1007-00002 · Vantage Mobility Systems Corp · Diligence

assumed-liabilities-issues-memo.docx DOCUMENT M&A / Corporate

6 / 12 ← → ✕

MEMORANDUM

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

TO: Nathaniel Bower, Partner, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

FROM: Nathan Ikeda, Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP

DATE: June 15, 2022

RE: Scope of Assumed Liabilities and Environmental Remediation Obligations — Stalking-Horse APA for Acquisition of Substantially All Assets of Meridian Precision Components, Inc. (Case No. 22-50318-JLG, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio)

CLIENT: Vantage Mobility Systems Corp.

MATTER: VMS / Meridian Section 363 Sale (Matter No. 1007-00002)

Right-click to update Table of Contents

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This memorandum analyzes the disputed categories of assumed liabilities under the stalking-horse Asset Purchase Agreement dated March 30, 2022 (the "APA") between Vantage Mobility Systems Corp. ("VMS" or "Buyer") and Meridian Precision Components, Inc. ("Meridian," the "Debtor," or "Seller"). The APA governs VMS's proposed acquisition of substantially all of Meridian's assets pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, in Case No. 22-50318-JLG, pending before the Honorable Janet L. Grasso of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio.

Four primary categories of assumed liabilities are under dispute or require heightened attention by VMS and its advisors:

1. Environmental remediation obligations at the Elyria, Ohio facility, estimated at approximately $1.4 million based on the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment ("Phase II ESA") prepared by Pinehurst Environmental Sciences, Inc. ("Pinehurst"), VMS's retained environmental consultant;

2. Accrued employee wages and benefits, estimated at approximately $2.1 million, covering pre-closing accrued but unpaid wages, vacation and paid-time-off balances, and certain health and welfare benefit obligations for employees whom VMS will offer employment;

3. Cure costs under assumed executory contracts and unexpired leases, estimated at approximately $5.0 million, representing the aggregate pre-petition defaults under contracts VMS elects to assume pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365; and

4. The potential expansion of environmental remediation scope through ongoing Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ("Ohio EPA") negotiations, which could materially increase VMS's assumed environmental liability beyond the $1.4 million baseline currently reflected in the APA.

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the "Committee"), represented by Pendergast McCabe & Lowe LLP (partner the Honorable Franklin Lowe (ret.) and associate Sandra Okoro), with Dunbar Phelps Group, LLC (Managing Director Janet Hirsch) serving as the Committee's financial advisor, has formally challenged the inclusion of the $1.4 million environmental remediation liability in the assumed liabilities schedule of the APA. The Committee's position is that this obligation should either remain with the estate as an excluded liability or be excluded from the scope of the sale order entered in connection with the Section 363 transaction. The Committee contends that characterizing environmental remediation costs as an assumed liability artificially inflates the nominal purchase price and understates VMS's actual acquisition cost, to the detriment of unsecured creditors.

Separately, Debtor's counsel at Hargrove Tillinghast LLP (Marcus Tillinghast and Priya Venkatesh) has signaled uncertainty regarding the final scope of Ohio EPA-mandated remediation at the Elyria facility. The Ohio EPA has not yet issued a final determination regarding the scope of required remediation, and ongoing negotiations between Meridian and the agency create meaningful risk that the remediation mandate could expand significantly beyond the $1.4 million estimate in the Pinehurst Phase II ESA.

Recommendation Summary. Based on the analysis set forth below, it is my recommendation that VMS pursue the following course of action:

• VMS should maintain the current APA framework in which environmental assumed liability is capped at $1.4 million and resist any expansion of that obligation absent a corresponding contractual protection;

• VMS should seek an explicit environmental remediation liability cap in an APA amendment, coupled with a dollar-for-dollar price adjustment mechanism, providing that if the Ohio EPA expands the scope of required remediation above the $1.4 million baseline, VMS receives a corresponding reduction in the cash purchase price at closing, up to a specified incremental cap (e.g., $2.0 million);

• If the Ohio EPA determination results in total remediation costs exceeding a material adverse threshold (e.g., $3.0 million), VMS should have the right to terminate the APA and recover its $3.175 million good-faith deposit from Granite Trust & Escrow Co., plus the $1.905 million break-up fee and up to $750,000 in expense reimbursement;

• VMS should negotiate strategically with both Debtor's counsel and Committee counsel, leveraging VMS's position as the sole viable stalking-horse bidder and the approaching Termination Outside Date of December 31, 2022, while also recognizing the DIP facility maturity date of October 31, 2022 as a source of urgency for all parties; and

• VMS should monitor the Ohio EPA negotiation process closely and request an updated or supplemental Phase II ESA from Pinehurst to ensure that VMS's environmental exposure baseline reflects the most current conditions and data.

Each of these recommendations, together with the underlying legal and factual analysis, is discussed in detail in the sections that follow.

II. BACKGROUND

A. The Bankruptcy Case

Meridian Precision Components, Inc. is an Ohio corporation headquartered at 4500 Industrial Parkway, Elyria, Ohio 44035. Founded in 1983 by Raymond Kaspar, Meridian operates as a Tier 2 automotive supplier specializing in metal stampings, welded assemblies, and e-coat finishing operations. Kaspar retired from active management in 2020, and in the months preceding the bankruptcy filing, the board of directors appointed Brenda Wisnicki, a turnaround professional, as Chief Executive Officer at the direction of Meridian's pre-petition secured lenders.

Meridian operates three manufacturing facilities in northern Ohio:

• Elyria, Ohio — approximately 285,000 square feet, the company's headquarters and primary metal stamping operation, owned in fee;

• Mansfield, Ohio — approximately 140,000 square feet, housing welding and assembly operations; and

• Sandusky, Ohio — approximately 68,000 square feet, serving as the company's e-coat and finishing facility.

As of the petition date, Meridian employed approximately 620 workers across the three facilities. Of that total, approximately 195 production workers at the Elyria facility are represented by United Auto Workers Local 2287 ("UAW Local 2287") under a collective bargaining agreement (the "CBA") that was effective through December 31, 2023. The remaining approximately 425 workers are non-union employees.

For fiscal year 2021, Meridian reported revenue of $138.4 million and an operating loss of ($11.2 million). The operating losses were driven by a combination of factors, including significant raw material cost inflation (particularly steel and aluminum), the loss of a major OEM stamping program previously awarded by a Detroit-based automotive manufacturer, and legacy pension and other post-employment benefit ("OPEB") obligations that continued to strain the company's balance sheet.

On February 14, 2022, Meridian filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the "Bankruptcy Code") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The case was assigned Case No. 22-50318-JLG and assigned to the Honorable Janet L. Grasso. As of the petition date, Meridian's total assets were valued at $87.3 million (book value) and total liabilities were approximately $129.6 million, resulting in a balance sheet deficiency of approximately $42.3 million.

B. Debtor's Capital Structure

Meridian's pre-petition capital structure is dominated by a senior secured credit facility provided by Great Lakes Industrial Credit Corp. ("GLICC"). The pre-petition facility, established pursuant to a Credit Agreement dated September 12, 2019 (as amended), consists of a $28.0 million revolving credit facility and a $44.4 million term loan, for total pre-petition secured indebtedness of $72.4 million. GLICC's obligations are secured by a first-priority lien on substantially all of Meridian's assets, including real property, machinery and equipment, inventory, accounts receivable, and general intangibles.

Following the petition date, GLICC provided a debtor-in-possession financing facility (the "DIP Facility") in the amount of $15.0 million, structured as a revolving credit line bearing interest at SOFR plus 550 basis points with a 1.0% unused commitment fee and a 2.0% exit fee. The Bankruptcy Court entered an interim order approving the DIP Facility on February 22, 2022 (Dkt. 47) and a final order on March 18, 2022 (Dkt. 112). The DIP Facility has a maturity date of October 31, 2022. As of July 18, 2022, approximately $9.8 million had been drawn under the DIP Facility, reflecting the Debtor's ongoing working capital needs during the Chapter 11 case.

In addition to secured indebtedness, Meridian's unsecured creditor body includes:

• Unsecured trade claims: approximately $18.5 million, representing obligations to vendors, suppliers, and other counterparties incurred in the ordinary course of business;

• Pension/OPEB claims: approximately $14.7 million, held by the Northern Basin Employee Benefits Trust in connection with Meridian's defined-benefit pension plan and OPEB obligations for retired and active employees;

• Other unsecured claims (including intercompany): approximately $24.0 million, comprising various intercompany receivables, litigation claims, and miscellaneous unsecured obligations.

Based on current projections, GLICC's estimated recovery on its $72.4 million pre-petition secured claim is approximately 71.4%, calculated as follows: net sale proceeds of $63.5 million (the VMS purchase price), less the $9.8 million DIP Facility payoff, less approximately $2.0 million in estimated administrative and priority claims, yielding approximately $51.7 million available for distribution on GLICC's pre-petition claim. This recovery analysis is central to the dynamics of the sale process, as GLICC's economic incentive is to maximize the purchase price and accelerate closing, while the Committee's incentive is to minimize assumed liabilities or otherwise maximize the net estate benefit from the transaction.

C. The Stalking-Horse APA

The APA was executed on March 30, 2022 between Meridian, as Seller, and VMS, as Buyer. The principal terms are summarized as follows:

Purchase Price. The aggregate purchase price under the APA is $63.5 million, comprising $58.5 million in cash payable at closing plus the estimated $5.0 million in assumed cure costs under executory contracts and unexpired leases. The purchase price is subject to adjustment as set forth in the APA, though as currently drafted no adjustment mechanism exists for changes in the scope of environmental remediation obligations.

Bid Protections. The Bankruptcy Court approved bid protections for VMS on May 13, 2022 (Dkt. 234), consisting of a break-up fee of $1.905 million (3.0% of the purchase price) and an expense reimbursement cap of $750,000, for total bid protections of $2.655 million (4.18% of the purchase price). These bid protections are payable from estate funds as an administrative expense in the event VMS is not the prevailing bidder at auction or the APA is terminated under specified circumstances.

Good-Faith Deposit. VMS has deposited $3.175 million (5.0% of the purchase price) with Granite Trust & Escrow Co. as a good-faith deposit. The deposit is refundable to VMS upon termination of the APA under the circumstances set forth therein, including termination by VMS following the occurrence of a material breach by the Debtor or the passage of the Termination Outside Date.

Overbid Protections. Under the Bid Procedures Order (Dkt. 198), any qualifying competing bid must exceed VMS's purchase price by a minimum overbid increment of $1.0 million, meaning any initial competing bid must be at least $64.5 million.

Termination Outside Date. The APA provides that either party may terminate the agreement if the closing has not occurred on or before December 31, 2022 (the "Termination Outside Date"), subject to certain conditions.

Employment Commitments. VMS has committed to offering employment to at least 480 of Meridian's approximately 620 employees. Significantly, VMS does not assume the UAW Local 2287 CBA, though VMS has committed to negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement with UAW Local 2287 for the Elyria production workforce following the closing of the transaction.

Regulatory. The APA contemplates that no filing under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 ("HSR Act") is required, as the $63.5 million purchase price falls below the 2022 reportability threshold of $101.0 million. However, Ohio EPA notification is required for the transfer of Elyria facility environmental permits in connection with the acquisition.

D. Current Procedural Posture

The following is a summary of the key procedural milestones in the sale process to date:

April 5, 2022: Debtor filed motion for entry of an order approving bid procedures, bid protections, and related sale procedures (Dkt. 178).

April 22, 2022: Bid Procedures Hearing held before Judge Grasso. The Court approved the bid procedures, including the marketing timeline, bid qualification requirements, auction format, and overbid increment of $1.0 million (Dkt. 198). The Court reserved ruling on VMS's requested break-up fee and expense reimbursement pending further briefing by the Committee.

May 13, 2022: The Court approved VMS's break-up fee at 3.0% of the purchase price ($1.905 million) and expense reimbursement capped at $750,000, overruling the Committee's objection that the bid protections were excessive relative to the purchase price (Dkt. 234).

May 20, 2022: Original Bid Deadline. The Debtor and its financial advisor, Calloway Strauss Advisory, LLC (Elliot Calloway), conducted an extensive marketing process. The only qualified bid received was from Axton Industrial Holdings, LLC ("Axton") at $64.75 million. However, Axton's bid was conditioned on (i) resolution of environmental liabilities at the Elyria facility prior to closing and (ii) UAW Local 2287's consent to assumption and assignment of the CBA. These conditions rendered the bid effectively contingent and introduced material uncertainty as to Axton's ability to close.

