4873-4838-8391.3 

KUTAK ROCK LLP 

Jeremy S. Williams (VSB No. 77469) 

901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1000 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Telephone: (804) 644-1700 

Facsimile: (804) 783-6192 

Jeremy.Williams@kutakrock.com

Counsel for Peter J. Barrett, Trustee

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Richmond Division 

)

In re: ) Chapter 7

)

POTOMAC PILE DRIVER, LLC, ) Case No. 17-34078 (KRH)

)

Debtor. )

)

TRUSTEE’S MOTION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE 

Peter J. Barrett, Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of Potomac Pile Driver, LLC 

(the “Trustee”), by counsel, moves for the entry of an order, substantially in the form of 

Exhibit A attached hereto, approving a settlement by and among the Trustee, Robin McCormack 

(“Ms. McCormack”), and Shoreline Service and Design, LLC (“Shoreline”), pursuant to Rule 

9019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Rules”). The Trustee states the following 

in support of this motion: 

PARTIES AND JURISDICTION 

1. Potomac Pile Driver, LLC (the “Debtor”) filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 

7 of the Bankruptcy Code in this Court on August 14, 2017. 

2. Bruce H. Matson was appointed interim Chapter 7 Trustee on August 15, 2017 and 

resigned on February 21, 2018. 

3. The Trustee was appointed the interim Chapter 7 trustee on February 23, 2018 and 

continues to serve in that capacity. 

Case 17-34078-KRH Doc 97 Filed 07/11/22 Entered 07/11/22 16:20:37 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 13
2 

4873-4838-8391.3 

4. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157. This Court has subject 

matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334. 

BACKGROUND 

5. On September 6, 2019, the Trustee initiated an adversary proceeding and filed his 

Complaint against the Debtor, Ms. McCormack, Shoreline, Brad Martin, Jacob Lillard, and APD3, 

LLC (collectively, the “Defendants”) [Adv. Proc. No. 19-03079; Docket No. 1]. 

6. Ms. McCormack is the principal of Shoreline. 

7. On January 30, 2020, the Court entered its Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Default Judgment [A.P. No. 55] (the “First Summary Judgment Order”), which pierced the 

corporate veil such that all of the Defendants are responsible for the debts and liabilities of each 

other Defendant. 

8. On September 11, 2020, the Court entered its Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment [Adv. Proc. No. 19-03079; Docket No. 96] (the “Second Summary 

Judgment Order”), which awarded the Trustee $78,581.70 plus the Trustee’s administrative costs 

of $49,216.72 against the Defendants. The Second Summary Judgment Order also awarded the 

Trustee $577,394.20 against Mr. Martin for breach of his fiduciary duties as a sole member or 

manager of Potomac Pile. 

9. On September 11, 2020, the Court entered its Order Denying Motion to Withdraw 

or Amend Admissions Pursuant to Rule 36(B) [Adv. Proc. No. 19-03079; Docket No. 97], which 

awarded the Trustee $6,030.66 in reasonable attorneys’ fees (the “Sanctions Order” and together 

with the First Summary Judgment Order and the Second Summary Judgment Order, the 

“Judgments”). 

Case 17-34078-KRH Doc 97 Filed 07/11/22 Entered 07/11/22 16:20:37 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 13
3 

4873-4838-8391.3 

10. The Trustee has undertaken various efforts to collect the Judgments from the 

Defendants. On October 15, 2020, the Trustee recorded the Judgments with the Westmoreland 

Circuit Court. Once the Judgments were recorded, the Trustee, through counsel, sought postjudgment discovery and continued efforts to collect the Judgments. 

11. On March 23, 2022, the Trustee filed its Suggestion for Summons in Garnishment

in the Circuit Court for the County of Westmoreland against Ms. McCormack and Shoreline. As 

a result, the Trustee received $204.49 from Bank of America and $21,428.07 from Wells Fargo 

(collectively, the “Garnished Funds”). 

12. Additionally, the Trustee has been in discussions with counsel for Ms. McCormack 

and Shoreline and has reached a resolution regarding the Judgments. The Trustee, Ms. 

McCormack, and Shoreline have agreed that, in addition to the Garnished Funds, Ms. McCormack 

will pay the Debtor’s estate $25,000.00 in five monthly payments of $5,000.00 payable on the 15th 

day of each month, starting July 15, 2022, and continuing on the same day of each month 

thereafter, in resolution of the Judgments against Ms. McCormack and Shoreline (the 

“Settlement”). In exchange, the Trustee has agreed to release the Judgments against Ms. 

McCormack and Shoreline. For the avoidance of doubt, the Judgments will continue unchanged 

against the remaining Defendants. 

13. The Trustee, upon exercising his business judgment, has determined that the 

Settlement is in the best interest of the Debtors’ estate. 

