Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Mar-Bow Value Partners, LLC v. Mckinsey Recovery & Transformation Services U.S. LLC

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division

September 30, 2017

MAR-BOW VALUE PARTNERS, LLC, Appellant,
v.
MCKINSEY RECOVERY & TRANSFORMATION SERVICES US, LLC, Appellee.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          M. HANNAH LAUCK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This matter comes before the Court on Appellant Mar-Bow Value Partners, LLC's ("Mar-Bow") appeal from several orders[1] of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (the "Bankruptcy Court"), and Appellee McKinsey Recovery & Transformation Services US, LLC's ("McKinsey") Motion to Dismiss Appeal of Mar-Bow Value Partners, LLC for Lack of Standing (the "Motion to Dismiss"), (ECF No. 36). Mar-Bow and McKinsey have filed their respective appellate briefs.[2] (ECF Nos. 45, 49, 51.) Mar-Bow replied to the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 42), and McKinsey replied, (ECF No. 48). The Court dispenses with oral argument because the materials before it adequately present the facts and legal contentions, and argument would not aid the decisional process. Accordingly, the matters are ripe for disposition. The Court exercises jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1).[3] For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss and dismiss Mar-Bow's appeal.

         I. Standard of Review

         "When reviewing a decision of the bankruptcy court, a district court functions as an appellate court and applies the standards of review generally applied in federal courts of appeal." Paramount Home Entm't Inc. v. Circuit City Stores, Inc., 445 B.R. 521, 526-27 (E.D. Va. 2010) (citing In re Webb, 954 F.2d 1102, 1103-04 (5th Cir. 1992)). The district court reviews the bankruptcy court's legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. In re Harford Sands Inc., 372 F.3d 637, 639 (4th Cir. 2004). A finding of fact is clearly erroneous if a court reviewing it, considering all of the evidence, "is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 573 (1985); accord In re Mosko, 515 F.3d 319, 324 (4th Cir. 2008). In cases where the issues present mixed questions of law and fact, the Court will apply the clearly erroneous standard to the factual portion of the inquiry and de novo review to the legal conclusions derived from those facts. Gilbane Bldg. Co. v. Fed. Reserve Bank of Richmond, 80 F.3d 895, 905 (4th Cir. 1996).

         II. Factual Background [4]

         Although this appeal arises in the context of a chapter 11 bankruptcy, [5] the dispute before the Court has little to do with the bankruptcy itself. The conflict before the Court is between McKinsey, a professional firm employed by ANR and many of its subsidiaries, the debtors in the underlying bankruptcy action (collectively, the "Debtors"), and Mar-Bow, an unsecured creditor of the Debtors. From the time Mar-Bow first appeared in the bankruptcy action, it objected strenuously and continually to the sufficiency of disclosures that the Bankruptcy Rules require McKinsey, employed to assist with the Debtors' reorganization in this bankruptcy action, to make.[6] Each appeal before the Court attempts to revisit that same issue: whether McKinsey fully complied with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2014.[7]

         A. The Parties Relevant to the Instant Appeals

         The Debtors-Alpha Natural Resources and many of its subsidiaries-are one of the largest coal suppliers in the United States. The Debtors filed for chapter 11 protection in August 2015 in part because of a drastic downturn in the coal industry.

         McKinsey Recovery and Transformation Services ("McKinsey") "is a global, full service restructuring advisory and crisis management firm that... support[s] companies through all aspects of recovery and transformation." (First Carmody Decl. 3, App. 3.) Essentially, McKinsey advises struggling businesses on how to improve their profitability, and helps businesses implement the changes it suggests. McKinsey has experience providing chapter 11 advisory services, and in helping struggling businesses increase their profitability.

         Mar-Bow, as relevant to the bankruptcy action, is an unsecured creditor of the Debtors. On March 23, 2016, almost nine months after the Debtors began their chapter 11 reorganization, Mar-Bow filed a proof of claim[8] in the amount of $1, 250, 000.00.[9] The record lacks clarity about the precise nature of Mar-Bow's business, but Mar-Bow is "beneficially owned and funded by" Jay Alix, the founder of the firm "AlixPartners." (Alix Decl. 1, Mar-Bow Mot. Compel Ex. A, Supp. 1551.) AlixPartners is a consulting firm that competes with McKinsey in the turnaround consulting business.