May 25, 2022: Original Auction Date. The Debtor requested an adjournment of the auction, citing the need to evaluate Axton's conditioned bid and ongoing environmental remediation discussions with the Ohio EPA. Axton subsequently withdrew its conditioned bid, with its CEO Philip Drucker stating through counsel (Danielle Sato of Kline Rourke & Sato LLP) that Axton was unable to resolve the environmental and labor contingencies within the auction timeline. Following Axton's withdrawal, VMS's stalking-horse bid became the sole qualified bid.

June 3, 2022: The Debtor filed a motion to extend the auction date from May 25, 2022 to July 15, 2022, citing the need for additional time to resolve the Ohio EPA remediation scope issues and to continue marketing the assets.

June 10, 2022: The Court granted the Debtor's adjournment motion and set a new auction date of July 15, 2022 (Dkt. 271).

July 8, 2022: The Debtor filed a supplemental motion requesting that the auction date be postponed indefinitely, citing the continuing lack of Ohio EPA clarity on remediation scope and the Debtor's inability to provide potential bidders with a definitive environmental liability profile.

July 18, 2022: The Court entered an order granting the indefinite postponement of the auction date (Dkt. 309), with the expectation that the Debtor would promptly notify the Court and all parties-in-interest upon receiving the Ohio EPA's final determination or upon the occurrence of developments warranting a new auction date.

As of the date of this memorandum, the environmental remediation scope and the assumed liability disputes outlined herein remain unresolved. The Committee's challenge to the environmental liability assumption is ongoing, and no additional qualified bidders have emerged from the Debtor's marketing process.

E. Parties Relevant to This Analysis

For ease of reference, the following is a summary of the principal parties and their roles in the matters discussed in this memorandum:

• Vantage Mobility Systems Corp. ("VMS") — Stalking-horse bidder; our client. VMS deal team includes Gerry Hartsfield and Diana Rozhenko. Represented by Calderwood & Harkness LLP.

• Meridian Precision Components, Inc. ("Meridian" or the "Debtor") — Chapter 11 debtor and seller. CEO: Brenda Wisnicki. Represented by Hargrove Tillinghast LLP (Marcus Tillinghast, Priya Venkatesh). Financial advisor: Calloway Strauss Advisory, LLC (Elliot Calloway).

• Great Lakes Industrial Credit Corp. ("GLICC") — Pre-petition secured lender ($72.4 million) and DIP lender ($15.0 million). Workout officer: Kenneth Doran. Counsel: Whitfield & Chambers LLP (Adrienne Whitfield).

• Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the "Committee") — Chaired by Aldric Stamping & Tool Co. (approximately $3.8 million trade claim). Members include Northern Basin Employee Benefits Trust (approximately $14.7 million pension/OPEB claim) and Crestwood Logistics, Inc. (approximately $1.1 million freight claim). Counsel: Pendergast McCabe & Lowe LLP (Hon. Franklin Lowe (ret.), Sandra Okoro). Financial advisor: Dunbar Phelps Group, LLC (Managing Director Janet Hirsch).

• Pinehurst Environmental Sciences, Inc. ("Pinehurst") — VMS's retained environmental consultant. Prepared the Phase II ESA for the Elyria facility.

• Axton Industrial Holdings, LLC ("Axton") — Competing bidder that withdrew on May 25, 2022. CEO: Philip Drucker. Counsel: Kline Rourke & Sato LLP (Danielle Sato). Backed by Northstar Equity Advisors, LP.

• Ridgepoint Capital Partners, LP ("Ridgepoint") — VMS's private equity sponsor. Ridgepoint Capital Fund II, LP, vintage 2017, $1.1 billion committed capital, approximately $3.2 billion total AUM. Deal team: Tobias Kessler (Managing Director), Mariana Solano (Principal).

• Lakeshore Commercial Lending, Inc. ("Lakeshore") — VMS's existing lender providing the $30.0 million incremental term loan under an accordion feature. Contact: Christine Farber.

• Granite Trust & Escrow Co. — Escrow agent holding VMS's $3.175 million good-faith deposit.

III. ASSUMED LIABILITIES UNDER THE APA — OVERVIEW

A. Categories of Assumed Liabilities

The APA defines "Assumed Liabilities" by reference to an enumerated schedule of obligations that VMS, as Buyer, agrees to assume at or following the closing of the transaction. This section provides an overview of the four categories of assumed liabilities expressly identified in the APA, which together represent VMS's non-cash-purchase-price economic commitments under the transaction.

1. Cure Costs Under Assumed Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases (Estimated $5.0 Million). Section 2.3(a) of the APA provides that VMS shall assume and be responsible for the payment of all cure costs arising under the executory contracts and unexpired leases that VMS elects to assume and that are assigned to VMS pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365. The APA includes a preliminary schedule of contracts that VMS intends to assume, subject to VMS's right to add or remove contracts from the assumed contract schedule prior to closing. The aggregate cure cost for the contracts on the preliminary schedule is estimated at $5.0 million, though this figure is subject to change based on the cure notice process, objections by contract counterparties, and VMS's exercise of its de-designation rights.

2. Post-Closing Obligations Under Assumed Contracts. Section 2.3(b) of the APA provides that VMS shall assume and be responsible for all obligations arising under the assumed contracts that accrue or become due after the closing date. This category encompasses ongoing performance obligations under customer supply agreements, vendor contracts, equipment leases, and other operational agreements that are necessary for VMS to continue operating Meridian's business. While this category does not carry a discrete estimated dollar amount at closing, it represents a significant ongoing obligation and is integral to the strategic rationale for the acquisition.

3. Accrued Employee Wages and Benefits (Estimated $2.1 Million). Section 2.3(c) of the APA provides that VMS shall assume certain accrued employee wages and benefits as of the closing date, including pre-closing accrued but unpaid wages, accrued vacation and paid-time-off balances, and certain health and welfare benefit obligations for those employees to whom VMS offers employment. The $2.1 million estimate is based on the Debtor's schedules and internal payroll data provided during VMS's due diligence review. Notably, this category expressly excludes any pension or OPEB withdrawal liabilities, which are categorized as excluded liabilities under the APA.

4. Environmental Remediation Obligations at the Elyria Facility (Estimated $1.4 Million). Section 2.3(d) of the APA provides that VMS shall assume the environmental remediation obligations at the Elyria facility as identified in the Phase II ESA prepared by Pinehurst Environmental Sciences, Inc. The Phase II ESA identified contamination at the Elyria site requiring remediation, with an estimated cost of $1.4 million. This category has become the most disputed element of the assumed liabilities framework, as discussed in detail in Section IV below.

B. Categories of Excluded Liabilities

The APA also defines "Excluded Liabilities," which are obligations of the Debtor that VMS does not assume and for which VMS bears no responsibility following the closing. The excluded liabilities are intended to be left with the estate for treatment through the bankruptcy process. The principal categories of excluded liabilities include:

• All pre-petition unsecured claims, including general trade claims of approximately $18.5 million;

• Pre-petition secured debt owed to GLICC (approximately $72.4 million), which will be paid from the sale proceeds to the extent available;

• DIP Facility obligations (approximately $9.8 million as of July 18, 2022), which will be repaid in full from the sale proceeds at closing;

• Pension and OPEB withdrawal liabilities (approximately $14.7 million held by Northern Basin Employee Benefits Trust), representing the Debtor's obligations under its defined-benefit pension plan and post-employment benefit programs;

• All intercompany claims;

• Professional fee claims incurred in the Chapter 11 case;

• All causes of action, avoidance actions, and other litigation claims belonging to the Debtor's estate; and

• Tax refunds and other receivables belonging to the estate.

C. The Distinction's Significance

The distinction between assumed liabilities and excluded liabilities is of critical importance to all constituencies in the Section 363 sale process, and it lies at the heart of the current disputes between VMS, the Debtor, the Committee, and GLICC.

In a Section 363 sale, assumed liabilities effectively reduce the net benefit of the purchase price to the estate. When a buyer agrees to assume certain obligations, the estate is relieved of those obligations, but the buyer's assumption is reflected as part of the aggregate consideration for the assets being acquired. For purposes of evaluating the adequacy of the purchase price, the Bankruptcy Court and the parties consider both the cash component and the value of the assumed liabilities in assessing the total consideration offered by the buyer.

From the Committee's perspective, any expansion of assumed liabilities without a corresponding increase in the cash purchase price arguably benefits VMS at the expense of the estate. If VMS assumes an additional $1.0 million in obligations, for example, that amount is effectively removed from the pool of claims that would otherwise be paid from estate funds, but VMS has not provided an additional $1.0 million in cash consideration. The Committee views this dynamic as an opportunity for VMS to acquire the assets at a lower effective cost.

Conversely, from VMS's perspective, the removal of assumed liabilities from the APA would increase VMS's effective purchase price (because VMS would be paying $58.5 million in cash without the offsetting benefit of having certain obligations removed from the post-closing business) or would require a renegotiation of the purchase price to reflect the changed allocation of risk and obligation.

GLICC's recovery is directly and materially affected by these dynamics. As noted above, GLICC's estimated recovery on its $72.4 million pre-petition secured claim is approximately 71.4%, based on net sale proceeds of approximately $51.7 million ($63.5 million less $9.8 million DIP payoff less approximately $2.0 million in administrative and priority claims). Any reduction in the nominal purchase price — whether resulting from the reclassification of assumed liabilities or otherwise — would reduce GLICC's recovery on a dollar-for-dollar basis. For this reason, GLICC has a strong economic interest in maintaining the current purchase price structure and may serve as a natural ally to VMS in resisting the Committee's attempts to reclassify assumed liabilities.

IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION OBLIGATIONS — ELYRIA FACILITY

A. Factual Background

The Elyria facility, located at 4500 Industrial Parkway, Elyria, Ohio 44035, serves as Meridian's corporate headquarters and primary stamping operation. The facility occupies approximately 285,000 square feet on a multi-acre parcel of land that Meridian owns in fee simple. The property has been used for industrial manufacturing purposes since the mid-1960s, initially by a predecessor entity and subsequently by Meridian following its founding in 1983. The facility houses large-scale metal stamping presses, die storage, and ancillary operations including maintenance shops and a small chemical storage area used in connection with the stamping process.

As part of VMS's due diligence process, VMS retained Pinehurst Environmental Sciences, Inc. to conduct a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the Elyria facility. The Phase I ESA identified recognized environmental conditions at the site, including the potential for subsurface contamination associated with historical operations — specifically, the use of solvents and degreasing agents in the stamping process, potential petroleum releases from underground storage tanks, and possible contamination from the on-site chemical storage area.

The Phase II ESA, completed in March 2022, confirmed the presence of contamination requiring remediation, including elevated levels of trichloroethylene ("TCE") and petroleum hydrocarbons in subsurface soils, as well as limited groundwater contamination in the shallow aquifer beneath the eastern portion of the property. Based on the nature and extent of the contamination identified, Pinehurst estimated the cost of remediation at approximately $1.4 million. This estimate assumed a remediation approach consisting of excavation and off-site disposal of impacted soils, installation of a groundwater monitoring well network, and limited in-situ treatment of the shallow groundwater plume.

The APA as executed in March 2022 contemplates VMS's assumption of these environmental remediation obligations at the Elyria facility, with the $1.4 million estimate serving as the baseline for the assumed liability amount. Importantly, however, the APA does not contain an express dollar cap on the environmental remediation obligation; rather, VMS assumes the obligation as defined by the actual scope of remediation ultimately required, regardless of whether that scope exceeds the $1.4 million estimate in the Phase II ESA.

Ohio EPA notification is required for the transfer of Elyria facility environmental permits in connection with the sale, and the permit transfer process is ongoing. In addition, Meridian has been engaged in negotiations with the Ohio EPA regarding the scope of mandated remediation at the Elyria facility. The Ohio EPA has not yet issued a final determination regarding the required scope of remediation, and the agency's ongoing review of conditions at the site — including potentially off-site migration of contamination — introduces meaningful uncertainty regarding VMS's ultimate remediation obligation.

