Michelle Patrice Sidrian

1 printed pages contain little extracted OCR body text; searchable legal-body completeness has not been established for those pages.

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

AUTHENTICAT|

INFORMATION

Entered on Docket
February 25, 2009

GLORIA L. FRANKLIN, CLERK
U.S BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Signed: February 25, 2009

at -

wh, fi NALS
LESLIE TCHAIKOVSKY
U.S. Bankruptcy J udge

UN TED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
NORTHERN DI STRI CI OF CALI FORN A

In re No. 08- 42959 T
Chapter 11
M CHELLE PATRI CE SI DRI AN

Debt or- i n- Possessi on.

TENIATI VE RULING ON ADEQUACY OF Di SCLOSURE STATEMENT

The above-captioned chapter 11 case was filed on June 10, 2008.
Qn January 19, 2009, the debtor filed a plan and disclosure statenent
and on January 27, 2009 filed and served a notice of hearing on the
disclosure statenent for Mirch 2, 2009. February 17, 2009, the
Panzer Revocable Trust Dated June 15, 1992 (the “Panzer”), the hol der
of a deed of trust on a hotel located in Gualala, California (the
“Gualala Hotel”) filed an opposition to the disclosure statenent.
The purpose of this nenorandumis to provide the parties in advance
of the hearing wth the Court’s tentative conclusions concerning the

adequacy of both the plan and the disclosure statenent.

15

a 08-42959 Doc#169 Filed: 02/25/09 Entered: 02/25/09 16:15:58 Page 1 of

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
2
THE PLAN
In 	the 	Court’s 	view, 	the 	plan 	has 	only 	a 	couple 	of 	structural
problems as described below. 	The key features of the debtor’s plan
are as follows:
Unclassified Claims.
Administrative claims will be paid in full on the effective date
of the plan unless the holder of the claim agrees otherwise.
Priority 	tax 	claims 	will 	receive 	the 	present 	value 	of 	their
claim in deferred cash payments over a period not to exceed six years
from 	the 	assessment 	date 	of 	each 	claim 	beginning 	30 	days 	from 	the
date of entry of the confirmation order.
ERRORS: 	There 	are 	two 	errors 	with 	respect 	to 	the 	proposed
treatment of priority tax claims.
Under 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(9)(C), the plan must provide that the
holder of a priority tax claim will receive regular payments over a
period ending not later than “5 years after the date of the order for
relief” in a manner no less favorable than unsecured creditors.
1. 	The 	period 	over 	which 	the 	payments 	are 	to 	be 	made 	is
incorrect.
2. 	Payments 	to 	the 	unsecured 	creditors 	may 	be 	more 	favorable
than 	to 	the 	holder 	of 	the 	priority 	tax 	claim, 	i.e., 	the 	lump 	sum
payment within 18 months of confirmation.
Classified Claims and Interests.
There are thirty-five classes of claims and interests. 	Thirty-
three 	of 	the 	classes 	are 	of 	secured 	claims. 	Unless 	otherwise
specified, all of the classes of secured claims are secured by real
Case: 08-42959 Doc# 169 Filed: 02/25/09 Entered: 02/25/09 16:15:58 Page 2 of
15

