UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION 

In Re: Highland Capital Management, L.P. § Case No. 19-34054-SGJ-11 

The Charitable DAF Fund LP § 

 Appellant § 22-03052 

vs. § 

Highland Capital Management, L.P. § 

 Appellee § 3:22-CV-02280-S

[43] Order granting amended motion to dismiss adversary proceeding with prejudice (related 

document # 19) Entered on 9/30/2022 

MINI RECORD 

VOLUME 1 

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 1 of 48 PageID 46
BTXN 101 (rev. 10/02)

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

In Re: §

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Highland Capital Management, L.P.

Debtor(s)

 Case No.: 19−34054−sgj11

 Chapter No.: 11

The Charitable DAF Fund LP

Appellant(s) Adversary No.: 22−03052−sgj

 vs.

Highland Capital Management LP Civil Action No.: 3:22−CV−02280−S

Appellee(s)

INDEX OF RECORD FOR THE PURPOSE OF APPEAL

Page No. Item Description

Appellant Index

000001 Notice of appeal

000004 Appealed order

000032 Adv docket sheet

DATED: 12/5/22 FOR THE COURT:

Robert P. Colwell, Clerk of Court

by: /s/J. Blanco, Deputy Clerk

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 2 of 48 PageID 47
Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 3 of 48 PageID 48
Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 4 of 48 PageID 49
Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 5 of 48 PageID 50
Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 6 of 48 PageID 51
Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 7 of 48 PageID 52
Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 8 of 48 PageID 53
Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 9 of 48 PageID 54
1

SBAITI & COMPANY PLLC

Mazin A. Sbaiti (TX Bar No. 24058096)

Jonathan Bridges (TX Bar No. 24028835)

J.P. Morgan Chase Tower

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4900W

Dallas, TX 75201

T: (214) 432-2899

F: (214) 853-4367

Counsel for The Charitable DAF Fund, L.P.

and CLO Holdco, Ltd.

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

In re:

HIGHLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P.,

Debtor.

§

§

§

§

§

§

Chapter 11

Case No. 19-34054-sgj11

THE CHARITABLE DAF FUND, L.P. §

§

Plaintiff, § Adversary Proceeding No.

§

vs. § 22-03052-sgj

§

HIGHLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, L.P., §

§

Defendant. §

_______________________________________________ §

NOTICE OF APPEAL AND STATEMENT OF ELECTION

Part 1: Identify the appellant(s)

1. Name(s) of appellant(s):

The Charitable DAF Fund, L.P.

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 46 Filed 10/05/22 Entered 10/05/22 17:15:54 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 3

000001

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 10 of 48 PageID 55
2

2. Position of appellant(s) in the adversary proceeding or bankruptcy case that is the subject of 

this appeal:

For appeals in an adversary proceeding: For appeals in a bankruptcy case and not in

x Plaintiff an adversary proceeding:

□ Defendant □ Debtor

□ Other (describe) □ Creditor

______________________________ □ Trustee

□ Other (describe)

Part 2: Identify the subject of this appeal

1. Describe the judgment, order, or decree appealed from:

Order Granting Defendant’s Amended Motion to Dismiss Adversary Proceeding 

[Doc. 43]

2. State the date on which the judgment, order, or decree was entered: September 30, 2022

Part 3: Identify the other parties to the appeal

List the names of all parties to the judgment, order, or decree appealed from and the names, 

addresses, and telephone numbers of their attorneys:

1. Party/Appellee: Debtor: Highland Capital Management, L.P.

Attorney:

PACHULSKI STANG ZIEHL & JONES LLP

Jeffery N. Pomerantz

John A. Morris

Gregory V. Demo

Hayley R. Winograd

10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 13th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90067

T: (310) 277-6910

F: (212) 561-7777

And

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 46 Filed 10/05/22 Entered 10/05/22 17:15:54 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 3

000002

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 11 of 48 PageID 56
3

Hayward & Associates PLLC

Melissa S. Hayward

Zachery Z. Annable

10501 N. Central Expy. Ste. 106

Dallas, TX 75231

T: (972) 755-7100

F: (972) 755-7110

2. Party/Appellants: Plaintiffs: The Charitable DAF Fund, L.P.

Attorney:

SBAITI & COMPANY PLLC

Mazin A. Sbaiti (TX Bar No. 24058096)

Jonathan Bridges (TX Bar No. 24028835)

J.P. Morgan Chase Tower

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4900W

Dallas, TX 75201

T: (214) 432-2899

F: (214) 853-4367

Part 4: Optional election to have appeal heard by District Court (applicable only in certain 

districts): Not applicable.

Dated: October 5, 2022 Respectfully submitted,

SBAITI & COMPANY PLLC

/s/ Mazin A. Sbaiti

Mazin A. Sbaiti

Texas Bar No. 24058096

Jonathan Bridges

Texas Bar No. 24028835

JPMorgan Chase Tower

2200 Ross Avenue – Suite 4900W

Dallas, TX 75201

T: (214) 432-2899

F: (214) 853-4367

E: mas@sbaitilaw.com

jeb@sbaitilaw.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 46 Filed 10/05/22 Entered 10/05/22 17:15:54 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 3

000003

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 12 of 48 PageID 57
 

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DALLAS DIVISION 

IN RE: § 

 § 

HIGHLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT § CASE NO. 19-34054-SGJ-11 

L.P., § (CHAPTER 11) 

 REORGANIZED DEBTOR. § 

______________________________________ § 

CHARITABLE DAF FUND, L.P., § 

 § 

 PLAINTIFF § 

 § 

VS. § ADVERSARY NO. 22-03052 

 § 

HIGHLAND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, § 

L.P., § 

 § 

 DEFENDANT § 

 

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S AMENDED 

MOTION TO DISMISS ADVERSARY PROCEEDING 

[DE ## 19, 20, 21, & 32]1

1 “DE # ___” as used herein refers to the Docket Number at which a pleading appears in the docket maintained by 

the Bankruptcy Clerk in Adv. Proc. No. 22-03052. Here, DE ## 19, 20 & 21 refer to the Amended Motion to 

Dismiss, the Brief in Support, and the Appendix in Support filed by the Defendant (the “Original Appendix”). 

Signed September 30, 2022

______________________________________________________________________

The following constitutes the ruling of the court and has the force and effect therein described.

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 28

000004

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 13 of 48 PageID 58
2 

I. INTRODUCTION 

The above-referenced action (“Action”) was originally commenced in the United States 

District Court for the Northern District of Texas (“District Court”) and was thereafter referred to 

the bankruptcy court (“Bankruptcy Court”).2

 

In the Action, a Plaintiff seeks damages and other relief from a former Chapter 11 debtor, 

pertaining to business conduct undertaken by the debtor, during the course of its Chapter 11 

bankruptcy case (“Bankruptcy Case”)—conduct that allegedly harmed the Plaintiff. The Action 

was filed after confirmation of the Debtor’s plan, but before the effective date of the plan occurred. 

The former debtor-in-possession (now a reorganized debtor) moves for dismissal of the 

Action, arguing primarily that the filing of the Action in District Court was an improper means 

for pursuing a post-petition administrative claim against a chapter 11 debtor. There was a welldefined process for pursuing administrative expense claims in the Bankruptcy Case—of which the 

Plaintiff received ample notice—and the Plaintiff ignored that process, choosing instead to embark 

on post-confirmation litigation in the District Court. The former debtor-in-possession also argues 

Additionally, DE # 32 refers to the Defendant’s Amended Appendix in Support of Amended Motion to Dismiss, that 

merely added two more exhibits to Defendant’s Original Appendix—new Exhs. 21 & 22. See also DE # 30 (the 

Response of the Plaintiff) and DE # 31 (the Reply of the Defendant). Notably, at the oral argument on the Amended 

Motion to Dismiss, the court ruled that only Exhs. 1-13, 17, 21, and 22 would be considered by the court. All of 

these exhibits, except Exh. 17, were items on the Bankruptcy Court’s docket of which this court may take judicial 

notice in the context of a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss. Although a court generally limits its inquiry on a Rule 12(b) 

motion to dismiss to a plaintiff’s complaint or any documents attached to the complaint, a court may also take 

judicial notice of matters that are part of the public record when considering a motion to dismiss. See, e.g., T.L. 

Dallas (Special Risks), Ltd. v. Elton Porter Marine Ins., No. 4:07–cv–0419, 2008 WL 7627807, at *2 (S.D. Tex. 

2008); Cade v. Henderson, No. CIV A 01-943, 2001 WL 1012251, at *2 (E.D. La. Aug. 31, 2001). As to Exh. 17, it 

was a short Declaration of Defendant’s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), James Seery, dealing solely with the Rule 

12(b)(1) standing (i.e., lack of subject matter jurisdiction) issue, and there was no objection to Exh. 17 being 

considered by the court. See DE # 41, Transcript of oral argument on the Amended Motion to Dismiss (“8/3/22 

Transcript”), at 3:22–5:17. 

2 The referral occurred by virtue of an order entered by Judge David C. Godbey on May 19, 2022, in Civil Action # 

3:21-cv-01710-N. See DE # 32, Ex. 13, Appx. 477-79. 

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 28

000005

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 14 of 48 PageID 59
3 

that—in addition to Plaintiff’s procedural problems—that Plaintiff lacks standing to pursue its 

claims. 

A. The Parties 

The movant is the Defendant, Highland Capital Management, L.P., now a reorganized 

debtor (“Highland” or “Reorganized Debtor”). Highland is the sole defendant. The allegedly 

actionable conduct of Highland occurred in August 2020 (mid-way through its Chapter 11 case). 

The Bankruptcy Court entered an order confirming Highland’s Chapter 11 plan, on February 22, 

2021. Highland’s plan went effective on August 11, 2021. The Action was filed on July 22, 2021, 

some seven months after entry of the Bankruptcy Court’s confirmation order but just before the 

effective date. 

The respondent, the Plaintiff, is an entity known as Charitable DAF Fund, L.P. (“Plaintiff” 

or “Plaintiff/DAF”).3

 Plaintiff is a limited partnership hedge fund, organized in the Cayman 

Islands, that purports to have charitable purposes (i.e., it is designated as a “donor advised fund”), 

and was originally seeded with funds from Highland.4

 Plaintiff purports to now act through an 

3 Notably, this is Plaintiff/DAF’s second time to sue Highland, post-confirmation, regarding Highland’s alleged 

post-petition mismanagement or misconduct during its Chapter 11 case. See Adv. Proc. # 21-3067 styled Charitable 

DAF Fund, L.P. et al. v. Highland Capital Management, L.P., et al, (Bankr. N.D. Tex.) (hereinafter, the “First DAF 

Post-Confirmation Lawsuit Against Highland”). The First DAF Post-Confirmation Lawsuit against Highland was 

also filed in the United States District Court (Judge Jane Boyle) and then was referred by Judge Boyle to the 

Bankruptcy Court. That lawsuit challenged the legality of Highland’s conduct in entering into a compromise and 

settlement agreement during the Bankruptcy Case (with Bankruptcy Court approval) with an entity known as 

HarbourVest. The Bankruptcy Court dismissed the First DAF Post-Confirmation Lawsuit Against Highland on 

March 11, 2022 (based on estoppel grounds and declining to reach other grounds possibly warranting dismissal). 

Finally, this court notes that an entity known as Dugaboy Investment Trust—a family trust of which Highland’s 

former CEO, James Dondero, and/or his family members are beneficiaries —earlier, on June 23, 2021, filed a 

District Court action based on the very same allegations that are asserted in this present Action but later voluntarily 

dismissed such action. DE # 32, Exh. 22, Appx. 781. See also 8/3/22 Transcript at 10:13. 4 See DE # 99 entered in the First DAF Post-Confirmation Lawsuit Against Highland, Adv. Proc. # 21-3067, at p.2.

