10000000840

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
REPLY

PAUL R. GLASSMAN (State Bar No. 76536)
LAURA L. BUCHANAN (State Bar No. 156261)
KATHLEEN D. DeVANEY (Sate Bar No. 156444)
STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH
A Professional Corporation
100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 440
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Telephone: (424) 214-7000
Facsimile: (424) 214-7010
E-mail: pglassman@sycr.com
lbuchanan@sycr.com
kdevaney@sycr.com

JAMES F. PENMAN (State Bar No. 91761)
CITY ATTORNEY
300 N. D STREET, Sixth Floor
San Bernardino, CA 92418
Telephone: (909) 384-5355
Facsimile: (909) 384-5238
E-mail: Penman__Ja@sbcity.org
Attorneys for Debtor
City of San Bernardino

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
RIVERSIDE DIVISION
In re
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO,
CALIFORNIA,
Debtor.
Case No. 6:12-bk-28006 MJ

Chapter 9

REPLY TO OBJECTIONS [DOCKET NOS. 76,
80, 81, 83, 84 & 85] TO MOTION FOR ENTRY
OF AN ORDER (1) DIRECTING AND
APPROVING FORM OF NOTICE; AND (2)
SETTING DEADLINE FOR FILING
OBJECTIONS TO PETITION

Date: August 17, 2012
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Place: Courtroom 301
Hon. Meredith A. Jury
Courtroom 301
3420 Twelfth Street
Riverside, CA 92501

Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ Doc 90 Filed 08/16/12 Entered 08/16/12 15:50:19 Desc
Main Document Page 1 of 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-1-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
REPLY

All five of the objections
1
filed to the City of San Bernardino, Californias (the City)
motion for an order seeking approval of the proposed form of notice of commencement of the
case and setting a deadline for filing any objections to the petition initiating this chapter 9 case
(the Motion) make only one substantive argument opposing the relief requested specifically,
that the September 21 objection deadline the City requested is too soon because the City has not
yet filed all of its pleadings in support of its eligibility to be a Chapter 9 debtor. The City
submits that the Motion should be granted with the modification that the Court set August 31,
2012 as the date by which the City must file its pleadings in support of its eligibility to be a
Chapter 9 debtor and establish October 5, 2012 as the deadline for all creditors to file any
objections thereto.
I.
BRIEF SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The City filed its voluntary petition on an emergency basis to obtain the protections of
Chapter 9 due to, among other things, a dire liquidity crisis and certain creditor actions that
threatened to exacerbate the Citys cash flow problems and further destabilize the Citys
financial condition and delivery of essential services to the Citys residents. The Motion was
intended to move the Citys case forward in fairness to all interested parties by: (1) obtaining
approval of the form of the Notice of Commencement of Chapter 9 Case (Notice) so that the

1
Objections were filed as follows: (1) Limited Objection by National Public Finance Guaranty
Corporation (NPFGC) [Docket No. 76] (the NPFGC Objection); (2) Joinders of U.S. Bank
National Association (US Bank) in the NPFGC Objection [Docket No. 82 & 84] (the US
Bank Objection); (3) Objection of Ambac Assurance Company (Ambac), Erste Europische
Pfandbrief- und Kommunalkreditbank AG (EEPK), and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (the
Trustee, and together with Ambac and the EEPK, the Ambac Objectors) [Docket Nos. 81
and 83] (Ambac Objection); (4) Response Of Certain Retired Employees Of The City Of San
Bernardino To The Citys Motion For Entry Of Order (1) Directing And Approving Form Of
Notice; And (2) Setting Deadline For Filing Objections [Docket No. 80] (Response of
Represented Retirees) was filed by Bienert, Miller & Katzman, PLC as Attorneys for Retired
Employees of the City of San Bernardino Jenifer Aragon, Michael Billdt, Michael Eckley, Walt
Goggin, Wayne Harp, Frank Mankin, Denis Moon, Scott Paterson, and Robert Simmons (the
Represented Retirees); and (5) Creditor San Bernardino City Professional Firefighters Local
891s Opposition To Debtor City Of San Bernardinos Motion For Entry Of An Order (1)
Directing And Approving Form Of Notice; And (2) Setting Deadline For Filing Objections To
Petition; Memorandum Of Points And Authorities And Declaration Of Chad V. Haes In Support
Thereof [Docket No. 85](Firefighters Objection). The Firefighters Objection, which was
filed after 11:00 p.m. on August 15, after the deadline for opposition, makes basically the same
arguments as the other objections so it is not addressed separately.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
REPLY

