Case 09-11899

Doc 1284-1

Filed 11/09/12 Entered 11/09/12 14:47:58 in Support Page 1 of 15

Memorandum

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

IN RE: VIRGIN OIL COMPANY, INC. DEBTOR

CASE NO. 09-11899 CHAPTER 11 SECTION A

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY THE VIRGIN OIL COMPANY, INC. PLAN TRUST The Virgin Oil Company Plan Trust (Plan Trust)1 hereby requests, pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, made applicable herein through Rules 7056 and 9014 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure, that the Court grant its Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (the Motion) and grant summary judgment in its favor in relation to certain claims objections (the Claims Objections)2 filed by the Plan Trust with respect to claims asserted by certain parties (the Wrong Case Claimants).3 The Wrong Case Claimants have each asserted claims against the Debtor, Virgin Oil Company, Inc. (Virgin Oil), but which include supporting documentation indicating that their respective services and/or materials were actually provided to a separate and distinct entity, Virgin Offshore USA, Inc. (Virgin Offshore). Notwithstanding there being a lack of privity between the Wrong Case Claimants and
1

For purposes of the Motion for Summary Judgment, the Plan Trust appears herein through the firm of Slattery, Marino & Roberts with respect to the objections to the claims by Newpark Environmental Services, LLC and Key Energy Services, Inc. For all other purposes, the Plan Trust appears herein through the firm of Lugenbuhl, Wheaton, Peck, Rankin & Hubbard. See Docket Nos. 1041 (AL of Louisiana, LLC, Geo-Mag MWD, LLC, Hunting Energy Services, Inc., LandTel Communications, Nito-Lift Technologies, LLC, River Rental Tools, Inc., Tarpon Rental, Inc., Tim Morton & Associates, Inc., Trend Services, Inc., Vanguard Vacuum Trucks); Docket No. 1049 (Precision Drilling Company, LP, f/k/a Gray Wolf Drilling, LP); Docket No. 1051 (Newpark Environmental Services, LLC); Docket No. 1055 (Key Energy Services, Inc.); Docket No. 1076 (Franks Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc.); and Docket No. 1094 (Intracoastal Liquid Mud, Inc.) See Fn. 2, which includes in bold the relevant Wrong Case Claimants.

Case 09-11899

Doc 1284-1

Filed 11/09/12 Entered 11/09/12 14:47:58 in Support Page 2 of 15

Memorandum

Virgin Oil, it has been suggested that prior orders of this Court made a qualified finding that Virgin Oil was the operator of a certain oil well lease (the Empire Lease), and that the Wrong Case Claimants should therefore be permitted to assert their claims in personam against Virgin Oil. This proposition is untenable based on a plain reading of the relevant prior orders, as well as applicable nonbankruptcy law. Moreover, certain of the Wrong Case ClaimantsPrecision Drilling Company, LP, f/k/a Gray Wolf Drilling, LP); Newpark Environmental Services, LLC; Key Energy Services, Inc.; Franks Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc.; and Intracoastal Liquid Mud, Inc. (collectively, the LOWLA Claimants) have asserted liens and privileges against the interest of Virgin Oil and Virgin Offshore in the Empire Lease. As set forth hereinbelow, this Courts prior order

effectively bars the LOWLA claimants from asserting a secured claim against the interests of Virgin Oil in the Empire Lease. Insofar as certain of the Prior Orders (as defined below) by this Court are applicable to the Claims Objections, the Plan Trust respectfully seeks a partial summary judgment that (a) with respect to the issue of operatorship, (i) the findings regarding operatorship in the March Pretrial Order (as defined below) and Consent Judgment (as defined below) do not have a preclusive effect with respect to the instant Claims Objections, or (ii) alternatively, nothing in this Courts March Pretrial Order or Consent Judgment, including the finding that Virgin Oil is the operator of the Empire Lease, affords the Wrong Case Claimants an in personam claim against Virgin Oil; and (b) the LOWLA Claimants, to the extent that they are entitled to any claim against Virgin Oil, are only entitled to be treated as general unsecured creditors. I. JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction over this Chapter 11 case, and the parties and property