As referenced earlier, although a court generally limits its inquiry on a motion to dismiss to the plaintiff’s complaint 

or any documents attached to the complaint, a court may also take judicial notice of matters that are part of the 

public record when considering a motion to dismiss. See authorities mentioned in footnote 1, supra.

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 28

000006

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 15 of 48 PageID 60
4 

individual named Mark Patrick5—a former Highland employee who now works for entities 

controlled by or associated with James Dondero, Highland’s founder and former CEO. 

B. The Allegedly Actionable Conduct. 

Plaintiff represents in its Complaint that it was an investor in a non-debtor entity known as 

“Multi Strat.” Multi Strat was controlled by Highland—in that Highland was Multi Strat’s 

investment manager and ultimate majority equity owner.6

 In its Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that 

Highland, during its Bankruptcy Case, breached contractual and extra-contractual duties to 

Plaintiff, as an alleged investor in “Multi Strat”—supposedly causing Plaintiff harm. The pith of 

the Complaint deals with Multi Strat’s previous ownership of a pool of “viaticals.” Viaticals are 

life insurance policies, insuring the lives of various random individuals, that have been purchased, 

with the purchaser taking over the payment of premiums on such policies, such that when the 

individual dies, the life insurance proceeds are paid to the purchaser/owner of the policies (in this 

case, Multistrat). Distilled to its essence, Plaintiff’s argument is that Highland—acting as Multi 

Strat’s investment manager—caused the sale of Multi Strat’s pool of viaticals, during the Chapter 

11 case (in August 2020), pursuant to a flawed process, at a price that Plaintiff believes was too 

low, and subject to other improprieties. To be clear, the sale was not subject to a Section 363 sale 

motion or court order, since Multi Strat’s assets (i.e., the viaticals) were not property of the estate. 

The Complaint must be dismissed, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (b)(6) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure (the “FRCP”), made applicable to this Action by Rule 7012(b) of the 

Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “FRBP”), for at least two reasons. First, the causes 

5 Until at least mid-January 2021, Grant Scott, James Dondero’s life-long friend and college roommate, was the sole 

director of Plaintiff/DAF. See DE # 99, entered in the First DAF Post-Confirmation Lawsuit Against Highland, Adv. 

Proc. # 21-3067, at p. 3. Mark Patrick was installed as the new control person at some point thereafter in 2021. DE 

# 32, Exh. 22, Appx. 790.

6

 It is undisputed that Highland was both the investment manager of and majority investor in Multi Strat. 

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 28

000007

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 16 of 48 PageID 61
5 

of action asserted in the Complaint—that Highland breached its contractual and extra-contractual 

duties to Plaintiff during the Chapter 11 case—would, if meritorious, have been “administrative 

expense claims” and, under the terms of the Plan, were required to be filed with the Bankruptcy 

Court and served on Highland no later than September 25, 2021. Despite these Plan 

requirements—of which Plaintiff received notice—Plaintiff asserted its claims through this Action 

in the District Court. That decision must be deemed fatal, and Plaintiff’s claims are now timebarred. Second, Plaintiff has now acknowledged in its response to Highland’s Amended Motion 

to Dismiss that it is not an investor in Multi Strat. Rather, its subsidiary, an entity known as “CLO 

Holdco” is (“CLO Holdco” is apparently a 4.06% equity owner of Multi Strat). Regardless of 

Plaintiff’s reasons for filing the Complaint in its own name, rather than in the name of its subsidiary 

CLO Holdco (and this court can only speculate),7

 the result is the same. Plaintiff itself lacks 

standing to assert the claims in the Complaint, for the reasons further described herein, and this 

Court accordingly lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the claims asserted in the Complaint. Moreover, 

allowing substitution of CLO Holdco as a plaintiff at this point in time (if a motion pursuant to 

Rules 15 and 17 of the FRCP were to be made) would be futile, since the real problem here is the 

failure to follow the Plan and Bankruptcy Code’s required procedures for pursuing an 

administrative expense claim. Accordingly, the Complaint must be dismissed. 

7 The court notes that CLO Holdco was very active in the Highland Bankruptcy Case, including objecting to the 

Plan. See DE ## 1675 and 1797 in the main Highland Bankruptcy Case. Its 100% parent, Plaintiff/DAF, on the 

contrary, was not nominally—although Plaintiff/DAF, as 100% parent to CLO Holdco, would have necessarily been 

giving directions to CLO Holdco during the Bankruptcy Case. The court cannot help but speculate that Plaintiff was 

trying to avert estoppel arguments that might have been made if CLO Holdco had filed this Action—given its active 

litigation of the Plan. In any event, as described herein, this Action fails for other reasons more fundamental than 

estoppel. 

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 28

000008

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 17 of 48 PageID 62
6 

II. UNDISPUTED FACTS

A. Relevant Dates and Deadlines in the Highland Bankruptcy Case

On October 16, 2019 (the “Petition Date”), Highland commenced a voluntary petition 

under chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. 

On February 22, 2021, after months of contentiousness and various sessions of mediation 

with professional mediators—which successfully led to resolution of certain large creditor 

claims—the Bankruptcy Court entered an Order (i) Confirming the Fifth Amended Plan of 

Reorganization (as Modified) and (ii) Granting Related Relief (the “Confirmation Order”),8

 which 

confirmed the Fifth Amended Plan of Reorganization of Highland Capital Management, L.P (as 

Modified) (the “Plan”).9

Notably, the Plan contained customary language incorporating section 1141(d)(1)(A) of 

the Bankruptcy Code and releasing the Debtor from pre-confirmation liabilities of any kind: 

Except as otherwise expressly provided by this Plan or the Confirmation 

Order, upon the Effective Date, the Debtor and its Estate will be deemed discharged 

and released under and to the fullest extent provided under section 1141(d)(1)(A) 

and other applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code from any and all Claims 

and Equity Interests of any kind or nature whatsoever, including, but not limited to, 

demands and liabilities that arose before the Confirmation Date, and all debts of 

the kind specified in section 502(g), 502(h), or 502(i) of the Bankruptcy Code.10

 

Section 1141(d(1)(A), in turn, provides that the confirmation of a plan “discharges the 

debtor from any debt that arose before the date of such confirmation.” 11 U.S.C. § 1141(d)(1)(A). 

To be clear, this did not leave parties without a remedy to assert possible post-petition, preconfirmation claims. In that regard, the Plan contained customary definitions and other provisions 

8

 DE # 32, Exh. 3, Appx. 19-180. 

9 Id., Exh. 4, Appx. 181-247. 10 Id., Exh. 4, Appx. 235 (emphasis added). 

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 28

000009

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 18 of 48 PageID 63
7 

regarding the filing and adjudication of “administrative expense claims.” These provisions, 

summarized below, are key to the disputes in this Action. 

First, as is typical for a Chapter 11 plan, there was a “Defined Term” for “Administrative 

Expense Claim” as follows: 

“Administrative Expense Claim” means any Claim for costs and expenses 

of administration of the Chapter 11 Case that is Allowed pursuant to sections 

503(b), 507(a)(2), 507(b) or 1114(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, including, without 

limitation, (a) the actual and necessary costs and expenses incurred after the Petition 

Date and through the Effective Date of preserving the Estate and operating the 

business of the Debtor . . . and that have not already been paid by the Debtor during 

the Chapter 11 Case . . .. 11

Second, the Plan further provided that: 

If an Administrative Expense Claim ... is not paid by the Debtor in the 

ordinary course, the Holder of such Administrative Expense Claim must File, on 

or before the applicable Administrative Expense Claims Bar Date, and serve on the 

Debtor or Reorganized Debtor, as applicable ... an application for allowance and 

payment of such Administrative Expense Claim.12

There was a defined term for “File” in the Plan as follows: 

“File” or “Filed” or “Filing” means file, filed, or filing with the Bankruptcy 

Court or its authorized designee in the Chapter 11 Case. 13

Finally, there was a defined term for Administrative Expense Bar Date as follows: 

“Administrative Expense Claims Bar Date” means, with respect to any 

Administrative Expense Claim (other than a Professional Fee Claim) becoming due 

on or prior to the Effective Date, 5:00 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) on such date 

that is forty-five days after the Effective Date.

14 

 

11 Id., Appx. 189. 12 Id., Appx. 204 (emphasis added). 13 Id., Appx. 196 (note that the reference to the “authorized designee” for the Bankruptcy Court in the Chapter 11 

Case would have been a reference to Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC (“KCC”), the claims and noticing agent in 

the above-captioned case, which, among other things, maintained the proof of claim register in the case for 

prepetition claims). 14 Id., Appx. 189 (emphasis added).

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 28

000010

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 19 of 48 PageID 64
8 

On August 11, 2021, the Plan became effective. On August 11, 2021, Highland filed the 

Notice of Occurrence of Effective Date of Confirmed Fifth Amended Plan of Reorganization of 

Highland Capital Management, L.P. (the “Notice of Effective Date”),15 clearly disclosing that the 

“Effective Date” (as defined in the Plan) had occurred on August 11, 2021. 

Consistent with the Plan, the Notice of Effective Date disclosed in bold, capitalized letters, 

that all “administrative expense claims” were required to be filed no later than 45 days after the 

Effective Date (i.e., September 25, 2021): 

PLEASE TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, except with respect to 

Administrative Expense Claims that are Professional Fee Claims or as otherwise 

set forth in the Plan, requests for payment of an Administrative Expense Claim must 

be Filed with the Bankruptcy Court no later than forty-five (45) days after the 

Effective Date (the “Administrative Expense Claims Bar Date”). HOLDERS OF 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CLAIMS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO 

FILE AND SERVE A REQUEST FOR PAYMENT OF SUCH 

ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CLAIMS BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE 

EXPENSE CLAIMS BAR DATE THAT DO NOT FILE AND SERVE SUCH 

A REQUEST BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CLAIMS BAR 

DATE SHALL BE FOREVER BARRED, ESTOPPED, AND ENJOINED 

FROM ASSERTING SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE CLAIMS 

AGAINST THE DEBTOR OR THE REORGANIZED DEBTOR.

16 

Highland served the Notice of Effective Date via at least First-Class Mail on 

Plaintiff/DAF.17 It is undisputed that Plaintiff/DAF did not file an administrative expense claim 

with the Bankruptcy Court, nor did it serve one on the Reorganized Debtor by the bar date. 

However, on July 22, 2021, seven months after entry of the Confirmation Order (and prior 

to the Administrative Expense Claim Bar Date), Plaintiff commenced this Action against Highland 

15 Id., Exh. 7, Appx. 269-73. 16 Id., Appx. 271 (emphasis in original). 17Id., Exh. 8, Appx. 310. The court also notes that CLO Holdco’s counsel received electronic Notice of the Effective 

Date, id. at Appx. 278, as well as notice by First-Class Mail, id., at Appx. 282, and CLO Holdco itself received 

Notice of the Effective Date by First-Class Mail, id. at Appx. 312-313 at numerous addresses. The court takes 

judicial notice that the Plan itself was also served on CLO Holdco and its counsel. See DE #1630, in the main 

Highland Bankruptcy Case, at Exh. S, p.25 of 139, and at Exh. V, p. 1 of 3. 

