new century liquidating trust hearing march 7 2013 agenda and the trust's objection by...

7/29/2019 NEW CENTURY LIQUIDATING TRUST HEARING MARCH 7 2013 AGENDA AND THE TRUST'S OBJECTION BY HOMEOW…

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/new-century-liquidating-trust-hearing-march-7-2013-agenda-and-the-trusts 1/38

130566.01600/40205659v.1

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

In re:

NEW CENTURY TRS HOLDINGS, INC.,et al., 1

Debtors.

:::::::

Chapter 11

Case No. 07-10416 (KJC)(Jointly Administered)

NOTICE OF AGENDA OF MATTERS SCHEDULEDFOR HEARING ON MARCH 7, 2013 AT 10:00 A.M.

(Any party who wishes to appear telephonically must contact CourtCall, LLC by telephone(866-582-6878) or facsimile (866-533-2946) no later than 12:00 p.m. ET one business day

prior to the hearing.)

I. CONTINUED MATTERS:

1. Debtors’ Non-Substantive Objection Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 502, Fed. R.Bankr. P. 3007 and 9014 and Del. Bankr. L.R. 3007-1 to Claim of InternalRevenue Service for Which Insufficient Documentation is Attached to the FiledProof of Claim [Dkt. No. 5025; filed 2/22/08]

Objection Deadline: March 18, 2008

Objections/Responses Received:

A. Internal Revenue Service’s Responses to Debtors’ Non-SubstantiveObjection Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 502, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007 and9014 and Del. Bankr. L.R. 3007-1 to Claim of Internal Revenue Servicefor Which Insufficient Documentation is Attached to the Filed Proof of Claim [Dkt. No. 5391; filed 3/18/08]

Related Documents: None to date.

1 The pre-confirmation Debtors were the following entities: New Century Financial Corporation (f/k/a New Century REIT,

Inc.), a Maryland corporation; New Century TRS Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a new Century Financial Corporation), a Delawarecorporation; New Century Mortgage Corporation (f/k/a JBE Mortgage) (d/b/a NCMC Mortgage Corporate, New CenturyCorporation, New Century Mortgage Ventures, LLC), a California corporation; NC Capital Corporation, a Californiacorporation; Home123 Corporation (f/k/a The Anyloan Corporation, 1800anyloan.com, Anyloan.com), a California corporation;New Century Credit Corporation (f/k/a Worth Funding Incorporated), a California corporation; NC Asset Holding, L.P. (f/k/aNC Residual II Corporation), a Delaware limited partnership; NC Residual III Corporation, a Delaware corporation; NCResidual IV Corporation, a Delaware corporation; New Century R.E.O. Corp., a California corporation; New Century R.E.O. IICorp., a California corporation; New Century R.E.O. III Corp., a California corporation; New Century Mortgage Ventures, LLC(d/b/a Summit Resort Lending, Total Mortgage Resource, Select Mortgage Group, Monticello Mortgage Services, Ad AstraMortgage, Midwest Home Mortgage, TRATS Financial Services, Elite Financial Services, Buyers Advantage Mortgage), aDelaware limited liability company; NC Deltex, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; NCoral, L.P., a Delaware limitedpartnership; and New Century Warehouse Corporation, a California corporation.



130566.01600/40205659v.1

Status: The objection is continued to the next omnibus hearing date in these cases.

2. The New Century Liquidating Trust’s Thirty-Third Omnibus Objection to ClaimsPursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(b) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001, 3007 and Local Rule3007-1 [Substantive] [Dkt. No. 10184; filed 8/13/10]

Objection deadline: September 8, 2010

Objections/Responses Received2:

A. Informal Response Received from the City of New York Department of Finance

Related Documents:

i. Notice of Submission of Claims [Dkt. No. 10210; filed 9/2/10]

ii. Notice of Withdrawal Without Prejudice [Re: SunGard AvailabilityServices, LC] [Dkt. No. 10220; filed 9/8/10]

iii. Notice of Withdrawal of Response of Ohio Bureau of Workers’Compensation to the New Century Liquidating Trust’s Thirty-ThirdOmnibus Objection to Claims (Substantive) [Dkt. No. 10227; filed9/15/10]

iv. Order Granting the New Century Liquidating Trust's Thirty-ThirdOmnibus Objection to Claims (Substantive) [Dkt. No. 10235; filed9/21/10]

v. Order (Second) Granting The New Century Liquidating Trust's Thirty- Third Omnibus Objection To Claims [Dkt. No. 10257; filed 10/20/10]

vi. Order (Third) Granting the New Century Liquidating Trust's Thirty-ThirdOmnibus Objection to Claims (Substantive) [Dkt. No. 10354; filed 1/3/11]

vii. Notice of Withdrawal of the New Century Liquidating Trust's Third-ThirdOmnibus Objection to Claims Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Section 502(b) andFed. R. Bankr. P. 3001, 3007 and Local Rule 3007-1 [Substantive] as itRelates to Claim No. 1826 [Dkt. No. 10364; filed 1/5/11]

viii. Order (Fourth) Granting the New Century Liquidating Trust's Thirty-ThirdOmnibus Objection to Claims (Substantive) [Dkt. No. 10436; filed 4/4/11]

2Only those responses not previously resolved are listed.



130566.01600/40205659v.1

ix. Order (Fifth) Granting the New Century Liquidating Trust's Thirty-ThirdOmnibus Objection to Claims [Substantive] [Dkt. No. 10452; filed4/20/11]

x. Order (Amended) Granting the New Century Liquidating Trust's Thirty-

Third Omnibus Objection to Claims [Substantive] [Dkt. No. 10474; filed5/6/11]

xi. Order (Sixth) Granting the New Century Liquidating Trusts Thirty-ThirdOmnibus Objection to Claims Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(b) and Fed. R.Bankr. P. 3001, 3007 and Local Rule 3007-1 [Substantive] [Dkt. No.10502; filed 6/9/11]

xii. Order (Seventh) Granting the New Century Liquidating Trust's Thirty- Third Omnibus Objection to Claims (Substantive) [Dkt. No. 10517; filed7/14/11]

Status: The objection as it relates to the claim(s) filed by the City of New YorkDepartment of Finance is continued to the next omnibus hearing date inthese cases.

I I. MATTERS UNDER ADVISEMENT

3. Debtors’ Eighteenth Omnibus Objection: Substantive Objection Pursuant to 11U.S.C. Sections 502, 503, 506 and 507, Bankruptcy Rules 3007 and 9014, andLocal Rule 3007-1 to Certain (A) Books and Records Claims; (B) InsufficientDocumentation Claims; (C) Multiple-Debtor Duplicate Claims; and (D) Reducedand/or Reclassified Claims [Dkt. No. 5537; filed 3/27/08]

Objection deadline: April 30, 2008


A. Response to Debtors’ Eighteenth Omnibus Objection to Claims (filed byWashington Mutual) [Dkt. No. 6593; filed 5/7/08]

Related Documents:

i. Claim No. 3759 filed by Pierre Augustin

ii. Notice of Withdrawal of Debtors’ Eighteenth Omnibus Objection:Substantive Objection Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. Sections 502, 503, 506 and507, Bankruptcy Rules 3007 and 9014, and Local Rule 3007-1 to Certain(A) Books and Records Claims; (B) Insufficient Documentation Claims;(C) Multiple-Debtor Duplicate Claims; and (D) Reduced and/orReclassified Claims Re: Claim No. 3537 of Natixis Real Estate Capital,Inc. [Dkt. No. 6400; filed 4/22/08]



130566.01600/40205659v.1

iii. Scheduling Order Regarding Objections to Claims of Pierre R. Augustin[Dkt. No. 8905; filed 9/5/08]

iv. Order Regarding Discovery In Connection With Objections To Claims of Pierre R. Augustin [Dkt. No. 9176; filed 11/20/08]

v. Order Disallowing And Expunging Duplicate Claim Set Forth In TheDebtors' Fifteenth Omnibus Objection To Claims And ReclassifyingRemaining Claim [Dkt. No. 9323; filed 1/29/09]

vi. Order Regarding Claim of Pierre R. Augustin And Issuance of Third PartySubpoenas [Dkt. No. 9365; filed 3/6/09]

vii. Order Disallowing And Expunging Duplicate Claim Set Forth In TheDebtors Fifteenth Omnibus Objection To Claims And ReclassifyingRemaining Claim [Dkt. No. 9367; filed 3/6/09]

viii. Order (AMENDED) Reclassifying Claim of Patrick J. Moloney Set ForthIn The Debtors Eighteenth Omnibus Objection To Claims [Dkt. No. 9379;filed 3/12/09]

ix. Memorandum Order Granting Motion to Dismiss [Re: Pierre R. Augustin](U.S. District Court BAP-09-69) [Dkt. No. 10150; filed 7/20/09]

x. Order Approving Stipulation Between New Century Liquidating Trust andWashington Mutual Bank Fixing and Allowing Its Claim Related to aCertain Sublease Agreement [Dkt. No. 10290; filed 11/10/10]

xi. Scheduling Order Regarding Submissions of Proposed Findings of Factand Conclusions of Law from Evidentiary Hearing on Claim of PierreAugustin [Dkt. No. 10326; entered 12/2/10]

xii. Notice of Submission of the New Century Liquidating Trust’s ProposedFindings of Fact and Conclusions of Law re: Augustin Proof of Claim[Dkt. No. 10345; filed 12/17/10]

xiii. Affidavit of Mr. Pierre-Richard Augustin Findings of Fact andConclusions of Law For Equitable Relief With Supporting Authority [Dkt.No. 10413; filed 3/4/11]

Status: The only claim subject to the objection that has not been resolved oradjudicated is the claim of Pierre Augustin (the “Augustin Claim”). OnOctober 20, 2010, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the merits of the Augustin Claim. The Trust and Mr. Augustin have filed theirproposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. This matter is ripe fordecision.