City can serve and publicize that Notice as required by Section 923 of the Bankruptcy Code (the
Code), and (2) setting a deadline for objections to its eligibility to be a Chapter 9 debtor. Only
after any objections to the Citys eligibility are resolved can an order for relief be entered, which
will then allow the City to make substantive progress toward restoring fiscal stability and
adjustment of its debts.
The only substantive objection to the relief requested in the Motion is that the proposed
deadline for objections is too soon because the City has not yet filed its brief and evidence in
support of its petition and Statement of Qualifications.
2
Without any citation to any legal
authority, certain objecting parties also assert that they should be allowed to take discovery
before any objection deadline is considered by the Court, let alone set. The City had planned to
file its brief and evidence in support of its petition and Statement of Qualifications prior to
August 24, 2012 with objections to eligibility due September 21, 2012. Given Ambacs apparent
skepticism as to whether the filing was really an emergency and made in good faith, the City
believes that it is appropriate for the Court to set a deadline for the City to file its pleadings in
support of eligibility on or before August 31, 2012, and establish the deadline for the filing of
any objections to the Citys eligibility on or before October 5, 2012, which is approximately two
weeks after the requested deadline in the Motion. This schedule will provide creditors and
parties in interest with approximately five weeks to consider and respond to the Citys pleadings
and evidence filed in support of its eligibility.
The objecting parties have not offered any authority for their demand for discovery prior
to the filing of any objections to eligibility, and neither the Bankruptcy Code nor the Federal
Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the Bankruptcy Rules) support any such demand. The City
submits that there is no right to discovery prior to the deadline for filing an objection because:

2
As the City pointed out in its Motion, exhaustive and detailed documents on the Citys financial
condition and events leading to the filing of the Chapter 9 petition are available to the public and
the objecting parties on the Citys website. As such, Ambacs assertion that interested parties
are in the dark because the City did not engage in the neutral evaluation process is not credible.
See, Ambac Objection at p.2, 3, lns. 18-20. Furthermore, Ambac correctly notes that Exhibit 1
to the Citys Statement of Qualifications [Docket No. 71] was referenced but was not attached,
but this was nothing more than the an inadvertent oversight in filing the pleading with the Court.
The resolution of fiscal emergency by the Common Council also has been available on the Citys
website and is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-3-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
REPLY

(1) an objection to the Citys petition on the ground that it is not eligible to be a Chapter 9 debtor
creates a contested matter under Rule 9014 of the Bankruptcy Rules; and (2) there is no right to
discovery prior to the existence of a contested matter. As such, the objecting parties request for
affirmative relief by asking for discovery prior to the filing of objections should be denied.
III.
THE MOTION SHOULD BE GRANTED WITH A MODIFICATION TO DATES
The NPFGC Objection,
3
the US Bank Objection, and the Ambac Objection raise the
same substantive arguments. The Response of the Represented Retirees raises a different issue
and is addressed separately.
A. The City Proposes That The Court Set Deadlines Of August 31, 2012 For
The City To File Its Papers In Support Of Its Eligibility And October 5, 2012
For Objections To Its Eligibility.
The City had planned to file its brief and evidence in support of its petition and Statement
of Qualifications prior to August 24, 2012 with objections to eligibility due September 21, 2012,
which would have afforded interest parties approximately four weeks to consider the Citys
papers before any objection was due. While it is the Citys hope that no objections will be filed
after a review of the Citys papers in support of its petition and Statement of Qualifications, the
City believes that the unusually vitriolic nature of the Ambac Objection strongly suggests that