Case 09-11899

Doc 1284-1

Filed 11/09/12 Entered 11/09/12 14:47:58 in Support Page 3 of 15

Memorandum

affected hereby, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1334. This Court also has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this Motion pursuant to the Order Confirming the Second Amended Plan or Reorganization Filed by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and CIT Capital USA, Inc. as of August 26, 2011 as Amended (Docket No. 948) (Confirmation Order) and Articles X and XIII of the Second Amended Plan of Reorganization Filed by the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors and CIT Capital USA, Inc. as of August 26, 2011 (Docket No. 761), as amended and modified by the First and Second Immaterial Modifications (Docket Nos. 813 and 940) and supplemented by the Supplement (Docket No. 812) (collectively, the Plan). II. BACKGROUND A. Procedural Background

On June 25, 2009 (the Petition Date), certain creditors of Virgin Oil initiated this bankruptcy case by filing an involuntary petition for relief under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. The bankruptcy case was subsequently converted from Chapter 7 to Chapter 11. See Docket No. 50. On December 13, 2011, this Court entered the Confirmation Order confirming the Plan. Docket No. 948. Pursuant to Section M of the Confirmation Order and Section 5.3(F) and Article X of the Plan, Whistler Energy, L.L.C. exercised its authority as Trustee for the Plan Trust (Trustee) to assert objections to the claims asserted by the Wrong Case Claimants. B. Claims Subject to Objection

The Plan Trust filed the Claims Objections with respect to the following parties:4

In certain instances, the Plan Trust and certain creditors (the Settling Creditors) that were subject to the Claims Objections have reached an agreement with respect to such Claims Objections and appropriate orders have been entered by this Court. For this reason, the Settling Creditors and their claims are not the subject of the instant motion for summary judgment.
3

Case 09-11899

Doc 1284-1

Filed 11/09/12 Entered 11/09/12 14:47:58 in Support Page 4 of 15

Memorandum

Claimant Name a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. m. n. o. p. AL of Louisiana, LLC Geo-Mag MWD, LLC Hunting Energy Services, Inc. LandTel Communications Nito-Lift Technologies, LLC River Rental Tools, Inc. Tarpon Rental, Inc. Tim Morton & Associates, Inc. Trend Services, Inc. Vanguard Vacuum Trucks Precision Drilling Company, LP, f/k/a Grey Wolf Drilling, LP Newpark Environmental Services, LLC Key Energy Services, Inc. Franks Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. Industrial & Oilfield Services, Inc. Intracoastal Liquid Mud, Inc.

Claim No. 23 78 83 46 79 36 41 14 47 43 1 18 48 50 65 80

Copies of the relevant claims filed by the Wrong Claimants are attached as exhibits to the relevant Claims Objections. Each of the Wrong Case Claimants filed proofs of claim which, on their faces, assert claims against Virgin Oil. However, attached in support of each of those claims are invoices, contracts, and other documents which do not reference or evidence any contractual or other debtor-creditor relationship between the claimant and Virgin Oil, but instead reference and evidence a contractual and/or other debtor-creditor relationship between the claimant and Virgin Offshore. The Plan Trust filed Claims Objection requesting entry of an Order expunging and disallowing all of the claims identified above in their entirety, arguing that Virgin Oil is not liable in personam for debts owed to the claimants by Virgin Offshore. Additionally, because this Court previously found that the liens of CIT Capital USA, Inc. (CIT) encumber the entirety of Virgin Oils eighty-five (85%) percent interest in the Empire Lease and prime any liens or privileges held by the Lien Claimants, with respect to each of the 4

Case 09-11899

Doc 1284-1

Filed 11/09/12 Entered 11/09/12 14:47:58 in Support Page 5 of 15

Memorandum

LOWLA Claimants, the Plan Trust objected to such claims on the basis that such parties were, at best, unsecured creditors of Virgin Oil. C. Prior Orders of the Court in Adversary No. 10-01068

This Court previously reviewed the issue of the validity, rank and priority of certain of Wrong Case Claimants lien rights in certain property of the Virgin Oil, specifically, the Empire Lease, in the context of an adversary proceeding styled CIT Capital USA, Inc. v. Virgin Oil Co., Inc. and Virgin Offshore USA Inc., Adv. No. 10-01068 (the CIT Adversary). Certain, but not all, of the Wrong Case Claimants participated in the CIT Adversary. 1. The March Partial Order

During a trial conducted in the CIT Adversary during February 2011, the Court considered, inter alia, whether Virgin Oil or Virgin Offshore was the operator of the Empire Lease for the purposes of Virgin Oils and Virgin Offshores relative rights as to the Empire Lease and under the relevant joint operating agreement. In fact, Virgin Offshore was the

operator of record with the State of Louisiana during the relevant time periods. After proceedings were had, the Court issued a partial order with regard to Virgin Oil and Virgin Offshores relative rights in the Empire Lease (Adv. No. 10-06068; Docket No. 215) (the March Partial Order).5 The Courts March Partial Order stated, inter alia: IT IS