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 8 of 28

000011

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 20 of 48 PageID 65
9 

by filing an Original Complaint (the “Complaint”) in the District Court.18 It is undisputed that 

Plaintiff/DAF also never served the Complaint on Highland.19 

The Complaint alleged that Highland, under the direction of its new, independent CEO, 

James P. Seery, Jr.—appointed pursuant to a corporate governance agreement between Highland 

and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors (and approved by the Bankruptcy Court)—

violated the contractual and extra-contractual duties that Highland owed to Plaintiff/DAF as an 

alleged investor in the entity known as Multi Strat and that Plaintiff/DAF was harmed thereby.20 

As noted in the Introduction herein, Multi Strat was a vehicle that purchased and owned a pool of 

viaticals—that is, life insurance policies keyed to the lives of various individuals. Multi Strat paid 

the premiums on the policies, and when an insured person died, the life insurance money would 

be paid to the owner of the policy—in this case, Multi Strat. 

Highland’s alleged misconduct occurred during the spring and summer of 2020, i.e., after 

the Petition Date while Highland was a debtor-in-possession.21 The contracts allegedly breached 

were assumed by Highland pursuant to the Plan.22 

B. The Substance of the Complaint; More About “Multi Strat”

The Complaint sets forth three causes of action premised on conduct in which Highland 

allegedly engaged post-petition: (a) First Cause of Action—Highland’s alleged violation of the 

Investment Advisers Act of 1940;23 (b) Second Cause of Action—Highland’s alleged breach of 

18Id., Exh. 5, Appx. 248-59. 19 See 8/3/22 Transcript, at 28:2-11. 20DE # 32, Exh. 5, Appx. 252-58. 21Id., Appx. 251. 22Id., Exh. 4, Appx. 224-25; Exh. 6, Appx. 262, 264. 23 Although no statutory cite is given, the Plaintiff apparently refers to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, codified 

at 15 U.S.C. § 80b-1 through 80b21, which is the primary source of regulation of investment advisers and is 

administered by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The court notes that the United States Supreme 

Court has held in Transamerica Mortg. Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 19 (1979) that there is not a private 

right of action for damages under the Investment Advisers Act. Specifically, an investor may seek to void an 

investment adviser contract (i.e., essentially allowing a suit for rescission or for an injunction against continued 

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 9 of 28

000012

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 21 of 48 PageID 66
10 

fiduciary duty;24 and (c) Third Cause of Action—Highland’s alleged breach of contract.25 The 

various conduct of Highland is described as: (1) selling the viatical pool of Multi Strat at a 

distressed price (i.e., $35 million) when it was not in distress and there was allegedly no need for 

Multi Strat to sell; (2) concealing the information about the transaction from the Plaintiff; (3) 

failing to advise the Plaintiff of the opportunity to purchase the viatical pool—especially when it 

knew the Plaintiff had an interest in the pool and had the means of purchasing it for more cash 

than $35 million; (4) allegedly concealing the purpose behind the sale of the viatical pool and 

conflicts of interest; (5) allegedly causing the viatical pool to be sold in a manner that violated the 

rights of the Plaintiff as an investor in Multi Strat (e.g., by failing to conduct an auction, obtaining 

competitive bids and taking the pool to market); and (6) utilizing the sale proceeds for its own 

ends—namely, to enrich itself. 

The entity at the heart of the Complaint—Multi Strat—is what is known in the investment 

community as a pooled investment fund structured as a “mini master.” It actually consists of 

Highland Multi Strategy Credit Fund, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership (the “Master Fund”), 

and Highland Multi Strategy Credit Fund, Ltd., a Cayman Island exempted company (the “Feeder 

Fund”). The Master Fund and the Feeder Fund are collectively referred to as “Multi Strat.” 

Highland Multi Strategy Credit Fund GP, L.P., itself a Delaware limited partnership, is the general 

operation of the contract, and for restitution), but not seek actual monetary damages. That being said, it appears that 

the relief sought by Plaintiff for this cause of action is as follows: “Plaintiff seeks to declare the sale of the viaticals 

void because they were accomplished in violation of the Advisers Act” and “Plaintiff further seeks to declare the 

agreement(s) between Highland and Multistrat void because they were continued in violation of the Advisers Act.” 

Complaint, id. at Exh. 5, Appx. 254. 24 Here, the Plaintiff appears to invoke both the Investment Advisers Act as well as Texas law—clearly seeking 

monetary damages including punitive damages.

25Id., Exh. 5, Appx. 252-58. Here, the Plaintiff invokes the Third Amended and Restated Investment Management 

Agreement, effective November 1, 2013 (the “IMA”) between Highland and Multi Strat. 

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 10 of 28

000013

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 22 of 48 PageID 67
11 

partner of Multi Strat, which is wholly owned by Highland Multi Strategy Credit GP, LLC, which 

is, in turn, wholly owned by Highland.26 

The equity ownership interests of the limited partners in Multi Strat are somewhat complex 

but, put simply, on a consolidated basis, Highland owns 58.7% of the limited partnership interests 

in Multi Strat and the entity known as CLO Holdco, Ltd. (“CLO Holdco”) owns 4.06% of the 

limited partnership interests. Notably, CLO Holdco is a subsidiary of Plaintiff/DAF, but, as 

noted earlier, it is undisputed that Plaintiff/DAF itself is not an investor or equity owner of any 

sort of Multi Strat.

27 

Also, notably, the only other owners of Multi Strat are: The Dugaboy Investment Trust 

(1.71%);28 Highland Capital Management Services, Inc. (35.10%), and Mark Okada (.43%).29 The 

Dugaboy interest is notable for the following reason: Dugaboy filed a proof of claim during the 

Highland Bankruptcy Case that, while vague, appears to have been based on the very same theories 

espoused by the Plaintiff/DAF in this Action. Specifically, it stated: 

The Dugaboy Investment Trust (“Claimant”), an investor in certain funds 

managed by the Debtor, including Highland Multi-Strategy Credit Fund, L.P. and 

Highland Multi-Strategy Credit Fund, Ltd., may have claims against the Debtor 

relating to the post-petition actions or inactions of the fund investment manager in 

managing these funds pursuant to Debtor’s Fourth Amended and Restated Limited 

Partnership Agreement and that certain Third Amended and Restated Investment 

Management Agreement by and between Highland Multi-Strategy Credit Fund, 

L.P., Highland Multi-Strategy Credit Fund, Ltd., and the Debtor, as amended from 

time to time. While the potential claims relate to the post-petition actions or 

inactions of the fund investment manager, Claimant is filing this claim to preserve 

26 Id. at Exh. 17, Appx. 592-93. The Master Fund’s governing document is known as the Fourth Amended and 

Restated Limited Partnership Agreement of Highland Multi Strategy Credit Fund, L.P., dated November 1, 2014 

(the “LPA”). The Feeder Fund’s governing document is known as the Amended and Restated Memorandum and 

Articles of Association of Highland Multi Strategy Credit Fund, Ltd., as adopted on November 1, 2014 (the 

“Articles”). Highland’s obligations as investment manager are set forth in a document known as the Third Amended 

and Restated Investment Management Agreement, by and among Highland Multi Strategy Credit Fund, Ltd., 

Highland Multi Strategy Credit Fund, L.P., and Highland Capital Management, L.P., dated November 1, 2013 (the 

“IMA”). 

27 Id. at Exh. 17, Appx. 592-93. 28 It is undisputed that Dugaboy is a family trust of former Highland CEO, James Dondero. 29 Id. at Exh. 17, Appx. 592-93. 

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 11 of 28

000014

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 23 of 48 PageID 68
12 

all potential rights, claims, and causes of action it may have against the Debtor 

under these prepetition agreements relating to the investment manager’s actions or 

inactions in managing these funds.30

The Dugaboy proof of claim was signed and submitted by an individual named Grant Scott, 

the then-Trustee of Dugaboy. Grant Scott was also the then-Trustee of CLO Holdco, the 100% 

subsidiary of Plaintiff/DAF. This proof of claim was later withdrawn. 

Dugaboy also filed a District Court lawsuit against Highland (post-confirmation and preEffective Date, on June 23, 2021)31 raising these very same issues, which it later dismissed. 

 

III. LEGAL ANALYSIS

A. Jurisdiction and Legal Standards 

Bankruptcy subject matter jurisdiction exists with regard to this Action, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1334(b). The Action presents “arising in” or “arising under” core matters, pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A) and (B)—as it involves claims that were asserted against a Chapter 11 

Debtor (before the effective date of its plan) and the application of sections 503 and 507 of the 

Bankruptcy Code. Moreover, the Action requires interpretation of the now-effective Plan of the 

Reorganized Debtor and application of section 1141(d)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. Therefore, the 

Bankruptcy Court may enter final orders in this matter. Moreover, the District Court has referred 

this Action to the Bankruptcy Court. 

 The Reorganized Debtor’s Amended Motion to Dismiss argues grounds for dismissal, 

pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(1) (i.e., lack of subject matter jurisdiction—due to lack of standing of the 

Plaintiff) and FRCP 12(b)6) (i.e., failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted). 

30 Id. at Exh. 1, Appx. 6. 31 Id. at Exh. 2, Appx, 8-18.

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 12 of 28

000015

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 24 of 48 PageID 69
13 

With regard to the Rule 12(b)(1) argument, the applicable legal standards are set forth in 

detail in part III.E. of this Opinion. With regard to Rule 12(b)(6), to survive a motion to dismiss 

pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), a plaintiff must plead “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is 

plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). See also Ashcroft v. 

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009). Dismissal is proper under Rule 12(b)(6) when, taking the facts 

alleged in the complaint as true, it appears that the plaintiff “cannot prove any set of facts that 

would entitle it to the relief it seeks.” C.C. Port, Ltd. v. Davis-Penn Mortg. Co., 61 F.3d 288, 289 

(5th Cir. 1995). As set forth below, here, more than anything else, Plaintiff/DAF’s problem is that 

its claims are barred for failure to proceed according to the Plan requirements and because of 

section 1141(d)(1)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code. As earlier noted, the court may take judicial notice 

of matters of public record when considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See, 

e.g., T.L. Dallas (Special Risks), Ltd. v. Elton Porter Marine Ins., No. 4:07–cv–0419, 2008 WL 

7627807, at *2 (S.D. Tex. 2008); Cade v. Henderson, No. CIV A 01-943, 2001 WL 1012251, at 

*2 (E.D. La. Aug. 31, 2001). 

B. Plaintiff’s Claims Asserted in the Action, if Valid, Would Constitute “Administrative 

Expense Claims” 

Starting with the basics, an “Administrative Expense Claim” is not merely a concept 

defined in the Debtor’s Plan. It is a significant concept in the Bankruptcy Code. Section 507(a)(2) 

of the Bankruptcy Code establishes that administrative expenses incurred in bankruptcy are to be 

given priority in distribution such that they are generally paid in full before other unsecured nonpriority claims. See 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(2). These administrative expenses include “the actual, 

necessary costs and expenses of preserving the estate ....” 11 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(A). To qualify 

as an “‘actual and necessary cost’ under section 503(b)(1)(A), a claim against the estate must have 

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 13 of 28

000016

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 25 of 48 PageID 70
14 

arisen post-petition and as a result of actions taken by the trustee [or debtor-in-possession] that 

benefited the estate.” See Nabors Offshore Corp. v. Whistler Energy II, L.L.C. (In re Whistler 

Energy II, L.L.C.), 931 F.3d 432, 441 (5th Cir. 2019) (citing Total Minatome Corp. v. Jack/Wade 

Drilling, Inc. (In re Jack/Wade Drilling, Inc.), 258 F.3d 385, 387 (5th Cir. 2001)). 

