HTML Document View

Full title: Objection Carolina Sawmills, L.P.'s Omnibus Objections and Reservation of Rights to the Fourth Interim Fee Applications Filed by: (I) Westerman Ball Ederer Miller Zucker & Sharfstein, LLP [Docket No. 902]; (II) Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP [Docket No. 900]; and (III) Dinsmore & Shohl LLP [Docket No. 899] (related document(s)899, 900, 902) Filed by Carolina Sawmills, LP (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A # 2 Exhibit B # 3 Exhibit C # 4 Exhibit D # 5 Exhibit E # 6 Exhibit F) (Hehn, Curtis) (Entered: 08/23/2021)

Document posted on Aug 22, 2021 in the bankruptcy, 14 pages and 0 tables.

Bankrupt11 Summary (Automatically Generated)

899] Carolina Sawmills, L.P. (hereafter, referred to as “Carolina Sawmills” or “CSLP”) objects (the “Objection”) to the allowance of: ● the Fourth Interim Fee Application of Westerman Ball Ederer Miller Zucker & Sharfstein, LLP, as Bankruptcy Counsel for the Debtor and Debtor in Possession, for Allowance of All Actual and Necessary Expenses Incurred for the Period April 1, 2021 Through June 30, 2021[Docket No. 900] (the “MNAT Fee Application”); and ● the Fourth Interim Fee Application of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, as Supplemental Bankruptcy Counsel and Specialized Counsel to the Debtor and Debtor in Possession, for Allowance of Monthly Compensation and for Monthly Reimbursement of All Actual and Necessary Expenses Incurred for the Period April 1, 2021 Through June 30, 2021From the Petition Date, through the start of November, 2020, there was significant disagreement among the Debtor, the Committee, Carolina Sawmills, and the County over a variety of issues, including, but not limited to: (i) the secured status of Carolina Sawmills’ liens on substantially all of the assets of the Debtor; (ii) debtor-in-possession financing (“DIP Financing”), including the alleged subordination of Carolina Sawmills’ lien rights to such DIP Financing; and (iii) the approval of a proposed settlement agreement between the Debtor and the County that would allow for the sale of substantially all of the Debtor’s assets (the “Sale”) free and clear of Carolina Sawmill’s lien rights. “Carved Out Amounts” shall mean the proceeds of the sale of the Sawmill sufficient to allow for the payment in full of the following, free and clear of the CSLP Liens, if any: (a) the amount due to the County from the proceeds of sale under the Amended County Settlement, which includes (i) $4.6 million plus (ii) real and personal property taxes owed to the County plus (iii) reimbursement of previously incurred carrying costs or expenses plus (iv) ongoing reimbursement of expenses, as set forth therein; (b) the outstanding balance of any DIP Financing; (c) any valid liens or allowed secured claims senior to the DIP Financing, including those relating to personal property taxes, real property taxes and mechanics’ liens; (d) all allowed administrative expenses, include the allowed fees and expenses of all Bankruptcy Court-approved retained professionals in the case; (e) all allowed priority claims against the Debtor; (f) any U.S. Trustee fees; and (g) allowed post-effective date fees and expenses incurred in connection with the implementation of a confirmed chapter 11 plan in an amount not to exceed $225,000.To date, the Debtor has filed and resolved the following objections to claims: ● the Objection of Debtor Klausner Lumber Two LLC to the Proof of Claim Filed by Deloitte Financial Advisory GmbH