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 1One of the addresses appears to be a typo. 	However, the
Court notes that the debtor failed to schedule real property at
either address.
3
property 	located 	in 	Antioch, 	California. 	Class 	34 	consists 	of 	the
general, unsecured claims. 	Class 35 represents the debtor’s equity
interest.
Real Property To Be Surrendered.
The 	plan 	provides 	that 	the 	debtor 	will 	surrender 	the 	real
property located at 901 Wainfleet, 2400 Poplar, 106 Kathy Ellen, 1830
Cavallo, and 2400 (or 2004) Cavallo. 1 	The classes of claims secured
by 	these 	properties--Classes 	1, 	3, 	6, 	8-11, 	14, 	and 	16--are
designated as unimpaired. 	Although the holders of these claims will
receive no payments, they will retain their liens and be entitled to
foreclose.
Real Property To Be Retained.
The plan provides that the debtor will retain the real property
located 	at 	3401 	Oakley, 	3341 	Oakley, 	1900 	& 	1902 	Cavallo, 	2000
Cavallo, 	106 	W. 	6 th 	St., 	2247 	Arata 	Way, 	4160 	Royal 	Links, 	3414
DiMaggio, 	and 	39301 	Highway 	1, 	Gualala, 	California 	(the 	Gualala
Hotel). 	With one exception, all of the classes of claims secured by
these properties are designated as impaired. 	The exception is Class
2, the claim of Washington Mutual, secured by a first deed of trust
on 3401 Oakley. 	The plan provides that the holder of this claim will
receive 	payment 	of 	its 	$35.60 	in 	pre-petition 	arrears 	on 	the
effective 	date, 	will 	retain 	its 	lien, 	and 	will 	receive 	current
payments in the future as they mature.
Case: 08-42959 Doc# 169 Filed: 02/25/09 Entered: 02/25/09 16:15:58 Page 3 of
15

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
2The Court is skeptical that the debtor is current on her real
property tax obligations with respect to the real property she
intends to surrender. 	No such claims are classified. 	However,
since the claims would be unimpaired, not entitled to vote, and not
likely to object to the plan, the Court will not inquire further as
to their existence and the debtor’s failure to classify them.
4
The holders of the remaining claims will retain their liens and
will receive payment of their pre-petition arrears over time without
interest beginning 30 days after the entry of the confirmation order
as summarized below.
Property Address 	Class 	Arrears 	Monthly Payment
3341 Oakley 	13 	$19,094.44 	$318.24
1900/1902 Cavallo 	17 	14,306.34 	238.43
2000 Cavallo 	4 	2,076.86 	34.61
106 W. 6 th St. 	7 	30,381.86 	506.30
2247 Arata Way 	12 	18,142.88 	302.38
4160 Royal Links 	15 	21,777.51 	362.95
3414 DiMaggio 	18 	14,262.12 	237.70
3901 Highway 1
Gualala 	5 	140,029.80 	2,333.83
Real Property Tax Claims
Classes 	19 	through 	33 	consist 	of 	delinquent 	real 	property 	tax
claims on real property the debtor proposes to retain. 2 	All of these
classes are designated as impaired. 	The debtor proposes to pay the
amounts due over time on a monthly basis as summarized below.
Property Address 	Class 	Arrears 	Monthly Payment
208 Worrell Rd., #B 	19 	$5,252.21 	$105.04
210 Worrell Rd., #B 	20 	5,005.80 	100.11
Case: 08-42959 Doc# 169 Filed: 02/25/09 Entered: 02/25/09 16:15:58 Page 4 of
15

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
5
3406 Poplar Dr. 	21 	1,920.73 	38.14
106 W. 6 th St. 	22 	13,079.91 	261.59
3309 Jessica Ct. 	23 	1,000.16 	20.03
3321 Jessica Ct. 	24 	2,978.34 	59.56
3325 Jessica Ct. 	25 	872.02` 	17.44
3329 Jessica Ct. 	26 	795.09 	15.90
3333 Jessica Ct. 	27 	737.38 	14.74
3345 Oakley Rd. 	28 	948.92 	18.97
3341 Oakley Rd. 	29 	137.79 	2.75
3301 Jessica Ct. 	30 	923.26 	18.46
3305 Jessica Ct. 	31 	948.92 	18.97
3313 Jessica Ct. 	32 	666.90 	13.33
3317 Jessica Ct. 	33 	615.59 	12.31
General, Unsecured Claims.
Class 	34 	consists 	of 	the 	general, 	unsecured 	claims, 	which 	the
debtor quantifies as $310,278.27. 	The plan provides that the holders
of these claims will receive their pro rata share of $1,000 monthly
beginning three months after the entry of the confirmation order. 	In
addition, they will receive a pro rata share of a lump sum payment of
$253,278.27 within 18 months after entry of the confirmation order.
No 	interest 	will 	accrue 	on 	these 	clams. 	The 	debtor 	believes 	that
this will constitute payment in full of these claims.
ERROR: The plan must provide a deadline for objecting to claims
and must provide that the pro rata share of distributions to disputed
claims 	will 	be 	reserved 	based 	on 	the 	amount 	of 	the 	claim 	filed 	or
scheduled, whichever is greater. 	It should also explain what will be
Case: 08-42959 Doc# 169 Filed: 02/25/09 Entered: 02/25/09 16:15:58 Page 5 of
15