         B. Background of the Underlying Bankruptcy Case

         On August 3, 2015, the Debtors began the bankruptcy proceedings by filing voluntary petitions for relief under chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, which allows for reorganization-rather than liquidation-of a bankruptcy estate. The Bankruptcy Court consolidated all the petitions for procedural purposes only, meaning that one chapter 11 bankruptcy action was pending.

         Three weeks later, on August 24, 2015, the Debtors filed an application in the Bankruptcy Court requesting permission to employ McKinsey as a turnaround advisor for the pendency of the bankruptcy case (the "Retention Application").[10] The Debtors sought to retain McKinsey "as their turnaround advisor... to assist the Debtors with the development and refinement of their strategic business plan." (Retention Appl. 2-3, App. 2-3.) On September 17, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Retention Application and authorized the Debtors to retain McKinsey as turnaround advisor.

         On March 23, 2016, more than six months after McKinsey's employment had been approved, Mar-Bow filed its proof of claim against ANR, entering the bankruptcy proceeding. On May 1, 2016, Mar-Bow filed its first notice of appearance in the bankruptcy proceeding. Since entering the bankruptcy proceeding, Mar-Bow has raised the issue of McKinsey's Rule 2014 disclosures to the Bankruptcy Court formally at least five times.[11] The Court does not see-and neither party identifies-any other action by Mar-Bow in the Bankruptcy Court.

         On July 12, 2016, five days after a lengthy evidentiary hearing on the matter, the Bankruptcy Court entered a written order confirming the Debtors' Reorganization Plan.[12] The Reorganization Plan became effective on July 26, 2016. Additional proceedings have taken place in the Bankruptcy Court since then, and Mar-Bow has continued to object to McKinsey's Rule 2014 disclosures.

         C. McKinsey's Employment as Turnaround Advisor for the Debtors

         On August 24, 2015, three weeks after filing for bankruptcy, the Debtors filed the Retention Application in the Bankruptcy Court requesting permission to employ McKinsey as a turnaround advisor for the pendency of the bankruptcy case. The Debtors sought to retain McKinsey "as their turnaround advisor... to assist the Debtors with the development and refinement of their strategic business plan." (Retention Appl. 2-3, App. 2-3.)

         In accordance with Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2014(a), [13] the Debtors attached to the Retention Application a copy of the "Amended and Restated Agreement" Letter, (the "Engagement Letter") which detailed the proposed terms of McKinsey's employment as turnaround advisor for the Debtors, and the proposed fee arrangement. As turnaround advisor, McKinsey's role was to help the Debtors save money and become more profitable, which would in turn increase the bankruptcy estate and result in maximum recovery for the Debtors' creditors.[14] The Debtors requested that McKinsey's employment be approved as of August 3, 2015, the date the Debtors filed for bankruptcy, because McKinsey had been working with the Debtors since June 29, 2015, before the Debtors filed for bankruptcy.

         As a term of McKinsey's employment, the Debtors agreed to indemnify McKinsey for a broad array of potential liabilities arising out of McKinsey's employment as turnaround advisor. McKinsey would not be indemnified, however, from liabilities resulting from its own "willful misconduct or gross negligence."[15] (Engagement Letter 6, App. 24.)

         The Retention Application was unopposed, and on September 17, 2015, the Bankruptcy Court granted the Retention Application, approved the terms of the Engagement Letter, and authorized the Debtors "to employ and retain [McKinsey] as turnaround advisor." (Retention O. 1-6, Supp. 86-91.) These events all occurred six months before Mar-Bow first appeared in the bankruptcy case.

         D. McKinsey's Rule 2014 Disclosures

         Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2014(a) requires that any application for the employment of professionals

be accompanied by a verified statement of the person to be employed setting forth the person's connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States trustee.

Fed. R. Bankr. P. 2014(a). On its own and in response to motions, McKinsey filed multiple declarations pursuant to Rule 2014. Mar-Bow objected repeatedly to these disclosures, even as they became increasingly more specific and detailed. Mar-Bow, it seems, especially objected- and continues to object-to the aspect of McKinsey's disclosures that the Bankruptcy Court reviewed only in camera. Mar-Bow seeks to place these disclosures on the public record. A summary of McKinsey's Rule 2014 disclosures follows.