List of Tables

Document Contents

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ____________________________________ ) Chapter 11 In re: ) ) Case No. 20-11518 (KBO) Klausner Lumber Two LLC, ) ) Response Deadline: ) August 20, 2021 at 4:00 p.m. Debtor. ) ) Hearing Date: ) September 16, 2021 at 1:00 p.m. ) ____________________________________ ) Re Docket Nos. 899, 900, 902 CAROLINA SAWMILLS, L.P.’S OMNIBUS OBJECTIONS AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS TO THE FOURTH INTERIM FEE APPLICATIONS FILED BY: (I) WESTERMAN BALL EDERER MILLER ZUCKER & SHARFSTEIN, LLP [DOCKET NO. 902]; (II) MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP [DOCKET NO. 900]; AND (III) DINSMORE & SHOHL LLP [DOCKET NO. 899] Carolina Sawmills, L.P. (hereafter, referred to as “Carolina Sawmills” or “CSLP”) objects (the “Objection”) to the allowance of: ● the Fourth Interim Fee Application of Westerman Ball Ederer Miller Zucker & Sharfstein, LLP, as Bankruptcy Counsel for the Debtor and Debtor in Possession, for Allowance of All Actual and Necessary Expenses Incurred for the Period April 1, 2021 Through June 30, 2021 [Docket No. 902] (the “Westerman Ball Fee Application”); ● the Fourth Interim Fee Application of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, as Bankruptcy Co-Counsel for the Debtor and Debtor in Possession, for Allowance of Compensation and All Actual and Necessary Expenses Incurred for the Period April 1, 2021 Through June 30, 2021 [Docket No. 900] (the “MNAT Fee Application”); and ● the Fourth Interim Fee Application of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, as Supplemental Bankruptcy Counsel and Specialized Counsel to the Debtor and Debtor in Possession, for Allowance of Monthly Compensation and for Monthly Reimbursement of All Actual and Necessary Expenses Incurred for the Period April 1, 2021 Through June 30, 2021 [Docket No. 899] (the Dinsmore & Shohl Fee Application”). There are three bases for the Objection.

1

First, Carolina Sawmills objects to the allowance of any fees for any services provided by the Debtor, and its professionals, in contempt of this Court’s Order Approving Stipulation Regarding Motion to Approve County Settlement [Docket No. 377] (the “Order”). As the Court may recall, the Order approved the Stipulation Regarding Motion to Approve County Settlement (the “Stipulation”). That Stipulation was the culmination of a “grand bargain” among the Debtor, the Official Committee of Unsecure Creditors (the “Committee”), Halifax County, North Carolina (the “County”), and Carolina Sawmills, that resolved multiple pending objections, and enabled the Debtor’s case to proceed to a sale. Paragraph 8 of the Stipulation states: UCC Standing. The Debtor hereby assigns its rights, title and interests to prosecute and contest the validity, priority and extent of the CSLP Liens (which definition includes, for the avoidance of doubt, any and all claims asserted by CSLP) to the UCC for and on behalf of the Debtor’s estate. Further, the UCC is hereby appointed as an estate representative to prosecute and contest the validity, priority and extent of the CSLP Liens, including any claims asserted by CSLP. Neither the Debtor, nor any of its professionals, shall take any position in any litigation between the UCC and CSLP with respect to the CSLP Liens, including any claims asserted by CSLP. For the avoidance of doubt, (a) CSLP consents and agrees that the UCC shall be fully vested with standing for and on behalf of the Debtor’s estate to assert, prosecute and otherwise proceed with any and all of the Debtor’s claims, rights, remedies or defenses with respect to the asserted CSLP Liens or any claims asserted by CSLP, including any challenges to the CSLP Liens, and (b) all of the rights, title and interest to prosecute and contest the validity, priority and extent of the CSLP Liens set forth in this section may be vested in any successor to the Debtor or UCC pursuant to a chapter 11 plan. Order, Stipulation, ¶8 (emphasis added). A copy of the Order and Stipulation is attached as Exhibit A. Multiple time entries in the Westerman Ball Fee Application, and the MNAT Fee Application, are for time spent on the Complaint filed against Carolina Sawmills. No fees should be allowed for any expenditures that directly violate the above-noted language in paragraph 8 of the Stipulation, and appear to have been performed in contempt of the Order. Second, many of the time entries in the Westerman Ball Fee Application, the MNAT Fee