RELIEF REQUESTED

14. By this Motion, the Trustee respectfully requests the entry of the proposed Order 

attached hereto approving the Settlement. 

Case 17-34078-KRH Doc 97 Filed 07/11/22 Entered 07/11/22 16:20:37 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 13
4 

4873-4838-8391.3 

ARGUMENT 

15. “To minimize litigation and expedite the administration of a bankruptcy estate, 

compromises are favored in bankruptcy.” In re Martin, 91 F.3d 389, 393 (3d Cir. 1996). In 

determining whether to approve a compromise, the Court must look at various factors and 

determine whether the compromise is in the best interest of the estate and whether it is fair and 

equitable to the creditors of the estate. In re Frye, 216 B.R. 166, 174 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1997). 

These factors include: (a) the probability of success in litigation; (b) the potential difficulties, if 

any, in collection; (c) the complexity of the litigation involved and the expense, inconveniences 

and delays necessarily attending it; and (d) the paramount interest of the creditors. Id. These 

factors help the Court determine whether it should approve the proposed compromise as fair and 

equitable to the creditors of the estate. Martin v. Kane (In re A & C Properties), 784 F.2d 1377 

(9th Cir. 1986); Drexel, Burham, Lambert, Inc. v. Flight Transportation Corp. (In re Flight 

Transportation Corp. Securities Litigation), 730 F.2d 1128 (8th Cir. 1984); In re Jackson Brewing 

Co., 624 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 1980); see also In re Austin, 186 B.R. 397 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1995) 

(discussing factors to approve settlements). 

16. The probability of success in litigation. Although the Trustee is entitled to payment 

of the entirety of the Judgments from Ms. McCormack and Shoreline, there exists the very real 

possibility that the Trustee will not receive any payment in the absence of a settlement or will incur 

expenses beyond what may be recovered. As such, resolution as set forth in the Settlement is 

appropriate. 

17. The complexity of the litigation involved and the expense, inconveniences and 

delays necessarily attending it. Given the nature of the Trustee’s Judgments and the Defendants 

involved, further actions to collect the Judgments from Ms. McCormack or Shoreline could prove 

Case 17-34078-KRH Doc 97 Filed 07/11/22 Entered 07/11/22 16:20:37 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 13
5 

4873-4838-8391.3 

to be factually intensive and may require extensive collection efforts. The Trustee would incur 

substantial fees in proceeding to seek payment on the Judgments from Ms. McCormack and 

Shoreline and with the potential to obtain only a minimal recovery. The uncertainty, expenses, 

inconveniences, and delays attending continued collection efforts would all be avoided as to Ms. 

McCormack and Shoreline under the Settlement. This factor favors approval of the Settlement. 

18. The paramount interest of the creditors. The Settlement provides for an immediate 

transfer of funds to the Debtor’s estate, which in turn will provide a quicker return to the creditors 

of the Debtor’s estate, at a much lower administrative cost than further collection attempts and as 

such, represents a reasonable settlement. Such a settlement will provide a guaranteed benefit to 

the estate without the delay and potentially large administrative expenses of ongoing collection 

efforts. This factor favors approval of the Settlement. 

19. As discussed above, the history of this case and between the parties is complex. 

Accordingly, the Trustee requests that Ms. McCormack and Shoreline be responsible for 

reimbursing any legal fees and costs of the Trustee to the extent further collection efforts are 

required for enforcement of the Settlement 

 WHEREFORE, the Trustee requests the Court to (i) approve the Settlement; (ii) require 

Ms. McCormack and Shoreline to reimburse the Trustee’s legal fees and costs associated with 

enforcement of the Settlement; and (iii) award any further relief the Court deems proper. 

[Remainder of page intentionally left blank] 

Case 17-34078-KRH Doc 97 Filed 07/11/22 Entered 07/11/22 16:20:37 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 13
6 

4873-4838-8391.3 

PETER J. BARRETT, TRUSTEE 

/s/ Jeremy S. Williams 

 Counsel 

 

KUTAK ROCK LLP 

Jeremy S. Williams (VSB No. 77469) 

901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1000 

Richmond, Virginia 23219-4071 

Telephone: (804) 644-1700 

Facsimile: (804) 783-6192 

Jeremy.Williams@kutakrock.com 

 Counsel to Peter J. Barrett, Trustee 

Case 17-34078-KRH Doc 97 Filed 07/11/22 Entered 07/11/22 16:20:37 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 13
7 

4873-4838-8391.3 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that on July 11, 2022, a true and exact copy of the 

foregoing was served via CM/ECF, electronic mail or first-class mail, postage prepaid, as follows: 

Potomac Pile Drive, LLC 

30 Lincoln Ave. 

Colonial Beach, VA 22443 

Westmoreland, VA 

Debtor

John C. Morgan, Jr. 

