Canadian authorities
was close to CA$4.8 million ($3.66 million) in debt.

In the announcement, the parent company of TA Hotel Management LP,
the operator of the Trump International Hotel and Tower, said that
it had appointed an insolvency trustee.

"Its ongoing expenses since the outbreak of COVID-19 and lack of
revenue has placed TAHMLP into a position of insolvency, therefore
it is in the interest of TAHMLP to appoint a trustee to administer
the assignment for the benefit and interest of all stakeholders,"
it said.

According to Canadian bankruptcy records, the company declared that
it has just over CA$1.1 million in assets and just under CA$4.8
million in liabilities, and the first creditor's meeting was
scheduled for Sept. 16, 2020.

The 147-room hotel opened in February 2017 to protests by local
residents and city and provincial elected officials objecting to
its association with President Donald Trump. According to published
reports, the hotel has been closed since the beginning of April due
to the pandemic.

The company is a subsidiary of TA Global Berhad, a Malaysia-based
property development and management firm that owns hotels and other
commercial properties in Asia, Australia and North America.

The hotel industry has been hit hard by COVID-19 travel
restrictions. On June 2, Hilton CEO Christopher Nassetta said
during a virtual conference with other major hotel chief executives
sponsored by New York University that the hospitality industry is
running at 25% to 30% occupancy, down from 75% last year.

The American Hotel and Lodging Association reported in May that 83%
of hotel debt borrowers have asked for forbearance or payment
deferral on loans.


TAILORED BRANDS: Unsecureds Ask Consent to Sue Lenders Over Liens
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Wolf of Bloomberg Law reports that the unsecured creditors of
Men's Wearhouse's bankrupt parent Tailored Brands Inc. are seeking
authorization to sue the retailer's term loan lenders over liens on
company property.

The collateral securing $877 million in outstanding term loan
obligations should exclude owned real estate, certain deposit
accounts, 35% of equity interests in foreign subsidiaries, and
other company assets, the official committee of unsecured creditors
said in a filing Monday, October 26, 2020.

The committee should be allowed to assert the claims because the
company is "unjustifiably" refusing to pursue them, it told the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.

                      About Tailored Brands

Tailored Brands, Inc., (NYSE: TLRD) is an omni-channel specialty
retailer of menswear, including suits, formal wear and a broad
selection of polished and business casual offerings.  It delivers
personalized products and services through its convenient network
of over 1,400 stores in the United States and Canada as well as its
branded e-commerce websites at http://www.menswearhouse.com/and
http://www.josbank.com.Its brands include Men's Wearhouse, Jos. A.
Bank, Moores Clothing for Men and K&G.

Tailored Brands reported a net loss of $82.28 million for the year
ended Feb. 1, 2020, compared to net earnings of $83.24 million for
the year ended Feb. 2, 2019. As of Feb. 1, 2020, the Company had
$2.42 billion in total assets, $2.52 billion in total liabilities,
and a total shareholders' deficit of $98.31 million.

On Aug. 2, 2020, Tailored Brands and its subsidiaries sought
Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 20-33900) on
Aug. 2, 2020. As of July 4, 2020, Tailored Brands disclosed
$2,482,124,043 in total assets and $2,839,642,691 in total
liabilities.

The Hon. Marvin Isgur is the case judge.

The Debtors tapped Kirkland & Ellis LLP as general bankruptcy
counsel; Jackson Walker L.L.P., Stikeman Elliot LLP and Mourant
Ozannes as co-bankruptcy counsel; PJT Partners LP as financial
advisor; Alixpartners, LLP as restructuring advisor; and A&G Realty
Partners, LLC as the real estate consultant and advisor.  Prime
Clerk LLC is the claims agent.


TOTAL OILFIELD: Seeks to Hire Carrillo Law as Special Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------------
Total Oilfield Solutions, LLC, seeks authority from the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico to employ Carrillo
Law Firm, P.C., as special counsel to the Debtor.

The Adversary Proceeding, Adversary Case. No. 20-01051-j (the
"Adversary Proceeding") was initiated upon the Plaintiff filing its
Complaint Objecting to Dischargeability on September 14, 2020 (the
"Complaint").

Total Oilfield requires Carrillo Law to:

   a. represent and render legal advice to the Debtor regarding
      litigation of the Adversary Proceeding including, without
      limitation, the representation of the Debtor at trial, any
      settlement discussions, alternative dispute resolutions,
      evidentiary hearings, status conferences, and all other
      hearings before the Court;

   b. prepare on behalf of the Debtor necessary petitions,
      complaints, answers, motions, applications, orders,
      reports, discovery requests and responses, and any other
      legal paper necessary in the Adversary Proceeding;

   c. assist Debtor is taking actions required to resolve the
      Adversary Proceeding;

   d. perform any other legal services to the Debtor necessary
      and appropriate to resolve the Adversary Proceeding.

Carrillo Law will be paid at these hourly rates:

     Raul A. Carrillo, Jr.            $325
     Steven E. Jones                  $275
     Paralegals                       $75

Carrillo Law will be paid a retainer in the amount of $7,500.

Carrillo Law have been paid $3,544.53 pre-petition for services
rendered prior to the filing of the Bankruptcy Case.

Carrillo Law will also be reimbursed for reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses incurred.

Raul A. Carrillo, Jr., partner of Carrillo Law Firm, P.C., assured
the Court that the firm is a "disinterested person" as the term is
defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code and does not
represent any interest adverse to the Debtor and its estates.

Carrillo Law can be reached at:

     Raul A. Carrillo, Jr., Esq.
     CARRILLO LAW FIRM, P.C.
     1001 E. Lohman Avenue
     Las Cruces, NM, 88001
     Tel: (575) 647-3200
     Fax: (575) 647-1463

                 About Total Oilfield Solutions

Total Oilfield Solutions, LLC, a Carlsbad, N.M.-based provider of
support activities for the mining industry, filed its voluntary
petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D.N.M.
Case No. 20-11198) on June 15, 2020.  At the time of filing, Debtor
disclosed assets of $1 million to $10 million and estimated
liabilities of $100,000 to $500,000.  Judge Robert H. Jacobvitz
oversees the case.  The Debtor is represented by Giddens & Gatton
Law, P.C.


TRI-POINT OIL: Court Approves Liquidating Plan
----------------------------------------------
Leslie A. Pappas of Bloomberg Law reports that Tri-Point Oil & Gas
Production Systems LLC will liquidate its assets to pay off
creditors after a deal to sell its oil and gas production and
processing equipment business fell through.

The Houston-based company expects that liquidation proceeds will
repay first-lien and priority secured creditors in full.  Holders
of asset-based loans and term loan lenders are expected to get
6.25% of their claims or less.  Unsecured creditors will get
nothing.

Judge David R. Jones of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court of the Southern
District of Texas confirmed the company's Chapter 11 plan of
liquidation and company disclosures Aug. 27, 2020.

                      About Tri-Point Oil

Tri-Point Oil & Gas Production Systems, LLC, and its related
entities -- https://www.tri-pointllc.com/ -- together form an oil
and gas production and processing equipment company headquartered
in Houston, Texas. Their services include engineering and design,
installation, start-up, and after-market field maintenance to
provide custom engineered and configured solutions to upstream and
midstream customers. In addition, they provide services including
training, on-site service, testing services, and aftermarket
maintenance and repair.  They also own and operate supply stores,
located in the Permian Basin, Mid-Continent, and Rocky Mountain
regions.

On March 16, 2020, Tri-Point Oil and three affiliates sought
Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 20-31777).

In the petitions signed by CEO Jeffrey Martini, Tri-Point Oil was
estimated to have $10 million to $50 million in assets and $50
million to $100 million in liabilities.

The Hon. David R. Jones is the case judge.

Debtors tapped Porter Hedges LLP as legal counsel; Alixpartners,
LLP as financial advisor; and Bankruptcy Management Solutions, Inc.
(which conducts business under the name Stretto) as claims agent.


TRI-POINT OIL: Court Enters Plan Confirmation Order
---------------------------------------------------
Judge David R. Jones has entered findings of fact, conclusions of
law and order confirming the Combined Disclosure Statement and
Joint Plan of Liquidation of Tri-Point Oil & Gas Production
Systems, LLC and its Debtor Affiliates.

The Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy
Code as required by section 1129(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code,
including, without limitations, sections 1122 and 1123 of the
Bankruptcy Code.

In accordance with 11 U.S.C. Sec. 1129(a)(3), the Court finds and
concludes that the Debtors have proposed the Plan in good faith and
not by any means forbidden by law, and the Debtors and their
respective members, directors, advisors and professionals, have
acted, and are presently acting, in good faith in conjunction with
all aspects of the Plan. The Plan satisfies the requirements of
section 1129(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code.

In determining that the Plan has been proposed in good faith, the
Court has examined the totality of the circumstances surrounding
the formulation and solicitation of the Plan. The Debtors filed
these Chapter 11 Cases and proposed the Plan with legitimate and
honest purposes.

A full-text copy of the Order and Combined Plan and Disclosure
Statement dated August 27, 2020, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/yxl33hem from PacerMonitor.com at no charge.

Counsel to the Debtors:

     Joshua W. Wolfshohl
     Aaron J. Power
     PORTER HEDGES LLP
     1000 Main Street, 36th Floor
     Houston, Texas 77002
     Telephone: (713) 226-6600
     Facsimile: (713) 226-6628
     E-mail: jwolfshohl@porterhedges.com
             apower@porterhedges.com

                      About Tri-Point Oil

Tri-Point Oil & Gas Production Systems, LLC, and its related
entities -- https://www.tri-pointllc.com/ -- together form an oil
and gas production and processing equipment company headquartered
in Houston, Texas. Their services include engineering and design,
installation, start-up, and after-market field maintenance to
provide custom engineered and configured solutions to upstream and
midstream customers. In addition, they provide services including
training, on-site service, testing services, and aftermarket
maintenance and repair. They also own and operate supply stores,
located in the Permian Basin, Mid-Continent, and Rocky Mountain
regions.

On March 16, 2020, Tri-Point Oil and three affiliates sought
Chapter 11 protection (Bankr. S.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 20-31777).

In the petitions signed by CEO Jeffrey Martini, Tri-Point Oil was
estimated to have $10 million to $50 million in assets and $50
million to $100 million in liabilities.

The Hon. David R. Jones is the case judge.

The Debtors tapped Porter Hedges LLP as legal counsel;
Alixpartners, LLP as financial advisor; and Bankruptcy Management
Solutions, Inc. (which conducts business under the name Stretto) as
claims agent.


TUESDAY MORNING: Opts Not to Sell Assets in Chapter 11
------------------------------------------------------
Ben Unglesbee of Retail Dive reports that Tuesday Morning said it
will not seek a sale of its assets in Chapter 11, according to a
Monday court filing.  Rather than sell itself, Tuesday Morning will
seek approval for a plan to reorganize as a standalone entity and
exit bankruptcy.