Notwithstanding the “benefited the estate” concept that has been articulated in case law, an 

exception was created by the United States Supreme Court many years ago (in the context of a 

“Chapter XI arrangement” case under the former Bankruptcy Act of 1898), in a situation in which 

damages were inflicted on innocent third parties through a receiver's (equivalent of a Chapter 11 

trustee or debtor-in-possession today) operation of the debtor's estate. See Reading Co. v. Brown, 

391 U.S. 471, 478-79 (1968). 

In Reading, a building that was being operated by the bankruptcy receiver in a 

reorganization case was destroyed by a fire, and the fire spread to adjoining premises, destroying 

real and personal property of claimant, Reading. Reading argued that the fire was caused by the 

negligence of the receiver and one of his workmen, in the course of operating the debtor's estate 

during a bankruptcy reorganization. See id. at 473–74. The Supreme Court—in grappling with 

what type of a claim Reading might have—held that it would be unfair to force the fire victim to 

share equally with the existing creditors and, thus, granted administrative priority to that claimant. 

See id. at 478 (framing the question as “whether the fire claimants should be subordinated to, 

should share equally with, or should collect ahead of those creditors for whose benefit the 

continued operation of the business ... was allowed”). 

The “Reading exception,” as it has become known, has withstood the test of time and has 

been routinely applied after the enactment of the modern Bankruptcy Code. See, e.g., Jack/Wade 

Drilling, 258 F.3d at 388 (“The Reading exception has survived Congressional amendments to the 

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 14 of 28

000017

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 26 of 48 PageID 71
15 

bankruptcy code and been recognized and applied by nearly every Court of Appeals in the 

nation.”); Texas v. Lowe (In re H.L.S. Energy Co.), 151 F.3d 434, 437 (5th Cir. 1998) (same); In 

re Al Copeland Enters., Inc., 991 F.2d 233, 238-39 (5th Cir. 1993) (same). The Reading case has 

been interpreted broadly to include not just torts, but other negligent or intentional acts committed 

by a debtor-in-possession as giving rise to administrative expense claims. See Al Copeland, 991 

F.2d at 239 (“[T]hose injured during ... administration of an estate are entitled to an administrative 

priority [claim] regardless of whether their injury was caused by a tort or other wrongdoing.”); In 

re Charlesbank Laundry, Inc., 755 F.2d 200, 202 (1st Cir. 1985) (“If fairness dictates that a tort 

claim based on negligence should be paid ahead of pre-reorganization claims, then, a fortiori, an 

intentional action which violates the law and damages others should be so treated”), accord 4 

COLLIERS ON BANKRUPTCY ¶ 503.06[3][c][i] (“Courts have found Reading directly 

applicable to victims of postpetition torts committed by a debtor in possession or trustee. Courts 

have also applied the doctrine to a variety of other postpetition claims”) (citing cases). 

Accordingly, based on the above authority, the claims of Plaintiff, if meritorious, would 

fall into the category of administrative expense claims. Plaintiff specifically alleges that it was 

injured by Highland causing the sale of Multi Strat’s assets during the middle of 2020—after the 

Petition Date, before the Effective Date, and while Highland was a debtor-in-possession—in 

violation of Highland’s alleged contractual and extra-contractual duties owed to Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff’s claims, therefore, would constitute “administrative expense claims” against Highland.

Whistler Energy, 931 F.3d at 443 (discussing circumstances when a party might be entitled to an 

administrative expense claim, regardless of whether there is an assumed or rejected prepetition 

contract, and even when “benefit to the estate” may be less than “readily calculable”; noting 

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 15 of 28

000018

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 27 of 48 PageID 72
16 

sometimes such a claim might simply result as a cost incidental to a debtor’s business operations) 

(citing Reading, 391 U.S. 471). 

C. Requests for Allowance of “Administrative Expense Claims” Were Required to be Filed in 

the Bankruptcy Court by September 25, 2021

As set forth earlier herein, Article II of the Plan dictated the procedures for the filing and 

allowance of “administrative expense claims.” Pursuant to Article II of the Plan, parties seeking 

“administrative expense claims” were required to (i) file those claims with the bankruptcy court 

specifically (not the District Court); and (ii) serve those claims on Highland no later than the 

Administrative Expense Claim Bar Date (i.e., September 25, 2021).32 The Plan and Notice of 

Effective Date make clear that any administrative expense claim not filed with the Bankruptcy 

Court by the Administrative Expense Claim Bar Date would be time-barred. Section 1141(a) 

provides that the provisions of a confirmed plan bind the debtor and any creditor. Eubanks v. Fed. 

Deposit Ins. Corp., 977 F.2d 166, 170–71 (5th Cir. 1992).33 

This court noted in the case of In re Taco Bueno Rests., Inc., 606 B.R. 289, 302-303 (Bankr. 

N.D. Tex. 2019), in addressing the importance of the concept of “timeliness” with regard to 

administrative expense claims, that debtors and reorganized debtors have a keen interest in 

obtaining finality sooner rather than later with regard to administrative expense claims. The reason 

debtors have an interest in such finality derives from the special treatment afforded to 

administrative expense claims. An administrative expense claimant is generally entitled to cash in 

full on the effective date of a plan (or as soon as the claim is allowed thereafter by the bankruptcy 

32 See Exh. 4, Appx. 189, 196, 203-04. 33 See also Hall Fin. Group, Inc., v. DP Partners, L.P, 106 F.3d 667, 672, n.19 (5th Cir. 1997) (bankruptcy judges 

have, for some time, been accorded discretion in setting administrative-claim bar-dates) (citing 3 Collier on 

Bankruptcy ¶ 503.1, at 503–4 n. 2c (Lawrence P. King ed., 15th ed. 1994) (noting that the Bankruptcy Reform Act 

of 1994 sets no time limit for filing administrative claims, and further noting that because nothing in the Bankruptcy 

Rules or Code sets deadlines for filing administrative claims, bankruptcy judges “may set such deadlines on a case 

by case basis”). 

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 16 of 28

000019

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 28 of 48 PageID 73
17 

court). It is a very important event in the bankruptcy case for a reorganized debtor to have a 

deadline for administrative expense claims because administrative claims can pose significant 

feasibility issues for plans. The reorganized debtor needs to be able to ascertain an amount such 

entities must have in cash due to pay administrative expenses. 

There is ample case law that stresses the importance of requiring potential administrative 

expense claimants to follow the mandates of Bankruptcy Code section 503(b) and file a request 

for allowance with the bankruptcy court. See Taco Bueno, 606 B.R. 289 (concluding that utilizing 

a “Proof of Claim” form—i.e., Official Form 410—to make a request for payment of an 

administrative expense, is insufficient to satisfy the requirement under Bankruptcy Code section 

503(a) to timely file and serve a request for payment of an administrative claim by an 

administrative claims bar date; requests for administrative claims have different procedures—

requiring the filing of an application requesting allowance and payment of an administrativeexpense claim on the bankruptcy court's docket).34 See also In re Maxus Energy Corp., 639 B.R. 

51, 64 (Bankr. D. Del. 2022) (claim barred because it was not filed by administrative claim bar 

date and “a claims bar date ‘operates as a federally created statute of limitations, after which the 

claimant loses all of [its] rights to bring an action against the debtor”) (citations omitted); 

Houbigant, Inc. v. ACB Mercantile (In re Houbigant, Inc.), 190 B.R. 185, 188 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 

34 This court noted in Taco Bueno that Congress made the rules and burdens for an administrative expense claim 

very different from those for a proof of claim. Section 503 governs an administrative expense claim. Under § 503, 

the burden at the beginning is on the claimant to show reasonableness, necessity, and benefit to the estate. The 

Bankruptcy Code and the Bankruptcy Rules put a claimant in a completely different posture for an administrative 

expense claim compared to a proof of claim. Requiring that a § 503 administrative expense claim be asserted in an 

application, among other things, ensures that the bankruptcy court will have an opportunity to pass judgment on the 

administrative expense and prevent any unreasonable, unnecessary, and non-beneficial claims from being charged to 

the estate. Creditors ultimately bear the burden of persuasion and production to establish that their claims are, in 

fact, an administrative expense. Allowing creditors to satisfy their burden of production by burying an 

administrative expense in a proof of claim circumvents their statutory burdens and forces the trustee or some other 

interested party to affirmatively raise this administrative expense as objectionable—directly contradicting § 503(b)'s 

express requirement that a claimant, in order to have an administrative expense claim allowed, must make a request 

and give notice to parties in the case and obtain a bankruptcy court hearing. Taco Bueno, 606 B.R. at 302.

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 17 of 28

000020

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 29 of 48 PageID 74
18 

1995) (stressing the importance of filing claims timely in the bankruptcy court before the bar date, 

as opposed to in district court litigation).35

Here, Plaintiff’s alleged causes of action are administrative expense claims and were 

required to be filed with this Bankruptcy Court by the Administrative Expense Claim Bar Date. 

Plaintiff knowingly chose not to file an administrative claim. The filing of the Complaint 

constituted an improper means to pursue a post-petition claim against a chapter 11 debtor. To 

the extent it may have been a defensible strategy at the time the Action was filed (see discussion

in Part III.E below for more on this thought), it certainly became wholly indefensible after the Plan 

went effective. The Plaintiff/DAF received notice and had every reason to know, on or after 

August 11, 2021, that it had one avenue to pursue the claims asserted in the Action—through the 

mechanism of filing an Administrative Expense Claim in the Bankruptcy Court on or before 

September 25, 2021. However, it chose not to go that route. As a result, the Complaint must be 

dismissed. 

Plaintiff/DAF makes a confusing argument that “administrative priority claims” are not 

subject to the Plan because the Plan uses the term “Administrative Expense Claim.”36 Plaintiff 

attempts to create confusion where none exists. As noted earlier, the Plan defines “Administrative 

Expense Claim,” in relevant part, as a: 

Claim for costs and expenses of administration of the Chapter 11 Case ... pursuant 

to sections 503(b), 507(a)(2), 507(b) ... including, without limitation, (a) the actual 

and necessary costs and expense incurred after the Petition Date and through the 

Effective Date of preserving the Estate and operating the business of the Debtor 

....37

35 See also NL Indus., Inc. v. GHR Energy Corp., 940 F.2d 957, 966 (5th Cir. 1991) (case involved a post-petition 

contract between a chapter 11 debtor and an oil field service vendor that went awry and vendor filed a federal 

district court lawsuit during the case for breach of contract and torts; while the lawsuit went forward in the Federal 

District Court, the Fifth Circuit opinion contains discussion stressing the need for the vendor to have filed a request 

for administrative expense claim in the bankruptcy court and giving that as a reason for not allowing the vendor to 

amend its pleading to assert damages not provided for in the debtor’s confirmed plan).

36See DE # 30 (Plaintiff’s Response), at 3-4. 37 DE # 21, Exh. 4, Appx. 189. 

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 18 of 28

000021

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 30 of 48 PageID 75
19 

There is no “distinction” in the Plan between an “administrative priority claim” and an 

“Administrative Expense Claim.” Both would encompass claims arising from the “actual and 

necessary costs and expense” of the debtor-in-possession’s post-petition management. Highland’s 

naming convention did not somehow change the substantive application of the Bankruptcy Code 

or the nature of an administrative expense/priority claim. 