ORDERED, that Virgin Oil Company, Inc. (Debtor) is recognized as the operator of the Empire lease. The March Partial Order went on to state: The Court does not, by this ruling determine the rights of offset or setoff between the Debtor and any party, nor the ranking of any security interest against minerals produced or the proceeds received from the Empire lease. Substantive determination on these and any other causes of action existing between the parties to this matter are reserved for further trial on the merits. The rulings set forth
5

A copy of the March Partial Order is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Plan Trust respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the March Partial Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201.
5

Case 09-11899

Doc 1284-1

Filed 11/09/12 Entered 11/09/12 14:47:58 in Support Page 6 of 15

Memorandum

above are only partial. The Court will address the additional claims and issues presented by the relationships and conduct between Debtor, Virgin Offshore, and their creditors at a trial or trials scheduled by the Court in subsequent case management orders. 2. The May Partial Order

Thereafter, the Court conducted an additional trial in the CIT Adversary, the focus of which was the validity, ranking and priority of the liens of CIT, as well as parties asserting liens and privileges against the Empire Lease. Following the trial, the Court issued a partial order on May 12, 2011 (Adv. No. 10-06068; Docket No. 243) (the May Partial Order, or, collectively with the March Partial Order, the Partial Orders).6 The May Partial Order made the following findings that are directly relevant to the instant Motion: IT IS ORDERED that CIT Capital USA, Inc. holds a valid lien extending to 85% of the products and their proceeds derived from the Empire lease. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the value of the Debtors assets are less than the prepetition debt owed to CIT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CITs security interests rank before any claims made under the Louisiana Oilfield Works Lien Act. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that CITs claims will not be subordinated, either in equity or by law. A plain reading of the May Partial Order leads to the inarguable conclusion that to the extent any of the LOWLA Claimants have asserted a secured claim against Virgin Oil under the Louisiana Oil Well Lien Act, La. R.S. 9:4861, et seq., such claim is entitled, at best, to be treated as a general unsecured claim against Virgin Oil. 3. The Consent Judgment

Finally, in connection with the confirmation of a plan by Virgin Oil and a settlement

A copy of the May Partial Order is attached hereto as Exhibit B. The Plan Trust respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the May Partial Order pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201.

Case 09-11899

Doc 1284-1

Filed 11/09/12 Entered 11/09/12 14:47:58 in Support Page 7 of 15

Memorandum

between Virgin Oil and Virgin Offshore, the parties to the CIT Adversary entered into a consent judgment (Adv. No. 10-06068; Docket No. 295) (the Consent Judgment),7 which incorporated the Courts determination from the Partial Order. The Consent Judgment stated: As of entry of the Partial Order (ECF No. 215) in the above-captioned adversary proceeding dated March 16, 2011 (the Partial Order), and for the purpose of resolving certain disputes between the Debtor and Offshore relating to the rejection of the Empire Lease joint operating agreement (the Empire JOA), the Debtor is recognized as the operator of the Empire Lease. The CIT Adversary was closed shortly thereafter on March 12, 2012. III. LAW AND ARGUMENT A. Summary Judgment Standard

A motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the pleadings, depositions and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.8 When a party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of proof at trial (as the Wrong Case Claimants do with respect to their asserted claims against the estate), it must come forward with evidence which would entitle it to a directed verdict if such evidence were uncontroverted at trial.9 Not until the movant produces such evidence does the burden shift to the respondent to direct the attention of the court to evidence in the record sufficient to establish that there is a genuine issue of material fact requiring a trial.

8 9

A copy of the Consent Judgment is attached hereto as Exhibit C. The Plan Trust respectfully requests that the Court take judicial notice of the Consent Judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 201. FED. R. CIV. P. 56; Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir. 1994) (en banc). Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 324, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (1986).
7

Case 09-11899

Doc 1284-1

Filed 11/09/12 Entered 11/09/12 14:47:58 in Support Page 8 of 15

Memorandum

B.