         1. McKinsey's First Set of Rule 2014 Disclosures

         Pursuant to Rule 2014, the Debtors attached to the Retention Application the "Declaration of Kevin Carmody" (the "First Carmody Declaration"), which included a "Disclosure Regarding [McKinsey's] Disinterestedness." (First Carmody Decl. 10-18, App. 39-47.) In the Disclosure Regarding Disinterestedness, Carmody explained the process McKinsey used[16] to identify any connections it had with the Debtors, the United States Trustee and the Bankruptcy Court, and parties "identified on the interested parties list, " (the "Interested Parties"). (Id. at 10-18, App. 39-47.) The First Carmody Declaration also outlined McKinsey's connections with the Interested Parties.

         The First Carmody Declaration disclosed McKinsey's connections by category, number of connections, and general nature of work performed for the connection, rather than identifying connections with the interested parties by name. For example, McKinsey disclosed that a member of its team "attended a proposal meeting and submitted a proposal to a Major Competitor that was not accepted." (Id. at 12, App. 41 (emphasis added).) McKinsey also reported specific connections with "one Major Unsecured Noteholder, one Lender Under A/R Facility, three Major Customers, one Revolving Facility Lender, one Other Major Supplier of Goods and Services, one Party to Material Unexpired Leases, and one Party to Joint Ventures, " among numerous other categories and connections. (Id.) McKinsey's initial disclosure of its connection with Interested Parties by category became a source of controversy in Mar-Bow's subsequent objections to McKinsey's Rule 2014 disclosures.

         The Bankruptcy Court reviewed the First Carmody Declaration before entering the Retention Order approving McKinsey's employment as turnaround advisor. On September 17, 2015, after its review, the Bankruptcy Court found that McKinsey qualified as "a 'disinterested person' as such term is defined under section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code."[17] (Retention 0.2, Supplemental Appendix ("Supp.") 87.)

         2. McKinsey's Subsequent Rule 2014 Disclosures

         McKinsey filed two supplemental Rule 2014 Disclosures, even before any objections had been lodged to its initial disclosures. On November 9, 2015, and March 25, 2016, McKinsey filed Supplemental Declarations of Kevin Carmody (respectively, the "Second Carmody Declaration" and the "Third Carmody Declaration"). Each declaration was "in support of the Retention Application, and intended to "provide certain additional information." (Second Carmody Decl. 2, App. 67; Third Carmody Decl. 1-2, Supp. 1289-90.) In each declaration, Carmody swore that McKinsey "continues to monitor the list of parties on the Interested Parties List against its own client records." (Second Carmody Decl. 3, App. 68; Third Carmody Decl. 2, Supp. 1290.) Carmody also disclosed additional connections-again by category, number, and general nature of the work McKinsey completed for the connection.

         E. The Rule 2014 Objections

         As discussed earlier, and most relevant to Mar-Bow's objections to McKinsey's Rule 2014 disclosures, Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 2014(a) requires that a professional seeking employment in a bankruptcy proceeding file "a verified statement of the person to be employed setting forth the person's connections with the debtor, creditors, any other party in interest, their respective attorneys and accountants, the United States trustee, or any person employed in the office of the United States trustee." Fed.R.Bankr.P. 2014(a). Rule 2014 contains no definition of "connections, " nor does it explain further the level of detail required in a professional's Rule 2014 disclosures.

         1. The U.S. Trustee's Rule 2014 Objection: The U.S. Trustee's Motion to Compel

         The Bankruptcy Court first heard an objection to McKinsey's Rule 2014 disclosures when the United States Trustee (the "U.S. Trustee")[18] filed a motion to compel McKinsey to comply with Rule 2014[19] (the "U.S. Trustee Motion to Compel"). The U.S. Trustee filed its Motion to Compel on May 3, 2016, nine months after the bankruptcy proceeding began and two days after Mar-Bow first appeared in the proceeding.[20] In its Motion to Compel, the U.S. Trustee asserted that McKinsey's Rule 2014 disclosures failed to comply with Bankruptcy Rules. Specifically, McKinsey's "declarations disclosed only vague and amorphous connections to creditors and other major parties in interest, " and "neither identified these connections by name nor provided any insight into the nature of the connections." (U.S. Trustee Mot. Compel 1-2, App. 75-76.) The U.S. Trustee asked the Bankruptcy Court to compel McKinsey to file additional disclosures, including

a supplemental declaration stating, at a minimum, (a) the identity of the entities on the Interested Parties List . . . with which McKinsey RTS and any of its affiliates have a connection . . . and (b) a general description of the connection with or work performed for these entities.