D. The Unsupportability of Plaintiff/DAF’s Eleventh-Hour Request (Through Their Response 

to the Motion to Dismiss Their Action) for the Bankruptcy Court to Excuse Their 

“Technical Non-Compliance” and Deem Complaint to Have Been a Timely Request for 

Allowance of an Administrative Expense Claim 

Plaintiff/DAF argues that the Bankruptcy Court should excuse its “technical” noncompliance and treat its Complaint as a “request for an order permitting a late claim or treating the 

filing of this action as a timely Administrative Expense Claim.”38 While Plaintiff minimizes the 

significance of its failure to comply with the Plan, Confirmation Order, and standard bankruptcy 

protocols—by referring to its failure to file a request for allowance of an administrative expense 

claim in the Bankruptcy Court as “technical” non-compliance—its proposal that the Complaint 

should be deemed such a “request” is procedurally and legally improper. The relief must be sought 

by a separate motion and include evidence of “cause” under section 503(a) of the Bankruptcy Code 

and possibly also “excusable neglect.” Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship,

507 U.S. 380, 394 (1993).39 Here, there is no evidence supporting “cause” (or excusable neglect, 

for that matter), just the following undisputed facts: 

38 DE # 30 (Plaintiff’s Response), at p.5. 39 The Pioneer case dealt with late-filed proofs of claim, for prepetition claims, not requests for allowance of postpetition administrative expense claims. Thus, it is not entirely clear that it governs here. Perhaps, only section 

503(a) “cause” is the standard. 

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 19 of 28

000022

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 31 of 48 PageID 76
20 

• The Plan was confirmed on February 22, 2021 and included clear disclosures about the 

Administrative Expense Claim Bar Date. 

• At a hearing on June 25, 2021, shortly before the Complaint was filed—in a hearing on a 

different matter, in which a different post-petition lawsuit filed in the District Court was being 

discussed (and the Bankruptcy Court expressed concern about it)—Plaintiff’s counsel indicated to 

the Bankruptcy Court that he was receiving advice from bankruptcy counsel on whether postpetition administrative expense claims, like those asserted in the Complaint, could be filed in 

courts other than the Bankruptcy Court.40 

• On July 22, 2021, Plaintiff’s counsel filed (but did not serve) the Complaint—i.e., seven 

months after the Confirmation Order and two months before the Administrative Expense Claim 

Bar Date. 

• On or about August 11, 2021, Plaintiff/DAF was served with notice of the Administrative 

Expense Claim Bar Date. 

• Plaintiff/DAF did not file an administrative expense claim with this Court by the 

Administrative Expense Claim Bar Date (i.e., September 25, 2021). 

• On November 23, 2021, the Bankruptcy Court told Plaintiff its arguments regarding the 

Plan injunction—similar to some of the same arguments it is making now—were mistaken. At the 

same hearing, Highland told Plaintiff/DAF, on the record, it should have filed an administrative 

expense claim in this court.41

40 DE # 32, Exh. 21, Appx. 751-53. 41 DE # 32, Exh. 22, Appx. 777 (lines 17) – Appx. 778 (line 18); Appx. 781 (line 10) – 782 (line 17); Appx. 783 

(line 5-14); Appx. 786 (line 17-23).

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 20 of 28

000023

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 32 of 48 PageID 77
21 

• Between the November 2021 hearing and the filing of the Motion (more than eight 

months), Plaintiff/DAF never moved this Court to allow its claim as late filed or took any other 

action to protect its rights. 

• Only after the Complaint was referred to this Court and Highland filed its Amended Motion 

to Dismiss did Plaintiff ask this Court to consider the Complaint as “a late claim” in the Response. 

• Plaintiff has not submitted any evidence of “cause” as required by Section 503(a), nor 

“excusable neglect” under Pioneer (to the extent it is applicable). 

To be clear, Plaintiff argues that it should be held to have asserted a timely request for 

administrative expense claim because (a) its Complaint was filed (but not served) before the 

Administrative Expense Claim Bar Date; (b) Highland (while not formally served) received 

“prompt” notice and was not prejudiced; (c) enforcing the Administrative Expense Claims Bar 

Date would raise concerns regarding Constitutional “due process and taking;” and (d) the “best 

interests of creditors test” in Section 1129 favors Plaintiff.42 Plaintiff also blames its failure to 

comply on the Plan itself, arguing that a Plan injunction therein prevented Plaintiff from fulfilling 

its obligations. Each argument misses the point. 

First, it is irrelevant that the Complaint was filed before the Administrative Expense Claim 

Bar Date. The Bankruptcy Code,43 the Plan,44 and applicable case law require the filing of 

administrative expense claims—like those asserted in the Complaint—on the bankruptcy court’s 

docket, not on another court’s, for a claim to be deemed timely filed. See, e.g., Taco Bueno, 606 

B.R. at 302-03; Houbigant, 190 B.R. at 188.14. 

42 DE # 30 (Plaintiff’s Response), at p. 5. 43 11 U.S.C. § 503(a). 44 DE # 21, Exh. 4, Appx. 125, 203-04. 

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 21 of 28

000024

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 33 of 48 PageID 78
22 

Moreover, any suggestion that the Complaint is an “informal proof of claim” is rejected. 

Even assuming this concept might be applicable in the context of requests for allowance of 

administrative expense claims, an “informal proof of claim” must be filed in the bankruptcy court 

and the equities must favor the claimant. In re Opus Mgmt. Grp. Jackson LLC, 2017 Bankr. LEXIS 

555, at * 29-30 (Bankr. S.D. Miss. Feb. 27, 2017) (“The Court is unaware of any precedent that 

would allow it to treat the pre-bar date filing in one case as an informal proof of claim in another 

case.”); In re Murchison, 85 B.R. 27, 41 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 1987) (“Debtor’s knowledge of the 

claim has never been held sufficient to constitute an informal proof of claim ... These 

communications cannot constitute a proof of claim because they were not filed with the Court.”). 

 Additionally, Plaintiff’s argument regarding prejudice is disingenuous. Plaintiff filed the 

Complaint but decided not to serve it. Plaintiff cannot rely on Highland’s purported diligence in 

learning of the Complaint to justify its misconduct. The bar date exists to avoid prejudice to 

Highland, not Plaintiff. Moreover, other creditors in a bankruptcy case are entitled to notice that 

a party is asserting an administrative expense claim. Allowance of such a claim could greatly 

impact their ultimate recovery. Creditors (not just the debtor) may want to object and be heard. 

That’s why section 503(b) of the Bankruptcy Code contemplates “notice and a hearing” in the 

bankruptcy court when a request is filed. 

Additionally, no due process or taking concerns arise if Plaintiff is required to abide by 

court- and statutorily created deadlines, and Plaintiff cites to nothing to support this position. 

Additionally, the “best interests of creditors” test applies to plan confirmation and is 

irrelevant in this context. Regardless, the test would weigh in Highland’s favor. Creditors want 

Highland’s assets monetized and proceeds distributed sooner rather than later. Plaintiff’s efforts to 

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 22 of 28

000025

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 34 of 48 PageID 79
23 

“backdoor” an administrative expense claim by asserting it in another forum delays that process, 

increases expenses, and directly contradicts the policy behind bar dates. 

Finally, Plaintiff’s argument that it was confused by the Plan discharge or injunction 

language is not credible. The provisions are typical and unambiguous; they prohibited Plaintiff 

from pursuing claims in the District Court. Numerous other claimants—including some of Mr. 

Dondero’s other affiliates—complied with the bar date. Plaintiff is not entitled to special treatment 

because it, and it alone, found the Plan confusing. 

E. The Plaintiff’s Unspoken, But Not-So-Subtle Strategy Play

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s filing of the Complaint in the District Court was a strategic move 

that did not work and now it binds the Plaintiff. 

The Plaintiff’s strategy—rather obvious to this Court—was clever, to be sure, but it all 

hinged on the prospect of the Debtor’s Plan being reversed on appeal, which did not ultimately 

happen.45 Specifically, thinking through the Plaintiff’s legal strategy, the court believes the 

Plaintiff’s legal team likely thought through this as follows. First, there was an automatic stay 

conundrum. Specifically, filing the Action might have at first seemed risky, because the automatic 

stay was still in place at the time the Plaintiff filed its Complaint (because it was filed during the 

post-confirmation but pre-Effective Date time frame).46 But, the Plaintiff was pursuing postpetition claims, so the filing of the Action arguably was not precluded by the automatic stay. 11 

U.S.C. § 362(a)(1).47 However, even with that automatic stay conundrum potentially resolved, the 

Plan and Confirmation Order became an obvious obstacle. As discussed here ad nauseum, the 

45 The Fifth Circuit affirmed in substantial part the Plan on September 2, 2022, in Action No. 21-10449. 46 See also DE # 21, Exh. 4, Appx. 167 (Art. IX.G.). 47 The inapplicability of the automatic stay was not a “given.” The relief sought in the Plaintiff/DAF's Complaint 

asked for, among other things, disgorgement of all of Highland’s allegedly ill-gotten gains, and also voiding of 

certain agreements of Highland. This sounds potentially like exercising or an attempt to exercise control over 

property of the estate. 11 U.S.C. § 362(a)(3).

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 23 of 28

000026

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 35 of 48 PageID 80
24 

Plan required a post-petition claim like this to be filed as a Request for Allowance of 

Administrative Expense Claim with the Bankruptcy Court and, moreover, the Plan discharge and 

injunction language precluded an action such as the Plaintiff’s from being filed in another court. 

Plaintiff was no doubt thinking that it had found the perfect “workaround”—file the Action in the 

District Court before the Plan went effective, seek a stay of the Action for a bit,48 and hope that, 

during the stay of the Action, the Plan got reversed on appeal (which would moot the 

Administrative Claim Bar Date and Plan Injunction). In the event of a reversal, the Plaintiff would 

seek to un-stay the Action and go forward in the District Court hopefully—unless the District 

Court decided to refer the Action at that point to the Bankruptcy Court (on the basis that it was at 

least related to the Bankruptcy Case; maybe Plaintiff could successfully fight this). 

Here, as the Plaintiff’s legal strategy started to unravel, on July 5, 2022, in its Response to 

the Motion to Dismiss, the Plaintiff asked the Bankruptcy Court for the first time to treat its 

Complaint as a timely request for allowance of an administrative expense claim (a year after it was 

filed, and 10 months after the deadline for filing it in the Bankruptcy Court). This is not “cause” 

as contemplated by Section 503(a). This is nothing more than a belated and unjustified “Plan B” 

after the Plaintiff’s clever workaround did not pan out as hoped. Houbigant, 190 B.R. at 187 

(“[Claimant] concedes that it failed to [file its claim] to avoid the claims allowance process ... 

[Claimant] cannot have it both ways. Equity mandates that it be bound by its tactical decisions.”). 

F. The Standing Problem. 

Highland has also argued that the Action must be dismissed because Plaintiff lacks both 

prudential and constitutional standing to assert the claims that it has asserted in the Action. 

48 DE # 32, Exh. 9, Appx. 451.

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 24 of 28

000027

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 36 of 48 PageID 81
25 

As has been extensively set forth herein, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff/DAF was 

injured because Highland mismanaged the sale of certain of Multi Strat’s assets and, in doing so, 

breached its contractual and extra-contractual duties to Plaintiff/DAF as an investor in Multi Strat. 

But Plaintiff/DAF is not a limited partner or investor in Multi Strat (Plaintiff/DAF agrees it is not). 

Rather, Plaintiff/DAF’s 100% subsidiary CLO Holdco is. Therefore, Highland argues 

Plaintiff/DAF lacks standing to assert the claims in the Complaint. While Plaintiff/DAF arguably 

could have constitutional standing as the parent of CLO Holdco (a Multi Strat investor), 

Plaintiff/DAF would have had to plead its relationship to CLO Holdco, that CLO Holdco was 

injured, and that the injury to CLO Holdco caused injury to Plaintiff/DAF. See BCC Merch. 

Solutions, Inc. v. Jet Pay, LLC, 129 F.Supp.3d 440, 449-50 (N.D. Tex. 2015) (finding plaintiff 

parent company had constitutional standing when it pled injury it suffered arising from breach of 

contract to which its subsidiary was a counterparty). Plaintiff/DAF, however, has not done this. 