2

Application, and the Dinsmore & Shohl Fee Application (collectively, the “Fee Applications”) contain vague descriptions of the services for which compensation is being sought. These vague descriptions need to be supplemented, and then re-examined, before any fee requests are approved by the Court, especially with respect to any services for which the vague descriptions at issue may be masking actions performed in contempt of the Order and paragraph 8 of the Stipulation. Finally, Carolina Sawmills objects to the approval of the fees and expenses sought in each of the Fee Applications for time spent on claims work and objections. At this point in time, nobody knows who will wind-up “owning” the Net Sale Proceeds in this case. If CSLP prevails in the fight over its liens, then none of the services provided by professionals on such claims objections will benefit the Debtor’s estate. In addition to its Objection, Carolina Sawmills reserves all rights with respect to any actions taken by any party in contempt of the Order and Stipulation. In further support of this Objection Carolina Sawmills respectfully states as follows: ADDITIONAL FACTS 1. On June 10, 2020 (the “Petition Date”), KL2 filed for bankruptcy under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”). 2. From the Petition Date, through the start of November, 2020, there was significant disagreement among the Debtor, the Committee, Carolina Sawmills, and the County over a variety of issues, including, but not limited to: (i) the secured status of Carolina Sawmills’ liens on substantially all of the assets of the Debtor; (ii) debtor-in-possession financing (“DIP Financing”), including the alleged subordination of Carolina Sawmills’ lien rights to such DIP Financing; and (iii) the approval of a proposed settlement agreement between the Debtor and the

3

County that would allow for the sale of substantially all of the Debtor’s assets (the “Sale”) free and clear of Carolina Sawmill’s lien rights. 3. All these issues were either resolved or deferred, in whole, or in part, on November 9, 2020, when the Court: ● entered the Order approving the Stipulation; and ● entered that certain Order Approving Motion of the Debtor Pursuant to Bankruptcy Rule 9019, Local Rule 9013-1 and 11 U.S.C. §§ 105(a) and 363(b), for Entry of an Order Authorizing Revised Settlement With the County [Docket No. 380] (the “County Settlement Order”). Collectively, the terms of the Stipulation and County Settlement Order, (i) allowed the Sale to proceed, while (ii) preserving the rights of Carolina Sawmills and the Committee to resolve – consensually, or through litigation – the parties’ respective rights to the “Net Sale Proceeds” from the Sale; and (iii) provided a mechanism for funding the balance of the Debtor’s bankruptcy case. 4. This funding mechanism was contained in paragraph 3 of the Stipulation, which states: Carved Out Amounts. “Carved Out Amounts” shall mean the proceeds of the sale of the Sawmill sufficient to allow for the payment in full of the following, free and clear of the CSLP Liens, if any: (a) the amount due to the County from the proceeds of sale under the Amended County Settlement, which includes (i) $4.6 million plus (ii) real and personal property taxes owed to the County plus (iii) reimbursement of previously incurred carrying costs or expenses plus (iv) ongoing reimbursement of expenses, as set forth therein; (b) the outstanding balance of any DIP Financing; (c) any valid liens or allowed secured claims senior to the DIP Financing, including those relating to personal property taxes, real property taxes and mechanics’ liens; (d) all allowed administrative expenses, include the allowed fees and expenses of all Bankruptcy Court-approved retained professionals in the case; (e) all allowed priority claims against the Debtor; (f) any U.S. Trustee fees; and (g) allowed post-effective date fees and expenses incurred in connection with the implementation of a confirmed chapter 11 plan in an amount not to exceed $225,000. For purposes of subparagraph (a), the initial reimbursement of the County’s expenses is contemplated under the DIP Financing and thus will occur upon Bankruptcy Court approval of the Amended County Settlement. The ongoing expense reimbursement contemplated under the Amended County Settlement will occur in accordance with