B. The Committee's Challenge

The Committee, through its counsel at Pendergast McCabe & Lowe LLP, has challenged the inclusion of the $1.4 million environmental remediation obligation in the schedule of assumed liabilities under the APA. The Committee's position rests on three related arguments:

(i) Environmental liabilities attach to the property as in rem obligations. The Committee argues that environmental remediation obligations at the Elyria facility are obligations that run with the land and would transfer to VMS as the purchaser of the real property regardless of whether the APA designates them as assumed liabilities. Under this theory, VMS derives no incremental value from "assuming" these obligations in the APA, because VMS would be responsible for remediation as a matter of law upon taking title to the property. The Committee contends that the environmental liability assumption in the APA is therefore a redundancy that serves only to inflate the apparent consideration being paid by VMS.

(ii) Characterization as assumed liability inflates the nominal purchase price. The Committee further argues that by treating the $1.4 million environmental obligation as an assumed liability — and counting it toward the total consideration offered by VMS — the APA overstates VMS's actual acquisition cost. In the Committee's view, the true economic value of VMS's bid is $58.5 million in cash (plus approximately $2.1 million in assumed employee obligations and $5.0 million in cure costs), not $63.5 million. The inclusion of the environmental obligation in the assumed liability schedule, the Committee contends, creates the false impression that VMS is providing more consideration than it actually is.

(iii) VMS benefits from a reduction in effective cash paid at closing. The Committee's third argument is that VMS's assumption of the environmental liability allows VMS to reduce its effective cash outlay at closing. If the $1.4 million were excluded from assumed liabilities and VMS were required to pay $58.5 million in cash with the environmental obligation remaining with the estate, the estate would still receive $58.5 million in cash — the same amount — but would retain the environmental obligation as an estate liability. The Committee suggests that this allocation would be more transparent and would allow the estate to seek a higher purchase price from VMS or other bidders to account for the environmental obligation.

The Committee's financial advisor, Janet Hirsch of Dunbar Phelps Group, LLC, has supported this position in informal discussions with Debtor's counsel and with our office. In a May 31, 2022 teleconference with Priya Venkatesh of Hargrove Tillinghast LLP and the undersigned, Ms. Hirsch stated that the Dunbar Phelps analysis of VMS's bid valued the assumed environmental obligation at zero incremental consideration, on the basis that VMS would bear this cost regardless of the APA's characterization.

As a practical matter, the impact of the Committee's challenge on unsecured creditors is nuanced. If the $1.4 million environmental liability is reclassified as an excluded liability, the nominal purchase price remains $63.5 million, but the estate retains the remediation obligation — a net wash for the estate in economic terms, absent a corresponding increase in the purchase price. The real dispute, therefore, is not whether the estate is better off with the environmental obligation classified as assumed or excluded, but rather whether VMS should be required to pay additional consideration to account for the environmental obligation, or whether the existing purchase price structure adequately reflects VMS's total economic commitment.

C. Ohio EPA Remediation Scope Negotiations

The most significant risk factor associated with the environmental assumed liability is the ongoing negotiation between Meridian and the Ohio EPA regarding the final scope of required remediation at the Elyria facility. The Ohio EPA's involvement arises from Meridian's obligation to obtain regulatory approval for the remediation plan and the agency's authority to mandate additional investigation and remediation measures under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 3746 and applicable Ohio Administrative Code provisions.

The Phase II ESA prepared by Pinehurst Environmental Sciences, Inc. was based on a defined scope of investigation focused on known areas of contamination at the Elyria site. However, the Ohio EPA has indicated in preliminary communications with Meridian that the agency may require additional investigation of off-site migration, deeper soil and groundwater characterization, and potential remediation of adjacent parcels that may have been impacted by historical operations at the Elyria facility.

Based on our discussions with Pinehurst's project manager, the Debtor's environmental counsel, and our independent review of the Ohio EPA correspondence, we have identified three potential remediation scope scenarios:

1. Base Case (Current Estimate) — $1.4 Million. Under this scenario, the Ohio EPA's final determination is consistent with the scope of remediation identified in the Phase II ESA. Remediation would consist of soil excavation and disposal, groundwater monitoring, and limited in-situ treatment, at a cost of approximately $1.4 million. This scenario assumes no expansion of the investigation or remediation area and no requirement for remediation of adjacent parcels.

2. Moderate Expansion — $2.0 Million to $2.5 Million. Under this scenario, the Ohio EPA requires additional soil boring investigations and expanded groundwater monitoring at the perimeter of the Elyria property, as well as installation of additional monitoring wells on adjacent parcels to evaluate potential off-site migration. The estimated remediation cost under this scenario increases to approximately $2.0 million to $2.5 million, representing an incremental cost of $600,000 to $1.1 million above the Phase II ESA estimate.

3. Significant Expansion — $3.5 Million to $5.0 Million. Under the most adverse scenario, the Ohio EPA mandates full remediation of contaminated soils and groundwater on both the Elyria property and adjacent parcels, including potentially impacted areas owned by third parties. This scenario would involve extensive excavation, installation of a pump-and-treat groundwater remediation system, long-term monitoring, and institutional controls. Estimated remediation costs under this scenario range from $3.5 million to $5.0 million, representing incremental exposure of $2.1 million to $3.6 million above the Phase II ESA baseline.

The risk of the Moderate Expansion scenario is assessed as Medium. The Ohio EPA's preliminary correspondence with Meridian has included references to the need for off-site migration assessment, and Pinehurst's project manager has indicated that some expansion of the investigation scope is likely. The risk of the Significant Expansion scenario is assessed as Low-Medium. While a full remediation mandate of this scope is possible, it would be atypical for a site of this nature absent evidence of widespread off-site contamination or direct impacts to sensitive receptors (e.g., drinking water supplies).

The environmental scope uncertainty has had a tangible chilling effect on the bidding process. As noted above, Axton Industrial Holdings, LLC withdrew its $64.75 million conditioned bid on May 25, 2022, citing in part the inability to resolve environmental contingencies at the Elyria facility within the auction timeline. The withdrawal of Axton — which was the only competing qualified bidder — left VMS as the sole stalking-horse bidder and effectively eliminated competitive tension from the sale process. This outcome underscores the materiality of the environmental liability issue and the urgency of seeking resolution.

Debtor's counsel has acknowledged the ongoing nature of the Ohio EPA negotiations. In a June 2, 2022 teleconference with our office, Priya Venkatesh of Hargrove Tillinghast LLP stated that the Ohio EPA had not issued a final determination and that the agency's timeline for doing so was uncertain. The Debtor's motion to extend the auction date (filed June 3, 2022) and the subsequent motion to postpone the auction indefinitely (filed July 8, 2022) both cited the unresolved EPA remediation scope as a primary basis for the requested relief. This pattern suggests that the Debtor itself views the Ohio EPA determination as a gating issue for the sale process.

D. VMS's Exposure Analysis

Under the APA as currently drafted, VMS assumes the environmental remediation obligation at the Elyria facility as described in the Phase II ESA, with an estimated cost of $1.4 million. Critically, however, the APA does not contain an express dollar cap on VMS's environmental remediation liability. Section 2.3(d) of the APA defines the assumed environmental liability by reference to the remediation obligations at the Elyria facility generally, not by reference to a specific dollar amount or scope of work. This means that if the Ohio EPA expands the required remediation scope, VMS's assumed liability would expand correspondingly — potentially far beyond the $1.4 million estimate that informed the purchase price negotiation.

The financial exposure to VMS under the three remediation scope scenarios discussed above is as follows:

• Base Case: VMS's assumed environmental liability is $1.4 million, consistent with the Phase II ESA estimate. No incremental exposure.

• Moderate Expansion: VMS's assumed environmental liability increases to $2.0 million to $2.5 million, representing $600,000 to $1.1 million in incremental exposure beyond the Phase II ESA estimate. While this level of incremental cost may be manageable within VMS's overall deal economics, it was not contemplated in the purchase price negotiation and should not be absorbed by VMS without contractual protection.

• Significant Expansion: VMS's assumed environmental liability increases to $3.5 million to $5.0 million, representing $2.1 million to $3.6 million in incremental exposure. This level of expansion would represent a material adverse change in the deal economics and could, depending on the precise cost, require additional equity contribution from Ridgepoint Capital Partners, LP or renegotiation of the Lakeshore incremental term loan.

The absence of an environmental liability cap in the APA is a significant structural deficiency that must be addressed in any APA amendment. The current drafting effectively transfers all environmental upside risk (i.e., the possibility that remediation costs are lower than estimated) and all environmental downside risk (i.e., the possibility that remediation costs are higher than estimated) to VMS. While VMS accepted this allocation at the time the APA was executed — in part because the Phase II ESA provided a reasonable estimate and VMS viewed the Elyria facility as strategically essential — the subsequent developments regarding the Ohio EPA's potential expansion of remediation scope have materially altered the risk profile.

It is also important to consider VMS's exposure from a successor liability perspective, independent of the APA's allocation of assumed and excluded liabilities. Under CERCLA (42 U.S.C. § 9607) and analogous Ohio environmental statutes, the purchaser of contaminated real property may face strict liability for remediation costs as a current owner of the property, regardless of whether the purchaser caused or contributed to the contamination. While a Section 363 sale order containing appropriate "free and clear" language under 11 U.S.C. § 363(f) can provide some protection against pre-existing environmental claims — particularly in personam claims by third parties and governmental entities — the protection afforded by such orders against in rem environmental obligations is subject to meaningful limitations. Courts have generally held that environmental remediation obligations that run with the land cannot be extinguished through a Section 363 sale order, even if the order purports to sell the property "free and clear" of all liens, claims, and encumbrances. See, e.g., In re Torwico Electronics, Inc., 8 F.3d 146 (3d Cir. 1993); Michigan v. Chrysler LLC (In re Chrysler LLC), No. 09-50002, at *24 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2009).

This legal framework reinforces the practical reality that VMS will likely bear responsibility for the Elyria environmental remediation regardless of whether the obligation is classified as an assumed or excluded liability under the APA. The relevant question, therefore, is not whether VMS can avoid the obligation entirely, but rather how the allocation of environmental risk between VMS and the estate should be reflected in the purchase price and the assumed liability framework.

E. Recommendations — Environmental

Based on the foregoing analysis, I recommend that VMS pursue the following environmental liability mitigation strategies:

1. Maintain $1.4 Million Cap in APA. VMS should negotiate an explicit dollar cap on assumed environmental remediation obligations, to be incorporated in an amendment to Section 2.3(d) of the APA. The cap should be tied to the $1.4 million estimate from the Pinehurst Phase II ESA, with any remediation costs in excess of that amount treated as an excluded liability retained by the estate or, alternatively, as the basis for a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the cash purchase price payable by VMS at closing. The proposed language should make clear that VMS's obligation is limited to the scope and cost of remediation identified in the Phase II ESA, and that any expansion of remediation scope by the Ohio EPA or any other governmental authority does not expand VMS's assumed liability beyond the capped amount.

2. Price Adjustment Mechanism. VMS should propose an APA amendment providing a purchase price adjustment mechanism linked to changes in the scope of environmental remediation at the Elyria facility. Specifically, if the Ohio EPA issues a final determination requiring remediation in excess of the $1.4 million Phase II ESA estimate, VMS should receive a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the cash purchase price payable at closing, up to a specified incremental cap (e.g., $2.0 million in additional remediation costs, resulting in a maximum purchase price reduction of $2.0 million). This mechanism would preserve VMS's economic expectations while providing a fair and transparent allocation of risk between VMS and the estate.

3. Termination Right. If the Ohio EPA issues a final determination resulting in total remediation costs exceeding a material adverse threshold — I recommend a threshold of $3.0 million in total remediation costs, representing approximately 214% of the current Phase II ESA estimate — VMS should have the contractual right to terminate the APA and recover its $3.175 million good-faith deposit from Granite Trust & Escrow Co. In addition, upon such termination, VMS should be entitled to the $1.905 million break-up fee and up to $750,000 in expense reimbursement, consistent with the bid protections approved by the Court on May 13, 2022 (Dkt. 234). This termination right would provide VMS with an exit ramp in the event that the environmental liability exposure becomes fundamentally inconsistent with the economic assumptions underlying the acquisition.

4. Respond to Committee's Position. VMS should firmly resist the Committee's position that the $1.4 million environmental remediation obligation should be excluded from assumed liabilities without a corresponding adjustment to the purchase price. VMS's assumption of this obligation was a negotiated element of the APA, and the $63.5 million purchase price reflects, in part, VMS's agreement to bear this cost. If the Committee succeeds in reclassifying the environmental obligation as an excluded liability, VMS should counter with a corresponding $1.4 million reduction in the cash purchase price — i.e., $57.1 million in cash at closing instead of $58.5 million. This approach would make the reclassification value-neutral from VMS's perspective and would effectively neutralize the Committee's challenge.

