Avenue CLO Fund, Ltd. et al v. Bank of America, N.A., et al

Filing 79

CERTIFIED REMAND ORDER. MDL No. 2106. Signed by MDL (FLSD) on 1/14/14. (Attachments: # 1 Transmittal from FLSD, # 2 1 09-md-02106 Designation of Record, # 3 1 09-md-02106 Dkt. Sheet - flsd, # 4 09-MD-2106 DE 1, 2, 4-30, # 5 0 9-MD-2106 DE 32-36, # 6 09-MD-2106 DE 37 part 1 of 3, # 7 09-MD-2106 DE 37 part 2 of 3, # 8 09-MD-2106 DE 37 part 3 of 3, # 9 09-MD-2106 DE 38, 39, 41-47, 49, 50, # 10 09-MD-2106 DE 51, # 11 09-MD-2106 DE 52-59, 61-65, 68, 70, 72-76, # (1 2) 09-MD-2106 DE 78-84, 86-91, # 13 09-MD-2106 DE 93, 95-103, 106-108, # 14 09-MD-2106 DE 110-115, # 15 09-MD-2106 DE 116-125, 127-129, 132-134, # 16 09-MD-2106 DE 136-140, 142-158, # 17 09-MD-2106 DE 160-162, 164-167, 170-175, 177-190, # ( 18) 09-MD-2106 DE 191-199, 201-215, # 19 09-MD-2106 DE 217-229, 232-247, # 20 09-MD-2106 DE 248, # 21 09-MD-2106 DE 249 part 1 of 2, # 22 09-MD-2106 DE 249 part 2 of 2, # 23 09-MD-2106 DE 251-253, 262-266, 284-287, 300, 301, 310, 319, 326-3 31, # 24 09-MD-2106 DE 335, 336, 338-344, 346-349, # 25 09-MD-2106 DE 350, # 26 09-MD-2106 DE 351-358, # 27 09-MD-2106 DE 360-366, 368-374, # 28 09-MD-2106 DE 375 part 1 of 3, # 29 09-MD-2106 DE 375 part 2 of 3, # 30 09-MD-2106 DE 375 p art 3 of 3, # 31 09-MD-2106 DE 376 part 1, # 32 09-MD-2106 DE 376 part 2, # 33 09-MD-2106 DE 376 part 3, # 34 09-MD-2106 DE 376 part 4, # 35 09-MD-2106 DE 376 part 5, # 36 09-MD-2106 DE 376 part 6, # 37 09-MD-2106 DE 376 part 7, # 38 09-MD-2106 DE 376 part 8, # 39 09-MD-2106 DE 376 part 9, # 40 09-MD-2106 DE 377 part 1, # 41 09-MD-2106 DE 377 part 2, # 42 09-MD-2106 DE 378, # 43 09-MD-2106 DE 379, # 44 09-MD-2106 DE 380, # 45 09-MD-2106 DE 381 part 1, # 46 09-MD-2 106 DE 381 part 2, # 47 09-MD-2106 DE 382 part 1, # 48 09-MD-2106 DE 382 part 2, # 49 09-MD-2106 DE 382 part 3, # 50 09-MD-2106 DE 382 part 4, # 51 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 1, # 52 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 2, # 53 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 3, # 54 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 4, # 55 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 5, # 56 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 6, # 57 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 7, # 58 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 8, # 59 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 9, # 60 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 10, # 61 09-MD-2106 DE 383 part 11, # 62 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 1, # 63 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 2, # 64 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 3, # 65 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 4, # 66 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 5, # 67 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 6, # 68 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 7, # ( 69) 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 8, # 70 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 9, # 71 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 10, # 72 09-MD-2106 DE 384 part 11, # 73 09-MD-2106 DE 385 part 1, # 74 09-MD-2106 DE 385 part 2, # 75 09-MD-2106 DE 386 part 1, # 76 09-MD-2106 DE 386 part 2, # 77 09-MD-2106 DE 386 part 3, # 78 09-MD-2106 DE 386 part 4, # 79 09-MD-2106 DE 386 part 5, # 80 09-MD-2106 DE 386 part 6, # 81 09-MD-2106 DE 386 part 7, # 82 09-MD-2106 DE 387 part 1, # 83 09-MD-2106 DE 387 part 2, # 84 09-MD-2106 DE 388, # 85 09-MD-2106 DE 389 part 1, # 86 09-MD-2106 DE 389 part 2, # 87 09-MD-2106 DE 389 part 3, # 88 09-MD-2106 DE 389 part 4, # 89 09-MD-2106 DE 390, 392-394, # 90 1 10-cv-20236 Dkt. Sheet - flsd, # 91 10cv20236 DE #1-27, 29-31, 45, 53, 60-65, 67-70, 73, # 92 1 09-cv-23835 Dkt. Sheet - flsd, # 93 09cv23835 DE 112, 115-126, # 94 09cv23835 DE 130, 134, 135 and 145)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 1 of 19

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO 09-MD-02106-CIV-GOLD/GOODMAN

IN RE: FONTAINEBLEAU LAS VEGAS
CONTRACT LITIGATION
MDL No. 2106
This document relates to all actions.
/
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The Term Lender Plaintiffs, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local
Rule 7.5(c), herby file their Statement of Undisputed Material Facts in Support of their Motion
for Partial Summary Judgment and state the following material facts are not in dispute:
I.

DEFINITIONS
1.

“BofA” means Bank of America, N.A.

2.

“Borrowers” means Fontainebleau Las Vegas, LLC and Fontainebleau Las Vegas

II, LLC.
3.