Applicability and Effect of Res Judicata and Law of the Case 1. Res Judicata

Res judicata is appropriate under the federal standard10 if: 1) the parties to both actions are identical (or at least in privity); 2) the judgment in the first action is rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; 3) the first action concluded with a final judgment on the merits; and 4) the same claim or cause of action is involved in both suits.11 The four (4) prerequisites of res judicata are present with respect to the Partial Orders and Consent Judgment (collectively, the Prior Orders). First, there is a common identity amongst certain of the parties to the Claims Objections and the CIT Adversary. In particular, each of the LOWLA Claimants was a party to the CIT Adversary. Second, this Court was a court of competent jurisdiction to enter the Prior Orders. Third, the CIT Adversary concluded with a final judgment on the merits. Fourth, the same claim or cause of actioni.e. lien rights of the LOWLA Claimants vis--vis the Empire Lease and claims against the Virgin Oil bankruptcy estatewere involved in both the CIT Adversary and the instant Claims Objections. 2. Law of the Case

Law of the case is a distinct concept from res judicata. The Plan Trust avers that law of the case is applicable in this matter with respect to those Wrong Case Claimants that did not participate in the CIT Adversary. However, the law of the case doctrine is not a limit on a court's power, but rather a guide as to how a court should apply its discretion.12 Thus, a court is free to

10

11 12

The preclusive effect of a prior federal court judgment is controlled by federal res judicata rules. See Agrilectric Power Partners, Ltd. v. General Electric Co., 20 F.3d 663, 664 (5th Cir.1994); Steve D. Thompson Trucking, Inc. v. Dorsey Trailers, Inc., 870 F.2d 1044, 1045 (5th Cir.1989). See United States v. Shanbaum, 10 F.3d 305, 310 (5th Cir.1994). Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817 (1988).

Case 09-11899

Doc 1284-1

Filed 11/09/12 Entered 11/09/12 14:47:58 in Support Page 9 of 15

Memorandum

revisit its own decisions when circumstances warrant it.13 Moreover, the law of the case doctrine does not apply when the court has expressly reserved an issue for later determination.14 3. Preclusive Effect of Courts Prior Orders as to Operatorship

As an initial matter, the Plan Trust concedes that the prerequisites of res judicata are present with respect to LOWLA Claimants, and that law of the case is applicable to the remaining Wrong Case Claimants. However, the Prior Orders do not have any preclusive effect with respect to the issue of whether the designation of operator in the March Partial Order is binding in the context of the Claims Objections. In its March Pretrial Order, this Court

specifically limited the preclusive effect of its findings and reserved issues for later determination. The Supreme Court has summarized the federal standard and effect of res judicata as follows: The preclusive effect of a judgment is defined by claim preclusion and issue preclusion, which are collectively referred to as res judicata. Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, a final judgment forecloses successive litigation of the very same claim, whether or not relitigation of the claim raises the same issues as the earlier suit. Issue preclusion, in contrast, bars successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment, even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim. By preclud[ing] parties from contesting matters that they have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate, these two doctrines protect against the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserv[e] judicial resources, and foste[r] reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.15 Nevertheless federal courts, including the Fifth Circuit, have recognized an exception to these general rules that prevents the application of claim or issue preclusion to the Claims Objections. The doctrines of issue preclusion and claim preclusion do not apply if the court in
13 14

15

See id. DePinto v. Landoe, 411 F.2d 297 (9th Cir.1969) (where court expressly reserves an issue in its ruling, its judgment does not establish that issue as law of the case or give it res judicata finality). Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 892, 128 S.Ct. 2161, 2171 (2008) (internal citations omitted).
9

Case 09-11899

Doc 1284-1

Filed 11/09/12 Entered 11/09/12 14:47:58 in Support Page 10 of 15

Memorandum

the first action expressly reserves matters for later determination and thereby limits the preclusive effect of the judgment.16 Here, the Court expressly reserved the determination of the issue of operator status with respect to other issues to be dealt with in other later trials. In fact, the Court carefully limited the effectiveness of the March Pretrial Order by finding that The rulings set forth above are only partial. The Court will address the additional claims and issues presented by the relationships and conduct between Debtor, Virgin Offshore, and their creditors at a trial or trials scheduled by the Court in subsequent case management orders. Moreover, the Consent Judgments operator finding was limited to the purpose of resolving certain disputes between Virgin Oil and Offshore relating to the rejection of the Empire Lease joint operating agreement.17 Therefore, the Plan Trust seeks a partial summary judgment finding that the findings with respect to operatorship in the March Pretrial Order and Consent Judgment do not have a preclusive effect with respect to the instant Claims Objections. 4. Preclusive Effect of Courts Prior Orders as to Lien Ranking

The prerequisites for application of res judicata and law of the case are similarly met with respect to the May Partial Order. It is therefore necessary to determine whether the Court limited the preclusive effect of the May Partial Orders findings with respect to the validity and ranking of the liens of CIT and the LOWLA Claimants. A review of the May Partial Order reveals no such limitation on the scope of its effectiveness.