(Id. at 2, App. 76.)

         The U.S. Trustee expressed concern that McKinsey's "failure to provide complete disclosures may also cast a cloud over the Debtors' restructuring strategy." (Id. at 11, App. 85.) Because McKinsey had assisted the Debtors in negotiating the terms of a financing agreement and the overall restructuring strategy, the U.S. Trustee argued that the Bankruptcy Court "should order McKinsey to supplement its disclosures so that all interested parties can meaningfully consider whether the Proposed Plan Transactions may be tainted by divided loyalties." (Id. at 12, App. 86.) Apparently anticipating that McKinsey might cite confidentiality concerns as a reason for limiting its disclosures, the U.S. Trustee asserted that "McKinsey's private contractual agreements do not and cannot supersede the ethics and disclosure requirements of the Bankruptcy Code and Rules." (Id. at 13, App. 87.)

         On May 19, 2016, sixteen days later, the U.S. Trustee submitted a "Stipulation Resolving Motion of the [U.S. Trustee Motion to Compel]" (the "U.S. Trustee Stipulation"). The U.S. Trustee Stipulation stated that U.S. Trustee and McKinsey had engaged in "extensive discussions" to resolve the U.S. Trustee's concerns regarding McKinsey's Rule 2014 disclosures. (U.S. Trustee Stip. 2, Supp. 1296.) After these discussions, McKinsey had agreed to file an additional declaration disclosing more information about its connections with Interested Parties.

         The same day, pursuant to the U.S. Trustee Stipulation, McKinsey filed a third Supplemental Declaration of Kevin Carmody (the "Fourth Carmody Declaration"). The Fourth Carmody Declaration included more detailed information about McKinsey's connection to the Interested Parties. It also disclosed the names of various Interested Parties that McKinsey had "served" in the past two years. Carmody swore that McKinsey had only served those clients "on matters unrelated to the Debtors and their chapter 11 cases." (Fourth Carmody Decl. 6, App. 96.)

         McKinsey still omitted the names of at least three connections, which it identified as "confidential clients." (Id.) Before filing the Fourth Carmody Declaration, McKinsey "reviewed its confidentiality obligations to each of its clients identified as a Major Stakeholder or Major Competitor and, to the extent necessary, ... request[ed] the consent of such client to disclose its name" in the Fourth Carmody Declaration. (Id. at 3, App. 93.) Clients who did not consent to the disclosure of their names were identified as "confidential clients." (Id. at 4, App. 94.)

         The U.S. Trustee stated that it was satisfied that McKinsey's additional disclosures in the Fourth Carmody Declaration complied with Rule 2014.

         2. Mar-Bow Remained Unsatisfied with McKinsey's Disclosures

         a. Mar-Bow's First Rule 2014 Objection: Mar-Bow's Motion to Compel

         On June 6, 2016, dissatisfied with the U.S. Trustee's proposed resolution of McKinsey's disclosures, Mar-Bow filed a 44-page Motion to Compel McKinsey to Comply with Rule 2014 (the "Mar-Bow Motion to Compel"). Mar-Bow asserted that "McKinsey's four disclosure declarations have not allowed the Court the opportunity to ... independently assess McKinsey's qualifications to serve as a fiduciary for the Debtors." (Mar-Bow Mot. Compel 5, Supp. 1507.) Mar-Bow voiced sweeping policy arguments that McKinsey's allegedly insufficient disclosures threatened both the bankruptcy system's ability to function[21] and the integrity of the bankruptcy proceeding itself.[22]

         Mar-Bow argued that McKinsey's disclosures were insufficiently specific to allow the Bankruptcy Court to evaluate McKinsey's disinterestedness. "McKinsey's broad, generic statements cannot supersede the specific descriptions of connections that case law interpreting Rule 2014 requires and cannot trump the obligation to perform a good faith investigation and to comply with the rule's requirements." (Id. at 21, Supp. 1523.) Mar-Bow also contended that the process by which McKinsey conducted its search for connections was inadequate, rendering its disclosures insufficient.[23]

