Third Omnibus Objection to PPP Borrower Claims — In re KServicing Wind Down

Record facts

U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware · No. 22-10951 · Doc. 1053 · 2024-09-30 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

KServicing Wind Down Corporation's third (substantive) omnibus objection to proofs of claim filed by PPP borrowers, in In re KServicing Wind Down Corp., et al., Chapter 11 Case No. 22-10951 (CTG), in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, dated September 30, 2024 and filed as Doc 1053. Brought under sections 105(a) and 502(b) of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rule 3007 and Local Rule 3007-1, it asks the court to disallow and expunge each claim listed in Schedule 1 to the proposed order. The objection recounts the October 3, 2022 petition date and the SBA's role in PPP loan forgiveness decisions. It argues that borrowers whose loans were forgiven have no damages and that other borrowers' disputes lie with the SBA, with no private right of action against the lender. Responses are due October 28, 2024, with a hearing set for November 4, 2024.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

16957000/1 
IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT  
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE 
 
In re: 
KServicing Wind Down Corp., et al.,1 
 
Post-Confirmation Debtors. 
Chapter 11 
 
Case No. 22-10951 (CTG) 
 
(Jointly Administered) 
 
Objection Deadline: October 28, 2024 at 4:00 p.m. (ET) 
Hearing Date: November 4, 2024 at 10:00 a.m. (ET) 
 
KSERVICING WIND DOWN CORPORATION’S THIRD (SUBSTANTIVE) 
OMNIBUS OBJECTION TO PROOFS OF CLAIM [PPP BORROWER CLAIMS] 
 
KServicing Wind Down Corporation (“KServicing WD”) and its affiliates, as successors 
to Kabbage, Inc. d/b/a KServicing (“KServicing”) and its affiliates, submit this third omnibus 
claims objection (this “Objection”) for entry of an order, substantially in the form attached hereto 
as Exhibit A (the “Order”), pursuant to sections 105(a) and 502(b) of title 11 of the United States 
Code, 11 U.S.C. §§ 101 et seq. (the “Bankruptcy Code”), Rule 3007 of the Federal Rules of 
Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”), and Rule 3007-1 of the Local Rules of 
Bankruptcy Practice and Procedure of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of 
Delaware (the “Local Rules”), disallowing and expunging each claim set forth in Schedule 1 
attached to the Order.   
 
1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases, along with the last four digits of each Debtor’s federal tax identification 
number, as applicable are: KServicing Wind Down Corp. (f/k/a Kabbage, Inc. d/b/a KServicing) (3937); KServicing 
Wind Down Canada Holdings LLC (f/k/a Kabbage Canada Holdings, LLC) (N/A); KServicing Wind Down Asset 
Securitization LLC (f/k/a Kabbage Asset Securitization LLC) (N/A); KServicing Wind Down Asset Funding 2017-A 
LLC (f/k/a Kabbage Asset Funding 2017-A LLC) (4803); KServicing Wind Down Asset Funding 2019-A LLC (f/k/a 
Kabbage Asset Funding 2019-A LLC) (8973); and KServicing Wind Down Diameter LLC (f/k/a Kabbage Diameter, 
LLC) (N/A). The Debtors’ mailing and service address is 925B Peachtree Street NE, Suite 383, Atlanta, GA 30309.  
THIS OBJECTION SEEKS TO DISALLOW AND EXPUNGE CERTAIN 
CLAIMS. CLAIMANTS RECEIVING THIS OBJECTION SHOULD 
CAREFULLY REVIEW THIS OBJECTION AND LOCATE THEIR NAMES AND 
CLAIMS ON SCHEDULE 1 OF EXHIBIT A ATTACHED TO THIS OBJECTION 
AND, IF APPLICABLE, FILE A RESPONSE BY THE RESPONSE DEADLINE 
FOLLOWING THE INSTRUCTIONS SET FORTH HEREIN. 
Case 22-10951-CTG    Doc 1053    Filed 09/30/24    Page 1 of 14

