Upload
dealbook
View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
1/61
27164/208/24/2012 21341717.5
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PC
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 18th FloorNew York, New York 10020
(212) 262-6700 (Telephone)
(212) 262-7402 (Facsimile)
Michael S. Etkin, Esq. (ME 0570)John K. Sherwood, Esq. (JS 2453)
and65 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
(973) 597-2500 (Telephone)(973) 597-2481 (Facsimile)
Bankruptcy Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Putative Class
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
Nicholas I. Poritt, Esq.1101 30th
Street, N.W. Suite 115Washington, DC 20007
(202) 524-4293
Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the Putative Class
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
In re:
DYNEGY HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,
Debtor.
Chapter 11
Case No. 11-38111 (CGM)
In re:
DYNEGY, Inc.,
Debtor.
Chapter 11
Case No. 12-36728 (CGM)
LEAD PLAINTIFFS OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION OF THE DEBTORS JOINT
CHAPTER 11 PLAN OF REORGANIZATION UNDER THE BANKRUPTCY CODE
Stephen Lucas, Lead Plaintiff (the Lead Plaintiff) in the securities class action entitled
Charles Silsby, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Carl C. Icahn,
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 1 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
2/61
-2-
Dynegy Inc., Robert C. Flexon, and Clint Freeland, Case No. 12-cv-02307 (JGK) (the
Securities Litigation), pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the District Court), filed on behalf of all persons (the Putative Class) who
purchased or otherwise acquired securities of Dynegy, Inc. (Dynegy or the Debtor)1
between September 2, 2011 and March 9, 2012, inclusive (the Class Period), alleging
violations of Sections 10(b), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act (the Securities Laws), by the Debtor and certain current and former officers,
directors and shareholders of the Debtor, hereby submits this objection (the Objection), on his
own behalf and on behalf of the Putative Class, to Debtors Joint Chapter 11 Plan of
Reorganization for Dynegy Holdings, LLC and Dynegy Inc. [Doc. No. 28, Exhibit 1] (the Plan)
and states the following:
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
1. The non-debtor release and related injunctive provisions in the Plan are nothingmore than a backdoor attempt to sabotage the Securities Litigation now pending before Judge
Koeltl in the District Court. Given the distribution scheme under the Plan, the Securities
Litigation is the only source available to the Putative Class to recover their losses based upon the
conduct of Dynegy and the beneficiaries of these gratuitous non-debtor releases. A little more
than a month ago, Lead Plaintiff was formally recognized by the District Court as the
representative of the interests of the Putative Class. In this capacity, Lead Plaintiff will opt out
of the release provisions contained in the Plan on behalf of himself and all members of the
Putative Class. Such an opt-out will have no impact whatsoever on confirmation of the Plan and
will preserve all of the claims of the Putative Class in the Securities Litigation.
1Capitalized terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Plan or Disclosure Statement unless defined
otherwise herein.
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 2 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
3/61
-3-
2. Unfortunately, it may not be that simple (although it should be). Based onpositions taken by the Debtor and certain defendants in the Securities Litigation (all represented
by the same law firm), Lead Plaintiff expects that the Debtor will argue that unless a class
member, who may or may not be a current shareholder, has filed an individual opt out election as
part of the Plan solicitation process, he, she or it will be subject to the release and injunction
provisions contained in the Plan. This is despite the fact that such class members are receiving
nothing for their claims, are not entitled to vote, and likely are complete strangers to this chapter
11 proceeding. Because this position, if sustained, will have a serious negative impact on the
claims of the Putative Class in the Securities Litigation, Lead Plaintiff must vehemently object to
confirmation in an effort to protect the defrauded class members that he has been charged to
represent.
3. Thus, Lead Plaintiff submits in the first instance that the Bankruptcy Court shouldfind that the opt out election filed by Lead Plaintiff as the official representative of the Putative
Class is effective to preserve the claims of the class (as ultimately determined by the District
Court) against all non-debtor parties, including Dynegys directors, officers and shareholders.
Alternatively, Lead Plaintiff opposes the non-debtor release and injunction provisions of the Plan
because they are fundamentally inappropriate and unlawful. As set forth in more detail below,
the Plans non-debtor release provisions are perhaps the most aggressive and unjustified ever
presented to a bankruptcy court for approval. Some of the most remarkable features of the
release and injunctive provisions requested by Dynegy are set forth below.
The Released Parties are providing no consideration in exchange for thereleases.
The granting of the releases is not a necessary condition to confirmation of thePlan or necessary for the reorganization generally. In other words, all of
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 3 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
4/61
-4-
Dynegys stakeholders could opt-out of the release provisions or the Court
could strike the illegal release provisions and the Plan would still be
confirmable.
The parties granting the releases to non-debtors under the Plan are notreceiving any distribution under the Plan. Thus, they are deemed to reject the
Plan and have not been provided with ballots to vote to accept or reject the
Plan. The granting of a third party release by a party who is not entitled to
vote on the Plan is unprecedented.
It is highly likely that many members of the Putative Class are formershareholders of Dynegy and did not receive any notice of the proposed
releases and injunctions. Yet, those class members, if the Debtor has its way,
would still be bound and enjoined by the Plans broad releases and injunction.
There is no penalty or downside for any equity interest or claim holder thatopts out of the release and no upside for a party that grants a release.
4. Based on the above factors, the question is obvious Why would any reasonable,well-informed person knowingly grant the releases set forth in the Plan? There is no logical
answer to this question because the reality is that the non-debtor release provisions under the
Plan are a trap for the many passive investors in Dynegy who received the massive solicitation
package (among other meaningless notices) and did not take the considerable time and effort, or
spend money to hire counsel (in a case where they are getting no distribution), to figure out that
by not sending an opt out election, they may be deemed to have released parties other than
Dynegy. No bankruptcy court has ever found such a release to be consensual or even close to
appropriate given the clear standards for such extraordinary relief in this Circuit. This Court
should not be the first to do so.
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 4 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
5/61
-5-
5. Finally, Dynegy has obtained permission from this Court to pay for and preservenumerous insurance policies, including over thirty (30) policies that are described as Directors
& Officers insurance policies. [Docket No. 81]. There is no reason why the claims asserted in
the Securities Litigation should not be permitted to proceed against Dynegy and the Non-Debtor
Defendants given the extent of the available insurance coverage for the claims asserted in the
Securities Litigation. The claims against Dynegy can be limited to that available insurance.
BACKGROUND
The Securities Litigation
6. On March 28, 2012, the Securities Litigation was filed in the District Court,alleging violations of the Securities Laws by the Debtor and certain current and former officers,
directors and shareholders (the Non-Debtor Defendants). A copy of the Complaint in the
Securities Litigation is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
7. The Securities Litigation is a class action lawsuit filed on behalf of purchasers ofDynegy equity securities based upon their losses due to the actions of Dynegy, its officers,
directors, and shareholders in violation of the Securities Laws.