The retailer has requested a hearing date of Nov. 9, 2020 to
approve its disclosure statement, which will summarize its
reorganization plans.

Earlier in October 2020, Tuesday Morning signaled that it was
formally seeking bids for all of its assets in bankruptcy —​ a
sale of itself, in other words.

A sale is a quick way for secured lenders to get repaid and move
on, and at the same time allows the bankrupt company to continue on
for another day, under new ownership. Tuesday Morning may well have
just been testing the waters, to see what, if any, interest was out
there for the company and get a price tag on that interest.

Most of the retailers that have wound down and liquidated in
bankruptcy this year at least tried to sell themselves first or
expressed hope of a sale before closing shop.

J.C. Penney, like Tuesday Morning, pursued both a lender-led
reorganization and a sale at more or less the same time. Penney
opted to sell itself to landlords Simon Property Group and
Brookfield Asset Management.

As late as last week, Tuesday Morning hadn't landed on a path. On
Thursday, it said in a court filing that it would choose its path
and let stakeholders know by Monday, and so it did.

Any number of factors may have influenced that decision, including
the outside interest it received (or didn't) and the complex
calculus of secured lenders. Lenders can potentially profit by
trading out their debt investments for equity in a reorganized
company, but that also means they have to wait on investment
returns and hold ownership in the company.

Unsecured creditors welcomed Tuesday Morning's move to seek buyers
after raising concerns that the retailer's executives might pursue
a stand-alone reorganization in order to preserve their jobs and
stock holdings in the company. A committee of creditors said in
court papers that a sale process allowed "the market to speak" on
whether a sale or reorganization made the most sense. But they
objected to what they called Tuesday Morning's "absolute unfettered
right to unilaterally pivot from a sale process to a plan of
reorganization."

Tuesday Morning, founded in the 1970s, is a relatively small player
in the off-price world, with nearly 700 stores and $1 billion in
sales when it filed. It has had to compete with a cadre of
ever-expanding powerhouses, namely TJX Cos., Ross Stores and
Burlington. It filed for bankruptcy with plans to close a third of
its stores.

Slimming down and reducing debt through a reorganization could
potentially leave it a more profitable and healthy business. At
least, that's the bet the company is making by going forward alone
in bankruptcy and beyond.

                     About Tuesday Morning Corp.

Tuesday Morning Corporation, together with its subsidiaries, is a
closeout retailer of upscale home furnishings, housewares, gifts,
and related items. It operates under the trade name "Tuesday
Morning" and is one of the original "off-price" retailers
specializing in providing unique home and lifestyle goods at
bargain values. Based in Dallas, Tuesday Morning operated 705
stores in 40 states as of Jan. 1, 2020.  On the Web:
http://www.tuesdaymorning.com/     

On May 27, 2020, Tuesday Morning and six affiliates sought Chapter
11 protection (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 20-31476).  Tuesday
Morning disclosed total assets of $92 million and total liabilities
of $88.35 million as of April 30, 2020.

The Hon. Harlin Dewayne Hale is the case judge.

The Debtors tapped Haynes and Boone, LLP as general bankruptcy
counsel; Alixpartners LLP as financial advisor; Stifel, Nicolaus &
Co., Inc. as investment banker; A&G Realty Partners, LLC as real
estate consultant; and Great American Group, LLC as liquidation
consultant. Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC is the claims and
noticing agent.

The Office of the U.S. Trustee appointed a committee of unsecured
creditors on June 9, 2020. The committee is represented by Munsch
Hardt Kopf & Harr, P.C.


UPSTREAM NEWCO: S&P Affirms 'B' ICR; Rating Off Watch Negative
--------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings affirmed its 'B' issuer credit rating on
Upstream Newco Inc.'s (doing business as Upstream Rehabilitation
Inc.) and removed it from CreditWatch, where the rating agency
placed it with negative implications on March 31, 2020. The outlook
is stable.

At the same time, S&P is affirming its 'B' issue-level rating and
'3' recovery rating on the company's first-lien secured revolving
credit facility and term loan, and its 'CCC+' issue-level rating
and '6' recovery rating to the company's second-lien secured term
loan.

S&P said, "The stable outlook reflects our expectation that
Upstream will continue generating positive cash flow (before growth
capital spending) and maintain sufficient liquidity to meet its
needs amid recovering demand over the next 12 months."

"We no longer view Upstream's near-term liquidity as a key risk to
its credit quality. The company materially improved its liquidity
position since we placed our ratings on CreditWatch negative.
During the second quarter, Upstream received $10 million in grants
from the U.S. government, intended to compensate health care
providers for lost revenue due to the effects of the COVID-19
pandemic, as part of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic
Security Act. The company also received $14 million in Medicare
advance payments. This relief was timely because of a substantial
decline in second-quarter revenue on lower patient visit volumes.
However, it implemented tight cost controls by halting expansion,
furloughing employees, temporarily reducing benefits, and reducing
travel. We believe Upstream's demonstrated ability to reduce costs
and preserve liquidity would help it withstand the impact of
additional government-mandated shutdowns until a COVID-19 vaccine
is widely available."

"We expect the company's PT patient volumes to surpass pre-COVID-19
levels in 2021. Upstream's revenue declined approximately 30% in
the second quarter, excluding federal relief, due to a decline in
patient volumes during the height of the pandemic in the U.S.
Although Upstream's facilities were deemed essential, it
temporarily closed over 150 facilities and permanently closed 13
newly opened facilities. Despite a slower recovery from elderly and
minor patients, Upstream has recovered to about 90% of pre-COVID-19
levels and is resuming its de novo growth strategy. Accordingly, we
expect 2021 patient volumes will surpass 2020 and 2019 levels, even
with lagging volumes throughout the first half. Given its variable
cost structure, we expect Upstream will maintain EBITDA margins and
translate patient volume increases into higher EBITDA and operating
cash flow."

"We expect Upstream to generate positive free cash flow before
growth capital spending and forecast leverage of about 6x in 2021.
The affirmation reflects this expectation despite weaker patient
volumes and our forecast for leverage of 6x-6.5x in 2021. Likewise,
we expect only modest reductions in EBITDA (about $10 million) for
2020 despite revenue declines of about 10% (about $50 million)."

"Our ratings also continue to reflect our view that Upstream
operates in the highly fragmented physical therapy industry with
low barriers to entry. Additionally, Upstream is exposed to
reimbursement risk, and its revenue is regionally concentrated in
the Southeast U.S. We continue to believe the PT industry faces
favorable demand trends given the aging population and increased
prevalence of sports- and work-related injuries."

Environmental, social, and governance credit factors for this
credit rating change:

-- Health and safety

S&P said, "The stable outlook reflects our expectation that the
company will maintain adjusted leverage below 7x, increasing
revenues 10%-12% over the next two years through an aggressive de
novo strategy and geographically strategic acquisitions. We expect
adjusted EBITDA margins of 23%-25% and steady cash flow
generation."

S&P could lower the rating if:

-- The company pursues a more aggressive growth strategy with
adjusted leverage above 8x and negligible free operating cash flow
(FOCF).

This could occur if EBITDA margins dropped materially from S&P’s
base case, likely due to poor execution of its aggressive de novo
strategy or from material reimbursement rate cuts that can't be
offset by symmetrical cost reductions.

While unlikely over the next 12 months given its financial-sponsor
ownership and S&P's expectation it will use excess cash flows for
de novo facilities and strategic acquisitions, it could consider
upgrading Upstream if:

-- It establishes a track record of consistently profitable de
novos, resulting in annual free cash flow generation in excess of
$30 million (after growth capital expenditures [capex] and minority
interest distributions) and adjusted leverage below 5x.


US REAL ESTATE: Hires Phillips & Thomas as Bankruptcy Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------------
US Real Estate Equity Builder Dayton, LLC seeks approval from the
U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas to hire Phillips &
Thomas, LLC as its bankruptcy counsel.

Phillips & Thomas will provide the Debtor with services in
connection with its Chapter 11 case, which include the preparation
of disclosure statement and Chapter 11 plan.

The firm's services will be provided mainly by George Thomas, Esq.,
who will be paid at the rate of $350 per hour.

Mr. Thomas disclosed in court filings that the firm and its members
are "disinterested" as defined in Section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy
Code.

The firm can be reached through:

     George J. Thomas, Esq.
     Phillips & Thomas, LLC
     5200 W 94th Terrace Suite 200
     Prairie Village, KS 66207-2521
     Tel: 913-385-9900

              About US Real Estate Equity Builder Dayton LLC

US Real Estate Equity Builder Dayton LLC is primarily engaged in
renting and leasing real estate properties.

US Real Estate Equity Builder Dayton filed its voluntary petition
for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Kan.
Case NO. 20-21359) on Oct. 2, 2020.  US Real Estate President Sean
Tarpenning signed the petition.  

At the time of filing, the Debtor disclosed $6,754,000 in assets
and $5,455,938 in liabilities.

Phillips & Thomas, LLC serves as the Debtor's legal counsel.


USA RUGBY: Exits Bankruptcy, Proceeds to Post-Bankruptcy Phase
--------------------------------------------------------------
Goff Rugby Report reports that the Delaware Bankruptcy Court
approved USA Rugby's debtor plan and the sport's National Governing
Body will now proceed to its post-bankruptcy phase.

"This is an important step for USA Rugby and the go-forward plans
of the game here in the United States," said USA Rugby CEO Ross
Young. "We are extremely pleased with the outcome, most notably as
it becomes the catalyst for us to begin the hands-on rebuilding
process with the rugby community and recommence long term planning
that will benefit all levels of the game."

No objections were raised at the hearing, and despite a little
hiccup, USA Rugby's creditors have approved the organization's plan
to address creditor claims and reconcile bankruptcy debts over
time. (National Collegiate Rugby lodged an objection to the plan a
week ago, but later withdrew it.)

NCR withdrew their objection when USA Rugby addressed a couple of
their concerns about the use of NCR funds and how they documented
NCR membership.

USA Rugby is now officially a reorganized organization (effective
September 1) and will start paying back creditors over the next
five years.

Moving forward, USA Rugby will remain accountable for a five-year
reimbursement plan with secured creditors. When completed, the
organization will be fully discharged from any claims.

USA Rugby now has a new membership registration program being put
in place and agreements with the three main community
constituencies. Once the organization can start collecting at least
some dues, it can reenergize another income stream, and maybe bring
sponsorship income back. World Rugby will once again free up grant
money and the USOPC will be back in play.

                 About USA Rugby Football Union

Founded in 1975, United States of America Rugby Football Union Ltd.
is the national governing body for the sport of rugby in America, a
Full Sport Member of the United States Olympic and Paralympic
Committee, and World Rugby. USA Rugby oversees four national teams,
multiple collegiate and high school All-American sides, and an
emerging Olympic development pathway for elite athletes. Currently
headquartered in Lafayette, Colorado, USA Rugby is charged with
developing the game on all levels and has over 120,000 active
members. USA Rugby was organized as a non-profit Delaware
corporation on Jan. 25, 1978, and is governed by a Board of
Directors, which in turn are overseen by the Congress, which
represents the interests of its members.

