IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE: ACandS, Inc.

Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Combustion Engineering, Inc. The Flintkote Company Kaiser Aluminum Corp. Owens Corning US Mineral Products Company USG Corp. W.R. Grace & Co. Debtors. IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: Mid-Valley, Inc. North American Refractories Co. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. Debtors. Case No.: 03-35592 (Rel. Dkt. No. 2770) Case No.:02-20198 (Rel. Dkt. No. 6944) Case No.:00-22876 (Rel. Dkt. No. 8096)
Hearing Date: February 14, 2011 @ 8:30 a.m.

Case No.: 02-12687 (Rel. Dkt. No. 3639) Case No.: 00-4471 (Rel. Dkt. No. 10698) Case No.: 03-10495 (Rel. Dkt. No. 3380) Case No.: 04-11300 (Rel. Dkt. No. 5606) Case No.: 02-10429 (Rel. Dkt. No. 10009) Case No.: 00-3837 (Rel. Dkt. No. 20954) Case No.: 01-2471 (Rel. Dkt. No. 3878) Case No.: 01-2094 (Rel. Dkt. No. 12596) Case No.: 01-1139 (Rel. Dkt. No. 26053)

JOINDER AND OBJECTION OF THE OFFICIAL COMMITTEES OF ASBESTOS CLAIMANTS IN THE FLINTKOTE, GRACE, NARCO AND PITTSBURGH CORNING BANKRUPTCIES TO GARLOCKS MOTION FOR ORDERS AUTHORIZING ACCESS TO 2019 STATEMENTS AND RELATED RELIEF

{D0195755.1 }

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page(s) TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .......................................................................................................... ii PRELIMINARY STATEMENT .....................................................................................................1 ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................2 I. Garlock Seeks the Rule 2019 Exhibits for Improper Purposes............................................3 A. B. C. II. This Court May Deny Access to Documents to Prevent Them from Being Used for Improper Purposes ..........................................................................3 Garlock Acknowledges Its Purposes in Seeking the Rule 2019 Exhibits ................4 Garlocks Purposes for Seeking the Rule 2019 Exhibits are Improper ...................5

The Law Does Not Support Garlocks Attempt to Gather All Rule 2019 Exhibits from Twelve Bankruptcies ....................................................................................7 A. B. There is Cause to Withhold the Rule 2019 Exhibits ................................................7 Garlock Has Not Shown Cause to Be Provided with the Rule 2019 Exhibits ..................................................................................................................10

CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................14

{D0195755.1 }

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES In re 50-Off Stores, Inc., 213 B.R. 646 (Bankr. W. D. Tex. 1997) ..........................................................2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 Baron & Budd, P.C. v. Unsecured Asbestos Claimants Comm., 321 B.R. 147 (D.N.J. 2005) .....................................................................................................11 In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183 (3d Cir. 2001).......................................................................................................3 In re Congoleum Corp., 426 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 2005)...............................................................................................11, 12 In re JMS Automotive Rebuilders, Inc., No. 01-05600DDP, 2002 WL 32817517 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2002) ........................................10 In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp., 327 B.R. 554 (D. Del. 2005) ..................................................................................................3, 6 Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673 (3d Cir. 1988).......................................................................................................3 Nixon v. Warner Commcn, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (1978) ...........................................................................................................3, 4, 7 In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d 24 (2d Cir. 1994) ......................................................................................................3, 9 In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 260 F. Appx 463 (3d Cir. 2008) ...................................................................................7, 11, 12 In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 04-1814 , 2005 WL 6128987(W.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2005) .....................................................7 In re Premier Intl Holdings, Inc., 423 B.R. 58 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010) ........................................................................................6, 7

DOCKETED CASES

In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa.) ...................................................................1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 12, 13

{D0195755.1 }

ii

STATUTES AND RULES 11 U.S.C. 107 ................................................................................................................................2 11 U.S.C. 107(a) ...........................................................................................................................3 11 U.S.C. 107(b) .....................................................................................................................9, 10 11 U.S.C. 107(c) .......................................................................................................................8, 9 18 U.S.C. 1028(d) .........................................................................................................................9 18 U.S.C. 1029(e) .........................................................................................................................9 Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2019 ........................................................................................................... passim Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9018 ...................................................................................................................10

{D0195755.1 }

iii

The Official Committees of Asbestos Claimants in the Flintkote, Grace, NARCO and Pittsburgh Corning bankruptcy cases (the ACCs) hereby join in the relief requested in the oppositions filed by the Peter Angelos et al. Law Firms (Angelos Opposition)1 and the Kazan, McClain, Lyons, Greenwood & Harley et al. Certain Law Firm Objectors (Kazan Opposition)2 (collectively, the Law Firm Oppositions) to the Motion of Garlock Sealing Technologies LLC (Garlock) for Orders Authorizing Access to 2019 Statements Filed in This Court and For Related Relief (the Motion),3 and likewise oppose the Motion by filing this Joinder and Objection (the Objection). In support of the Objection, the ACCs respectfully represent as follows: PRELIMINARY STATEMENT 1. Garlock, a stranger to these bankruptcy cases, is attempting to misuse Rule 2019

for purposes it was never intended to serve fishing-expedition discovery premised on unsupported allegations of widespread fraud and divorced from any connection with the purposes of Rule 2019 or of the above-captioned cases in general. During all of the many years of asbestos bankruptcies and related litigation, the ACCs do not believe that anyone other than Garlock has ever sought such Rule 2019 Exhibits from other cases, much less done so with respect to twelve such cases at once. No relevant precedent supports such an attempt, and protecting against the disclosure of the 2019 Exhibits to Garlock is well within this Courts discretion. 2. To the contrary, this Court already addressed Garlocks arguments when Garlock

previously made them in Pittsburgh Corning, and Garlock provides no reason for this Court to
1 2 3

See, e.g., In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2011) [Dkt. No. 8118]. See, e.g., In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Jan. 28, 2011) [Dkt. No. 8121]. See, e.g., In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Jan. 10, 2011) [Dkt. No. 8096].

{D0195755.1 }

change its earlier analysis. That analysis made clear that the seeking of wholesale discovery of Rule 2019 Exhibits for use in other cases was inappropriate and would not be permitted by this Court. 3. The Garlock ACC has authorized the ACCs to inform the Court that it disputes

whether the 2019 Exhibits are within the reasonable scope of discovery in the aggregate estimation proceeding in the Garlock bankruptcy, and will press those arguments before Judge Hodges in the Garlock case. As Judge Hodges is best positioned to resolve that issue, and as, for the reasons set forth herein, Garlock is not entitled to the Rule 2019 Exhibits regardless of its purported use for them in the Garlock bankruptcy, this Court need not address it. ARGUMENT 4. Because it is unable to defend its unprecedented demand for all Rule 2019

exhibits in twelve separate cases (some of which are closed) on the merits, Garlocks Motion almost entirely relies on the general principle that members of the public have a presumptive right to publicly-filed documents. In so doing, Garlock ignores or misstates previous rulings regarding Rule 2019, misstates the law under Section 107, and fails to acknowledge that it is well within this Courts authority to quash attempts to gather such information for improper purposes. 5. When Garlock does bother to address its purported need for the voluminous and

confidential information it seeks, it does so in a way that both acknowledges its improper attempts to use such information as discovery materials in other cases, and fails to acknowledge that the Rule 2019 exhibits, by their very nature, could not establish what Garlock purports to be attempting to establish. 6. Moreover, the decision to restrict access to such materials is well within this

Courts discretion. See, e.g., In re 50-Off Stores, Inc., 213 B.R. 646, 659 (Bankr. W. D. Tex.