130566.01600/40205659v.1

4. Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing and Expunging Certain (A) Amendedand Superseded Claims; (B) Late Filed Claims; and (C) No SupportingDocumentation Claims Set Forth in Debtors' Twenty-First Omnibus Objection toClaims [Dkt. No. 9229; filed 12/10/08]

Objection deadline: January 13, 2009


A. Objection of the New Century Liquidating Trust and Reorganized NewCentury Warehouse Corporation to the Request by Alfonso and JanetLongo to Reconsider the Order Disallowing and Expunging Certain (A)Amended and Superseded Claims; (B) Late Filed Claims; (C) NoSupporting Documentation Claims Set Forth in Debtors' Twenty-FirstOmnibus Objection to Claims [Dkt. No. 9287; filed 1/13/09]

Related Documents:

i. Debtors’ Twenty-First Omnibus Objection to Claims: Non-SubstantiveObjection Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 502, 503, 506 and 507, Fed. R. Bankr.P. 3007 and 9014, and Del. Bankr. L.R. 3007-1 to Certain (A) AmendedAnd Superseded Claims; (B) Late Filed claims; and (C) No SupportingDocumentation Claims [Dkt. No. 7017; filed 5/14/08]

ii. Order Disallowing and Expunging Certain (A) Amended and SupersededClaims; (B) Late Filed Claims; and (C) No Supporting DocumentationClaims Set Forth in Debtors' Twenty-First Omnibus Objection to Claims[Dkt. No. 8553; filed 7/11/08]

iii. Order Granting Request of Alfonso and Janet Longo for Reconsiderationof the July 11, 2008 Order Expunging Their Claims and Setting Hearingand Discovery Schedule Regarding the Value of Such Claim [Dkt. No.9753; filed 7/29/09]

iv. Documentation provided in Support of Their Action Against New Century TRS Holdings, Inc. [Filed by Janet Longo] [Dkt. No. 9891; filed 9/25/09

v. Proof of Claim of Alfonso and Janet Longo

vi. Scheduling Order Regarding Submissions of Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law Regarding Claimants Alfonso and Janet Longo [Dkt.No. 9982; filed 12/14/09]

vii. The Trust’s Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law [Dkt. No.10023; filed 1/25/10]

viii. Preliminary Statement Regarding Scheduling Order RegardingSubmissions of Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law RegardingClaimants Alfonso and Janet Longo [Dkt. No. 10049; filed 3/11/10]



130566.01600/40205659v.1

ix. Notice of Completion of Briefing Regarding Alfonso and Janet Longos'Motion to Reconsider Order Disallowing and Expunging Certain (A)Amended and Superseded Claims; (B) Late Filed Claims; (C) NoSupporting Documentation Claims Set Forth in Debtors' Twenty-FirstOmnibus Objection to Claims [Dkt. No. 10066; filed 4/7/10]

x. Order Scheduling a Telephonic Status Conference Regarding the Motionof Alfonso and Janet Longo [Dkt. No. 10947; filed 6/19/12]

Status: A Notice of Completion of Briefing has been filed. This matter is underadvisement.

5. Motion of K imberly S. Cromwell, Pro Se to Consider Proof of Claim Timely Filed[Dkt. No. 10113; filed 5/26/10]

Objection deadline: June 14, 2010


A. Objection to the Motion of Kimberly S. Cromwell, Pro Se, to ConsiderProof of Claim Timely Filed [Dkt. No. 10123; filed 6/17/2010]

Related Documents:

i. Certificate of No Objection [Dkt. No. 10131; filed 6/18/2010]

ii. Scheduling Order [Dkt. No. 10302; filed 11/19/2010]

iii. Certification of Counsel Relating to the Stipulation Regarding Mediation[Dkt. No. 10549; filed 8/19/2011]

iv. Mediator’s Certificate of Completion [Dkt. No. 10612; filed 10/20/2011]

v. Notice of Trial Re: Kimberly S. Cromwell [Dkt. No. 10648; filed11/30/2011]

vi. Scheduling Order [Dkt. No. 10657; filed 12/5/2011]

vii. Notice of Status Conference Re: Kimberly S. Cromwell [Dkt. No. 10677;filed 12/16/2011]

viii. Order Approving Modified Scheduling Order [Dkt. No. 10711; filed1/24/2012]

ix. Order Scheduling Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Motion of KimberlyCromwell, Pro Se, to Consider Proof of Claim Timely Filed and the NewCentury Liquidating Trust's Objection to the Cromwell Motion [Dkt. No.10805; filed 3/7/2012]



130566.01600/40205659v.1

x. Scheduling Order for Post-Hearing Submissions [Dkt. No. 10931; filed6/8/2012]

xi. Post-Hearing Submission in the matter of The New Century Liquidating Trust's Motion for Entry of Order Regarding Compliance with Bar DateMatters and Acceptance of Claim #4119 as a Timely Filed Claim [Dkt.No. 10939; filed 6/15/12]

xii. The New Century Liquidating Trust’s Post-Hearing Submission WithRespect to (I) the New Century Liquidating Trust's Motion for Entry of anOrder to Determine That the Debtors Have Complied With the OrderEstablishing Bar Dates for Filing Proofs of Claim and Approving Form,Manner and Sufficiency of Notice Thereof [Dkt. No. 10824]; and (II) TheMotion of Kimberly S. Cromwell, Pro Se, to Consider Proof of Claim Timely Filed [Dkt. No. 10113] [Dkt. No. 10948; filed 6/28/12]

Status: The court held an evidentiary hearing on this matter on May 23, 2012.

The parties have submitted post-hearing briefing pursuant to the terms of the Amended Scheduling Order, and no further briefing is contemplated.Accordingly, this matter is ripe for decision.

6. New Century Liquidating Trust’s Forty-Second Omnibus Objection to ClaimsPursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(b) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001, 3007 and Local Rule3007-1 [Non-Substantive] [Dkt. No. 10562; filed 8/26/11]

Objection deadline: September 20, 2011


A. Claimant Karan Russell Response to the New Century Liquidating Trust’sForty-Second Omnibus Objection to Claims Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §502(b) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001, 3007 and Local Rule 3007-1 [Dkt. No.10574; filed 9/21/11]

B. Claimant Tiphanie Goines Response to the New Century Liquidating Trust’s Forty-Second Omnibus Objection to Claims Pursuant to 11 U.S.C.§ 502(b) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001, 3007 and Local Rule 3007-1 [Dkt.No. 10575; filed 9/21/11]

C. Response of Claimants, Kimberly S. Cromwell, Mary Guinto and ThomasA. Guinto and W. Mark Frazer and Konilynn Frazer to the New CenturyLiquidating Trust’s Fourt-Second Omnibus Objection to Claims Pursuantto 11 U.S.C. § 502(b) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001, 3007 and Local Rule3007-1 [Non-Substantive] [Dkt. No. 10576; filed 9/22/11]



130566.01600/40205659v.1

D. The New Century Liquidating Trust’s Reply to Responses Received FromClaimants Russell and Goines Regarding Forty-Second OmnibusObjection to Claims Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(b) and Fed. R. Bankr. P.3001, 3007 and Local Rule 3007-1 [Non-Substantive] [Dkt. No. 10577;filed 9/22/11]

E. Response of Helen Galope to the New Century Liquidating Trust’s Forty-Second Omnibus Objection to Claims Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(b) andFed. R. Bankr. P. 3001, 3007 and Local Rule 3007-1 [Dkt. No. 10578;filed 9/23/11]

F. Opposition of Tiphanie Goines to New Century Liquidating Trust's ReplyResponse to Forty-Second Omnibus Objection: Substantive Objection toClaim [Dkt. No. 10587; filed 9/26/11]

Related Documents:

i. Scheduling Order Regarding the Responses to the New CenturyLiquidating Trust's Forty-Second Omnibus Objection to Claims Pursuantto 11 U.S.C. Sec. 502(b) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001, 3007 and Local Rule3007-1 [Non-Substantive] [Dkt. No. 10598; filed 10/12/11]

ii. Scheduling Order Regarding Response to the New Century Liquidation Trust's Forty-Second Omnibus Objection to Claims [Non-Substantive][Dkt. No. 10629; filed 11/15/11]

iii. Notice of Evidentiary Hearing Re: Tiphanie Goines, Karan Russell andAlfred A. Silva [Dkt. No. 10647; filed 11/30/11]

iv. Notice of Status Conference Re: Tiphanie Goines, Karan Russell, AlfredA. Silva and Annette Lamour [Dkt. No. 10676; filed 12/16/11]

v. Notice of Adjourned Hearing (Re: Tiphanie Goines, Karan Russell, AlfredA. Silva and Annette Lamour) [Dkt. No. 10709; filed 1/20/12]

vi. Memorandum related to The New Century Liquidating Trust's Forty-Second Omnibus Objection to Claims -- specifically the claim of HelenGalope (Claim #4131) [Dkt. No. 10725; filed 2/7/12]

vii.

Order relating to Memorandum re Galope Claim [Dkt. No. 10726; filed2/7/12]

viii. Notice of Evidentiary Hearing [Dkt. No. 10736; filed 2/15/12]

ix. Exhibit and Witness List with Respect to the Claim of Tiphanie Goines[Dkt. No. 10795; filed 3/5/12]



130566.01600/40205659v.1

x. Exhibit and Witness List with Respect to the Claim of Karan Russell [Dkt.No. 10797; filed 3/5/12]

xi. Order (Second) Granting the New Century Liquidating Trust's Motion inLimine to Admit Certain Evidence Introduced at the December 13, 2011Evidentiary Hearing Solely to the Extent Such Evidence Related to theSufficiency of Constructive Notice of the Bar Date [Dkt. No. 10806; filed3/7/12]

xii. Order (With Revisions Made By Court) Granting the New CenturyLiquidating Trust's Forty-Second Omnibus Objection to Claims Pursuantto 11 U.S.C. Sec. 502(b) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001, 3007 and Local Rule3007-1 (Non-Substantive) to Claims Filed by Tiphanie Goines [Dkt. No.10860; filed 4/23/2012]

xiii. Order Scheduling Evidentiary Hearing Regarding the New CenturyLiquidating Trust's Forty-Second Omnibus Objection to Claims Pursuant

to 11 U.S.C. Sec. 502(b) and Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3001, 3007 and Local Rule3007-1 (Non-Substantive) (Dkt. No. 10562) and the Response of KaranRussell (Dkt. No. 10574) [Dkt. No. 10859; filed 4/23/2012]

Status: The Court has previously sustained the objection as it relates to HelenGalope and Tiphanie Goines. An evidentiary hearing regarding whetherthe late-filed claim of Karan Russell should be deemed timely filed washeld on July 12, 2012. This matter is ripe for decision as it relates toKaran Russell.