United States of America Rugby Football Union sought protection
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Del. Case No.
20-10738) on March 31, 2020. The petition was signed by Ross Young,
CEO. At the time of filing, the Debtor was estimated to have $1
million to $10 million in assets and liabilities.  The Debtor is
represented by Mark M. Billion, Esq. at BILLION LAW.


USA RUGBY: Files Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Plan
-------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that USA Rugby has submitted a Chapter 11 plan to
the Delaware bankruptcy court that would pay its sole secured
creditor in full and write off its remaining $5.5 million in
unsecured liabilities.

The proposed plan submitted to the court Thursday, August 27, 2020,
would repay about $1 million in bankruptcy expenses and $500,000 in
loans, but provides nothing for most vendors or to repay millions
of dollars in bailout financing provided by international rugby
organization World Rugby Ltd. over the last two years.

                 About USA Rugby Football Union

Founded in 1975, United States of America Rugby Football Union Ltd.
is the national governing body for the sport of rugby in America, a
Full Sport Member of the United States Olympic and Paralympic
Committee, and World Rugby. USA Rugby oversees four national teams,
multiple collegiate and high school All-American sides, and an
emerging Olympic development pathway for elite athletes. Currently
headquartered in Lafayette, Colorado, USA Rugby is charged with
developing the game on all levels and has over 120,000 active
members. USA Rugby was organized as a non-profit Delaware
corporation on Jan. 25, 1978, and is governed by a Board of
Directors, which in turn are overseen by the Congress, which
represents the interests of its members.

United States of America Rugby Football Union sought protection
under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. D. Del. Case No.
20-10738) on March 31, 2020. The petition was signed by Ross Young,
CEO. At the time of filing, the Debtor was estimated to have $1
million to $10 million in assets and liabilities.  The Debtor is
represented by Mark M. Billion, Esq. at BILLION LAW.


VEREGY INTERMEDIATE: S&P Assigns 'B-' ICR on Leveraged Buyout
-------------------------------------------------------------
S&P Global Ratings assigned a 'B-' issuer credit rating to Phoenix,
Ariz.-based energy efficiency solutions provider Veregy
Intermediate Inc., which is issuing a $42.5 million first-lien
revolving credit facility, a $250 million first-lien term loan, and
a $50 million first-lien delayed-draw term loan to support its
leveraged buyout (LBO) by Court Square Capital Partners.

In addition, S&P assigned a 'B-' rating and '3' recovery rating to
the company's first-lien credit facility, reflecting its
expectation for meaningful (50%-70%; rounded estimate: 50%)
recovery in the event of a payment default.

The ratings reflect the following key risks and strengths:

Key risks

-- Narrow business focus and geographic presence, with high
end-market concentration in K-12 schools.

-- Fixed-price contracts with short installation cycles and
project guarantees limit earnings visibility.

-- Highly competitive marketplace, with competition from national
original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) and utility-owned energy
service companies (ESCOs), and a premium on customer relationships,
which limits S&P's assessment of the company's addressable market
and pricing power.

-- High financial leverage, financial sponsor ownership, and
limited capacity for deleveraging given S&P's expectations for
ongoing debt-financed acquisitions.

Key strengths

-- Industry tailwinds from aging municipals, universities,
schools, and hospitals (MUSH) infrastructure and an increasing
focus on sustainability and energy conservation.

-- Good cash conversion of EBITDA due to low working capital
requirements and capital intensity.

-- Limited service differentiation and pricing power, market
fragmentation, and competition from large market participants limit
S&P's assessment of the business.

S&P views Veregy's offerings as minimally differentiated.
Furthermore, pricing power is limited in academic and government
end markets given the discretionary nature of energy-efficiency
programs, competitive contract bidding requirements, and budget
constraints. As a result, service providers compete on the basis of
brand reputation, service breadth and quality, technical knowledge,
and understanding of local government bureaucracies when
implementing energy-efficiency programs. Client relationships are
instrumental in the vendor-selection process and provide a
competitive entry barrier, conferring advantages to incumbent
providers. However, this limits Veregy's ability to organically
expand its modest share of the roughly $7.5 billion MUSH subsector
of the approximately $10 billion U.S. ESCO market. However, the
company's strong Net Promoter Score (82) relative to the industry
average (44) demonstrates its successful execution record and high
customer satisfaction.

S&P's ratings also reflect the potential for high earnings
volatility given the company's small scale ($223.2 million in
fiscal 2019 revenues) and narrow service and geographic focus. Key
operational risk factors include the company's aggressive industry
consolidation strategy (it has made five acquisitions since 2017),
limited record operating at its current scale, and operational
constraints resulting from its high financial leverage and
debt-service needs.

Prominent, well-resourced national OEMs--including Honeywell,
Siemens, and Johnson Controls--compete for the nation's largest
federal, commercial and industrial, and higher education projects.
This limits Veregy's share of the market. It also increases
execution risks within the company's narrowly focused K-12 and
municipal market and highly geographically concentrated end markets
in Arizona, Missouri,and Illinois.

Despite S&P's expectations for good ESCO market growth,
shorter-term nonrecurring contracts and the potential for
fixed-price contract cost overruns or unexpected performance
guarantee expenses limit earnings and cash-flow generation
visibility.

Veregy's contracts typically span a three- to 18-month
implementation phase that commences once project funds are raised.
As a result, the company has minimal visibility into revenues
beyond the near term and is under constant pressure to replenish
and convert its sales pipeline. Signed backlog does provide partial
near-term visibility into 2021 expected gross revenues, but the
balance of projected revenues has limited visibility. Moreover,
once signed, contracts typically take approximately six months to
close as clients secure funding. And with the exception of a modest
upfront payment, revenues are earned over the course of the
implementation phase.

Furthermore, Veregy's contracts are fixed-price, which reduces the
company's visibility into earnings and cash flows. S&P's ratings
reflect the vulnerability of profit margins to potential contract
mispricing, cost overruns, or timeline delays. Additionally, in
order to strengthen its competitive bid, Veregy guarantees energy
cost savings to its clients. Therefore, the company is liable for
any shortfall of project savings relative to predetermined
guaranteed levels (as identified by annual third-party
assessments). Some states do not require a guarantee beyond project
implementation (Texas) or limit the period for which ESCOs
guarantee savings levels to three years or less (Ohio and
Missouri). However, certain states require savings guarantees over
the life of the project (Arizona), which can span up to 20 years.
Veregy has the contractual right to remedy savings shortfalls with
system upgrades or repairs in lieu of cash funding, and as a
result, S&P does not adjust Veregy's debt to reflect its
performance guarantees.

The company's historical shortfall record is minimal, as the work
it performs is modular and moderately well-diversified by project
(the top 32 projects out of 390 accounted for about 40% of
2017-2019 revenues). This reduces the overall impact of
underperformance on any individual contract. Veregy typically
prices its contracts with a cushion to projected savings, which
varies by energy-conservation measure based on historical
visibility into savings generated. It also structures its
guarantees to remove its exposure to factors beyond its control,
such as fluctuations in energy costs, building occupancy, or severe
weather.

High starting adjusted leverage, financial sponsor ownership, and a
debt-funded acquisition growth strategy will result in sustained
elevated leverage.

Following the transaction, adjusted leverage will increase to 6x on
an S&P Global Ratings-adjusted pro forma basis. S&P expects Veregy
will remain highly leveraged for the foreseeable future, given its
financial sponsor ownership by Court Square Capital Partners and
its expectation for ongoing industry consolidation through
debt-funded acquisitions.

S&P expects Veregy will continue to prioritize mergers and
acquisitions (M&A) due to the limited potential for organic
earnings growth. The industry is highly fragmented and competitive,
and the incumbency advantages resulting from heavily
relationship-based industry competition will limit Veregy's ability
to organically take market share from competitors in new markets.
Furthermore, the potential for organic earnings growth and
deleveraging through profit margin expansion is largely limited to
service cross-sell opportunities. This is due to the cost pressures
imposed by the company's specialized labor force and the limited
scale benefits of operation in markets characterized by strong
local and regional competitive dynamics.

S&P said, "As a result, we expect the company will continue to
consolidate the industry through debt-funded acquisitions. Since
2017, Veregy has completed five acquisitions, accounting for a
meaningful proportion of the company's rapid revenue growth.
Partially offsetting factors reflected in our assessment of
financial risk include the company's asset-light cost-structure
requiring minimal capital investment, and its modest intrayear
working capital requirements. This supports our forecast for strong
cash conversion of EBITDA and free operating cash flow (FOCF) of
$15 million-$20 million annually."

Industry tailwinds should support steady operating performance over
S&P's forecast period.

S&P said, "We expect the approximately $10 billion U.S. ESCO
industry will grow in the mid-single-digit percent area annually
over our forecast period. This is due to the large supply of aging
infrastructure, rising energy costs, and the growing relevance of
environmental sustainability, which we expect will support the
development of clean energy regulations over time. We expect the
adoption of sustainable practices will become increasingly
important to academic and government institutions and their
constituents. However, we don't anticipate regulatory support for
demand in these end markets will rise to the levels seen in other
segments of the public sector, including utilities, where certain
states require the implementation of energy efficiency programs.
Although we expect Veregy's end markets to face rising budget
pressure, ESCO industry funding mechanisms--including bonds and
tax-exempt lease programs (TELPs)--provide clients the flexibility
to fund projects using third-party financing repaid with the energy
cost savings Veregy guarantees. We view funding risks in Veregy's
end markets as low given the strong creditworthiness of schools and
the historically stable issuance volumes in muni bond and TELP
markets. Though higher interest rates would reduce a project's
prospective return on investment, we expect rates will remain low
for the intermediate term."

In addition, ongoing technological advancements that enable labor
force automation should continue to enhance cost savings for
clients. System management software platforms, such as Veregy's
"Orchestrate," allow customers to improve building management
efficiency through automation and improve visibility into energy
cost savings through ad hoc integrated reporting. Extending
Orchestrate to existing clients should support steady
mid-single-digit percent annual revenue growth and increase client
retention over S&P's forecast period.

S&P said, "The stable outlook reflects our expectation for
mid-single-digit percent organic revenue growth rates and stable
S&P Global Ratings-adjusted EBITDA margins. This results in
adjusted leverage declining modestly to the high-5x area in 2020
and 2021 from 6x pro forma for the financing as of June 30, 2020."

"We could lower the ratings if we expect cash-flow deficits to
result in total liquidity sources tightening below $20 million,
with covenant headroom underneath 10%, or if we determine the
capital structure to be unsustainable."