8. On May 29, 2012, Lead Plaintiff and other plaintiffs filed motions for theappointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel and to consolidate the various related actions in
the District Court.
9. On July 9, 2012, pursuant to the automatic stay, 11 U.S.C. 362(a), the DistrictCourt entered an order staying the litigation solely as it relates to Dynegy. The Securities
Litigation is proceeding as against the Non-Debtor Defendants. (See Exhibit B).
10. Pursuant to the Private Securities Reform Litigation Act of 1995, 15 U.S.C. 78u-4(b)(3) (the PSLRA), discovery in the Securities Litigation is stayed until motions to
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 5 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
6/61
-6-
dismiss are decided. On July 13, 2012, the District Court entered an order appointing Stephen
Lucas as Lead Plaintiff and Levi & Korsinsky LLP as Lead Counsel. A copy of the order is
attached hereto as Exhibit C (the Lead Plaintiff Order). A consolidated and amended class
action complaint is due to be filed within thirty (30) days from the Effective Date of the Plan.
The Chapter 11 Case
11. On November 7, 2011, Dynegy Holdings, LLC (Dynegy Holdings), togetherwith other subsidiaries, filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11. Those cases are
being jointly administered under Case No. 11-38111 (CGM).
12. On December 16, 2011, the Court entered an order authorizing the appointment ofan independent examiner to investigate allegations of fraud and fraudulent transfers between
Dynegy Holdings, Dynegy and other subsidiaries. [Case No 11-38111, Docket No 276].
13. On March 9, 2012, the Examiner issued a detailed report setting forth his findings,including his determination related to fraudulent transfers between Dynegy and certain of its
subsidiaries prior to the filing of the Dynegy Holdings petition. [Case No 11-38111, Docket No.
490].
14. In an effort to resolve the allegations and the causes of actions set forth in theExaminers report, several parties entered into a settlement agreement (the Settlement
Agreement) on May 30, 2011. Of course, Lead Plaintiff and the Putative Class were not parties
to the Settlement Agreement or any negotiations relating thereto.
15. On July 3, 2012 (the Petition Date), Dynegy filed a voluntary petition for reliefunder Chapter 11 of the United States Code (the Bankruptcy Code).
16. Simultaneously therewith, the Debtor filed a motion seeking entry of an orderapproving the Disclosure Statement related to the Joint Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization for
Dynegy Holdings, LLC and Dynegy, Inc. [Docket No. 28, Exhibit 2] (the Disclosure
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 6 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
7/61
-7-
Statement) and granting the authority to solicit votes in connection with the Plan that was filed
in the Dynegy Holdings case as modified. [Docket No. 3].
17. On July 10, 2012, the Court entered an order, inter alia, approving the DisclosureStatement and scheduling a hearing on confirmation of the Plan for September 5, 2012 (the
Confirmation Hearing). [Docket No. 21].
OBJECTION TO CONFIRMATION
18. As a threshold matter, section 1109(b) of the Bankruptcy Code grants LeadPlaintiff, as a party in interest, the right to be heard in this chapter 11 case. See 11 U.S.C.
1109(b) (A party in interest, including the debtor, the trustee, a creditors committee, an equity
security holders committee, a creditor, an equity security holder, or any indenture trustee, may
raise and may appear and be heard on any issue in a case under this chapter). Section 1109 has
been consistently read broadly in order to allow anyone who has a legally protected interest that
could be affected by a bankruptcy proceeding to assert that interest with respect to any issue
to which it pertains. In re Quigley Co., Inc., 391 B.R. 695, 703 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2008). In
addition to being a party in interest in this case, Lead Plaintiff is also the party that the [District]
court determines to be the most capable of adequately representing the interest of class
members pursuant to the PSLRA 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i).
19. Accordingly, on behalf of itself and the Putative Class, Lead Plaintiff objects toconfirmation of the Plan on the following grounds:
(a) Lead Plaintiffs and the Putative Class claims should be carved out of thePlans third-party release and injunction provisions because Lead Plaintiff
and the Putative Class have elected to opt-out of the release and injunction
provisions;
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 7 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
8/61
-8-
(b) the Plans third-party release and injunction provisions are overly broad,improper and unauthorized because they fail to come close to satisfying
the necessary legal requirements mandated by the Second Circuit for such
extraordinary relief; and
(c) the Plan should preserve Lead Plaintiffs right to proceed with its claimsagainst Dynegy to the extent of available insurance coverage, as well as
the right to obtain discovery in the Securities Litigation.
20. Lead Plaintiff believes that by virtue of the foregoing infirmities, unless the Planand/or the Confirmation Order are modified as set forth herein, the Plan should not be confirmed.
A. The Plan Should Carve Out the Claims of Lead Plaintiff and the PutativeClass From the Non-Debtor Release and Injunction Provisions Because Lead
Plaintiff has Opted Out on Behalf of the Putative Class.
21. Pursuant to the PSLRA 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i), the District Court appointed StephenLucas as Lead Plaintiff because he was determined to be the most capable of adequately
representing the interest of class members. See PSLRA 78u-4(a)(3)(B)(i); see also Lead
Plaintiff Order. Thus, the District Court designated Lead Plaintiff to be the official
representative and the spokesperson for all members of the Putative Class. See Lead Plaintiff
Order 4 (listing duties of Lead Plaintiff including all other matters concerning the prosecution
or resolution of the Action). Thus, because the release and injunction provisions directly impact
the claims in the Action, electing to opt-out of these releases is a fundamental responsibility of
Lead Plaintiff. Therefore, the Court should find that the opt-out election filed by Lead Plaintiff
on behalf of all members of the Putative Class is effective to preserve the claims of the class (as
ultimately determined by the District Court) against all non-debtor parties, including Dynegys
directors, officers and shareholders. As a result, the claims of Lead Plaintiff and the Putative
Class should not be subject to the Plan release and injunction provisions (notwithstanding that
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 8 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
9/61
-9-
such provisions are illegal and improper in any event (see section B infra)). The Court should
carve out the claims of Lead Plaintiff and the Putative Class from the release and injunction
provisions in the Plan.
B. Regardless of the Opt-Out Election, the Plans Releases and Injunctions areImproper and Unlawful.
(a) The proposed releases and injunctions are not authorized under theapplicable legal standards and requirements.