4

the budget approved by the DIP Financing Order. The term “Net Proceeds” means the total proceeds from the sale of the Assets less the Carved Out Amounts plus any other Debtor assets remaining after the sale of the Assets that would have been subject to the CSLP Liens as of the Petition Date. Stipulation, pg. 8, ¶3 (emphasis added on subsection (d)). 5. After the entry of the Order and the County Settlement Order, the Sale process proceeded. 6. On December 17, 2020, the Court entered that certain Order (I) Approving APA, (II) Authorizing the Sale of Certain of the Debtor’s Assets Free and Clear of Certain Encumbrances, (III) Authorizing the Assumption and Assignment of Certain Executory Contracts and Unexpired Leases, and (IV) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 507] (the “Sale Order”). 7. Thereafter, the Debtor closed upon the sale of substantially all its assets for $83,400,000 (the “Sale Proceeds”) on January 8, 2021. See Notice of Closing of Sale of Substantially all of the Debtor’s Assets [Docket No. 553]. 8. On December 15, 2020, the Court entered an order [Docket No. 501] (the “Bar Date Order”) establishing January 29, 2021 as the deadline by which general unsecured creditors of the Debtor must file their proofs of claim against the Debtor’s estate. Pursuant to the Register of Claims [Docket No. 779] (the “Claim Registry”) filed by Donlin, Recano & Company, Inc. (the “Claims Agent”), a total of $127,631,519.60 worth of unsecured claims were filed against the Debtor by 80 unsecured creditors. 9. Claims Objection. To date, the Debtor has filed and resolved the following objections to claims: ● the Objection of Debtor Klausner Lumber Two LLC to the Proof of Claim Filed by Deloitte Financial Advisory GmbH [Docket No. 750]

5

(the “Deloitte Claim Objection”); ● the Debtor’s Complaint and Objection to Claim [Docket No. 751] to the claim filed by Scharpenack GmbH; ● the Debtor’s First Omnibus Objection (Non-Substantive) to Certain Claims Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007 and Del. L.R. 3007-1 (Duplicate; Amended) [Docket No. 792] (seeking the removal of 4 duplicate claims from the Claims Register, and cleaning-up the Claims Register with respect to 11 amended and superseded claims); and ● the Debtor’s Second Omnibus Objection (Substantive) to Certain Claims Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502, Fed. R. Bankr. P. 3007 and Del. L.R. 9001-1 (Disallow; Reduce and Allow; Reclassify) [Docket No. 793] (seeking to (i) disallow 3 unsecured claims, (ii) reduce and allow 2 unsecured claims, and (iii) reclassify 1 alleged priority claim as an unsecured claim). In addition, the Debtor has settled its objections to the claims filed by (i) Mayr-Melnhof Holz Holding AG (“MMH”), (ii) debtor Klausner Lumber One LLC (“KL1”), and (iii) certain WARN Act creditors. 10. On July 30, 2021, Westerman Ball Ederer Miller Zucker & Sharfstein, LLP (“Westerman Ball”) filed the Westerman Ball Fee Application. Pursuant thereto, Westerman Ball seeks approval of fees in the amount of $149,215.50. In particular, $31,747.50 of the fees are for 55.9 hours of time spent on the Project Category described as “Claims.” A copy of select pages from the Westerman Ball Fee Application, dealing with the services provided in contempt of the Order and Stipulation, and concerning the Claims time at issue, are attached as Exhibit B. 11. On July 30, 2021, Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (“MNAT”) filed the MNAT Fee Application. Pursuant thereto, MNAT seeks approval of fees in the amount of $68,746. In particular, $11,781.50 of the fees are for 13.70 hours of time spent on the Project Category described as “Claims Objections and Administration.” A copy of select pages from the