{D0195755.1 }

-2-

1997) (following Supreme Courts guidance that bar[ring] access to judicial records is [] best left to the sound discretion of the trial court) (internal quotations and citations omitted). I. Garlock Seeks the Rule 2019 Exhibits for Improper Purposes A. 7. This Court May Deny Access to Documents to Prevent Them from Being Used for Improper Purposes As the District Court noted while addressing the confidentiality of Rule 2019

submissions in In re Kaiser Aluminum Corp., 327 B.R. 554, 560 (D. Del. 2005), [a]lthough Section 107(a) evidences a strong desire by Congress to preserve the publics right to access judicial records, that right is not absolute. To the contrary, [c]ourts have supervisory power over their records and files and may deny access to those records and files to prevent them from being used for an improper purpose. Id. The Supreme Court itself has recognized that [e]very court has supervisory power over its own records and files, and access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes. Nixon v. Warner Commcn, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 598 (1978). 8. Indeed, Garlocks own cited cases recognize that [i]n limited circumstances,

courts must deny access to judicial documents-generally where open inspection may be used as a vehicle for improper purposes. In re Orion Pictures Corp., 21 F.3d 24, 27 (2d Cir. 1994) (citations omitted); see also In re Cendant Corp., 260 F.3d 183, 194 (3d Cir. 2001) (access has been denied where court files might have become a vehicle for improper purposes) (quoting Nixon, 435 U.S. at 598); Littlejohn v. BIC Corp., 851 F.2d 673, 678 (3d Cir. 1988) (same). 9. Accordingly, where a Court determines that otherwise public records are sought

for an improper purpose, it will protect such records from disclosure. See, e.g., 50-Off, 213 B.R. at 659-60 (refusing to unseal a retention hearing where, among other things, the record in this

{D0195755.1 }

-3-

matter seems at least to suggest an improper purpose as that term was used by the Supreme Court in the Nixon case). B. 10. Garlock Acknowledges Its Purposes in Seeking the Rule 2019 Exhibits Garlock makes clear that it seeks the Rule 2019 Exhibits to support far-fetched

claims of fraud in other cases. For example, Garlock now claims it requires the 2019 statements and exhibits for use in its own bankruptcy case, allegedly because [b]y comparing these verified statements to discovery Garlock received over the past decade, Garlock can prove the extent to which plaintiffs firms were concealing evidence of alternative exposures in order to inflate Garlocks settlement values. Motion at 11. Garlock also baldly asserts that it seeks the 2019 Statements because Garlock is investigating the possibility of damages actions against plaintiffs firms or claimants to recoup settlements obtained through the concealment of exposure evidence. Motion at 11. 11. inappropriate. Indeed, the only other potential purpose identified by Garlock is even more Garlock claims that [b]y comparing these 2019 exhibits verifying known

exposures to the debtors products, to the discovery Garlock was simultaneously receiving in the tort system, Garlock can determine whether lawyers and claimants were lying in one (or both) forums. Motion at 8. Putting aside the issue of whether the exhibits could in fact serve that purpose (they could not) or whether Garlock has a sufficient evidentiary basis to engage in such an exercise (it does not), Garlock possesses no roving commission to uncover alleged misstatements in various bankruptcies in which it was not a party and many of which are now closed. It certainly cites no authority for such a ridiculous proposition, and such a purpose likewise would be illegitimate.

{D0195755.1 }

-4-

C. 12.

Garlocks Purposes for Seeking the Rule 2019 Exhibits are Improper This Court has already made clear that attempts to seek Rule 2019 Statements for

use in other cases violate the purpose of the Rule, and are inappropriate. [T]he purpose for filing the 2019 statements is essentially to make sure that the Court understands that the parties who that the attorneys who purport to represent particular parties actually do represent those parties and therefore have the right to participate in the significant events in the case. They are not there for the purpose of allowing another party to use them in some litigation context outside the confines of this case. Hearing Transcript at 40, In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 0022876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2010) (emphasis added) (excerpts attached as Ex. A). As noted above, in the current Motion Garlock acknowledges that its primary purpose for seeking the Rule 2019 Exhibits is to attempt to use them in other cases. 13. Similarly, if Garlock had a basis for believing such misstatements existed as to

certain claimants or counsel in tort cases, it could seek discovery (to the extent permitted) from the makers of such misstatements in the relevant state court fora. As this Court has noted, If theyve taken an inconsistent position in the tort system, go complain to the state court judge about the fact that theyve taken an inconsistent position. Id. at 43. 14. In fact, the Court specifically noted the inappropriateness of the mass discovery

aspect of Garlocks request for the 2019 Statements, stating that giving you mass discovery as to everybody who every law firm represents I think has no basis in law or in fact. Id. at 44-45. As the Court noted, [t]hat is wholesale fishing. Id. at 51. As the Court also noted, [y]ou need it in connection with a specific case. You have to be able to make an allegation that tort plaintiff A has essentially lied and when you make that allegation under oath or as a certification in a specific case, I will be happy to consider whatever disclosure is appropriate to attempt to prove

{D0195755.1 }

-5-

that its either true or not true. Id. Garlock has not complied with this Courts prior Rule 2019 ruling, a ruling from which it did not appeal. 15. Not only is Garlock not bringing its request in connection with a specific tort

plaintiff, but it is now doing so with respect to twelve bankruptcy cases, including in Pittsburgh Corning where its request was previously denied. Its attempt to misuse Rule 2019 as a discovery fishing expedition should once again be rejected. 16. When a statement under Rule 2019 is required, the Rule itself instructs that the

statement should contain: (1) the name and address of the creditor or equity security holder; (2) the nature and amount of the claim or interest and the time of acquisition thereof unless it is alleged to have been acquired more than one year prior to the filing of the petition; (3) a recital of the pertinent facts and circumstances in connection with the employment of the entity * * *; and (4) with reference to the time of the employment of the entity, the organization or formation of the committee, * * * the amounts of claims or interests owned by the entity, * * * the times when acquired, the amounts paid therefor, and any sales or other disposition thereof. * * * The statement shall include a copy of the instrument, if any, whereby the entity is empowered to act on behalf of creditors or equity security holders. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2019. The purpose of Rule 2019 is to ensure that plans of reorganization are negotiated and voted upon by people who are authorized to act on behalf of the real parties in interest. Kaiser, 327 B.R. at 559 (citing 9 Lawrence P. King, et al., Collier on Bankruptcy 2019.05[2] (15th ed. 2004)). 17. As is apparent from its text and purpose, Rule 2019 is not meant as a weapon for

debtors to use in inflicting costs and burdens on creditors, nor as a one-sided discovery device. Accordingly, a Motion and proposed order that invoke the Rule for such improper purposes should be summarily rejected. See In re Premier Intl Holdings, Inc., 423 B.R. 58, 75 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010) (denying a motion to compel performance of Rule 2019 obligations and stating the Official Committee, by filing its motion, is clearly engaged in a litigation tactic to apply pressure
{D0195755.1 }

-6-

on it[s] current adversary, the Informal Committee of SFO Noteholders, as well as attempting to make an end run around a previous ruling denying the Official Committees request for discovery seeking virtually the same information); 50-Off, 213 B.R. at 659-60 ([u]nder the facts of this particular case, this Court believes that a litigants seeking to obtain information from a retention hearing involving the litigants opposing counsel is an improper purpose within the meaning of that term as used in Nixon, so that access should be denied). 18. Garlocks Motion seeks information for use in other cases as an end run around

properly-limited discovery. As supported by the above precedent, and consistently with its prior rulings in Pittsburgh Corning, this Court should therefore deny Garlocks Motion. II. The Law Does Not Support Garlocks Attempt to Gather All Rule 2019 Exhibits from Twelve Bankruptcies 19. Even if Garlocks purposes for gathering the Rule 2019 Exhibits were not

improper, it still would not be entitled to the Rule 2019 Exhibits, because those Exhibits contain confidential information and are deserving of protection. As the District Court ruled in

Pittsburgh Corning, in response to a request for the Rule 2019 Exhibits this Court is free to hold that countervailing concerns justify the continued protection of the information, a ruling that was affirmed by the Third Circuit. In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 04-1814, 2005 WL 6128987, at *10 (W.D. Pa. Sept. 27, 2005), affd, 260 F. Appx 463 (3d. Cir. 2008). 20. Moreover, Garlock has not shown any entitlement to the Rule 2019 Exhibits as a

party or for any other reason. A. 21. There is Cause to Withhold the Rule 2019 Exhibits As demonstrated in Part I, above, the purpose of Rule 2019 is to inform the Court

who represents whom. That purpose is not furthered by the production of the Rule 2019 Exhibits to Garlock, but would be hindered by it. If tort victims thought that the submission of Rule 2019