Highland also argues that Plaintiff/DAF lacks prudential standing because it is not the “real 

party in interest” as required by Rule 17(a) of the FRCP, made applicable by Rule 7017 of the 

FRBP. Prudential standing is a “‘fundamental restriction on [federal judicial] authority” and 

requires ‘a litigant [to] assert his or her own legal rights... and []not rest a claim to relief on the 

legal rights or interests of third parties.’” Id. at 450 (citations omitted). Prudential standing is a 

separate requirement from constitutional standing, and, if a plaintiff lacks prudential standing, the 

action must be dismissed regardless of whether the plaintiff has constitutional standing. Id. This 

prudential standing requirement is embodied in Rule 17(a) of the FRCP, which mandates that a 

claim be brought by the “real party in interest,” i.e., the party “with the right to sue under ... the 

controlling state or federal substantive laws.” Id. at 450, 453. Here, Plaintiff/DAF is not an investor 

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 25 of 28

000028

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 37 of 48 PageID 82
26 

in Multi Strat and has no right to assert the actual investors’ contractual or other rights under 

applicable substantive law.49 

That Plaintiff/DAF is the parent of CLO Holdco, a Multi Strat investor, changes nothing. 

A parent cannot assert the contractual rights of its subsidiaries or pierce its own corporate veil to 

do so. BCC Merch., 129 F. Supp. 3d at 460 (“[W]hile BCC may have Article III standing, the 

Court finds that it lacks prudential standing and is not the real party in interest entitled to enforce 

the ISO Agreement, which BCC’s subsidiary, BankCard, undisputedly entered into alone.”). For 

the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff/DAF is not a “real party in interest” as required by Rule 17(a) and 

lacks prudential standing to assert the claims in the Complaint. 

 Plaintiff/DAF argues that it should be given leave to amend its Complaint to clarify that it 

is suing derivatively on behalf of CLO Holdco and/or to substitute in CLO Holdco as party in 

interest. The Plaintiff/DAF submits that Rule 7017 of the FRBP requires an opportunity to join a 

49 See Carroll v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 575 Fed. Appx. 260, 260-61 (5th Cir. 2014) (finding plaintiff lacked 

standing and was not the “real party in interest” when it had no right to sue under contract); Farrell Constr. Co. v. 

Jefferson Parish, 896 F.2d 136, 140 (5th Cir. 1990) (finding plaintiff was not a “real party in interest” when it was 

neither a party to the contract nor a third party beneficiary); BCC Merch., 129 F.Supp.3d at 460 (holding plaintiff 

was not a “real party in interest” and lacked prudential standing when it sought to assert the contract rights of its 

wholly-owned subsidiary); see also Hillside Metro Assocs., LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, 747 F.3d 44, 48-49 (2d 

Cir. 2014), cert denied 2015 U.S. LEXIS 1370 (U.S. Feb. 23, 2015) (applying federal common law and holding: 

(“We conclude that Hillside does not have prudential standing in this case because it cannot enforce the terms of the 

[contract], as to which it is neither a party nor a third-party beneficiary, but the enforcement of which is a necessary 

component of its claim”); Williams v. Bd. of Educ. of Chicago, 506 Fed. Appx. 517, 520 (7th Cir. 2013) (“Neither 

situation describes the federal lawsuit filed by Williams, whose indefinite, inchoate claims arise entirely from a 

dispute between two business entities whose contracts granted him no direct or incidental benefit and thus leave him 

without standing to bring these claims); Pelletier v. Rodriguez, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 131898, at *13 (D. Nev. July 

15, 2021) (“[B]ecause there is no given reason that Clover Valley Ranch LLC could not pursue a breach of contract 

claim in its own name, the Court declines to confer prudential standing on Plaintiff to bring this claim on behalf of a 

third-party.”); Cumming v. Felder, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82081, at *5 (D. Conn. May 16, 2018) (“[A]n individual 

who is neither a party to an agreement nor an intended beneficiary of the agreement lacks prudential standing to sue 

under the agreement”) (citing cases); Alexander v. DLJ Mortg. Cap., Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198193, at * 8-14 

(S.D. Miss. Jul. 5, 2016) (finding non-party to a contract lacked standing under FRCP 17(a) to bring breach of 

contract claims); Henderson v. Benchmark Strategy, LLC, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90988, at *10-11 (D. Colo. Aug. 

15, 2011) (“Mr. Henderson is not a party to the Consulting Agreement and is not the real party in interest to assert 

the rights (if any) of Henderson LLP.”); Browne v. Robb, 583 A.2d 949, 954-55 (Del. 1990) (applying Delaware law 

and finding plaintiff lacked standing to assert breach of a contract to which it was neither a party nor an intended 

third-party beneficiary) .

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 26 of 28

000029

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 38 of 48 PageID 83
27 

real party in interest in such circumstances as these. Specifically, Rule 7017 incorporates FRCP 

17(a)(3), which provides: 

The court may not dismiss an action for failure to prosecute in the name of the real 

party in interest until, after an objection, a reasonable time has been allowed for the 

real party in interest to ratify, join, or be substituted into the action. After 

ratification, joinder, or substitution, the action proceeds as if it had been originally 

commenced by the real party in interest. 

However, because the administrative expense claims asserted in the Compliant are timebarred, granting Plaintiff/DAF leave to amend its Complaint and substitute in CLO Holdco would 

be futile. See, e.g., Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., 234 F.3d 863, (5th Cir. 2000) (finding 

amendment “futile” when the “amendment complaint would fail to state a claim upon which relief 

could be granted.”). CLO Holdco would have the same problems that Plaintiff/DAF has—it didn’t 

comply with the Plan and Confirmation Order and timely file an administrative expense claim in 

the Bankruptcy Court and serve it on the Debtor by September 25, 2021. 

IV. CONCLUSION

As this court explained in its Taco Bueno50 decision, the requirement of filing a request for 

allowance of an administrative expense claim in the bankruptcy court, and the act of 

seeking/setting a bar date in connection therewith, are, collectively, a big deal. The concept of 

setting an administrative expense claim bar date is not just about protecting a debtor. It is about 

protecting general unsecured creditors, too—because a large administrative expense claim can 

greatly impact the general unsecured creditors’ share of the bankruptcy pie. That’s why a request 

for allowance of an administrative expense claim must be filed on the bankruptcy court’s docket 

and determined by the bankruptcy court after notice and a hearing. And that’s why any party-ininterest can object to the claim. But, to be clear, the Bankruptcy Code and Rules do not specifically 

50 Taco Bueno, 606 B.R. 289. 

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 27 of 28

000030

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 39 of 48 PageID 84
28 

set the deadline. See 11 U.S.C. § 503. Rather, a debtor typically asks for one to be set or provides 

for one in its plan. That’s what Highland did here. The deadline can be extended for cause under 

section 503(a). The Plaintiff/DAF never filed any motion seeking an extension here arguing 

“cause.” It only asks for an extension now—almost a year after the noticed deadline—and now 

that it’s clear that its District Court Action was improper. The Plaintiff/DAF’s “work-around” 

legal strategy here cannot be condoned. 

Accordingly, it is 

ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED as to all causes of action asserted 

and the Complaint is dismissed in its entirety with prejudice. 

###END OF MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER### 

Case 22-03052-sgj Doc 43 Filed 09/30/22 Entered 09/30/22 14:01:12 Desc Main

Document Page 28 of 28

000031

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 40 of 48 PageID 85
DISMISSED, EXHIBITS, APPEAL

U.S. Bankruptcy Court

Northern District of Texas (Dallas)

Adversary Proceeding #: 22−03052−sgj

Assigned to: Chief Bankruptcy Jud Stacey G Jernigan

Lead BK Case: 19−34054

Lead BK Title: Highland Capital Management, L.P.

Lead BK Chapter: 11

Demand:

Date Filed: 07/22/21

Date Dismissed: 09/30/22

Date Transferred: 05/19/22

Nature[s] of Suit: 02 Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated to

bankruptcy)

Plaintiff

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

Charitable DAF Fund, LP represented by Jonathan E. Bridges

Sbaiti & Company PLLC

JP Morgan Chase Tower

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4900 W

Dallas, TX 75201

(214) 432−2899

Fax : (214) 853−4367

Email: jeb@sbaitilaw.com

Mazin Ahmad Sbaiti

Sbaiti & Company PLLC

JP Morgan Chase Tower

2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 4900 W

Dallas, TX 75201

(214) 432−2899

Fax : (214) 853−4367

Email: mas@sbaitilaw.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

V.

Defendant

−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−−

Highland Capital Management, L.P. represented by Zachery Z. Annable

Hayward PLLC

10501 N. Central Expressway

Suite 106

Dallas, TX 75231

(972) 755−7108

Fax : (972) 755−7108

Email: zannable@haywardfirm.com

LEAD ATTORNEY

Gregory V. Demo

Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones L.L.P.

780 Third Avenue

New York, NY 10017−2024

000032

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 41 of 48 PageID 86
(212) 561−7700

Fax : (212) 561−7777

Email: gdemo@pszjlaw.com

Melissa S. Hayward

Hayward PLLC

10501 N. Central Expry, Ste. 106

Dallas, TX 75231

972−755−7104

Fax : 972−755−7104

Email: MHayward@HaywardFirm.com

John A. Morris

Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones, LLP

780 Third Avenue, 34th Floor

New York, NY 10017−2024

(212) 561−7700

Fax : (212) 561−7777

Email: jmorris@pszjlaw.com

Jeffrey N. Pomerantz

Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP

10100 Santa Monica Blvd., 13th Floor

Los Angeles, CA 90067

310−277−6910

Fax : 210−201−0760

Email: jpomerantz@pszjlaw.com

Hayley R. Winograd

Pachulski Stang Ziehl & Jones LLP

780 3rd Avenue #36

New York, NY 10017

(212) 561−7700

Fax : (212) 561−7777

Email: hwinograd@pszjlaw.com

Filing Date Docket Text

05/25/2022

 1 Adversary case 22−03052. ORDER REFERRING CASE 3:21−CV−1710−N from U.S

District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division to U.S. Bankruptcy Court

for Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division and Complaint by Charitable DAF Fund,

LP against Highland Capital Management, L.P. . Fee Amount $350 (Attachments: # 1

Original Complaint # 2 Civil Cover Sheet # 3 Docket Sheet from 21−CV−1710). Nature(s)

of suit: 02 (Other (e.g. other actions that would have been brought in state court if unrelated

to bankruptcy)). (Okafor, Marcey)

05/25/2022

 2 Request for Clerk to issue Summons to Highland Capital Management, L.P. filed by

Charitable DAF Fund LP. (Sbaiti, Mazin) [ORIGINALLY FILED IN 21−CV−1710 AS #2

ON 07/22/2021 IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION] (Okafor, Marcey)

05/25/2022

 3 New Case Notes: A filing fee has been paid. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is

provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge

Rutherford). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (ndt)

[ORIGINALLY FILED IN 21−CV−1710 AS #3 ON 07/23/2021 IN U.S. DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION] (Okafor,

Marcey)

05/25/2022 4 Summons Issued as to Highland Capital Management LP. (ndt) [ORIGINALLY FILED

IN 21−CV−1710 AS #4 ON 07/23/2021 IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

000033

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 42 of 48 PageID 87
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION (Okafor, Marcey)

05/25/2022

 5 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by

Charitable DAF Fund LP. (Sbaiti, Mazin) [ORIGINALLY FILED IN 21−CV−1710 AS #5

ON 07/23/2021 IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION] (Okafor, Marcey)

05/25/2022

 6 MOTION to Stay filed by Charitable DAF Fund LP (Sbaiti, Mazin) [ORIGINALLY

FILED IN 21−CV−1710 AS #6 ON 08/26/2021 IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION] (Okafor, Marcey)