 
2 
16957000/1 
BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW 
1. 
On October 3, 2022 (the “Petition Date”), KServicing and its debtor-affiliates 
commenced bankruptcy under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code in the United States 
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. 
2. 
Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 1015(b), the Chapter 11 Cases are being jointly 
administered under the above-captioned case. 
3. 
On January 19, 2023, the Debtors filed their Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan of 
Liquidation of Kabbage, Inc. (d/b/a KServicing) and its Affiliated Debtors [Docket No. 466] (the 
“Plan”). 
4. 
The confirmation hearing was held on March 13, 2023, at the conclusion of which 
the Court issued a bench ruling confirming the Plan.  On March 15, 2023, this Court entered a 
written order [Docket No. 680] (“Confirmation Order”) supplementing the oral ruling.  
5. 
The Plan became effective on June 20, 2023 (the “Effective Date”), and under 
§ 5.4(a) of the Plan, Jeremiah Foster was appointed as the Wind Down Officer. Under § 7.1(a) of 
the Plan, the Wind Down Officer, on behalf of KServicing WD, has the sole authority to object to 
claims. 
6. 
This Objection is filed with respect to claims asserted by parties who received PPP 
Loans through KServicing (“PPP Borrowers”). As detailed below, KServicing WD (as successor 
to the Debtors) is not liable for the claims asserted by PPP Borrowers.  First, PPP Borrowers whose 
PPP Loan has been fully forgiven do not have a basis for any claim.  Second, PPP Borrowers 
whose PPP Loan has not been fully forgiven would have a dispute with the Small Business 
Administration (“SBA”)—not KServicing WD.  Simply put: The claims of PPP Borrowers (if any) 
are against only the SBA or other parties—no KServicing WD.  
Case 22-10951-CTG    Doc 1053    Filed 09/30/24    Page 2 of 14

 
3 
16957000/1 
PPP BORROWER CLAIMS 
7. 
KServicing was founded in 2008 and, with its affiliates, was an online lender and 
loan servicer. Among the loan portfolio serviced by KServicing were “loans issued to small 
businesses under the Paycheck Protection Program (the ‘PPP’ and the loans provided thereunder, 
the ‘PPP Loans’) during the height of this country’s public health and economic crisis caused by 
COVID-19 . . . .”2 
8. 
These PPP Loans were originated by KServicing, on behalf of itself or its banking 
partners, after the SBA launched the PPP, in conjunction with the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and 
Economic Security Act (the “CARES Act”).3  
9. 
To administer PPP, the SBA contracted with eligible private lending partners 
authorized to administer SBA loans (the “Lenders”) like KServicing. These Lenders helped 
collect and review documents and information from PPP Borrowers concerning both eligibility 
and forgiveness for PPP Loans. The Lenders also made initial assessments concerning eligibility 
and forgiveness and issued notices to those who received PPP Loans.   
10. 
Pursuant to an agreement with the SBA dated April 9, 2020, KServicing became an 
authorized Lender.4 
11. 
At various times after launching the PPP, the SBA released rules and guidelines 
governing borrower eligibility, Lender responsibilities, and forgiveness of PPP Loans. 5  On 
May 22, 2020, for example, the SBA released its Interim Final Rules on SBA Loan Review 
Procedures and Related Borrower and Lender Responsibilities (the “LRR”).  The LRR is to be 
 
2 Plan, at 3. 
3 15 U.S.C. § 9001, et seq. 
4 Plan, at 8. 
5  The Treasury Department web page with a host or resources, rules and polices is a located here – 
https://home.treasury.gov/policy-issues/coronavirus/assistance-for-small-businesses/paycheck-protection-program.  
Case 22-10951-CTG    Doc 1053    Filed 09/30/24    Page 3 of 14