{D0195755.1 }

-7-

Statements could lead to the ultimate production of their confidential medical disease types, names, addresses, and in some cases, social security numbers, into the indefinite future for the purposes of other cases involving unknown issues and parties, they would be less inclined to provide such Statements voluntarily, and more likely to litigate such submissions and their exhibits earlier and more vigorously. This would likely lead to an unwelcome proliferation of satellite litigation that could only distract this Court and others from the purposes of both Rule 2019 specifically and Chapter 11 generally. There is no justification in Rule 2019 for such an outcome, and it should be avoided. Cf. 50-Off Stores, 213 B.R. at 659 (stating, with reference to the retention of professionals, [t]he statute and its implementing rules require disclosures of a sort that would make any adversarys mouth water. Due administration of a bankruptcy estate requires that a court be able to inquire into these important issues without, in the process, jeopardizing the value of the very litigation sought to be pursued). 22. Also, the fact that an individual has been diagnosed with an asbestos disease is

highly personal. There is no justification to release such information to Garlock or others, especially when such individuals or their estates may never even decide to press a claim against Garlock or any asbestos trust that may ultimately be formed as a result of Garlocks bankruptcy proceeding. More generally, as Garlock primarily relies on its alleged rights as a member of the general public, its logic naturally leads to such individuals personal medical information being made public. Again, there is no basis for such an intrusion merely because an individuals tort counsel included them in a 2019 Exhibit, which, for example, could have been done solely as a protective measure before their case was worked up. 23. Also, as subsequently recognized by Congress in its enactment of Section 107(c)

of the Bankruptcy Code, the public disclosure of personally identifiable information can harm

{D0195755.1 }

-8-

individuals.4 Such information includes names, addresses and social security numbers.5 The harms of disclosure are both thus sufficiently clear and specific to justify the protection of the information, as this Court recognized when it issued the Rule 2019 Order keeping the Rule 2019 Exhibits from the public docket in the first place, and as logically supported by the subsequent statutory codification of the protectibility of personally-identifiable information in Section 107(c). 24. The Rule 2019 Exhibits also fall with Section 107(b)s protection for

confidential research, development, or commercial information. 11 U.S.C. 107(b)(1). Those Exhibits contain information that would be useful to competitors of the submitting law firms, such as client identification and information, and the exemplars of their retention agreements and the confidential terms therein. Orion, 21 F.3d at 27-28 (affirming lower courts holding that commercial information included information that could give competitors an unfair advantage). 25. The Rule 2019 Exhibits also contain information that could properly be

characterized as work product, such as the pre-litigation or preliminary determinations that the listed individuals might have exposure to the debtors products, as well as confidential commercial information, which some courts have likewise fairly held to be within Section 107(b). See 50-Off, 213 B.R. at 655-56 (Certainly, a lawyers work product is one type of
The bankruptcy court, for cause, may protect an individual, with respect to the following types of information to the extent the court finds that disclosure of such information would create undue risk of identity theft or other unlawful injury to the individual or the individuals property: (A) Any means of identification (as defined in section 1028(d) of title 18) contained in a paper filed, or to be filed, in a case under this title or (B) Other information contained in a paper described in subparagraph (A). 11 U.S.C. 107(c)(1)). [T]he term means of identification means any name or number that may be used, alone or in conjunction with any other information, to identify a specific individual, including any-- (A) name, social security number, date of birth, official State or government issued drivers license or identification number, alien registration number, government passport number, employer or taxpayer identification number; (B) unique biometric data, such as fingerprint, voice print, retina or iris image, or other unique physical representation; (C) unique electronic identification number, address, or routing code; or (D) telecommunication identifying information or access device (as defined in section 1029(e)). 18 U.S.C. 1028(d)(7).
5 4

{D0195755.1 }

-9-

confidential research that falls within the plain language of the statutes protection. And certainly a clients disclosures made in confidence to its attorneys is one kind of confidential * * * commercial information.); In re JMS Auto. Rebuilders, Inc., No. 01-05600 DDP, 2002 WL 32817517, *3 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 15, 2002) (affirming bankruptcy court decision where bankruptcy court, therefore, ordered the materials sealed as confidential research and work product pursuant to 107(b) and Rule 9018 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure). Given the deference accorded to the bankruptcy court in deciding 107(b) exceptions, JMS, 2002 WL 32817517, at *3, such information is fully protectable under Section 107(b) here as well. 26. Finally, the number of the Exhibits and the information contained therein is vast

even for one case, let alone for twelve. To allow such vast quantities of information to be copied and provided to anyone who asks for it will impose significant burdens of time and money on the Court and on parties, and such a process would potentially have to be repeated ad infinitum as more people could, and presumably would, come forward seeking access to the Rule 2019 Exhibits. Again, such abuse of Rule 2019 has never been contemplated or carried out, and this Court should not set such an unwarranted precedent. 27. Countervailing considerations to public disclosure thus amply justify the

continued protection of the Rule 2019 Exhibits, and such protection is well within this Courts discretion. B. 28. Garlock Has Not Shown Cause to Be Provided with the Rule 2019 Exhibits Notably, Garlock fails to cite a single case in which any entity has ever been held

entitled to Rule 2019 Exhibits filed in a bankruptcy to which they were not a party, much less in

{D0195755.1 }

- 10 -

multiple bankruptcies for use in yet other cases. Regardless of its attempt to suggest the contrary through inapposite cases, Garlocks attempt here is simply without precedent.6 29. Instead, Garlock relies on the fact that, in the Congoleum bankruptcy, the

bankruptcy court entered a Rule 2019 order that was affirmed and that did not provide for keeping 2019 exhibits off the public docket. But the fact that the order there had different provisions from the Rule 2019 orders used in the twelve above-captioned bankruptcies, which did provide for such protection, is of course unhelpful to Garlocks cause. So too is the fact that the Third Circuit expressly distinguished that outcome in Congoleum from Pittsburgh Cornings contrary holding, as set forth below. 30. In the Congoleum bankruptcy, the Third Circuit affirmed the disqualification of a

law firm for an actual conflict of interest, and it was the disqualification dispute and the resulting evidentiary record that led to the Rule 2019 order. Because of the unique factual background and record in that case, it is not persuasive precedent as to the proper contours or interpretation of Rule 2019 generally. Indeed, the bankruptcy judge there described the factual basis for ordering these disclosures as unprecedented. Baron & Budd, P.C. v. Unsecured Asbestos Claimants Comm., 321 B.R. 147, 166 (D.N.J. 2005). 31. In the Pittsburgh Corning case, by contrast, the Third Circuit upheld this Courts

Rule 2019 order that (1) authorized the filing of exemplars, as opposed to actual copies, of the relevant empowering documents, and (2) permitted access to the Rule 2019 submissions only upon motion and order of the court. In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., 260 F. Appx 463 (3d Cir. 2008). In so doing, and in response to an argument by insurers that access to the Rule 2019 disclosures might enable them to reveal conflicts of interest on the part of asbestos plaintiffs

Similarly, Garlock has not demonstrated cause to reopen the closed bankruptcy cases, nor demonstrated that it has standing to seek such relief.

