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:
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Edward F. LOWRY and Kusworm & Myers Co., L. P. A., Defendants-Appellants.
No. 76-1845.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Argued Nov. 28, 1976.
Decided and Filed Feb. 15, 1978.
John H. Dawson, Hall & Dawson, Dayton, Ohio, for defendants-appellants.
Paul Tague, Jr., J. Paul McNamara, McNamara & McNamara, Columbus, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, EDWARDS, Circuit Judge, and THORNTON, District Judge.
Honorable Thomas P. Thornton, Senior Judge, United States District Court for the Eastérn District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
PHILLIPS, Chief Judge.
The issue in this diversity suit is whether the priority provision of the Ohio Uniform Commercial Code, Ohio Rev.Code Ann. § 1309.31 (UCC 9-312), precludes the imposition of an equitable lien under the unusual facts of the present case. In comprehensive findings of fact and conclusions of law, District Judge Carl B. Rubin allowed an equitable lien under the “narrowly-circumscribed” situation here presented. General Insurance Company of America v. Lowry, 412 F.Supp. 12 (S.D.Ohio 1976). Reference is made to the reported decision of the district court for a detailed recitation of pertinent facts.
In diversity cases, federal courts must apply the law of the State as pronounced by its highest court. See Erie R. R. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64, 58 S.Ct. 817, 82 L.Ed. 1188 (1938). We conclude that because of the peculiar circumstances involved in this case, the Supreme Court of Ohio would uphold the imposition of an equitable lien notwithstanding the priority provisions of § 1309.31. We reach this conclusion based upon two considerations.
First, § 1301.09 (UCC 1-203) provides: “Every contract or duty within [Chapter 1309] of the Revised Code, imposes an obligation of good faith in its performance of enforcement.” Section 1301.01(S) defines good faith as “honesty in fact in the conduct or transaction concerned.” See In re Samuels & Co., 526 F.2d 1238, 1243-44 (5th Cir. 1976) (en banc), cert. denied, Stowers v. Mahon, 429 U.S. 834, 97 S.Ct. 98, 50 L.Ed.2d 99 (1976). In Thompson v. United States, 408 F.2d 1075, 1084 (8th Cir. 1969), the Eighth Circuit held that the good faith provision of the UCC “permits the consideration of the lack of good faith ... to alter priorities which otherwise would be determined under Article 9.”
The district court emphasized that this case involves the attorney for one of the parties, not a disinterested creditor attempting to protect his commercial interests. We agree with the district court that the record discloses facts which do not meet the good faith standards of the Uniform Commercial Code.
Second, an equitable lien was created by appellants in favor of appellee. In 1913, the Supreme Court of Ohio dealt with facts strikingly similar to the present suit. In Klaustermeyer v. The Cleveland Trust Co., 89 Ohio St. 142, 105 N.E. 278 (1913), each member of the Board of Directors of Euclid Avenue Trust Company loaned $5,000 to the company when the trust company began having financial difficulties. Stock owned by the company was to be delivered to the directors as security for each member of the Board of Directors of Euclid Avenue Trust for the benefit of creditors to the Cleveland Trust Company before the stock was delivered to Klaustermeyer, one of the board members. The Supreme Court of Ohio held that Klaustermeyer had an “equitable lien on the securities in the possession of the Euclid Avenue Trust Company, which were assigned and transferred to The Cleveland Trust Company . . . .” 89 Ohio St. at 144, 105 N.E. at 279. In holding that the trust company had a duty to deliver the securities to Klaustermeyer, the court said:
In modern times the doctrine of equitable liens has been liberally extended for the purpose of facilitating mercantile transactions, and in order that the intention of the parties to create specific charges may be justly and effectually carried out. Bispham’s Principles of Equity (8 ed.), Section 351.
What good conscience requires, equity should require, and while we are able to find no adjudicated case upon parallel facts, we are persuaded from the nature of the transaction, the relations and the rights of the parties, good conscience and sound morals among men in everyday business, that Klaustermeyer should have his lien for his loan. 89 Ohio St. at 153, 105 N.E. at 282.
We disagree with appellants’ argument that the enactment of the Uniform Commercial Code overruled Klaustermeyer and eliminated equitable liens in all situations. Section 1301.03 (UCC 1-103) states in pertinent part: “Unless displaced by the particular provisions of [Chapter 1309] of the Revised Code, the principles of law and equity . . . shall supplement its provisions.” (emphasis added).
Discussing the doctrine of equitable liens and citing Klaustermeyer, the Ohio Court of Appeals held in Syring v. Sartorius, 28 Ohio App.2d 308, 309-10, 277 N.E.2d 457, 458 (1971):
The doctrine may be stated in its most general form that every express executory agreement in writing whereby a contracting party sufficiently indicates an intention to make some particular property, real or personal, or fund, therein described or identified, a security for a debt or other obligation, or whereby the party promises to convey, assign, or transfer the property as security, creates an equitable lien upon the property so indicated, which is enforceable against the property in the hands not only of the original contractor, but of his purchasers or encumbrancers with notice. Under like circumstances, a merely verbal agreement may create a similar lien upon personal property. The doctrine itself is clearly an application of the maxim “equity regards as done that which ought to be done.” Cf. Klaustermeyer v. Cleveland Trust Co., 89 Ohio St. 142, 105 N.E. 278. (emphasis added).
This court has recognized the continuing validity of Klaustermeyer. See In re Easy Living, Inc., 407 F.2d 142, 145 (6th Cir. 1969). See also In re Troy, 490 F.2d 1061, 1065 (6th Cir. 1974).
Construing Texas law, the Fifth Circuit implicitly found that the existence of an equitable lien does not conflict with Article Nine of the UCC. See Citizens Co-Op Gin v. United States, 427 F.2d 692, 695-96 (5th Cir. 1970). Other Circuits construing various state laws have recognized the doctrine of equitable liens. See Casper v. Neubert, 489 F.2d 543, 547 (10th Cir. 1973); Awk-wright Mutual Insurance Co. v. Bargain City, U. S. A., Inc., 373 F.2d 701 (3d Cir. 1967); Cherno v. Dutch American Mercantile Corp., 353 F.2d 147, 151-53 (2d Cir. 1965). But cf. Shelton v. Erwin, 472 F.2d 1118 (8th Cir. 1973).
We, therefore, are convinced that the Ohio Supreme Court, if it were deciding this case, would follow its earlier opinion in Klaustermeyer, holding that General Insurance Company is entitled to an equitable lien on the Pico stock in possession of appellant Myers.
Affirmed.

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: 2