05/25/2022

 7 ELECTRONIC ORDER granting 6 Motion to Stay. (Ordered by Judge David C Godbey

on 9/7/2021) (chmb) [ORIGINALLY FILED IN 21−CV−1710 AS #7 ON 09/7/2021 IN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLAS

DIVISION] (Okafor, Marcey)

05/25/2022

 8 MOTION for Reconsideration re 7 Order on Motion to Stay (Highland Capital

Management, L.P.'s Motion for Reconsideration of Stay Order) filed by Highland Capital

Management LP (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) Attorney Zachery Z. Annable added to party

Highland Capital Management LP(pty:dft) (Annable, Zachery) [ORIGINALLY FILED IN

21−CV−1710 AS #8 ON 10/05/2021 IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN

DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION] (Okafor, Marcey)

05/25/2022

 9 Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Highland Capital Management LP re 8

MOTION for Reconsideration re 7 Order on Motion to Stay (Highland Capital

Management, L.P.'s Motion for Reconsideration of Stay Order) (Annable, Zachery)

[ORIGINALLY FILED IN 21−CV−1710 AS #9 ON 10/05/2021 IN U.S. DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION] (Okafor,

Marcey)

05/25/2022

 10 Appendix in Support filed by Highland Capital Management LP re 8 MOTION for

Reconsideration re 7 Order on Motion to Stay (Highland Capital Management, L.P.'s

Motion for Reconsideration of Stay Order) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 # 2 Exhibit 2 # 3

Exhibit 3 # 4 Exhibit 4 # 5 Exhibit 5 # 6 Exhibit 6 # 7 Exhibit 7 # 8 Exhibit 8 # 9 Exhibit 9

# 10 Exhibit 10 # 11 Exhibit 11 # 12 Exhibit 12 # 13 Exhibit 13 # 14 Exhibit 14 # 15

Exhibit 15 # 16 Exhibit 16 # 17 Exhibit 17 # 18 Exhibit 18 # 19 Exhibit 19 # 20 Exhibit 20

# 21 Exhibit 21 # 22 Exhibit 22 # 23 Exhibit 23 # 24 Exhibit 24 # 25 Exhibit 25 # 26

Exhibit 26 # 27 Exhibit 27) (Annable, Zachery) [ORIGINALLY FILED IN 21−CV−1710

AS #10 ON 10/05/2021 IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT

OF TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION](Okafor, Marcey)

05/25/2022

 11 MOTION to Dismiss (Highland Capital Management, L.P.'s Motion to Dismiss) filed

by Highland Capital Management LP (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (Annable, Zachery)

[ORIGINALLY FILED IN 21−CV−1710 AS #11 ON 10/05/2021 IN U.S. DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION] (Okafor,

Marcey)

05/25/2022

 12 Brief/Memorandum in Support filed by Highland Capital Management LP re 11

MOTION to Dismiss (Highland Capital Management, L.P.'s Motion to Dismiss) (Annable,

Zachery [ORIGINALLY FILED IN 21−CV−1710 AS #12 ON 10/05/2021 IN U.S.

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLAS

DIVISION] (Okafor, Marcey)

05/25/2022

 13 Appendix in Support filed by Highland Capital Management LP re 11 MOTION to

Dismiss (Highland Capital Management, L.P.'s Motion to Dismiss) (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit 1 # 2 Exhibit 2 # 3 Exhibit 3) (Annable, Zachery) [ORIGINALLY FILED IN

21−CV−1710 AS #13 ON 10/05/2021 IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION] (Okafor, Marcey)

000034

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 43 of 48 PageID 88
05/25/2022

 14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Highland Capital Management LP re: 8 MOTION

for Reconsideration, 9 Brief/Memorandum in Support of Motion, 10 Appendix in Support,

11 MOTION to Dismiss (Highland Capital Management, L.P.'s Motion to Dismiss), 12

Brief/Memorandum in Support of Motion, 13 Appendix in Support. (Annable, Zachery)

Modified text on 10/12/2021 (mjr). [ORIGINALLY FILED IN 21−CV−1710 AS #14 ON

10/11/2021 IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS,

DALLAS DIVISION] (Okafor, Marcey)

05/25/2022

 15 RESPONSE filed by Charitable DAF Fund LP re: 8 MOTION for Reconsideration re 7

Order on Motion to Stay (Highland Capital Management, L.P.'s Motion for

Reconsideration of Stay Order) (Sbaiti, Mazin) [ORIGINALLY FILED IN 21−CV−1710

AS #15 ON 10/27/2021 IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT

OF TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION] (Okafor, Marcey)

05/25/2022

 16 REPLY filed by Highland Capital Management LP re: 8 MOTION for Reconsideration

re 7 Order on Motion to Stay (Highland Capital Management, L.P.'s Motion for

Reconsideration of Stay Order) (Annable, Zachery) [ORIGINALLY FILED IN

21−CV−1710 AS #16 ON 11/05/2021 IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLAS DIVISION] (Okafor, Marcey)

05/25/2022

 17 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by Highland Capital Management LP re 16 Reply

(Annable, Zachery) [ORIGINALLY FILED IN 21−CV−1710 AS #17 ON 11/21/2021 IN

U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLAS

DIVISION] (Okafor, Marcey)

05/25/2022

 18 ORDER re: 8 Motion for Reconsideration. The Court grants Defendant's motion, lifts

the stay, and refers this case to Judge Stacey G.C. Jernigan of the United States Bankruptcy

Court for the Northern District of Texas, to be adjudicated as a matter related to the

Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of HCM., Chapter 11 Case No. 10−34054. The Clerk of this Court

and the Clerk of the Bankruptcy Court to which this case is referred are directed to take

such actions as are necessary to docket this matter as an Adversary Proceeding associated

with the aforementioned consolidated bankruptcy case. (Ordered by Judge David C

Godbey on 5/19/2022) (oyh) (Main Document 18 replaced on 5/23/2022) (twd). (Entered:

05/20/2022) [ORIGINALLY FILED IN 21−CV−1710 AS #18 ON 11/21/2021 IN U.S.

DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, DALLAS

DIVISION] (*ERROR IN ENTRY: CORRECT CASE NUMBER IS: 19−34054*)

(Okafor, Marcey)

05/27/2022

 19 Amended Motion to dismiss adversary proceeding (related document(s):11) filed by

Defendant Highland Capital Management, L.P. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−−Proposed

Order) (Annable, Zachery)

05/27/2022

 20 Brief in support filed by Defendant Highland Capital Management, L.P. (RE: related

document(s)19 Amended Motion to dismiss adversary proceeding (related

document(s):11)). (Annable, Zachery)

05/27/2022

 21 Support/supplemental document (Appendix in Support of Highland Capital

Management, L.P.'s Amended Motion to Dismiss) filed by Defendant Highland Capital

Management, L.P. (RE: related document(s)19 Amended Motion to dismiss adversary

proceeding (related document(s):11)). (Annable, Zachery)

06/01/2022 22 Certificate of service re: 1) Highland Capital Management, L.P.s Amended Motion to

Dismiss ; 2) Highland Capital Management, L.P.s Memorandum of Law in Support of its

Amended Motion to Dismiss; and 3) Appendix in Support of Highland Capital

Management, L.P.s Amended Motion to Dismiss Filed by Claims Agent Kurtzman Carson

Consultants LLC (related document(s)19 Amended Motion to dismiss adversary

proceeding (related document(s):11) filed by Defendant Highland Capital Management,

L.P. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−−Proposed Order) filed by Defendant Highland Capital

Management, L.P., 20 Brief in support filed by Defendant Highland Capital Management,

000035

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 44 of 48 PageID 89
L.P. (RE: related document(s)19 Amended Motion to dismiss adversary proceeding

(related document(s):11)). filed by Defendant Highland Capital Management, L.P., 21

Support/supplemental document (Appendix in Support of Highland Capital Management,

L.P.'s Amended Motion to Dismiss) filed by Defendant Highland Capital Management, L.P.

(RE: related document(s)19 Amended Motion to dismiss adversary proceeding (related

document(s):11)). filed by Defendant Highland Capital Management, L.P.). (Kass, Albert)

06/01/2022

 23 Notice of hearing filed by Defendant Highland Capital Management, L.P. (RE: related

document(s)19 Motion to dismiss adversary proceeding filed by Defendant Highland

Capital Management, L.P.). Hearing to be held on 8/3/2022 at 02:30 PM at

https://us−courts.webex.com/meet/jerniga for 19 and for 19, (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit

A)(Hayward, Melissa)

06/03/2022

 24 Certificate of service re: Notice of Hearing re: Highland Capital Management, L.P.s

Amended Motion to Dismiss Filed by Claims Agent Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC

(related document(s)23 Notice of hearing filed by Defendant Highland Capital

Management, L.P. (RE: related document(s)19 Motion to dismiss adversary proceeding

filed by Defendant Highland Capital Management, L.P.). Hearing to be held on 8/3/2022 at

02:30 PM at https://us−courts.webex.com/meet/jerniga for 19 and for 19, (Attachments: # 1

Exhibit A) filed by Defendant Highland Capital Management, L.P.). (Kass, Albert)

06/08/2022

 25 Stipulation by Highland Capital Management, L.P. and The Charitable DAF Fund,

L.P.. filed by Defendant Highland Capital Management, L.P. (RE: related document(s)19

Amended Motion to dismiss adversary proceeding (related document(s):11)). (Hayward,

Melissa)

06/21/2022

 26 Order approving stipulation regarding proposed scheduling order (RE: related

document(s)19 Motion to dismiss adversary proceeding filed by Defendant Highland

Capital Management, L.P.). Hearing to be held on 8/3/2022 at 02:30 PM Dallas Judge

Jernigan Ctrm for 19, Entered on 6/21/2022 (Okafor, Marcey)

06/23/2022

 27 BNC certificate of mailing − PDF document. (RE: related document(s)26 Order

approving stipulation regarding proposed scheduling order (RE: related document(s)19

Motion to dismiss adversary proceeding filed by Defendant Highland Capital Management,

L.P.). Hearing to be held on 8/3/2022 at 02:30 PM Dallas Judge Jernigan Ctrm for 19,

Entered on 6/21/2022) No. of Notices: 1. Notice Date 06/23/2022. (Admin.)

06/24/2022

 28 Certificate of service re: Order Approving Stipulation Regarding Proposed Scheduling

Order Filed by Claims Agent Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC (related document(s)26

Order approving stipulation regarding proposed scheduling order (RE: related

document(s)19 Motion to dismiss adversary proceeding filed by Defendant Highland

Capital Management, L.P.). Hearing to be held on 8/3/2022 at 02:30 PM Dallas Judge

Jernigan Ctrm for 19, Entered on 6/21/2022). (Kass, Albert)

07/05/2022

 29 INCORRECT EVENT: See # 30 for correction Brief in opposition filed by Plaintiff

Charitable DAF Fund, LP (RE: related document(s)19 Amended Motion to dismiss

adversary proceeding (related document(s):11)). (Sbaiti, Mazin) Modified on 7/6/2022

(Ecker, C.).

07/05/2022

 30 Response opposed to (related document(s): 19 Amended Motion to dismiss adversary

proceeding (related document(s):11) filed by Defendant Highland Capital Management,

L.P.) filed by Plaintiff Charitable DAF Fund, LP . (Ecker, C.) (Entered: 07/06/2022)

07/26/2022

 31 Reply to (related document(s): 30 Response filed by Plaintiff Charitable DAF Fund,

LP) filed by Defendant Highland Capital Management, L.P.. (Annable, Zachery)

07/26/2022 32 Support/supplemental document (Amended Appendix in Support of Highland Capital

Management, L.P.'s Amended Motion to Dismiss) filed by Defendant Highland Capital

Management, L.P. (RE: related document(s)21 Support/supplemental document).