7. Motion of Christine Konar, Pro Se, to Consider Proof of Claim Timely Filed [Dkt.

No. 10743; filed 2/21/2012]

Objection deadline: None


A. Objection of the New Century Liquidating Trust to (I) the Motion of Christine Konar, Pro Se, to Consider Proof Of Claim Timely Filed [Dkt.No. 10743], and (II) Motion to File Amended Proof of Claim [Dkt. No.10744] [Dkt. No. 10845; filed 4/18/2012]

B. Response to Objection of the New Century Liquidating Trust to (I) theMotion of Christine Konar, Pro Se, to Consider Proof Of Claim TimelyFiled, and (II) Motion to File Amended Proof of Claim [Dkt. No. 10880;filed 5/7/2012]

Related Documents:



130566.01600/40205659v.1

i. Scheduling Order Regarding The Motion Of Christine Konar, Pro Se, ToConsider Proof Of Claim Timely Filed [Dkt. No. 10743], The Motion Of Christine Konar To File An Amended Proof Of Claim [Dkt. No. 10744],And The New Century Liquidating Trusts Objection To The KonarMotions [Dkt. No. 10845] [Dkt. No. 10925; filed 6/7/2012]

ii. Agreement to Consent and Prepare Scheduling Order [Dkt. No. 10934;filed 6/12/2012]

Status: The court held an evidentiary hearing on this matter on July 12, 2012. This matter is ripe for decision.

8. Motion to File Amended Proof of Claim [Filed by Christine Konar] [Dkt. No.10744; filed 2/21/2012]



A. Objection of the New Century Liquidating Trust to (I) the Motion of Christine Konar, Pro Se, to Consider Proof Of Claim Timely Filed [Dkt.No. 10743], and (II) Motion to File Amended Proof of Claim [Dkt. No.10744] [Dkt. No.10845; filed 4/18/2012]

B. Response to Objection of the New Century Liquidating Trust to (I) theMotion of Christine Konar, Pro Se, to Consider Proof Of Claim TimelyFiled, and (II) Motion to File Amended Proof of Claim [Dkt. No. 10880;filed 5/7/2012]

Related Documents:

i. Scheduling Order Regarding The Motion Of Christine Konar, Pro Se, ToConsider Proof Of Claim Timely Filed [Dkt. No. 10743], The Motion Of Christine Konar To File An Amended Proof Of Claim [Dkt. No. 10744],And The New Century Liquidating Trusts Objection To The KonarMotions [Dkt. No. 10845] [Dkt. No.10925; filed 6/7/2012]

ii. Agreement to Consent and Prepare Scheduling Order [Dkt. No. 10934;filed 6/12/2012]

Status: The court held an evidentiary hearing on this matter on July 12, 2012. This matter is ripe for decision.

9. The New Century Liquidating Trust’s Motion for Entry of an Order to Determine That the Debtors Have Complied With the Order Establishing Bar Dates for FilingProofs of Claim and Approving Form, Manner and Sufficiency of Notice Thereof [Dkt. No. 10824; filed 4/2/2012]

Objection deadline: April 18, 2012



130566.01600/40205659v.1


A. Objection to The New Century Liquidating Trust's Motion in Limine toAdmit Certain Evidence Introduced at the December 13, 2011 EvidentiaryHearing Solely to the Extent Such Evidence Related to the Sufficiency of Constructive Notice of the Bar Date [Filed by Christine Konar] [Dkt. No.10835; filed 4/16/2012]

B. Response of Molly S. White and Ralph N. White In Objection ot the NewCentury Liquidating Trust Motion Requesting an Order that the DebtorsHave Complied with the Bar Date Order for Filing Proofs of Claim andApproving Form, Manner and Sufficiency of Notice [Dkt. No. 10841;filed 4/18/2012]

C. Objection Of Claimants, Mary Guinto And Thomas A. Guinto, To TheNew Century Liquidating Trust's Motion for Entry of an Order toDetermine That the Debtors Have Complied With the Order Establishing

Bar Dates for Filing Proofs of Claim and Approving Form, Manner andSufficiency of Notice Thereof [Dkt. No. 10842; filed 4/18/2012]

D. Opposition to Motion to Approve the New Century Liquidating Trust'sMotion for Entry of an Order to Determine That the Debtors HaveComplied With the Order Establishing Bar Dates for Filing Proofs of Claim and Approving Form, Manner and Sufficiency of Notice Thereof [Filed by Helen Galope] [Dkt. No. 10848; filed 4/18/2012]

E. Kimberly Cromwell and Karan Russell Objection to the New CenturyLiquidating Trust's Motion for Entry of Order that Debtors have Complied

with Bar Date [Dkt. No. 10849; filed 4/18/2012]

F. Omnibus Reply of the New Century Liquidating Trust to Objections toMotion for Entry of an Order to Determine that the Debtors HaveComplied With the Order Establishing Bar Dates for Filing Proofs of Claim and Approving Form, Manner and Sufficiency of Notice Thereof [Dkt. No. 10853; filed 4/20/2012]

Related Documents:

i. Kimberly Cromwell and Karan Russell Notice of Request for JudicialNotice in Support of Objection to Trust Motion to Determine DebtorsComplied with Order Establishing Bar Dates for Filing Proofs of Claimand Approving Form, Manner and Sufficiency of Notice Thereof [Dkt.No. 10850; filed 4/18/2012]



130566.01600/40205659v.1

ii. Response of the New Century Liquidating Trust to Kimberly Cromwelland Karan Russell's Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Objection to Trust Motion to Determine Debtors Complied with Order Establishing BarDates for Filing Proofs of Claim and Approving Form, Manner andSufficiency of Notice Thereof [Dkt. No. 10897; filed 5/21/2012]

iii. Order Scheduling Evidentiary Hearing Regarding the New CenturyLiquidating Trust's Motion for Entry of an Order to Determine that theDebtors Have Complied With the Order Establishing Bar Dates for FilingProofs of Claim and Approving Form, Manner and Sufficiency of Notice Thereof [Dkt. No. 10878; filed 5/1/2012]

iv. The New Century Liquidating Trust’s Post-Hearing Submission WithRespect to (I) the New Century Liquidating Trust's Motion for Entry of anOrder to Determine That the Debtors Have Complied With the OrderEstablishing Bar Dates for Filing Proofs of Claim and Approving Form,Manner and Sufficiency of Notice Thereof [Dkt. No. 10824]; and (II) TheMotion of Kimberly S. Cromwell, Pro Se, to Consider Proof of Claim Timely Filed [Dkt. No. 10948; filed 6/28/12]

Status: The Court held an evidentiary hearing on this matter on May 23, 2012. This matter is ripe for decision.

10. Motion for Removal of Trustee filed by Helen Galope [Dkt. No. 10883; filed5/9/2012]



A. The New Century Liquidating Trust’s Objection to Helen Galope's Motionto Impeach/Remove the Trustee [Dkt. No. 10955; filed 7/3/2012]

Related Documents:

i. Memorandum and Order Dismissing Motions for Reconsideration [Dkt.No. 10890; filed 5/17/2012]

Status: Pursuant to the Court’s instruction at the July 12, 2012 hearing, this matteris under advisement. A hearing on this matter will only be held uponrequest of the Court.

11. Second Motion for Reconsideration [Filed by Helen Galope] [Dkt. No. 10917;filed 6/1/2012]





130566.01600/40205659v.1

A. The New Century Liquidating Trust Objection to Helen Galope's SecondMotion for Reconsideration of February 7, 2012 Order [Dkt. No.10959;filed 7/5/2012]

Related Documents:

i. Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Plaintiff's 2nd Motion forReconsideration [Filed by Helen Galope] [Dkt. No.11009; filed 8/20/2012]


12. 2nd Motion Demand for Validation of Subscribed Oaths of Office and Bonds forall Public and Private Officials, Motion to Subpoena the Records, Contracts,Purchase and Sale of the Lamour Property, 2nd Motion to Invoke the Rule 2019and Challenge Jurisdiction of the Court [Filed by Annette Lamour] [Dkt. No.10932; filed 6/8/2012]



A. Objection Of The New Century Liquidating Trust To Annette Lamour’sSecond Motion Demand For Validation Of Subscribed Oaths Of OfficeAnd Bonds For All Public And Private Officials, Challenge JurisdictionOf The Court, Motion To Subpoena The Records Contracts, Purchase AndSale Of The Lamour Property, And Second Motion To Invoke The Rule

2019 [Dkt. No.10958; filed 7/5/2012]


Status: Pursuant to the Court’s instruction at the July 12, 2012 hearing, this matteris under advisement. A hearing on this matter will only be held upon request of the Court.