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
6
done with the funds reserved for any claim if the dispute is resolved
in the debtor’s favor.
Equity Interest.
The debtor will retain her equity interests in her property.
Means of Execution.
The 	payments 	will 	be 	funded 	from 	the 	sale 	of 	real 	property,
future profits from rents, and the debtor’s wages. 	The debtor will
manage 	her 	assets 	and 	serve 	as 	the 	disbursing 	agent 	post-
confirmation.
The plan provides for the assumption of residential leases with
respect 	to 	the 	real 	property 	at 	4160 	S. 	Royal 	Links 	Circle, 	2247
Arata Way, 3341 Oakley Rd, 3414 DiMaggio Way, 2000 Cavallo Rd., and
106 W. 6 th St., all in Antioch, California, and the commercial lease
of the taqueria building at 39301 S. Highway 1, Gualala, California.
It provides for the rejection of the residential lease with respect
to the real property at 1828 Cavallo Rd., 1830 Cavallo Rd, and 2400
Poplar Drive.
Discharge.
The plan provides that the debtor will receive a discharge five
years from confirmation to the extent specified by 11 U.S.C. § 1141.
POSSIBLE 	ERROR: 	This 	provision 	is 	ambiguous. 	The 	debtor 	may
only 	receive 	a 	discharge 	when 	the 	plan 	is 	fully 	performed. 	If 	the
plan 	is 	not 	fully 	performed 	in 	five 	years, 	the 	debtor 	will 	not
receive 	a 	discharge 	in 	five 	years. 	This 	provision 	should 	be
clarified.
Case: 08-42959 Doc# 169 Filed: 02/25/09 Entered: 02/25/09 16:15:58 Page 6 of
15

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
7
THE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The key elements of a disclosure statement are as follows: (1)
an explanation of the voting and confirmation procedure, (2) general
background, 	including 	a 	description 	of 	the 	events 	leading 	to 	the
filing of the chapter 11 case and the significant events during the
chapter 11 case, (3) a summary of the debtor’s assets, (4) a summary
of 	the 	debtor’s 	liabilities, 	(5) 	a 	summary 	of 	the 	plan, 	(6) 	a
discussion 	of 	the 	feasibility 	of 	the 	plan, 	and 	(7) 	a 	liquidation
analysis. 	The 	Court 	will 	discuss 	its 	evaluation 	of 	how 	well 	the
debtor satisfied these elements before considering the objection.
1. 	Explanation of Voting and Confirmation Procedure
This 	information 	is 	provided 	in 	Sections 	I 	and 	IV-A. 	The
discussion in Section I is satisfactory. 	The following misstatements
appear in Section IV-A and need to be corrected:
Page 	22, 	line 	1. 	The 	statement 	that 	only 	creditors 	who 	have
filed claims may file objections is not true and is inconsistent with
statements contained elsewhere that any party in interest may object
to confirmation.
Page 	22, 	lines 	2-3. 	The 	statement 	that, 	since 	the 	debtor
retains 	her 	interest, 	the 	plan 	cannot 	be 	confirmed 	if 	any 	impaired
class 	votes 	to 	reject 	it 	is 	not 	true. 	The 	plan 	could 	be 	confirmed
over 	the 	objection 	of 	an 	impaired 	secured 	claim 	if 	the 	proposed
treatment meets the “cramdown” standards. 	It is true that the plan
may 	not 	be 	confirmed 	over 	the 	objection 	of 	the 	Class 	34 	general,
unsecured claims.
Case: 08-42959 Doc# 169 Filed: 02/25/09 Entered: 02/25/09 16:15:58 Page 7 of
15