“Fontainebleau” means Fontainebleau Resorts, LLC and all affiliates and

subsidiaries, including the Borrowers.
4.

“Lehman” means Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

5.

“Project” means the Fontainebleau Resort and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada

Project.
6.

“Retail Borrower” means Fontainebleau Las Vegas Retail, LLC.

1

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 2 of 19

7.

“Term Lenders” means the plaintiffs in the case captioned Avenue CLO Fund,

Ltd., et al. v. Bank of America, N.A., et al., Case No. 09-cv-23835-GOLD/GOODMAN (S.D.
Fla.), and/or their predecessors in interest.
8.
9.
II.

“TriMont” means TriMont Real Estate Advisors, Inc.
“ULLICO” means Union Labor Life Insurance Company.

UNDISPUTED FACTS
A.

The Project and Its Financing.

1.

In 2007 Banc of America Securities led a syndicate of investment banks to raise

$1.85 billion in bank financing for the development and construction of the Project. (Exs. 3
(3/6/07 Lender Presentation), 4 (3/1/07 Public Offering Memorandum), 5 (3/1/07 Private
Offering Memorandum).)
2.

1

The financing for the Project was comprised of three facilities: $675 million 2nd

Mortgage Note offering (the “Second Lien Facility”); $1.85 billion in bank financing provided
under a June 6, 2007 Credit Agreement to Fontainebleau; and $400 million in loans to finance
the construction of the retail portion of the Project, comprised of $315 million under a Retail
Facility Agreement and an $85 million retail mezzanine loan. (Ex. 5 at pp. 28-29; Ex. 8 (Retail
Facility Agreement (“R.A”)) § 2.1; Ex. 884 (Intercreditor Agreement (Retail)) at p. 1.)
3.

The $1.85 billion bank financing included three tranches: (a) a $700 million

Initial Term Loan Facility; (b) a $350 million Delay Draw Term Loan Facility; and (c) an $800
million Revolving Loan Facility. (Ex. 658 (Credit Agreement (“C.A.”)).)
4.

BofA was appointed the Administrative Agent under the Credit Agreement.

(C.A. § 9.1(a).)

1

All exhibits referenced in this Statement are attached to the accompanying Appendix of
Exhibits. All deposition testimony is attached to the accompanying Appendix of Testimony.

2

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 3 of 19

5.

The sale of condominiums and the ongoing operation of the Project were the

primary sources of repayment for the loans. (Exs. 3, 4; C.A. § 2.11(a).)
B.

The Disbursement Agreement.

6.

A Master Disbursement Agreement was executed on June 6, 2007, governing the

disbursement of all funds to Fontainebleau under the Credit Agreement, the Second Lien Facility
and the Retail Facility. (Ex. 72 (Disbursement Agreement (“D.A.”)).)
7.

BofA was appointed as the Disbursement Agent under the Master Disbursement

Agreement. (D.A. § 9.1.)
8.

BofA executed the Master Disbursement Agreement in its capacity as both

Disbursement Agent and Bank Agent (which is defined as the Administrative Agent under the
Credit Agreement). (D.A., Ex. A at pp. 3, signature pages.)
9.

BofA’s Corporate Debt Products Group was responsible for all of BofA’s actions

as Disbursement Agent and Bank Agent, and made all decisions relating to the disbursement of
loans. (Bolio Depo., 24:5-12, 26:2-27:25, 28:8-29:2, 30:1-31:15, 32:21-33:4, 71:10-72:9, 83:3-7,
86:3-13, 87:21-88:10, 279:9-18; Brown Depo., 11:2-9, 30:14-31:10, 32:4-6, 32:16-34:4, 35:736:2, 36:8-11, 39:8-40:2, 49:7-50:19, 63:22-64:16, 87:21-88:10, 95:17-96:19; Naval Depo.,
14:17-25, 15:13-16:6, 20:21-22:8, 23:25-24:3, 25:17-21, 27:25-28:7, 29:4-6, 35:18-36:20, 56:1057:7, 58:2-8, 96:8-13, 98:23-99:4; Susman Depo., 18:21-19:18, 39:18-40:5, 49:22-50:15, 52:2-7,
53:10-22, 59:1-25, 62:14-18, 63:24-64:5, 65:6-17, 68:8-14, 70:8-23, 253:12-254:1.)
10.

Jeff Susman was the Senior Vice President of Corporate Debt Products with

primary responsibility over BofA’s various agency roles until his departure from BofA in
February 2009. (Ex. 1 (BofA Organizational Chart); Bolio Depo., 24:5-12, 26:2-27:25, 28:829:2, 30:1-31:15, 32:21-33:4, 71:10-72:9, 83:3-7, 86:3-13, 87:21-88:10, 279:9-18; Brown Depo.,
11:2-9, 30:14-31:10, 32:4-6, 32:16-34:4, 35:7-36:2, 36:8-11, 39:8-40:2, 49:7-50:19, 63:22-64:16,

3

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 4 of 19

87:21-88:10, 95:17-96:19; Naval Depo., 14:17-25, 15:13-16:6, 20:21-22:8, 23:25-24:3, 25:17-21,
27:25-28:7, 29:4-6, 35:18-36:20, 56:10-57:7, 58:2-8, 96:8-13, 98:23-99:4; Susman Depo., 14:2015:25, 18:21-19:18, 39:18-40:5, 49:22-50:15, 52:2-7, 53:10-22, 59:1-25, 62:14-18, 63:24-64:5,
65:6-17, 68:8-14, 70:8-23, 253:12-254:1.)
11.