13. Request for Extension and be Permitted to File a Proper Response inConsideration of Recent Unfolding Event of Barclays Bank's LIBOR RateRigging [Filed by Helen Galope] [Dkt. No. 10982; filed 7/16/2012]



A. Objection Of The New Century Liquidating Trust To Helen Galope’sRequest for Extension and be Permitted to File a Proper Response inConsideration of Recent Unfolding Event of Barclays Bank's LIBOR RateRigging [Dkt. No.10997; filed 7/27/2012]



130566.01600/40205659v.1



14. Molly S. White & Ralph N. White v. New Century TRS Holdings, Inc., et al. (Adv.Pro. No. 10-55357): Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel Discovery [Adv. Dkt. No. 47;filed 2/16/2011]

Objections/Responses Received

A. The New Century Liquidating Trust’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion toCompel Discovery [Adv. Dkt. No. 56; filed 5/3/2011]

Related Documents:

i. Scheduling Order Regarding the Claim and Complaint Filed by Ralph andMolly White [Adv. Dkt. No. 9; filed 12/13/10]

ii. Initial Disclosure by New Century TRS Holding [Adv. Dkt. No. 20; filed1/3/2011]

iii. Plaintiff’s First Request for Production of Documents [Dkt. No. 10238; filed9/30/10]

iv. The New Century Liquidating Trust’s Responses to White’s DocumentRequest [Adv. Dkt. No. 13; filed 12/29/2010]

v. Plaintiff’s First Set of Interrogatories [Dkt. No. 10239; filed 9/30/10]

vi. The New Century Liquidating Trust’s Responses to first Set of Interrogatories of Molly S. White and Ralph N. White [Adv. Dkt. No. 19;filed 12/30/2010]

vii. Plaintiff’s First Set of Admissions [Dkt. No.10241; filed 10/1/10]

viii. The New Century Liquidating Trust's Responses to the White’s First Set of Admissions [Adv. Dkt. No. 14; filed 12/29/10]

ix. Plaintiff’s Second Request for Production of Documents [Adv. Dkt. No. 17;filed 12/29/10]

x. The New Century Liquidating Trust's Responses to the Second Request forProduction of Molly S. White and Ralph N. White [Adv. Dkt. No. 37; filed1/28/11]



130566.01600/40205659v.1

xi. The New Century Liquidating Trust’s Responses to the Additional Requestfor Documents of Molly S. White and Ralph N. White [Adv. Dkt. No. 69;filed 9/16/11]

xii. Exhibits to the New Century Liquidating Trust's Responses to the Additional

Request for Documents of Molly S. White and Ralph N. White [Adv. Dkt.No. 71; filed 9/21/11]

xiii. Memorandum of New Century Liquidating Trust Motion to DismissAdversary Proceeding Complaint with Exhibit 1 containing (Declaration of Donna Walker) [Adv. Dkt. No. 11; filed 12/15/2010]

xiv. Reply of the New Century Liquidating Trust to the Memorandum of Law inOpposition to the New Century Liquidating Trust's Motion to DismissAdversary Proceeding Complaint with Supplemental Declaration [Adv. Dkt.No. 30; filed 01/21/2011]

xv. Supplemental Declaration of Donna Walker by New Century Liquidating Trust [Adv. Dkt. No. 51; filed 4/29/11]

xvi. Notice of Filing of Declaration of Llewellyn Adams evidencing the Filing of Assignment of Mortgage by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. as Attorney-In-Fact for New Century Mortgage Corporation [Adv. Dkt. No. 89; filed5/18/2012]

xvii. Transcript of May 23, 2012 Omnibus Hearing [Adv. Dkt. No 94; filed5/30/12]

xviii. Certification of Counsel Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery[Adv. Dkt. No. 96; filed 6/1/2012]

xix. Letter to the Court regarding the May 23, 2012 Status Conference Hearingfiled by Molly S. White and Ralph N. White [Adv. Dkt. No. 99; filed6/6/2012]

xx. Molly S. White and Ralph N. White’s Objection to Certification of CounselRegarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery [Adv. Dkt. No. 100; filed6/6/2012]

xxi. Letter to the Court regarding the May 23, 2012 Status Conference HearingFiled by Molly S. White and Ralph N. White [Adv. Dkt. No. 101; filed6/11/2012]

xxii. Supplemental Exhibit to the New Century Liquidating Trust's Responses toBoth the Request for Documents and Additional Request for Documents of Molly S. White and Ralph N. White [Adv. Dkt. No. 102; filed 7/3/12]



130566.01600/40205659v.1

xxiii. The New Century Liquidating Trust’s Response to the Letter to the CourtFiled by Ralph and Molly White [Adv. Dkt. No. 103; filed 7/3/2012]

xxiv. The New Century Liquidating Trust’s Response to the Plaintiffs' Objection toCertification of Counsel Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel Discovery

[Adv. Dkt. No. 104; filed 7/3/2012]

xxv. The Whites’ Objection to the New Century Liquidating Trusts Filing of Unsolicited and Untimely Supplemental Exhibits [Adv. Dkt. No. 107; filed7/11/12]

xxvi. The Whites’ Reply to the New Century Liquidating Trust’s Response to theLetter to the Court Filed by Ralph and Molly White [Adv. Dkt. No. 108; filed7/11/12]

xxvii. Request for Judicial Notice Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 201 Filed

by Molly S. White and Ralph N. White [Adv. Dkt. No. 111; filed 8/24/12]

Status: The Court held a Status Conference on May 23, 2012. The Court advisedthe parties it would take the Motion under advisement and if furtherdiscussions were needed, the Court would advise the Parties of the need todo so.

15. Molly S. White & Ralph N. White v. New Century TRS Holdings, Inc., et al. (Adv.Pro. No. 10-55357): Motion to Reconsider Dismissal of Counts II and VIII of Complaint [Filed by Molly S. White and Ralph N. White] [Adv. Dkt. No. 61; filed6/17/2011]

Objections/Responses Received

A. Objection to the Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Dismissal of Count II and Count VIII of Plaintiff’s Adversary Complaint [Adv. Dkt.No. 64; filed 7/1/2011]

B. Reply to the New Century Liquidating Trust Objection to Plaintiff’sMotion for Reconsideration of Dismissal of Count II and Count VIII of Plaintiff’s Adversary Complaint [Adv. Dkt. No. 65; filed 7/11/2011]

Related Documents:

i. Memorandum of New Century Liquidating Trust Motion to DismissAdversary Proceeding Complaint with Exhibit 1 containing (Declaration of Donna Walker) [Adv. Dkt. No. 11; 12/15/2010]



130566.01600/40205659v.1

ii. Memorandum Relating to Trustees Motion to Dismiss Adversary Complaintof Molly S. White and Ralph N. White to Determine Dischargeability of Debt Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. section 523(a)(2)(A) and (B), (a)(3)(B), (a)(4),(a)(6) and (19)(A) and (B) and Rule 7001 of Federal Rules of BankruptcyProcedure [Adv. Dkt. No. 59; filed 6/7/2011]

iii. Order Granting In Part And Dismissing In Part Trustees Motion To DismissAdversary Complaint Of Molly S. White And Ralph N. White To DetermineDischargeability of Debt [Adv. Dkt. No. 60; filed 6/7/2011]

iv. The New Century Liquidating Trust’s Responses to the Additional Requestfor Documents of Molly S. White and Ralph N. White [Adv. Dkt. No. 69;filed 9/16/11]

v. Notice of Filing of Certified Copy of Morgan Stanley ABS Capital 1 Inc. Trust 2006-NC5 filed by Molly S. White and Ralph N. White [Adv. Dkt. No.

79; filed 2/8/2012]

vi. Plaintiff's Supplemental Exhibits in Support of Plaintiff's Motion forReconsideration of Dismissal of Counts II and Count VIII of Plaintiff'sAdversary Complaint [Dkt. No. 10889; filed 5/17/2012]

vii. Notice of Filing of Declaration of Llewellyn Adams evidencing the Filing of Assignment of Mortgage by Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. as Attorney-In-Fact for New Century Mortgage Corporation [Adv. Dkt. No. 89; filed5/18/2012]

viii. Letter to the Court regarding the May 23, 2012 Status Conference Hearingfiled by Molly S. White and Ralph N. White [Adv. Dkt. No. 99; filed6/6/2012]

ix. Letter to the Court regarding the May 23, 2012 Status Conference HearingFiled by Molly S. White and Ralph N. White [Adv. Dkt. No. 101; filed6/11/2012]

x. The New Century Liquidating Trust’s Response to the Letter to the CourtFiled by Ralph and Molly White [Adv. Dkt. No. 103; filed 7/3/2012]

xi. The Whites Objection to the New Century Liquidating Trust filing of Unsolicited and Untimely Supplemental Exhibits [Adv. Dkt. No. 107; filed7/11/2012]

xii. The Whites’ Reply to the New Century Liquidating Trust’s Response to theLetter to the Court Filed by Ralph an Molly White [Adv. Dkt. No. 108; filed7/11/12]



130566.01600/40205659v.1

xiii. Request for Judicial Notice Pursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 201 Filedby Molly S. White and Ralph N. White [Adv. Dkt. No. 111; filed 8/24/12]

Status: The Court held a Status Conference on May 23, 2012. The Court advisedthe parties it would take the Motion under advisement upon resolution of

the Whites’ Motion to Compel and if further discussions were needed, theCourt would advise the Parties of the need to do so.

16. Alfred A. Silva v. New Century Mortgage Corporation (Adv. Pro. No. 11-53199):Motion of Alfred A. Silva, Pro Se to Consider Proof of Claim Timely Filed [Adv.Dkt. No. 2; filed 9/16/11]



A.