New Day Legal, PLLC 

98 Alexandria Pike, Suite 10 

Warrenton, VA 20186 

Counsel to Debtor 

Shannon Pecoraro 

Office of the U.S. Trustee 

701 E. Broad Street, Suite 4304 

Richmond, VA 23219 

U.S. Trustee 

Robin McCormack 

214 Marshall Avenue 

Colonial Beach, VA 22443 

Mark Joseph Dahlberg 

Woehrle Franklin Dahlberg Jones 

2016 Lafayette Blvd. 

Suite 101 

Fredericksburg, VA 22401 

Mark.dahlberg1@gmail.com 

Counsel to Robin McCormack 

 By: /s/ Jeremy S. Williams 

 Counsel 

Case 17-34078-KRH Doc 97 Filed 07/11/22 Entered 07/11/22 16:20:37 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 13
8 

EXHIBIT A 

 

Case 17-34078-KRH Doc 97 Filed 07/11/22 Entered 07/11/22 16:20:37 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 13
9 

KUTAK ROCK LLP 

Jeremy S. Williams (VSB No. 77469) 

901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1000 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Telephone: (804) 644-1700 

Facsimile: (804) 783-6192 

Jeremy.Williams@kutakrock.com

Counsel for Peter J. Barrett, Trustee

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

Richmond Division 

)

In re: ) Chapter 7

)

POTOMAC PILE DRIVER, LLC, ) Case No. 17-34078 (KRH)

)

Debtor. )

)

ORDER GRANTING TRUSTEE’S MOTION TO APPROVE COMPROMISE 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon the Trustee’s Motion to Approve 

Compromise (the “Motion”) filed Peter J. Barrett, Chapter 7 Trustee for the Bankruptcy Estate of 

Potomac Pile Driver, LLC (the “Trustee”), by counsel, to approve a settlement by and among the 

Trustee, Robin McCormack (“Ms. McCormack”), and Shoreline Service and Design, LLC 

(“Shoreline”) pursuant to Rule 9019 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. Based on the 

review of the Motion, the record and related pleadings, the Court makes the following findings 

and conclusions: 

1. The Debtor filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code in 

this Court on August 14, 2017. 

2. Bruce H. Matson was appointed interim Chapter 7 Trustee on August 15, 2017 and 

resigned on February 21, 2018. 

3. The Trustee was appointed the interim Chapter 7 trustee on February 23, 2018 and 

continues to serve in that capacity. 

Case 17-34078-KRH Doc 97 Filed 07/11/22 Entered 07/11/22 16:20:37 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 13
10 

4. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157. This Court has subject 

matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334. 

BACKGROUND 

5. On September 6, 2019, the Trustee initiated an adversary proceeding and filed his 

Complaint against the Debtor, Ms. McCormack, Shoreline, Brad Martin, Jacob Lillard, and APD3, 

LLC (collectively, the “Defendants”) [Adv. Proc. No. 19-03079; Docket No. 1]. 

6. Ms. McCormack is the principal of Shoreline. 

7. On January 30, 2020, the Court entered its Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for 

Default Judgment [A.P. No. 55] (the “First Summary Judgment Order”), which pierced the 

corporate veil such that all of the Defendants are responsible for the debts and liabilities of each 

other Defendant. 

8. On September 11, 2020, the Court entered its Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion 

for Summary Judgment [Adv. Proc. No. 19-03079; Docket No. 96] (the “Second Summary 

Judgment Order”), which awarded the Trustee $78,581.70 plus the Trustee’s administrative costs 

of $49,216.72 against the Defendants. The Second Summary Judgment Order also awarded the 

Trustee $577,394.20 against Mr. Martin for breach of his fiduciary duties as a sole member or 

manager of Potomac Pile. 

9. On September 11, 2020, the Court entered its Order Denying Motion to Withdraw 

or Amend Admissions Pursuant to Rule 36(B) [Adv. Proc. No. 19-03079; Docket No. 97], which 

awarded the Trustee $6,030.66 in reasonable attorneys’ fees (the “Sanctions Order” and together 

with the First Summary Judgment Order and the Second Summary Judgment Order, the 

“Judgments”). 

10. The Trustee has undertaken various efforts to collect the Judgments from the 

Case 17-34078-KRH Doc 97 Filed 07/11/22 Entered 07/11/22 16:20:37 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 13
11 

Defendants. On October 15, 2020, the Trustee recorded the Judgments with the Westmoreland 

Circuit Court. Once the Judgments were recorded, the Trustee, through counsel, sought postjudgment discovery and continued efforts to collect the Judgments. 

11. On March 23, 2022, the Trustee filed its Suggestion for Summons in Garnishment

in the Circuit Court for the County of Westmoreland against Ms. McCormack and Shoreline. As 

a result, the Trustee received $204.49 from Bank of America and $21,428.07 from Wells Fargo 

(collectively, the “Garnished Funds”). 

