Norman B. Newman, solely as Liquidating Trustee of the World Marketing Liquidating Trust v. Crane, Heyman, Simon, Welch & ClarRESPONSEN.D. Ill.June 10, 2019IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION NORMAN B. NEWMAN, as Liquidating Trustee of the World Marketing Liquidating Trust, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 17-6978 v. Judge Thomas M. Durkin CRANE, HEYMAN, SIMON, WELCH & CLAR, Magistrate Judge Susan E. Cox Defendant. DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S LOCAL RULE 56.1 STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS Defendant, CRANE, HEYMAN, SIMON WELCH & CLAR (“CH”), by its undersigned counsel, pursuant to LR 56.1(b), submits the following as its response to Plaintiff’s statement of material facts in support of its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Defendant’s Second, Third and Fourth Affirmative Defenses: PARTIES 1. The Trustee is a citizen of the State of Illinois. He was appointed and the Trust was created pursuant to the Chapter 11 plan confirmed by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois in World Marketing’s bankruptcy case (the “Plan”). 1 Pursuant to the Plan, all claims and causes of action belonging to World Marketing Chicago, LLC, World Marketing Atlanta, LLC, and World Marketing Dallas, LLC (collectively, “World Marketing”), including legal malpractice claims against Defendant, vested in the Trust, which the Plan created 1 See In re World Marketing Chicago, LLC, No. 15-32968 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. Sept. 28, 2015). Case: 1:17-cv-06978 Document #: 110 Filed: 06/10/19 Page 1 of 16 PageID #:1665 for the benefit of World Marketing’s creditors. The Plan also vested the Trustee with authority to prosecute those claims and causes of action on the Trust’s behalf. ANSWER: Admit. 2. Defendant Crane, Heyman, Simon, Welch & Clar (“Defendant”) is an Illinois law firm with its principal place of business and sole location at 135 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 3705, Chicago, Illinois 60603. ANSWER: The law firm is now called Crane, Simon, Clar & Dan. Otherwise, Paragraph 2 is admitted. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 3. The Court has original subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334(b) because it relates to World Marketing’s bankruptcy case. Any recovery augments the Trust and therefore affects the amount of property available for distribution among World Marketing’s creditors. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Paragraph 3 as it calls for a legal argument and conclusion, which is improper for a Rule 56.1 statement. See Malec v. Sanford, 191 F.R.D. 581, 585 (N.D. Ill. 2000)(stating in addition that "the purpose of the 56.1 statement is to identify for the Court the evidence supporting a party's factual assertions in an organized manner: it is not intended as a forum for factual or legal argument.”) 4. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because its principal place of business is in Illinois. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Paragraph 4 as it calls for a legal argument and conclusion, which is improper for a Rule 56.1 statement. Defendant admits that its principal place of business is in Illinois. Case: 1:17-cv-06978 Document #: 110 Filed: 06/10/19 Page 2 of 16 PageID #:1666 5. Venue is proper before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1409(a) because this case is related to World Marketing’s bankruptcy case, which is pending in this district. Venue is also proper before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a substantial part of the acts and omissions giving rise to the Trustee’s claims occurred in this district. ANSWER: Defendant objects to Paragraph 5 as it calls for a legal argument and conclusion, which is improper for a Rule 56.1 statement. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS A. World Marketing Retains Defendant to Help Prepare for Bankruptcy. 1. On September 10, 2015, Associated Bank swept World Marketing’s bank accounts, leaving it desperately short of funds to support its continued survival. See App. at 1-6; App. at 26. ANSWER: Admit. 2. On September 15, Donald Allen—an attorney with the Milwaukee law firm, Mawicke & Goisman, and counsel to World Marketing Holdings, LLC—contacted Defendant’s Jeffrey Dan to gauge his interest in serving as bankruptcy counsel for the World Marketing entities. See App. at 7 & Sept. 15, 2015 Voicemail from D. Allen to J. Dan (available on CD to be filed with Court). ANSWER: Admit. 