Objection of the New Century Liquidating Trust to the Motion of AlfredA. Silva, Pro Se, to Consider Proof of Claim Timely Filed [Adv. Dkt. No.7; filed 10/26/11]

Related Documents:

i. Scheduling Order Regarding Motion of Alfred A. Silva, Pro Se, toConsider Proof of Claim Timely Filed [Adv. Pro. Dkt. No. 2] and theObjection of the New Century Liquidating Trust to the Silva Motion [AdvPro. Dkt. No. 7] [Adv. Dkt. No. 11; filed 11/15/11]

ii. Notice of Status Conference Re: Tiphanie Goines, Karan Russell, AlfredA. Silva and Annette Lamour [Dkt. No. 10676; filed 12/16/11]

iii. Notice of Adjourned Hearing (Re: Tiphanie Goines, Karan Russell, AlfredA. Silva and Annette Lamour) [Dkt. No. 10709; filed 1/20/12]

iv. Notice of Evidentiary Hearing [Dkt. No. 10738; filed 2/15/12]

v. Amended Scheduling Order Regarding Motion of Alfred A. Silva, Pro Se,to Consider Proof of Claim Timely Filed [Adv. Dkt. No. 27; filed 2/29/12]

vi. The New Century Liquidating Trusts Motion to Preclude Alfred A. SilvaFrom Introducing Evidence at the Evidentiary Hearing Pursuant to FederalRule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7037 and Local Rule 7026-1 [Dkt. No.10746; filed 2/21/12]

vii. Motion of Alfred A. Silva, Pro Se Requesting Deferral of any CourtAppearances [Dkt. No. 10899; filed 5/22/12]



130566.01600/40205659v.1

viii. Order Granting, in Part, the Motion of Alfred A. Silva, Pro Se, RequestingDeferral of any Court Appearances [Dkt. No. 10914; filed 5/29/12]

ix. Certification of Counsel Regarding the Order Granting The New CenturyLiquidating Trust's Motion to Preclude Alfred A. Silva From Introducing

Evidence at the Evidentiary Hearing Pursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7037 and Local Rule 7026-1 [Dkt. No. 10923; filed6/4/12]

x. Order Granting The New Century Liquidating Trust's Motion to PrecludeAlfred A. Silva From Introducing Evidence at the Evidentiary HearingPursuant to Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 7037 and Local Rule7026-1 [Dkt. No. 10924; filed 6/6/12]

Status: The Court held an evidentiary hearing on this matter on July 12, 2012. This matter is ripe for decision.

17. Molly S. White & Ralph N. White v. New Century TRS Holdings, Inc., et al. (Adv.Pro. No. 10-55357): Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice Pursuant to FederalRules of Evidence 201 [Adv. Dkt. No. 111; Main Case Dkt. No. 11011; filed8/24/2012]

Related Documents:

A. Notice to the Court Regarding the Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice Filedby Molly S. White and Ralph N. White [Adv. Dkt. No. 113; Main Case Dkt.No. 11019; filed 9/14/2012]

B. Response of New Century Liquidating Trust to (I) Request for Judicial NoticePursuant to Federal Rules of Evidence 201 [D.I. 11011], and (II) Notice to theCourt Regarding the Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice [D.I. 11019] [MainCase Dkt. No. 11021; filed 9/28/2012]

C. Plaintiff’s Reply in Response to the New Century Liquidating Trust'sObjections to Plaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice Pursuant to Federal Rulesof Evidence 201 [D.I. 11011], and Notice to the Court Regarding thePlaintiff's Request for Judicial Notice [D.I. 10119] [Main Case Dkt. No.11025; filed 10/18/2012]

D. Certificate of No Objection Regarding Request for Judicial Notice Filed byMolly S. White and Ralph N. White [Adv. Dkt. No. 114; filed 10/18/2012]

E. Response to the Certification of No Objection Regarding Docket No. 111Filed by Molly S. White and Ralph N. White [D.I. 114] [Adv. Dkt. No. 115;filed 10/26/2012]



130566.01600/40205659v.1

F. Objection to the New Century Liquidating Trust's Response to theCertification of No Objection [Adv. Dkt. No. 117; filed 11/5/2012]

Status: Pursuant to the Court’s instruction at the July 12, 2012 hearing, this matteris under advisement. A hearing on this matter will only be held upon request of

the Court.

18. Motion to Allow Determination of Claim 4144 and Adversary Proceeding No. 12-50187 Non-Dischargeable and Allow Trial Filed by Christine Konar [Dkt. No.11029; filed 11/27/12]

Objection Deadline: None.


A. Objection of the New Century Liquidating Trust to the Motion of ChristineKonar for Determination of Claim 4144 and Adversary Proceeding No. 12-

50187 Non-Dischargeable and Allow Trial [Dkt. No. 11037; filed 12/20/12]


Status: Pursuant to the Court’s instruction at the July 12, 2012 hearing, thismatter is under advisement. A hearing on this matter will only be held uponrequest of the Court.

I I I . CONTESTED MATTERS:

19. Motion of the New Century Liquidating Trust for an Order Extending the Trust

Termination Date Through and Including August 1, 2015 [Dkt. No. 11066; filed2/14/13]

Objection Deadline: February 28, 2013


A. The Limited Objection of Molly S. White and Ralph N. White to NewCentury Liquidating Trust’s Motion for an Order Extending the Trust’s Termination Date Through and Including August 1, 2015 [Dkt. No. 11080;filed 3/1/13]

B. Response of the New Century Liquidating Trust to the Limited Objection of Molly S. White and Ralph N. White to the New Century Liquidating Trust'sMotion for an Order Extending the Trust's Termination Date Through andIncluding August 1, 2015 [Dkt. No. 11086; filed 3/4/13 ]

Related Documents: None.

Status: The hearing on this matter will go forward.



130566.01600/40205659v.1

20. The New Century Liquidating Trust’s Motion for an Order Authorizing theImmediate Abandonment and Destruction of Certain Mortgage Loan Files andNon-Mortgage Loan Business Files [Dkt. No. 11067; filed 2/14/13]

Objection Deadline: February 28, 2013


A. Objection to Motion to Abandon and Destroy Mortgage Loan Files [Filed byLina Cruz] [Dkt. No. 11069; filed 2/26/13]

B. Objection to Motion to Abandon and Destroy Mortgage Loan Files [Filed byAnn Marie DiLibero] [Dkt. No. 11070; filed 2/26/13]

C. Objection to Motion to Abandon and Destroy Mortgage Loan Files [Filed byWilliam Hobin] [Dkt. No. 11071; filed 2/26/13]

D. Objection to Motion to Abandon and Destroy Mortgage Loan Files [Filed byMark Zelazny] [Dkt. No. 11072; filed 2/26/13]

E. Memorandum Against Abandonment and Destruction of Records [Filed byDaneford Michael Wright] [Dkt. No. 11073; filed 2/28/13]

F. Objection to Motion to Authorize the Immediate Abandonment andDestruction of Certain Mortgage Loan Files and Non-Mortgage LoanBusiness Files. [Filed by Christian W. Purfield] [Dkt. No. 11074; filed2/28/13]

G. Opposition to Motion for an Order Authorizing the Immediate Abandonmentand Destruction of Certain Mortgage Loan Files and Non-Mortgage LoanBusiness Files [Filed by El Veasta Lampley] [Dkt. No. 11075; filed 2/28/13]

H. Opposition of Leslie Patrice Barnes Marks to the New Century Liquidating Trust’s Motion for an Order Authorizing the Immediate Abandonment andDestruction of Certain Mortgage Loan Files and Non-Mortgage LoanBusiness Files [Dkt. No. 11076; filed 2/28/13]

I. Objection to the Motion by NCLT for an Order Authorizing the ImmediateAbandonment and Destruction of Certain Mortgage Loan Files and Non-Mortgage Loan Business Files and Request for Judicial Notice [Filed by

Helen Galope] [Dkt. No. 11077; filed 2/28/13]

J. Opposition of Kimberly S. Cromwell and Karan Russell to the Motion of theNew Century Liquidating Trust for an Order Authorizing the ImmediateAbandonment and Destruction of Certain Mortgage Loan Files and Non-Mortgage Loan Business Files [Dkt. No. 11078; filed 2/28/13]



130566.01600/40205659v.1

K. Amended Objection to the Motion by NCLT for an Order Authorizing theImmediate Abandonment and Destruction of Certain Mortgage Loan Files andNon-Mortgage Loan Business Files and Request for Judicial Notice [Filed byHelen Galope] [Dkt. No. 11079; filed 3/1/13]

L. The Limited Objection of Molly S. White and Ralph N. White to the NewCentury Liquidating Trust’s Motion for an Order Authorizing the ImmediateAbandonment and Destruction of Certain Mortgage Loan Files and Non-Mortgage Loan Business Files [Dkt. No. 11081; filed 3/1/13]

M. Amended Objection of Molly S. White and Ralph N. White in Part to the NewCentury Liquidating Trust’s Motion for an Order Authorizing the ImmediateAbandonment and Destruction of Certain Mortgage Loan Files and Non-Mortgage Loan Business Files [Dkt. No. 11083; filed 3/4/13]

N. Objection to the Motion of the New Century Trust for an Order Authorizingthe Immediate Abandonment and Destruction of Certain Mortgage Loan Files

and Non-Mortgage Loan Business Files [Filed by Robin Ann Simms] [Dkt.No. 11085; filed 3/4/13]

Reply Received:

A. Omnibus Reply of the New Century Liquidating Trust to Objections toMotion for Entry of an Order Authorizing the Immediate Abandonment andDestruction of Certain Mortgage Loan Files and Non-Mortgage LoanBusiness Files [Dkt. No. 11087; filed 3/4/13 ]

Related Documents: See Agenda Item 21 below.


IV. MATTER GOING FORWARD:

21. Motion of Molly S. White and Ralph N. White for Enlargement of Time toResponse to the New Century Liquidating Trust Motion for an Order Authorizingthe Immediate Abandonment and Destruction of Certain Mortgage Loan Files andNon-Mortgage Loan Business Files [Dkt. No. 11082; filed 3/4/13]


Objections/Responses Received: None.