12. Additionally, the Trustee has been in discussions with counsel for Ms. McCormack 

and Shoreline and has reached a resolution regarding the Judgments. The Trustee, Ms. 

McCormack, and Shoreline have agreed that, in addition to the Garnished Funds, Ms. McCormack 

will pay the Debtor’s estate $25,000.00 in five monthly payments of $5,000 payable on the 15th 

day of each month, starting July 15, 2022, and continuing on the same day of each month 

thereafter, in resolution of the Judgments against Ms. McCormack and Shoreline (the 

“Settlement”). In exchange, the Trustee has agreed to release the Judgments against Ms. 

McCormack and Shoreline. For the avoidance of doubt, the Judgments will continue unchanged 

against the remaining Defendants. 

13. The Trustee, upon exercising his business judgment, has determined that the 

Settlement is in the best interest of the Debtors’ estate. 

14. “To minimize litigation and expedite the administration of a bankruptcy estate, 

compromises are favored in bankruptcy.” In re Martin, 91 F.3d 389, 393 (3d Cir. 1996). In 

determining whether to approve a compromise, the Court must look at various factors and 

determine whether the compromise is in the best interest of the estate and whether it is fair and 

equitable to the creditors of the estate. In re Frye, 216 B.R. 166, 174 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1997). 

Case 17-34078-KRH Doc 97 Filed 07/11/22 Entered 07/11/22 16:20:37 Desc Main

Document Page 11 of 13
12 

These factors include: (a) the probability of success in litigation; (b) the potential difficulties, if 

any, in collection; (c) the complexity of the litigation involved and the expense, inconveniences 

and delays necessarily attending it; and (d) the paramount interest of the creditors. Id. (citations 

omitted). These factors help the Court determine whether it should approve the proposed 

compromise as fair and equitable to the creditors of the estate. Martin v. Kane (In re A & C 

Properties), 784 F.2d 1377 (9th Cir. 1986); Drexel, Burnham, Lambert, Inc. v. Flight 

Transportation Corp. (In re Flight Transportation Corp. Securities Litigation), 730 F.2d 1128 (8th 

Cir. 1984); In re Jackson Brewing Co., 624 F.2d 605 (5th Cir. 1980); see also In re Austin, 186 

B.R. 397 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1995) (discussing factors to approve settlements). 

15. The Trustee conducted a cost-benefit analysis regarding these matters, including 

the costs associated with further litigation and collection efforts and the implications of his success, 

and has concluded the compromise is fair, reasonable, and serves the best interests of the estate 

and the creditors. In consideration of the probability of success in further collection efforts, the 

complexity of the litigation and the attending expense, inconveniences and delays, and the 

paramount interest of the creditors, the Court finds that the compromise is fair and reasonable. The 

Court adopts and approves of the Trustee’s business judgment to enter into the compromise. 

16. Notice of the Motion was properly served on all parties in interest pursuant to Rule 

2002 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure. 

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED THAT: 

1. The Motion is granted and the Settlement is approved. 

2. The Trustee is authorized to take all necessary actions and execute all required 

documents to consummate the terms of any agreements executed in connection with the 

Settlement. 

Case 17-34078-KRH Doc 97 Filed 07/11/22 Entered 07/11/22 16:20:37 Desc Main

Document Page 12 of 13
13 

3. Upon entry of this order, the Defendants shall immediately remit the Settlement 

proceeds to the Trustee. 

4. To the extent the Trustee requires legal assistance in enforcing this Settlement, Ms. 

McCormack and Shoreline shall be jointly and severally liable for reimbursing the Trustee’s legal 

fees and costs associated with such enforcement efforts. 

5. The Court retains jurisdiction to resolve any issues arising in connection with the 

Settlement. 

6. All necessary parties shall receive a copy of this Order via the Court’s ECF system. 

ENTERED: _________ 

 UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT JUDGE 

Order submitted by: 

 /s/ Jeremy S. Williams 

KUTAK ROCK LLP 

Jeremy S. Williams (VSB No. 77469) 

901 E Byrd Street Suite 1000 

Richmond, Virginia 23219 

Telephone: (804) 644-1700 

Facsimile: (804) 783-6192 

Jeremy.Williams@kutakrock.com 

 Counsel to Peter J. Barrett, Trustee 

CERTIFICATION UNDER LOCAL BANKRUPTCY RULE 9022-1(C) 

Pursuant to Local Bankruptcy Rule 9022-1(C), I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the 

foregoing proposed order has been endorsed by or served upon all necessary parties. 

 

/s/ Jeremy S. Williams

 

Case 17-34078-KRH Doc 97 Filed 07/11/22 Entered 07/11/22 16:20:37 Desc Main

Document Page 13 of 13