5. Request Updated Phase II ESA from Pinehurst. VMS should engage Pinehurst Environmental Sciences, Inc. to prepare a supplemental Phase II ESA scope assessment or cost update reflecting current site conditions and any additional data that has become available since the original Phase II ESA was completed in March 2022. The updated assessment would provide VMS with a current baseline for environmental cost exposure and would serve as the foundation for VMS's negotiating position with respect to the environmental remediation cap and price adjustment mechanism. The supplemental assessment should be completed as expeditiously as possible, ideally before any renewed auction date is set.

V. ACCRUED EMPLOYEE WAGES AND BENEFITS

A. Scope and Estimate

Section 2.3(c) of the APA provides for VMS's assumption of certain accrued employee wages and benefits, estimated at approximately $2.1 million as of the anticipated closing date. This category of assumed liabilities covers the following obligations:

• Pre-closing accrued but unpaid wages: Wages earned by Meridian employees prior to the closing date that have not yet been paid as of the closing. This includes regular wages, overtime, and shift differentials accrued during the most recent payroll cycle preceding the closing.

• Accrued vacation and paid time off ("PTO"): Unused vacation days and PTO balances accumulated by Meridian employees as of the closing date. Under Meridian's personnel policies, employees accrue vacation and PTO on a calendar-year basis, and unused balances are paid out upon termination or separation from employment.

• Certain health and welfare benefit obligations: Accrued but unpaid contributions to health insurance, dental, vision, and other welfare benefit plans for employees to whom VMS will offer employment. This category includes employer-side premiums and contributions for the coverage period preceding the closing date.

VMS has committed under the APA to offering employment to at least 480 of Meridian's approximately 620 employees. The assumed employee liabilities are limited to obligations attributable to those employees who accept VMS's offer of employment and transition to VMS's payroll following the closing. Employees who do not receive offers of employment, or who decline VMS's offer, would have their accrued wage and benefit claims treated as claims against the estate in the bankruptcy proceeding.

Notably, the assumed employee liabilities under Section 2.3(c) expressly exclude pension and OPEB withdrawal liabilities, which are estimated at approximately $14.7 million and are held by the Northern Basin Employee Benefits Trust. These obligations are categorized as excluded liabilities under the APA and will remain with the estate for treatment through the bankruptcy process. The exclusion of pension and OPEB liabilities was a fundamental negotiating point for VMS, as assumption of these legacy obligations would have rendered the acquisition economically infeasible.

B. Key Issues

Several issues merit attention with respect to the accrued employee wages and benefits assumed by VMS:

Estimate Reliability and Timing Sensitivity. The $2.1 million estimate is based on the Debtor's schedules and internal payroll data provided to VMS during due diligence. This estimate was prepared as of approximately March 2022, contemporaneously with the execution of the APA. However, because accrued employee liabilities are inherently time-sensitive — accumulating with each payroll cycle and each day of accrued vacation and PTO — the actual assumed liability amount at closing will depend on the date on which the closing occurs. If the closing is delayed, the accrued amounts will increase as Meridian continues to operate under the DIP and employees continue to earn wages, accrue vacation, and generate benefit obligations. Given the indefinite postponement of the auction date (per the Court's July 18, 2022 order, Dkt. 309), there is a meaningful risk that the accrued employee liabilities will exceed the $2.1 million estimate by the time a closing eventually occurs.

Reference-Date Mechanism. To mitigate the risk of accrual growth due to closing delays, VMS should seek a bring-down mechanism in any APA amendment that pegs the assumed employee liability to a specified reference date — for example, the petition date (February 14, 2022), the APA execution date (March 30, 2022), or a date certain selected by agreement of the parties. Any employee wage and benefit obligations accruing after the reference date would be treated as DIP administrative expenses, to be paid from the DIP Facility or from estate funds, rather than as assumed liabilities of VMS. This approach would ensure that VMS's assumed liability is fixed at a known amount and that the financial risk of closing delays is allocated to the estate (and ultimately to the DIP lender) rather than to VMS.

UAW Local 2287 Considerations. The APA provides that VMS does not assume the UAW Local 2287 collective bargaining agreement covering approximately 195 production workers at the Elyria facility. VMS has committed, however, to negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement with UAW Local 2287 following the closing. This creates a potentially complex interface between the assumed employee liabilities and the CBA. Accrued wages for UAW-represented workers may be subject to specific provisions of the CBA regarding the timing and method of wage payments, grievance procedures, and back-pay calculations. To the extent that UAW-represented employees assert claims for accrued wages or benefits under the CBA's grievance process, VMS could face liability exposure that extends beyond the straightforward payroll accrual amounts reflected in the $2.1 million estimate. VMS should ensure that any assumed employee liabilities for UAW Local 2287-covered workers are clearly and contractually severed from any CBA-related obligations that VMS has not agreed to assume.

Priority Claim Implications. Certain accrued employee wages and benefits may qualify as priority claims under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4) (priority for allowed unsecured claims for wages, salaries, or commissions earned within 180 days before the petition date, up to $15,150 per individual) and § 507(a)(5) (priority for contributions to employee benefit plans arising from services rendered within 180 days before the petition date). To the extent these claims are entitled to priority treatment, they must be paid in full before general unsecured creditors receive any distribution from the estate. VMS's assumption of these claims reduces the administrative burden on the estate and effectively removes these priority obligations from the pool of claims that would otherwise be satisfied from the DIP Facility or sale proceeds. This provides an arguable benefit to the estate and to GLICC, as it preserves more cash proceeds for distribution on secured claims.

C. Recommendations — Employee Obligations

Based on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the following actions:

1. Confirm the $2.1 million estimate. VMS should request updated payroll data from Debtor's counsel, including current accrued wage balances, vacation and PTO accruals, and benefit contribution obligations, to verify the accuracy of the $2.1 million estimate as of the most recent practicable date.

2. Negotiate a cap or reference-date mechanism. VMS should propose an APA amendment that either caps the assumed employee liability at $2.1 million or establishes a reference-date mechanism fixing the assumed amount as of a specified date, with any excess accruals treated as DIP administrative expenses.

3. Sever UAW CBA-related obligations. VMS should ensure that the APA amendment includes clear language severing assumed employee liabilities for UAW Local 2287-covered workers from any obligations arising under the CBA, including grievance awards, back-pay claims, and any other CBA-specific liabilities.

4. Coordinate with Lakeshore. VMS should confer with Christine Farber at Lakeshore Commercial Lending, Inc. to confirm that assumption of the employee liabilities at the $2.1 million level, and any potential increase, is consistent with the financial covenants and approval conditions applicable to the $30.0 million incremental term loan under the accordion feature of VMS's existing credit facility.

VI. CURE COSTS UNDER ASSUMED EXECUTORY CONTRACTS

A. Scope and Estimate

Section 2.3(a) of the APA provides for VMS's assumption of cure costs under executory contracts and unexpired leases that VMS elects to assume and that are assigned to VMS pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365. Under Section 365(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, as a condition of assumption and assignment, the trustee or debtor-in-possession must (i) cure, or provide adequate assurance that the trustee will promptly cure, any default under the contract, (ii) compensate, or provide adequate assurance that the trustee will promptly compensate, the other party for any actual pecuniary loss resulting from the default, and (iii) provide adequate assurance of future performance under the contract. The "cure costs" under the APA represent the aggregate amounts required to cure all pre-petition defaults under the contracts and leases on VMS's assumed contract schedule.

The aggregate cure cost is estimated at $5.0 million. This estimate is based on the Debtor's preliminary analysis of outstanding defaults under the contracts on VMS's assumed contract schedule, including past-due payments, accrued interest, and other amounts owed to contract counterparties. The $5.0 million cure cost estimate is treated as part of the aggregate purchase price under the APA (i.e., the $63.5 million purchase price consists of $58.5 million in cash plus $5.0 million in assumed cure costs), and is payable by VMS at or promptly following the closing.

It is important to note that the $5.0 million is an estimate only. Actual cure costs will be determined through the cure notice process mandated by the Bid Procedures Order and the Bankruptcy Code, and may be disputed by contract counterparties who assert that the Debtor's proposed cure amounts are insufficient or who claim additional defaults not reflected in the Debtor's schedules.

B. Key Issues

Cure Notice Process and Counterparty Objections. The Debtor filed the bid procedures motion on April 5, 2022, and the Court entered the Bid Procedures Order on April 22, 2022 (Dkt. 198). Pursuant to the Bid Procedures Order, the Debtor has been required to serve cure notices on all counterparties to executory contracts and unexpired leases that may be assumed and assigned in connection with the sale, identifying the proposed cure amounts for each contract. As of the date of this memorandum, cure notices have been served, but numerous counterparties have filed objections to the proposed cure amounts, asserting that the Debtor's calculations understate the amounts owed. The resolution of these disputes will be necessary before the cure costs can be finalized and before the affected contracts can be assumed and assigned to VMS.

Material Customer Contracts. Among the most valuable assets being acquired by VMS are Meridian's OEM supply agreements, which represent the core customer relationships and revenue streams of the business. These supply agreements are essential to VMS's strategic rationale for the acquisition and to VMS's ability to generate the revenue necessary to service the acquisition financing and achieve the projected returns for Ridgepoint Capital Partners. Disputes over cure amounts for these customer contracts could delay the closing, create friction with key customers, and potentially affect the value of the assets being acquired. VMS should identify the highest-priority customer contracts and focus its cure cost analysis and negotiation efforts on these agreements.

Equipment Leases and Supply Agreements. In addition to customer contracts, VMS's assumed contract schedule includes equipment leases and supply agreements at all three of Meridian's facilities (Elyria, Mansfield, and Sandusky). Equipment leases, in particular, may involve significant cure amounts due to the Debtor's failure to make lease payments during the pre-petition period and during the Chapter 11 case. Supply agreements with raw material vendors and logistics providers may also carry meaningful cure cost obligations, particularly given the inflationary environment and the Debtor's pre-petition payment delinquencies.

Aggregate Cure Cost Overrun Risk. If the aggregate actual cure costs significantly exceed the $5.0 million estimate, VMS faces a decision point. The options include: (i) narrowing the scope of assumed contracts by de-designating contracts with disproportionately high cure costs, (ii) negotiating directly with counterparties to reduce disputed cure amounts, or (iii) seeking a purchase price adjustment from the Debtor to offset the incremental cure costs. Each of these options carries its own risks and complexities, and the appropriate strategy will depend on the magnitude of the overrun and the specific contracts involved.

Committee Position. The Committee has not directly challenged the $5.0 million cure cost estimate to date. However, the Committee may argue — consistent with its position on the environmental remediation obligation — that cure costs should be borne entirely by VMS as buyer rather than treated as a component of the purchase price, or that the cure cost estimate should be subjected to greater scrutiny to ensure that the estate is receiving fair value for the assets.

C. Cure Cost Dispute Resolution Process

Under the Bid Procedures Order (Dkt. 198), cure cost disputes are to be resolved by the Bankruptcy Court at or before the sale hearing. The process operates as follows:

1. The Debtor serves cure notices on contract counterparties, identifying the proposed cure amount for each contract.

2. Counterparties have a specified period (set at 14 days under the Bid Procedures Order) to file objections to the proposed cure amounts.

3. Disputed cure amounts are either resolved consensually between the Debtor (and VMS, as the proposed assignee) and the objecting counterparty, or, failing consensual resolution, are determined by the Bankruptcy Court at or before the sale hearing.

4. VMS, as the party assuming the contracts and paying the cure costs, has the right to participate in the cure cost objection proceedings and may elect to de-designate contracts from the assumed contract schedule where cure costs are determined to be unreasonably high or where assumption of the contract is no longer economically justified.