 
4 
16957000/1 
read in conjunction with the Business Loan Program Temporary Changes; Paycheck Protection 
Program—Loan Forgiveness Requirements and Loan Review Procedures as Amended by 
Economic Aid Act released by SBA on February 5, 2021 at 13 CFR 120 (the “SBA Forgiveness 
Rule”). A copy of the SBA Forgiveness Rule is attached to this Objection as Exhibit B.6   
12. 
The LRR and SBA Forgiveness Rule impose minimal requirements on Lenders for 
determining (a) a potential PPP Borrower’s eligibility to receive a PPP Loan and the amount of 
such PPP Loan, and (b) if a PPP Borrower subsequently requests forgiveness of their PPP Loan, 
the appropriateness of the PPP Borrower’s forgiveness request. In terms of eligibility, PPP 
Borrowers were required to certify and submit documents.  After PPP Borrowers submitted these 
documents, Lenders worked with the PPP Borrowers to ensure a PPP Borrower’s submitted 
certifications and documents were complete and, if necessary, to request additional documentation. 
Lenders were entitled to rely on any certification or documentation submitted by a PPP applicant 
or an eligible PPP borrower” that was submitted pursuant to all applicable statutory and regulatory 
requirements.7 
13. 
 A completed application (the “Loan Application”) was then forwarded to the 
SBA, to be reviewed and approved. As noted in the SBA Forgiveness Rule: 
 SBA’s review of borrower certifications and representations 
regarding the borrower’s eligibility for a PPP loan and loan 
forgiveness, and the borrowers use of PPP loan proceeds, is essential 
to ensure that PPP loans are directed to the entities Congress 
intended, and that PPP loan proceeds are used for the purposes 
Congress required . . . .8 
 
6 A copy of the SBA Forgiveness Rule is also available at: https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Interim-Final-
Rule-on-Loan-Forgiveness-Requirements-and-Loan-Review-Procedures.pdf.  
7 SBA Forgiveness Rule at Section IV (p. 8294). 
8 SBA Forgiveness Rule at Section III (p. 8285) (emphasis added). 
Case 22-10951-CTG    Doc 1053    Filed 09/30/24    Page 4 of 14

 
5 
16957000/1 
14. 
Although the SBA generally did not conduct a detailed review of the Loan 
Application at the time it was submitted, the SBA reserved the right to review any relevant 
documents or certifications or to conduct an investigation into a Loan Application at any time, but 
especially when making forgiveness determinations. As noted in the SBA Forgiveness Rule, the 
“SBA may review any PPP loan, as the Administrator deems appropriate” including expressly to 
determine “borrower eligibility,” “loan amounts and use of proceeds,” and “loan forgiveness.”9  
15. 
Approved PPP Loans were then serviced by Lenders “until they are fully forgiven 
or paid in full or, in the event of a default or other qualifying event, until the SBA purchases the 
guaranty and charges off any uncollectable remaining balance.”10 
16. 
In terms of forgiveness, all PPP Borrowers can apply for forgiveness (the 
“Forgiveness Application”) through their Lender.  Critically, forgiveness determinations 
(“Forgiveness Determinations”) are made by the SBA—not a Lender. As with the Loan 
Application, the Forgiveness Application is collected and reviewed for completeness by the Lender 
and then submitted to the SBA for approval.   
17. 
Based on its review, a Lender issues an initial suggestion to the SBA regarding 
forgiveness, but the SBA issues a final Forgiveness Determination after independently reviewing 
the Forgiveness Application. If during its review, the SBA determines that a PPP Borrower was 
ineligible for their PPP Loan, or that the PPP Borrower did not use loan proceeds for permitted 
purposes, the SBA can direct the Lender to deny any Forgiveness Application in part or in full and 
 
9  SBA Forgiveness Rule at Section V (p. 8294) (emphasis added).  
10SBA Procedural Notice Control No. 5000 -812316 (July 15, 2021), available at 
https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/Guidance-on-SBA-Guaranty-Purchases-and-Lender-Servicing-
Responsibilities-for-PPP-Loans.pdf.  
Case 22-10951-CTG    Doc 1053    Filed 09/30/24    Page 5 of 14

 
6 
16957000/1 
may seek repayment of any outstanding balance of the loan from the PPP Borrower (or pursue 
other remedies, including criminal charges).11 
18. 
Notably, the rules of procedure adopted by the SBA for appealing Forgiveness 
Determinations clearly that a PPP Borrower may appeal only a final Forgiveness Determination 
from the SBA.12 
19. 
In summary, although a Lender’s role in the PPP Loan process includes certain 
tasks such as submitting applications and servicing the PPP Loan, a Lender does not have ultimate 
authority to make (or responsibility for) Forgiveness Determinations.  
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 
20. 
The Court has jurisdiction to consider this Objection pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 
and 1334 and the Amended Standing Order of Reference from the United States District Court for 
the District of Delaware, dated February 29, 2012. This matter is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 
U.S.C. § 157(b).  Venue is proper in the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409.  The 
statutory predicates for the relief requested herein are sections 105(a) and 502(b) of the Bankruptcy 
Code, Bankruptcy Rule 3007, and Local Rule 3007-1.  Pursuant to Local Rule 9013-1(f), 
KServicing WD consents to the entry of a final order or judgment by the Court in connection with 
this Objection to the extent it is later determined that the Court, absent consent of the parties, 
cannot enter final orders or judgments consistent with Article III of the United States Constitution. 
 