The Disbursement Agreement contains the following language:
The Disbursement Agent accepts such appointments and agrees to
exercise commercially reasonable efforts and utilize commercially
prudent practices in the performance of its duties hereunder
consistent with those of similar institutions holding collateral,
administering construction loans and disbursing disbursement
control funds.

(D.A. § 9.1.)
C.

Bank of America’s Disbursement of Term Lenders’ Money.

12.

The Term Lenders funded the $700 million Initial Term Loan Facility into the

Bank Proceeds Account upon the closing of the Credit Agreement in June 2007. (Exs. 644
(06/07 bank statement), 1501 at pp. 12-13, V-2 (Flow of Funds Memo).)
13.

The Term Lenders funded a majority of the $350 million Delay Draw Term Loan

Facility into the Bank Proceeds Account in early March 2009. (Exs. 636 (3/11/09 BofA email re
wire transfer),
14.

643 (4/9/09 Intralinks Alert re delay draw update).)
The Borrowers could not access money in the Bank Proceeds Account. (D.A. §§

2.2, 2.3.)
15.

To access the funds in the Bank Proceeds Account, the Borrowers were required

to submit an Advance Request to BofA as Disbursement Agent. (D.A. § 2.4; Ex. 808 at pp. 3-4
(7/2/09 Yu Declaration).)
16.

The Disbursement Agreement contains the following language:
When the applicable conditions precedent set forth in Article 3
have been satisfied, the Disbursement Agent shall notify the
Project Entities and the Project Entities and the Disbursement
Agent shall execute an Advance Confirmation Notice setting forth

4

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 5 of 19

the amount of the Advances to be made pursuant to each Financing
Agreement on the Advance Date . . . . On the Scheduled Advance
Date (a) each of the Funding Agents shall make the Advances
contemplated by that Advance Confirmation Notice to the relevant
Accounts and (b) the Disbursement Agent shall make the resulting
transfers amongst the Accounts described in the Advance
Confirmation Notice.
(D.A. § 2.4.6.)
17.

The Disbursement Agreement contains the following language: “[t]he obligation

. . . of the Bank Agent to make Advances from the Bank Proceeds Account are each subject to
the prior satisfaction of each of the conditions precedent set forth in this Section 3.3.” (D.A. §
3.3.)
18.

The Disbursement Agreement contains the following language in Section 3.3.2(a)
Each Project Entity set forth in Article 4 or in any Material
Contract shall be true and correct in all material respects as if made
on such date (except that any representation and warranty that
relates expressly to an earlier date shall be deemed made only as of
such earlier date) . . . .

(D.A. § 3.3.2(a).)
19.

The Disbursement Agreement contains the following language in Article 4:
The Project Entities make all of the following representations and
warranties to and in favor of . . . the Disbursement Agent on each
Advance Date . . . :
There is no default or event of default under any of the Financing
Agreements; and
There is no Default or Event of Default hereunder.

(D.A. §§ 4, 4.9)
20.

The Disbursement Agreement contains the following language in Section 3.3.3:

“No Default or Event of Default shall have occurred and be continuing.” (D.A. § 3.3.3.)
21.

The Disbursement Agreement contains the following language in Section 3.3.21:
In the case of each Advance from the Bank Proceeds Account
made concurrently with or after Exhaustion of the Second
Mortgage Proceeds Account, the Bank Agent shall not have
become aware after the date hereof of any information or other

5

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 6 of 19

matter affecting any Loan Party, Turnberry Residential, the Project
or the transactions contemplated hereby that taken as a whole is
inconsistent in a material and adverse manner with the information
or other matter disclosed to them concerning such Persons and the
Project, taken as a whole.
(D.A. § 3.3.21.)
22.

The Disbursement Agreement contains the following language in Section 3.3.23:
In the case of each Advance from the Bank Proceeds Account
made concurrently with or after Exhaustion of the Second
Mortgage Proceeds Account, the Retail Agent and the Retail
Lenders shall, on the date specified in the relevant Advance
Request, make any Advances required of them pursuant to that
Advance Request.

(D.A. § 3.3.23.)
23.

The Disbursement Agreement contains the following language in Section 3.3.24:
In the case of each Advance from the Bank Proceeds Account, the
Bank Agent shall have received such other documents and
evidence as are customary for transactions of this type as the Bank
Agent may reasonably request in order to evidence the satisfaction
of the other conditions set forth above.

(D.A. § 3.3.24.)
24.

The Disbursement Agreement contains the following language:
In the event that (i) the conditions precedent to an Advance have
not been satisfied, or (ii) the Controlling Person notifies the
Disbursement Agent that a Default or an Event of Default has
occurred and is continuing, then the Disbursement Agent shall
notify the Project Entities and each Funding Agent thereof as soon
as reasonably possible (a “Stop Funding Notice.”).

(D.A. § 2.5.1.)
25.

The Disbursement Agreement contains the following language: “The

Disbursement Agent shall not release any Advances to the Project Entities until . . . the Retail
Lenders have made any requested Loans under the Retail Facility . . . .” (D.A. § 2.6.3.)
26.

The Second Mortgage Proceeds Account was exhausted concurrently with the

September 2008 Advance. (Ex. 890 (10/6/08 Wells Fargo Letter).)

6

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 7 of 19

27.

The Disbursement Agreement contains the following language: “At such times as

the Bank Agent is the Controlling Person, the Bank Agent shall be entitled to waive the
conditions precedent under Section 3.3 without the consent of the other Funding Agents.” (D.A.
§ 3.7.2.)
28.

