Daniel P. Winikka (State Bar No. 00794873

WINIKKA LAW PLLC

6060 N. Central Expressway, Suite 500

Dallas, TX 75206

Phone: 469-384-7710

Facsimile: 469-384-7709

dan@danwinlaw.com

COUNSEL FOR DEBTOR IN POSSESSION

Craig F. Simon (State Bar No. 00784968)

MEADOWS COLLIER REED COUSINS 

CROUCH & UNGERMAN LLP

901 Main Street, Suite 3700

Dallas, TX 75202

Phone: 214-744-3700

Facsimile: 214-292-2356

csimon@meadowscollier.com 

PROPOSED CO-COUNSEL FOR DEBTOR IN 

POSSESSION

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH DIVISION

In re 

MATTHEW BRANDON MARTORELLO, 

Debtor.

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

§

Chapter 11

Case No. 24-90016-mxm-11

DEBTOR’S (I) RESPONSE TO VIRGINIA PLAINTIFFS’ PRELIMINARY OBJECTION 

TO THE APPLICATION TO RETAIN MEADOWS COLLIER AS CO-COUNSEL FOR

THE DEBTOR AND (II) RELATED DISCLOSURES/CLARIFICATIONS

TO THE HONORABLE MARK X. MULLIN, UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:

Matthew B. Martorello, the above-captioned debtor in possession (the “Debtor”), hereby 

submits this (i) response to the Virginia Plaintifffs’ Preliminary Objection to the Application to 

Retain Meadows Collier as Co-Counsel to the Debtor and (ii) related disclosures/clarifications, 

and in support states as follows:

1. The preliminary objection asserts that the Debtor’s application to retain Meadows, 

Collier, Reed, Cousins, Crouch & Ungerman, L.L.P. (“Meadows Collier”) as co-counsel for the 

Debtor (the “Application”) “contains insufficient disclosures to enable creditors and the Court to 

meaningfully evaluate Meadows Collier’s disinterestedness” and states that clarifications are 

Case 24-90016-mxm11 Doc 74 Filed 11/25/24 Entered 11/25/24 15:42:19 Desc Main

Document Page 1 of 7
needed on four topics. To the extent that the Application was not clear, the Debtor is filing this 

response, and Meadows Colliers is filing a related supplemental declaration, a copy of which is 

attached hereto as Exhibit A, to clarify or supplement Meadows Colliers’ disclosures. 

2. First, the Virginia Plaintiffs state that Meadows Collier must clarify “whether it still 

represents Mrs. Martorello and, if not, when such representation ended.” Mrs. Martorello 

commenced her own bankruptcy case under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code on the same day 

that the Debtor filed the Application. Meadows Collier’s representation of Mrs. Martorello 

terminated prior to the commencement of her bankruptcy proceeding. Although Meadows Collier 

does not currently represent Mrs. Martorello, Meadows Collier anticipates that Mrs. Martorello 

may retain Meadows Collier to represent her in her chapter 7 case with respect to litigation relating 

to whether she has any liability to consumer borrowers from a federally recognized Indian tribe—

the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians (the “Tribe”).

1

 Such litigation will 

involve essentially the same issues that will need to be addressed in the adjudication of the Debtor’s 

liability to such consumer borrowers and, to a large degree, the potential liability of Eventide 

Credit Acquisitions and BWH Texas LLC as well. 

3. Second, the Virginia Plaintiffs assert that they need clarity regarding Meadows 

Colliers’ “intentions with respect to the retainer funds advanced by Mrs. Martorello, which 

according to the Application are an asset of Mrs. Martorello’s bankruptcy estate.” As stated in the 

Application, the retainer was paid from Mrs. Martorello’s separate property and the unused portion 

of the retainer remains Mrs. Marorello’s separate property. Mrs. Martorello’s non-exempt separate 

1 Given that the Virginia Plaintiffs have already filed an adversary proceeding against the Debtor seeking to except 

their claims from discharge, if Mrs. Martorello’s discharge of any liability to consumer borrowers is likewise 

challenged, it is likely she would retain Meadows Collier to represent her on that issue as well. 

Case 24-90016-mxm11 Doc 74 Filed 11/25/24 Entered 11/25/24 15:42:19 Desc Main

Document Page 2 of 7
property became property of her bankruptcy estate, and the unused portion of the retainer will be 

returned as directed by the chapter 7 trustee. 