22. The Plan includes a broad spectrum of releases and related injunctions whichimproperly release and enjoin claims by third-parties against non-debtors. Plan, Art. VIII,
Section 8.20. If allowed to stand, these provisions could have the practical effect of severely
diluting or putting an end to the Securities Litigation before Judge Koeltl even has a chance to
rule on the merits of the claims or certify the class. Specifically, the Plan provides:
Subject to the occurrence of the Effective Date, for good and valuable
consideration, any holder of a Claim or Equity Interest that is impaired orunimpaired under the Plan shall be presumed conclusively to have released the
Released Parties from any Cause of Action based on the same subject matter as
such Claim against or Equity Interest in the Surviving Entity; provided, however,
that nothing in this Section shall be construed to release any party fromintentional fraud, willful misconduct, gross negligence, or criminal conduct as
determined by a Final Order or to release any party from any Claim or Cause of
Action which any Person who is a party to the GasCo Credit Facility or theCoalCo Credit Facility, or their successors and assigns, may have in respect of the
GasCo Credit Facility or the CoalCo Credit Facility, or to release Dynegy
Roseton, Dynegy Danskammer, DNE, or Hudson Power from any Claim or Causeof Action arising from or in connection with the Lease Documents; provided,
further, however, that the releases provided in this Section 8.20 shall not apply to
any holder of a Claim or Equity Interest (other than any party to the Plan Support
Agreement, except as otherwise provided therein) that elects to opt out of such
releases by making such election on its timely submitted ballot (to the extent itreceives a ballot) or in a written notice submitted to the Solicitation Agent on or
before the Plan Objection Deadline.
Plan, Art. VIII, Section 8.20.
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 9 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
10/61
-10-
23. The Plan further imposes a permanent injunction on all persons who have been,are, or may be holders of Claims against or Equity Interests in the Surviving Entity. Such
persons shall be permanently enjoined from taking any of the following actions including,
commencing, conducting or continuing in any manner, directly or indirectly, any suit, action or
other proceeding ofany kind. Plan, Art. XV, Section 15.25 (emphasis added).
24. Certain Plan definitions reflect the broad scope of the Plan releases andinjunction. For example, Released Party includes (a) DH, Dynegy, the Surviving Entity, and
each of their Affiliates, (b) the Consenting Senior Noteholders, (c) the Consenting Subordinated
Noteholders, (d) the Consenting Lease Certificate Holders, (e) the Lease Trustee, (f) Franklin,
(g) the PSEG Entities, (h) the Indenture Trustees; (i) the members of the Creditors Committee
(solely in their capacity as such), [and their respective] (j) present and former directors, officers,
managers, equity holders, agents, successors, assigns, attorneys, accountants, consultants,
investment bankers, bankruptcy and restructuring advisors, financial advisors, and each of their
affiliate [ ] and (k) any Person claimed to be liable derivatively through any of the foregoing.
Plan, Page 64 (emphasis added).
25. By referencing any action, suit or proceeding occurring pre-petition without anylimitation, the Plan injunction would apply to Lead Plaintiffs claims and the claims of the
Putative Class in the Securities Litigation and any discovery anticipated in the case. No
justification for such extraordinary relief and inappropriate protection in favor of the Non-Debtor
Defendants is provided by the Debtor. Essentially, the Non-Debtor Defendants, who as a
practical matter are orchestrating the confirmation of the Plan, are seeking to obtain the benefit
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 10 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
11/61
-11-
of a bankruptcy discharge through a permanent injunction, without ever subjecting themselves to
the requirements and obligations of bankruptcy supervision.2
26. The Bankruptcy Code only authorizes a release and injunction of claims against anon-debtor in one very narrow circumstance, which is certainly not applicable here. See 11
U.S.C. 526(g) (establishing specific procedures and conditions for resolving asbestos ligation
claims against a debtor, including creating a trust to satisfy potential future claims). Therefore,
to the extent any of Lead Plaintiffs claims in the Securities Litigation may be subject to the
Plans injunction and/or release provisions, those provisions are clearly not authorized by any
provision of the Bankruptcy Code. As a result, certain courts refuse to grant non-debtor releases
altogether. See Maxitile, Inc v. Sun (In re Maxitile, Inc.), 237 Fed.Appx 274, 276 (9th Cir.
2007);Resorts International, Inc. v. Lowenschuss (In re Lowenschuss), 67 F.3d 1394, 1401 (9th
Cir. 1995); Feld v. Zale Corporation (In re Zale Corp.), 62 F.3d 746, 760 (5th Cir. 1995); and
Landscaping Diversified Property II v. First National Bank and Trust CO. of Tulsa (In re
Western Real Estate Fund, Inc.), 922 F.2d 592, 600 (10th Cir. 1990). Other courts only grant
such releases in rare circumstances and are very reluctant to grant the benefits of a bankruptcy
discharge to non-debtors. See SEC v. Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc. (In re Drexel
Burnham Lambert Group, Inc.), 960 F.2d 285, 293 (2d Cir. 1992); Class Five Nevada Claimants
v. Dow Corning Corp. (In re Dow Corning Corp.), 280 F.3d 648, 657 (6th Cir. 2002); Gillman v.
Continental Airlines (In re Continental Airlines), 203 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2000).
27. The Second Circuit in Deutsche Bank AG London Branch v. Metromedia FiberNetwork, Inc. (In re Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc.), 416 F.3d 136, 141-42 (2d Cir. 2005), held
that a non-debtor release should not be approved absent truly unusual circumstances which
2It is worth noting that violations of federal securities laws are non-dischargeable in personal bankruptcy
proceedings. See 11 U.S.C. 523(a)(19)(A). Thus, the Non-Debtor Defendants are seeking to obtain something
that not even the Bankruptcy Code offers.
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 11 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
12/61
-12-
render the release terms important to success of the plan. Metromedia, 416 F.3d at 143. The
court inMetromedia explained the reluctance of courts to grant non-debtor releases based upon
two considerations. First, the only explicit authorization in the Code for nondebtor releases is
11 U.S.C. 524(g), which authorizes releases in asbestos cases and the Second Circuit found
that section 105(a) [of the Bankruptcy Code] does not allow the bankruptcy court to create
substantive rights that are not otherwise available under applicable law. Id. at 142. Second, a
nondebtor release is a device that lends itself to abuse because it essentially operate[s] as a
bankruptcy discharge arranged without a filing and without safeguards of the Code.Id.
28.
Metromedia held that in order to obtain approval of a non-debtor release, the
debtor must demonstrate and establish that the release, and accompanying injunction, play an
important part in the debtors reorganization plan and stated it is clear that such a release is
proper only in rare cases. Metromedia, 416 F.3d at 141. However, the mere fact of financial
contribution by a non-debtor cannot be enough to trigger the right to a Metromedia/Drexel
release of non-debtor claims. Cartalemi v. Karta Corp. (In re Karta Corp.), 342 B.R. 45, 55
(S.D.N.Y. 2006) (also explaining that every multi-debtor corporate bankruptcy can come up
with some aspect of its situation that seems to it, and to its creditors, to be unique.); see also
Continental Airlines, 203 F.3d at 211 (holding that a debtor must satisfy its burden of proof and
establish through specific factual findings that non-debtor third-party releases are fair and
necessary). Rather, a debtor must demonstrate and establish that the release was itselfimportant
to the plan which is what Drexel Burnham at a minimum requires. Metromedia, 416 F.3d at
143 (emphasis in original).