3. On September 17, 2015, Mr. Allen emailed Mr. Dan and stated: “Please keep track of your time relative to World Marketing, invoicing me at M&G.” App. at 19. Mr. Dan kept track of his time pursuant to Mr. Allen’s instructions. Mr. Dan’s invoices show that he performed legal services for World Marketing from September 16, 2015 to September 25, 2016. See App. at 8-15. ANSWER: Admit first sentence. Admit Mr. Dan kept track of time, but Mr. Dan did not invoice M&G. Case: 1:17-cv-06978 Document #: 110 Filed: 06/10/19 Page 3 of 16 PageID #:1667 4. According to Mr. Dan’s invoices, on or around September 16, 2015, Defendant began assisting World Marketing in preparing for the possible filing of Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions. See App. at 8 (listing “.3” for “Don Allen re: strategy re: four companies filing + timing issues”). This is confirmed by email correspondence between Mr. Allen and Mr. Dan. See, e.g., App. at 16 (discussing bankruptcy issues); App. at 28 (“I have spoken to Don [Allen] and he has informed me that you want to gear up to file the 11 if that becomes necessary.”). ANSWER: Admit with a clarification that the email identified in Paragraph 4 (from Mr. Dan stating, “I have spoken to Don [Allen] and he has informed me that you want to gear up to file the 11 if that becomes necessary.”) was sent on September 22, 2015. Paragraph 4 implies that this email was sent on September 16, 2015. 5. Between September 18 and September 22, 2015, World Marketing continued to try to secure additional funding to avoid bankruptcy. See App. at 22 (“I have spoke[n] to Don and he has updated me on the situation and the potential for an investment . . . .”); App. at 27 & Sept. 22, 2015 Voicemail from D. Allen to J. Dan (available on CD to be filed with Court). ANSWER: Admit. 6. But no later than September 22 or 23, 2015, World Marketing decided to file for bankruptcy. See App. at 35 (“We do need to move forward with the filing.”); App. at 34 (“I assume the balances will have to be updated at the actual time of filing?”); see also App. at 27 & Sept. 22, 2015 Voicemail from D. Allen to J. Dan (available on CD to be filed with Court); App. at 28. ANSWER: Deny. WM had not decided to file for bankruptcy as of September 22 or 23, 2015. All discussions pre-September 25, 2015 were preliminary and bankruptcy was a last resort, and documents were only being prepared if refinancing and additional funding efforts were unsuccessful. See Deft. UF 5 (Email from Jeff Dan to John Widmer on September 22, Case: 1:17-cv-06978 Document #: 110 Filed: 06/10/19 Page 4 of 16 PageID #:1668 2015 at 3:08PM, “I have spoken to Don and he has informed me that you want to gear up to file the 11 if that becomes necessary.”). WM decided to file for bankruptcy no earlier than September 25, 2015. See Deft. UF 6. 7. In furtherance of this plan, on September 25, 2015, Mr. Dan asked World Marketing to pay Defendant’s retainer, sign Defendant’s engagement letters, and sign the resolutions authorizing Defendant’s retention and the filing of the bankruptcy petitions. See App. at 37; see also App. at 72-97 (executed version). ANSWER: Defendant admits that on September 25, 2015, Mr. Dan asked World Marketing to pay Defendant’s retainer, sign Defendant’s engagement letters, and sign the resolutions authorizing Defendant’s retention and the filing of the bankruptcy petitions. To the extent Paragraph 7 implies that the “plan” to file bankruptcy was determined “no later than September 22 or 23, 2015,” Defendant denies this allegation for the reasons set for in Defendant’s Response to Paragraph 6. 8. No later than September 25, 2015, World Marketing also began identifying the employees it would retain after filing for bankruptcy, and correspondingly, the employees it would terminate. See App. at 49-52 (attaching first draft of post-petition budget, which lists small number of employees to be retained after filing); App. at 58-60 (draft statement for employees to be terminated). ANSWER: Admit. 9. On September 25, 2015, Joshua Morby, a public relations consultant, sought Mr. Dan’s input on the contents of a message to be given to World Marketing employees when they were terminated. See App. at 53-54; see also App. at 52 (“As John and I discussed on the phone Case: 1:17-cv-06978 Document #: 110 Filed: 06/10/19 Page 5 of 16 PageID #:1669 the plan is to have a discussion with our law firm doing the filing for clarification on some of those items to develop that memo.”). ANSWER: Deny. Joshua Morby did not seek Mr. Dan’s input. Rather, John Widmer, Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of FirstPathway Partners, another Robert W. Kraft entity, forwarded the message to Mr. Dan. See Pltf. App. 53-54. 