This could occur if:

-- Execution missteps result in reputational damage, thereby
impairing client relationships;

-- Contract mispricing, cost overruns, project delays, or project
underperformance result in margin declines;

-- Deterioration in client creditworthiness or rising interest
rates limit access to project funding ROI; or

-- Competition within Veregy's academic and government end markets
and key regions increases.

In S&P's upgrade scenario:

-- Adjusted leverage is sustained at less than 5x, and

-- The company's financial policy track record leads S&P to
conclude there is a minimal risk of releveraging.

-- Increased geographic/end-market diversity and scale--combined
with solid operating performance, sales pipeline growth and
conversion, client relationship growth, and an extension of
Orchestra or other services--could also result in an upgrade.


VISTA PROPPANTS : Wins Court Approval of Restructuring Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leslie A. Pappas of Bloomberg Law reports that Vista Proppants and
Logistics LLC won court approval of its Chapter 11 restructuring
plan after resolving objections to several last-minute revisions
that had threatened to derail the company's bankruptcy exit.

A hearing to confirm the frac sand manufacturer's fourth amended
Chapter 11 plan initially was suspended Tuesday, October 27, 2020,
after an attorney for the company's directors and officers objected
to revised indemnification language. Unsecured creditors also
objected, saying they hadn't been informed of changes made on the
eve of the hearing.

Judge Edward L. Morri suggested the parties try to resolve the
"bump in the road" during a three-hour recess.

                  About Vista Proppants and Logistics

Vista Proppants and Logistics, LLC -- https://www.vprop.com/ -- is
a pure-play, in-basin provider of frac sand solutions in producing
regions in Texas and Oklahoma, including the Permian Basin, Eagle
Ford Shale and SCOOP/STACK. It is headquartered in Fort Worth,
Texas.

Vista Proppants and its affiliates sought protection under Chapter
11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 20-42002)
on June 9, 2020. The petitions were signed by Gary Barton, chief
restructuring officer. At the time of the filing, Vista Proppants
had estimated assets of less than $50,000 and liabilities of
between $100 million and $500 million.   

Judge Edward L. Morris oversees the cases.   

The Debtors tapped Haynes and Boone, LLP, as their legal counsel;
Jackson Walker LLP as special litigation counsel; and Alvarez &
Marsal North America, LLC, as chief restructuring officer. Kurtzman
Carson Consultants, LLC, is the Debtors' claims, noticing,
balloting and solicitation agent.    

The Office of the U.S. Trustee appointed a committee of unsecured
creditors on June 23, 2020.  Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP and
Province, Inc., serve as the committee's legal counsel and
financial advisor, respectively.


VISTA PROPPANTS: Lenders, Usecureds Reach Plan Deal
---------------------------------------------------
Vista Proppants and Logistics, LLC, et al. submitted a Third
Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization.

On September 10, 2020, the Debtors, the Committee, and the Term
Loan Secured Parties reached an agreement on the material terms of
a comprehensive settlement with respect to the Plan.  The
Settlement is reflected in the Settlement Term Sheet among the
Creditors' Committee, the Debtors, the Term Loan Agent, and the
Term Loan Lenders.

Class 3 Term Loan Secured Claims. This class is impaired. On the
Effective Date, the Term Loan Secured Claims shall be allowed in
the amount of $369,300,998.02. Each holder of an Allowed Term Loan
Secured Claim shall receive the following:

  (i) Its Pro Rata share of 100% of the New Parent Units in the New
Parent Company, which New Parent Company shall receive 100% of the
equity interests of VPROP (which shall continue to hold the equity
interests of its direct and indirect subsidiaries);

(ii) Its Pro Rata share of Tranche C Exit Facility Notes equal to
$50,000,000; and

(iii) The right to participate in Tranche A of the Exit Facility up
to its Pro Rata share of $30,000,000 of new money in exchange for
an equal amount of Tranche A Exit Facility Notes.

Class 6 General Unsecured Claims will receive from the Disbursing
Agent its Pro Rata share of the GUC Cash Settlement Distribution,
and each holder of an Allowed General Unsecured Claim (including
Term Loan Lender Class 6 Creditors holding Allowed Term Loan
Deficiency Claims) shall receive from the Disbursing Agent its Pro
Rata share of the distributions in respect of its Litigation Trust
Interests.

Class 9 Interests in Vista HoldCo are impaired. All Interests in
Vista HoldCo shall be canceled, released, and extinguished as of
the Effective Date and will be of no further force or effect.
Holders of an Interest in Vista HoldCo will not receive any
distribution on account of such Interest.

Distributions under the Plan shall be funded with: (1) Cash on
hand; (2) the ABL Priority Collateral; (3) the MAALT Priority
Collateral; (4) the issuance and distribution of the New Equity
Interests; (5) the Exit Facility; (6) the GUC Cash Settlement; and
(7) interests in the Litigation Trust, as applicable.

A full-text copy of the Third Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization
dated September 14, 2020, is available at
https://tinyurl.com/y5fbxw63 from PacerMonitor.com at no charge.

Counsel for the Debtors:

     Stephen M. Pezanosky
     Matthew T. Ferris
     David L. Staab
     HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
     2323 Victory Avenue, Suite 700
     Dallas, TX 75219
     Telephone: 214.651.5000
     Facsimile: 214.651.5940
     Email: stephen.pezanosky@haynesboone.com
     Email: matt.ferris@haynesboone.com
     Email: david.staab@haynesboone.com

               About Vista Proppants and Logistics

Vista Proppants and Logistics, LLC -- https://www.vprop.com/ -- is
a pure-play, in-basin provider of frac sand solutions in producing
regions in Texas and Oklahoma, including the Permian Basin, Eagle
Ford Shale and SCOOP/STACK. It is headquartered in Fort Worth,
Texas.

Vista Proppants and its affiliates sought protection under Chapter
11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Tex. Lead Case No. 20-42002)
on June 9, 2020. The petitions were signed by Gary Barton, chief
restructuring officer. At the time of the filing, Vista Proppants
had estimated assets of less than $50,000 and liabilities of
between $100 million and $500 million.  

Judge Edward L. Morris oversees the cases.  

The Debtors tapped Haynes and Boone, LLP, as their legal counsel;
Jackson Walker LLP as special litigation counsel; and Alvarez &
Marsal North America, LLC, as chief restructuring officer. Kurtzman
Carson Consultants, LLC, is the Debtors' claims, noticing,
balloting and solicitation agent.


WADE PARK: Developer Seeks Bankruptcy Protection
------------------------------------------------
Steven Brown of Dallas Morning News reports that more than a year
after the high-profile Wade Park property was taken by lenders, the
company developing the $2 billion Frisco project has filed
bankruptcy.

Georgia-based Wade Park Land LLC filed for Chapter 11 in the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court of Northern Georgia.

At the same time, Wade Park's developer is accusing the New York
lender that took control of the Frisco property of fraud.

Wade Park Land, which spent more than four years working on the
huge Frisco mixed-use development, lists assets of more than $100
million and liabilities of between $50 million and $100 million,
according to bankruptcy court documents.

Wade Park Land in the court filing was represented by developer
Stan Thomas, who broke ground for the ambitious Frisco mixed-use
project back in 2014.

The 175-acre development on the Dallas North Tollway was planned
for high-rise offices and hotels, shopping centers and luxury
residential. At one time, it was one of the largest real estate
developments planned in North Texas.

But after digging a huge hole for the project and partially
building a row of shops on Lebanon Road, construction on Wade Park
stopped in 2017 when money for the development ran out.

Early last year, Gamma Real Estate, which loaned more than $150
million on the Wade Park site, took control of the property. Since
then, the New York-based lender has been working to find a buyer
for the site.

Gamma Real Estate officials did not respond to requests for
information about how the bankruptcy filing might affect the real
estate.

Gamma Real Estate took ownership of the Frisco land after months of
posting the property for foreclosure.

In his bankruptcy court filings, Thomas disputes Gamma Real
Estate's deed in lieu of foreclosure of the Frisco property and
claims that the lender acted in bad faith to take the development.
He says Gamma Real Estate interfered with his efforts to secure
other funding for Wade Park.

"This case is about a coordinated, concerted -- and illegal --
effort by defendants to defraud plaintiffs out of real estate and
cash worth hundreds of millions of dollars," Wade Park Land
Holdings LLC, Wade Park Land LLC and The Thomas Family Trust said
in court filings.

The bankruptcy filing alleges that Wade Park's developers were
misled when they borrowed from Gamma Real Estate.

"They did not intend to be passive lenders," the court filing said.
"Rather, they intended to take the Wade Park property from
plaintiffs by manufacturing a default on the bridge loan and then
executing a stranglehold on plaintiffs’ ability to raise capital
to pay their way out of default."

Thomas is seeking a jury trial over his claims.

Wade Park LLC in the bankruptcy filing said it has between 50 and
99 creditors. Most of the firms listed as creditors in the filing
were firms that provided services to the proposed development.

The largest creditors included Dallas-based architect 5G Studios,
commercial property firm CB Richard Ellis Inc., Z Resorts
Management and Universal City Management III, an affiliate of
developer Stan Thomas.

Thomas could not be reached for details about the bankruptcy. His
company website isn't active. And a former top officer who worked
on the Wade Park project has left the firm.

Wade Park's developer is also claiming damages from an officer of
fast food restaurant chain Chick-fil-A.

Chick-fil-A CEO Dan Cathy was an investor in the Wade Park
project.

And the developer claims that the company's real estate executive
shared confidential information with the lenders.

Wade Park was the largest and most elaborate project on what Frisco
used to call its $5 billion mile. While surrounding developments,
including the Dallas Cowboys' Star complex, Frisco Station and The
Gate, all saw significant development, Wade Park never made it out
of the ground.

The dramatic collapse of the project was one of the most visible
failures in the pre-pandemic North Texas real estate market.

                     About Wade Park Holdings LLC

Wade Park Land Holdings is the owner of 50 acres, more or less,
comprised of lots 1,2,3 and 4R, Block A of Wade Park, Block A, Lots
1,2,3, 4R and 5R, an addition
to the City of Frisco, according to the plat recorded in Volume
2015, Page 631 of                                        the Plat
Records of Collin County, Texas.

Wade Park Land Holdings, LLC, and Wade Park Land, LLC, sought
protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. N.D. Ga.
Lead Case No. 20-11192) on Aug. 26, 2020.  The petitions were
signed by Stanley E. Thomas, authorized representative.

At the time of the filing, Wade Park Land Holdings had estimated
assets of between $100 million and $500 million and liabilities of
between $100 million and $500 million.  Wade Park Land had an
estimated assets of between $100 million and $500 million and
liabilities of between $50 million and $100 million.

Stone & Baxter, LLP is the Debtors' legal counsel.