29. As a threshold question, the Court must determine whether or not it even hasjurisdiction to approve the Plan release and injunction provisions as they relate to claims against
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 12 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
13/61
-13-
non-debtors by third parties. The Third Circuit in Continental Airlines, 203 F.3d at 214 n. 12,
has expressed its concern that the Bankruptcy Court apparently never examined its jurisdiction
to release and permanently enjoin [the third partys] claims against non-debtors. While certain
matters between non-debtor third parties affecting the debtor and the bankruptcy case may be
within the subject matter of the Court, it is not without limits and the Court cannot simply
presume it has jurisdiction in a bankruptcy case to permanently enjoin [non-debtor claims]. Id.
Similarly, the Second Circuit noted that it would be inappropriate for the bankruptcy court to
enjoin claims brought against a third-party non-debtor solely on the basis of that third-partys
financial contribution to a debtors estate. In re Johns-Manville Corp., 517 F.3d 52, 66 (2d
Cir. 2008) (Manville 2008). If that were possible a debtor could create subject matter
jurisdiction over any non-debtor third-party by structuring a plan in such a way that it depended
upon third-party contributions. Id. See also,Johns-Manville Corp. v. Chubb Indemnity Ins. Co.
(In re Johns-Manville Corp.), 600 F.3d 135, 152 (2d Cir. 2010) (Manville 2010) (A
bankruptcy court only has jurisdiction to enjoin third-party non-debtor claims that directly affect
the res of the bankruptcy estate);In re Dreier LLP, 429 B.R. 112, 132 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2010)
(before the bankruptcy court decides whether the proponent of a plan settlement injunction has
demonstrated the unusual circumstances mandated byMetromedia, it must first decide whether
it has subject matter jurisdiction underManville.).
30. The Supreme Court made it clear in Stern v. Marshall, 131 S.Ct. 2594 (2011) thatbankruptcy courts have limited jurisdictional powers pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 157. A bankruptcy
court may only hear and enter final judgments in all core proceedings arising under title 11, or
arising in a case under title 11. Stern, 131 S.Ct. at 2603. The proposed non-debtor releases and
injunctions contained in the Plan impact claims between non-debtors based upon federal
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 13 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
14/61
-14-
securities law, not the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, the Court does not even possess the requisite
jurisdiction to grant the proposed non-debtor releases and injunctions.
31. Here, the non-debtor releases should not be approved even if this Court finds thatit has the power to grant the release and issue the accompanying injunction requested by Dynegy.
Judge Koeltl in Kenton County Bondholders Committee v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (In re Delta Air
Liens Inc.), 374 B.R. 516 (S.D.N.Y. 2007), affirmed this Courts decision to grant non-debtor
releases because it found the following factors to be dispositive under theMetromedia standard:
the releases were extremely narrow in scope, the releases were necessary to prevent relitigation
of the same issues that were already resolved by a settlement agreement amongst the parties; and
in exchange for the releases, the released parties granted the debtors estate valuable
consideration that was important to the restructuring. See Kenton County Bondholders
Committee v. Delta Air Lines, Inc. (In re Delta Air Liens Inc.), 374 B.R. 516, 526 (S.D.N.Y.
2007), affd sub nom. Ad Hoc Committee of Kenton County Bondholders v. Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
309 F.Appx 455 (2nd
Cir. 2009).
32. None of those factors are present here. The releases are certainly not narrowlytailored. The underlying matters in the Securities Litigation have not been resolved or the
subject of any settlement agreement. Also, there is no corresponding consideration being
provided in exchange for the releases. Indeed, holders of Securities Litigation claims are not
even entitled to vote on the Plan. Any questionable value that the Released Parties afforded to
the Debtor, if it even exists, was not in consideration for the proposed release of the claims in the
Securities Litigation. The Debtor makes the sweeping statements, applicable in every chapter 11
case, that the Released Parties afforded value to the estates and aided in the reorganization
process including playing an integral role in reaching the Settlement Agreement and
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 14 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
15/61
-15-
formulating the Plan. See Disclosure Statement at 144. The Debtor provides no details with
respect to the identity of these individuals, or the nature of their integral contributions. More
importantly, any value and benefit provided by these unnamed individuals was part of their
normal job functions for which they received their agreed upon compensation. That is
insufficient to justify and warrant the proposed third-party releases in the Plan. See In re
Washington Mutual, 442 B.R. 314, 354 (Bankr. D. Del. 2011) (holding that value provided by
officers and directors pursuant to their ordinary employment is not considered contribution and
is insufficient to warrant releases).
33.
The court in Metromedia also noted that some courts have approved non-debtor
releases where the enjoined claims were channeled to a settlement fund rather than being
extinguished or where the plan otherwise provides for full payment of the enjoined claims. See
Metromedia, 416 F.3d at 142, see also In re Chemtura, 439 B.R. 561, 611 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y.
2010). Here, neither of those factors is present. The Debtor is seeking to completely preclude
and prevent any recovery by the Putative Class on account of the Securities Litigation; and the
Putative Class is not receiving any distribution at all under the Plan on account of the claims in
the Securities Litigation.
34. Specifically referencing the Second Circuits precedent, including DrexelBurnham, the Third Circuit noted that the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld plans
of reorganization containing releases and permanent injunction of widespread claims against co-
liable parties but those plans also provided consideration to parties who would be enjoined from
suing non-debtors. Continental Airlines, 203 F.3d at 212. Here, no consideration is being
provided to class members that are being enjoined from pursuing their claims against the
Released Parties. The Debtor argues that creditors would benefit from the releases by virtue of
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 15 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
16/61
-16-
their ability to share in the distributable value preserved by the Settlement Agreement. See
Disclosure Statement at 144. However, the Debtor fails to disclose that many of the creditors
who may be deemed to have granted the releases, including all class members, are not obtaining
any distribution pursuant to the Settlement Agreement or the Plan. While the Settlement
Agreement potentially provides for some distribution to current shareholders of Dynegy, none of
the distribution is earmarked for class members on account of their Securities Litigation claims.
In other words, if by chance, certain members of the class would be obtaining some distribution
by virtue of the Settlement Agreement, that distribution would be on account of their status as
equity holders, not on account of their claims as defrauded investors.