The Disbursement Agreement contains the following language:
Any waiver . . . on the part of any of the Funding Agents, the
Lenders, [and] the Disbursement Agent . . . of any Default, Event
of Default or other breach or default under this Agreement or any
other Financing Agreement, or any waiver on the part of any of the
Funding Agents, the Lenders, [and] the Disbursement Agent . . . of
any provision or condition of this Agreement or any other
Operative Document, must be in writing and shall be effective only
to the extent in such writing specifically set forth.

(D.A. § 11.3.)
29.

BofA never waived any conditions precedent to disbursement. (Howard Depo.,

76:17-77:2, 77:17-20, 129:20-130:1; Varnell Depo., 182:20-183:1. See also Susman Depo.,
171:24-172:22.)
D.

The Retail Facility and Lehman’s Bankruptcy.

30.

Lehman was the largest Retail Lender, responsible for $215 million, of which

$189.6 million was to be advanced post-closing. (Exs. 9 at Ex. A (Co-Lending Agreement),
831 (4/6/09 Exposure Report), 1504 (9/21/09 Fontainebleau Proof
of Claim).)
31.

Lehman was the Administrative Agent for the Retail Facility. (R.A. § 9.7.2(d).)

32.

Under the Credit Agreement, each Borrower certified that it would “[f]urnish to

[BofA as] Administrative Agent” “copies of all amendments to . . . the Retail Facility.” (C.A. §
6.2(f).)
33.

Lehman filed for bankruptcy on September 15, 2008.

7

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 8 of 19

34.

Lehman did not fund its portion of the Retail Advance for September 2008. (Exs.

14 (9/26/08 Kotite email re failure to fund),

56 (9/26/08

TriMont email re wire), 61 (3/3/09 Retail Lender email re ULLICO funded Lehman’s share);
Freeman Depo., 75:13-22;

Kotite

Depo., 22:13-16; Susman Depo., 264:24-265:3.)
35.

Fontainebleau funded Lehman’s share of the September 2008 Retail Advance

with equity. (Exs. 14, 56, 61, 78 (10/10/08 Rourke email re equity sponsor funding), 80
(10/13/08 Scott email re Lehman’s disbursements), 1502 (10/13/08 Scott email re Lehman’s
disbursement forwarding Merrill Lynch report); Freeman Depo., 75:13-76:4;
Kotite Depo., 23:13-16; Susman Depo., 264:24-265:3.)
36.

Lehman did not fund its portion of the Retail Advances from December 2008

through March 2009. (Exs.

22 (12/24/08

letter re Advance Request),

57 (12/17/08 TriMont email re Fontainebleau requisition), 59
(1/27/09 TriMont email re letter to Lehman), 61, 804 (2/13/09 BofA email re Fontainebleau);
Bolio Depo., 90:1-91:12; Freeman Depo., 117:13-119:2,
; Rafeedie Depo., 69:22-70:3, 83:16-21,
97:9-13; Susman Depo., 270:10-19.)

8

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 9 of 19

37.

Fontainebleau entered into a Guaranty Agreement
with ULLICO, another Retail Lender. (Exs. 24 (12/29/08 Guaranty Agreement),

42 (Third Amendment to Guaranty Agreement).)
38.

, 32 (1/30/09 ULLICO email re letter to Lehman), 35, 36,
38, 41, 42,
44 (4/3/09 ULLICO email re Third Amendment to Guaranty Agreement),
46, 47,

53, 54, 59, 61, 62

(3/25/09 TriMont email re ULLICO will fund Lehman’s share), 63 (4/1/09 ULLICO email re
amendment to Guaranty Agreement);
Rafeedie Depo.,
83:16-84:2, 98:19-99:2.)
39.

ULLICO did not agree to permanently pay or to assume Lehman’s obligations

under the Retail Facility. (Exs. 206 (Credit Approval Memo), 609 (3/18/09 Bolio email re
Fontainebleau questions), 814 (3/4/09 Yu letter to Freeman); Ex. 831 at p. 4; Ex. 906 at
BANA_FB00811830 (1/13/09 email with QAR); Ex. 907 (1/14/09 Susman email re conversation
with Turnberry/Fontainebleau);
40.

The Retail Facility Agreement contains the following language:
“Defaulting Lender” shall mean at any time, (i) any Lender or CoLender with respect to which a Lender Default is in effect, (ii) any
Lender or Co-Lender that as a result of any voluntary action is the
subject (as a debtor) or any action or proceeding (A) under any

9

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 10 of
19

existing or future law of any jurisdiction, domestic or foreign,
relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization or relief of
debtors, seeking to have an order for relief entered with respect to
it, or seeking to adjudicate it a bankrupt or insolvent, or seeking
reorganization, arrangement, adjustment, winding up, liquidation,
dissolution, composition or other relief with respect to it or its
debts, or (B) seeking appointment of a receiver, trustee, custodian,
conservator or other similar official for it or for all or any
substantial part of its assets, (iii) any Lender or Co-Lender that
shall make a general assignment for the benefit of its creditors or
(iv) any Lender or Co-Lender that shall generally not, or shall be
unable to, or shall admit in writing its inability to, pay its debts as
they become due.
(R.A. § I at p. 8.)
41.

The Retail Facility Agreement includes the following language: “‘Lender Default’

shall mean the failure or refusal (which has not been retracted in writing) of a Lender or CoLender to make available its portion of any Loan when required to be made by it hereunder.”
(R.A. § I at p. 15.)
42.