10. Mr. Dan responded: “I am fine with this.” See App. at 56. But he later counseled Mr. Morby to avoid comments that would suggest that World Marketing was liquidating since the companies were filing for Chapter 11 relief. See App. at 57; App. at 61. ANSWER: Deny. This summary mischaracterizes the comments from Mr. Dan. Mr. Dan responded to Mr. Morby, among others: “Actually we need a change in paragraph one. You are not filing petitions for Liquidation. Just say World Marketing is filing petitions under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy code. or a chapter 11 bankruptcy. We are not filing it as a liquidation. It is just a chapter 11 petition for now and we will decide later if it is a liquidation.” Pltf. App. at 57. Mr. Dan also advised: “These still say liquidation. Cannot say that. Please take out liquidation. Also now that I read it again, we should say may be the end of the company not likely will be. Also we are unsure if a sale will take place not unlikely. Also can say we are shutting the doors for now. This leaves open the possibility of a sale.” Pltf. App. at 61. 11. During preparations for bankruptcy, Mr. Dan learned that each World Marketing entity had more than 100 employees, and that each World Marketing entity would terminate more than 50 employees. See App. 49-52 (attaching first draft of post-petition budget, which lists small number of employees to be retained after filing); App. at 62, 65 (attaching number of employees employed by each World Marketing entity); see also App. 66-69 (attaching final list Case: 1:17-cv-06978 Document #: 110 Filed: 06/10/19 Page 6 of 16 PageID #:1670 of employees to be retained post-petition); App. at 162 (listing total number of pre-petition employees at request of Mr. Dan as part of investigation of WARN lawsuit). ANSWER: Admit with the clarification that Mr. Dan learned that each World Marketing entity had more than 100 employees no earlier than Saturday, September 26, 2015. Pltf. App. at 62. 12. Defendant admits that by September 28, 2015, Defendant knew that each World Marketing entity had 100 or more employees and planned to lay off at least 50 employees. See App. at 489 (Def.’s Resp. to Trustee’s Request for Admissions Nos. 15-16). ANSWER: Admit. B. Defendant Fails to Advise World Marketing of Its Duties Under the WARN Act or the Risks of Violating Those Duties. World Marketing Proceeds to File for Bankruptcy and to Terminate Hundreds of Employees Without Serving a WARN Notice under 29 U.S.C. § 2102. 13. There was a flurry of activity on the morning of September 28, 2015, the planned date for each World Marketing entity to file for Chapter 11 protection: The list of employees to be terminated was finalized on the morning of September 28, 2015, when World Marketing’s President, Tyrone Jeffcoat, emailed Mr. Dan and others a revised roster for the “skeleton crews” that would be employed by World Marketing the entities they filed for bankruptcy. See App. at 66-69. Mr. Jeffcoat also emailed Mr. Dan and others a “Proposed Communication Plan” explaining that World Marketing intended to announce the layoffs contemporaneously with the filing of World Marketing’s bankruptcy petitions. See App. at 70-71. World Marketing signed Defendant’s engagement letters, took official board action to authorize Defendant’s retention, and to authorize the bankruptcy filings. See App. at 72-97; see also App. at 488-89 (Def.’s Resp. to Trustee’s Request for Admissions Nos. 7-14). ANSWER: Admit. 14. Mr. Dan and/or Defendant filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions for each of the World Marketing entities on September 28, 2015 beginning around 3 p.m. See App. at 98-103. Case: 1:17-cv-06978 Document #: 110 Filed: 06/10/19 Page 7 of 16 PageID #:1671 The third and final bankruptcy petition was filed on September 28, 2015 at 3:42 p.m. See App. at 102. ANSWER: Admit. 15. On September 28, 2015, at 3:45 p.m., Mr. Jeffcoat sent an email to every World Marketing employee with a World Marketing email address, which announced, among other things, that World Marketing had filed for bankruptcy, was “shutting down operations,” and would only retain a “small number” of employees. See App. at 104. Mr. Jeffcoat attached an “FAQ” sheet to this email with additional information, including salary and benefits information. See App. at 105; see also App. at 128-34 (emails showing Mr. Dan’s investigation of what notice was given to employees after Defendant learned of the WARN lawsuit). ANSWER: Admit. 