35. The Debtor also argues that the non-debtor releases are important to thereorganization, because it is possible that many of the Released Parties would have rights of
indemnification against Reorganized Dynegy. Disclosure Statement at 144. However, the
Debtor is making a gratuitous assumption regarding the potential indemnity claims. Any
indemnification claim by one of the Non-Debtor Defendants based upon the Securities Litigation
would constitute a subordinated prepetition claim under 11 U.S.C 510(b), entitled to no
distribution under the Plan. Thus, any potential indemnity claims by the Non-Debtor Defendants
cannot serve as a basis to justify the necessity and importance of granting the Plans third-party
releases. Moreover, the Debtor cannot bootstrap itself into that specious argument by apparently
assuming these indemnification obligations under the Plan where there is no justification for
such assumptions other than creating an obligation where none exists. How can the Debtor
possibly square such an unnecessary gift to its directors and officers with the Debtors fiduciary
obligations to its shareholders and/or creditors? Clearly, this is simply another example of the
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 16 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
17/61
-17-
Non-Debtor Defendants control over the plan process for their own personal benefit and to the
detriment of the Putative Class and other stakeholders.
36. It is also noteworthy that these indemnity claims would be substantially (if notfully) covered by the Debtors more than thirty (30) Directors & Officers insurance policies
available to provide coverage for precisely the claims asserted in the Securities Litigation. In
addition, any such indemnification claims are subordinated general unsecured claims as set forth
above, and, given the status of the Securities Litigation, are unliquidated and contingent claims
subject to expungement pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 502(e)(1)(B).
37.
The Debtor further notes that the overall Settlement Agreement requires releases
by and for the Settlement Parties. See Disclosure Statement at 144. This statement is
incomplete, misleading and wrong. First, the Settlement Parties do not include the Debtors
officers, directors and shareholders. Moreover, pursuant to paragraph 2(a)(vi) of the Plan
Support Agreement, the non-debtor release provisions in the Plan are only requested to the
extent permitted by applicable law. Thus, if this Court determines, as we believe it should, that
the release and injunction provisions are unlawful, there will be no impact on the Settlement
Agreement or the Plan. Also, because Lead Plaintiff and the Putative Class were not parties to
the Settlement Agreement, it is absurd to suggest that their rights and claims can be bargained
away by, among others, the Non-Debtor Defendants and their representatives.
38. The Plan can certainly be confirmed without the aforesaid offending Planprovisions. The third-party releases are neither a condition to the Effective Date nor a condition
to confirmation of the Plan. Whether 1% of creditors and interest holders opt-out or 100% of
creditors and interest holders opt-out, the Plan can still be confirmed. If the Court strikes the
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 17 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
18/61
-18-
improper non-debtor releases and injunctions, it would not have any negative impact at all on the
Debtor, the Plan or the reorganization process.
39. Therefore, at the very least, Lead Plaintiff requests that the following languageshould be included in the Plan or the Confirmation Order:
Nothing in the Plan or in any order confirming the Plan shall or is
intended to (i) affect, release, enjoin or impact in any way the
prosecution of the claims asserted, or to be asserted, against anyNon-Debtor Defendants or any non-Debtor in the Securities
Litigation, or (ii) preclude the Lead Plaintiff and/or the Putative
Class from seeking discovery from any party, the Debtor or the
Reorganized Dynegy in the Securities Litigation.
(b) The Opt-Out provision in the Plan is an illusory gimmick that doesnot equate to, or prove, consent to the release and injunctive
provisions.
40. The Plan provides that the Released Parties shall be conclusively presumed tohave been released of any and all claims, unless stakeholders, like Lead Plaintiff, do not
affirmatively opt-out of the release provision. Even creditors who are not entitled to vote on
the Plan, and receive no distribution under the Plan, must independently and affirmatively opt-
out to preserve their rights against non-debtor third-parties. See Plan, Art. VIII, Section 8.20.
41. As mentioned earlier, the Plan proposes improper and illegal non-debtor releasesand injunctions. The burden should not be on the Debtors creditors or other stakeholders to opt-
out of a provision that is illegal and not authorized by the Bankruptcy Code. Rather, leaving
aside the issue whether the third-party releases are permissible at all, the burden is on the Debtor
to affirmatively obtain informed consent from the impacted creditors and interest holders (such
as through a ballot filed in support of the Plan) to authorize the releases of claims against the
Non-Debtor Defendants. While obtaining informed consent and approval may be a permissible
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 18 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
19/61
-19-
method to obtain third-party releases, the traps and gimmicks employed by the Debtor here do
not equate to knowing and voluntary releases.
42. The Seventh Circuit in In re Specialty Equipment Companies, Inc., 3 F.3d 1043,1047 (7
thCir 1993), found that courts would only permit releases that are consensual and non-
coercive to be in accord with the strictures of the Bankruptcy Code. Unlike the injunction created
by the discharge of a debt, a consensual release does not inevitably bind individual creditors. It
binds only those creditors voting in favor of the plan of reorganization. See also Metromedia,
416 F.3d at 142 (noting that nondebtor releases may also be tolerated if the affected creditors
consent.); Washington Mutual, 442 B.R at 352 (any such release must be based on consent of
the releasing party (by contract or the mechanism of voting in favor of the plan)). Here, the
releases are not memorialized in a ballot expressing approval of the Plan and accepting the terms
therein. Rather, the Putative Class is deemed to reject the Plan because they are not receiving
any distribution and are not even being provided the opportunity to vote. Creditors cannot be
bound by a Plan that they did not vote to accept because silence is not sufficient to constitute
consent to the releases. See Specialty Equipment, 3 F.3d at 1047; In re Spansion, Inc., 426 B.R.
114 (Bankr. D. Del. 2010) (holding that a third-party release against objecting shareholders who
are not receiving any distribution is invalid); In re Adelphia Communications Corp., 368 B.R.
140, 268 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2007) (upholding the releases and exculpation with respect to
anyone who voted in favor of the plan but not beyond those creditors); In re Coram Healthcare
Corp., 315 B.R. 321, 336 (Bankr. D. Del. 2004); In re Zenith Electronics Corp., 241 B.R. 92,
111 (Bankr. D. Del. 1999); In re Arrowmill Developments Corp., 211 B.R. 497, 505 (Bankr. D.
N.J. 1997) (citing a line of cases that hold non-debtor releases are only binding on those creditors
who actually provide their consent).
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 19 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
20/61
-20-
43. In the context of confirmation, the bankruptcy court in Washington Mutualexplicitly discussed an opt-out mechanism utilized by the Debtors regarding non-debtor releases.
See Washington Mutual, 442 B.R. at 355. The court in Washington Mutual held that the opt out
mechanism is not sufficient to support the third party releases anyway, particularly with respect
to parties who do not return a ballot (or are not entitled to vote in the first place). Failing to
return a ballot is not a sufficient manifestation of consent to a third party release Id. (relying on
In re Zenith Electronics Corp., 241 B.R. 92, 111 (Bankr. D. Del. 1999)). Thus, the opt-out
provision in the Plan is inadequate to deem the non-debtor releases as consensual. Judge
Walraths analysis in Washington Mutual is on all fours with the circumstances here and is
equally compelling.