{D0195755.1 }

- 11 -

counsel, the Third Circuit expressly distinguished its earlier decision in In re Congoleum Corp., 426 F.3d 675 (3d Cir. 2005), because in Congoleum the facts necessary to find that an actual conflict of interest existed had already been developed and left no room for speculation. Pittsburgh Corning, 260 F. Appx at 466 n.6. 32. As in Pittsburgh Corning, there is no factual record in the cases before this Court

that could support the relief Garlock has requested. To the contrary, as shown by the Third Circuits decision in Pittsburgh Corning above, speculative fishing expeditions such as that sought by Garlock here do not justify requests for Rule 2019 disclosures. Though they vaguely argue that the Rule 2019 Order limits their rights by preventing them from obtaining information that could reveal unethical procedures or conflicts of interests on the part of plaintiffs lawyers (Appellants Br. 36), Appellants merely speculate that there are any unethical procedures or conflicts of interest to reveal. They do not point us to even one actual ethical violation or conflict of interest extant in the filings and have failed to investigate these issues so as to support their contention. Id. at 466. Garlocks speculative and conclusory assertions regarding alleged wide-spread fraud fail for the same reasons. 33. In its factual background section, Garlock baldy asserts that ballots it received

in the Pittsburgh Corning case allegedly revealed widespread inconsistency with materials submitted to Garlock in the tort system. Motion at 10. But such assertions are not evidence: to the contrary, this Court ruled most of Garlocks proposed evidence at the Pittsburgh Corning confirmation hearing inadmissible, Garlocks witness acknowledged that it was not offered as a sample or anything representative, and most of the responses provided at the Pittsburgh Corning confirmation hearing were not shown to be inconsistent, but, for example, incorporated objections and other discovery documents that were not themselves provided. See Plan

{D0195755.1 }

- 12 -

Proponents and Plan Supporters Post-Trial Brief in Support of Confirmation of Modified Third Amended Plan of Reorganization for Pittsburgh Corning Corporation at 34 n.49, In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Aug. 19, 2010) [Dkt. No. 7904]. As this Court has also noted, saying 14 out of 312,000 people who filed ballots in a case either made a mistake or somehow or another didnt report or filed a claim in the wrong place, frankly thats so de minimis I cant consider that to be a substantial portion. Hrg Tr. 175-76, Dec. 2, 2010 (excerpts attached as Ex. B). Garlocks ipse dixit assertions provide no basis for the relief it seeks. 34. The Rule 2019 statements also cannot prove inconsistency with tort discovery

submissions, because, contrary to Garlocks assertions, Rule 2019 exhibits are not evidence that the listed claimants in fact definitely can prove exposure to the products in the relevant bankruptcy cases or will ultimately seek recovery from the subsequently-formed asbestos trusts. As this Court has noted, the fact that somebody has listed an individual as a client on a 2019 statement is not evidence that they are going to submit a claim against the trust in the future. Hearing Transcript at 44, In re Pittsburgh Corning Corp., No. 00-22876 (Bankr. W.D. Pa. Jan. 13, 2010) (emphasis added). 35. Accordingly, Garlocks rationale for seeking such exhibits is on its face

insufficient to justify its receipt of them, and certainly is insufficient to overcome the valid cause to protect those exhibits shown above.

{D0195755.1 }

- 13 -

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the ACCs respectfully request that Garlocks Motion be denied. Dated: February 7, 2011 CAMPBELL & LEVINE, LLC /s/ David B. Salzman Philip E. Milch (PA I.D. No. 53519) David B. Salzman (PA I.D. No. 39360) 1700 Grant Building Pittsburgh, PA 15219 Telephone: (412) 261-0310 Facsimile: (412) 261-5066 dbs@camlev.com pem@camlev.com CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED Peter Van N. Lockwood Trevor W. Swett Kevin C. Maclay One Thomas Circle, NW Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 862-5000 Facsimile: (202) 429-3301 E-mail: tws@capdale.com; pvnl@capdale.com kcm@capdale.com Respectfully submitted, CAMPBELL & LEVINE, LLC /s/ Mark T. Hurford Marla R. Eskin (Bar No. 2989) Mark T. Hurford (Bar No. 3299) 800 N. King Street, Suite 300 Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 426-1900 Facsimile: (302) 426-9947 meskin@camlev.com mhurford@camlev.com CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED Elihu Inselbuch 375 Park Avenue, 35th Floor New York, NY 10152-3500 Telephone: (212) 319-7125 Facsimile: (212) 644-6755 E-mail: ei@capdale.com

Counsel for the Official Committees of Asbestos Claimants

{D0195755.1 }

- 14 -

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT B

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE IN RE: ACandS, Inc. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. Combustion Engineering, Inc. The Flintkote Company Kaiser Aluminum Corp. Owens Corning US Mineral Products Company USG Corp. W.R. Grace & Co. Debtors. IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: Mid-Valley, Inc. North American Refractories Co. Pittsburgh Corning Corp. Debtors. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Mark T. Hurford, of Campbell & Levine, LLC, hereby certify that on February 7, 2011, I caused a copy of the Joinder and Objection of the Official Committees of Asbestos Claimants in the Flintkote, Grace, Narco and Pittsburgh Corning Bankruptcies to Garlocks Motion for Orders Authorizing Access to 2019 Statements and Related Relief to be served upon the individuals on the attached service lists via first class mail. Case No.: 03-35592 (Rel. Dkt. No. 2770) Case No.:02-20198 (Rel. Dkt. No. 6944) Case No.:00-22876 (Rel. Dkt. No. 8096) Case No.: 02-12687 (Rel. Dkt. No. 3639) Case No.: 00-4471 (Rel. Dkt. No. 10698) Case No.: 03-10495 (Rel. Dkt. No. 3380) Case No.: 04-11300 (Rel. Dkt. No. 5606) Case No.: 02-10429 (Rel. Dkt. No. 10009) Case No.: 00-3837 (Rel. Dkt. No. 20954) Case No.: 01-2471 (Rel. Dkt. No. 3878) Case No.: 01-2094 (Rel. Dkt. No. 12596) Case No.: 01-1139 (Rel. Dkt. No. 26053)

Dated: February 7, 2011 /s/ Mark T. Hurford Mark T. Hurford (DE No. 3299)

{D0195760.1 }

Adam H. Isenberg Centre Square West 1500 Market Street, 38th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102

Daniel K. Hogan, Esq. The Hogan Firm 1311 Delaware Avenue Wilmington, DE 19806

Mark Minuti, Esq. Lucian B. Murley, Esq. Saul Ewing LLP 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1200 P.O. Box 1266 Wilmington, DE 19899 Natalie D. Ramsey, Esq. Laurie A. Krepto, Esq. Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP 1105 North Market Street, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19801

Gregg Anderson, Esq. Terry Bryant West Memorial Office Park 8584 Katy Freeway, Suite 100 Houston, TX 77024

Natalie D. Ramsey, Esq. Laurie A. Krepto, Esq. Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP 123 S. Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19109

Ellen C. Brotman Montgomery, McCracken, Walker & Rhoads, LLP 123 South Broad Street Avenue of the Arts Philadelphia, PA 19109

Gregory W. Werkheiser, Esq. Matthew B. Harvey, Esq. Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP 1201 North Market Street, 18th Floor Wilmington, DE 19899-1347

Peter J. Ashcroft, Esq. Bernstein Law Firm, P.C. Suite 2200 Gulf Tower Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Sander L. Esserman, Esq. David A. Klinger, Esq. David J. Parsons, Esq. Cliff I. Taylor, Esq. Stutzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka 2323 Bryan Street, Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201 Garland S. Cassada, Esquire Richard C. Worf, Jr. Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson 101 North Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, NC 28246

Richard A. Swanson, Esq. Arthur H. Stroyd, Jr., Esq. Del Sole Cavanaugh Stroyd LLC The Waterfront Building 200 First Avenue, Suite 300 Pittsburgh, PA 15222

{D0195741.1 }

W.R. Grace 2002 Service List

Laura Davis Jones, Esquire James ONeill, Esquire. Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl, & Jones LLP 919 North Market Street, 17th Floor Wilmington, DE 19899-8705

William H. Sudell, Jr., Esquire Eric D. Schwartz, Esquire Morris, Nichols Arsht & Tunnell 1201 N. Market Street P.O. Box 1347 Wilmington, DE 19899

Mark D. Collins, Esquire Deborah E. Spivak, Esquire Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. One Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19899

Jeffrey C. Wisler, Esquire Michelle McMahon, Esquire Connolly Bove Lodge & Hutz LLP 1220 Market Street, 10th Floor Wilmington, DE 19899

Carmella Keener, Esquire Rosenthal, Monhait, Gross & Goddess, P.A. 919 Market Street, Suite 1401 Wilmington, DE 19899