16. Some World Marketing employees did not have a company email address. See App. at 132 (“The emails went out to folks with email.”). For these employees, designated leaders presented the information contained in Mr. Jeffcoat’s email and handed out paper copies of the FAQ sheet. See id.; see also App. at 492 (Def.’s Resp. to Trustee’s Request for Admissions No. 31). ANSWER: Admit. 17. Prior to September 28, 2015, each World Marketing entity employed 100 or more employees. See App. at 62, 65; App. at 162. On or around the same date, each World Marketing entity terminated 50 or more employees. See App. at 50-52; App. at 68-69. ANSWER: Admit. 18. Defendant never advised World Marketing to serve a written notice under 29 U.S.C. § 2102 (“WARN Notice”) to its employees prior to the layoffs that occurred on or Case: 1:17-cv-06978 Document #: 110 Filed: 06/10/19 Page 8 of 16 PageID #:1672 around September 28, 2015. See App. at 496-98 (Def.’s Resp. to Trustee’s First Set of Interrogatories Nos. 1-3). 2 ANSWER: Admit. 19. Defendant did not have any conversations with World Marketing regarding the WARN Act between September 29, 2015 and October 18, 2015. See App. at 498-99 (Def.’s Resp. to Trustee’s First Set of Interrogatories No. 6). ANSWER: Admit. 20. World Marketing failed to serve a WARN Notice on employees on or before September 28, 2015. Compare App. at 104-05, with App. at 129 (“We did not follow WARN . . . .”), and 20 C.F.R. §§ 639.7(d), 639.9 (setting forth “brief statement” requirement); see also App. at 492 (Def.’s Resp. to Trustee’s Request for Admissions Nos. 34-36) (admitting that September 28, 2015 communications did not fulfill WARN Act requirements); App. at 500 (Def.’s Resp. to Trustee’s First Set of Interrogatories No. 8 (identifying only the November 23, 2015 notice as satisfying WARN Act requirements)). ANSWER: Defendant objects to Paragraph 20 as it calls for a legal argument and conclusion, which is improper for a Rule 56.1 statement. Whether a notice compliant with the WARN Act was provided to terminated employees is a matter of legal interpretation. As argued in Defendant’s response to Plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment, the communications provided by WM to employees did satisfy the WARN Act requirements. Nevertheless, answering further, Trustee denies Trustee’s characterization of CH’s Requests to Admit Nos. 34-36. Trustee mischaracterizes CH’s Requests to Admit Nos. 34- 2 Defendant contends that, prior to September 28, 2015, World Marketing instructed that Defendant “had been informed by another attorney that the WARN Act did not apply and that Jeffrey Dan did not need to worry about it because Jeffcoat and others through other counsel had already determined that the WARN Act did not apply.” See App. at 496 (Def.’s Resp. to Trustee’s First Set of Interrogatories No. 1). But it is undisputed that Defendant did not advise World Marketing to issue a WARN Notice. Case: 1:17-cv-06978 Document #: 110 Filed: 06/10/19 Page 9 of 16 PageID #:1673 36. CH never admitted in Requests Nos. 34-36 that the September 28, 2015 communications did not fulfill WARN Act requirements. See App. at 492. Additionally, simultaneous with CH’s response to Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment, CH is issuing amended discovery responses to Interrogatory No. 8 indicating that a notice adequate under the WARN Act was communicated to employees on September 28, 2015. 21. World Marketing also failed to serve a WARN Notice on the relevant state unemployment officials on or before September 28, 2015. See 29 C.F.R. § 639.7(e). ANSWER: Admit. C. Defendant Assists World Marketing in Continued Operations as a Going Concern. 22. On September 30, 2015, Mr. Dan emailed Mr. Jeffcoat and Kevin Seiberlich (a court-appointed financial advisor) and others regarding the potential for a going concern sale. See App. at 106. Mr. Dan encouraged Mr. Seiberlich to attempt to obtain a going-concern offer for World Marketing and stated that obtaining such an offer would be a “big plus.” See id. ANSWER: Admit. 23. On October 5, 2015, Mr. Seiberlich asked Mr. Dan if he could “send [Seiberlich] an NDA to use for going concern buyers.” See App. at 107. Mr. Seiberlich wrote that he had several parties that were interested and sought advice on how to make sure any going concern sale would be approved by the Bankruptcy Court. See id. ANSWER: Admit. 