6

MNAT Fee Application, dealing with the services provided in contempt of the Order and Stipulation, and concerning the Claims Objections and Administration time at issue, are attached as Exhibit C. 12. On July 30, 2021, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP (“Dinsmore & Shohl”) filed the Dinsmore & Shohl Fee Application. Pursuant thereto, Dinsmore & Shohl seeks approval of fees in the amount of $142,411. In particular, $117,566 of the fees are for 221.60 hours of time spent on the Project Category described as “Claims Administration and Objections.” A copy of select pages from the Dinsmore & Shohl Fee Application, concerning the Claims Administration and Objections time at issue, are attached hereto as Exhibit D. 13. Professional Time Spent on Claims Analysis and Objections. Attached as Exhibit E is a spreadsheet that summarizes all of the time billed by professionals to “Claims,” “Claims Administration,” “Claims Objection and Administration,” and “Claims Admin & Objections” based upon the fee applications filed to date in this case. As set forth on Exhibit E, 1,072.5 hours of professional time have been spent on such claims works, for a total cost to the Debtor’s estate of $656,986.50. 14. On July 21, 2021, the Debtor filed the Monthly Operating Report [Docket No. 861] (the “June MOR”) for the reporting period ending June 30, 2021. Through June 30, 2021, the Debtor has: ● spent $16,752,217 on professional fees; and ● only has remaining Sale Proceeds in the amount of $57,671,668. June MOR, pg. 2, Part 1: Cash Receipts and Disbursements; pg. 3, Part 5: Professional Fees and Expenses.

7

15. On August 9, 2021, the Committee filed the Complaint and Objection to Claim No. 54 Filed by Carolina Sawmills [A.P. No. 21-51010 (KBO); A.P. Docket No. 1] (the “Complaint”). OBJECTION 16. “Even if there are no objections,” Bankruptcy Courts in the Third Circuit “have an independent duty to review all fee requests of professionals retained in a chapter 11 case to assure that the services rendered were necessary and appropriate and that the fees requested are reasonable.” In re Channel Master Holdings, Inc., 309 B.R. 855, 861 (Bankr. D. Del. 2004); citing In re Busy Beaver Building Centers, Inc., 19 F.3d 833, 841 (3d Cir. 1994) (The court “must protect the estate, lest overreaching attorneys or other professionals drain it of wealth which by right should inure to the benefit of … creditors.” Id. at 844). 17. “The court should not allow compensation for (i) unnecessary duplication of services; or (ii) services that were not (I) reasonably likely to benefit the debtor’s estate; or (II) necessary to the administration of the case.” 11 U.S.C. § 330(a)(4)(A); Channel Master Holdings, Inc., 309 B.R. at 861. 18. “It is well-settled in this circuit that only time entries separately listed and explained in detail are compensable.” In re JEFSABA, Inc., 172 B.R. 786 (Bankr. E.D. Pa. 1994), citing In re Meade Land and Development Co., Inc., 527 F.2d 280, 283 (3d Cir. 1975); In re Mayflower Associates, 78 B.R. 41, 48 (Bankr. E.D.Pa. 1987). Moreover, pursuant to the Delaware Local Bankruptcy Rule 2016-2(d), all fee applications, among other things, shall: (d) … include activity descriptions which shall be sufficiently detailed to allow the Court to determine whether all the time, or any portion thereof, is actual, reasonable and necessary and shall include the following:

8

(ii) All motions shall include complete and detailed activity descriptions; (vi) Each activity description shall include the type of activity (e.g., phone call, research); (vii) Each activity description shall include the subject matter (e.g., exclusivity motion, section 341 meeting); and (viii) Activity descriptions shall not be lumped – each activity shall have a separate description and time allotment[.] Local Rule 2016-2(d)(ii), (vi), (vii) & (viii). 19. Finally, “the applicant bears the burden of proving that the fees and expenses sought are reasonable and necessary.” Channel Masters Holdings, Inc., 309 B.R. at 861; Zolfo Cooper & Co. v. Sunbeam-Oster Co., Inc., 50 F.3d 253, 260 (3d Cir. 1995). I. The Court Should Not Approve Any Requests for Fees for Services Performed in Contempt of the Order and Stipulation 20. Part of the “grand bargain” that enabled the Sale to proceed on a consensual basis was the Stipulation, which was approved pursuant to the Order by the Court. One of the key provisions in the Stipulation that induced Carolina Sawmill to agree to its terms was paragraph 8. Therein, the Debtor, the Committee, the County and CSLP contractually agreed that the Committee would be the sole party going forward with responsibility for litigating, or consensually resolving, Carolina Sawmills’ claim, including the validity, extent, and priority of its lien. All the parties to the Stipulation made this point crystal clear, when they (i) agreed that the Debtor would assign all its rights, title and interests to prosecute and contest the validity, priority and extent of the CSLP Liens to the Committee, and (ii) then specifically stated that: Neither the Debtor, nor any of its professionals, shall take any position in any litigation between the UCC and CSLP with respect to the CSLP Liens, including any claims asserted by CSLP.