The Retail Facility Agreement includes the following language: “The liabilities of

Lender and each of the Co-Lenders shall be several and not joint.” (R.A. § 9.7.2(b).)
E.

Impact of Lehman’s Bankruptcy and Failure to Fund on the Project.

43.

Fontainebleau understood that the Project could not be built without the financing

for the Retail Facility. (Freeman Depo., 56:24-57:3;
44.

BofA believed that Lehman’s bankruptcy was a significant event and that there

were no assurances that Lehman would continue to fund its commitments under the Retail
Facility. (Exs. 67 (9/15/08 Yunker email re Lehman), 68 (9/11/08 Varnell email re Lehman),
206, 251 (2/27/09 Brown email re wires), 831, 896 (9/15/08 Susman email re Lehman), 899
(9/28/08 email re Key Risk Review), 907; Bolio Depo., 40:17-41:10; Brown Depo., 85:17-86:4,
112:19-113:4, 130:11-19; Howard Depo., 27:22-28:9, 109:8-112:7; Susman Depo., 145:16147:24, 213:14-21, 220:22-221:18; Varnell Depo., 69:7-10; Yunker Depo., 24:17-25:6, 39:3-23,
52:13-53:4, 63:19-64:10.)

10

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 11 of
19

45.

BofA understood that the funding for the Project would have shut down if

Lehman’s share of the Retail Facility was not paid. (Howard Depo., 39:13-40:6; Susman Depo.,
145:16-147:24, 150:22-151:5, 154:13-155:2; Yunker Depo., 35:22-38:8, 38:16-39:2.)
46.

BofA understood that the Project could not be built without the financing for the

Retail Facility. (Howard Depo., 39:13-40:6; Susman Depo., 145:16-147:24, 150:22-151:5,
154:13-155:2; Yunker Depo., 35:22-38:8; 38:16-39:2.)
F.

Bank of America Knew Lehman Failed to Make the September 2008 Retail
Advance.

47.

BofA knew that Fontainebleau was considering paying Lehman’s share of the

September Retail Advance. (Exs. 73 (9/19/08 email re Fontainebleau investors), 204 (9/19/08
Yunker email re Fontainebleau investors), 475 at BANA_FB00846432 (Bolio handwritten
notes); Varnell Depo., 174:9-14, 174:21-175:4, 181:10-15; Yunker Depo., 73:6-22, 81:13-83:14,
87:3-89:13, 96:25-97:17, 103:2-105:2.)
48.

BofA analyzed the effect of Fontainebleau paying Lehman’s commitment on the

conditions precedent to disbursement. (Ex. 204; Bolio Depo., 42:9-43:8, 43:16-44:15, 45:7-22;
Howard Depo., 65:4-66:11; Susman Depo., 167:13-23, 168:21-169:20; Yunker Depo., 73:675:13, 96:11-20, 110:19-112:12.)
49.

BofA concluded that Fontainebleau’s payment of Lehman’s share of Retail

Advances would cause the condition precedent in Section 3.3.23 of the Disbursement Agreement
to fail. (Exs. 204, 475, 804; Bolio Depo., 46:10-47:2, 57:14-58:1; Brown Depo., 72:16-73:1;
Howard Depo., 118:19-119:22; Susman Depo., 159:2-162:14, 169:17-20, 175:16-23, 250:22251:20, 258:9-16; Yunker Depo., 96:11-20, 97:18-98:6, 110:19-112:12.)
50.

BofA did not discuss with Fontainebleau BofA’s conclusion that Fontainebleau’s

payment of Lehman’s commitment would cause the condition precedent in Section 3.3.23 to fail.
(Freeman Depo., 74:12-24; Yunker Depo., 96:11-98:6.)

11

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 12 of
19

51.

Following BofA’s request dated September 22, 2008, Fontainebleau refused to

have a call with BofA and the Lenders to discuss the implications of Lehman’s bankruptcy on
the Project. (Ex. 901 (9/22/08 Naval email re Fontainebleau); Howard Depo., 104:14-106:23;
Susman Depo., 224:25-226:2, 227:7-228:13.)
52.

In late September, after Lehman filed for bankruptcy, Fontainebleau did not

return the Term Lenders’ phone calls. (Howard Depo., 104:14-106:23;
Susman Depo., 224:2-9, 227:7-228:13, 247:4-248:18; Yunker Depo., 167:17-169:6.)
53.

On September 30, 2008, BofA again requested a call with Mr. Freeman to discuss

issues related to Lehman’s bankruptcy, and specifically asked:
Did Lehman fund its portion of the requested $3,789,276.00 of
Shared Costs last Friday (9/26/08) or was this made up from other
sources? If Lehman did not fund its portion, what were the other
sources?
(Ex. 76 (9/30/08 BofA letter to Freeman).)
54.

Fontainebleau refused to have a call with the Lenders as BofA requested in its

September 30, 2008 letter. (Ex. 205 (10/3/08 Howard email re Lender update call); Freeman
Depo., 106:11-109:9; Howard Depo., 104:14-106:23; Susman Depo., 247:4-247:18; Yunker
Depo., 167:17-169:6.)
55.

Mr. Freeman told BofA that there were “limitations on what we were and weren’t

allowed to say, based on our discussions with counsel.” (Ex. 254 (10/22/08 Freeman email re
Lender Update Memo); Freeman Depo., 106:11-109:9.)
56.