Related Documents:

A. The New Century Liquidating Trust’s Motion for an Order Authorizing theImmediate Abandonment and Destruction of Certain Mortgage Loan Files andNon-Mortgage Loan Business Files [Dkt. No. 11067; filed 2/14/13]



130566.01600/40205659v.1

B. The Limited Objection of Molly S. White and Ralph N. White to the NewCentury Liquidating Trust’s Motion for an Order Authorizing the ImmediateAbandonment and Destruction of Certain Mortgage Loan Files and Non-Mortgage Loan Business Files [Dkt. No. 11081; filed 3/1/13]

C. Amended Objection of Molly S. White and Ralph N. White in Part to the NewCentury Liquidating Trust’s Motion for an Order Authorizing the ImmediateAbandonment and Destruction of Certain Mortgage Loan Files and Non-Mortgage Loan Business Files [Dkt. No. 11083; filed 3/4/13]


V. STATUS CONFERENCE:

22. Helen Galope v. New Century TRS Holdings, Inc., et al. (Adv. Pro. No. 12-51000): Motion of New Century Liquidating Trust to Dismiss Adversary ProceedingComplaint [Adv. Dkt. No. 3; filed 12/19/12]



A. Answer to AP Response and Motion to Recuse [Filed by Helen Galope] [Dkt.No. 11043; filed 12/28/12]

B. Response to Helen Galope's Opposition to the New Century Liquidating Trust's Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding Complaint and Opposition toMotion to Recuse [Adv. Dkt. No. 5; Main Case Dkt. No. 11050; filed 1/11/13]

Related Documents:

A. Memorandum of Law in Support of the New Century Liquidating Trust’sMotion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding Complaint [Adv. Dkt. No. 4; filed12/19/12]

Status: A status conference will go forward.



130566.01600/40205659v.1

Dated: March 5, 2013 BLANK ROME LLP

/s/ David W. Carickhoff David W. Carickhoff (DE No. 3715)

Alan M. Root (DE No. 5427)1201 Market Street, Suite 800Wilmington, Delaware 19801(302) 425-6400 - Telephone(302) 425-6464 – Facsimile

- and -

HAHN & HESSEN LLP488 Madison Avenue, 15th FloorNew York, New York 10022

(212) 478-7200 - Telephone(212) 478-7400 - FacsimileAttn: Mark S. Indelicato

Co-Counsel to the New CenturyLiquidating Trust



Multi Case Docketing :

07-10416-KJC New Century TRS Holdings, Inc.

10-55357-KJC Molly S. White and Ralph N. White v. New Century TRS Holdings, Inc. et al., a Delaware

11-53199-KJC Silva v. New Century Mortgage Corporation et al

12-51000-KJC Galope v. New Century Mortgage Corporation et al

U.S. Bankruptcy Court

District of Delaware

Notice of Electronic Filing

The following transaction was received from David W. Carickhoff entered on 3/5/2013 at 10:21 AM EST and filed on 3/5/2013

Docket Text:Notice of Agenda of Matters Scheduled for Hearing Filed by New Century L iquidating Trust. Hearing scheduled for 3/7/2013 at 10:00 AM at US Bankruptcy Court,824 Market St., 5th Fl., Courtroom #5, Wilmington, Delaware. (Carickhoff, David)

The following document(s) are associated with this transaction:

07-10416-K J C Notice will be electronically mailed to:

David G. Aelvoet on behalf of Creditor Bexar [email protected]

J ustin R. Alberto on behalf of Defendant United Healthcare Insurance Company [email protected], [email protected];[email protected];[email protected];[email protected]

Type: bk Chapter: 11 v Office: 1 (Delaware)

Assets: y J udge: KJ C

Case Flag: APPEAL, MEGA, LEAD, CLMSAGNT, SealedDoc(s), CONFIRMED,MTRUNADV

Type: ap Office: 1 (Delaware) J udge: KJ C

Lead Case: 1-07-bk-10416 Case Flag: MTRUNADV

Type: ap Office: 1 (Delaware) J udge: KJ C

Lead Case: 1-07-bk-10416 Case Flag: NONPREF,ANSDue, MTRUNADV

Type: ap Office: 1 (Delaware) J udge: KJC

Lead Case: 1-07-bk-10416 Case Flag: SVCDue,NONPREF

Case Name: New Century TRS Holdings, Inc.

Case Number: 07-10416-KJC

Document Number:11088 Case Name: Molly S. White and Ralph N. White v. New Century TRS Holdings, Inc. et al., a DelawareCase Number: 10-55357-KJC

Document Number:120 Case Name: Silva v. New Century Mortgage Corporation et al

Case Number: 11-53199-KJCDocument Number:46

Case Name: Galope v. New Century Mortgage Corporation et alCase Number: 12-51000-KJCDocument Number:8

Document description:M ain DocumentOriginal filename:New Century - Agenda _3_7_13_ _4_.pdf Electronic document Stamp:[STAMP bkecfStamp_I D=983460418 [Date=3/5/2013] [FileNumber=11493152-0][2c25119fedcb9ab5f97ee2195d57a1fbf8c106bf810bd19c20e2d21ded195405767c8b86e42ccea92b3be4f5a860536dfaab3d205c7edacf29c2dbe83cc1030d]]Document description:M ain DocumentOriginal filename:New Century - Agenda _3_7_13_ _4_.pdf Electronic document Stamp:[STAMP bkecfStamp_I D=983460418 [Date=3/5/2013] [FileNumber=11493153-0][522364dd4ac8d548cded62e36afcbe6847fb9e3bbf56a7d4c68ba93f1a37f93675f2b3b391e14aee5f9a17d9cd3fd8d01d7e45c0a2818fd3ffb67782444f3891]]Document description:M ain DocumentOriginal filename:New Century - Agenda _3_7_13_ _4_.pdf Electronic document Stamp:[STAMP bkecfStamp_I D=983460418 [Date=3/5/2013] [FileNumber=11493154-0]

[4edb9dc01d659772bf2da97e7edb7c688b8b67a1fab5d1d8c705571398afa60f35b3ddf56cb70b7fcdae71a045110a23b2806b2421915cb8675d20bf89c8d51e]]Document description:M ain DocumentOriginal filename:New Century - Agenda _3_7_13_ _4_.pdf Electronic document Stamp:[STAMP bkecfStamp_I D=983460418 [Date=3/5/2013] [FileNumber=11493155-0][35d99291707fd0e2d7bc538cd73c2e9cebfa58c123dee386c8ae84a2aecf8b2d09cc0a464ccf9d6d4d130aa36d789a015f1e02cf4009d659d385fc3276661440]]

Page 1of 30Internal CM/ECF Live Database

3/5/2013https://ecf.deb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/Dispatch.pl?122960149706054



130566.01600/40205775v.1

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

In re: Chapter 11

NEW CENTURY TRS HOLDINGS, INC., Case No. 07-10416 (KJC)a Delaware Corporation, et al., 1

Jointly AdministeredDebtors.

Re: D.I. 11067-------------------------------------------------------------------------x

OMNIBUS REPLY OF THE NEW CENTURY LIQUIDATING TRUSTTO OBJECTIONS TO MOTION FOR ENTRY OF AN ORDER AUTHORIZING THE

IMMEDIATE ABANDONMENT AND DESTRUCTION OF CERTAINMORTGAGE LOAN FILES AND NON-MORTGAGE LOAN BUSINESS FILES

Alan M. Jacobs, in his capacity as Liquidating Trustee (the “Trustee”) to the New

Century Liquidating Trust (the “Trust”), by and through his undersigned counsel, hereby

files this omnibus reply (the “Reply”) to the objections (collectively, the “Objections”)2

1 The pre-confirmation Debtors were the following entities: New Century Financial Corporation (f/k/a

New Century REIT, Inc.), a Maryland corporation; New Century TRS Holdings, Inc. (f/k/a new CenturyFinancial Corporation), a Delaware corporation; New Century Mortgage Corporation (f/k/a JBEMortgage) (d/b/a NCMC Mortgage Corporate, New Century Corporation, New Century MortgageVentures, LLC), a California corporation; NC Capital Corporation, a California corporation; Home123Corporation (f/k/a The Anyloan Corporation, 1800anyloan.com, Anyloan.com), a Californiacorporation; New Century Credit Corporation (f/k/a Worth Funding Incorporated), a Californiacorporation; NC Asset Holding, L.P. (f/k/a NC Residual II Corporation), a Delaware limitedpartnership; NC Residual III Corporation, a Delaware corporation; NC Residual IV Corporation, aDelaware corporation; New Century R.E.O. Corp., a California corporation; New Century R.E.O. IICorp., a California corporation; New Century R.E.O. III Corp., a California corporation; New CenturyMortgage Ventures, LLC (d/b/a Summit Resort Lending, Total Mortgage Resource, Select MortgageGroup, Monticello Mortgage Services, Ad Astra Mortgage, Midwest Home Mortgage, TRATS FinancialServices, Elite Financial Services, Buyers Advantage Mortgage), a Delaware limited liability company;

NC Deltex, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; NCoral, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership;and New Century Warehouse Corporation, a California corporation.

2 Objections have been filed by Lina Cruz (“Cruz”) [D.I. 11069], Ann Marie DiLibero (“DiLibero”) [D.I.11070], William Hobin (“Hobin”) [D.I. 11071], Mark Zelazny (“Zelazny”) [D.I. 11072], DanefordMichael Wright (“Wright”) [D.I. 11073], Christian Purfield (“Purfield”) [D.I. 11074], El Veasta Lampley(“Lampley”) [D.I. 11075], Leslie Marks (“Marks”) [D.I. 11076], Helen Galope (“Galope”) [D.I. 11077 &D.I. 11079], Kimberly Cromwell & Karan Russell (“Cromwell” and “Russell”) [D.I. 11078], Molly S.White and Ralph N. White (the “Whites”) [D.I. 11081 & 11083], and Robin Simms (“Simms”) [D.I.11085] (collectively, the “Objectors”).