Kathryn Sallie, Esquire Bayard, P.A. 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900 Wilmington, DE 19899

Joseph Grey, Esquire Stevens & Lee 1105 N. Market St. Ste 700 Wilmington, DE 19801-1270

Francis A. Monaco, Jr., Esquire Womble Carlyle 222 Delaware Avenue, 15th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801

Mark S. Chehi, Esquire Kevin Brady, Esquire Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP One Rodney Square Wilmington, DE 19801

Robert Jacobs, Esquire Jacobs & Crumplar, PA Two East 7th Street Wilmington, DE 19801

Kathleen M. Miller, Esquire Smith, Katzenstein & Furlow LLP The Corporate Plaza 800 Delaware Ave., 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19899

VIA HAND DELIVERY Teresa K.D. Currier Saul Ewing LLP 222 Delaware Avenue Wilmington DE 19801

David Klauder, Esquire Office of the United States Trustee 844 King St., 2nd Floor Wilmington, DE 19801

William D. Sullivan, Esquire Sullivan Hazeltine Allinson 4 East 8th Street, Suite 400 Wilmington, DE 19801

Michael R. Lastowski, Esquire Duane Morris LLP 1100 N. Market Street, Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801 D. J. Baker, Esquire Sheila Birnbaum, Esquire Greg St. Clair, Esquire Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP Four Times Square New York, NY 10036

Michael B. Joseph, Esquire Ferry & Joseph, P.A. 824 N. Market Street, Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801

J. Douglas Bacon, Esquire David S. Heller, Esquire Latham & Watkins Sears Tower, Suite 5800 Chicago, IL 60606

Nancy Worth Davis, Esquire Ness, Motley, Loadhold, Richardson & Poole 28 Bridgeside Boulevard P.O. Box 1792 Mount Pleasant, SC 29465

Securities & Exchange Commission 15th & Pennsylvania Ave. N.W. Washington, DC 20020

District Director IRS 409 Silverside Road Wilmington, DE 19809

Securities & Exchange Commission Atlanta Regional Office Branch/Reorganization 3475 Lenox Road, NE, Suite 100 Atlanta, GA 30326-1232

Secretary of Treasurer P.O. Box 7040 Dover, DE 19903

Secretary of State Division of Corporations Franchise Tax P.O. Box 7040 Dover, DE 19903

James D. Freeman, Esquire Jerel L. Ellington, Esquire U.S. Department of Justice Environmental Enforcement Section 1961 Stout Street 8th Floor Denver, CO 80294

Martin J. Bienenstock, Esquire Judy G.Z. Liu, Esquire Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP 767 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10153 Pamela Zilly Richard Shinder David Blechman Michael Alexander The Blackstone Group 345 Park Avenue New York, NY 10154

David S. Rosenbloom, Esquire Jeffrey E. Stone, Esquire Lewis S. Rosenbloom, Esquire McDermott, Will & Emery 227 West Monroe Street Chicago, IL 60606-5096

Brad Rogers, Esquire Office of the General Counsel Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp 1200 K. Street, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20005-4026

Patrick L. Hughes, Esquire Haynes & Boone LLP 1 Houston Center 1221 McKinney, Suite 2100 Houston, TX 77010

Elio Battista, Jr., Esquire Blank Rome LLP 1201 Market Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801-4226

David S. Heller, Esquire Latham & Watkins Sears Tower, Suite 5800 Chicago, IL 60606

Stephen H. Case, Esquire Nancy L. Lazar, Esquire David D. Tawil, Esquire Davis Polk & Wardwell 450 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017

Jan M. Hayden, Esquire William H. Patrick, Esquire Heller, Draper, Hayden, Patrick & Horn, L.L.C. 650 Poydras Street, Suite 2500 New Orleans, LA 70130-6103

Joseph F. Rice, Esquire Ness, Motley, Loadholt, Richardson & Poole 28 Bridgeside Blvd. P.O. Box 1792 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465

Farallon Capital Management LLC One Maritime Plaza Suite 2100 San Francisco, CA 94111

John M. Klamann, Esquire Klamann & Hubbard 7101 College Blvd., Suite 120 Overland Park, KS 66210

Hamid R. Rafatjoo, Esquire Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl, & Jones LLP 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90067-4100

Charles E. Boulbol, Esquire 26 Broadway, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004

Matthew Grimshaw, Esquire Rutan & Tucker 611 Anton Boulevard Suite 1400 Costa Mesa, California 92626-1931

Christopher C. Colley, Esquire Baron & Budd, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219

Bankruptcy Administration IOS Capital, Inc. 1738 Bass Road P.O. Box 13708 Macon, GA 31208-3708

Richard S. Cobb, Esquire Megan N. Harper, Esquire Landis Rath & Cobb LLP 919 Market Street, Suite 600 Wilmington, DE 19801

Margery N. Reed, Esquire Duane Morris LLP 4200 One Liberty Place Philadelphia, PA 19103-7396

Elizabeth S. Kardos, Esquire Gibbons, Del Deo, Dolan, Griffinger & Vecchione, PC One Riverfront Plaza Newark, NJ 07102-5497

Thomas J. Noonan, Jr. c/o R & S Liquidation Company Five Lyons Mall PMB #530 Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-1928

James A. Sylvester, Esquire Intercat, Inc. P.O. Box 412 Sea Girt, NJ 08750

Alan R. Brayton, Esquire Brayton & Purcell 222 Rush Landing Road Novato, CA 94945

Jonathan W. Young, Esquire T. Kellan Grant, Esquire Wildman, Harrold, Allen & Dixon 225 West Wacker Drive, Suite 3000 Chicago, IL 60606-1229

Steven J. Johnson, Esquire Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 1530 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1125

Russell W. Budd, Esquire Baron & Budd, P.C. 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219

Shelby A. Jordan, Esquire Nathaniel Peter Holzer. Esquire Jordan, Hyden, Womble & Culbreth, P.C. 500 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 900 Corpus Christi, TX 78471

Charlotte Klenke, Esquire Schneider National, Inc. P.O. Box 2545 3101 S. Packerland Green Bay, WI 54306

Courtney M. Labson, Esquire The Mills Corporation Legal Department 5425 Wisconsin Avenue Chevy Chase, MD 20815

Ira S. Greene, Esquire Squadron, Ellenoff, Plesent & Sheinfeld, LLP 551 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10176-0001

Joseph T. Kremer, Esquire Lipsiptz, Green, Fahringer, Roll, Salisbury & Cambria, LLP 42 Delaware Avenue, Suite 300 Buffalo, NY 14202

Paul M. Matheny, Esquire The Law Offices of Peter G. Angelos, P.C. 100 N. Charles Street Baltimore, MD 21201-3804

Paul D. Henderson, Esquire Paul D. Henderson, P.C. 712 Division Avenue Orange, TX 77630

Michael J. Urbis, Esquire Jordan, Hyden, Womble & Culbreth, P.C. 500 N. Shoreline Blvd., Suite 900 Corpus Christi, TX 78471

David B. Siegel W.R. Grace and Co. 7500 Grace Drive Columbia, MD 21044

Mary A. Coventry Sealed Air Corporation Park 80 East Saddle Brook, NJ 07663

John Donley, Esquire Adam Paul, Esquire Kirkland & Ellis 300 North LaSalle Chicago, IL 60654

Elizabeth J. Cabraser, Esquire Richard M. Heimann, Esquire Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP 275 Battery Street, 30th Floor San Francisco, CA 94111

Derrick Tay, Esquire Ogilvy Renault Royal Bank Plaza, South Tower, Suite 3800 200 Bay Street, Box 84 Toronto, Ontario M5J2Z4 CANADA

Evelyn J. Meltzer Pepper Hamilton LLP Hercules Plaza, Suite 5100 1313 Market Street P.O. Box 1709 Wilmington, DE 19899-1709 Elihu Inselbuch, Esquire Rita Tobin, Esquire Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered 375 Park Avenue, 35th Floor New York, NY 10152-3500

Scott L. Baena, Esquire Bilzin Sumberg Dunn Baena Price & Axelrod LLP First Union Financial Center 200 South Biscayne Blvd., Suite 2500 Miami, FL 33131

