My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
2021-03-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1980004 (7)
DRMS
>
Day Forward
>
General Documents
>
Coal
>
C1980004
>
2021-03-09_GENERAL DOCUMENTS - C1980004 (7)
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/16/2021 1:35:25 PM
Creation date
3/16/2021 12:56:39 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
DRMS Permit Index
Permit No
C1980004
IBM Index Class Name
General Documents
Doc Date
3/9/2021
Doc Name Note
Case No. 20-12043 (GRH) Hopedale Mining LLC
Doc Name
Bankruptcy Notice
From
Tasha R. Schreckengost
To
DRMS
Permit Index Doc Type
General Correspondence
Email Name
JRS
JDM
GRM
CMM
CCW
Media Type
D
Archive
No
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
205
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Case 1:20-bk-12043 Doc 643 Filed 03/03/21 Entered 03/03/21 18:42:10 Desc Main <br />Document Page 12 of 20 <br />asking to discuss the dispute over Cortland/AD's fees directly. A true copy of the December 17 E- <br />Mail, which includes the December 14 E-Mail and the December 15 E-Mail in the same chain, is <br />attached as Exhibit E. <br />34. Among other things, the December 17 E-Mail points out that the settlement with <br />respect to the Prepetition Lenders' and the DIP Lenders' fees set forth in Paragraph 61.c(iii) did <br />not include the Prepetition Agent or the DIP Agents "nor was Cortland or its counsel involved in <br />negotiating this settlement." The December 17 E-Mail further pointed out that the total requested <br />fees "for approximately $24,000 represents H&K's postpetition fees as the agents' counsel from <br />July 22, 2020 through December 14, 2020," and concludes that "We are sensitive to the fact that <br />this case is on a tight budget. I think the amount of the invoice reflects that. But Cortland is entitled <br />to its fees and expenses under the Final DIP Order, and the Creditors' Committee's settlement with <br />the lenders with respect to the lenders' professionals' fees does not change that." (Ex. D at 1 <br />(emphasis added).) <br />35. Debtors counsel responded to Holland & Knight later that morning with an email <br />saying "we are in receipt of your email and will review. We will also pass this along to the UCC." <br />36. On December 23, 2020, after further inquiries from Holland & Knight, the <br />Committee responded by e-mail (the "December 23 E-Maif'), which attached the Settlement <br />Order, Settlement Agreement, and Joinder attached to this Application at Exhibit C. <br />37. Recognizing that its initial position—i.e., that the budget with respect to the <br />lenders' fees set forth in the Sale Order also applied to Cortland/AD's fees —was, on its face, <br />incorrect, the Committee changed tack. Instead, it now asserted that "Paragraph 4(a) of the <br />Settlement Agreement contains a broad release of any claim, with limited exceptions not relevant <br />to a claim for attorneys' fees. Paragraph 7 of the Settlement Agreement provided that it was a <br />26594115v.2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.