Debtor's counsel at Hargrove Tillinghast LLP is responsible for managing the cure notice process and serving as the primary interface with contract counterparties on cure cost disputes. VMS's role is to monitor the process, evaluate the reasonableness of proposed cure amounts, and ma

MEMORANDUM
PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT
TO: Nathaniel Bower, Partner, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
FROM: Nathan Ikeda, Associate, Calderwood & Harkness LLP
DATE: June 15, 2022
RE: Scope of Assumed Liabilities and Environmental Remediation Obligations — Stalking-Horse APA for Acquisition of Substantially All Assets of Meridian Precision Components, Inc. (Case No. 22-50318-JLG, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, N.D. Ohio)
CLIENT: Vantage Mobility Systems Corp.
MATTER: VMS / Meridian Section 363 Sale (Matter No. 1007-00002)
Right-click to update Table of Contents
I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This memorandum analyzes the disputed categories of assumed liabilities under the stalking-horse Asset Purchase Agreement dated March 30, 2022 (the "APA") between Vantage Mobility Systems Corp. ("VMS" or "Buyer") and Meridian Precision Components, Inc. ("Meridian," the "Debtor," or "Seller"). The APA governs VMS's proposed acquisition of substantially all of Meridian's assets pursuant to Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code, in Case No. 22-50318-JLG, pending before the Honorable Janet L. Grasso of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio.
Four primary categories of assumed liabilities are under dispute or require heightened attention by VMS and its advisors:
1. Environmental remediation obligations at the Elyria, Ohio facility, estimated at approximately $1.4 million based on the Phase II Environmental Site Assessment ("Phase II ESA") prepared by Pinehurst Environmental Sciences, Inc. ("Pinehurst"), VMS's retained environmental consultant;
2. Accrued employee wages and benefits, estimated at approximately $2.1 million, covering pre-closing accrued but unpaid wages, vacation and paid-time-off balances, and certain health and welfare benefit obligations for employees whom VMS will offer employment;
3. Cure costs under assumed executory contracts and unexpired leases, estimated at approximately $5.0 million, representing the aggregate pre-petition defaults under contracts VMS elects to assume pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365; and
4. The potential expansion of environmental remediation scope through ongoing Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ("Ohio EPA") negotiations, which could materially increase VMS's assumed environmental liability beyond the $1.4 million baseline currently reflected in the APA.
The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the "Committee"), represented by Pendergast McCabe & Lowe LLP (partner the Honorable Franklin Lowe (ret.) and associate Sandra Okoro), with Dunbar Phelps Group, LLC (Managing Director Janet Hirsch) serving as the Committee's financial advisor, has formally challenged the inclusion of the $1.4 million environmental remediation liability in the assumed liabilities schedule of the APA. The Committee's position is that this obligation should either remain with the estate as an excluded liability or be excluded from the scope of the sale order entered in connection with the Section 363 transaction. The Committee contends that characterizing environmental remediation costs as an assumed liability artificially inflates the nominal purchase price and understates VMS's actual acquisition cost, to the detriment of unsecured creditors.
Separately, Debtor's counsel at Hargrove Tillinghast LLP (Marcus Tillinghast and Priya Venkatesh) has signaled uncertainty regarding the final scope of Ohio EPA-mandated remediation at the Elyria facility. The Ohio EPA has not yet issued a final determination regarding the scope of required remediation, and ongoing negotiations between Meridian and the agency create meaningful risk that the remediation mandate could expand significantly beyond the $1.4 million estimate in the Pinehurst Phase II ESA.
Recommendation Summary. Based on the analysis set forth below, it is my recommendation that VMS pursue the following course of action:
• VMS should maintain the current APA framework in which environmental assumed liability is capped at $1.4 million and resist any expansion of that obligation absent a corresponding contractual protection;
• VMS should seek an explicit environmental remediation liability cap in an APA amendment, coupled with a dollar-for-dollar price adjustment mechanism, providing that if the Ohio EPA expands the scope of required remediation above the $1.4 million baseline, VMS receives a corresponding reduction in the cash purchase price at closing, up to a specified incremental cap (e.g., $2.0 million);
• If the Ohio EPA determination results in total remediation costs exceeding a material adverse threshold (e.g., $3.0 million), VMS should have the right to terminate the APA and recover its $3.175 million good-faith deposit from Granite Trust & Escrow Co., plus the $1.905 million break-up fee and up to $750,000 in expense reimbursement;
• VMS should negotiate strategically with both Debtor's counsel and Committee counsel, leveraging VMS's position as the sole viable stalking-horse bidder and the approaching Termination Outside Date of December 31, 2022, while also recognizing the DIP facility maturity date of October 31, 2022 as a source of urgency for all parties; and
• VMS should monitor the Ohio EPA negotiation process closely and request an updated or supplemental Phase II ESA from Pinehurst to ensure that VMS's environmental exposure baseline reflects the most current conditions and data.
Each of these recommendations, together with the underlying legal and factual analysis, is discussed in detail in the sections that follow.
II. BACKGROUND
A. The Bankruptcy Case
Meridian Precision Components, Inc. is an Ohio corporation headquartered at 4500 Industrial Parkway, Elyria, Ohio 44035. Founded in 1983 by Raymond Kaspar, Meridian operates as a Tier 2 automotive supplier specializing in metal stampings, welded assemblies, and e-coat finishing operations. Kaspar retired from active management in 2020, and in the months preceding the bankruptcy filing, the board of directors appointed Brenda Wisnicki, a turnaround professional, as Chief Executive Officer at the direction of Meridian's pre-petition secured lenders.
Meridian operates three manufacturing facilities in northern Ohio:
• Elyria, Ohio — approximately 285,000 square feet, the company's headquarters and primary metal stamping operation, owned in fee;
• Mansfield, Ohio — approximately 140,000 square feet, housing welding and assembly operations; and
• Sandusky, Ohio — approximately 68,000 square feet, serving as the company's e-coat and finishing facility.
As of the petition date, Meridian employed approximately 620 workers across the three facilities. Of that total, approximately 195 production workers at the Elyria facility are represented by United Auto Workers Local 2287 ("UAW Local 2287") under a collective bargaining agreement (the "CBA") that was effective through December 31, 2023. The remaining approximately 425 workers are non-union employees.
For fiscal year 2021, Meridian reported revenue of $138.4 million and an operating loss of ($11.2 million). The operating losses were driven by a combination of factors, including significant raw material cost inflation (particularly steel and aluminum), the loss of a major OEM stamping program previously awarded by a Detroit-based automotive manufacturer, and legacy pension and other post-employment benefit ("OPEB") obligations that continued to strain the company's balance sheet.
On February 14, 2022, Meridian filed a voluntary petition for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code (the "Bankruptcy Code") in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Ohio. The case was assigned Case No. 22-50318-JLG and assigned to the Honorable Janet L. Grasso. As of the petition date, Meridian's total assets were valued at $87.3 million (book value) and total liabilities were approximately $129.6 million, resulting in a balance sheet deficiency of approximately $42.3 million.
B. Debtor's Capital Structure
Meridian's pre-petition capital structure is dominated by a senior secured credit facility provided by Great Lakes Industrial Credit Corp. ("GLICC"). The pre-petition facility, established pursuant to a Credit Agreement dated September 12, 2019 (as amended), consists of a $28.0 million revolving credit facility and a $44.4 million term loan, for total pre-petition secured indebtedness of $72.4 million. GLICC's obligations are secured by a first-priority lien on substantially all of Meridian's assets, including real property, machinery and equipment, inventory, accounts receivable, and general intangibles.
Following the petition date, GLICC provided a debtor-in-possession financing facility (the "DIP Facility") in the amount of $15.0 million, structured as a revolving credit line bearing interest at SOFR plus 550 basis points with a 1.0% unused commitment fee and a 2.0% exit fee. The Bankruptcy Court entered an interim order approving the DIP Facility on February 22, 2022 (Dkt. 47) and a final order on March 18, 2022 (Dkt. 112). The DIP Facility has a maturity date of October 31, 2022. As of July 18, 2022, approximately $9.8 million had been drawn under the DIP Facility, reflecting the Debtor's ongoing working capital needs during the Chapter 11 case.
In addition to secured indebtedness, Meridian's unsecured creditor body includes:
• Unsecured trade claims: approximately $18.5 million, representing obligations to vendors, suppliers, and other counterparties incurred in the ordinary course of business;
• Pension/OPEB claims: approximately $14.7 million, held by the Northern Basin Employee Benefits Trust in connection with Meridian's defined-benefit pension plan and OPEB obligations for retired and active employees;
• Other unsecured claims (including intercompany): approximately $24.0 million, comprising various intercompany receivables, litigation claims, and miscellaneous unsecured obligations.
Based on current projections, GLICC's estimated recovery on its $72.4 million pre-petition secured claim is approximately 71.4%, calculated as follows: net sale proceeds of $63.5 million (the VMS purchase price), less the $9.8 million DIP Facility payoff, less approximately $2.0 million in estimated administrative and priority claims, yielding approximately $51.7 million available for distribution on GLICC's pre-petition claim. This recovery analysis is central to the dynamics of the sale process, as GLICC's economic incentive is to maximize the purchase price and accelerate closing, while the Committee's incentive is to minimize assumed liabilities or otherwise maximize the net estate benefit from the transaction.
C. The Stalking-Horse APA
The APA was executed on March 30, 2022 between Meridian, as Seller, and VMS, as Buyer. The principal terms are summarized as follows:
Purchase Price. The aggregate purchase price under the APA is $63.5 million, comprising $58.5 million in cash payable at closing plus the estimated $5.0 million in assumed cure costs under executory contracts and unexpired leases. The purchase price is subject to adjustment as set forth in the APA, though as currently drafted no adjustment mechanism exists for changes in the scope of environmental remediation obligations.
Bid Protections. The Bankruptcy Court approved bid protections for VMS on May 13, 2022 (Dkt. 234), consisting of a break-up fee of $1.905 million (3.0% of the purchase price) and an expense reimbursement cap of $750,000, for total bid protections of $2.655 million (4.18% of the purchase price). These bid protections are payable from estate funds as an administrative expense in the event VMS is not the prevailing bidder at auction or the APA is terminated under specified circumstances.
Good-Faith Deposit. VMS has deposited $3.175 million (5.0% of the purchase price) with Granite Trust & Escrow Co. as a good-faith deposit. The deposit is refundable to VMS upon termination of the APA under the circumstances set forth therein, including termination by VMS following the occurrence of a material breach by the Debtor or the passage of the Termination Outside Date.
Overbid Protections. Under the Bid Procedures Order (Dkt. 198), any qualifying competing bid must exceed VMS's purchase price by a minimum overbid increment of $1.0 million, meaning any initial competing bid must be at least $64.5 million.
Termination Outside Date. The APA provides that either party may terminate the agreement if the closing has not occurred on or before December 31, 2022 (the "Termination Outside Date"), subject to certain conditions.
Employment Commitments. VMS has committed to offering employment to at least 480 of Meridian's approximately 620 employees. Significantly, VMS does not assume the UAW Local 2287 CBA, though VMS has committed to negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement with UAW Local 2287 for the Elyria production workforce following the closing of the transaction.
Regulatory. The APA contemplates that no filing under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 ("HSR Act") is required, as the $63.5 million purchase price falls below the 2022 reportability threshold of $101.0 million. However, Ohio EPA notification is required for the transfer of Elyria facility environmental permits in connection with the acquisition.
D. Current Procedural Posture
The following is a summary of the key procedural milestones in the sale process to date:
April 5, 2022: Debtor filed motion for entry of an order approving bid procedures, bid protections, and related sale procedures (Dkt. 178).
April 22, 2022: Bid Procedures Hearing held before Judge Grasso. The Court approved the bid procedures, including the marketing timeline, bid qualification requirements, auction format, and overbid increment of $1.0 million (Dkt. 198). The Court reserved ruling on VMS's requested break-up fee and expense reimbursement pending further briefing by the Committee.
May 13, 2022: The Court approved VMS's break-up fee at 3.0% of the purchase price ($1.905 million) and expense reimbursement capped at $750,000, overruling the Committee's objection that the bid protections were excessive relative to the purchase price (Dkt. 234).
May 20, 2022: Original Bid Deadline. The Debtor and its financial advisor, Calloway Strauss Advisory, LLC (Elliot Calloway), conducted an extensive marketing process. The only qualified bid received was from Axton Industrial Holdings, LLC ("Axton") at $64.75 million. However, Axton's bid was conditioned on (i) resolution of environmental liabilities at the Elyria facility prior to closing and (ii) UAW Local 2287's consent to assumption and assignment of the CBA. These conditions rendered the bid effectively contingent and introduced material uncertainty as to Axton's ability to close.