24. World Marketing received one or more offers to purchase the assets of one or more of the World Marketing entities on a going-concern basis. See App. at 138-39, ¶¶ 11-15. Case: 1:17-cv-06978 Document #: 110 Filed: 06/10/19 Page 10 of 16 PageID #:1674 ANSWER: Deny. The evidence indicates that World Marketing received only one offer to purchase the assets of one or more of the World Marketing entities on a going- concern basis. Pltf. App. at 138-139. 25. On October 15, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court appointed the Unsecured Creditors Committee (“UCC”). See App. at 108-10. The same day, Sugar, Felsenthal, Grais & Helsinger (formerly known as Sugar, Felsenthal, Grais & Hammer) (“Sugar Felsenthal”), and Sugar Felsenthal attorneys Aaron Hammer, Mark Melickian, and Michael Brandess, filed appearances as counsel for the UCC. See Notices of Appearance, In re World Mktg. Chi., LLC, No. 15-32968 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. filed Oct. 15, 2015), ECF Nos. 32-33, 35. ANSWER: Admit. D. Former World Marketing Employees File a Putative Class Action Complaint Alleging Violations of the WARN Act. Sugar Felsenthal Assists Defendant in Drafting a Late WARN Notice. 26. On October 21, 2015, a putative class of former World Marketing employees sued World Marketing for failing to timely serve a WARN Notice (“WARN Claim”). See App. at 11223. ANSWER: Admit. 27. After the WARN Claim was filed, Sugar Felsenthal agreed to assist Defendant in drafting a compliant WARN Notice. See App. 124. Sugar Felsenthal provided a draft to Defendant, but Defendant did nothing with it for ten days. See App. 154, 160-61, 163. ANSWER: Deny. After the WARN Claim was filed, on October 23, 2015, Sugar Felsenthal emailed CH attorneys stating it was “going to draft a WARN notice to send to employees for circulation.” See Pltf. App. 124. Sugar Felsenthal insisted upon preparing language of an after-the-fact WARN notice, but delayed its preparing for nearly a month. See Pltf. App. 124, 154, 163, 165, 167. Case: 1:17-cv-06978 Document #: 110 Filed: 06/10/19 Page 11 of 16 PageID #:1675 28. Finally, Sugar Felsenthal reminded Defendant of the issue, and Defendant asked for another draft. See App. 163-69. Mr. Dan asked a World Marketing employee to serve the notice to former employees on World Marketing letterhead. See App. 170. Mr. Dan approved the final form of the notice on November 24, 2015. See App. 176. ANSWER: Deny. Despite insisting upon drafting the WARN notice, Sugar Felsenthal delayed for nearly a month in providing the WARN Notice it said it would draft to send to employees for circulation. Pltf. App. 124, 154, 163, 165, 167. Mr. Dan promptly reviewed and emailed World Marketing employees Sandra Knodl, Mr. Jeffcoat and Mendy Ishibashi the WARN Notice to World Marketing for circulation. Pltf. App. 170. 29. On or around November 24, 2015, World Marketing sent the purported WARN Notice to its former employees. See App. at 173-75; see also App. at 487 (Def.’s Resp. to Trustee’s Request for Admissions No. 4 (admitting that letter copied at App. at 173-75 is “identical” to the letters sent to other employees)); App. at 500 (Def.’s Resp. to Trustee’s First Set of Interrogatories No. 8 (identifying only the November 23, 2015 notice as satisfying WARN Act requirements)). ANSWER: Deny. World Marketing sent the WARN Notice drafted by Sugar Felsenthal to former employees on November 23, 2015, not November 24, 2015. Pltf. App. 173-75; 487; 500. 30. In late 2015, World Marketing and the UCC struck a deal with the WARN plaintiffs whereby the WARN plaintiffs would dismiss their adversary proceeding and, instead, pursue the WARN Claim through the bankruptcy claims process. See App. at 194; App. at 195- 203; App. at 204-13. Pursuant to this agreement, on February 10, 2016, the WARN plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the WARN Lawsuit and re-filed their claim as a class proof of claim in the main bankruptcy case. See App. at 214-16; App. at 217-26. Case: 1:17-cv-06978 Document #: 110 Filed: 06/10/19 Page 12 of 16 PageID #:1676 ANSWER: Admit. E. The Trustee Is Appointed and Defends Against the WARN Plaintiffs’ Claim by Asserting the Liquidating Fiduciary Exception. The Bankruptcy Court Rejects the Defense. 31. The UCC proposed its Third Amended Plan of Liquidation on May 9, 2016. See App. at 227-62. ANSWER: Admit. 32. The Bankruptcy Court confirmed that plan (the “Plan”) on July 1, 2016. See App. at 263-65. Under the Plan, the Trustee was appointed to manage the liquidating trust assets and obligations, which included defending against the WARN Claim. See App. at 292, ¶ 7.10; App. at 310, ¶ 3.4(k). The Plan became effective on July 18, 2016. See App. at 339-40. ANSWER: Admit. 