Mr. Freeman sent a memo dated October 7, 2008 stating: “In August and

September, the retail portion of . . . shared costs was $5mm and $3.8mm respectively, all of
which was funded.” (Ex. 77 (10/7/08 Freeman memo re retail loan agreement).)
57.

Mr. Freeman’s October 7, 2008 memo did not directly answer BofA’s question

regarding whether Lehman funded in September 2008 and if not, what was the source of

12

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 13 of
19

Lehman’s payment. (Exs. 77, 903 (10/9/08 Rourke email re Fontainebleau); Bolio Depo., 79:1881:6; Freeman Depo., 92:17-94:3, 226:24-227:20; Susman Depo., 252:2-10; Varnell Depo.,
192:19-193:1; Yunker Depo., 147:19-148:7.)
58.

BofA did not follow up to confirm with Fontainebleau the source of payment of

Lehman’s portion of the September 2008 Retail Advance. (Freeman Depo., 92:17-94:3, 97:799:25, 109:15-110:8; Varnell Depo., 208:1-210:11.)
59.

Highland Capital Management, one of the original Term Lenders, notified BofA

of its concerns regarding the implications of Lehman’s bankruptcy on the Project, and stated that
Lehman’s bankruptcy meant that “[n]o disbursements may be made under the Loan Facility.”
(Exs. 78, 79 (10/1/08 Yunker email re Fontainebleau-Highland), 80, 81 (10/6/08 Rourke email re
Lehman), 230 (10/6/08 Howard email re Lehman Chapter 11 filing), 233 (10/16/08 Varnell
email to Freeman), 455 (9/26/08 Dorenbaum email re Initial Term Loan), 472 (10/9/08 Rourke
email), 473 (9/26/08 Dorenbaum email re Fontainebleau), 898 (9/26/08 BofA email re
Fontainebleau), 1502;
60.

Yunker Depo., 150:9-15.)

Highland informed BofA of public reports that Fontainebleau had paid Lehman’s

share of the September Retail Advance and confirmed their mutual understanding “that Lehman
has not made any disbursements while in bankruptcy.” (Exs. 78-81, 230, 233, 1502.)
61.

Highland further informed BofA that Fontainebleau’s payment of Lehman’s

portion of the September Retail Advance caused the condition precedent in Section 3.3.23 to
fail. (Exs. 80, 472;
62.

BofA representatives (Mr. Varnell, Mr. Howard and Mr. Yunker) participated in a

conference call and a meeting in October 2008 with top Fontainebleau executives (including Mr.
Freeman) and the Retail Lenders (other than Lehman) to discuss the impact of Lehman’s
bankruptcy on the Project. (Exs. 16 (10/7/08 Kotite email re Fontainebleau visit), 18 (10/23/08

13

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 14 of
19

meeting agenda), 231 (10/15/08 Varnell email to Howard re conference call), 232 (10/16/08
Freeman email to Varnell re conference call).)
63.

64.

The October Retail meeting participants discussed that the other Retail Lenders

were not willing to assume Lehman’s commitment under the Retail Facility. (Ex. 19 at p. 3
(4/20/09 National City Special Assets Committee Report);
65.

)

At the October Retail meeting, Fontainebleau and the Retail Lenders asked BofA

to take over Lehman’s remaining commitment and fill the funding gap. (Ex. 907; Howard
Depo., 112:9-114:4, 143:18-146:13; Susman Depo., 277:19-278:9.)
66.

An Intercreditor Agreement between BofA as Administrative Agent, Lehman as

Retail Agent and the Retail Borrower includes the following language:
The Retail Agent, acting on behalf of each of the Retail Lenders,
hereby grants to the Bank Agent the right (without any obligation)
to purchase, at any time after the occurrence of a Retail Purchase
Option Event, all, but not less than all, of the principal of and
interest on the Retail Secured Obligations outstanding at the time
of purchase for a purchase price equal to 100% of the principal
amount and accrued interest outstanding on the Retail Secured
Obligations on the date of purchase . . . . The Bank Agent shall
assume any remaining obligations (whether for funding of
Advances or otherwise) of the Retail Agent and the Retail Lenders
under the Retail Financing Agreements in connection with any
such purchase.
(Ex. 884 § 7.1.)
67.

BofA did not assume Lehman’s obligation under the Retail Facility Agreement.

(Howard Depo., 112:9-114:9, 143:18-146:13.)
68.

Each month, TriMont, the servicer on the Retail Facility, wired the Retail

Lenders’ funds to BofA. (Ex. 241 (9/26/08 Susman email re Lehman portion); Brown Depo.,
42:4-8, 43:18-24;

14

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 15 of
19

69.

TriMont knew that Fontainebleau had paid Lehman’s share of the September

Advance. (Exs. 56, 61; Rafeedie Depo., 52:3-12, 61:16-62:1.)
70.

It was TriMont’s custom and practice to inform BofA of who funded Retail

Advances and to answer BofA’s questions regarding payments made pursuant to the Retail
Facilty Agreement. (Rafeedie Depo., 34:19-35:10, 53:5-58:19, 62:14-63:9, 86:11-88:4.)
71.

On February 20, 2009, BofA sent a letter to Mr. Freeman asking Fontainebleau to

“comment on the status of the Retail Facility, and the commitments of the Retail Lenders to fund
under the Retail Facility, in particular, whether you anticipate that Lehman Brothers Holdings,
Inc. will fund its share of requested loans, and whether the other Lenders under the Retail
Facility intend to cover any shortfalls.” (Exs. 497, 498 (2/20/09 BofA email and letter to
Fontainebleau).)
72.