         The Mar-Bow Motion to Compel sought an order from the Bankruptcy Court requiring McKinsey to submit significant additional disclosures and detail regarding McKinsey's connections to the interested parties in the case. Mar-Bow also asked the Bankruptcy Court to suspend payment of McKinsey's fees, and to disgorge all of McKinsey's previously paid fees "in the event that McKinsey fails to comply with the Court's order or the Court determines that McKinsey is not qualified to serve as a professional" in the case. (Id. at 42-43, Supp. 1544-45.) Mar-Bow further requested an order that "McKinsey, its affiliates, and its professionals, shall not be entitled to a release, indemnity[, ]or exculpation of any kind or nature in this case, whether through a plan of reorganization or otherwise." (Id. at 44, App. 1546.)

         i. The Bankruptcy Court's Hearing on Mar-Bow's Motion to Compel

         On June 28, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing on Mar-Bow's Motion to Compel. In the hearing, the Bankruptcy Court allowed lengthy argument from both sides, actively engaging the parties as to their positions. Brushing aside some of McKinsey's procedural arguments in opposition to Mar-Bow's Motion to Compel, the Bankruptcy Court stated,

And that's the point I was ... trying to get across a few minutes ago about why it is so important that parties in interest bring these kinds of matters to the attention of the Court so the Court can deal with them. And just because we've got a great watering-down of Rule 2014 because nobody is, apparently, complying with the rule, doesn't mean that the rule shouldn't be enforced. It should be enforced.

(June 28, 2016 Hr'g Tr. 127, App. 1480.) The Bankruptcy Court identified 'three different categories of things" that would affect its decision on the Mar-Bow Motion to Compel:

One is these 121 actual known clients that have not been identified. Second is the investments of McKinsey Investment in other entities that [McKinsey] say[s] that if it does exist, should be disclosed. . . And third is, ... what were the results to the [email] survey?

(Id. at 134, App. 1487.)

         The Bankruptcy Court solicited a statement from the U.S. Trustee, who "g[a]ve the Court pretty much a synopsis of what came about, and how [the Trustee Motion to Compel] ended up being withdrawn at the end." (Id. at 143, App. 1496.) Specifically, the U.S. Trustee stated that, after McKinsey filed the Fourth Carmody Declaration, "the U.S. Trustee was satisfied that McKinsey possessed no conflicts and had greatly improved the public record of its connections." (Id. at 145, App. 1498.) When asked whether the U.S. Trustee believed that McKinsey's disclosures satisfied Rule 2014, the Trustee responded, "If it were left up to me, I think my solution to this problem would be for [McKinsey] to make the list [of their confidential clients] available and file it and ask that it be filed under seal." (Id. at 145-46, App. 1498-99.)

         After lengthy argument in which the Bankruptcy Court heard from Mar-Bow, McKinsey, the U.S. Trustee, and ANR, the Bankruptcy Court ruled that it would require McKinsey to provide the Bankruptcy Court with additional information. The Bankruptcy Court stated that it would "require McKinsey to disclose the 121 [confidential] clients. . . . to the Court in camera." (Id. at 157, App. 1510.) The Bankruptcy Court "allow[ed] McKinsey to negotiate ... with the debtor, with the committee, with the Office of the U.S. Trustee, and [Mar-Bow]" in order to have "the proper confidentiality provisions before anything is disclosed." (Id.) The Bankruptcy Court stated that its

purpose here is not to destroy McKinsey's business model [of confidentiality].[24]It's certainly not to give a competitive advantage to a competitor. The Court's going to be completely respectful of all of that, but I am not going to do anything to impair the integrity of Rule 2014. . . .
. . . McKinsey's a professional. . . . They're a fiduciary. They're employed by the fiduciary. They're held to the same standard.