9

Order, Stipulation, ¶8. Despite this strict prohibition upon the Debtor, or its professionals, taking any position on such litigation, it turns out that the Debtor’s professionals have been taking position on the litigation by actively working with the Committee in preparing the Complaint, and now want to charge the estate for their time and services. 21. For example, the Westerman Ball Fee Application contains the following time entries for which compensation is sought: Date Professional Description Hours Amount 4/21/2021 TAD Communications with E. Sutty and E. Schwartz re complaint 0.20 130 and other matters in case 4/23/2021 TAD Communications with E. Sutty, J. Wright and D. Butz re 0.30 195 CSLP complaint 4/23/2021 TAD Review complaint against CSLP 2.30 1,495 TAD Call with D. Butz re comments to complaint 0.30 195 TAD Communications with E. Sutty, J. Wright and A. Ladd re 0.20 130 CSLP’s document review of Curtis, Molet 4/25/2021 TAD Communications with E. Sutty and D. Butz re comments to 0.20 130 CSLP complaint 4/26/2021 TAD Communications with E. Sutty, J. Wright and D. Butz re 0.30 195 revisions to CSLP complaint 22. Likewise, the MNAT Fee Application contains the following time entries for which compensation is sought: Date Professional Description Hours Amount 05/21/21 Fu, Michelle Tele w/ B. Prusak, J. Lynch, T. Draghi, D. Butz and E. 1.0 495 Schwartz regarding Investor Funds Flow regarding CSLP loan 05/21/21 Schwartz, Tele w. B. Prusak, J. Lynch, T. Draghi, D. Butz and M. Fu 1.0 995 Eric D. regarding Investor Funds Flow regarding CSLP loan 05/21/21 Butz, Daniel Tele w/ B. Prusak, J. Lynch, T. Draghi, E. Schwartz and M. 1.0 795 B. Fu regarding Investor Funds Flow regarding CSLP loan 05/28/21 Butz, Daniel Review email from committee counsel re: complaint against 0.1 79.50 B. claimant 23. Finally, although not part of this Objection, Carolina Sawmills notes that certain of the Monthly Staffing and Compensation Reports of Asgaard Capital LLC also contain time entries for professional services related to the prosecution of the Complaint against Carolina Sawmills. For example, the Eleventh Staffing and Compensation Report of Asgaard Capital LLC

10

for the Period of April 1 – 30, 2121 [Docket No. 756], on page 10 of 27 of the fee detail states, in pertinent part: Description Quantity Unit Price Amount Case Administration – 04/23/2021 – Review written materials, legal 0.80 $820 $656.00 documents and written correspondence / Charlie Reardon: Review the revised Committee complaint against Carolina Sawmills Likewise, the Thirteenth Staffing and Compensation Report of Asgaard Capital LLC for the Period June 1 – 30, 2021 [Docket No. 838] contains the following time entries, on pages 10 and 12 of the fee detail: Description Quantity Unit Price Amount Case Administration – 06/11/2021 – Review written materials, legal 0.90 $495.00 $445.50 documents and written correspondence / Kevin Sampson; Reviewed the updated drafts of the KL-2 Waterfall, the claims for KL-2, and the initial discussion of the Carolina Sawmill claim status Case Administration – 06/14/2021 – Participate in calls between/among Kevin 0.80 $495 $396.00 Sampson: Participated on conference call with B. Prusak, L. Lucarelli, and A. Patel to review the Carolina Sawmill claim. Case Administration – 06/14/2021 – Participate in calls between/among Larry 0.80 $495 $396.00 Lucarelli: Conference with K. Sampson, M. Prusak, A Patel to review status Carolina Sawmill Claim. 24. So, despite the prohibition on the Debtor, and its professionals, from taking any position in the litigation between the Committee and Carolina Sawmills, Westerman Ball, MNAT, and the Asgaard Capital LLC, took positions on the litigation, and advised the Committee on the Complaint with regards to such positions, and now seek compensation for their efforts. 25. Needs to say, Carolina Sawmills objects to any payments for professional services rendered in violation of the terms of the Stipulation and Order. Professionals should not be paid for contempt. II. Vague Descriptions in the Fee Applications Need to be Supplemented, and Then Re-Examined, Before Any Fee Requests are Approved 26. All the Fee Applications contain vague descriptions for certain of the professional services for which compensation is being sought.