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
8
Page 	22, 	line 	13. 	There 	is 	some 	confusing 	excess 	language 	on
this line.
Page 22, lines 18-19. 	The statement that an allowed claim that
is impaired by the plan only has the right to vote if the plan fails
to 	pay 	it 	in 	full 	is 	not 	true. 	An 	impaired 	claim 	has 	the 	right 	to
vote on the plan even if the plan proposes to pay the claim in full.
Page 22, lines 20 and 22. 	These lines inappropriately refer to
administrative claims as classified claims and characterize them as
unimpaired. 	As recognized elsewhere, administrative claims are not
classified 	and 	are 	not 	characterized 	as 	either 	impaired 	or
unimpaired. 	Moreover, the statement on line 20-23--that all classes
except administrative claims are impaired and therefore their members
entitled 	to 	vote--would 	be 	inaccurate 	anyway. 	There 	are 	several
classes of unimpaired claims.
Page 23, line 9. 	The reference to claims entitled to priority
under section 507(a)(7) should probably be to section 507(a)(8).
Page 	24, 	line 	15-17. 	The 	phrases 	“discriminate 	unfairly” 	and
“fair 	and 	equitable” 	should 	either 	be 	eliminated 	or 	explained. 	It
would be sufficient to say that the plan may be confirmed even if the
holder of one or more secured claims votes against it as long as the
Court 	finds 	that 	the 	proposed 	treatment 	meets 	certain 	statutory
requirements.
Page 	24, 	line 	21. 	The 	phrase 	“impaired 	classes 	secured” 	is
garbled. 	In any event, this section is duplicative of the previous
one and should be eliminated.
Case: 08-42959 Doc# 169 Filed: 02/25/09 Entered: 02/25/09 16:15:58 Page 8 of
15

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
9
2. 	General Background
This 	information 	is 	provided 	in 	Section 	II. 	This 	section
appears 	satisfactory 	although 	the 	Court 	notes 	that 	the 	figure
$15,000.00, on page 10, line 2, should probably be $1,500.00.
3. 	Summary of Assets
The disclosure statement does not contain a section describing
the debtor’s assets and their value. 	However, other sections of the
disclosure 	statement 	contain 	the 	required 	information. 	The 	Court
finds this satisfactory.
4. 	Summary of Debts
The disclosure statement does not contain a section describing
the debtor’s liabilities. 	However, other sections of the disclosure
statement 	contain 	the 	required 	information. 	The 	Court 	finds 	this
satisfactory.
5 	Summary of Plan
This 	information 	is 	provided 	in 	Section 	III. 	It 	is 	not 	a
summary of the plan, merely a repetition of it. 	However, the Court
will not require the section to be revised except to the extent the
plan itself is required to be revised.
6. 	Feasibility
As 	the 	debtor 	recognizes, 	a 	discussion 	of 	feasibility 	should
address 	two 	subjects: 	(1) 	the 	debtor’s 	ability 	to 	pay 	the 	claims
required 	to 	be 	paid 	on 	the 	effective 	date 	of 	the 	plan, 	and 	(2) 	the
debtor’s 	ability 	to 	pay 	the 	claims 	required 	to 	be 	paid 	over 	time.
The first subject is addressed in Section 4-C at page 27. 	The Court
finds this discussion satisfactory.
Case: 08-42959 Doc# 169 Filed: 02/25/09 Entered: 02/25/09 16:15:58 Page 9 of
15