3
The City notes that MBIA was the original insurer of certain obligations, which NPFGC asserts
that it insures. The City reserves its rights with respect to whether NPFGC is the appropriate
party with standing. Furthermore, NPFGC states in footnote 2 on page 5 of the NPFGC
Objection that [o]n August 2, 2012, the Trustee notified the City that it had violated Section
3.06 of the Police Station Indenture by making improper requisitions of funds from the Capital
Reserve Fund and also defaulted on its obligation to make the June 15, 2012 lease payment in
connection with the City Hall Bonds. However, this ignores that in May or early June of 2012,
the City attempted to pay by directing a transfer of funds from the Capital Reserve Account to
the Debt Service account for the June 15 payment. The Trustee accepted that payment but then
later on August 2, 2012 the Trustee notified the City that it was disallowing that transfer and
payment retroactively. Conveniently, the email from the Trustee reports that the Trustees action
was taken on July 31, the day before the Citys August 1 emergency bankruptcy filing. NPFGC
also states that the City has also notified the Trustee that it will not be making the August 15,
2012 lease payment due in connection with the Police Station COPs in the amount of
$861,000.00. NPFGC Objection at p. 5, lines 9-11. The City did not advise Trustee that it
would not make that payment; indeed, the undersigned advised counsel to the Trustee that the
City planned to make that payment on August 16, 2012, and the City expects that payment to be
made.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-4-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
REPLY

determination of the Citys eligibility for Chapter 9 is likely to be an expensive and drawn out
process if the City and objectors are not allowed additional time to file their respective pleadings.
By way of example, the Ambac Objectors seem to go to great lengths to spin intrigue with their
arguments, such as their characterization of the Citys Statement of Qualifications as a one-page
document purporting to be a Statement of Qualifications under Section 109(c) [Docket No. 71].
The objection parties are sophisticated with very experienced bankruptcy counsel who know that
a Statement of Qualifications under Section 109(c) is always a short statement that simply covers
all of the essential elements of Section 109(c). See, e.g., In re City of Stockton, California,
Docket No. 5 (Statement of Qualifications under Section 109(c) is two pages long), a true and
correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Citys Statement of Qualifications
does not purport to be a Statement of Qualifications under Section 109(c); it actually is one.
The Ambac Objectors also assert, although they obviously know that prepetition
negotiation is not absolutely required in all cases, that [t]he Citys failure to negotiate with
creditors prior to the filing of the bankruptcy petition deprived the interested parties of access to
information about the Citys financial condition. It also casts serious doubt on the Citys
eligibility. Ambac Objection at p. 6, lines 10-13. This assertion ignores the express provisions
of Section 109(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, which allows a filing if, in addition to certain other
requirements, the City meets any one of Section 109(c)(5)s four alternative grounds, only one of
which requires negotiation with creditors. 11 U.S.C. 109(c)(5)(A)-(D). Again, Ambacs
assertion that the alleged failure to negotiate deprived the interested parties of access to
information about the Citys financial condition is simply not credible. As the City pointed out
in its Motion, exhaustive and detailed documents and information about the Citys financial
condition and events leading to the filing of the Chapter 9 petition are available to the public and
the objecting parties on the Citys website. See, Motion at p. 6, lns. 6-9.
Considering the content of the objections and the objectors apparent desire for additional
time and the likelihood that the pleadings to be submitted by the parties will form the basis for
objections to the Citys petition, and the need for the City and other parties to have sufficient
time to address these issues, the City requests that the Court set a deadline for the City to file its
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-5-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
REPLY

papers of August 31, 2012 and set the objection deadline for October 5, 2012, which is
approximately two weeks after the requested deadline in the Motion. With this schedule,
creditors and parties in interest will have approximately five weeks to consider the Citys papers
prior to their deadline for objections. This schedule necessarily will delay any possible
appointment of any committee for the reasons set forth below, but the City believes that allowing
this additional time for the City and potential objectors to prepare and file their pleadings
warrants a two week delay.
B. Discovery Should Not Be Permitted Until After The Filing Of Objections To
The Citys Eligibility Because Only Then Will A Contested Matter Exist.
NPFGC, US Bank, and the Ambac Objectors argue that discovery is required before a
deadline is even set for them to file their objections to the Citys petition, but they cite no
authority for that proposition. The matter of the Citys eligibility only becomes a contested
matter after an objection is filed to the petition, so the objectors cannot bootstrap their
objections to the Motion into an objection to the Citys eligibility to be a Chapter 9 debtor. As
the Court explained in the Stockton case:

The petition and supporting materials function as the equivalent of a
complaint and objections to the petition as the answer. Material factual disputes
will be resolved by way of trial.

Once the petition is filed, notice of commencement of the case must be
published for three consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation
within the district and a newspaper of general circulation among bond dealers and
bondholders. 11 U.S.C. 923. One purpose of such notice is to alert parties in
interest to the opportunity to "object" to the petition.

The court resolves objections to the petition by following a notice and
hearing procedure. 11 U.S.C. 921(c)-(d).

By process of elimination, the relevant procedure is the Rule 9014
"contested matter." Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014. Although the notice-and-hearing
requirement of 921(c) puts the question of the order for relief into a litigation
context, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not directly specify a procedure
for chapter 9 cases. Neither the contested petition provisions of Rules 1011 and
1018 nor the adversary proceeding rule apply in chapter 9. What remains is the
Rule 9014 "contested matter" procedure.

Under Rule 9014, aside from the absence of formal pleadings, most of the
adversary proceeding rules apply. Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014(c). Testimony of
witnesses in any disputed material factual issue in a contested matter must be
taken in the same manner as testimony in an adversary proceeding - in other
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-6-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
REPLY

words, a fact-based contest in a contested matter is to be resolved by way of trial.
Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9014(d).
In re City of Stockton, 2012 Bankr. LEXIS 3234, 7-8 (Bankr. E.D. Cal. July 13, 2012).
The City filed its Statement of Qualifications under Bankruptcy Code Section 109(c)
[Docket No. 71] (Statement of Qualifications) on August 13, 2012. The Motion was filed on
August 10, 2012 and only addresses basic procedural issues that do not put into issue the Citys
eligibility. Only after an objection to the Citys petition and eligibility is filed will the Citys
eligibility be at issue in the procedural context of a contested matter, and only then will the
objecting party have any right to seek discovery.
Further, as a practical matter, allowing discovery prior to the filing of objections would
unduly burden the City and its staff, who are working diligently on the Citys substantive issues
and the process of stabilizing its fiscal condition. The City expects to have over 5,000 parties on
its mailing matrix, so the suggestion that everyone should be allowed to take discovery now must
be seen for what it is --requests for discovery by these individual parties. And, of course, this is
not fair to the other parties in interest in this case. If after reviewing the Citys papers, which the
City proposes should be filed by August 31, 2012, these parties object to the Citys eligibility (as
the Ambac Objectors have already argued quite strenuously without even having the benefit of
the Citys papers), then they can timely file their objections to eligibility and participate in an
organized process of discovery prescribed by the Bankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Rules and
this Court. It is for this very reason that the City requested that the Court set a status conference
shortly after the proposed objection deadline so that the Court can consider procedural and other
matters relevant to the orderly administration of this bankruptcy case. For these reasons, the
request for discovery prior to the Citys filing of all of its pleadings in support of its eligibility
and a party filing any objection to the Citys eligibility must be denied.
C. The Objections To Eligibility Are Premature.
After complaining that the City has not provided sufficient information about its
eligibility, the Ambac Objectors make substantive arguments respecting the Citys eligibility to
be a Chapter 9 debtor. Obviously, these arguments are premature and should not be considered
until after the City files all of its pleadings in support of its eligibility. The Courts consideration
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-7-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
REPLY