 
 
11 15 U.S.C. § 636(a) 
12 See 13 CFR § 134.1201(c) (“A borrower cannot directly fiel an appeal of a cecision made by a lender concerning a 
PPP loan with OHA.”); see also 13 CFR § 134.1203 (“Only the borrower on a loan . . . for which SBA has issued a 
final SBA loan review decision . . . has standing to appeal the final SBA loan review decision to OHA.”) (emphasis 
added). 
Case 22-10951-CTG    Doc 1053    Filed 09/30/24    Page 6 of 14

 
7 
16957000/1 
BASIS FOR RELIEF 
21. 
At their core, the claims subject to this Objection allege that KServicing was 
deficient in one or more ways when processing Forgiveness Applications. KServicing, however, 
is not liable to these claimants because: (a) the claimant’s PPP Loan has been subsequently 
forgiven and, thus, claimant has no monetary damages (referred to herein as “Forgiven PPP 
Loans”) or (b) the SBA—not KServicing—is responsible for any Forgiveness Determination 
(referred to herein as “Outstanding PPP Loans”).  
22. 
Section 502(a) of the Bankruptcy Code provides, in pertinent part, that “[a] claim 
or interest, proof of which is filed under section 501 of this title, is deemed allowed, unless a party-
in-interest . . . objects.”13  Once an objection to a claim is filed, the Court, after notice and hearing, 
shall determine the allowed amount of the claim.14 
23. 
Section 502(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code provides, in relevant part, that a claim 
may not be allowed to the extent that it “is unenforceable against the debtor and property of the 
debtor, under any agreement or applicable law.” 15  To determine whether a claim may be 
disallowed as unenforceable against the debtor and property of the debtor under any applicable 
law, bankruptcy courts look to applicable nonbankruptcy law.16  The Bankruptcy Code provides 
for the disallowance of a claim where any agreement or applicable law would find the claim 
unenforceable against the debtor.17  In short, if a claimant could not file suit and recover against a 
debtor, the claim must be disallowed.  
 
13 11 U.S.C. § 502(a). 
14 Id. § 502(b). 
15 Id.  
16 Id. § 502(b)(1). 
17 Id. 
Case 22-10951-CTG    Doc 1053    Filed 09/30/24    Page 7 of 14

 
8 
16957000/1 
24. 
Here, claims based on Forgiven PPP Loans can easily be disallowed for lack of 
monetary damages.  And claims based on PPP Loans that were only forgiven in part or not forgiven 
at all fail because (a) neither the CARES Act nor the SBA Act (15 U.S.C. § 633, et seq.) grants 
PPP Borrowers a private right of action against KServicing as a Lender (as detailed below) and 
(b) the Forgiveness Determinations at the heart of PPP Borrowers’ claims ultimately rest with 
SBA, not KServicing. 
25. 
As discussed above, SBA-approved Lenders to participate in the PPP. Approved 
Lenders had certain limited responsibilities under the program related to the underwriting, 
disbursement, and forgiveness of loans. And while a Lender’s failure to meet these responsibilities 
might jeopardize the Lender’s right to payments or guarantees from the SBA, nothing in the PPP 
gives PPP Borrowers a cause of action against Lenders.   
26. 
Indeed, courts nationwide have repeatedly refused to enforce claims related to the 
PPP against both Lenders and the SBA.18  In analyzing both the SBA Act and the CARES Act, 
these courts have refused to find either an implied or express private right of action against 
Lenders.19 In one such case, a federal district court declined to allow PPP Borrowers to sue 
KServicing for a variety of causes of action on account KServicing’s alleged “failure to 
 
 
 