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
10
The second subject is discussed on page 28. 	The Court does not
find it satisfactory. 	The debtor states that she has $3,000 a month
in 	net 	wages 	over 	her 	living 	expenses 	with 	which 	to 	pay 	the 	$1,000
per 	month 	required 	by 	the 	plan 	to 	be 	paid 	to 	the 	Class 	34 	general,
unsecured 	claims. 	However, 	with 	respect 	to 	the 	required 	lump 	sum
payment of $253,278.27 within 18 months of confirmation, she states
in 	broad 	terms 	that 	this 	payment 	will 	come 	from 	the 	sale 	of 	the
hotel, 	the 	Antioch 	lots, 	and/or 	the 	interest 	in 	the 	Sommersville
Plaza LLC. 	This is inadequate. 	Moreover, nothing is said about her
ability 	to 	pay 	the 	priority 	tax 	claims 	or 	the 	monthly 	payments
required to be paid on the various classes of secured claims.
7. 	Liquidation Analysis
The liquidation analysis is not technically adequate. 	It should
show each asset or category of assets separately, value the asset or
category 	on 	a 	liquidation 	basis, 	and 	deduct 	from 	this 	figure 	the
costs 	of 	sale, 	secured 	claims, 	and 	exemptions, 	if 	any. 	From 	the
total net value of the assets derived in this fashion, the following
figures 	should 	then 	be 	deducted 	in 	the 	following 	order: 	first, 	the
estimated 	chapter 	7 	administrative 	claims, 	then 	the 	chapter 	11
administrative 	claims, 	then 	the 	pre-petition 	priority 	claims. 	The
amount 	remaining 	should 	be 	compared 	to 	the 	amount 	of 	general,
unsecured 	claims. 	However, 	that 	being 	said, 	the 	debtor 	appears 	to
concede that the liquidation value of her estate is well in excess of
the 	amount 	of 	the 	general, 	unsecured 	claims. 	However, 	solvent
estates such as the debtor’s must pay post-petition interest even on
general, 	unsecured 	claims. 	As 	a 	result, 	as 	the 	plan 	is 	presently
Case: 08-42959 Doc# 169 Filed: 02/25/09 Entered: 02/25/09 16:15:58 Page 10 of
15

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
11
constructed, 	if 	a 	member 	of 	Class 	34 	votes 	against 	the 	plan, 	it
cannot be confirmed.
PANZER’S OBJECTION TO DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
Panzer 	objects 	to 	the 	adequacy 	of 	the 	disclosure 	statement 	on
the 	ground 	that 	it: 	(1) 	fails 	to 	disclose 	material 	facts 	regarding
the 	condition 	of 	the 	Gualala 	Hotel, 	(2) 	fails 	to 	explain 	how 	the
debtor 	will 	fund 	the 	plan, 	(3) 	fails 	to 	disclose 	the 	continuing
operating losses of the Gualala Hotel, (4) fails to reveal the terms
of 	the 	deeds 	of 	trust 	on 	the 	various 	properties, 	including 	the
regular monthly payments and whether the interest rates are fixed or
variable, 	(5) 	fails 	to 	disclose 	details 	regarding 	the 	sale 	of 	the
Gualala 	Hotel, 	and 	(6) 	fails 	to 	discuss 	the 	ramification 	of 	the
proposed assumption of the lease with GHBC, LLC.
1. 	Material Facts Regarding Condition of Gualala Hotel
Panzer notes that, during an evidentiary hearing on its motion
for relief from the automatic stay, it submitted evidence regarding
needed 	repairs 	and 	improvements, 	some 	of 	which 	affected 	public
safety. 	Panzer 	contends 	that 	the 	disclosure 	statement 	fails 	to
discuss these issues or explain how she intends to fund them. 	This
objection has merit and will probably be sustained at the hearing.
2. 	Fails to Explain how Debtor Will Fund Plan
Panzer contends that the disclosure statement fails to explain
how 	the 	debtor 	will 	fund 	the 	plan, 	in 	particular, 	the 	ongoing
payments to Panzer. 	Panzer notes that, since the adequate protection
order was entered as a result of its motion for relief from stay, the
debtor 	has 	been 	late 	on 	her 	payments 	to 	Panzer 	and 	has 	“bounced”
Case: 08-42959 Doc# 169 Filed: 02/25/09 Entered: 02/25/09 16:15:58 Page 11 of
15