of the Motion does not require any findings or determinations with respect to the Citys
eligibility for Chapter 9. Given the limited time for the Citys reply to the Objections, such
contentions are not addressed here. The City will provide its arguments and evidence in support
of eligibility as proposed herein or in accordance with a schedule ordered by this Court.
D. The Request For Appointment Of A Committee Is Premature And Cannot
Be Approved Until After Entry Of An Order For Relief.
The Response of the Represented Retirees evidences that the Represented Retirees are
represented by counsel and had time and opportunity to consider and respond to the issues raised
in the Motion. Instead, the Represented Retirees argue that a deadline for objections to
eligibility should not be set because other retirees do not have a formal voice or representation in
this process. Response of Represented Retirees at p. 1, lines 7-11. The fatal flaw in this
argument is that Sections 1102(a) and 901(a) of the Bankruptcy Code make any request to the
United States Trustee to appoint a committee of retirees premature on several grounds and,
ironically, each of those grounds would militate in favor of the relief requested by the City in its
the Motion.
First, any appointment of a committee by the United States Trustee is premature until the
Court has ruled on the Citys eligibility to be Chapter 9 debtor. Any decision on the Citys
eligibility to be a Chapter 9 debtor can only occur after the Court sets a deadline for any
objections as requested by the Motion and the process described in Section C above is completed
and the Court enters an order for relief. 11 U.S.C. 921 (c)-(d). Until an order for relief is
entered, the United States Trustee cannot appoint any committee in this case, including a retiree
committee. See 11 U.S.C. 1102(a); 11 U.S.C. 901(a) (Section 901(a) of the Bankruptcy
Code makes Section 1102(a) applicable in Chapter 9 cases).
Second, if the Court does not enter an order for relief, then the relief sought by the
Represented Retirees will be unnecessary because the Citys case will be dismissed.
Third, if the United States Trustee appoints retirees to a creditors committee, then the
relief sought by the Represented Retirees may be unnecessary because retirees interests would
be represented on the creditors committee. That issue, however, also must wait until an order
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-8-
STRADLING YOCCA
CARLSON & RAUTH
LAWYERS
NEWPORT BEACH
REPLY

for relief is entered. Accordingly, the Response of the Represented Retirees only supports
granting the relief requested in the Motion.
IV.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the City respectfully requests that the Court grant the Motion
as modified herein and grant such other relief as is just and proper.
Dated: August 16, 2012

STRADLING YOCCA CARLSON & RAUTH
A Professional Corporation
By: /s/ Paul R. Glassman
Paul R. Glassman
Attorneys for City of San Bernardino, Debtor

Exhibit A
Case 12-32118 Doc 5 Page 1 of 2 Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ Doc 90 Filed 08/16/12 Entered 08/16/12 15:50:19 Desc
8
19
1
9
FILED
June 28, 2012
CLERK, U.S. BANKRUPTCY COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
0004314617
Case 12-32118 Doc 5 Page 2 of 2 Case 6:12-bk-28006-MJ Doc 90 Filed 08/16/12 Entered 08/16/12 15:50:19 Desc
Exhibit B
u
'"
(NOTE' COMPANION RESOLUTION MCC/2012-206)
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DECLARING A FISCAL EMERGENCY IN THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO.
WHEREAS, The :Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bernardino have
reviewed and considered the Budgetary Analysis and Recommendations for Budget
Stabilization Report dated June 26, 2012 (the "Report") that contains, among other things, an
analysis of the City's fiscal year budgets lfom 2007-08 to 2012-13, budget projections and
recommendations for budget stabilization and resiliency in Califomia's cyclical economy in
order to identify cost containment and cost recovery strategies necessary to reduce costs and
increase revenue so that the City can align expenditures with annual revenues while addressing
immediate and long-term fiscal obligations; and
WHEREAS, On July 16, 2012, the Mayor and Common Council also he!!l'd and
considered financial presentations prepared by the City's Finance Director and the City's
consultants respecting the immediate dire fiscal crisis faced by the City, including, but not
limited to, the depletion of the City's reserves and the lack of cash available in the General
Fund to meet the City's financial obligations.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. DECLARATION OF FISCAL EMERGENCY
The Mayor and Common Council of the City of San Bem!!l'dino find and declare, as follows:
2012-205
' L
The City is or will be unable to pay its obligations within the next 60 days, and that the
"
'"
n
"
n
"
"
"
n
'"
n
"
"
n
n
"
25
'"
"
n
finuncia! state of the City jeopardizes the health, safety, or well-being of the residents of the
City absent the protections of Chapter 9 of the United States Bankruptcy Code.
2. Given the City's dire financial condition and taking into consideration the advice of City
staff and counsel, the Mayor and Collllllon Council hereby determines that it is in the best
interests of the City to declare a fiscal emergency and hereby declares such fiscal emergency.
"'
"'
"'
"'
"'
"'
"'
"'
"'
"'
"'
"'
"'
"'
"'
"'
"'
"'
"'
"'
'
2012-205
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO DECLARING A FISCAL EMERGENCY IN TilE CITY
OF SAN BERNARDINO.
4 I HEREBY CERTiFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly adopted by the Mayor and
The foregoing Resolution is hereby approved this ./% day '-----'' 2012.
Approved as to
form:
es F. Penman
"""'"" ""'- e
Patrie:
City of San Bernardino
This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California.