Edward W. Westbrook, Esquire Robert M. Turkewitz, Esquire Richardson, Patrick, Westbrook & Brickman 174 East Bay Street Charleston, SC 29401

Peter Van N. Lockwood, Esquire Nathan D. Finch, Esquire Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered One Thomas Circle, N.W. Washington, DC 20005

Todd Meyer, Esquire Kilpatrick Stockton 1100 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30309

Bernice Conn, Esquire Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi LLP 2049 Century Park East, Suite 3700 Los Angeles, CA 90067

Cindy Schultz Ingersoll-Rand Fluid Products One Aro Center P. O. Box 151 Bryan, OH 43506

Peter A. Chapman, Esquire 572 Fernwood Lane Fairless Hills, PA 19030

Michael B. Schaedle, Esquire Blank Rome LLP One Logan Square 130 North 18th Street Philadelphia, PA 19103

Hal Pitkow, Esquire The Falls at Lambertville 351 South Main Street Lambertville, NJ 08530

Alan B. Rich, Esq. Elm Place 1401 Elm Street, Suite 4620 Dallas, TX 75201

Mr. Thomas Moskie Bankers Trust Company 1 Bankers Trust Plaza New York, NY 10001

Charles E. Gibson, III, Esquire Gibson Law Firm 447 Northpark Drive Ridgeland, MS 39157-5109

John P. Dillman, Esquire Linebarger Heard Goggan Blair Graham Pea & Sampson, LLP P. O. Box 3064 Houston, TX 77253-3064

Steven J. Kherkher, Esquire Laurence G. Tien, Esquire Williams Kherkher Hart & Boundas, LLP 8441 Gulf Freeway, Suite #600 Houston, TX 77017

Steven T. Hoort, Esquire Ropes & Gray One International Place Boston, MA 02110-2624

Patrick J. Reilly, Esquire Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard, P.A. 1000 N. West Street Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801

Paul M. Baisier, Esquire SEYFARTH SHAW 1545 Peachtree Street, Suite 700 Atlanta, GA 30309

William S. Katchen, Esquire Duane, Morris LLP 744 Broad Street, Suite 1200 Newark, NJ 07102-3889

Sander L. Esserman, Esquire Stutzman, Bromberg, Esserman & Plifka 2323 Bryan Street Suite 2200 Dallas, TX 75201-2689

Delta Chemical Corporation 2601 Cannery Avenue Baltimore, MD 21226-1595

Paul D. Henderson, Esquire Dies, Dies & Henderson 1009 W. Green Avenue Orange, TX 77630

Tara L. Lattomus, Esquire Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, LLC 300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1210 Wilmington, DE 19801

Todd C. Meyers, Esquire Kilpatrick Stockton, LLP 1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 2800 Atlanta, GA 30309-4530

Peter S. Goodman, Esquire Andrews & Kurth LLP 450 Lexington Avenue, 15th Floor New York, New York 10017

Brad N. Friedman, Esquire Rachel S. Fleishman, Esquire Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Learch One Pennsylvania Plaza New York, NY 10019

Lewis Kruger, Esquire Robert Raskin, Esquire Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP 180 Maiden Lane New York, NY 10038-4982

C. Randall Bupp, Esquire Plastiras & Terrizzi 24 Professional Center Parkway Suite 150 San Rafael, CA 94903

Thomas J. Noonan, Jr. Hermans Sporting Goods in Liquidation C/o R&S Liquidation Company, Inc. 5 Lyons Mall PMB #530 Basking Ridge, NJ 07920-1928

William E. Frese, Esquire Attn: Sheree L. Kelly, Esquire 80 Park Plaza, T5D P.O. Box 570 Newark, NJ 07101

Scott W. Wert, Esquire Foster & Sear, L.L.P. 817 Greenview Drive Grand Prairie, TX 75050

Rosa Dominy Bankruptcy Administration IOS Capital, Inc. 1738 Bass Road P.O. Box 13708 Macon, GA 31208-3708

State Library of Ohio c/o Michelle T. Sutter Revenue Recovery 101 E. Town Street, Second Floor Columbus, OH 43215

Dorine Vork, Esquire Stibbe 489 Fifth avenue, 32nd Floor New York, New York 10017

Jonathan H. Alden, Esquire Assistant General Counsel 3900 Commonwealth Boulevard, MS 35 Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000

Credit Lyonnais 1301 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10019-0602

Randall A. Rios, Esquire Floyd Isgur Rios & Wahrlich, P.D. 700 Louisiana, Suite 4600 Houston, TX 77002

Deanna D. Boll, Esquire Kirkland & Ellis Citigroup Center 601 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10022

Paul G. Sumers, Esquire TN Attorney Generals Office, Bankr. Unit P.O. Box 20207 Nashville, TN 37202-0207

Harry Lee, Esquire Steptoe & Johnson LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20036

Thomas O. Bean, Esquire Eric P. Magnuson, Esquire Nutter, McClennen & Fish, LLP World Trade Center West 155 Seaport Blvd. Boston, MA 02210

Allan M. McGarvey, Esquire Jon L. Heberling, Esquire Roger M. Sullivan, Esquire McGarvey Heberling Sullivan & McGarvey 745 South Main Kalispell, MT 59901 John G. Stoia, Jr., Esquire Timothy G. Blood, Esquire Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP 655 West Broadway, Suite 1900 San Diego, CA 92101

Neil Berger, Esquire Togut Segal & Segal LLP One Penn Plaza, Suite 3335 New York, NY 10119

Deirdre Woulfe Pacheo, Esquire Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer P.O. Box 10 Woodbridge Center Drive Woodbridge, NJ 07095

Philip Bentley, Esquire Gary M. Becker, Esquire Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel LLP 1177 Avenue of the Americas New York, NY 10036

Jacob C. Cohn, Esquire Cozen OConnor 1900 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19103

James Sottile, Esquire Zuckerman Spaeder LLP 1800 M Street, NW, Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20036-5802

Richard S. Lewis, Esquire Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC 1100 New York Avenue, N.W. West Tower, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20005

Marsha A. Penn, Esquire 2425 West Loop south, Suite 200 Houston, TX 77036

Darrell W. Scott, Esquire The Scott Law Group, P.S. 926 W. Sprague Avenue, Suite 583 Spokane, WA 99201

Thomas M., Esquire Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP One Main Street 4th Floor Cambridge, MA 02142

Robert J. Dehney, Esquire Morris Nicholas Arsht & Tunnell 1201 N. Market Street Wilmington, DE 19899

David Pastor, Esquire Edward L. Manchur, Esquire Gilman & Pastor LLP 225 Franklin Street 16th Floor Boston, MA 02110

Thomas G. Macauley, Esquire Zuckerman Spaeder LLP 919 Market Street, Suite 990 PO Box 1028 Wilmington, DE 19899

Mark Minuti, Esquire Saul Ewing LLP 222 Delaware Avenue P.O. Box 1266 Wilmington, DE 19899

Thomas G. Whalen, Esquire Stevens & Lee 1105 North Market Street, 7th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801

Mr. Mark Hankin HanMar Associates, M.L.P. P.O. Box 26767 Elkins Park, PA 19027

Attn: Ted Weschler Peninsula Capital, L.P. 404B East Main Street, 2nd Floor Charlottesville, VA 22902

Jordan N. Malz, Esquire Simpson Thacher & Bartlett 425 Lexington Avenue New York, NY 10017

Richard D. Trenk, Esquire Henry M. Karkowski, Esquire Trenk, DiPasquale, Webster, Della Fera & Sodono P.C. 347 Mt. Pleasant Avenue Suite 300 West Orange, New Jersey 07052-3317

Janet S. Baer, Esquire The Law Offices of Janet S. Baer P.C. 70 West Madison Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60602
Joseph L. Schwartz, Esquire Curtis M. Plaza, Esquire Craig T. Moran, Esquire Riker Danzig Scherer Hyland & Perretti LLP Headquarters Plaza, 1 Speedwell Avenue Morristown, NJ 07962

