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:
Frederick C. LUCIUS and Carliss Jean Lucius, Debtors-Appellants, v. John C. McLEMORE, Trustee-Appellee.
No. 83-5641.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Submitted July 19, 1984.
Decided Aug. 23, 1984.
H. Marshall Judd, Cookeville, Tenn., for debtor s-appellants.
John C. McLemore, Nashville, Tenn., for trustee-appellee.
Before ENGEL and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges, and CELEBREZZE, Senior Circuit Judge.
PER CURIAM.
This case raises the question when a debtor may amend his filed schedules to add to the list of exempted property. We hold that under Rule 110 of the old Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and Rule 1009 of the new Rules the debtor may amend his list as a matter of course at any time before the close of the case.
The debtors, Frederick C. and Carliss Jean Lucius, filed a voluntary petition in bankruptcy on October 20, 1982. The Luci-uses filed a Schedule B-4, claiming as exempt property clothing, household goods and furnishings, and an income tax refund. The Luciuses also filed statements indicating that they owned two vehicles, a Dodge van and a Buick, and that a bank held a security interest in the Buick.
The creditors’ meeting was held on December 16, 1982. The bank did not participate and, upon inquiry by the trustee, stated that the Luciuses’ obligation had been paid in full previously. The trustee then asked the Luciuses to surrender the two vehicles; counsel responded that the Luci-uses had moved to Minnesota, taking the vehicles with them.
On January 18, 1983, the trustee filed suit against the Luciuses to prevent their discharge in bankruptcy, and to obtain the vehicles; the Luciuses were served with the complaint on February 4, 1983. At a pretrial conference, the trustee conceded that the Luciuses did not move the vehicles with the intent to hinder or delay the trustee’s administration of the estate, but contended that their refusal to surrender the vehicle was producing that effect.
On February 7, 1983, the Luciuses filed a petition with the Bankruptcy Court to amend the schedule of exemptions to add the vehicles. The trustee objected to the proposed amendment as untimely. The bankruptcy judge, as standing master, filed a report recommending that the petition be denied. Although the Luciuses objected to the report, the District Court denied the petition as untimely. This order is now on appeal before this Court.
Rule 110 of the old Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, in effect when this case was heard, provided, “A voluntary petition, schedule, or statement of affairs may be amended as a matter of course at any time before the case is closed.” The courts in the Middle District of Tennessee have held that Rule 110 was effectively rescinded by its conflict with 11 U.S.C. § 522(Z), which states:
The debtor shall file a list of property that the debtor claims as exempt under subsection (b) of this section. If the debtor does not file such a list, a dependent of the debtor may file such a list, or may claim property as exempt from property of the estate on behalf of the debtor. Unless a party in interest objects, the property claimed as exempt on such list is exempt.
These courts have reasoned that section 522(Z), by requiring that parties in interest be given time to object to proposed exemptions, limited the time during which exemptions can be claimed as of right to the 15-day period for objections established by former Rule 403. See, e.g., In re Williams, 26 B.R. 741 (Bankr.M.D.Tenn.1982); In re Brewer, 17 B.R. 186 (Bankr.M.D. Tenn.), aff'd, 22 B.R. 983 (M.D.Tenn.1982).
Rule 110 has been adopted without substantive change as Rule 1009 of the (new) Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, effective August 1, 1983: “A voluntary petition, list, schedule, statement of financial affairs, statement of executory contracts, or Chapter 13 Statement may be amended by the debtor as a matter of course at any time before the case is closed.” This readoption indicates that Congress perceived no inconsistency between this rule and the Bankruptcy Code, including section 522(Z). The Advisory Committee Note to Rule 1009 reaffirms the legislative intent to allow amendment as a matter of course for schedules, including lists of exempt property.
This rule continues the permissive approach adopted by former Bankruptcy Rule 110 to amendments of voluntary petitions and accompanying papers. Notice of any amendment is required to be given to the trustee. This is particularly important with respect to any amendment of the schedule of property affecting the debtor’s claim of exemptions.
(Emphasis added.)
This “permissive approach,” allowing amendment at any time before the case is closed and denying courts discretion to reject amendments, has been endorsed in several circuits. See Shirkey v. Leake, 715 F.2d 859, 863 (4th Cir.1983); In re Doan, 672 F.2d 831, 833 (11th Cir.1982); In re Gershenbaum, 598 F.2d 779 (3d Cir.1979); In re Andermahr, 30 B.R. 532 (Bankr. 9th Cir.1983). Courts may still refuse to allow an amendment where the debtor has acted in bad faith or where property has been concealed. See Doan, 672 F.2d at 833. Moreover, under § 522(¿) the proposed exemptions are subject to objection by a party in interest. See, e.g., Andermahr, 30 B.R. at 534; In re Maxwell, 5 B.R. 58 (Bankr.N.D.Ga.1980).
Accordingly, we reverse the order of the District Court denying the debtors’ application to amend their Schedule B-4 and remand for further proceedings.
. Local Rule 15 of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, deleted March 1, 1984, implemented Rule 110.
. The bankruptcy judge who originally acted as standing master in this case has recently indicated that he now believes that the precedents of the Middle District of Tennessee rejecting a right to amend under Rule 110, upon which he presumably based his recommendation in this case, no longer have validity. See In re Davis, 38 B.R. 585 (Bankr.M.D.Tenn.1984) (Lundin, J.).

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: 0