2130566.01600/40205775v.1

interposed to the Motion of the New Century Liquidating Trust for an Order Authorizing the

Immediate Abandonment and Destruction of Certain Mortgage Loan Files and Non-Mortgage Loan

Business Files [D.I. 11067] (the “Destruction Motion”),3 and respectfully states as follows:

REPLY

1. The Trust has been in existence since the occurrence of the Original Effective

Date nearly four and one-half (4 ½) years ago. Since the Original Effective Date, in

accordance with the terms of the Modified Confirmation Order, the Trustee has maintained

all documents turned over to the Trust by the Debtors, as well as all documents generated

during the pendency of these chapter 11 cases (the “Chapter 11 Cases”). Given the

advanced stage of these Chapter 11 Cases and the relatively few issues remaining to be

resolved, the Trustee is determined to take all steps necessary to ensure the expeditious

closure of these Chapter 11 Cases. As part of the process of winding down the Trust, the

Trustee has determined that the Trustee must begin the process of abandoning and

destroying certain of the documents in its possession, the first of which are very narrow

categories of documents which have no value to the Trust and are not necessary to the

administration of the Chapter 11 Cases. In that vein, the Trustee filed the Destruction

Motion seeking authority to destroy only (i) the Pre-2000 Loan Files, (ii) the Post-2004

Duplicate Loan Files, (iii) the Non-Mortgage Loan Business Files, and (iv) the Post-Petition

Files. While the Destruction Motion stands on its own, the Trust files this Reply to refute

various inaccurate factual and legal assertions set forth in the Objections.

2. The Objections assert two (2) primary grounds in support of their arguments

in opposition to the Destruction Motion. First, the Objectors argue that the Trustee should

3 Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Destruction Motion.



3130566.01600/40205775v.1

not be authorized to destroy any documentation related to the Mortgage Loans originated

by the Debtors to the Objectors. Second, few of the Objectors argue that the Trustee should

not be authorized to destroy any documents, as the the Objectors are under the mistaken

belief that the documents in the Trust’s possession may be necessary in the context of

ongoing or future litigations or potential investigations. For the reasons set forth below, the

Objections should be overruled, and the Destruction Motion should be granted.

I. The Court Should Authorize the Abandonment of the Post-2004 Duplicate Loan

Files

3. The majority of the Objectors’ primary concern is the preservation of any and

all documentation related to the Mortgage Loans originated by the Debtors to the Objectors

themselves. As an initial matter, it should be noted that each of the Objectors’ Mortgage

Loans were originated by the Debtors after 2000.4 Accordingly, despite anything the

Objectors argue to the contrary, the Objections should not be construed as opposing the

Trustee’s request to abandon and destroy the Pre-2000 Loan Files.

4. The Objections that oppose the Trustee’s request to abandon and destroy the

Post-2004 Duplicate Loan Files are based on the mistaken belief that the Trustee is seeking

authority to abandon and destroy the only copies of the Loan Files related to their

respective Mortgage Loans. See, e.g., Objections of Cruz, DiLibero, Hobin, and Zelanzy, ¶¶

7-9; Objection of Simms, ¶¶ 3-5; Objection of Wright, p. 1. The Objectors misconstrue the

relief requested. As set forth in the Destruction Motion, with respect to the Post-2004

Duplicate Loan Files, the Trustee seeks authority to abandon and destroy the associated

hard copy Loan Files, but only if and to the extent the Trustee maintains an imaged copy

4 The Trust’s books and records reflect that each of the Mortgage Loans originated by the Debtors for theObjectors were originated after 2000.



4130566.01600/40205775v.1

of such Loan Files. In other words, if the Trustee does not have an imaged copy of a Post-

2004 Duplicate Loan File, the Trustee is not seeking authority to abandon such files. On

the other hand, if the Trustee has an imaged copy of a Post-2004 Duplicate Loan File, the

Trustee, by the Destruction Motion, seeks authority to abandon such files.

5. Since filing the Destruction Motion, the Trustee has received various

responses from interested parties, including the Objectors and several parties who have

served upon the Trust duly issued subpoenas for production of documents (collectively, the

“Subpoena Parties”). As the result of negotiations with those interested parties, however,

the Trustee has modified his request with respect to the Post-2004 Duplicate Loan Files and

now seeks authority to abandon such Post-2004 Duplicate Loan Files, but is not seeking

authority to immediately destroy such Post-2004 Duplicate Loan Files at this time.

Specifically, after negotiations with the Subpoena Parties, the Trustee has reached an

agreement with the Subpoena Parties whereby the Trustee will request authority to abandon

the Post-2004 Duplicate Loan Files, but will continue to maintain such Post-2004 Duplicate

Loan Files at the Subpoena Parties’ sole cost and expense.5 Accordingly, while the Trustee

now seeks authority to abandon the Post-2004 Duplicate Loan Files (subject to the terms

and conditions of the Revised Proposed Order), the Trustee will not destroy any such Post-

2004 Duplicate Loan Files until such time as the Subpoena Parties no longer subsidize the

cost of storage of the Post-2004 Duplicate Loan Files. At such time, the Trustee will only

destroy the Post-2004 Duplicate Loan Files after providing the Objectors (and any other

5 The Subpoena Parties have agreed to reimburse the Trust for all expenses incurred in connection with thecontinued maintenance of the Post-2004 Duplicate Loan Files, as well as any hard copy underwritingguidelines, matrices and similar documentation. Given that the Trustee has reached an agreement withthe Subpoena Parties with respect to the Post-2004 Duplicate Loan Files and the maintenance of other hard copy materials, the Trustee intends to submit a revised proposed order (the “Revised ProposedOrder”) consistent with the agreement of the parties.



5130566.01600/40205775v.1

parties who have formally or informally responded to the Destruction Motion) with notice

and an opportunity to assume the costs associated with the retention of the files. As a result,

the Trustee will maintain any and all documents related to Mortgage Loans originated

and/or serviced after 2004, including hard copy Loan Files and all documents related

thereto, until such time as the Trustee notifies the Objectors in accordance with the terms of

the Revised Proposed Order. Therefore, the Objections to the destruction of the hard copy

Post-2004 Duplicate Loan Files should be overruled, as the Trustee agrees to continue to

maintain such documents and will not destroy such documents unless and until the Trustee

notifies interested parties, including the Objectors, of the Trustee’s intent to destroy the

Post-2004 Duplicate Loan Files and gives them the opportunity to assume the retention

costs.

6. Certain of the Objections also appear to be based on the mistaken belief that

the Trust maintains original copies of their Loan Files. See, e.g., Objection of Wright, p. 1;

Objection of Simms, ¶ 3; Objection of the Whites, ¶¶ 24, 31. Again, the Objectors

misinterpret the explanations set forth in the Destruction Motion concerning the relief

requested. Specifically, as set forth in the Destruction Motion, the documents in the Trust’s

possession concerning or relating to borrowers’ Mortgage Loans are not original

documents. Rather, it was the Debtors’ practice in the ordinary course to deliver the

original Loan Files for each Mortgage Loan originated or serviced by the Debtors to the

applicable Securitization Trusts, third party purchaser, or servicer. The hard copy Loan

Files in the Trust’s possession, therefore, are duplicate or branch copies of Loan Files, the

original copies of which have long since been transferred to third parties. Accordingly, the



6130566.01600/40205775v.1

Objections based on the mistaken belief that the Trust maintains original copies of Loan

Files should be overruled as having no basis in fact.

7. Notwithstanding the Trustee’s position that the Objections should be

overruled, to the extent the Trustee has not previously provided copies of documents

relating to each respective Objectors’ Mortgage Loans, as an accommodation to such

Objectors, the Trustee is willing to make a reasonable and diligent search for documents

related to the Objectors’ Mortgage Loans where such documents reasonably would be

expected to be found and produce such documents to the Objectors on an individual basis.

The Trustee notes, however, that the Trust has already provided documents in its possession

concerning or relating to the Mortgage Loans of Purfield,6 Cromwell, and Russell,7 and the

Trustee does not intend to “re-produce” such documents. As the Objections are based upon

a misunderstanding of the relief requested and given that the Trustee is willing to produce

such documents to the Objectors, the Objections should be overruled.

II. The Trustee Should Be Authorized to Abandon and Destroy the Pre-2000 Loan

Files, the Non-Mortgage Loan Business Files, and the Post-Petition Files

8. The Objectors also challenge the relief requested on the basis that (i) they are

involved in litigation concerning Mortgage Loans allegedly originated and/or serviced by

the Debtors prior to the Petition Date, see Objections of Cruz, DiLibero, Hobin, and

Zelazny, ¶ 4; Objection of Cromwell and Russell, ¶ 2; Objection of Marks, ¶ 5; Objection of

Lampley, p. 3; Objection of Wright, p. 1, Objection of the Whites, ¶ 32; or (ii) the Objectors

6 See Order Denying Christian W. Purfield’s Emergency Motion Without Prejudice [D.I. 10827, 4/5/12], pursuant

to which the Trustee agreed to provide Purfield with a copy of his Loan File.

7 As the Court is aware, an evidentiary hearing to consider the threshold issue of whether Cromwell andRussell should be permitted to file a late claim in these Chapter 11 Cases was conducted on May 23, 2012and, with respect to Russell only, was completed on July 12, 2012. Prior to the evidentiary hearings, theTrustee provided all documents (including copies of their respective Loan Files) in its possessionconcerning or relating to the Mortgage Loans originated by the Debtors to both Cromwell and Russell.



7130566.01600/40205775v.1

believe such documents may be relevant to some future litigation or investigation by a

governmental authority. See Objection of Lampley, p. 2; Objection of Cromwell and

Russell, ¶ 3; Objection of Marks, ¶ 6. As a result of such ongoing litigation or potential

litigation and/or potential investigations, the Objectors assert that the Trust should not be

authorized to destroy any documents in its possession. See Objection of Cromwell &

Russell, ¶ 3; Objection of Marks, p. 1.

9. At the outset, it should be noted that, other than the few Objections which

assert that there should be a blanket prohibition from destroying any documents, there have

been no objections, formal or informal, to the destruction of the Pre-2000 Loan Files (as

discussed infra) or the Post-Petition Files.8 The Objectors have not articulated a basis for

prohibiting the destruction of the Pre-2000 Loan Files or the Post-Petition Files, and, as set

forth more fully in the Destruction Motion, such files are not necessary to complete the

administration of these Chapter 11 Cases. Accordingly, the Trustee submits that there is no

dispute as to the Trustee’s request for authorization to abandon and destroy the Pre-2000

Loan Files and the Post-Petition Files.