On February 23, 2009, Fontainebleau responded to BofA’s February 20th letter

and did not provide any information about whether it anticipated Lehman or other Retail Lenders
would fund Lehman’s portion. (Ex. 811 (2/23/09 Fontainebleau letter to BofA); Yu Depo.,
125:25-126:14.)
G.

Bank of America Knew Leman Failed to Make the December 2008 Through
March 2009 Retail Advances.

73.

BofA knew that ULLICO funded Lehman’s portion of every Advance from

December 2008 through March 2009. (Exs. 58 (12/30/08 Brown email re ULLICO funding), 62,
239 (12/30/08 Brown email re advance), 240 (2/25/09 Brown email re ULLICO wire), 479
(12/30/08 Susman email re Fontainebleau funding status), 481 (1/27/09 Brown email re
Fontainebleau), 607 at BANA_FB00846453 (Bolio handwritten notes), 804, 905 (12/30/08
Susman email re Lehman bankruptcy), 906 at BANA_FB00811830; Bolio Depo., 83:13-84:12,
90:1-91:12; Rafeedie Depo., 79:25-80:2, 86:11-22, 97:9-19, 103:24-104:6, 105:16-107:1;
Susman Depo., 269:24-270:19.)

15

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 16 of
19

74.

BofA knew that ULLICO had not and would not agree to assume Lehman’s

remaining commitment. (Exs. 115 (10/22/08 Freeman memo re Retail Loan Agreement), 206,
251, 493 (1/27/09 Bolio email re Fontainebleau), 609, 814, 831 at p. 4, 906 at
BANA_FB00811830, 907; Howard Depo., 111:7-113:10, 142:13-146:13, 147:25-148:6;
Susman Depo., 273:7-274:1, 277:19-278:9.)
H.

Bank of America’s Responsibilities When Presented with Inconsistent
Information.

75.

In connection with each Advance Request, the Borrowers were required to and

did represent and warrant that all conditions precedent to disbursement had been satisfied. (Exs.
263-265, 269-271, 331, 694 (Advance Requests for September 2008 through March 2009).)
76.

It would be unreasonable for BofA to disregard information that was inconsistent

with representations of the Borrowers; it would be reasonable to inquire further to determine the
truth prior to disbursing. (D.A. § 3.3.21; Ex. 1503 at ¶¶ 33-38 (Pryor Report); Bolio Depo.,
164:20-165:12, 175:6-18; Lupiani Depo., 89:8-90:8, 132:11-19, 151:7-17, 153:7-155:9, 166:20167:24; Susman Depo. 181:9-19, 182:22-183:20; Varnell Depo., 211:13-212:5.)
I.

Terminating Funding.

77.

On April 20, 2009, BofA on behalf of itself and other Revolver Lenders,

terminated the Revolver Loan under the Credit Agreement, citing unspecified conditions of
default. (Ex. 827 (4/20/09 BofA letter to Freeman re Credit Agreement).)
78.

Between September 2008 and April 20, 2009, BofA had disbursed
of the Term Lenders’ money. (Exs. 237, 243-252, 622-629, 634-636, 639-642,

653-655 (Advance Confirmation Notices, emails re disbursement of funds and bank statements).)

16

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 17 of
19

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 18 of
19

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 19 of
19

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 1 of 20

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 2 of 20

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 3 of 20

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 4 of 20

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 5 of 20

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 6 of 20

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 7 of 20

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 8 of 20

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 9 of 20

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 10 of
20

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 11 of
20

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 12 of
20

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 13 of
20

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 14 of
20

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 15 of
20

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 16 of
20

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 17 of
20

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 18 of
20

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 19 of
20

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-3 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 20 of
20

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO 09-MD-02106-CIV-GOLD/GOODMAN

IN RE: FONTAINEBLEAU LAS VEGAS
CONTRACT LITIGATION
MDL No. 2106
This document relates to all actions.

____________________________________ 1

DECLARA TION OF ROBERT W. MOCKLER AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL
NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF TERM LENDER PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT
I, Robert W. Mockler, declare as follows:
1.

I am a partner in the firm. 0 f Hennigan Dorman LLP, counsel for Plaintiffs in the

above-captioned action. Except where otherwise indicated, I have personal knowledge of the
facts stated herein and, if called as a witness, could and would competently testify thereto. I
submit this declaration in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment.
2.

True and correct copies of excerpts of the deposition testimony of the individuals

identified therein are attached to the Appendix of Testimony in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment.
3.

True and correct copies of the identified deposition exhibits (in the range from

Exhibit I to Exhibit 907) are attached to the Appendix of Exhibits in Support of Plaintiffs'
Motion for Prutial Summary Judgment ("Appendix of Exhibits").
4.

A true and correct copy of the "Flow of Funds Memo," Exhibit T to the Master

Disbursement Agreement, which was produced by Bank of America, N.A. ("BofA") in this
action, is attached as Exhibit 1501 to the Appendix of Exhibits.

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 2 of 4

5.

A true and correct copy of an e-mail dated October 13,2008, from Scott to

Susman, Yunker, Varnell, Howard, Fuad, Brunette and Puglisi re: Lehman disbursements, which
was produced by BofA in this action, is attached as Exhibit 1502 to the Appendix of Exhibits.
Exhibit 1502 is the same e-mail chain as Exhibit 80, except that Exhibit 1502 includes the
attachment referenced in the e-mail chain. The attachment is also included as Exhibit 78.
6.