18 See, e.g., Small Business Act § 2[7], 15 U.S.C. § 636(a); Carr v. Kabbage, Inc., No. 1:22-CV-01249-VMC, 2023 
WL 3150084, at *4 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 31, 2023); Johnson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 488 F. Supp. 3d 144, 157 
(S.D.N.Y. 2020) (“The CARES Act does not contain an express cause of action to enforce the PPP”); Profiles, Inc. v. 
Bank of Am. Corp., 453 F. Supp. 3d 742, 751 (D. Md. 2020) (“The Court is not persuaded that the language of the 
CARES Act evidences the requisite congressional intent to create a private right of action.”); see also Crandal v. Ball, 
Ball & Brosamer, Inc., 99 F.3d 907, 909 (9th Cir. 1996) (“[T]he Small Business Act does not create a private right of 
action in individuals.”); Radix L. PLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 508 F. Supp. 3d 515, 520 (D. Ariz. 2020) 
(“there is no private right of action to enforce the CARES Act”).  
19 Carr v. Kabbage, Inc., at *4.  
Case 22-10951-CTG    Doc 1053    Filed 09/30/24    Page 8 of 14

 
9 
16957000/1 
competently process their loan forgiveness applications”.20  In so declining, the Court noted that 
neither the SBA nor the CARES Act provided a private right of action against Lenders. 21  
Additionally, the court ruled in favor of KServicing on numerous state common law claims, noting 
that it was likely such claims were barred as they were merely “an attempt to circumvent the fact 
that neither the CARES Act nor the SBA create a private right of action.”22 
27. 
Further, as discussed above, the LRR, SBA Forgiveness Rule, and all other PPP 
rules and regulations make clear that it is the SBA—and not the Lender—who determines whether 
a PPP Loan is to be forgiven.  
28. 
The burden to provide complete and accurate information as part of a Forgiveness 
Determination rests solely with the PPP Borrower, and the Forgiveness Determination rests 
ultimately with the SBA.  A Lender is merely a processer who compiles information from the PPP 
Borrower, provides a preliminary review for completeness, and makes a preliminary 
recommendation to the SBA.  The SBA has, at all times, sole authority to grant forgiveness in all 
 
20 Carr v. Kabbage, Inc., at *4 (denying Plaintiff’s attempts to “seek[ ] a declaration from the Court that Kabbage is 
obligated to abide by the SBA’s [rules on PPP Loans]). In this case, “the Representative Plaintiffs [sought] a 
declaration that Kabbage is obligated to 1) review and to process loan forgiveness applications in good faith and within 
the 60-day time frame according to SBA regulations; 2) process PPP loan forgiveness applications for loans equal to 
or less than $150,000 via Form 3508S, according to SBA regulations; and 3) process PPP loan forgiveness applications 
and may not require any documentation other than that explicitly required by SBA regulations” through the 
Declaratory Judgment Act. Id. However, the Court denied the request because the CARES Act does not grant a private 
right of action. Id.  
21 “In light of the foregoing authority, the Court agrees that the CARES Act does not create a private right of action.” 
Carr v. Kabbage, Inc., at *4. 
22 Aside from attempting to sue under the CARES Act, the plaintiffs sued under common law, claiming that “the 
manner in which Kabbage serviced their loans was contrary to consumer law and public policy.” Carr v. Kabbage, 
Inc., at *3. The Court noted that it was inclined to rule in favor of Kabbage on the grounds that their state common 
law claims were precluded because the claims were directly rooted in purported violations of the CARES Act and 
were, therefore, “an attempt to circumvent the fact that neither the CARES Act nor the SBA creates a private right of 
action.” Id. at n.6. However, the Court instead resolved the claims by noting that plaintiffs failed to state a claim when 
they failed, for example, on an unjust enrichment claim, to allege or identify what fees they paid to Kabbage for 
servicing their PPP Loan. Id. at *5. The unjust enrichment claims were also dismissed because the plaintiffs never 
paid any fees to Kabbage.  
Case 22-10951-CTG    Doc 1053    Filed 09/30/24    Page 9 of 14