(Id. at 158, App. 1511.) The Bankruptcy Court also ordered that McKinsey provide it with information that "the [Bankruptcy] Court needs to have ... in order to make the disclosures that have been provided in this case meaningful." (Id.)

         ii. The Bankruptcy Court's Order Compelling Compliance [25]

         On July 1, 2016, three days after argument on Mar-Bow's Motion to Compel, the Bankruptcy Court entered an order granting Mar-Bow's Motion to Compel in certain respects, as stated at the June 28, 2016 Hearing (the "Order Compelling Compliance"). Specifically, the Bankruptcy Court ordered McKinsey to deliver to the Bankruptcy Court, for in camera review:

(1) "A list containing the names of the 121 undisclosed connections discussed at the hearing, together with sufficient information for the Court to determine (1) whether any of those connections constitute an interest that is adverse to the estate and (2) whether McKinsey is disinterested, all as required by 11U.S.C. §327";
(2) "Identification of Interested Parties that manage investments for MIO Partners, Inc., " a McKinsey affiliate;
(3) "Identification of Interested Parties in which MIO owns securities, " subject to several limitations"; and,
(4) "The survey response rates to the email surveys" sent by McKinsey to determine the presence of connections, "together with sufficient information for the Court to determine (1) whether any of those connections constitute an interest that is adverse to the estate and (2) whether McKinsey is disinterested, all as required by 11 U.S.C. § 327."

(O. Compelling Compliance 2-3, App. 898-99.)

         b. Mar-Bow's Second Rule 2014 Objection: Mar-Bow's Motion to "Clarify"

         On July 5, 2016, four days later, Mar-Bow filed a "Motion to Clarify" the Bankruptcy Court's July 1, 2016 Order. Mar-Bow contended that, although the Order Compelling Compliance provided for in camera review of McKinsey's additional disclosures and allowed the U.S. Trustee and professionals employed by the Debtors to review the additional information, the Order Compelling Compliance "does not appear to allow Mar-Bow's professionals to review" the information. (Mot. Clarify 1-2, Supp. 1598-99.) Although Mar-Bow expressly stated that its Motion to Clarify was "not a motion for reconsideration, " (id at 1, App. 1598), Mar-Bow devoted more than a full page to argument about why Mar-Bow should be allowed to review the additional information because Mar-Bow was the party "that first shed light on McKinsey's failure to comply with Rule 2014, " and the party who "has demonstrated the greatest commitment to assist the Court in fulfilling its obligation to maintain the integrity of its processes through strict enforcement of... Rule 2014, " (id at 2-3, App. Supp. 1599-1600).

         i. The Bankruptcy Court's Rulings on Mar-Bow's Motion to "Clarify"

         On July 7, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court heard argument on Mar-Bow's Motion to Clarify. Mar-Bow reasserted its position that it should participate in the process of reviewing McKinsey's Rule 2014 disclosures, evaluating the sufficiency of those disclosures, and determining whether McKinsey qualified as a disinterested person. As discussed in the Mar-Bow I Memorandum Opinion, the Bankruptcy Court-remarkably, given the timing of Mar-Bow's Motion to Clarify-had already reviewed the additional information it ordered McKinsey to disclose when the July 7, 2016 Hearing began. The Bankruptcy Court stated, based on its review of the in camera production, that it was completely satisfied with McKinsey's disinterestedness, and that McKinsey's in camera disclosures had been entirely sufficient.

         On July 15, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order addressing Mar-Bow's Motion to Clarify (the "Clarification Order").[26] The Bankruptcy Court ordered that twenty-one days after the parties had reviewed the accompanying Confidentiality Order, the U.S. Trustee could file "a recommendation with the Court whether any further public disclosures should be made." (Clarification O. 2, App. 904.) After the U.S. Trustee filed its recommendation, the Bankruptcy Court would determine whether McKinsey would be required to file "further public disclosures." (Id.) The Bankruptcy Court denied any further requests in Mar-Bow's Motion to Clarify. (Id.)

         Also on July 15, 2016, the Bankruptcy Court entered a "Confidentiality Order Pursuant to Order Dated July 1, 2016" (the "Confidentiality Order").[27] The Confidentiality Order governed the "information submitted to the [Bankruptcy] Court for in camera review [sic] pursuant to the July 1 Order, relating to the disclosure of [McKinsey's] connections under Bankruptcy Rule 2014 and any further information McKinsey ... provides to satisfy such requirements." (Confidentiality O. 2, Supp. 1819.) The Confidentiality Order provided that McKinsey could designate a document as confidential by placing the words "CONFIDENTIAL - SUBJECT TO PROTECTIVE ORDER" on the document, which would constitute a "certification by McKinsey ... that the information is treated as confidential by McKinsey ... and its affiliates." (Id. at 2-3, Supp. 1819-20.) The Confidentiality Order also designated categories of persons allowed to review confidential information, and expressly excluded people who ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.