000036

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 45 of 48 PageID 90
(Annable, Zachery)

07/27/2022

 33 Certificate of service re: 1) Highland Capital Management, L.P.'s Reply in Support of

its Amended Motion to Dismiss; and 2) Amended Appendix in Support of Highland

Capital Management, L.P.'s Amended Motion to Dismiss Filed by Claims Agent Kurtzman

Carson Consultants LLC (related document(s)31 Reply to (related document(s): 30

Response filed by Plaintiff Charitable DAF Fund, LP) filed by Defendant Highland Capital

Management, L.P.. filed by Defendant Highland Capital Management, L.P., 32

Support/supplemental document (Amended Appendix in Support of Highland Capital

Management, L.P.'s Amended Motion to Dismiss) filed by Defendant Highland Capital

Management, L.P. (RE: related document(s)21 Support/supplemental document). filed by

Defendant Highland Capital Management, L.P.). (Kass, Albert)

08/01/2022

 34 Witness and Exhibit List (Reorganized Debtor's Witness and Exhibit List with Respect

to Evidentiary Hearing to Be Held on August 3, 2022) filed by Defendant Highland Capital

Management, L.P. (RE: related document(s)19 Amended Motion to dismiss adversary

proceeding (related document(s):11)). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 # 2 Exhibit 2 # 3 Exhibit

3 # 4 Exhibit 4 # 5 Exhibit 5 # 6 Exhibit 6 # 7 Exhibit 7 # 8 Exhibit 8 # 9 Exhibit 9 # 10

Exhibit 10 # 11 Exhibit 11 # 12 Exhibit 12 # 13 Exhibit 13 # 14 Exhibit 14 # 15 Exhibit 15

# 16 Exhibit 16 # 17 Exhibit 17 # 18 Exhibit 18 # 19 Exhibit 19 # 20 Exhibit 20 # 21

Exhibit 21 # 22 Exhibit 22) (Annable, Zachery)

08/02/2022

 35 Certificate of service re: Reorganized Debtor's Witness and Exhibit List with Respect

to Evidentiary Hearing to Be Held on August 3, 2022 Filed by Claims Agent Kurtzman

Carson Consultants LLC (related document(s)34 Witness and Exhibit List (Reorganized

Debtor's Witness and Exhibit List with Respect to Evidentiary Hearing to Be Held on

August 3, 2022) filed by Defendant Highland Capital Management, L.P. (RE: related

document(s)19 Amended Motion to dismiss adversary proceeding (related

document(s):11)). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1 # 2 Exhibit 2 # 3 Exhibit 3 # 4 Exhibit 4 # 5

Exhibit 5 # 6 Exhibit 6 # 7 Exhibit 7 # 8 Exhibit 8 # 9 Exhibit 9 # 10 Exhibit 10 # 11

Exhibit 11 # 12 Exhibit 12 # 13 Exhibit 13 # 14 Exhibit 14 # 15 Exhibit 15 # 16 Exhibit 16

# 17 Exhibit 17 # 18 Exhibit 18 # 19 Exhibit 19 # 20 Exhibit 20 # 21 Exhibit 21 # 22

Exhibit 22) filed by Defendant Highland Capital Management, L.P.). (Kass, Albert)

08/03/2022

 36 INCORRECT ENTRY − SEE DE 40. Court admitted exhibits date of hearing August

3, 2022 (RE: related document(s)19 Amended Motion to dismiss adversary proceeding

(related document(s):11) filed by Defendant Highland Capital Management, L.P.) (COURT

ADMITTED EXHIBIT #17 (MR. SEERY DECLARATION); COURT TOOK JUDICIAL

NOTICE OF EXHIBITS #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12, #13, #14, #15,

#16, #18, #19, #20, #21 & #22) (Edmond, Michael) Modified on 8/4/2022 (Ellison, T.).

08/03/2022

 37 Hearing held on 8/3/2022. (RE: related document(s)19 Amended Motion to dismiss

adversary proceeding (related document(s):11) filed by Defendant Highland Capital

Management, L.P.) (Appearances: G. Demo and Z. Annabel for Movant/Highland; J.

Bridges for Respondant/Charitable DAF. Evidentiary hearing. Motion granted. Court to

issue Opinion and Order.) (Edmond, Michael)

08/03/2022

 38 Request for transcript (Melanie Holmes), regarding a hearing held on 8/3/2022. The

requested turn−around time is hourly. (Edmond, Michael)

08/03/2022

 39 PDF with attached Audio File. Court Date & Time [08/03/2022 02:37:28 PM]. File

Size [ 15686 KB ]. Run Time [ 01:06:57 ]. (admin).

08/03/2022

 40 Court admitted exhibits date of hearing August 3, 2022 (RE: related document(s)19

Amended Motion to dismiss adversary proceeding (related document(s):11) filed by

Defendant Highland Capital Management, L.P. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A−−Proposed

Order)) COURT ADMITTED EXHIBIT 17. COURT TOOK JUDICIAL NOTICE OF

EXHIBITS 1−13, 21 AND 22. (Ellison, T.) (Entered: 08/04/2022)

000037

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 46 of 48 PageID 91
08/04/2022

 41 Transcript regarding Hearing Held 08/03/2022 (45 pages) RE: Motion to Dismiss

Adversary Proceeding (19). THIS TRANSCRIPT WILL BE MADE ELECTRONICALLY

AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC 90 DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF FILING.

TRANSCRIPT RELEASE DATE IS 11/2/2022. Until that time the transcript may be

viewed at the Clerk's Office or a copy may be obtained from the official court transcriber.

Court Reporter/Transcriber Kathy Rehling, kathyrehlingtranscripts@gmail.com, Telephone

number 972−786−3063. (RE: related document(s) 37 Hearing held on 8/3/2022. (RE:

related document(s)19 Amended Motion to dismiss adversary proceeding (related

document(s):11) filed by Defendant Highland Capital Management, L.P.) (Appearances: G.

Demo and Z. Annabel for Movant/Highland; J. Bridges for Respondant/Charitable DAF.

Evidentiary hearing. Motion granted. Court to issue Opinion and Order.)). Transcript to be

made available to the public on 11/2/2022. (Rehling, Kathy)

09/30/2022

 42 Memorandum of opinion regarding Defendant's amended motion to dismiss adversary

proceeding (RE: related document(s)19 Motion to dismiss adversary proceeding filed by

Defendant Highland Capital Management, L.P.). Entered on 9/30/2022 (Okafor, Marcey)

09/30/2022

 43 Order granting amended motion to dismiss adversary proceeding with prejudice

(related document # 19) Entered on 9/30/2022. (Okafor, Marcey)

10/02/2022

 44 BNC certificate of mailing − PDF document. (RE: related document(s)42

Memorandum of opinion regarding Defendant's amended motion to dismiss adversary

proceeding (RE: related document(s)19 Motion to dismiss adversary proceeding filed by

Defendant Highland Capital Management, L.P.). Entered on 9/30/2022) No. of Notices: 1.

Notice Date 10/02/2022. (Admin.)

10/02/2022

 45 BNC certificate of mailing − PDF document. (RE: related document(s)43 Order

granting amended motion to dismiss adversary proceeding with prejudice (related

document 19) Entered on 9/30/2022.) No. of Notices: 1. Notice Date 10/02/2022. (Admin.)

10/05/2022

 46 Notice of appeal . Fee Amount $298 filed by Plaintiff Charitable DAF Fund, LP (RE:

related document(s)43 Order on motion to dismiss adversary proceeding). Appellant

Designation due by 10/19/2022. (Sbaiti, Mazin)

10/05/2022

 Receipt of filing fee for Notice of appeal( 22−03052−sgj) [appeal,ntcapl] ( 298.00).

Receipt number A29869493, amount $ 298.00 (re: Doc# 46). (U.S. Treasury)

10/12/2022

 48 INCORRECT ENTRY. Incorrect case. Certificate of mailing regarding appeal (RE:

related document(s)46 Notice of appeal . filed by Plaintiff Charitable DAF Fund, LP (RE:

related document(s)43 Order on motion to dismiss adversary proceeding). Appellant

Designation due by 10/19/2022.) (Attachments: # 1 Service List) (Whitaker, Sheniqua)

Modified on 10/12/2022 (Whitaker, Sheniqua).

10/12/2022

 49 Notice regarding the record for a bankruptcy appeal to the U.S. District Court. (RE:

related document(s)46 Notice of appeal . filed by Plaintiff Charitable DAF Fund, LP (RE:

related document(s)43 Order on motion to dismiss adversary proceeding). filed by Plaintiff

Charitable DAF Fund, LP) (Whitaker, Sheniqua)

10/12/2022

 50 Notice of docketing notice of appeal. Civil Action Number: 3:22−cv−02280−S. (RE:

related document(s)46 Notice of appeal . filed by Plaintiff Charitable DAF Fund, LP (RE:

related document(s)43 Order on motion to dismiss adversary proceeding). filed by Plaintiff

Charitable DAF Fund, LP) (Whitaker, Sheniqua)

10/12/2022

 51 Certificate of mailing regarding appeal (RE: related document(s)46 Notice of appeal .

filed by Plaintiff Charitable DAF Fund, LP (RE: related document(s)43 Order on motion to

dismiss adversary proceeding). Appellant Designation due by 10/19/2022.) (Attachments: #

1 Service List) (Whitaker, Sheniqua)

000038

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 47 of 48 PageID 92
10/14/2022

 52 BNC certificate of mailing. (RE: related document(s)49 Notice regarding the record for

a bankruptcy appeal to the U.S. District Court. (RE: related document(s)46 Notice of

appeal . filed by Plaintiff Charitable DAF Fund, LP (RE: related document(s)43 Order on

motion to dismiss adversary proceeding). filed by Plaintiff Charitable DAF Fund, LP)) No.

of Notices: 1. Notice Date 10/14/2022. (Admin.)

10/18/2022

 53 Appellant designation of contents for inclusion in record on appeal and statement of

issues on appeal. filed by Plaintiff Charitable DAF Fund, LP (RE: related document(s)46

Notice of appeal). Appellee designation due by 11/1/2022. (Sbaiti, Mazin)

10/20/2022

 54 Clerk's correspondence requesting file an amended appellant designation from attorney

for appellant. (RE: related document(s)53 Appellant designation of contents for inclusion

in record on appeal and statement of issues on appeal. filed by Plaintiff Charitable DAF

Fund, LP (RE: related document(s)46 Notice of appeal). Appellee designation due by

11/1/2022.) Responses due by 10/27/2022. (Blanco, J.)

10/20/2022

 55 Amended appellant designation of contents for inclusion in record on appeal and

statement of issues on appeal. filed by Plaintiff Charitable DAF Fund, LP (RE: related

document(s)53 Appellant designation). (Sbaiti, Mazin)

11/28/2022

 56 Clerk's correspondence requesting file an amended designation to omit doc 37 from

attorney for plaintiff. (RE: related document(s)55 Amended appellant designation of

contents for inclusion in record on appeal and statement of issues on appeal. filed by

Plaintiff Charitable DAF Fund, LP (RE: related document(s)53 Appellant designation).)

Responses due by 11/30/2022. (Blanco, J.)

11/28/2022

 57 Amended appellant designation of contents for inclusion in record on appeal and

statement of issues on appeal. filed by Plaintiff Charitable DAF Fund, LP (RE: related

document(s)55 Appellant designation). (Sbaiti, Mazin)

000039

Case 3:22-cv-02280-S Document 3-1 Filed 12/06/22 Page 48 of 48 PageID 93