WEINSTEIN CO: Accusers Are Given Final Say on Chapter 11 Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that the sexual misconduct accusers of Weinstein Co.
are given final say on the company's Chapter 11 bankruptcy plan.
Attorneys for the bankrupt movie studio once led by disgraced film
mogul Harvey Weinstein told a Delaware bankruptcy judge Wednesday,
September 2, 2020, that if his accusers reject their treatment
under a newly proposed Chapter 11 plan, it will be scrapped and the
bankruptcy will convert to a Chapter 7 case.

During a virtual status hearing, The Weinstein Co. attorney Paul
Zumbro of Cravath Swaine & Moore LLP said the plan includes an
amended global settlement that will provide $35. 2 million to fund
a claims trust for women accusing Weinstein of sexual misconduct
and that the approval of the accusers is needed for the Chapter 11
plan.

                   About The Weinstein Company Holdings

The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC and 54 affiliates sought Chapter
11 protection (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 18-10601) on March 19,
2018 after reaching a deal to sell all assets to Lantern Asset
Management for $310 million.

The Weinstein Company Holdings estimated $500 million to $1 billion
in assets and $500 million to $1 billion in liabilities.

The Hon. Mary F. Walrath is the case judge.

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP is the Debtors' bankruptcy counsel,
with the engagement led by Paul H. Zumbro, George E. Zobitz, and
Karin A. DeMasi, in New York.

Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., is the local counsel, with the
engagement headed by Mark D. Collins, Paul N. Heath, Zachary I.
Shapiro, Brett M. Haywood, and David T. Queroli, in Wilmington,
Delaware. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, LLP, as special
litigation counsel.

The Debtors also tapped FTI Consulting, Inc., as restructuring
advisor; Moelis & Company LLC as investment banker; and Epiq
Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC as claims and noticing agent.

The Office of the U.S. Trustee for Region 3 appointed an official
committee of unsecured creditors on March 28, 2018. The committee
retained Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, LLP as its legal counsel,
and Berkeley Research Group, LLC as its financial advisor.



WEINSTEIN CO: Accusers Label the Firm's Ch. 11 Plan as 'Offensive'
------------------------------------------------------------------
Law360 reports that convicted sexual predator Harvey Weinstein's
bankrupt former studio proposed a revised and smaller settlement
for his victims and others on Sept. 1, 2020, in an amended Chapter
11 plan for liquidation in Delaware that critics have already
branded as "offensive."

"The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC's revised plan would allocate
$17. 1 million for a "sexual misconduct claims" class out of $35. 2
million committed to the estate by insurers. Victims would receive
payouts from the $17. 1 million fund through a "channeling"
process, with shares of the fund reduced for those who refused to
release Harvey Weinstein from further claims.

               About The Weinstein Company Holdings

The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC and 54 affiliates sought Chapter
11 protection (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 18-10601) on March 19,
2018 after reaching a deal to sell all assets to Lantern Asset
Management for $310 million.

The Weinstein Company Holdings estimated $500 million to $1 billion
in assets and $500 million to $1 billion in liabilities.

The Hon. Mary F. Walrath is the case judge.

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP is the Debtors' bankruptcy counsel,
with the engagement led by Paul H. Zumbro, George E. Zobitz, and
Karin A. DeMasi, in New York.

Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., is the local counsel, with the
engagement headed by Mark D. Collins, Paul N. Heath, Zachary I.
Shapiro, Brett M. Haywood, and David T. Queroli, in Wilmington,
Delaware. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann, LLP, as special
litigation counsel.

The Debtors also tapped FTI Consulting, Inc., as restructuring
advisor; Moelis & Company LLC as investment banker; and Epiq
Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC as claims and noticing agent.

The Office of the U.S. Trustee for Region 3 appointed an official
committee of unsecured creditors on March 28, 2018. The committee
retained Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, LLP as its legal counsel,
and Berkeley Research Group, LLC as its financial advisor.


WEINSTEIN CO: Lawyers Present Revised Bankruptcy Plan to Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randall Chase of Associated Press reports that the attorneys for
The Weinstein Co. presented a Delaware judge in early September
with a revised bankruptcy plan that would provide about $35 million
for creditors, including victims of sexual misconduct by disgraced
film mogul Harvey Weinstein.

The settlement amount is $11.5 million less than under a previous
plan, which was scrapped after a federal judge in New York refused
to approve a proposed $19 million settlement between Weinstein and
some of his accusers. The settlement in the purported class-action
lawsuit was a key component of the initial bankruptcy plan.

Attorneys for the company told Judge Mary Walrath the reduction is
due primarily to the fact that the plan no longer includes
contributions from insurers for the resolution of certain "Miramax
era" claims that arose prior to Harvey Weinstein leaving that
company and forming the Weinstein Co.

Roughly half of the overall settlement amount, about $17 million,
is allocated for a single sexual misconduct claims fund, down from
about $25.7 million allocated for three separate categories of
sexual misconduct claims under the previous plan. Another $8.4
million of the settlement amount would go to a liquidation trust
for resolving non-sexual misconduct claims, and $9.7 million would
be used to reimburse defense costs for company officials other than
Weinstein.

Attorneys for the company made clear that they will not ask Judge
Walrath to approve the plan if holders of sexual misconduct claims
vote to reject it.

"We will not seek to cram down the plan on the survivors," said
attorney Paul Zumbro.

Meanwhile, attorneys for The Weinstein Co. asked Walrath to approve
an Oct. 15 deadline for sexual misconduct claims to be filed, and a
process for notifying potential claimants through online posting
and publications including The Hollywood Reporter, Variety and The
New York Post.

Walrath said that if attorneys can agree on language clarifying the
consequences on future litigation for victims who file claims in
the bankruptcy, she would allow the company to send out the
notices.

"I agree with the debtor that this should go forward and this could
resolve, if not all of the claims, a large percentage of those,"
she said.

Zumbro said the revised plan will provide greater relief for
holders of sexual misconduct claims because the proposed class of
claims is smaller than under the original plan, and no money would
be going to class-action counsel fees.

He also noted that Harvey Weinstein would no longer be reimbursed
for any of his defense costs or receive any other distribution
under the revised plan.

Zumbro noted that the New York judge had described the potential
payments to Weinstein as "obnoxious."

"The debtors and the other settling parties heard that loud and
clear," he said.

Under the new Chapter 11 liquidation proposal, holders of sexual
misconduct claims would receive 100% of the liquidated value of
their claims if they agree to release Weinstein from all legal
claims. A claimant who elects not to release Weinstein but to
retain the option to sue him in another court would receive 25% of
the value of her bankruptcy claim. The other 75% would be allocated
to a "reversionary fund" for the benefit of insurance companies,
who could be on the hook for damage payments in future litigation.

In a departure from normal bankruptcy procedure, holders of sexual
misconduct claims would not be asked to vote on the plan until each
knows the value of her claim.

Robert Feinstein, an attorney for the company's official committee
of unsecured creditors, said the committee unanimously supports the
proposed settlement, as do many other individual claimants.

"We hope it's received with an open mind, ... and that people will
hold their fire in the press and in the courtroom until all of the
facts are known to them and we can have a mature conversation about
what's going on here," Feinstein said, referring to attorneys for
three non-settling plaintiffs in the New York case. Those attorneys
have described the latest proposal as "a complete and utter
sellout" of Weinstein's victims.

Attorneys acting on behalf of two of those women previously asked
Walrath to convert the Chapter 11 case to a Chapter 7 liquidation.
Doing so would reduce the amount of money going to professionals
and allow a trustee to pursue civil claims on behalf of the
bankruptcy estate against Weinstein and other company officials,
they argue.

But Elizabeth Fegan, an attorney who represents several women in
the New York case, including lead plaintiff Louisette Geiss, told
Walrath on Wednesday that nearly two dozen women support the
revised bankruptcy plan.

"I do think that it's important that their voices are not
outweighed by two women alone who do not approve of the plan," she
said.

The Weinstein Co. sought bankruptcy protection in March 2018 amid a
sexual misconduct scandal that brought down Weinstein and triggered
a nationwide movement to address predatory sexual behavior and
harassment in the workplace. Weinstein was sentenced to 23 years in
prison earlier this year after being convicted in New York of rape
and sexual assault.

Prosecutors in Los Angeles are seeking his extradition to
California to face charges of raping a woman and sexually
assaulting another in 2013.

                    About The Weinstein Company

The Weinstein Company (TWC) -- http://www.WeinsteinCo.com/-- is a
multimedia production and distribution company launched in 2005 in
New York by Bob and Harvey Weinstein, the brothers who founded
Miramax Films in 1979. TWC also encompasses Dimension Films, the
genre label founded in 1993 by Bob Weinstein. During Harvey and
Bob's tenure at Miramax and TWC, they have received 341 Oscar
nominations and won 81 Academy Awards. TWC dismissed Harvey
Weinstein in October 2017, after dozens of women came forward to
accuse him of sexual harassment, assault or rape.

The Weinstein Company Holdings LLC and 54 affiliates sought Chapter
11 protection (Bankr. D. Del. Lead Case No. 18-10601) on March 19,
2018, after reaching a deal to sell all assets to Lantern Asset
Management for $310 million.

The Weinstein Company Holdings estimated $500 million to $1 billion
in assets and $500 million to $1 billion in liabilities.

The Hon. Mary F. Walrath is the case judge.

Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP is the Debtors' bankruptcy counsel,
with the engagement led by Paul H. Zumbro, George E. Zobitz, and
Karin A. DeMasi, in New York.

Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A., is the local counsel, with the
engagement headed by Mark D. Collins, Paul N. Heath, Zachary I.
Shapiro, Brett M. Haywood, and David T. Queroli, in Wilmington,
Delaware.

The Debtors also tapped FTI Consulting, Inc., as restructuring
advisor; Moelis & Company LLC as investment banker; and Epiq
Bankruptcy Solutions, LLC as claims and noticing agent.

The Office of the U.S. Trustee for Region 3 appointed an official
committee of unsecured creditors on March 28, 2018.  The Committee
retained Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, LLP as its legal counsel,
and Berkeley Research Group, LLC as its financial advisor.


WESTERN ROBIDOUX: Seeks to Hire German May as Special Counsel
-------------------------------------------------------------
Western Robidoux, Inc. seeks approval from the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court for the Western District of Missouri to employ German May PC
as special counsel.

The Debtor seeks to retain German May PC to represent the Debtor in
liquidating and collecting claims against Ceva Animal Health, LLC
and Boheringer Ingelheim Vetmedica Inc. and related parties for
claims owing in contract, tort, and under Chapter 5 of the
Bankruptcy Code.

Phillip Greenfield, Esq., of German May PC disclosed in court
filings that the firm and its attorneys are "disinterested persons"
as that term is defined in section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code
and do not hold or represent an adverse interest to the Debtor's
estate.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     Phillip Greenfield, Esq.
     GERMAN MAY PC
     1201 Walnut, 20th Floor
     Kansas City, MO 64106
     Telephone: (816) 471-7700
     Facsimile: (816) 471-2221
     E-mail: philg@gmlawpc.com

                                About Western Robidoux

Western Robidoux, Inc. is a family-owned commercial printing and
fulfillment company in St. Joseph, Missouri, run by the Burri
family for more than 40 years.

