Renewed Motion for
New Examination
and Substitute Examiner
Court Filings are in
Reverse Chronological Order
•
8th Supplemental Submission -
in this Submission an email from Mark Schlachet is introduced, in
which he discusses the conduct of Benesch, Freidlander, Coplan &
Aranoff, as an gofer of the Bank Group before the Bankruptcy was
filed. This conduct parallels the conduct of the management of Level
Propane after the Bankruptcy was filed, the result of which was
to conceal 35,000 customers and 43,000 tanks, driving down the value
of the business so that Amerigas could purchase assets (customers,
leased customer tanks and satellite distribution system) worth $1.2
Billion.
•
Reply
Brief: in this Brief, the Court is shown an example
of a Level billing statement, with the tank serial number on it
(which comprises the customer account reconciliation library), an
example of a tank discrepancy report, and an email from Steven Sues
in which he establishes that at minimum Level had 70,200 customer
tank locations.
•
Post-Hearing
Brief: in this Brief, the whole story is drawn together.
• 7th
Supplemental Submission: in this Submission,
the Court learns that when purportedly lost customers were contacted
in August, 2003 with an invitation to return, they uniformly stated
that they had always been customer.
•
6th
Supplemental Submission: in this Submission, the Court
is introduced to an eyewitness to both the disabling of the database,
so than 35,000 customers and tank locations were hidden,
and the disappearance of the written record of the tank locations.
•
5th Supplemental Submission: in this Submission,
the Court learns that the Debtor is indifferent to the proposed
destruction by the U. S. Trustee of what was likely the last accurate
customer list in existence.
• 4th
Supplemental Submission: in this Submission,
the continuing manipulation of the customer count was ongoing.
• 3d
Supplemental Submission: in this Submission,
the disabling of the database is described and the evidence in support
is submitted.
• 2d
Supplemental Submission:
in this Submission the Court is reminded that Examiner’s Request
for Production was utter thwarted by the
Debtor’s failure to co-operate.
•
Supplemental
Submission:
in this Submission, the Court learns that no effort is spared to
control even the conduct of the Examiner’s investigation, a
statement by the Movant
• Renewed
and Restated Motion to Reopen Examiner’s Investigation
and for Substitute Examiner: in this Motion, the Court learns,
through email exchanges with Debtor’s management in January,
2003, that the management and the Bank Group are working together
to keep the locations of the tanks from the Equipment Lessors, while
the written record of the tank locations (the customer account reconciliation
library) is taken out of the Level Headquarters. [July 12]
Since the Court declined to Reopen the Examiner’s Investigation
on June 27, 2006, see Court
Decision, we have Renewed the Motion.
This Renewed Motion provided the Court with specific evidence of
the time, date and subject matter of the Bank Group’s efforts
to utterly dominate and control the affairs of Level Propane. In
the course of their efforts to control to the exclusion of all others,
the Bank Group also put a wrecking ball to the going concern. As
of this writing, there is no certainty that the destruction of Level
Propane was a deliberate decision, but the conduct so far discovered
certainly speaks for itself.
|