11

27. For example, all the Fee Applications contain multiple references to work done on “complaints” without setting forth the identity of the defendant against whom the complaint is against, or any information about the claims in the complaint. To date, only three complaints have been filed by estate professionals: (i) the Debtor’s original complaint against Carolina Sawmills; (ii) the Debtor’s complaint against Scharpenack; and (iii) the Committee’s Complaint against Carolina Sawmills. 28. Absent additional information about the “complaints” for which the compensation is being sought, neither the Court, nor any other party, can determine whether the work done on such “complaints” meets the standards for the allowance of compensation. 29. In addition, it’s impossible for the Court, or any other party, to know if the work done on the “complaints” is actually for work done on the Complaint against Carolina Sawmills, for which the Debtor’s professionals should not receive any compensation. 30. Given this ambiguity, Carolina Sawmills submits that Westerman Ball, MNAT, and Dinsmore & Shohl have not met their burden of proving that the fees and expenses sought are reasonable and necessary.” Channel Masters Holdings, Inc., 309 B.R. at 861; Zolfo Cooper & Co. v. Sunbeam-Oster Co., Inc., 50 F.3d 253, 260 (3d Cir. 1995). III. At This Point in Time, it’s Impossible for the Court, or Any Party, to Know Whether the Claims Services Performed by the Professionals Will Provide Any Benefit to the Debtor’s Estate 31. Finally, at this time, Carolina Sawmills submits that it is impossible for anyone to know whether the time expended by Westerman Ball, MNAT, and Dinsmore & Shohl on claims work will provide any benefit to the Debtor’s estate because there is an ongoing dispute over the ownership of “Net Proceeds” from the sale of KL2’s assets. If the remaining “Net Proceeds”

12

are completely encumbered by Carolina Sawmill’s liens, then there will be no money for general unsecured creditors, and the legal services provided by Westerman Ball, MNAT, and Dinsmore & Shohl in connection with their work on claims will literally provide no benefit to the Debtor’s estate and creditors and will have been a waste of time and money by all the involved parties. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS 32. Carolina Sawmills reserves all rights against any of the Debtor’s professionals who may have violated paragraph 8 of the Stipulation in contempt of the Order. [Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]

13

WHEREFORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, Carolina Sawmills respectfully requests that the Court deny approval of the Fee Applications. Date: August 23, 2021 LAW OFFICE OF CURTIS A. HEHN /s/ Curtis A. Hehn Curtis A. Hehn (Bar No. 4264) 1007 N. Orange Street, 4th Floor Wilmington, DE 19801 Telephone: (302) 757-3491 Email: curtishehn@comcast.net and EvansStarrett PLC Attn: K. Stewart Evans, Jr., Esq. 11218 Popes Head Road Fairfax, VA 22030 Telephone: (703) 691-8131 Email: stewart@evansstarrett.com James B. Moloney, Esq. 204 Coral Street Beach Haven, NJ 08008 Telephone: (202) 378-8342 Email: moloneywbc@cs.com Attorneys for Carolina Sawmills, L.P.

14