4. Third, Virginia Plaintiffs assert that they need clarity “whether Mrs. Martorello or 

her estate hold any potential claims against the Debtor or Meadows Collier and, if so, the nature 

and extent of those claims.” As the Virginia Plaintiffs already pointed out, and as disclosed in the 

Debtor’s schedules, prior to the Petition Date, Mrs. Martorello loaned her husband substantial 

funds from her separate property so that he could pay legal fees in connection with his defense of 

the litigation by the Virginia Plaintiffs and other consumer borrowers. As a result she has an 

undisputed claim in this bankruptcy case. Mrs. Martorello has no other claims against her husband 

in this chapter 11 case. With respect to whether Mrs. Martorello’s chapter 7 estate has any potential 

claims against Meadows Collier, it is hard to see how any such potential claim, if it existed, would 

create any interest of Meadows Collier adverse to the Debtor’s estate (as opposed to the chapter 7 

estate). In any event, the Debtor does not believe that his wife’s chapter 7 estate has claims against 

Meadows Collier as a result of her funding the retainer to secure the joint representation of the 

Debtor and his wife given that the Debtor and his wife received valuable legal services as a result 

of the retention, and Meadows Colliers’ application of a portion of the retainer (about $26,000) 

prior to Mrs. Martorello filing bankruptcy could not have been a preference because the legal 

services were secured by the retainer.

5. Finally, the Virginia Plaintiffs indicate that they want to know whether “the Debtor 

holds any claims against Mrs. Martorello or her bankruptcy estate.” The Debtor holds no claims 

against his wife or her estate. 

6. Contrary to the suggestion of the Virginia Plaintiffs, assuming Mrs. Martorello 

retains Meadows Collier to represent her in her chapter 7 case relating to her potential liability to 

Case 24-90016-mxm11 Doc 74 Filed 11/25/24 Entered 11/25/24 15:42:19 Desc Main

Document Page 3 of 7
consumer borrowers from the Tribe, Meadows Colliers’ concurrent representation of the Debtor 

and his wife would not “preclude it from being ‘disinterested’ as required under section 327(a).” 

Preliminary Objection at 3. The Debtor and his wife’s interests are completely aligned. Meadows 

Colliers’ representation of both of them in litigation in which they are both asserting the same 

defenses would not give rise to any divided loyalties or lack of impartiality on the part of Meadows 

Collier such that Meadows Collier could be said to have an interest adverse to the Debtor’s estate

or an actual conflict of interest. Requiring Mrs. Martorello to retain separate counsel for purposes 

of litigating against the Virginia Plaintiffs on the very same issues that her husband is litigating 

against the Virginia Plaintiffs would accomplish nothing more than increasing her legal fees –

perhaps an outcome Virginia Plaintiffs hope to accomplish but not one that is legally required or 

that makes sense. The fact that she holds an undisputed prepetition claim against the Debtor’s 

estate is not disqualifying. Section 327(c) of the Bankruptcy Code expressly provides that “a 

person is not disqualified for employment under this section solely because of such person’s 

employment by or representation of a creditor, unless there is an objection by another creditor or 

the United States trustee, in which case the court shall disapprove such employment if there is an 

actual conflict of interest.” There is no actual conflict of interest here, and it belies any common 

sense to think that the fact that the Debtor’s wife has an unsecured claim for loaning her husband 

funds pre-bankruptcy to defend himself could lead to any sort of divided loyalty or lack of 

impartiality on the part of Meadows Collier in its representation of the Debtor.2

2 The Virginia Plaintiffs assert in a footnote that Winikka Law PLLC must also make “corrective disclosures.” 

Preliminary Obj. at n2. When the retention application for Winikka Law was filed, it was contemplated that Mrs. 

Martorello would also retain Winikka Law to represent her “to the extent she determines she needs to commence 

bankruptcy as well.” Winikka Retention Application at ¶20. Before there was any engagement of Winikka Law to 

represent Mrs. Martorello, Mrs. Martorello determined to retain Behrooz Vida. As with Meadows Collier, however, 

it is anticipated that Mrs. Martorello will likely retain Winikka Law along with Meadows Collier to represent her in 

her chapter 7 proceeding with respect to litigation relating to her potential liability to consumer borrowers from the 

Tribe and, if challenged, any asserted exception from discharge for any such liability. Winikka Law is filing a 

supplemental declaration regarding these developments. Although the Virginia Plaintiffs also suggest that Winikka 

Case 24-90016-mxm11 Doc 74 Filed 11/25/24 Entered 11/25/24 15:42:19 Desc Main

Document Page 4 of 7
7. As stated in the Application, to the best of the Debtor’s knowledge, information and 

belief, Meadows Collier represents no interest adverse to the Debtor or to its estate in the matters 

for which Meadows Collier is proposed to be retained and is a "disinterested person" as defined in 

section 101(14) of the Bankruptcy Code.

For all the foregoing reasons, to the extent this response and additional clarifications has 

not resolved the Preliminary Objection, it should be overruled. 

Law “received retainer payments from Mrs. Martorello that may be subject to claims by Mrs. Martorello’s bankruptcy 

estate,” they do not explain how any such potential claim would create any potential adverse interest of Winikka Law 

against the Debtor’s estate. Moreover, the Debtor does not believe that his wife’s retainer payment to Winikka Law 

is subject to clawback by his wife’s estate in any event because it was not a payment on an antecedent debt, and Mrs. 