Christopher R. Momjian, Esquire Senior Deputy Attorney General Office of the Attorney General 21 S. 12th Street, 3rd Floor Philadelphia, PA 19107

Janet M. Weiss, Esquire Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP 200 Park Avenue New York, NY 10166

Mr. Harvey Schultz The Schultz Organization 900 Route 9 North Woodbridge, NJ 07095

Charles L. Finke, Assistant Attorney General Brad Rogers, Attorney Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation Office of the General Counsel 1200 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-4026

Richard A. OHalloran, Esquire BURNS, WHITE & HICKTON, LLC 531 Plymouth Road, Suite 500 Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462

W. Wallace Finlator, Jr. Assistant Attorney General N.C. Department of Justice Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629

Christopher M. Candon Cohn & Whitesell LLP 101 Arch Street, Suite 1605 Boston, MA 02110

Steven K. Kortanek, Esquire Joanne B. Wills, Esquire Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg & Ellers 919 Market Street, Suite 1000 Wilmington, DE 19801

William P. Bowden, Esquire Amanda M. Winfree, Esquire Ashby & Geddes, P.A. 500 Delaware Avenue, 8th Floor Wilmington, DE 19899

Jeffrey L. Roelofs, Esquire Anderson & Kreiger, LLP 43 Thorndike Street Cambridge, MA 02141

John V. Fiorella, Esquire Archer & Greiner, P.C. 300 Delaware Avenue Suite 1370 Wilmington, DE 19801

Thomas Tew, Esquire Tew Cardenas L.L.P. Four Seasons Tower, 15th Floor 1441 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131-3407

James E. Wimberley, Esquire McPherson, Monk, Hughes, Bradley & Wimberley, L.L.P. 3120 Central Mall Drive Port Arthur, TX 77642

Marc Abrams, Esquire Willkie, Farr & Gallagher 787 Seventh Avenue New York, NY 10019-6099

Citadel Investment Group, L.L.C. Attn: S. Jay Novatney 131 South Dearborn Street, 36th Floor Chicago, IL 60603

Kirk A. Patrick III, Esquire Donohue Patrick 1500 Bank One Centre-North Tower PO Box 1629 Baton Rouge, LA 70821-1629

Anne McGinness Kearse, Esquire Motley Rice LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd. PO Box 1792 Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465

Roger W. Hammond Kforce Inc. 1001 East Palm Avenue Tampa, FL 33605

Mr. Eugene Paul Sullivan 29-B Plaza Delas Flores Freehold, NJ 07728

Todd C. Schiltz, Esquire Wolf, Block, Schorr and Solis-Cohen LLP Wilmington Trust Center 1100 N. Market Street, Suite 1001 Wilmington, DE 19801

Bruce D. Levin, Esquire Peter B. McGlynn, Esquire Bernkopf Goodman LLP 125 Summer Street, Suite 1300 Boston, MA 02110

Frederick P. Furth, Esquire The Furth Firm LLP 10300 Chalk Hill Road Healdsburg, CA 95448

John C. Phillips, Jr., Esquire Phillips, Goldman & Spence, P.A. 1200 N. Broom Street Wilmington, DE 19806

Roger Frankel, Esquire Richard H. Wyron, Esquire Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP Columbia Center 1152 15th Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-1706

Robert J. Sidman, Esquire Tiffany Strelow Cobb, Esquire Vorys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP 52 East Gay Street P.O. Box 1008 Columbus, OH 43215

Justin Shrader, Esquire Shrader & Associates, L.L.P. 1021 Main Street, Ste. 1450 Houston, TX 77002

Sean Allen BMC Group 600 1st Avenue, Suite 300 Seattle, WA 98104

M. David Minnick, Esquire Michael P. Ellis, Esquire Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 50 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2228

Gerald F. George, Esquire Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP 50 Fremont Street San Francisco, CA 94105-2228

Thomas A. Spratt, Jr., Esquire Pepper Hamilton, LLP 3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth & Arch Streets Philadelphia, PA 19103

Steven T.Davis Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP 3 Mill Road, Suite 306A Wilmington, DE 19806

D. Alexander Barnes, Esquire Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP One Penn Center, 19th Floor 1617 John F. Kennedy Blvd. Philadelphia, Pa 19103-1895

Steven J. McCardell, Esquire Jared Inouye, Esquire Duham Jones & Pinegar 111 E. Broadway, Suite 900 Salt Lake City, UT 84111

John Waters, Esquire Iowa Department of Revenue Collections Section P.O. Box 10457 Des Moines, Iowa 50306

Yves Lauzon Michel Belanger Lauzon Belanger, Inc. 286, rue St-Paul Quest, Bureau 100 Montreal Quebec

Daniel K. Hogan, Esquire The Hogan Firm 1311 Delaware Avenue Wilmington, DE 19806

David A. Hickerson, Esquire M. Jarrad Wright, Esquire Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP 1300 Eye Street N.W., Suite 900 Washington, D.C. 20005

Ralph I. Miller, Esquire Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP 200 Cresent Court, Suite 300 Dallas, TX 75201

Neil B. Glassman, Esquire Steven M. Yoder, Esquire Kathryn D. Sallie, Esquire The Bayard Firm 222 Delaware Avenue, Ste 900 Wilmington, DE 19801

Steven J. Mandelsberg, Esquire Christina J. Kang, Esquire Hahn & Hessen LLP 488 Madison Avenue New York, NY 10022 Jacqueline Dais-Visca, Esquire Business Law Section Ontario Regional Office Suite 2400, Box 34 The Exchange Tower 130 King Street West Toronto, Ontario M5X 1K6 Garvan F. McDaniel, Esquire Bifferato Gentilotti & Balick, L.L.C. 800 King Street, 1st Floor Box 2165 Wilmington, DE 19801

Tobey M. Daluz, Esquire Leslie C. Heilman, Esquire Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, LLP 919 N. Market Street, 12th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Peter D. Keisler, Esquire Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice, Civil Division Ben Franklin Station P.O. Box 875 Washington, DC 20044-0875

Pryor Cashman LLP Attn: Richard Levy, Jr., Esquire 7 Times Square New York, NY 10036

Katherine White, Esquire Sealed Air Corporation 20 Riverfront Boulevard Elmwood Park, NJ 07407

John Kevin Welch, Esquire Office of Legal Services Fifth Floor, Capital Plaza Tower Frankfort, KY 40601

John F. Dickinson, Jr., Esquire Deputy Attorney General Department of Law & Public Safety Division of Law Richard J. Hughes Justice Complex P.O. Box 093 Trenton, NY 08625-0093

Elihu E. Allinson, Esq. Sullivan Hazeltine Allinson LLP 4 East 8th Street, Suite 400 Wilmington, DE 19801

Anthony Petru, Esquire Quynh L. Nguyen, Esquire Hildebrand McLeod & Nelson LLP 350 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, 4th Floor Oakland, CA 94612

Daniel A. Speights, Esquire Speights & Runyan 200 Jackson Avenue, East P.O. Box 685 Hampton, SC 29924

Christopher D. Loizides, Esquire Loizides, PA 1225 King Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801

John W. Kozyak, Esquire David L. Rosendorf, Esquire Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton, PA 2525 Ponce de Leon, 9th Floor Coral Gables, FL 33134

John T. Carroll, III, Esquire Barry M. Klayman, Esquire Cozen OConnor 1201 N. Market Street Suite 1400 Wilmington, DE 19801

Robert B. Millner, Esquire Christopher E. Prince, Esquire Sonnenschein Nath & Rosenthal LLP 233 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 7800 Chicago, IL 60606

Frederick B. Rosner, Esquire Messana Rosner & Stern LLP 1000 N. West Street, Suite 1200 Wilmington, DE 19801

James M. Brako, Esquire Palm Beach County Tax Collector P.O. Box 3715 West Palm Beach, FL 33402

Janet S. Baer, Esquire The Law Offices of Janet S. Baer P.C. 70 West Madison Street, Suite 2100 Chicago, IL 60602

Brett D. Fallon, Esquire Morris James LLP 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 Wilmington, DE 19899