10. With respect to the Non-Mortgage Loan Business Files, certain of the

Objections assert that the Non-Mortgage Loan Business Files may contain “evidence” of

wrongdoing on the part of the Debtors, and, as a result, such documents may be necessary in

some future litigation. See, e.g., Objection of Cromwell & Russell, ¶ 3; Objection of Marks,

p. 1; Objection of the Whites, . This argument, however, is based on nothing more than

pure speculation and has no basis in fact. The Objectors’ argument is based on the mere

8 The Trustee acknowledges that the Whites’ Objection specifically objects to the destruction of the Post-Petition Files. However, given the breadth of the Whites’ Objection, the Trustee believes the Whites’Objection is more appropriately construed as an objection to the destruction of all documents.



8130566.01600/40205775v.1

possibility that an “essential” document may be found within the Non-Mortgage Loan

Business Files for use in a hypothetical investigation to be commenced at some future time.

Essentially, the Objectors would have the Trust maintain the Non-Mortgage Loan Business

Files for an indefinite time period,9 notwithstanding the fact that the Non-Mortgage Loan

Business Files have been maintained for nearly seven (7) years, and the Trust has had no

recent requests for the production of the types of document contained in the Non-Mortgage

Loan Business Files. Moreover, in response to various (completed) investigations by the

SEC and various other governmental bodies as well as the Examiner, the Trustee has

produced an inordinate amount of documents and has complied fully with all such

investigations. Any and all such investigations have long since concluded, and the

documents produced in accordance with those investigations are not the subject of this

Motion. The Trustee should not be required to continue to maintain documents based on

the Objectors’ erroneous understanding of the facts surrounding the various investigations

that have been undertaken with respect to the Debtors’ operations.

11. Notwithstanding the Objectors’ arguments, in order to move these Chapter 11

Cases toward closure, the Trustee must begin the process of abandoning and destroying

documents, including the very narrow categories of documents defined as “Non-Mortgage

Loan Business Files.” As set forth in the Destruction Motion, the Non-Mortgage Loan

Business Files include, but are not limited to, accounting records, marketing and sales files,

human resources files, personnel files, closed/settled litigation files, unfunded/rejected loan

9 The Trustee notes that the Whites’ Objection to the destruction of documents is inherently inconsistentwith the Whites’ Objection to the Trust’s Motion for an Order Extending the Trust’s Termination Date Through

and Including August 1, 2015 (the “Trust Extension Motion”). On the one hand, the Whites argue that the

Trust should not be permitted to destroy documents. Yet, in their objection to the Trust ExtensionMotion, the Whites oppose the extension of the time period in which the Trustee may complete theadministration of these Chapter 11 Cases, making no mention as to the fate of the documents which arethe subject of the Destruction Motion.



9130566.01600/40205775v.1

applications, and other general office and business records. The Trustee believes that the

Non-Mortgage Loan Business Files have no value to the Trust or any party,10 as they pertain

to the Debtors’ operations, as distinct from the Debtors’ Mortgage Loan origination and

servicing business. The Non-Mortgage Loan Business Files have not been the subject of any

recent requests by any parties, including the Objectors, and the continued maintenance of

such Non-Mortgage Loan Business Files constitutes a burden on the estate with no

corresponding benefit to the Trust (or, for that matter, to any party). Finally, the Objectors

have failed to explain how or why they might need to access the Non-Mortgage Loan

Business Files and how or why such files are relevant to their pending litigations.

12. The Trustee submits that the Trust’s progress toward closure of the Chapter

11 Cases should not be hindered due to the speculative, unfounded belief that the Non-

Mortgage Loan Business Files may contain documents of interest to the Objectors.

Accordingly, the Destruction Motion should be granted, and the Court should authorize the

immediate abandonment and destruction of the Non-Mortgage Loan Business Files in

accordance with the terms and conditions of the Revised Proposed Order, as such

authorization is a necessary step in completing the administration of the Trust.

13. Finally, consistent with the Trustee’s obligations under the terms of the

Modified Confirmation Order, the Trust has not destroyed any documents that were turned

over by the Debtors or that have been generated during the pendency of these Chapter 11

Cases. As a result, many parties, including some of the Objectors, as well as the Subpoena

10 The Trustee vehemently disputes that the Destruction Motion is based upon a malicious attempt to“destroy evidence” to the detriment of the Objectors and other former borrowers of the Debtors. See, e.g . ,

Objection of Marks, ¶¶ 8-10; Objection of Galope, p. 2-3.



10130566.01600/40205775v.1

Parties,11 have utilized the Trust as a resource for the production of documents. However, it

should be noted that the Trust is merely a “secondary” source for copies of documents

which may be of interest to the Objectors (and other parties), and the Trustee maintains that

any documents related to the Objectors’ individual Mortgage Loans are more appropriately

sought from other parties, particularly the current owner or servicer of the Mortgage Loan.

Nonetheless, as indicated above, to the extent the Trustee has not previously done so, the

Trustee is willing to provide to the Objectors any documents in its possession concerning or

relating to Mortgage Loans originated to the Objectors. Accordingly, the Objectors will not

suffer any harm if the relief requested in the Destruction Motion (as modified by the Revised

Proposed Order) is granted because the Trustee will turn over to the Objectors any and all

documents concerning or related to their respective Mortgage Loans. As such, the

destruction of the files set forth in the Revised Proposed Order will not lead to any

spoliation claims. Moreover, the Objections have not set forth any legitimate factual basis

to challenge the Trustee’s request to abandon and destroy the Pre-2000 Loan Files, the Non-

Mortgage Loan Business Files, or the Post-Petition Files. Accordingly, the Objections

should be overruled.

III. Service

14. The Objection of Marks alleges that the Destruction Motion was deliberately

not served upon any homeowners. See Objection of Marks, p. 2. The Trustee vehemently

11 The Trustee notes that the Trust has been served with several dozen duly issued subpoenas in recent years,and the Trustee has endeavored to comply with each subpoena consistent with his legal obligation torespond, notwithstanding the substantial cost and burden to the Trust in responding to such subpoenas.However, many of the documents sought pursuant to subpoenas are more appropriately sought from other parties. Accordingly, the Trust submits that, while the Trust will not disregard its legal obligation torespond to duly issued subpoenas, the Trust must be permitted to begin this process of abandoning anddestroying documents, so that the Trust is in a position to close these Chapter 11 Cases as expeditiously aspossible following the resolution of the remaining issues.



11130566.01600/40205775v.1

disputes that service of the Motion was improper. In an effort to provide notice to each and

every party who has expressed an interest in any of the Debtors’ records, the Trustee

provided notice of the Motion to: (i) the pre-Original Effective Date “Bankruptcy Rule

2002” list, (ii) the current “Bankruptcy Rule 2002” list, (iii) any parties who have served

duly issued subpoenas on the Trust or who provided the Trust with a “do not destroy”

notice, and (iv) holders of disputed claims.12 Accordingly, Marks’ allegation that the

Trustee did not provide notice of the Destruction Motion to any former borrowers is simply

false. Moreover, the Trustee submits that the notice that was provided was over-inclusive,

as the Destruction Motion was noticed to many parties who likely did not have an interest

in the Unnecessary Files.

IV. Other Allegations

15. In addition to the objections to the relief requested in the Destruction Motion,

certain of the Objections assert various factual and legal allegations against the Debtors and

the Trust. Notwithstanding the fact that such allegations are not proper in the context of a

response to the Destruction Motion, for the avoidance of doubt, the Trustee vehemently

refutes, denies, and disagrees with the balance of the allegations contained in the

Objections, including, without limitation, the Objections of Lampley, Marks, Simms and

Galope. Specifically, and without limiting the foregoing sentence, the Trustee denies (i)

Lampley’s allegation of bankruptcy fraud ( see Objection of Lampley, p. 2), Marks’

allegations that she has claims in these Chapter 11 Cases ( see Objection of Marks, ¶ 1), that

12 The Trustee notes that there are several former borrowers of the Debtors who hold disputed claims inthese Chapter 11 Cases.



12130566.01600/40205775v.1

she is entitled to sue the Debtors in California state court13 ( see Objection of Marks, ¶ 9), or

that she is entitled to attorneys' fees ( see Objection of Marks, ¶ 22), Simms’ allegations that

the Trust failed to respond to RESPA requests for information ( see Objection of Simms, ¶ 6),

Cromwell and Russell’s and the Whites’ allegations that the Trustee’s request to abandon

and destroy the Unnecessary Files violates state and/or federal law ( see Objection of

Cromwell and Russell, ¶¶ 7-17; Objection of the Whites, ¶¶ 30-31), and the Whites’

allegations that the Trustee is engaged in some conspiracy to destroy evidence relevant to

any ongoing litigations.

[ Remainder of page intentionally left blank ]

13 The Trustee notes that this Court has reiterated on several different occasions and in several different

Orders of the Court that Marks is not entitled to sue the Debtors in any court, other than to quiet title.



WHEREFORE, the Trust respectfully requests that the Court overrule the

Objections to the Destruction Motion, grant the relief requested in the Destruction Motion

(as modified by the Revised Proposed Order), and grant such other and further relief as it

deems just and proper.

Dated: March 4, 2013

BLANK ROME LLP

By:/s/ David W. Carickhoff David W. Carickhoff (No. 3715)Alan M. Root (No. 5427)

1201 Market Street, Suite 800Wilmington, Delaware 19801(302) 425-6400 - Telephone(302) 425-6464 - Facsimile

- and -

HAHN & HESSEN LLP 488 Madison AvenueNew York, New York 10022(212) 478-7200 - Telephone

(212) 478-7400 - FacsimileAttn: Mark S. Indelicato, Esq.Christopher J. Hunker, Esq.

Co-Counsel to the New Century Liquidating Trust