Martorello received not only a promise to repay pursuant to an existing promissory note, but also critical and necessary 

legal services for her husband, which benefited the entire family. 

Case 24-90016-mxm11 Doc 74 Filed 11/25/24 Entered 11/25/24 15:42:19 Desc Main

Document Page 5 of 7
DATED: November 25, 2024 

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Daniel P. Winikka

Daniel P. Winikka (TX 00794873) 

WINIKKA LAW, PLLC

6060 North Central Expressway, Suite 500

Dallas, TX 75206

Telephone: (469) 384-7710

Facsimile: (469) 384-7709

dan@danwinlaw.com

COUNSEL FOR DEBTOR IN 

 POSSESSION

/s/ Craig F. Simon

Craig F. Simon (TX 00784968) 

MEADOWS COLLIER REED COUSINS

CROUCH & UNGERMAN LLP

901 Main St., Suite 3700

Dallas, TX 75202

Telephone: (214) 744-3700

Facsimile: (214) 292-2356

csimon@meadowscollier.com

PROPOSED CO-COUNSEL FOR 

 DEBTOR IN POSSESSION 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 25th day of November, he caused to be served 

a true and correct copy of this Debtor’s (I) Response to the Virginia Plaintifffs’ Preliminary 

Objection to the Application to Retain Meadows Collier as Co-Counsel to the Debtor and (II) 

Related Disclosures/Clarifications by (i) electronically filing it with the Court using the CM/ECF 

system, which sent notification to all parties of interest participating in the CM/ECF system; and 

(ii) by first class U.S. mail, postage prepaid, upon the parties on the attached service list. 

/s/ Daniel P. Winikka 

Daniel P. Winikka

Case 24-90016-mxm11 Doc 74 Filed 11/25/24 Entered 11/25/24 15:42:19 Desc Main

Document Page 6 of 7
Matthew Brandon Martorello

Case 24-90016-mxm-11

Service List

Virginia Borrower Class

c/o John Scofield

Caddell & Chapman

628 East 9th Street

Houston, TX 77007

Big Picture Loans, LLC

Attn: Co-Managers

E23970 Pow Wow Trail

P.O. Box 704

Watersmeet, Michigan 49969

Citibank

Attn: Bankruptcy Dept

PO Box 790034

St. Louis, MO 63179-0034

Giordani & Assoc

Leslie Giordani

2301 S. Capital of Texas Hwy

Building K

Austin, TX 78746

Kohl’s Credit Card

Attn: Bankruptcy Dept

PO Box 3115

Milwaukee, WI 53201-3115

First National Bank of Omaha

Attn: Bankruptcy Dept

PO Box 3412

Omaha, NE 68103-0412

Richard Lee Smith

c/o Cynthia B. Chapman

Caddell & Chapman

628 East 9th Street

Houston, TX 77007

Renee Galloway

c/o John Scofield

Caddell & Chapman

628 E. 9th St

Houston, TX 77007

Lula Williams et al

c/o Kelly Guzzo PLC

3925 Chain Bridge Road

Suite 202

Fairfax, VA 22030

Bank of America, N.A. 

Attn: 

PO Box 31785

Tampa, FL 33631-3785

Greenberg Traurig, LLP

c/o Jennifer Weddle

1200 17th St

Suite 2400

Denver, CO 80202

American Express

Attn: Bankruptcy Dept

PO Box 981535

El Paso, TX 79998-1535

Discover Card

Attn: Bankruptcy Dept

PO Box 3025

New Albany, OH 43054-3025

JP Morgan Chase Bank NA

Attn: Bankruptcy Dept

PO Box 15298

Wilmington, DE 19850

Comenity Capital Bank

Attn: Bankruptcy Dept

PO Box 183043

Columbus, OH 43218-3043

Office of the United States Trustee

1100 Commerce, Room 976

Dallas, Texas 75242-1699

Internal Revenue Service

Centralized Insolvency Office

P. O. Box 7346

Philadelphia, PA 19101-7346

Loeb & Loeb LLP

c/o Barney Given

10100 Santa Monica Blvd.

Suite 2200

Los Angeles, CA 90067

The Summit Investment Group

3207 Plantation Village

Dorado, PR 00646

William Blum

Solomon Blum Heymann LLP

40 Wall Street

35th Floor

New York, NY 10005

Upgrade

Attn: Bankruptcy Dept

2N. Central Ave 10th Floor

Phoenix, AZ 85004

Dana Duggan

c/o John B. Scofield , Jr.

Caddell & Chapman

628 East 9th Street

Houston, TX 77007

Amanda P. Swartz

Trial Attorney, Tax Division

U.S. Department of Justice

717 N. Harwood, Suite 400

Dallas, Texas 75201

Case 24-90016-mxm11 Doc 74 Filed 11/25/24 Entered 11/25/24 15:42:19 Desc Main

Document Page 7 of 7