Garland Cassada, Esquire Richard C. Worf, Esquire Robinson, Bradshaww & Hinson 101 N. Tryon Street, Suite 1900 Charlotte, NC 28246

Daniel C. Cohn Murtha Cullina LLP 99 High Street Boston, MA 02110-2320

FLINTKOTE 2002 SERVICE LIST

Parcels, Inc. Vito I. DiMaio 230 North Market Street Wilmington, DE 19801

David Klauder Office of the United States Trustee J. Caleb Boggs Federal Building 844 N. King Street, Suite 2207 Lockbox 35 Wilmington, DE 19801

James L. Patton, Jr., Esq. Edwin J. Harron, Esq. Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP 1000 West Street, 17th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Mr. Lawrence Fitzpatrick 1009 Lennox Drive Bldg. 4, Suite 101 Lawrenceville, NJ 08648

Laura Davis Jones, Esquire James E. ONeill, Esquire Sandra McLamb, Esquire Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl, Young, Jones & Weintraub 919 N. Market Street, 17th Floor PO Box 8705 Wilmington, DE 19899-8705

Kevin T. Lantry, Esq. Sally S. Neely, Esq. Jeffrey E. Bjork, Esq. Sidley Austin LLP 555 West Fifth Street, Suite 4000 Los Angeles, CA 90013-6000

Randy Bono, Esq. The Simmons Firm, LLC 707 Berkshire Blvd. PO Box 521 East Alton, IL 62024 David M. McClain, Esq. Kazan & McClain 171 Twelfth Street 3rd Floor Oakland, CA 94607 Russell W. Budd, Esq. Baron & Budd 3102 Oak Lawn Ave., Suite 1100 Dallas, TX 75219-4281

Charles A. Waters, Esq. Waters & Kraus 3219 McKinney Ave. Suite 3000 Dallas, TX 75204

Pam Wise, Esq. Wise & Julian 3555 College Ave. PO Box 1108 Alton, IL 62002 R. Dean Hartley, Esq. Hartley & OBrien 2001 Main Street, Suite 600 Wheeling, WV 26003

Mike Kaeske, Esq. Kaeske Reeves LLP 1301 W. 25th Street Austin, TX 78705 Glen W. Morgan, Esq. Reaud, Morgan & Quinn 801 Laurel Beaumont, TX 77701

Scott M. Hendler, Esq. Hendler Law Firm 816 Congress Ave. Suite 1230 Austin, TX 78701 Denman H. Heard, Esq. Watts & Heard LLP Meilie Esperson Building 815 Walker Street, 16th Floor Houston, TX 77002 Joseph F. Rice, Esq. Motley Rice LLC 28 Bridgeside Blvd. Mount Pleasant, SC 29464 Barbara J. Arison Frantz Ward LLP 2500 Key Center 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114-1230

James J. Bedortha, Esq. Goldberg, Persky, Jennings & White, PC 1030 Fifth Ave., 3rd Floor Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6295

John J. Kittel, Esq. Mazur & Kittel 30665 Northwestern Highway Farmington Hills, MI 48334

John M. Deakle, Esq/ The Deakle Law Firm 802 Main Street PO Box 2072 Hattiesburg, MS 39403 Mark H. Iola, Esq. Stanley Mandel & Iola LLP 3100 Monticello Avenue Suite 750 Dallas, TX 75205 T. Roe Frazer, II, Esq. Frazer & Davidson, PA 500 East Capitol Street Jackson, MS 39201

Alan R. Brayton, Esq. Christina C. Subic, Esq. Brayton Purcell 222 Rush Landing PO Box 6169 Novato, CA 94948-6169

Tom B. Scott, Esq. Scott & Scott PO Box 2009 Jackson, MS 39215-2009

Brent Coon, Esq. Brent Coon & Associates 917 Franklin Suite 210 Houston, TX 77002

{D0156127.1 }

Thomas M. Wilson, Esq. Kelley & Ferraro, L. L. P. 2200 Key Tower 127 Public Square Cleveland, OH 44114 Robert B. Millner, Esq. Sonnenschein, Nath & Rosenthal 8000 Sears Tower 233 South Wacker Drive Chicago, IL 60606 Richard C. Sutton, Jr., Esq. Reginauld T. Harris, Esq. Rush Moore Craven Sutton Morry & Beh 737 Bishop Street, Suite 2400 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Bryan J. Farkas, Esquire Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP 2100 One Cleveland Ctr. 1375 E. 9th Street Cleveland, OH 44114 Joseph D. Frank Frank/Gecker LLP 325 North LaSalle Street, Suite 625 Chicago, IL 60610

Peter Van N. Lockwood, Esq. Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered One Thomas Circle, NW Washington, DC 20005

James A. Pardo, Jr., Esq. King & Spalding 191 Peachtree Street Atlanta, GA 30303 Charlene D. Davis, Esq. Eric M. Sutty, Esq. The Bayard Firm 222 Delaware Avenue Suite 900 PO Box 25130 Wilmington, DE 19899
Carmella P. Keener, Esquire Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess, P.A. 919 Market Street, Suite 1401 Wilmington, DE 19801

Scott W. Wert, Esq. Foster & Sear, L.L.P. 524 E. Lamar Blvd., Suite 200 Arlington, TX 76011 David P. McClain, Esq. Tony Draper, Esq. McClain, Leppert & Maney, P.C. South Tower, Pennzoil Place 711 Louisiana Street, Suite 3100 Houston, TX 77002 Brian L. Kasprzak Michael J. Joyce, Esquire Marks, ONeill, OBrien and Courtney 913 N. Market Street, Suite 800 Wilmington, DE 19801 Reginald W. Jackson, Esquire Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease, LLP 52 E. Gay Street Columbus, OH 43215

Mark D. Plevin Leslie A. Epley Kelly R. Cusick, Esquire Crowell & Moring LLP 1001 Pennsylvania Ave., NW Washington, DC 20004-2595 James E. Wimberley McPherson, Monk, Hughes, Bradley, Wimberley & Steele, L.L.P. 3120 Central Mall Drive Port Arthur, TX 77642 Julie A. Ardoin, Esq. Julie Ardoin, LLC
2200 Veterans Memorial Boulevard, Suite 210

Daniel K. Hogan The Hogan Firm 1311 Delaware Avenue Wilmington, DE 19806 Robert T. Aulgur, Jr., Esq. Kristi J. Doughty, Esq. Whittington & Aulgur 313 N. DuPont Highway Suite 110 Odessa, DE 19730 Robert W. Dremluk, Esquire Seyfarth Shaw LLP 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018-1405

Samuel R. Grego, Esquire Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, P.C. Two PPG Place Suite 400 Pittsburgh, PA 15222

Kenner, LA 70062-4032 Albert A. Ciardi, III, Esquire Ciardi & Ciardi, P.C. One Commerce Square 2005 Market Street, Suite 2020 Philadelphia, PA 19103 SEYFARTH SHAW LLP David C. Christian II, Esquire 131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400 Chicago, IL 60603

Anthony Sakalarios, Esquire Morris, Sakalarios & Blackwell, PLLC Post Office Drawer 1858 Hattiesburg, MS 39403-1858
Daniel J. DeFranceschi, Esq. Jason M. Madron, Esq. Christopher M. Samis, Esq. Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801

{D0156127.1 }

Daniel J. DeFranceschi, Esq. Jason M. Madron, Esq. Christopher M. Samis, Esq. Richards, Layton & Finger, P.A. 920 North King Street Wilmington, DE 19801

Kelly-Ann Pokrywa, Esquire Gordon & Gordon, P.C. 505 Morris Avenue Springfield, NJ 07081

Los Angeles County Treasurer and Tax Collector PO Box 54110 Los Angeles, CA 90051-0110

Donna L. Harris, Esq. Pinckney, Harris & Weidinger, LLC 1220 N. Market Street, Suite 950 Wilmington, DE 19801

Doug McManamy, Esq. The Mathis Law Firm

3575 Piedmont Road, NE Suite 1560 Atlanta, Georgia 30305

David Hensley D39084 California Medical Facility P.O. Box 2500 H2-202-L Vacaville, CA 95696

{D0156127.1 }