 
10 
16957000/1 
cases.  If the PPP Borrower has not received forgiveness for its PPP Loan, the PPP Borrower’s 
dispute is with the SBA, not the Lender. 
29. 
To the extent that a PPP Borrower disagrees with the SBA’s decision to grant only 
partial forgiveness, or no forgiveness at all, on their PPP Loan, the PPP Borrower’s sole remedy 
is to pursue a timely appeal with the SBA or OHA.  The procedures for filing appeals against SBA 
and OHA, respectively, are set forth in SBA rules and guidelines.23  As numerous courts have 
made clear, these procedures and the underlying PPP rules do not give rise to a claim against 
Lenders.  Accordingly, no PPP Borrower has any viable claim or remedy against KServicing. 
30. 
To the extent a PPP Borrower assert a claim because the SBA has not yet made a 
Forgiveness Determination, such PPP Borrower does not currently have a monetary loss in the 
first instance, and even if such PPP Borrower does not agree with a future Forgiveness 
Determination by the SBA, such claimants sole recourse is the right to appeal that loss with SBA 
or OHA.24  
31. 
Finally, none of the claimants subject to this Objection assert any facts in their 
proofs of claim that support a failure on the part of KServicing that prejudiced the claimant’s right 
to exhaust the administrative remedies available following the SBA’s decision with respect to their 
PPP Loan.25.    
32. 
For the reasons above, the claimants have not submitted claims that are allowable 
against the estate.   
 
23  See, e.g.,  https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/136/final-rule-on-borrower-appeals-of-final-sba-loan-review-
decisions.pdf . 
24 And, of course, to the extent a PPP Borrower’s claim is based on a PPP Loan that was forgiven after the PPP 
Borrower filed its proof of claim, such claim should be disallowed because the PPP Borrower has not suffered a 
monetary loss on account of the fact the PPP loan was subsequently forgiven. 
25 Carr v. Kabbage, Inc., at *6 and *7.            
Case 22-10951-CTG    Doc 1053    Filed 09/30/24    Page 10 of 14

 
11 
16957000/1 
RESPONSES TO OBJECTIONS 
33. 
To contest this Objection, a claimant must file and serve a written response to this 
Objection (a “Response”) so that it is received no later than October 28, 2024, at 4:00 p.m. (ET) 
(the “Response Deadline”). Each Response to this Objection must be filed with the Office of the 
Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware: 824 Market Street, 3rd 
Floor, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, and served upon counsel to KServicing WD, Perkins Coie 
LLP, 500 N. Akard Street, Suite 3300, Dallas, Texas 75201, Attn: John Penn 
(jpenn@perkinscoie.com) and Bradley Cosman (bcosman@perkinscoie.com) and  Morris James 
LLP, 500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500, Wilmington, Delaware 19801, Attn: Eric Monzo 
(emonzo@morrisjames.com), so as to be actually received by no later than the Response Deadline. 
34. 
Each Response to this Objection must, at a minimum, contain the following 
information: 
a. 
a caption setting forth the name of the Court, the name of the Debtors, 
the lead case number and the title of the Objection to which the 
Response is directed; 
 
b. 
the name of the claimant, the claim number, and a description of the 
basis for the amount of the claim; 
 
c. 
the specific factual basis and supporting legal argument upon which 
the party will rely in opposing this Objection; 
 
d. 
all documentation and other evidence, to the extent it was not 
included with the proof of claim previously filed, upon which the 
claimant will rely to support the basis for and amounts asserted in the 
proof of claim and in opposing this Objection; and 
 
e. 
the name, address, telephone number, fax number or email address of 
the person(s) (which may be the claimant or the claimant’s legal 
representative) with whom counsel for the KServicing WD should 
communicate with respect to the claim or the Objection and who 
possesses authority to reconcile, settle, or otherwise resolve the 
objection to the Claim on behalf of the claimant. 
Case 22-10951-CTG    Doc 1053    Filed 09/30/24    Page 11 of 14