44. Additionally, because there is no penalty for any creditor who decides to opt-out(See Transcript of July 9, 2012 hearing at page 57) (excerpts from the transcript are attached
hereto as Exhibit D), a creditor who elects to opt-out of the release provision and one who
elects not to opt-out are treated exactly the same under the Plan. There is no logical reason for
any rational, well-informed creditor not to opt-out and preserve any potential recovery from
pending litigation against non-debtor parties. The only explanation is that the Debtor structured
the Plan with the opt-out clause as a ploy to sabotage pending litigation and to protect the Non-
Debtor Defendants from claims by victims of their violations of the Securities Laws, such as the
Putative Class. This is especially true when one considers the burden on a non-voting creditor
receiving no distribution to even locate the opt-out provision in the Disclosure Statement and the
massive solicitation package (like finding a needle in a haystack). What makes the opt-out
provision even more egregious is that neither the shareholders of Dynegy, and therefore potential
members of the Putative Class, nor Securities Litigation claimants, are even receiving a ballot to
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 20 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
21/61
-21-
cast their vote on the proposed Plan. Indeed, class members who arent current shareholders did
not, upon information and belief, even receive a solicitation package. Rather, the Debtor places
the burden on the stakeholders, to review the entire solicitation package (if they received one)
and then create their own document to opt-out of the release, a process that is unprecedented,
unreasonable and draconian. The opt-out mechanism is no more than a trap for the unwary, not a
basis to find informed consent on the part of stakeholders.
45. The only creditor who would elect not to opt-out is a creditor who did not see orunderstand the opt-out provision. Such a release can not constitute an informed, voluntary and
knowing release of the Non-Debtor Defendants. To constitute a valid and enforceable release
under New York law, the release must be clear and unambiguous on its face and must be made
knowingly and voluntarily. Pampillonia v. RJR Nabisco, Inc., 138 F.3d 459, 463 (2d Cir.
1998). Here, there is no proof that any creditor who did not opt-out, did so knowingly or
voluntarily with regard to their rights against non-debtor third-parties.
46. Furthermore, any possible reliance by the Debtor and the Creditors Committee atthe July 9, 2012 hearing on Metromedia for the proposition that an opt-out provision is a
proper mechanism to grant a non-debtor release, see Transcript of July 9, 2012 hearing at page
62 (Exhibit D), is completely misplaced. Metromedia does not discuss whether an opt-out
provision is sufficient to deem a third-party release consensual and to bind those creditors who
failed to opt-out. Rather, Metromedia focuses solely on whether non-debtor releases are
authorized under the Bankruptcy Code. See Metromedia, 416 F.3d at 141 (the only argument
we consider is that these releases were unauthorized by the Bankruptcy Code). Similarly, none
of the cases relied on by the Debtor in the Disclosure Statement in the Standards Applicable to
Releases section address an opt-out provision. See Disclosure Statement at 144. The Debtor
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 21 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
22/61
-22-
has provided no case law that stands for the proposition that granting creditors an opt-out right
under the circumstances of this case is an appropriate method to obtain non-debtor releases and
would be sufficient to deem these releases consensual, especially where, as here, the impacted
stakeholder does not even have the right to vote on the Plan. Rather, Judge Walrath was right in
Washington Mutual when she unequivocally invalidated, as a confirmation matter, the opt-out
mechanism for approval of non-debtor releases. See Washington Mutual, 442 B.R. at 355.
47. The Debtors failure to provide adequate notice to all creditors and stakeholdersthat would be impacted and whose claims would be enjoined by the Plans release and injunctive
provisions, is another reason to ignore the opt-out mechanism. While the Debtor acknowledged
in its schedules that the Putative Class is a contingent creditor, the Debtor failed, upon
information and belief, to provide notice of any of its pleadings, including the Bar Date motion
and Disclosure Statement, to all parties who would be impacted by the Plans proposed
(improper) releases and injunctions. In the Securities Litigation, anyone who purchased Dynegy
stock during the Class Period is a potential member of the Putative Class, whether or not they
still hold the Dynegy stock. However, the Debtors provided notice only to those shareholders
who held stock as of the Petition Date, five months afterthe Class Period closed. Thus, not all of
the Putative Class members were provided with notice of their right to opt-out of the release
provision, because many purchased stock during the Class Period but sold the stock prior to the
Petition Date. By way of limited example, Litespeed Management, LLC currently owns 26% of
the common shares of Dynegy. See Docket No. 65. However, all of those shares were
purchased, upon information and belief, after the close of the Class Period. See Docket No. 91,
Page 2. Thus, at least26% of the shares potentially purchased by class members during the class
period are no longer owned by class members who thus received no notice of the bankruptcy
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 22 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
23/61
-23-
proceedings. It would be inequitable and unjust to hold creditors accountable for failing to take
action that they did not know about due to the Debtors failure to provide proper notice. This
blatantly violates due process and would certainly not constitute a knowing, voluntary and
consensual release.
48. The Debtor may attempt to argue that this opt-out mechanism was resolved for allpurposes prior to the Confirmation Hearing, and that Lead Plaintiff is foreclosed from objecting
to the opt-out provision. That argument is a non-starter. At the July 9, 2012 hearing, counsel for
Dynegy repeatedly declared and confirmed that objections to the opt-out provisions are
appropriate and preserved for the confirmation hearing. See Transcript of July 9, 2012 hearing at
56-58 (Exhibit D) (whether or not non-debtor releases can be granted under applicable law is a
confirmation objection); (whether or not [the opt-out mechanism] works as a confirmation
matter is a preserved objection); (if they disagree they can object to [to the opt-out mechanism]
at confirmation); (that non-debtor releases are not appropriate or that opt-outs arent
appropriate [is] really a confirmation objection). Therefore, similar to Washington Mutual, the
Confirmation Hearing is the appropriate time for the Court to decide whether the opt-out
provision forms a basis for the approval of the patently illegal third-party releases.
C. Lead Plaintiff and the Putative Class Must be Entitled to Proceed with TheirClaims Against the Debtors to the Extent of Available Insurance Coverage,
Irrespective of any Injunctions or Distribution under the Plan.