May 25, 2022: Original Auction Date. The Debtor requested an adjournment of the auction, citing the need to evaluate Axton's conditioned bid and ongoing environmental remediation discussions with the Ohio EPA. Axton subsequently withdrew its conditioned bid, with its CEO Philip Drucker stating through counsel (Danielle Sato of Kline Rourke & Sato LLP) that Axton was unable to resolve the environmental and labor contingencies within the auction timeline. Following Axton's withdrawal, VMS's stalking-horse bid became the sole qualified bid.
June 3, 2022: The Debtor filed a motion to extend the auction date from May 25, 2022 to July 15, 2022, citing the need for additional time to resolve the Ohio EPA remediation scope issues and to continue marketing the assets.
June 10, 2022: The Court granted the Debtor's adjournment motion and set a new auction date of July 15, 2022 (Dkt. 271).
July 8, 2022: The Debtor filed a supplemental motion requesting that the auction date be postponed indefinitely, citing the continuing lack of Ohio EPA clarity on remediation scope and the Debtor's inability to provide potential bidders with a definitive environmental liability profile.
July 18, 2022: The Court entered an order granting the indefinite postponement of the auction date (Dkt. 309), with the expectation that the Debtor would promptly notify the Court and all parties-in-interest upon receiving the Ohio EPA's final determination or upon the occurrence of developments warranting a new auction date.
As of the date of this memorandum, the environmental remediation scope and the assumed liability disputes outlined herein remain unresolved. The Committee's challenge to the environmental liability assumption is ongoing, and no additional qualified bidders have emerged from the Debtor's marketing process.
E. Parties Relevant to This Analysis
For ease of reference, the following is a summary of the principal parties and their roles in the matters discussed in this memorandum:
• Vantage Mobility Systems Corp. ("VMS") — Stalking-horse bidder; our client. VMS deal team includes Gerry Hartsfield and Diana Rozhenko. Represented by Calderwood & Harkness LLP.
• Meridian Precision Components, Inc. ("Meridian" or the "Debtor") — Chapter 11 debtor and seller. CEO: Brenda Wisnicki. Represented by Hargrove Tillinghast LLP (Marcus Tillinghast, Priya Venkatesh). Financial advisor: Calloway Strauss Advisory, LLC (Elliot Calloway).
• Great Lakes Industrial Credit Corp. ("GLICC") — Pre-petition secured lender ($72.4 million) and DIP lender ($15.0 million). Workout officer: Kenneth Doran. Counsel: Whitfield & Chambers LLP (Adrienne Whitfield).
• Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (the "Committee") — Chaired by Aldric Stamping & Tool Co. (approximately $3.8 million trade claim). Members include Northern Basin Employee Benefits Trust (approximately $14.7 million pension/OPEB claim) and Crestwood Logistics, Inc. (approximately $1.1 million freight claim). Counsel: Pendergast McCabe & Lowe LLP (Hon. Franklin Lowe (ret.), Sandra Okoro). Financial advisor: Dunbar Phelps Group, LLC (Managing Director Janet Hirsch).
• Pinehurst Environmental Sciences, Inc. ("Pinehurst") — VMS's retained environmental consultant. Prepared the Phase II ESA for the Elyria facility.
• Axton Industrial Holdings, LLC ("Axton") — Competing bidder that withdrew on May 25, 2022. CEO: Philip Drucker. Counsel: Kline Rourke & Sato LLP (Danielle Sato). Backed by Northstar Equity Advisors, LP.
• Ridgepoint Capital Partners, LP ("Ridgepoint") — VMS's private equity sponsor. Ridgepoint Capital Fund II, LP, vintage 2017, $1.1 billion committed capital, approximately $3.2 billion total AUM. Deal team: Tobias Kessler (Managing Director), Mariana Solano (Principal).
• Lakeshore Commercial Lending, Inc. ("Lakeshore") — VMS's existing lender providing the $30.0 million incremental term loan under an accordion feature. Contact: Christine Farber.
• Granite Trust & Escrow Co. — Escrow agent holding VMS's $3.175 million good-faith deposit.
III. ASSUMED LIABILITIES UNDER THE APA — OVERVIEW
A. Categories of Assumed Liabilities
The APA defines "Assumed Liabilities" by reference to an enumerated schedule of obligations that VMS, as Buyer, agrees to assume at or following the closing of the transaction. This section provides an overview of the four categories of assumed liabilities expressly identified in the APA, which together represent VMS's non-cash-purchase-price economic commitments under the transaction.
1. Cure Costs Under Assumed Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases (Estimated $5.0 Million). Section 2.3(a) of the APA provides that VMS shall assume and be responsible for the payment of all cure costs arising under the executory contracts and unexpired leases that VMS elects to assume and that are assigned to VMS pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365. The APA includes a preliminary schedule of contracts that VMS intends to assume, subject to VMS's right to add or remove contracts from the assumed contract schedule prior to closing. The aggregate cure cost for the contracts on the preliminary schedule is estimated at $5.0 million, though this figure is subject to change based on the cure notice process, objections by contract counterparties, and VMS's exercise of its de-designation rights.
2. Post-Closing Obligations Under Assumed Contracts. Section 2.3(b) of the APA provides that VMS shall assume and be responsible for all obligations arising under the assumed contracts that accrue or become due after the closing date. This category encompasses ongoing performance obligations under customer supply agreements, vendor contracts, equipment leases, and other operational agreements that are necessary for VMS to continue operating Meridian's business. While this category does not carry a discrete estimated dollar amount at closing, it represents a significant ongoing obligation and is integral to the strategic rationale for the acquisition.
3. Accrued Employee Wages and Benefits (Estimated $2.1 Million). Section 2.3(c) of the APA provides that VMS shall assume certain accrued employee wages and benefits as of the closing date, including pre-closing accrued but unpaid wages, accrued vacation and paid-time-off balances, and certain health and welfare benefit obligations for those employees to whom VMS offers employment. The $2.1 million estimate is based on the Debtor's schedules and internal payroll data provided during VMS's due diligence review. Notably, this category expressly excludes any pension or OPEB withdrawal liabilities, which are categorized as excluded liabilities under the APA.
4. Environmental Remediation Obligations at the Elyria Facility (Estimated $1.4 Million). Section 2.3(d) of the APA provides that VMS shall assume the environmental remediation obligations at the Elyria facility as identified in the Phase II ESA prepared by Pinehurst Environmental Sciences, Inc. The Phase II ESA identified contamination at the Elyria site requiring remediation, with an estimated cost of $1.4 million. This category has become the most disputed element of the assumed liabilities framework, as discussed in detail in Section IV below.
B. Categories of Excluded Liabilities
The APA also defines "Excluded Liabilities," which are obligations of the Debtor that VMS does not assume and for which VMS bears no responsibility following the closing. The excluded liabilities are intended to be left with the estate for treatment through the bankruptcy process. The principal categories of excluded liabilities include:
• All pre-petition unsecured claims, including general trade claims of approximately $18.5 million;
• Pre-petition secured debt owed to GLICC (approximately $72.4 million), which will be paid from the sale proceeds to the extent available;
• DIP Facility obligations (approximately $9.8 million as of July 18, 2022), which will be repaid in full from the sale proceeds at closing;
• Pension and OPEB withdrawal liabilities (approximately $14.7 million held by Northern Basin Employee Benefits Trust), representing the Debtor's obligations under its defined-benefit pension plan and post-employment benefit programs;
• All intercompany claims;
• Professional fee claims incurred in the Chapter 11 case;
• All causes of action, avoidance actions, and other litigation claims belonging to the Debtor's estate; and
• Tax refunds and other receivables belonging to the estate.
C. The Distinction's Significance
The distinction between assumed liabilities and excluded liabilities is of critical importance to all constituencies in the Section 363 sale process, and it lies at the heart of the current disputes between VMS, the Debtor, the Committee, and GLICC.
In a Section 363 sale, assumed liabilities effectively reduce the net benefit of the purchase price to the estate. When a buyer agrees to assume certain obligations, the estate is relieved of those obligations, but the buyer's assumption is reflected as part of the aggregate consideration for the assets being acquired. For purposes of evaluating the adequacy of the purchase price, the Bankruptcy Court and the parties consider both the cash component and the value of the assumed liabilities in assessing the total consideration offered by the buyer.
From the Committee's perspective, any expansion of assumed liabilities without a corresponding increase in the cash purchase price arguably benefits VMS at the expense of the estate. If VMS assumes an additional $1.0 million in obligations, for example, that amount is effectively removed from the pool of claims that would otherwise be paid from estate funds, but VMS has not provided an additional $1.0 million in cash consideration. The Committee views this dynamic as an opportunity for VMS to acquire the assets at a lower effective cost.
Conversely, from VMS's perspective, the removal of assumed liabilities from the APA would increase VMS's effective purchase price (because VMS would be paying $58.5 million in cash without the offsetting benefit of having certain obligations removed from the post-closing business) or would require a renegotiation of the purchase price to reflect the changed allocation of risk and obligation.
GLICC's recovery is directly and materially affected by these dynamics. As noted above, GLICC's estimated recovery on its $72.4 million pre-petition secured claim is approximately 71.4%, based on net sale proceeds of approximately $51.7 million ($63.5 million less $9.8 million DIP payoff less approximately $2.0 million in administrative and priority claims). Any reduction in the nominal purchase price — whether resulting from the reclassification of assumed liabilities or otherwise — would reduce GLICC's recovery on a dollar-for-dollar basis. For this reason, GLICC has a strong economic interest in maintaining the current purchase price structure and may serve as a natural ally to VMS in resisting the Committee's attempts to reclassify assumed liabilities.
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION OBLIGATIONS — ELYRIA FACILITY
A. Factual Background
The Elyria facility, located at 4500 Industrial Parkway, Elyria, Ohio 44035, serves as Meridian's corporate headquarters and primary stamping operation. The facility occupies approximately 285,000 square feet on a multi-acre parcel of land that Meridian owns in fee simple. The property has been used for industrial manufacturing purposes since the mid-1960s, initially by a predecessor entity and subsequently by Meridian following its founding in 1983. The facility houses large-scale metal stamping presses, die storage, and ancillary operations including maintenance shops and a small chemical storage area used in connection with the stamping process.
As part of VMS's due diligence process, VMS retained Pinehurst Environmental Sciences, Inc. to conduct a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment of the Elyria facility. The Phase I ESA identified recognized environmental conditions at the site, including the potential for subsurface contamination associated with historical operations — specifically, the use of solvents and degreasing agents in the stamping process, potential petroleum releases from underground storage tanks, and possible contamination from the on-site chemical storage area.
The Phase II ESA, completed in March 2022, confirmed the presence of contamination requiring remediation, including elevated levels of trichloroethylene ("TCE") and petroleum hydrocarbons in subsurface soils, as well as limited groundwater contamination in the shallow aquifer beneath the eastern portion of the property. Based on the nature and extent of the contamination identified, Pinehurst estimated the cost of remediation at approximately $1.4 million. This estimate assumed a remediation approach consisting of excavation and off-site disposal of impacted soils, installation of a groundwater monitoring well network, and limited in-situ treatment of the shallow groundwater plume.
The APA as executed in March 2022 contemplates VMS's assumption of these environmental remediation obligations at the Elyria facility, with the $1.4 million estimate serving as the baseline for the assumed liability amount. Importantly, however, the APA does not contain an express dollar cap on the environmental remediation obligation; rather, VMS assumes the obligation as defined by the actual scope of remediation ultimately required, regardless of whether that scope exceeds the $1.4 million estimate in the Phase II ESA.
Ohio EPA notification is required for the transfer of Elyria facility environmental permits in connection with the sale, and the permit transfer process is ongoing. In addition, Meridian has been engaged in negotiations with the Ohio EPA regarding the scope of mandated remediation at the Elyria facility. The Ohio EPA has not yet issued a final determination regarding the required scope of remediation, and the agency's ongoing review of conditions at the site — including potentially off-site migration of contamination — introduces meaningful uncertainty regarding VMS's ultimate remediation obligation.
B. The Committee's Challenge
The Committee, through its counsel at Pendergast McCabe & Lowe LLP, has challenged the inclusion of the $1.4 million environmental remediation obligation in the schedule of assumed liabilities under the APA. The Committee's position rests on three related arguments:
(i) Environmental liabilities attach to the property as in rem obligations. The Committee argues that environmental remediation obligations at the Elyria facility are obligations that run with the land and would transfer to VMS as the purchaser of the real property regardless of whether the APA designates them as assumed liabilities. Under this theory, VMS derives no incremental value from "assuming" these obligations in the APA, because VMS would be responsible for remediation as a matter of law upon taking title to the property. The Committee contends that the environmental liability assumption in the APA is therefore a redundancy that serves only to inflate the apparent consideration being paid by VMS.