33. On July 25, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court approved the Trustee’s retention of Sugar Felsenthal as counsel. See Notices of Appearance, In re World Mktg. Chi., LLC, No. 15-32968 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. filed July 25, 2016), ECF Nos. 665-68. ANSWER: Admit. 34. On August 17, 2016, the WARN plaintiffs filed an Application Seeking Allowance of and Payment for an Administrative Class Claim for WARN Act Damages. See App. at 341-54. ANSWER: Admit. 35. On October 4, 2016, the Trustee filed a written objection to the WARN plaintiffs’ application based in part on the availability of the liquidating fiduciary exception. See App. 358- 61. ANSWER: Deny. The Trustee’s written objection to the WARN plaintiffs’ application was based solely, not “in part,” on the availability of the liquidating fiduciary Case: 1:17-cv-06978 Document #: 110 Filed: 06/10/19 Page 13 of 16 PageID #:1677 exception. Pltf. App. at 358-61. In its written objection, the Trustee purported to “reserve the right to raise additional defenses to liability.” This purported reservation of rights was later rejected by the bankruptcy court. In re World Marketing Chicago, LLC, 564 B.R. 587, 603 n.4 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2017); Deft. UF 27. 36. On November 30, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing regarding the WARN plaintiffs’ application. See App. at 364-412. During the November 30, 2016 hearing, Sugar Felsenthal—in its role as the Trustee’s counsel—argued that the liquidating fiduciary exception applied to excuse World Marketing from obligations imposed by the WARN Act. See, e.g., App. at 376-77. ANSWER: Admit. 37. On February 15, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court entered an oral ruling granting the WARN plaintiffs’ claim. See App. 415 (noting that “court delivered its ruling orally on February 15, 2017”). On February 24, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court issued a written opinion granting the WARN plaintiffs’ claim. See App. at 413-26; see also In re World Mktg. Chi., LLC, 564 B.R. 587, 602-03 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. 2017) (Barnes, J.) (published version). ANSWER: Admit. 38. The Trustee appealed the Bankruptcy Court’s decision. See App. at 427-43. ANSWER: Admit. 39. On October 27, 2017, the Trustee and WARN plaintiffs filed a joint motion to approve their settlement of the WARN plaintiffs’ claim. See Joint Mot. Approve Settlement, In re World Mktg. Chi., LLC, No. 15-32968 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. filed Oct. 27, 2017), ECF No. 890 (filed under seal). Case: 1:17-cv-06978 Document #: 110 Filed: 06/10/19 Page 14 of 16 PageID #:1678 ANSWER: Trustee and WARN plaintiffs’ joint motion to approve their settlement was filed on October 25, 2017, not October 27, 2017. In re World Mktg. Chi., LLC, No. 15- 32968 (Bankr. N.D. Ill. filed Oct. 27, 2017), ECF No. 885. 40. On November 15, 2017, the Bankruptcy Court granted preliminary approval to the settlement agreement on November 15, 2017. See App. at 444-70. ANSWER: Admit. 41. On February 28, 2018, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order giving final approval to the settlement of the WARN Claim. See App. at 471-83. ANSWER: Admit. Joseph R. Marconi, ARDC #01760173 Ramses Jalapour, ARDC #6313128 LeighAnn M. Thomas, ARDC #6327687 Johnson & Bell, Ltd. 33 West Monroe Street, Suite 2700 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Tel: 312-372-0770 marconij@jbltd.com jalapourr@jbltd.com thomasl@jbltd.com Respectfully submitted, CRANE, HEYMAN, SIMON, WELCH & CLAR By: __/s/ Joseph R. Marconi One of Its Attorneys Case: 1:17-cv-06978 Document #: 110 Filed: 06/10/19 Page 15 of 16 PageID #:1679 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on June 10, 2019, I served a copy of the foregoing on the following individuals by email: Eric D. Madden (admitted pro hac vice) Brandon V. Lewis (admitted pro hac vice) D. Benjamin Thomas (admitted pro hac vice) Reid Collins & Tsai LLP 1601 Elm Street, Suite 4250 Dallas, Texas 75201 Telephone: 214.420.8900 Facsimile: 214.420.8909 emadden@rctlegal.com blewis@rctlegal.com bthomas@rctlegal.com -and- Michael Brandess (6299158) Sugar Felsenthal Grais & Helsinger LLP 30 N. LaSalle St., Ste. 3000 Chicago, Illinois 60602 Telephone: 312.704.9400 Facsimile: 312.372.7951 mbrandess@SFGH.com Counsel for Plaintiff Norman B. Newman, solely as Liquidating Trustee of the World Marketing Liquidating Trust _/s/ Tula Kotsiovos __________________ Case: 1:17-cv-06978 Document #: 110 Filed: 06/10/19 Page 16 of 16 PageID #:1680