June 2012 F 9013-
3.1.PROOF.SERVICEDOCSOC/1578703v1/200430-0003
PROOF OF SERVICE OF DOCUMENT

I am over the age of 18 and not a party to this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding. My business address is:

100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 440, Santa Monica, CA 90401.

A true and correct copy of the foregoing document entitled: REPLY TO OBJECTIONS [DOCKET NOS. 76, 80, 81, 83, 84
& 85] TO MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER (1) DIRECTING AND APPROVING FORM OF NOTICE; AND (2)
SETTING DEADLINE FOR FILING OBJECTIONS TO PETITION will be served or was served (a) on the judge in
chambers in the form and manner required by LBR 5005-2(d); and (b) in the manner stated below:

1. TO BE SERVED BY THE COURT VIA NOTICE OF ELECTRONIC FILING (NEF): Pursuant to controlling General
Orders and LBR, the foregoing document will be served by the court via NEF and hyperlink to the document. On August
16, 2012, I checked the CM/ECF docket for this bankruptcy case or adversary proceeding and determined that the
following persons are on the Electronic Mail Notice List to receive NEF transmission at the email addresses stated below:

Jerrold Abeles abeles.jerry@arentfox.com
Joseph M Adams jadams@lawjma.com
Andrew K Alper aalper@frandzel.com, efiling@frandzel.com;ekidder@frandzel.com
Thomas V Askounis taskounis@askounisdarcy.com
Anthony Bisconti tbisconti@bmkattorneys.com
Jeffrey E Bjork jbjork@sidley.com
J Scott Bovitz bovitz@bovitz-spitzer.com
Jeffrey W Broker jbroker@brokerlaw.biz
Deana M Brown dbrown@milbank.com
Michael J Bujold Michael.J.Bujold@usdoj.gov
Christina M Craige ccraige@sidley.com
Alex Darcy adarcy@askounisdarcy.com
Susan S Davis sdavis@coxcastle.com
Paul R. Glassman pglassman@sycr.com
Everett L Green everett.l.green@usdoj.gov
James A Hayes jhayes@cwlawyers.com
M Jonathan Hayes jhayes@hayesbklaw.com,
roksana@hayesbklaw.com;carolyn@hayesbklaw.com;elizabeth@hayesbklaw.com
D Edward Hays ehays@marshackhays.com, ecfmarshackhays@gmail.com
Bonnie M Holcomb bonnie.holcomb@doj.ca.gov
Whitman L Holt wholt@ktbslaw.com
Steven J Katzman SKatzman@bmkattorneys.com
Mette H Kurth kurth.mette@arentfox.com
Gregory A Martin gmartin@winston.com
Aron M Oliner roliner@duanemorris.com
Scott H Olson solson@seyfarth.com
Dean G Rallis drallis@sulmeyerlaw.com
Christopher O Rivas crivas@reedsmith.com
Kenneth N Russak krussak@frandzel.com, efiling@frandzel.com;dmoore@frandzel.com
Gregory M Salvato gsalvato@salvatolawoffices.com, calendar@salvatolawoffices.com
Benjamin Seigel bseigel@buchalter.com, IFS_filing@buchalter.com
Diane S Shaw diane.shaw@doj.ca.gov
Jason D Strabo jstrabo@mwe.com, losangelestrialdocket@mwe.com
Matthew J Troy matthew.troy@usdoj.gov
United States Trustee (RS) ustpregion16.rs.ecf@usdoj.gov
Anne A Uyeda auyeda@bmkattorneys.com
Annie Verdries verdries@lbbslaw.com
Brian D Wesley brian.wesley@doj.ca.gov
Service information continued on attached page