Western Robidoux sought protection under Chapter 11 of the
Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. W.D. Mo. Case No. 19-50505) on Oct. 19,
2019. The petition was signed by Connie S. Burri, president. At the
time of the filing, the Debtor estimated to have $1 million and $10
million in both assets and liabilities.

The case is assigned to Judge Brian T. Fenimore.  The Debtor tapped
Victor F. Weber, Esq., at Merrick, Baker & Strauss, P.C. as
counsel; German May PC as special counsel; and Liechti, Franken &
Young as accountant.


WILTON ARMETALE: Trustee Allowed to Abandon Suit vs. Ex-Counsel
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the bankruptcy case IN RE: Wilton Armetale, Inc., a/k/a WAPITA,
Inc., Chapter 7, Debtor, Bky. No. 16-16779 PMM (Bankr. E.D. Pa.),
Chapter 7 Trustee David A. Eisenberg sought permission to abandon
common law causes of action for breach of contract and negligence
against Debtor Wilton Armetale, Inc., a/k/a WAPITA, Inc.'s former
legal counsel. These causes of action were originally brought in
state court but were removed to bankruptcy court as an adversary
proceeding shortly thereafter.  The Lawsuit has been pending for
nearly three years.

After examining the facts, controlling case law, the parties'
arguments, and the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing,
Bankruptcy Judge Patricia M. Mayer concluded that the Trustee has
met his burden of showing that little is to be gained by forging
ahead with the Lawsuit, the pursuit of which is inherently risky.
The Trustee's decision to abandon the property is a reasonable
business judgment which he has the discretion to make.

Prior to its bankruptcy, the Debtor was in the business of
producing and selling household tableware, supplying retailers such
as Macy's, Belk, and Bed Bath & Beyond, among others. The Debtor
conducted business through a leased warehouse in Landisville, Pa.
Its administrative headquarters were at a property it owned,
located at 903-905 Square St. in Mount Joy, PA. The Debtor's former
shareholder and director Ivan Jeffery separately filed for
bankruptcy on July 15, 2016.

On April 20, 2015, pre-petition, the Debtor entered into a Loan and
Security Agreement with North Mill Capital, LLC, which extended a
line of credit to the Debtor in exchange for a $400,000 mortgage on
the Debtor's Property and a secured interest in the Debtor's
assets. As part of the Agreement between the Debtor and North Mill,
Jeffery agreed to a $250,000 junior participation agreement, by
which Jeffery would receive at least a 6.25% rate of return on the
line of credit extended by North Mill to the Debtor.

In September 2015, pursuant to the Agreement and due to its
financial difficulties, the Debtor began pursuing a controlled
liquidation plan. With the help of the Firm, the Debtor solicited
buyers for its inventory. North Mill helped fashion a deal by which
it sold the Debtor's inventory to Gordon Brothers, a liquidator
which specializes in buying and selling assets of distressed
businesses.

On March 7, 2016, the Debtor's non real estate assets were sold to
Gordon Brothers for $725,000. Jeffery, with assistance from the
Firm, arranged for this sale of assets. The Debtor contends that
the Firm, at the direction of North Mill and Jeffery, consented to
a confession of judgment and application for sheriff's sale on the
Property. The Firm admitted that in March 2016 it advised North
Mill that it would not be defending any litigation filed against
the Debtor. Due to the Debtor's failure to satisfy the terms of the
Agreement, North Mill obtained two confessed judgments against the
Debtor in April 2016 in the amounts of $606,361.48 and $405,000.
The Debtor alleged, in various formats and forms, that the
judgments of North Mill were obtained collusively and fraudulently
by way of a conspiracy. Specifically, the Debtor contends that
North Mill arranged for the sale of the Debtor's assets to
liquidator Gordon Brothers by cutting Jeffery in for a "secret
participation interest" of 20% of net proceeds. The next day, March
8, 2016, the Firm sought payment of $10,500 in fees for work
performed in connection with this transaction.

On April 26, 2016, the Debtor's supplier and largest secured
creditor, AHR, obtained a judgment lien in the amount of
$920,658.17 on the Debtor's Property. The AHR Judgment was the
result of state court litigation, instituted in 2015, in which AHR
prevailed on a claim that the Debtor failed to deliver merchandise
for which AHR paid.

As a result of the AHR Judgment, Jeffery was required to deliver
his shares in the Debtor to an AHR affiliate within three days. The
stock was moved into a company owned by AHR called Mega Living. AHR
is, therefore, the current owner of the Debtor. Following the
delivery of Jeffery's stock, Mega Living terminated Jeffery's
employment with the Debtor.

This bankruptcy was filed by AHR as owner of the Debtor immediately
prior to the sheriff's sale of the Property (the Debtor's only
remaining asset).

The Debtor filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy protection on Sept. 26,
2016. The next day, the Trustee was appointed. Jeffery's bankruptcy
estate and AHR together hold approximately 98% of the asserted
claims in this case.

On Jan. 6, 2017, following a Motion to Sell Free and Clear by the
Trustee, the parties entered into a settlement agreement which
defined the terms and conditions of the sale of the Debtor's
Property. By way of this settlement agreement, AHR, the Trustee,
and North Mill agreed that North Mill would be paid $520,000.00
directly out of the sale proceeds. The Property was sold to Square
Deal 950, LLC for $800,000 that day.

On March 20, 2018, the Trustee filed a (different) Motion to
Abandon causes of action regarding, among other things, fraudulent
transfer claims against Gordon Brothers and Jeffery. The Trustee
asserted that "in light of the time required and cost likely to be
incurred by the Estate's professionals to assert such Claims and
the difficulty and risks in asserting such Claims, that such Claims
are of inconsequential value and benefit to the Estate." The First
Abandonment Motion was settled by stipulation  among the Trustee,
the Debtor, AHR, and Jeffery's chapter 7 trustee (Lynn Feldman).
This Settlement stated that all claims against both Gordon Brothers
and its affiliates and Jeffery for fraudulent transfer and related
causes of action are abandoned by the Trustee to the Debtor. The
professional liability and breach of contract claims asserted by
the Trustee's counsel against the Firm in adversary proceeding
17-372 were specifically excluded from the Settlement.

In pressing the Motion, the Trustee asserted that the current
cost/benefit analysis of pursuing the current action, which has
been litigated by the Debtor's special counsel Saltz Mongeluzzi
Barrett & Bendesky, leads to a conclusion that the Lawsuit is not
worth the necessary time, energy, and cost required to continue.
The Trustee argued that the Lawsuit will yield, at best, an
inconsequential benefit to creditors.

The Debtor's former legal counsel, Leisawitz Heller Abramowitch
Phillips, P.C., a defendant in the Lawsuit, and Gordon Brothers,
one of the Debtor's largest creditors, opposed the Motion. The
Adverse Parties asserted both that pursuing the litigation will not
cost the estate and that binding case law prohibits what the
Trustee sought to do, which they claimed is effectively to abandon
the cause of action to a single creditor.

The Court says the standard regarding abandonment of estate
property is set forth in 11 U.S.C. section 554. It provides that a
"trustee may abandon any property of the estate that is burdensome
to the estate or that is of inconsequential value and benefit to
the estate." This standard is disjunctive.  The estate's property
includes pending lawsuits. The purpose of allowing abandonment is
to protect the estate from the burden of having to administer
property that will not benefit unsecured creditors.

In order to abandon property, the bankruptcy trustee must
demonstrate that he made: 1) a business judgment; 2) in good faith;
3) upon some reasonable basis; and 4) within the scope of
authority.  The Trustee asserted that the Lawsuit would at best
yield inconsequential value for creditors of the estate and
therefore may and should be abandoned. According to Judge Mayer,
the Trustee's judgment to abandon this cause of action, given the
risks and potential reward, is reasonable. Three years into the
litigation, there is no compelling evidence that the Lawsuit will
provide meaningful recovery for creditors of the estate. And
litigation is both risky --  i.e., it may be a net loss -- and
painful, particularly where, as here, the matter is highly
contentious.  Further, the objectors have failed to meet their
burden of production with regard to the Motion. That is, the
Adverse Parties provide no evidence or argument to demonstrate that
there would likely be a benefit to the estate from the Lawsuit.
Rather, counsel argued that the fact that the litigation is "not
toxic" means it must be pursued.

A copy of the Court's Opinion is available at
https://bit.ly/2RRoQU4 from Leagle.com.

                   About Wilton Armetale

Wilton Armetale, Inc., a/k/a WAPITA, Inc. filed for chapter 7
bankruptcy protection (Bankr. E.D. Pa. Case No. 16-16779) on Sept.
26, 2016.


WJA ASSET: Seeks to Hire Cypress West as Broker
-----------------------------------------------
Luxury Asset Purchasing International, LLC (LAPI), one of the
debtors-in-possession in these chapter 11 cases, seeks approval
from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of
California to employ Cypress West Realty Management, Inc. as its
real estate broker.

LAPI desires to employ Cypress West Realty Management to assist in
the sale of its property which consists of 9.42 acres located at
5827 Winland Hills Drive, Rancho Santa Fe in California.

Under the Listing Agreement, the commission is set at 4.5% of the
purchase price if the broker has to share the commission, and 3.5%
of the purchase price if the broker represents both sides.

John Sherman of Cypress West Realty Management, Inc. disclosed in
court filings that the firm is a "disinterested person" as that
term is defined in section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     John Sherman
     CYPRESS WEST REALTY MANAGEMENT, INC.
     30021 Tomas, Suite 130
     Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
     Telephone: (949) 837-5700
     E-mail: jsherman@srseniorliving.com

                              About WJA Asset Management

Luxury Asset Purchasing International, LLC, et al., are part of a
network of entities or "Funds" formed to offer a range of
investment opportunities to individuals. Many of the existing funds
are performing and some Funds had substantial gains. However,
certain Funds, i.e., those invested in private trust deeds secured
by real estate, suffered losses.

William Jordan Investments, Inc. ("Advisor"), is a registered
investment advisor. Laguna Hills, California-based WJA Asset
Management, LLC ("Manager"), is the managing member of Luxury, et
al. William Jordan was the president and sole owner of Advisor and
was the sole member and manager of Manager.

On May 18, 2017, Luxury and its affiliates filed voluntary
petitions under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code. On
May 25, 2017, four other affiliated filed voluntary Chapter 11
petitions. On June 6, 2017, CA Real Estate Opportunity Fund III
filed its Chapter 11 petition. The Debtors' cases are jointly
administered under Bankr. C.D. Cal. Lead Case No. 17-11996, and the
Debtors continue to operate their businesses and manage their
affairs as DIP.