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
12
checks. 	Panzer notes that the entity to which the debtor has leased
the 	Gualala 	Hotel 	is 	an 	empty 	shell 	with 	no 	apparent 	assets. 	This
objection has merit and will probably be sustained at the hearing.
3. 	Failure to Disclose Continuing Operating Losses of Gualala
Hotel
Panzer 	notes 	that 	the 	debtor’s 	monthly 	operating 	reports
disclose that the Gualala Hotel has lost over $12,000 a month during
November and December 2008. 	Under the plan, the debtor is required
to pay Panzer approximately $11,000 a month, taking into account both
the 	current 	mortgage 	payments 	and 	the 	proposed 	cure 	of 	the 	pre-
petition 	arrears. 	To 	explain 	how 	this 	will 	be 	done, 	the 	debtor
simply 	states 	that 	she 	expects 	business 	to 	improve 	during 	the 	high
season. 	Panzer 	contends 	that 	this 	statement 	is 	inadequate. 	As
discussed 	above, 	the 	Court 	agrees 	with 	Panzer 	that 	the 	disclosure
statement does not adequately explain how the payments required will
be funded.
4. 	Failure to Disclose Payment and Interest Rate Terms of Deeds
of Trust
Panzer notes that the disclosure statement fails to disclose the
amounts 	of 	the 	monthly 	payments 	on 	the 	various 	secured 	claims 	and
their interest terms. 	Without this information, it is impossible to
evaluate whether the plan is feasible. 	This objection has merit and
will probably be sustained at the hearing.
5. 	Failure to Disclose Details Regarding Sale of Gualala Hotel
Case: 08-42959 Doc# 169 Filed: 02/25/09 Entered: 02/25/09 16:15:58 Page 12 of
15

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 	3The objection states the amount as $253,298. 	The amount
stated in the plan is $253,278.
13
Panzer notes that the plan proposes to pay the Class 34 general,
unsecured 	creditors 	a 	large 	lump 	sum 	payment 3 	within 	18 	months.
According to Panzer, the debtor proposes to generate these funds from
the 	sale 	of 	the 	Gualala 	Hotel. 	Panzer 	notes 	that 	the 	disclosure
statement fails to include any discussion of the debtor’s marketing
efforts, 	if 	any, 	or 	of 	the 	prospect 	of 	selling 	the 	Gualala 	Hotel
within 	18 	months. 	This 	objection 	has 	merit 	and 	will 	probably 	be
sustained 	at 	the 	hearing. 	Although 	the 	plan 	does 	not 	limit 	the
source 	of 	funding 	to 	the 	sale 	of 	the 	Gualala 	Hotel, 	there 	is 	no
meaningful discussion of the feasibility of the debtor’s generating
this sum of money within 18 months.
6. 	Failure To Discuss Ramifications of Proposed Assumption of
Lease With GHBC, LLC
Finally, 	Panzer 	notes 	that 	the 	debtor 	proposes 	to 	assume 	the
GHBC, LLC lease. 	It objects that the disclosure statement provides
no information concerning the benefits to the estate of assuming this
lease 	nor 	of 	GHBC, 	LLC’s 	ability 	to 	perform. 	This 	objection 	has
merit and will probably be sustained at the hearing.
END OF DOCUMENT
Case: 08-42959 Doc# 169 Filed: 02/25/09 Entered: 02/25/09 16:15:58 Page 13 of
15

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

id

ASE: 08-42959 Doc#169 Filed: 02/25/09 Entered: 02/25/09 16:15:58 Page 14 of

15

14

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
15
COURT SERVICE LIST
Mark A. McLaughlin
Law Offices of McLaughlin and Wildman
3012 Lone Tree Way #300
Antioch, CA 94509
Chris D. Kuhner
Kornfield, Nyberg, Benes & Kuhner, P.C.
1999 Harrison St., Ste. 2675
Oakland, CA 94612
Case: 08-42959 Doc# 169 Filed: 02/25/09 Entered: 02/25/09 16:15:58 Page 15 of
15