This form is mandatory. It has been approved for use by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California.

June 2012 F 9013-
3.1.PROOF.SERVICEDOCSOC/1578703v1/200430-0003
2. SERVED BY UNITED STATES MAIL:
On ____________, I served the following persons and/or entities at the last known addresses in this bankruptcy case or
adversary proceeding by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope in the United States mail, first class,
postage prepaid, and addressed as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration that mailing to the judge will
be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is filed.


3. SERVED BY PERSONAL DELIVERY, OVERNIGHT MAIL, FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION OR EMAIL (state method
for each person or entity served): Pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 5 and/or controlling LBR, on August 16, 2012, I served the
following persons and/or entities by personal delivery, overnight mail service, or (for those who consented in writing to
such service method), by facsimile transmission and/or email as follows. Listing the judge here constitutes a declaration
that personal delivery on, or overnight mail to, the judge will be completed no later than 24 hours after the document is
filed.

Honorable Meredith A. Jury (Personal Delivery on Aug.
16, 2012)
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
3420 Twelfth Street, Suite 325 / Courtroom 301
Riverside, CA 92501-3819

Everett L Green (Personal Delivery on Aug. 16, 2012)
Office of the US Trustee
3685 Main St Ste 300
Riverside, CA 92501

SERVED BY EMAIL:
Attorneys for National Public Finance Guaranty
Corporation:
Lawrence A. Larose llarose@winston.com
Samuel S. Kohn skohn@winston.com
Matthew M. Walsh mwalsh@winston.com
Gregory A. Martin gmartin@winston.com

Attorneys for Retired Employees of the City
of San Bernardino Jenifer Aragon, Michael
Billdt, Michael Eckley, Walt Goggin, Wayne
Harp, Frank Mankin, Denis Moon, Scott
Paterson, and Robert Simmons:
Steven Jay Katzman skatzman@bmkattorneys.com
Anne Uyeda auyeda@bmkattorneys.com
Anthony Bisconti tbisconti@bmkattorneys.com

Attorneys for Ambac Assurance
Company, Erste Europische
Pfandbrief- und Kommunalkreditbank
AG, and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., as Trustee:

David L. Dubrow dubrow.david@arentfox.com
Mette H. Kurth kurth.mette@arentfox.com
Mark A. Angelov angelov.mark@arentfox.com

Attorneys for U.S. Bank National Association,
not individually, but as Indenture Trustee:

Jason D. Strabo jstrabo@mwe.com
William P. Smith wsmith@mwe.com
Nathan F. Coco ncoco@mwe.com
Miles W. Hughes mhughes@mwe.com

Attorneys for Creditor, SAN BERNARDINO CITY
PROFESSIONAL FIREFIGHTERS LOCAL 891:

Richard A. Marshack rmarshack@marshackhays.com
D. Edward Hays ehays@marshackhays.com
Chad V. Haes chaes@marshackhays.com
Corey W. Glave SBCPFattorney@gmail.com


I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the foregoing is true and correct.

August 16, 2012 Christine Pesis /s/ Christine Pesis
Date Printed Name Signature


10000000840

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

10000000840

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1

S-ar putea să vă placă și