Pursuant to court orders, Howard Grobstein is now serving as the
chief restructuring officer of the Debtors and Mr. Jordan no longer
has any ongoing role in the Debtors' operations.

At the time of the filing, WJA estimated assets of less than
$500,000 and liabilities of $1 million to $10 million.  

Judge Scott C. Clarkson presides over the cases.

Lei Lei Wang Ekvall, Esq., Philip E. Strok, Esq., Robert S.
Marticello, Esq., and Michael L. Simon, Esq., at Smiley
Wang-Ekvall, LLP, serve as counsel to the Debtors. Ann Moore of
Norton Moore Adams has been tapped as special counsel. Elite
Properties Realty is the broker.


WOODLAWN COMMUNITY: Trustee Seeks Approval to Hire Special Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------------
Gina B. Krol, the appointed trustee in the chapter 11 case of
Woodlawn Community Development Corp., seeks approval from the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois to employ
Shelly A. DeRousse and Elizabeth L. Janczak and the law firm of
Freeborn & Peters LLP as her special counsel.

The trustee desires to employ Freeborn & Peters LLP in connection
with the investigation, pursuit, and litigation of claims of the
Debtor's estate.

Freeborn & Peters will render the following legal services in
connection with the litigation claims:

     (a) Advise the Trustee on all legal issues as they arise in
connection with the litigation claims;

     (b) Investigate the basis for any litigation claims, analyzing
such claims and defenses;

     (c) Negotiate the resolution of the litigation claims; and

     (d) Prepare, on behalf of the trustee, and prosecute all
necessary motions, complaints, applications, pleadings, reports,
responses, objections and other papers in connection with the
litigation claims.

The trustee proposes to retain Freeborn on a contingency fee basis
in this matter, which shall be as follows:

     (a) Freeborn shall receive a contingency fee at a percentage
of the Gross Recoveries which increases through three phases as the
litigation progresses: (1) prior to filing a lawsuit (the
Pre-Filing Phase), (2) after filing the complaint, but before a
judgment is entered (the Post-Filing Phase), and (3) after entry of
judgment (the Post-Judgment Phase).

     (b) Freeborn shall receive a contingency fee at percentages on
a sliding scale which decreases for each $500,000.00 increment of
Gross Recoveries. For example, on a $1 million Gross Recovery,
Freeborn will receive a higher percentage contingency fee on the
first $500,000, than the next $500,000.

     (c) Gross Recoveries shall be defined as any and all payments
made to or for the benefit of the trustee or the Debtor's estate by
any person or entity for any settlement, judgment, or other
resolution of the litigation claims, including all cash and
non-cash consideration before deductions.

In addition to the foregoing, the Debtor's estate shall pay for all
reasonable expenses incurred in connection with this
representation.

Shelly A. DeRousse, a partner in the law firm of Freeborn & Peters
LLP, disclosed in court filings that the firm is a "disinterested
person" as that term is defined in section 101(14) of the
Bankruptcy Code.

The firm can be reached through:
   
     Shelly A. DeRousse, Esq.
     Elizabeth L. Janczak, Esq.
     FREEBORN & PETERS LLP
     311 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
     Chicago, IL 60606
     Telephone: (312) 360-6000
     Facsimile: (312) 360-6520
     E-mail: sderousse@freeborn.com
             ejanczak@freeborn.com

                      About Woodlawn Community Development Corp.

Founded in 1972, Woodlawn Community Development Corp. manages and
develops affordable housing for families in the Greater Metro
Chicago area. Visit https://www.wcdcchicago.com for more
information.

Woodlawn Community Development filed a Chapter 11 petition (Bankr.
N.D. Ill. Case No. 18-29862) on Oct. 24, 2018. In the petition
signed by Leon Finney, Jr., president and chief executive officer,
the Debtor was estimated to have $50 million to $100 million in
both assets and liabilities. Judge Carol A. Doyle oversees the
case. The Debtor has tapped Herzog & Schwartz, P.C. as its
bankruptcy counsel.

Gina B. Krol is the Debtor's Chapter 11 trustee. She tapped the law
firm of Cohen & Krol as her counsel and Freeborn & Peters LLP, led
by Shelly A. DeRousse and Elizabeth L. Janczak, as special counsel.


YACHT CLUB: Gets Approval to Hire J. Jeschke as Appraiser
---------------------------------------------------------
Yacht Club Vacation Owners Association, Inc. received approval from
the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Missouri to
hire Jerry Jeschke and his firm J. Jeschke Appraisal Company to
appraise a condominium in which it holds interest.

The property is a 12-unit complex located at 611 Rock Lane Drive,
Branson, Mo.

Mr. Jeschke estimates his fee will be in the range of $3,000 to
$3,500, exclusive of testimony.  His rate for trial preparation and
testimony is $175 per hour.

J. Jeschke is a "disinterested person" as defined in Section
101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code, according to court filings.

The firm can be reached through:

     Jerry Jeschke
     J. Jeschke Appraisal Company
     1015 State Highway 248, Suite E
     Branson, MO 65616
     Office: 417-334-3241
     Fax: 417-973-0417
     Cell: 417-339-1521
     Email: jerry@jjappraisal.biz

                     About Yacht Club Vacation
                        Owners Association

Yacht Club Vacation Owners Association, Inc. filed its voluntary
petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (Bankr. W.D. Mo.
Case No. 20-41555) on Aug. 28, 2020, listing under $1 million in
both assets and liabilities.  Judge Brian T. Fenimore oversees the
case.  Daniel D. Doyle, Esq., at Lashly & Baer, P.C., Attorneys at
Law, serves as Debtor's legal counsel.


[*] Buchalter: Criticial Issues in Hotel Bankruptcies
-----------------------------------------------------
Julian Gurule of Buchalter wrote an article on JDSupra titled
"Hotel Bankruptcies: Introduction to Critical Issues."

The global COVID-19 pandemic has devastated the hospitality
industry. Hotel occupancy rates have fallen greatly in many
markets, with employee layoffs and property closures affecting even
the largest and otherwise best performing hotels.  It is uncertain
when the industry will recover. Many hotel properties will require
a chapter 11 bankruptcy case to successfully reorganize their debt
obligations and operations and preserve the value of the business.

Hotel properties present a unique set of issues in bankruptcy.
Owners, investors, lenders, and professionals in the hospitality
industry should carefully consider the benefits and challenges
associated with a chapter 11 case. Some of the principal strategic
issues are:

Lender Negotiations and Forbearance Agreements. As a hotel business
encounters financial distress, the best approach is often to
proactively engage with its lender and—especially in light of the
COVID-19 pandemic—be transparent about the financial challenges
confronting the business. In these times, lenders are frequently
willing to provide amendments to loan documents or otherwise
forbear from starting foreclosure proceedings based on
COVID-related defaults. The lender may impose additional financial
reporting requirements and fees in connection with any forbearance
agreement. Forbearance agreements with senior lenders can also
assist a hotel borrower in maintaining control over an upcoming
financial restructuring, especially where the hotel has additional
layers of junior or mezzanine financing.  The hotel borrower should
seek to effectively use any time afforded under a forbearance
agreement to evaluate its options, negotiate with its creditors,
and, if necessary, prepare for a chapter 11 case.

Management in Chapter 11. Directors and officers remain in place
and continue to manage the debtor in chapter 11. In this way,
chapter 11 is different from other types of insolvency proceedings,
in which existing management is removed in favor of a trustee or
receiver. The directors and officers of a business in chapter 11
continue to owe fiduciary duties to the company and are required to
make business decisions that are in the best interests of the
estate. In planning for a chapter 11 case, a company should
consider retaining a financial advisor or chief restructuring
officer with experience navigating the complicated and specialized
legal and business challenges associated with operating a chapter
11 debtor.

Liquidity and Financing Needs. The COVID-19 pandemic has strained
the liquidity of hotels throughout the country and created
tremendous uncertainty when it comes to financial projections. For
many hotels, it is unclear when—and in what form—they will be
able to reopen. Nevertheless, a comprehensive understanding of the
business's liquidity position and projected cash needs over the
upcoming quarter will be critical in planning any chapter 11 case.
The Bankruptcy Court, the hotel's lender, and other parties will
expect to see a 13-week cash flow budget for the property. The
budget will be critical in evaluating whether the hotel debtor will
be able to use any cash generated by the business that is the
lender's collateral, as well as whether any additional
financing—referred to as debtor-in-possession or “DIP”
financing—may be necessary during the chapter 11 case. If the
lender has a security interest in the cash proceeds of the
business, the debtor will be required to obtain either the lender's
consent or a Bankruptcy Court order approving the use of such
cash.

Single Asset Real Estate. A potential hotel debtor should carefully
consider the applicability of the single asset real estate or
"SARE" provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. These provisions
streamline the ability of secured lenders to obtain relief from the
Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay and foreclose on the property
unless the debtor meets certain expedited timing requirements in
the chapter 11 case.  
Accordingly, if a hotel debtor does fall within the SARE rules, its
options in a restructuring may prove limited. However, courts will
often decline to apply the SARE provisions where a hotel debtor can
demonstrate that it provides substantial goods and services to
guests and customers beyond simply renting rooms.

Valuation in Bankruptcy. The valuation of the hotel will be
critically important in any chapter 11 case.  For example,
establishing a value for the hotel in excess of the amount of the
secured debt may allow the debtor to utilize cash generated from
operations without the lender’s consent. The hotel debtor will
also have to establish the value of the hotel in order to confirm a
plan of reorganization. The Bankruptcy Court will consider all of
the typical measures of hotel financial performance as well as
generally-accepted valuation methodologies, such as RevPar, DCF,
and comparable sales. Expert testimony regarding valuation may be
necessary in contested cases. Given that the financial performance
of hotels during the COVID-19 pandemic has suffered tremendously, a
hotel debtor may face substantial challenges on the valuation
question. Yet even if proving valuation is difficult, chapter 11
may provide the "breathing spell" necessary for a hotel business to
stave off its creditors until the hospitality market sufficiently
recovers.

Guarantees of Hotel Debt. Hotel debt obligations are often
guaranteed by the hotel’s owners or sponsors under so-called
non-recourse carve-out or “bad boy” guarantees.  These
guarantees allow a lender to recover against the guarantor under
limited circumstances, often including the bankruptcy of the hotel
debtor. Bad boy guarantees are generally enforceable against the
guarantor even if the lender is prevented from collecting against
the hotel debtor during the bankruptcy case. The existence and
scope of any bad boy guarantees will be a critically important
strategic issue in the chapter 11 planning process.

Franchise Agreements in Bankruptcy. A hotel's franchise agreement
is often one of its most valuable assets.  The Bankruptcy Code’s
automatic stay prevents the franchisor from terminating the
franchise agreement based on the hotel debtor's bankruptcy case.
Under the Bankruptcy Code, the debtor has the ability to assume or
reject "executory contracts," including franchise agreements. If
the debtor elects to assume the franchise agreement, keeping the
franchise agreement in place, the hotel must cure any defaults,
including payment defaults, that might exist under the agreement.