A true and correct copy of the Expert Report of Shepherd G. Pryor IV dated May

23,2011, which the Plaintiffs submitted in this action, is attached as Exhibit 1503 to the
AppendL,{ of Exhibits.
7.

A true and correct copy of a proof of claim submitted by Fontainebleau Las Vegas

Retail, LLC in the Lehman bankruptcy, In re Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., et al., United
States Bankruptcy COU1i for the Southern District of New York, Case No. 08-13555, is attached
as Exhibit 1504 to the Appendix of Exhibits. The Term Lender Plaintiffs request that the Court
take judicial notice of Exhibit 1504 pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. It is proper to
take judicial notice of documents filed in other courts. United States v. Jones, 29 F.3d 1549,
1553 (lIth Cir. 1994).
I declare under penalty 0 f perjury under the laws of the United States 0 f America that the
foregoing is true and correct.

DATED: August 5, 2011

~vLl/l_ __
ROBERT W. MOCKLER

2

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 3 of 4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing DECLARATION OF
ROBERT W. MOCKLER AND REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF
TERM LENDER PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT was
flled with the Clerk of the Court. I also certify that the foregoing document is being
electronically served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the attached
Service List by agreement of all counsel.

Dated: August 5, 2011.

Lorenz M. Pruss, Esq.

3
HBDDOCS\774761.1

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-4 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 4 of 4

Service List

Bradley J. Butwin
Daniel L. Cantor
Jonathan Rosenberg
William J. Sushon
Ken Murata
Asher Rivner
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Tele: [phone]
Fax:
326-2061

Defendant
Bank of America, N.A.

Kevin Michael Eckhardt
HUNTON & WILLIAMS
1111 Brickell Avenue
Suite 2500
Miami, FL 33131
Tele: [phone]
Fax:
810-2460

Defendant
Bank of America, N.A.

4

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 1 of 14

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 2 of 14

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 3 of 14

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 4 of 14

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 5 of 14

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 6 of 14

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 7 of 14

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 8 of 14

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 9 of 14

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 10 of
14

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 11 of
14

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 12 of
14

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 13 of
14

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-5 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 14 of
14

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO 09-MD-02106-CIV-GOLD/GOODMAN

IN RE: FONTAINEBLEAU LAS VEGAS
CONTRACT LITIGATION
MDLNo.2106
This document relates to all actions.

-----------------------------------

/

ApPENDIX OF TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT

1760495

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 2 of 5

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.

Brandon Bolio deposition transcript excerpts dated March 30,2011

2.

Jeanne Brown deposition transcript excerpts dated March 20,2011

3.

James Freeman deposition transcript excerpts dated March 23,2011

4.

David Howard deposition transcript excerpts dated March 11, 2011

5.

Herbert Kolben deposition transcript excerpts dated February 22,2011

6.

Albert Kotite deposition transcript excerpts dated April 12, 2011

7.

Daniel Lupiani deposition transcript excerpts dated July 21,2011

8.

Ronaldo Naval deposition transcript excerpts dated April 1, 2011

9.

McLendon Rafeedie deposition transcript excerpts dated February 24,
2011

10.

Kevin Rourke deposition transcript excerpts dated March 29, 2011

11.

Jeff Susman deposition transcript excerpts dated April 28, 2011

12.

Mitchell Sussman deposition transcript excerpts dated March 10,2011

1
1760495

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 3 of 5

13.

Jon Varnell deposition transcript excerpts dated March 17,2011

14.

Heruy Yu deposition transcript excerpts dated April 7, 2011

15

Bret Yunker deposition transcript excerpts dated March 1,2011
Respectfully submitted,

Dated: August 5, 2011

David A. Rothstein, Esq.
Fla. Bar No.: 056881
d.Rothsteinrrudkroa.com
Lorenz M. Pruss, Esq.
Fla Bar No.: 581305
LPrussrrudkrpa.com
DIMOND KAPLAN & ROTHSTEIN, P.A.
2665 South Bayshore Drive, PH-2B

tvliami, FL 33133
Telephone:
[phone]
Facsimile:
[phone]
Local Counsel for Plail1li/fTerm Lenders

Of counsel:
J. tdichael Hennigan
Kirk D. Dillman
Roben Mockler
Rebecca T. Pilch
Caroline M. Walters
HENNIGAN DORlvIAN LLP
865 South Figueroa Street, Suire 2900
Los Angeles, California 90017
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Email: Hennil!anrruhdliti gatioll.com
Di11m anKrruhdl i rirrati on.com
1--'locklerR@hdl itigation.com
[e-mail]
W al tersCliilhdl it igation. com

2
1 76~95

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 4 of 5

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing APPENDIX OF

TESTIMONY IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT was filed with the Clerk of the Court. I also certify that the foregoing document is
being electronically served this day on all counsel of record or pro se parties identified on the
attached Service List by agreement of all counsel.

Dated: August 5, 2011.

Lorenz M. Pruss, Esq.

o

)

1760.; 95

Case 1:09-md-02106-ASG Document 386-6 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/06/2013 Page 5 of 5

Service List

Bradley J. Butwin
Daniel L. Cantor
Jonathan Rosenberg
William J. Sushon
Ken Murata
Asher Rivner
O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
Times Square Tower
7 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
Tele: [phone]
Fax:
326-2061

Defendant
Bank of America, N.A.

Kevin Michael Eckhardt
HUNTON & WILLIAMS
1111 Brickell Avenue
Suite 2500
Miami, FL 33131
Tele: [phone]
Fax:
810-2460

Defendant
Bank of America, N.A.

4