Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order
Lansing, Michigan
January 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice 130108 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan ANTONIO L. THOMAS and ANTONIO Robert P. Young, Jr. L. THOMAS ASSOCIATED, Stephen J. Markman, Plaintiffs-Appellants, Justices

v SC: 130108 COA: 266779 Wayne CC: 02-220633-CZ LA-VAN HAWKINS and URBAN CITY FOODS, LLC, Defendants-Appellees,

and

MELVIN BUTCH HOLLOWELL, Receiver-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On December 21, 2005, this Court issued an order gran ting a stay of trial court proceedings in this case and di recting that the proceeds of th e sale of the Sweet Georgia Brown restaurant not be distribu ted during the pend ency of the stay. On order of the Court, the application for leav e to appeal the December 2, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is again considered a nd, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this cas e to the Wayne Circuit Court for further proceedings. At a November 18, 2005 hearing, Judge Sapala stated that “I’m sa tisfied that the conflict of interest does not exist, this other receiver is to be dissolved.” We DIRECT the circuit court to reconsider whether Me lvin Butch Hollowell had a co nflict of interest and to make specific findings addre ssing the following issues:

(1) whether receiver Hollowell ha d or has any professional relationships with La-Van Hawkin s, Mr. Hawkins’ ex-wife, Wendy Hawkins, any of the individuals compri sing the group or association that purchased the Sweet Geor gia Brown restaurant on November 15, 2005, or the Sweet Georgia Brown res taurant, and if so, th e parameters and duration of that professional relationship;_______________________________________ __ 2

(2) whether receiver Hollowell had or has any personal relationships with LaVan Hawkins, Mr. Hawkins’ ex -wife, Wendy Hawkins, or any of the individuals comprising the group or association that purchased the Sweet Georgia Brown restaurant on November 15, 2005, and if so, the parameters and duration of th at personal relationship; (3) whether, if such existing or former personal or professional relationships are found, there would natu rally be a tendency on Hollowell’s part to take actions, as a receiver, in other than a completely disinterested
manner, see Sellars v Lamb , 303 Mich 604, 610-61 1 (1942), and if so, whether Hollowell should be disqualified from serving as receiver; (4) whether Hollowell disclosed in formation regarding bids and the sale of the restaurant he negotiated to his co-receiver, Bryan D. Marcus, during the period that M arcus served as co-receiver, and if not, whether such non-disclosure was justified; (5) whether Hollowell disclosed in formation regarding bids and the sale of the restaurant he negotiated to creditors of La-Van Hawkins to the extent such disclosure was appropriate; (6) whether the sale Hollowell nego tiated was the result of an arms

length and even-handed comp etitive bidding process; (7) how many bids were subm itted and how many bidders participated in the bidding process; and (8) whether the $1.5 m illion sale price Hallowell negotiated fairly represents the value of the restaurant. The Wayne Circuit Court may conduct a dditional proceedings or evidentiary hearings, if necessary, and is DI RECTED to submit its findings of fact and conclusions of law to this Court within thirty-five days of the date of this order. Th e stay imposed by this Court’s order of Decemb er 21, 2005 is MODIFIED to a llow continued tax payments to the State Treasurer’s office du ring the pendency of the stay . The application for leave to appeal the December 2, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals remains under consideration.

We retain jurisdiction.

s0125 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
January 31, 2006
Clerk