Route to Exit Bankruptcy. Chapter 11 cases are generally faster and
more cost-effective if the debtor has a game plan for how it will
exit the bankruptcy case before the bankruptcy petition is even
filed. There are two ways for an operating business to exit chapter
11. The first option is for the debtor to confirm a chapter 11 plan
of reorganization. Under this approach, the existing owners
generally remain as the owners and operators of the
post-reorganization business, with a court-approved restructuring
of the various liabilities of the company.  The second way for the
business to exit chapter 11 is through a sale of substantially all
assets under section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code. In a section 363
sale, the debtor seeks out a buyer for the business, with the
transaction approved by the Bankruptcy Court.  Section 363 sales
for businesses of any material size are almost always subject to an
overbid and auction process. An existing secured lender to the
hotel debtor will have an option to "credit bid" its secured claim
in any sale process.

All of the parties involved in a potential hotel chapter 11 case
should carefully consider the issues outlined in this article. A
comprehensive understanding of the risks and benefits of a chapter
11 case early in the process can often aid in achieving the best
outcome


[^] Recent Small-Dollar & Individual Chapter 11 Filings
-------------------------------------------------------
In re Scott Saks
   Bankr. M.D. Fla. Case No. 20-07854
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 21, 2020
         represented by: Jake Blanchard, Esq.

In re Domus Build and Design, Inc.
   Bankr. S.D. Fla. Case No. 20-21518
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 21, 2020
         See
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/JHZM5VY/Domus_Build_and_Design_Inc__flsbke-20-21518__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
         Filed Pro Se

In re Hillsboro Petroleum West, Inc.
   Bankr. S.D. Fla. Case No. 20-21524
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 21, 2020
         See
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/W5E364I/Hillsboro_Petroleum_West_Inc__flsbke-20-21524__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
         represented by: Jeffrey M. Siskind, Esq.
                         SISKIND LEGAL, PLLC
                         E-mail: jeffsiskind@msn.com

In re Poinciana Management Group LLC
   Bankr. S.D. Fla. Case No. 20-21528
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 21, 2020
         See
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/RYYCYGQ/Poinciana_Management_Group_LLC__flsbke-20-21528__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
         represented by: Peter Spindel, Esq.
                         PETER SPINDEL, ESQ. P.A.
                         E-mail: peterspindel@gmail.com

In re Wacey Lyle Sanders and Ashley Nicole Sanders
   Bankr. W.D. La. Case No. 20-80515
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 21, 2020

In re Frank J. Fava
   Bankr. D.N.J. Case No. 20-21832
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 21, 2020
         represented by: Melinda Middlebrooks, Esq.
                         MIDDLEBROOKS SHAPIRO, P.C.
                         E-mail:
                         middlebrooks@middlebrooksshapiro.com

In re Instyle Home Renovations LLC
   Bankr. E.D.N.Y. Case No. 20-73243
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 22, 2020
         See
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/TTDEDAQ/Instyle_Home_Renovations_LLC__nyebke-20-73243__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
         represented by: Randall K. Malone, Esq.
                         MANNERS & MALONE, PLLC
                         E-mail: randy@mannersmalone.com

In re Brick House Properties, LLC
   Bankr. D. Utah Case No. 20-26250
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 21, 2020
         See
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/GFCEDMI/Brick_House_Properties_LLC__utbke-20-26250__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
         represented by: George B. Hofmann, Esq.
                         COHNE KINGHORN, P.C.
                         E-mail: ghofmann@ck.law

In re Dynamic Sports Performance, LLC
   Bankr. E.D. Va. Case No. 20-12322
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 21, 2020
         See
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/SOI7ISI/Dynamic_Sports_Performance_LLC__vaebke-20-12322__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
         represented by: Nathan Fisher, Esq.
                         NATHAN FISHER

In re Lawrence Shermon Joe and Aileen Kit Ying Lo
   Bankr. C.D. Cal. Case No. 20-19575
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 22, 2020
         represented by: Michael Jones, Esq.

In re Hans Carl Clausen and Geraldine Olga Clausen
   Bankr. M.D. Fla. Case No. 20-07896
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 22, 2020

In re Alexander Dong Lee
   Bankr. S.D. Fla. Case No. 20-21594
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 23, 2020
         represented by: Robert Furr, Esq.

In re Dwane Dean Clodfelter, Sr.
   Bankr. E.D.N.C. Case No. 20-03458
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 22, 2020
         represented by: Trawick Stubbs, Esq.

In re Maui Lifted Jeep Rentals, LLC
   Bankr. S.D. Tex. Case No. 20-35098
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 22, 2020
         See
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/HPRYMOY/Maui_Lifted_Jeep_Rentals_LLC__txsbke-20-35098__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
         represented by: Reese W. Baker, Esq.
                         BAKER & ASSOCIATES
                         Email: courtdocs@bakerassociates.net

In re Allan L. Reagan
   Bankr. W.D. Tex. Case No. 20-11161
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 22, 2020
         represented by: Mark Taylor, Esq.

In re World of Dance Tour Inc.
   Bankr. C.D. Cal. Case No. 20-12963
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 23, 2020
         See
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/XNNKHRQ/WORLD_OF_DANCE_TOUR_INC__cacbke-20-12963__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
         represented by: Fred Neufeld, Esq.
                         STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH,  
                         A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
                         E-mail: fneufeld@sycr.com

In re Air Florida Helicopter Charters, Inc.
   Bankr. M.D. Fla. Case No. 20-05967
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 23, 2020
         See
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/EQO4KQQ/Air_Florida_Helicopter_Charters__flmbke-20-05967__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
         Filed Pro Se

In re AA Auto Technicians, Inc.
   Bankr. D. Minn. Case No. 20-32492
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 23, 2020
         See
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/2O55J5Q/AA_AUTO_TECHNICIANS_INC__mnbke-20-32492__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
         represented by: John D. Lamey III, Esq.
                         LAMEY LAW FIRM, P.A.
                         E-mail: jlamey@Lameylaw.com

In re FR8 Space LLC
   Bankr. D.N.J. Case No. 20-21928
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 23, 2020
         See
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/3UKYPGY/FR8_Space_LLC__njbke-20-21928__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
         represented by: David L. Bruck, Esq.
                         GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS LLP
                         E-mail: bankruptcy@greenbaumlaw.com

In re Kenneth William Gleason, Jr.
   Bankr. E.D. Tenn. Case No. 20-32391
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 23, 2020
         represented by: Brenda Brooks, Esq.

In re Tim Rathjen and Nancy Rathjen
   Bankr. W.D. Wash. Case No. 20-12662
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 23, 2020
         represented by: Thomas Neeleman, Esq.

In re James Christopher Jones
   Bankr. C.D. Cal. Case No. 20-19647
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 24, 2020
         represented by: Michael Totaro, Esq.
                         TOTARO & SHANAHAN
                         E-mail: Ocbkatty@aol.com

In re Wade Glenn Clingan
   Bankr. M.D. Ala. Case No. 20-32217
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 25, 2020
         represented by: Anthony Bush, Esq.

In re Nick Allen Mabray
   Bankr. E.D. Okla. Case No. 20-81024
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 25, 2020
         represented by: Debi Anderson, Esq.

In re Xplorador, Inc.
   Bankr. S.D. Cal. Case No. 20-05287
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 26, 2002
         See
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/QIAAJDA/Xplorador_Inc__casbke-20-05287__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
         represented by: Marc A. Duxbury, Esq.
                         COUNTY LAW CENTER
                         E-mail: info@countylawcenter.com

In re Springs Medical Associates P.C.
   Bankr. D. Colo. Case No. 20-17026
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 26, 2020
         See
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/XT2E4RA/Springs_Medical_Associates_PC__cobke-20-17026__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
         represented by: T. Edward Williams, Esq.
                         WILLIAMS, LLP
                         E-mail: edward.williams@wmsintl.com

In re Yafet Alem
   Bankr. D.D.C. Case No. 20-00433
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 26, 2020
         represented by: Ashvin Pandurangi, Esq.

In re La Kasa Design Studio, Inc.
   Bankr. S.D. Fla. Case No. 20-21676
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 26, 2020
         See
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/ZT6P4JQ/La_Kasa_Design_Studio_Inc__flsbke-20-21676__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
         represented by: Chad Van Horn, Esq.
                         VAN HORN LAW GROUP, P.A.
                         E-mail: chad@cvhlawgroup.com

In re Healthmax, LLC
   Bankr. S.D. Fla. Case No. 20-21700
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 26, 2020
         See
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/TMEEX7Y/Healthmax_LLC__flsbke-20-21700__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
         represented by: Gary M. Murphree, Esq.
                         A.M. LAW, LLC
                         E-mail: pleadings@amlaw-miami.com

In re M&E Truck Sales, Inc.
   Bankr. E.D. Pa. Case No. 20-14242
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 26, 2020
         See
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/AIZBJJA/ME_TRUCK_SALES_INC__paebke-20-14242__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
         represented by: Maggie Soboleski, Esq.
                         CENTER CITY LAW OFFICES, LLC
                         E-mail: msoboles@yahoo.com

In re Alfredo Bala and Johana Gil
   Bankr. E.D. Tex. Case No. 20-42178
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 26, 2020
         represented by: Eric Liepins, Esq.

In re Robert Wade Clippinger
   Bankr. C.D. Cal. Case No. 20-19680
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 27, 2020

In re Aleksandra Neva Kalinina
   Bankr. D. Del. Case No. 20-12701
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 27, 2020

In re M Phillips Trust, LLC
   Bankr. S.D. Fla. Case No. 20-21729
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 27, 2020
         See
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/QIJAU4A/M_Phillips_Trust_LLC__flsbke-20-21729__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
         Filed Pro Se

In re Joe Vincent Petitto
   Bankr. E.D. La. Case No. 20-11843
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 27, 2020
         represented by: Markus Gerdes, Esq.

In re William J. Lloyd, Jr.
   Bankr. D.N.J. Case No. 20-22059
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 27, 2020
         represented by: Robert Loefflad, Esq.

In re Tow to Toe LLC
   Bankr. N.D. Ohio Case No. 20-14780
      Chapter 11 Petition filed October 27, 2020
         See
https://www.pacermonitor.com/view/SBOEDGA/Tow_to_Toe_LLC__ohnbke-20-14780__0001.0.pdf?mcid=tGE4TAMA
         Filed Pro Se


                            *********

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 Amazon.com.  Go to
http://www.bankrupt.com/books/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
then-ending.

TCR subscribers have free access to our on-line news archive.
Point your Web browser to http://TCRresources.bankrupt.com/and 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, Editors.

Copyright 2020.  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.

                   *** End of Transmission ***