What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the appellant is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
A/S KREDIIT PANK, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CHASE MANHATTAN BANK, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 353, Docket 27308.
United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.
Argued May 2, 1962.
Decided May 18, 1962.
Delson, Levin & Gordon, New York City (J. Pinckney Torpats, Arlington, Va., of counsel), for plaintiff-appellant.
A. Donald MacKinnon and Milbank, Tweed, Hope & Hadley, New York City (Rebecca M. Cutler, Edward J. Reilly, Jr., New York City, of counsel), for defendant-appellee.
Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, WATERMAN and FRIENDLY, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, an Estonian bank, brought an action in the District Court for the Southern District of New York, in April, 1956, for a judgment declaring that two persons were the only ones authorized to dispose of funds in its account with defendant, The Chase Manhattan Bank. Chase promptly answered and counterclaimed for interpleader. This was granted in a well-reasoned opinion by Judge Bryan, D.C., 155 F.Supp. 30 (1957). Many further motions ensued; the docket entries alone fill six and a half printed pages. Among other things, appellant sought to relitigate Chase’s right to interplead and opposed, unsuccessfully, the intervention of the Acting Consul General of Estonia. Ultimately a settlement was reached, the action was dismissed with prejudice, and Chase was allowed attorneys’ fees of $8500 and costs and expenses of $2076.41. From the latter portion of the order of dismissal this appeal has been taken.
It ought not to have been. Appellant does not dispute that a defendant properly invoking interpleader is entitled to costs and attorneys’ fees, Mutual Life Ins. Co. of New York v. Bondurant, 27 F.2d 464, 466 (6 Cir.), cert. denied, 278 U.S. 630, 4 S.Ct. 30, 73 L.Ed. 548 (1828); 3 Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed. 1948), ¶ 22.16, and cases cited in fn. 5. Its claims that an allowance should have been denied here because there was no need for interpleader in the light of N.Y. Banking Law, § 134, subd. 7 and other circumstances, or because Chase did not itself institute an action for interpleader at an earlier date, and that any allowance must be limited to the period before the order allowing interpleader was entered, are not even colorable. The same is true of its criticism of the amount allowed, which represents, in no small measure, services of Chase’s attorneys occasioned by appellant’s unjustified resistance to the interpleader and the hearing of other parties.
The case would be an appropriate one for invoking our Rule 26(b), 28 U.S.C. whereby damages at a rate not exceeding. 10%, in addition to interest, may be awarded “where an appeal shall delay the proceedings on the judgment, decree, or order of the lower court, and shall appear to have been sued out merely for delay, * * * ” see 28 U.S.C. § 1912, and Ginsburg v. Stern, 295 F.2d 698 (3 Cir. 1961). However, since this is an action in which attorneys’ fees may be awarded in any event, it will be sufficient to grant defendant an additional $1,000 for its attorneys’ fees on appeal, together with the cost of printing its brief and appendix and any other costs normally taxable, and to dismiss the appeal as frivolous. It is' so ordered.

Question: What is the total number of appellants in the case that fall into the category "private business and its executives"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1