(ii) Characterization as assumed liability inflates the nominal purchase price. The Committee further argues that by treating the $1.4 million environmental obligation as an assumed liability — and counting it toward the total consideration offered by VMS — the APA overstates VMS's actual acquisition cost. In the Committee's view, the true economic value of VMS's bid is $58.5 million in cash (plus approximately $2.1 million in assumed employee obligations and $5.0 million in cure costs), not $63.5 million. The inclusion of the environmental obligation in the assumed liability schedule, the Committee contends, creates the false impression that VMS is providing more consideration than it actually is.
(iii) VMS benefits from a reduction in effective cash paid at closing. The Committee's third argument is that VMS's assumption of the environmental liability allows VMS to reduce its effective cash outlay at closing. If the $1.4 million were excluded from assumed liabilities and VMS were required to pay $58.5 million in cash with the environmental obligation remaining with the estate, the estate would still receive $58.5 million in cash — the same amount — but would retain the environmental obligation as an estate liability. The Committee suggests that this allocation would be more transparent and would allow the estate to seek a higher purchase price from VMS or other bidders to account for the environmental obligation.
The Committee's financial advisor, Janet Hirsch of Dunbar Phelps Group, LLC, has supported this position in informal discussions with Debtor's counsel and with our office. In a May 31, 2022 teleconference with Priya Venkatesh of Hargrove Tillinghast LLP and the undersigned, Ms. Hirsch stated that the Dunbar Phelps analysis of VMS's bid valued the assumed environmental obligation at zero incremental consideration, on the basis that VMS would bear this cost regardless of the APA's characterization.
As a practical matter, the impact of the Committee's challenge on unsecured creditors is nuanced. If the $1.4 million environmental liability is reclassified as an excluded liability, the nominal purchase price remains $63.5 million, but the estate retains the remediation obligation — a net wash for the estate in economic terms, absent a corresponding increase in the purchase price. The real dispute, therefore, is not whether the estate is better off with the environmental obligation classified as assumed or excluded, but rather whether VMS should be required to pay additional consideration to account for the environmental obligation, or whether the existing purchase price structure adequately reflects VMS's total economic commitment.
C. Ohio EPA Remediation Scope Negotiations
The most significant risk factor associated with the environmental assumed liability is the ongoing negotiation between Meridian and the Ohio EPA regarding the final scope of required remediation at the Elyria facility. The Ohio EPA's involvement arises from Meridian's obligation to obtain regulatory approval for the remediation plan and the agency's authority to mandate additional investigation and remediation measures under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 3746 and applicable Ohio Administrative Code provisions.
The Phase II ESA prepared by Pinehurst Environmental Sciences, Inc. was based on a defined scope of investigation focused on known areas of contamination at the Elyria site. However, the Ohio EPA has indicated in preliminary communications with Meridian that the agency may require additional investigation of off-site migration, deeper soil and groundwater characterization, and potential remediation of adjacent parcels that may have been impacted by historical operations at the Elyria facility.
Based on our discussions with Pinehurst's project manager, the Debtor's environmental counsel, and our independent review of the Ohio EPA correspondence, we have identified three potential remediation scope scenarios:
1. Base Case (Current Estimate) — $1.4 Million. Under this scenario, the Ohio EPA's final determination is consistent with the scope of remediation identified in the Phase II ESA. Remediation would consist of soil excavation and disposal, groundwater monitoring, and limited in-situ treatment, at a cost of approximately $1.4 million. This scenario assumes no expansion of the investigation or remediation area and no requirement for remediation of adjacent parcels.
2. Moderate Expansion — $2.0 Million to $2.5 Million. Under this scenario, the Ohio EPA requires additional soil boring investigations and expanded groundwater monitoring at the perimeter of the Elyria property, as well as installation of additional monitoring wells on adjacent parcels to evaluate potential off-site migration. The estimated remediation cost under this scenario increases to approximately $2.0 million to $2.5 million, representing an incremental cost of $600,000 to $1.1 million above the Phase II ESA estimate.
3. Significant Expansion — $3.5 Million to $5.0 Million. Under the most adverse scenario, the Ohio EPA mandates full remediation of contaminated soils and groundwater on both the Elyria property and adjacent parcels, including potentially impacted areas owned by third parties. This scenario would involve extensive excavation, installation of a pump-and-treat groundwater remediation system, long-term monitoring, and institutional controls. Estimated remediation costs under this scenario range from $3.5 million to $5.0 million, representing incremental exposure of $2.1 million to $3.6 million above the Phase II ESA baseline.
The risk of the Moderate Expansion scenario is assessed as Medium. The Ohio EPA's preliminary correspondence with Meridian has included references to the need for off-site migration assessment, and Pinehurst's project manager has indicated that some expansion of the investigation scope is likely. The risk of the Significant Expansion scenario is assessed as Low-Medium. While a full remediation mandate of this scope is possible, it would be atypical for a site of this nature absent evidence of widespread off-site contamination or direct impacts to sensitive receptors (e.g., drinking water supplies).
The environmental scope uncertainty has had a tangible chilling effect on the bidding process. As noted above, Axton Industrial Holdings, LLC withdrew its $64.75 million conditioned bid on May 25, 2022, citing in part the inability to resolve environmental contingencies at the Elyria facility within the auction timeline. The withdrawal of Axton — which was the only competing qualified bidder — left VMS as the sole stalking-horse bidder and effectively eliminated competitive tension from the sale process. This outcome underscores the materiality of the environmental liability issue and the urgency of seeking resolution.
Debtor's counsel has acknowledged the ongoing nature of the Ohio EPA negotiations. In a June 2, 2022 teleconference with our office, Priya Venkatesh of Hargrove Tillinghast LLP stated that the Ohio EPA had not issued a final determination and that the agency's timeline for doing so was uncertain. The Debtor's motion to extend the auction date (filed June 3, 2022) and the subsequent motion to postpone the auction indefinitely (filed July 8, 2022) both cited the unresolved EPA remediation scope as a primary basis for the requested relief. This pattern suggests that the Debtor itself views the Ohio EPA determination as a gating issue for the sale process.
D. VMS's Exposure Analysis
Under the APA as currently drafted, VMS assumes the environmental remediation obligation at the Elyria facility as described in the Phase II ESA, with an estimated cost of $1.4 million. Critically, however, the APA does not contain an express dollar cap on VMS's environmental remediation liability. Section 2.3(d) of the APA defines the assumed environmental liability by reference to the remediation obligations at the Elyria facility generally, not by reference to a specific dollar amount or scope of work. This means that if the Ohio EPA expands the required remediation scope, VMS's assumed liability would expand correspondingly — potentially far beyond the $1.4 million estimate that informed the purchase price negotiation.
The financial exposure to VMS under the three remediation scope scenarios discussed above is as follows:
• Base Case: VMS's assumed environmental liability is $1.4 million, consistent with the Phase II ESA estimate. No incremental exposure.
• Moderate Expansion: VMS's assumed environmental liability increases to $2.0 million to $2.5 million, representing $600,000 to $1.1 million in incremental exposure beyond the Phase II ESA estimate. While this level of incremental cost may be manageable within VMS's overall deal economics, it was not contemplated in the purchase price negotiation and should not be absorbed by VMS without contractual protection.
• Significant Expansion: VMS's assumed environmental liability increases to $3.5 million to $5.0 million, representing $2.1 million to $3.6 million in incremental exposure. This level of expansion would represent a material adverse change in the deal economics and could, depending on the precise cost, require additional equity contribution from Ridgepoint Capital Partners, LP or renegotiation of the Lakeshore incremental term loan.
The absence of an environmental liability cap in the APA is a significant structural deficiency that must be addressed in any APA amendment. The current drafting effectively transfers all environmental upside risk (i.e., the possibility that remediation costs are lower than estimated) and all environmental downside risk (i.e., the possibility that remediation costs are higher than estimated) to VMS. While VMS accepted this allocation at the time the APA was executed — in part because the Phase II ESA provided a reasonable estimate and VMS viewed the Elyria facility as strategically essential — the subsequent developments regarding the Ohio EPA's potential expansion of remediation scope have materially altered the risk profile.
It is also important to consider VMS's exposure from a successor liability perspective, independent of the APA's allocation of assumed and excluded liabilities. Under CERCLA (42 U.S.C. § 9607) and analogous Ohio environmental statutes, the purchaser of contaminated real property may face strict liability for remediation costs as a current owner of the property, regardless of whether the purchaser caused or contributed to the contamination. While a Section 363 sale order containing appropriate "free and clear" language under 11 U.S.C. § 363(f) can provide some protection against pre-existing environmental claims — particularly in personam claims by third parties and governmental entities — the protection afforded by such orders against in rem environmental obligations is subject to meaningful limitations. Courts have generally held that environmental remediation obligations that run with the land cannot be extinguished through a Section 363 sale order, even if the order purports to sell the property "free and clear" of all liens, claims, and encumbrances. See, e.g., In re Torwico Electronics, Inc., 8 F.3d 146 (3d Cir. 1993); Michigan v. Chrysler LLC (In re Chrysler LLC), No. 09-50002, at *24 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. June 1, 2009).
This legal framework reinforces the practical reality that VMS will likely bear responsibility for the Elyria environmental remediation regardless of whether the obligation is classified as an assumed or excluded liability under the APA. The relevant question, therefore, is not whether VMS can avoid the obligation entirely, but rather how the allocation of environmental risk between VMS and the estate should be reflected in the purchase price and the assumed liability framework.
E. Recommendations — Environmental
Based on the foregoing analysis, I recommend that VMS pursue the following environmental liability mitigation strategies:
1. Maintain $1.4 Million Cap in APA. VMS should negotiate an explicit dollar cap on assumed environmental remediation obligations, to be incorporated in an amendment to Section 2.3(d) of the APA. The cap should be tied to the $1.4 million estimate from the Pinehurst Phase II ESA, with any remediation costs in excess of that amount treated as an excluded liability retained by the estate or, alternatively, as the basis for a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the cash purchase price payable by VMS at closing. The proposed language should make clear that VMS's obligation is limited to the scope and cost of remediation identified in the Phase II ESA, and that any expansion of remediation scope by the Ohio EPA or any other governmental authority does not expand VMS's assumed liability beyond the capped amount.
2. Price Adjustment Mechanism. VMS should propose an APA amendment providing a purchase price adjustment mechanism linked to changes in the scope of environmental remediation at the Elyria facility. Specifically, if the Ohio EPA issues a final determination requiring remediation in excess of the $1.4 million Phase II ESA estimate, VMS should receive a dollar-for-dollar reduction in the cash purchase price payable at closing, up to a specified incremental cap (e.g., $2.0 million in additional remediation costs, resulting in a maximum purchase price reduction of $2.0 million). This mechanism would preserve VMS's economic expectations while providing a fair and transparent allocation of risk between VMS and the estate.
3. Termination Right. If the Ohio EPA issues a final determination resulting in total remediation costs exceeding a material adverse threshold — I recommend a threshold of $3.0 million in total remediation costs, representing approximately 214% of the current Phase II ESA estimate — VMS should have the contractual right to terminate the APA and recover its $3.175 million good-faith deposit from Granite Trust & Escrow Co. In addition, upon such termination, VMS should be entitled to the $1.905 million break-up fee and up to $750,000 in expense reimbursement, consistent with the bid protections approved by the Court on May 13, 2022 (Dkt. 234). This termination right would provide VMS with an exit ramp in the event that the environmental liability exposure becomes fundamentally inconsistent with the economic assumptions underlying the acquisition.
4. Respond to Committee's Position. VMS should firmly resist the Committee's position that the $1.4 million environmental remediation obligation should be excluded from assumed liabilities without a corresponding adjustment to the purchase price. VMS's assumption of this obligation was a negotiated element of the APA, and the $63.5 million purchase price reflects, in part, VMS's agreement to bear this cost. If the Committee succeeds in reclassifying the environmental obligation as an excluded liability, VMS should counter with a corresponding $1.4 million reduction in the cash purchase price — i.e., $57.1 million in cash at closing instead of $58.5 million. This approach would make the reclassification value-neutral from VMS's perspective and would effectively neutralize the Committee's challenge.