49. The Debtors maintain liability insurance policies in favor of their directors andofficers (the D&O Policies) for claims asserted in the Securities Litigation, as well as, upon
information and belief, for claims against the Debtors directly for violations of federal securities
laws. See Order Authorizing Continuation of Prepetition Insurance Policies in the Ordinary
Course of Business [Docket No. 81] (listing over thirty (30) Director & Officer insurance
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 23 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
24/61
-24-
policies that the Debtor has been authorized to keep intact).3
Lead Plaintiff maintains that the
Putative Class is entitled to look to the proceeds of such insurance for payment in connection
with the claims of Lead Plaintiff and the Putative Class and may, at the very least, pursue any
claims against the Debtors to the extent of such available insurance post-confirmation. Because
Lead Plaintiff likely does not have a direct action against the D&O insurance carriers under the
D&O Policies and applicable law, the proceeds of the D&O Policies may only be accessed
through the pursuit of the claims asserted in the Securities Litigation. Accordingly, the Plan
should not impact the rights of Lead Plaintiff or the Putative Class to pursue their claims against
the Debtors (outside of this chapter 11 case) to the extent of available proceeds of the D&O
Policies. Allowing the Securities Litigation to proceed against the Debtor solely to the extent of
available coverage under the D&O Policies would not have any negative impact or consequence
on the Debtor or Reorganized Dynegy.
50. It should be noted that by granting broad third party releases in the Plan, or bypreventing Lead Plaintiff from proceeding against Dynegy to the extent of the D&O Policies, the
Debtor would be providing the insurance carriers a windfall at the expense of the Putative Class.
The insurance carriers and the Debtor entered into the D&O Policies as arms-length agreements.
The D&O Policies were intended to provide the Debtor and the Non-Debtor Defendants with
protection in precisely this type of scenario. The Debtor likely paid a substantial sum of money
in premiums in order to have insurance coverage of this type for the claims asserted in the
Securities Litigation and even requested explicit Court authority to maintain these policies. There
is no justification provided as to why the insurance carriers should receive a windfall and
unexpected bonus at the expense of the Putative Class.
3Lead Plaintiff has served a very narrow and tailored document request on the Debtor, seeking, in part, copies of all
of the D&O Policies. Lead Plaintiff reserves the right to supplement this objection based upon any information
contained in any such documents when produced.
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 24 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
25/61
-25-
51. Therefore, the Plan and any Order confirming the Plan should provide that:Nothing in the Plan, or in any Order confirming the Plan, shall
preclude the Lead Plaintiff and the Putative Class from pursuing
their claims in the Securities Litigation against the Debtor to the
extent of available insurance coverage and proceeds. The Claimsof the Lead Plaintiff and the Putative Class against the Debtor, to
the extent of available insurance, are preserved and not dischargedor enjoined by the Plan.
CONCLUSION
52. Based upon the foregoing, Lead Plaintiff respectfully requests that unless the Planis modified as set forth herein and/or the Confirmation Order includes the foregoing suggested
language, or language substantially similar thereto, an Order should be entered (i) denying
confirmation of the Plan and (ii) granting such other and further relief as the court deems just and
proper.
Dated: August 24, 2012
New York, New York.
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PC
/s/ Michael S. Etkin
LOWENSTEIN SANDLER PCMichael S. Etkin, Esq. (ME 0570)
John K. Sherwood, Esq. (JS 2453)1251 Avenue of the Americas, 18th Floor
New York, New York 10020
(212) 262-6700 (Telephone)(212) 262-7402 (Facsimile)
and
65 Livingston Avenue
Roseland, New Jersey 07068
(973) 597-2500 (Telephone)(973) 597-2481 (Facsimile)
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 25 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
26/61
-26-
Bankruptcy Counsel to Lead Plaintiff
and the Putative Class
and
LEVI & KORSINSKY LLPNicholas I. Poritt, Esq.
1101 30th
Street, N.W. Suite 115Washington, DC 20007
(202) 524-4293
Lead Counsel for Lead Plaintiff and the
Putative Class
11-38111-cgm Doc 955 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Main DocumentPg 26 of 26
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
27/61
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
28/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 1 Filed 03/28/12 Page 1 of 2011-38111-cgm Doc 955-1 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit APg 2 of 21
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
29/61
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
30/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 1 Filed 03/28/12 Page 3 of 2011-38111-cgm Doc 955-1 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit APg 4 of 21
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
31/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 1 Filed 03/28/12 Page 4 of 2011-38111-cgm Doc 955-1 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit APg 5 of 21
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
32/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 1 Filed 03/28/12 Page 5 of 2011-38111-cgm Doc 955-1 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit APg 6 of 21
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
33/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 1 Filed 03/28/12 Page 6 of 2011-38111-cgm Doc 955-1 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit APg 7 of 21
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
34/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 1 Filed 03/28/12 Page 7 of 2011-38111-cgm Doc 955-1 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit APg 8 of 21
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
35/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 1 Filed 03/28/12 Page 8 of 2011-38111-cgm Doc 955-1 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit APg 9 of 21
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
36/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 1 Filed 03/28/12 Page 9 of 2011-38111-cgm Doc 955-1 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit APg 10 of 21
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
37/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 1 Filed 03/28/12 Page 10 of 2011-38111-cgm Doc 955-1 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit APg 11 of 21
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
38/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 1 Filed 03/28/12 Page 11 of 2011-38111-cgm Doc 955-1 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit APg 12 of 21
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
39/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 1 Filed 03/28/12 Page 12 of 2011-38111-cgm Doc 955-1 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit APg 13 of 21
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
40/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 1 Filed 03/28/12 Page 13 of 2011-38111-cgm Doc 955-1 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit APg 14 of 21
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
41/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 1 Filed 03/28/12 Page 14 of 2011-38111-cgm Doc 955-1 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit APg 15 of 21
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
42/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 1 Filed 03/28/12 Page 15 of 2011-38111-cgm Doc 955-1 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit APg 16 of 21
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
43/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 1 Filed 03/28/12 Page 16 of 2011-38111-cgm Doc 955-1 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit APg 17 of 21
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
44/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 1 Filed 03/28/12 Page 17 of 2011-38111-cgm Doc 955-1 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit APg 18 of 21
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
45/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 1 Filed 03/28/12 Page 18 of 2011-38111-cgm Doc 955-1 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit APg 19 of 21
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
46/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 1 Filed 03/28/12 Page 19 of 2011-38111-cgm Doc 955-1 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit APg 20 of 21
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
47/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 1 Filed 03/28/12 Page 20 of 2011-38111-cgm Doc 955-1 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit APg 21 of 21
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
48/61
Exhibit B
11-38111-cgm Doc 955-2 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit BPg 1 of 2
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
49/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 25 Filed 07/09/12 Page 1 of 111-38111-cgm Doc 955-2 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit BPg 2 of 2
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
50/61
Exhibit C
11-38111-cgm Doc 955-3 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit CPg 1 of 4
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
51/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 26 Filed 07/13/12 Page 1 of 311-38111-cgm Doc 955-3 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit CPg 2 of 4
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
52/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 26 Filed 07/13/12 Page 2 of 311-38111-cgm Doc 955-3 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit CPg 3 of 4
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
53/61
Case 1:12-cv-02307-JGK Document 26 Filed 07/13/12 Page 3 of 311-38111-cgm Doc 955-3 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit CPg 4 of 4
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
54/61
Exhibit D
11-38111-cgm Doc 955-4 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit DPg 1 of 8
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
55/61
1 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
3 Case No. 11-38111(CGM)
4 Adv. Case No. 12-36728(CGM)
5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
6 In the Matter of:
7
8 DYNEGY HOLDINGS, LLC,
9
10 Debtors.
11
12 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
13
14 United States Bankruptcy Court
15 One Bowling Green
16 New York, NY 10004
17
18 July 9, 2012
19 1:02 p.m.