 
12 
16957000/1 
35. 
If a claimant fails to timely file and serve a Response by the Response Deadline, 
KServicing WD will present to the Court the Order disallowing and expunging in their entirety the 
Claims without further notice to the claimant or a hearing. 
36. 
KServicing WD may file and serve a reply to any Response in accordance with the 
Local Rules. KServicing WD reserves the right to seek an adjournment of the hearing on any 
Response to this Objection, which adjournment will be noted on the notice of agenda for the 
hearing. 
RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 
37. 
Nothing in this Objection: (a) shall impair, prejudice, waive, or otherwise affect the 
rights of KServicing WD or their estates to contest the validity, priority, or amount of any claim 
against KServicing WD or the Debtors or their estates; (b) shall impair, prejudice, waive, or 
otherwise affect the rights of KServicing WD or their estates with respect to any and all claims or 
causes of action against any third party; or (c) shall be construed as a promise to pay a claim or 
continue any applicable program post-petition, which decision shall be in the discretion of 
KServicing WD.   
SEPARATE CONTESTED MATTERS 
38. 
To the extent a Response is filed regarding any claim listed in this Objection, and 
KServicing WD is unable to resolve the Response, the objection by KServicing WD to such claim 
shall constitute a separate contested matter as contemplated by Bankruptcy Rule 9014. Any order 
entered by the Court regarding an objection asserted in this Objection shall be deemed a separate 
order with respect to each claim subject thereto. 
 
 
Case 22-10951-CTG    Doc 1053    Filed 09/30/24    Page 12 of 14

 
13 
16957000/1 
COMPLIANCE WITH RULE 3007-1 
39. 
To the best of KServicing WD’s knowledge and belief, this Objection and related 
exhibits comply with Local Rule 3007-1.  To the extent this Objection does not comply in all 
respects with the requirements of Local Rule 3007-1, the undersigned believes such deviations are 
not material and respectfully requests that any such requirement be waived. 
NOTICE 
40. 
Notice of this Objection has been provided to (a) the Office of the United States 
Trustee for the District of Delaware; (b) the United States Department of Justice; (c) the Federal 
Trade Commission; (d) the Small Business Administration; (e) the Internal Revenue Service; 
(f) the Securities and Exchange Commission; (g) the United States Attorney’s Office for the 
District of Delaware; (h) each of the claimants whose claims are subject to this Objection; and 
(i) any party that has requested notice pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 2002.  
NO PRIOR REQUEST 
41. 
No prior request for the relief sought herein has been made by KServicing WD to 
this or any other court with respect to the claims identified herein. 
[Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 
 
 
Case 22-10951-CTG    Doc 1053    Filed 09/30/24    Page 13 of 14

 
14 
16957000/1 
WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth herein, KServicing WD respectfully requests that 
the Court (a) enter the Order, substantially in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, and (b) grant 
such other and further relief as is just and proper. 
Dated: September 30, 2024 
 
 
 
MORRIS JAMES LLP 
/s/ Eric J. Monzo 
 
Eric J. Monzo (DE Bar No. 5214) 
Brya M. Keilson (DE Bar No. 4643) 
Tara C. Pakrouh (DE Bar No. 6192) 
500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500 
Wilmington, Delaware 19801 
Telephone: (302) 888-6800 
Facsimile: (302) 571-1750 
E-mail: emonzo@morrisjames.com 
E-mail: bkeilson@morrisjames.com 
E-mail: tpakrouh@morrisjames.com 
and 
PERKINS COIE LLP 
Bradley A. Cosman (admitted pro hac vice) 
Kathleen Allare (admitted pro hac vice) 
2525 E. Camelback Road, Suite 500 
Phoenix, Arizona 85016-4227 
Telephone: (602) 351-8000 
Facsimile: (602) 648-7000 
E-mail: BCosman@perkinscoie.com 
E-mail: KAllare@perkinscoie.com 
and 
John D. Penn (admitted pro hac vice) 
500 North Akard Street, Suite 3300 
Dallas, Texas 75201-3347 
Telephone: (214) 965-7700 
Facsimile: (214) 965-7799 
E-mail: JPenn@perkinscoie.com 
Counsel to the Post-Confirmation Debtors, 
operating as the Wind Down Estates 
 
 
Case 22-10951-CTG    Doc 1053    Filed 09/30/24    Page 14 of 14

File and source

File

DEB_22-10951_doc-1053_KServicing_Wind_Down_2024-09-30.pdf

Size

427,774 bytes

SHA-256

7b23440fcc40e250f746787a5058877c7a4863807046b3fef09c1d93175ac089

Our copy

DEB_22-10951_doc-1053_KServicing_Wind_Down_2024-09-30.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com