5. Request Updated Phase II ESA from Pinehurst. VMS should engage Pinehurst Environmental Sciences, Inc. to prepare a supplemental Phase II ESA scope assessment or cost update reflecting current site conditions and any additional data that has become available since the original Phase II ESA was completed in March 2022. The updated assessment would provide VMS with a current baseline for environmental cost exposure and would serve as the foundation for VMS's negotiating position with respect to the environmental remediation cap and price adjustment mechanism. The supplemental assessment should be completed as expeditiously as possible, ideally before any renewed auction date is set.
V. ACCRUED EMPLOYEE WAGES AND BENEFITS
A. Scope and Estimate
Section 2.3(c) of the APA provides for VMS's assumption of certain accrued employee wages and benefits, estimated at approximately $2.1 million as of the anticipated closing date. This category of assumed liabilities covers the following obligations:
• Pre-closing accrued but unpaid wages: Wages earned by Meridian employees prior to the closing date that have not yet been paid as of the closing. This includes regular wages, overtime, and shift differentials accrued during the most recent payroll cycle preceding the closing.
• Accrued vacation and paid time off ("PTO"): Unused vacation days and PTO balances accumulated by Meridian employees as of the closing date. Under Meridian's personnel policies, employees accrue vacation and PTO on a calendar-year basis, and unused balances are paid out upon termination or separation from employment.
• Certain health and welfare benefit obligations: Accrued but unpaid contributions to health insurance, dental, vision, and other welfare benefit plans for employees to whom VMS will offer employment. This category includes employer-side premiums and contributions for the coverage period preceding the closing date.
VMS has committed under the APA to offering employment to at least 480 of Meridian's approximately 620 employees. The assumed employee liabilities are limited to obligations attributable to those employees who accept VMS's offer of employment and transition to VMS's payroll following the closing. Employees who do not receive offers of employment, or who decline VMS's offer, would have their accrued wage and benefit claims treated as claims against the estate in the bankruptcy proceeding.
Notably, the assumed employee liabilities under Section 2.3(c) expressly exclude pension and OPEB withdrawal liabilities, which are estimated at approximately $14.7 million and are held by the Northern Basin Employee Benefits Trust. These obligations are categorized as excluded liabilities under the APA and will remain with the estate for treatment through the bankruptcy process. The exclusion of pension and OPEB liabilities was a fundamental negotiating point for VMS, as assumption of these legacy obligations would have rendered the acquisition economically infeasible.
B. Key Issues
Several issues merit attention with respect to the accrued employee wages and benefits assumed by VMS:
Estimate Reliability and Timing Sensitivity. The $2.1 million estimate is based on the Debtor's schedules and internal payroll data provided to VMS during due diligence. This estimate was prepared as of approximately March 2022, contemporaneously with the execution of the APA. However, because accrued employee liabilities are inherently time-sensitive — accumulating with each payroll cycle and each day of accrued vacation and PTO — the actual assumed liability amount at closing will depend on the date on which the closing occurs. If the closing is delayed, the accrued amounts will increase as Meridian continues to operate under the DIP and employees continue to earn wages, accrue vacation, and generate benefit obligations. Given the indefinite postponement of the auction date (per the Court's July 18, 2022 order, Dkt. 309), there is a meaningful risk that the accrued employee liabilities will exceed the $2.1 million estimate by the time a closing eventually occurs.
Reference-Date Mechanism. To mitigate the risk of accrual growth due to closing delays, VMS should seek a bring-down mechanism in any APA amendment that pegs the assumed employee liability to a specified reference date — for example, the petition date (February 14, 2022), the APA execution date (March 30, 2022), or a date certain selected by agreement of the parties. Any employee wage and benefit obligations accruing after the reference date would be treated as DIP administrative expenses, to be paid from the DIP Facility or from estate funds, rather than as assumed liabilities of VMS. This approach would ensure that VMS's assumed liability is fixed at a known amount and that the financial risk of closing delays is allocated to the estate (and ultimately to the DIP lender) rather than to VMS.
UAW Local 2287 Considerations. The APA provides that VMS does not assume the UAW Local 2287 collective bargaining agreement covering approximately 195 production workers at the Elyria facility. VMS has committed, however, to negotiating a new collective bargaining agreement with UAW Local 2287 following the closing. This creates a potentially complex interface between the assumed employee liabilities and the CBA. Accrued wages for UAW-represented workers may be subject to specific provisions of the CBA regarding the timing and method of wage payments, grievance procedures, and back-pay calculations. To the extent that UAW-represented employees assert claims for accrued wages or benefits under the CBA's grievance process, VMS could face liability exposure that extends beyond the straightforward payroll accrual amounts reflected in the $2.1 million estimate. VMS should ensure that any assumed employee liabilities for UAW Local 2287-covered workers are clearly and contractually severed from any CBA-related obligations that VMS has not agreed to assume.
Priority Claim Implications. Certain accrued employee wages and benefits may qualify as priority claims under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4) (priority for allowed unsecured claims for wages, salaries, or commissions earned within 180 days before the petition date, up to $15,150 per individual) and § 507(a)(5) (priority for contributions to employee benefit plans arising from services rendered within 180 days before the petition date). To the extent these claims are entitled to priority treatment, they must be paid in full before general unsecured creditors receive any distribution from the estate. VMS's assumption of these claims reduces the administrative burden on the estate and effectively removes these priority obligations from the pool of claims that would otherwise be satisfied from the DIP Facility or sale proceeds. This provides an arguable benefit to the estate and to GLICC, as it preserves more cash proceeds for distribution on secured claims.
C. Recommendations — Employee Obligations
Based on the foregoing analysis, I recommend the following actions:
1. Confirm the $2.1 million estimate. VMS should request updated payroll data from Debtor's counsel, including current accrued wage balances, vacation and PTO accruals, and benefit contribution obligations, to verify the accuracy of the $2.1 million estimate as of the most recent practicable date.
2. Negotiate a cap or reference-date mechanism. VMS should propose an APA amendment that either caps the assumed employee liability at $2.1 million or establishes a reference-date mechanism fixing the assumed amount as of a specified date, with any excess accruals treated as DIP administrative expenses.
3. Sever UAW CBA-related obligations. VMS should ensure that the APA amendment includes clear language severing assumed employee liabilities for UAW Local 2287-covered workers from any obligations arising under the CBA, including grievance awards, back-pay claims, and any other CBA-specific liabilities.
4. Coordinate with Lakeshore. VMS should confer with Christine Farber at Lakeshore Commercial Lending, Inc. to confirm that assumption of the employee liabilities at the $2.1 million level, and any potential increase, is consistent with the financial covenants and approval conditions applicable to the $30.0 million incremental term loan under the accordion feature of VMS's existing credit facility.
VI. CURE COSTS UNDER ASSUMED EXECUTORY CONTRACTS
A. Scope and Estimate
Section 2.3(a) of the APA provides for VMS's assumption of cure costs under executory contracts and unexpired leases that VMS elects to assume and that are assigned to VMS pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365. Under Section 365(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code, as a condition of assumption and assignment, the trustee or debtor-in-possession must (i) cure, or provide adequate assurance that the trustee will promptly cure, any default under the contract, (ii) compensate, or provide adequate assurance that the trustee will promptly compensate, the other party for any actual pecuniary loss resulting from the default, and (iii) provide adequate assurance of future performance under the contract. The "cure costs" under the APA represent the aggregate amounts required to cure all pre-petition defaults under the contracts and leases on VMS's assumed contract schedule.
The aggregate cure cost is estimated at $5.0 million. This estimate is based on the Debtor's preliminary analysis of outstanding defaults under the contracts on VMS's assumed contract schedule, including past-due payments, accrued interest, and other amounts owed to contract counterparties. The $5.0 million cure cost estimate is treated as part of the aggregate purchase price under the APA (i.e., the $63.5 million purchase price consists of $58.5 million in cash plus $5.0 million in assumed cure costs), and is payable by VMS at or promptly following the closing.
It is important to note that the $5.0 million is an estimate only. Actual cure costs will be determined through the cure notice process mandated by the Bid Procedures Order and the Bankruptcy Code, and may be disputed by contract counterparties who assert that the Debtor's proposed cure amounts are insufficient or who claim additional defaults not reflected in the Debtor's schedules.
B. Key Issues
Cure Notice Process and Counterparty Objections. The Debtor filed the bid procedures motion on April 5, 2022, and the Court entered the Bid Procedures Order on April 22, 2022 (Dkt. 198). Pursuant to the Bid Procedures Order, the Debtor has been required to serve cure notices on all counterparties to executory contracts and unexpired leases that may be assumed and assigned in connection with the sale, identifying the proposed cure amounts for each contract. As of the date of this memorandum, cure notices have been served, but numerous counterparties have filed objections to the proposed cure amounts, asserting that the Debtor's calculations understate the amounts owed. The resolution of these disputes will be necessary before the cure costs can be finalized and before the affected contracts can be assumed and assigned to VMS.
Material Customer Contracts. Among the most valuable assets being acquired by VMS are Meridian's OEM supply agreements, which represent the core customer relationships and revenue streams of the business. These supply agreements are essential to VMS's strategic rationale for the acquisition and to VMS's ability to generate the revenue necessary to service the acquisition financing and achieve the projected returns for Ridgepoint Capital Partners. Disputes over cure amounts for these customer contracts could delay the closing, create friction with key customers, and potentially affect the value of the assets being acquired. VMS should identify the highest-priority customer contracts and focus its cure cost analysis and negotiation efforts on these agreements.
Equipment Leases and Supply Agreements. In addition to customer contracts, VMS's assumed contract schedule includes equipment leases and supply agreements at all three of Meridian's facilities (Elyria, Mansfield, and Sandusky). Equipment leases, in particular, may involve significant cure amounts due to the Debtor's failure to make lease payments during the pre-petition period and during the Chapter 11 case. Supply agreements with raw material vendors and logistics providers may also carry meaningful cure cost obligations, particularly given the inflationary environment and the Debtor's pre-petition payment delinquencies.
Aggregate Cure Cost Overrun Risk. If the aggregate actual cure costs significantly exceed the $5.0 million estimate, VMS faces a decision point. The options include: (i) narrowing the scope of assumed contracts by de-designating contracts with disproportionately high cure costs, (ii) negotiating directly with counterparties to reduce disputed cure amounts, or (iii) seeking a purchase price adjustment from the Debtor to offset the incremental cure costs. Each of these options carries its own risks and complexities, and the appropriate strategy will depend on the magnitude of the overrun and the specific contracts involved.
Committee Position. The Committee has not directly challenged the $5.0 million cure cost estimate to date. However, the Committee may argue — consistent with its position on the environmental remediation obligation — that cure costs should be borne entirely by VMS as buyer rather than treated as a component of the purchase price, or that the cure cost estimate should be subjected to greater scrutiny to ensure that the estate is receiving fair value for the assets.
C. Cure Cost Dispute Resolution Process
Under the Bid Procedures Order (Dkt. 198), cure cost disputes are to be resolved by the Bankruptcy Court at or before the sale hearing. The process operates as follows:
1. The Debtor serves cure notices on contract counterparties, identifying the proposed cure amount for each contract.
2. Counterparties have a specified period (set at 14 days under the Bid Procedures Order) to file objections to the proposed cure amounts.
3. Disputed cure amounts are either resolved consensually between the Debtor (and VMS, as the proposed assignee) and the objecting counterparty, or, failing consensual resolution, are determined by the Bankruptcy Court at or before the sale hearing.
4. VMS, as the party assuming the contracts and paying the cure costs, has the right to participate in the cure cost objection proceedings and may elect to de-designate contracts from the assumed contract schedule where cure costs are determined to be unreasonably high or where assumption of the contract is no longer economically justified.
Debtor's counsel at Hargrove Tillinghast LLP is responsible for managing the cure notice process and serving as the primary interface with contract counterparties on cure cost disputes. VMS's role is to monitor the process, evaluate the reasonableness of proposed cure amounts, and ma

MEMORANDUM

PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION / ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT

I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

II. BACKGROUND

V. ACCRUED EMPLOYEE WAGES AND BENEFITS

VI. CURE COSTS UNDER ASSUMED EXECUTORY CONTRACTS

Record

Parties

Dates

Amounts