20
21
22 B E F O R E :
23 HON CECELIA G. MORRIS
24 U.S. BANKRUPTCY JUDGE
25
Page 1
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-24
11-38111-cgm Doc 955-4 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit DPg 2 of 8
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
56/61
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
57/61
1 easy as possible for people to opt out. We give them a
2 package and say opt out of the release, for no penalty, this
3 is not a coercive release or anything else, but they do
4 actually have to come forward and say we want a release,
5 that is consistent with applicable law.
6 What we need to do now is get approved by the
7 Court just the mechanism we're going to send it out to them
8 and they are going to have to respond. Whether or not that
9 works as a confirmation matter is a preserved objection.
10 We fully recognize that under Second Circuit law
11 there is a lot of learning on non-debtor releases now --
12 THE COURT: Right. Right.
13 MR. SHORE: -- and debtor releases and consensual
14 and non-consensual one. We believe from a plan mechanic
15 standpoint that's fine, if they disagree they can object to
16 it at confirmation, but from a solicitation perspective you
17 have to do something in order to tell people that this is a
18 opt-out provision.
19 All we're saying is what is here under applicable
20 law is sufficient to let people know that if they want out
21 of a release they need to let the company know.
22 Now if they want it in bold we can do it in bold.
23 That's the kind of objection that can be heard now to this
24 provision, but not that non-debtor releases are not
25 appropriate or that opt outs aren't appropriate, because
Page 57
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-24
11-38111-cgm Doc 955-4 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit DPg 4 of 8
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
58/61
1 that's really a confirmation objection.
2 We just need to establish that when we get to
3 confirmation that we did what we were supposed to do to let
4 you know that your claims are at risk and if you didn't opt
5 out you were going to be having a release imposed.
6 THE COURT: Do you have anything you would wish to
7 -- I mean, I'll even give you a preliminary. I would like
8 some law, but I'm leaning toward the negative notice. You
9 have the ability that Mr. Shore put out.
10 What would you like to change on this if I do do
11 that in such a way as you think it's a better notice of
12 disclosure? Disclosure, not plan, disclosure.
13 MR. SHERWOOD: Well, I think at this stage of the
14 game I'd ask the Court to consider not negative notice but
15 an actual opt into the release.
16 This is a plan where the shareholders of DI are
17 not getting any consideration. They've going to get a large
18 pile of paper, at least under the plan they're not getting
19 under consideration -- any consideration, although under the
20 settlement agreement that they're getting one percent plus
21 warrants, but it is a -- it's a lot of analysis.
22 There are between 11- and 12,000 current
23 shareholders, and I don't know how many former shareholders
24 who was also be in the class. So we're talking tens of
25 thousand of -- some people hold in street name and they have
Page 58
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-24
11-38111-cgm Doc 955-4 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit DPg 5 of 8
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
59/61
1 DH?
2 And secondly is the issue about mechanically is
3 the opt in or the opt out what -- can that -- which one of
4 those should you approve as part of the disclosure statement
5 order?
6 I think it's -- if we can do the second one first.
7 THE COURT: Okay.
8 MR. PREIS: On the mechanic I think Mr. Shore was
9 correct. I mean there's precedent for allowing the opt out
10 in this circuit, but I think it's actually more
11 interesting --
12 THE COURT: Can you name one? I just want to
13 know.
14 MR. PREIS: I'll leave it to --
15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's Metro Media.
16 THE COURT: Okay.
17 MR. PREIS: Yeah. But I think it's more actually
18 interesting that what you're hearing is the shareholder
19 saying, well, we need more -- people are going to need more
20 time with the disclosure statement once they get it and once
21 they can vote or decide to opt out they need more time to
22 figure that out whether they want to opt out or not. And
23 that's exactly the mechanic we built in, right?
24 Instead of shortening the period of solicitation
25 to 28 days, which is the statutory requirement, we've made
Page 62
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-24
11-38111-cgm Doc 955-4 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit DPg 6 of 8
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
60/61
1 THE COURT: And we will allow you to be heard on
2 those merits if you find them.
3 MR. SHERWOOD: Thank you.
4 MR. SHORE: All right --
5 THE COURT: After you talk to Mr. Case --
6 Mr. Whatever you name is.
7 MR. SHERWOOD: Shore.
8 THE COURT: Shore.
9 MR. SHORE: All right. We have three things left.
10 I can go through the administrative -- the case management
11 order if you want now, Your Honor.
12 THE COURT: Okay, good, thank you.
13 MR. SHORE: Okay.
14 (Pause)
15 THE COURT: I -- there's a part of me that would
16 like to give you a quick written decision, but I don't have
17 enough information to give you a written decision on the
18 opt-out clause. I mean I am relying on what you said about
19 what Judge Carey had said in that Delta case.
20 MR. SHERWOOD: That wasn't in opt out.
21 THE COURT: That wasn't your opt out, that was
22 your cause, right? Okay.
23 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Metro Media.
24 THE COURT: Metro Media. Thank you.
25 MR. SHORE: All right. So this is going to be a
Page 74
VERITEXT REPORTING COMPANY
212-267-6868 www.veritext.com 516-608-24
11-38111-cgm Doc 955-4 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit DPg 7 of 8
7/31/2019 Lead Plaintiff's Objection to Dynegy Chapter 11 Plan
61/61
1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
2
3 I, Dawn South, certify that the foregoing transcript is a
4 true and accurate record of the proceedings.
5
6
7
8
9 AAERT Certified Electronic Transcriber CET**D-408
10
11 Veritext
12 200 Old Country Road
13 Suite 580
14 Mineola, NY 11501
15
16 Date: July 11, 2012
17
18
19
20
21
22
Page 97
Dawn SouthDigitally signed by Dawn South
DN: cn=Dawn South, o=Veritext,
ou, [email protected],
c=US
Date: 2012.07.11 16:22:35 -04'00'
11-38111-cgm Doc 955-4 Filed 08/24/12 Entered 08/24/12 16:15:52 Exhibit DPg 8 of 8