16

17

King v. Provident Life and Accident Ins. Co., 23 F.3d 926 (5th Cir.1994); Centennial Ins. Co. v. Sharp, No. Civ.A. 980973, 1998 WL 575105 (E.D.La. Sept. 3, 1998); Restatement (Second) of Judgments 26 (1982). See Consent Judgment, at p. 2 (emphasis added).

10

Case 09-11899

Doc 1284-1

Filed 11/09/12 Entered 11/09/12 14:47:58 in Support Page 11 of 15

Memorandum

After conducting a thorough trial in which all of the LOWLA Claimants participated, this Court entered its May Partial Order, and held that (a) CITs liens encumber the entirety of Virgin Oils eighty-five (85%) percent interest in the Empire Lease, (b) the value of Virgin Oils assets are less than the amount of the CIT debt, and (c) CITs liens prime any liens of the LOWLA Claimants. Each of the Lien Claimants has asserted a lien and privilege against the interest of Virgin Oil in the Empire Lease. In light of the findings in the May Partial Order, the Plan Trust is entitled to a partial summary judgment in its favor finding that to the extent that any LOWLA Claimants are in fact found to have claims against Virgin Oil, such claims must be treated as general unsecured claims. C. Even if Virgin Oil Is Deemed the Operator of the Empire Lease for Purposes of the Claims Objections, the Wrong Case Claimants Still Have No Claim Against Virgin Oil Under Applicable Nonbankruptcy Law.

Assuming that the Court adopts its prior finding that Virgin Oil is the operator of the Empire Lease in the context of the objections to the claims of the Wrong Case Claimants, this does not entitle the Wrong Case Claimants to in personam claims against the estate of Virgin Oil. The fact that a party is the operator of a well does not, in and of itself, render that party personally liable to a provider of goods or services with respect to that well. Thus, the operator designation does not alter the fact that the Wrong Case Claimants only in personam claims are against Virgin Offshore. The term operator is utilized throughout the Louisiana Revised Statutes in reference to persons responsible for oil and gas wells. This terminology and designation has significant ramifications, including responsibility for certain costs, reporting requirements and other duties in relation to the government agencies charged with regulating oil and gas production.18 A designation as operator also has significance with respect to a private partys establishment of
18

See, e.g. La. R.S. 30:4, 5.

11

Case 09-11899

Doc 1284-1

Filed 11/09/12 Entered 11/09/12 14:47:58 in Support Page 12 of 15

Memorandum

lien rights on certain identifiable property with respect to an oil well upon provision of goods or services for the development or maintenance of that oil well.19 However Louisiana law does not provide any mechanism by which a person designated as operator is, simply by virtue of that designation, liable in personam to parties who have provided goods and services for the operators oil well. This is particularly true where, as here, the providers claim is based upon an agreement with a third party which was personally obligated to satisfy the alleged debt. This principle was shown in the case of Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, Inc. v. Austral Oil Co. Inc., 531 So.2d 1156 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1988). In that case, a tugboat performed services at an oil well pursuant to a subcontract with general contractor. After the services were performed and the tugboat company was unpaid, the general contractor filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The tugboat company then pursued its debt as against the oil well operator, alleging the operator was liable in personam for the services provided. The Louisiana Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal noted the trial courts finding that the relevant contract was between the tugboat company and the general contractor, and that there was no contract with oil well operator, and that the general contractor was solely liable for the charges of the tugboat company.20 After conducting a review of the adequacy of the evidence presented at trial in order to determinate whether the trial court committed manifest error, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial courts ruling that the oil well operator was not liable to the tugboat company as there was no contractual privity between the parties.21 Assuming Virgin Oil was the operator for purposes of the Wrong Case Claimants claims, the decision in Terrebonne Fuel & Lube demonstrates why the Wrong Case Claimants claims
19 20 21

See La. R.S. 9:4961, et seq. Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, 531 So. 2d at 1157. Id., at 1159.

12

Case 09-11899

Doc 1284-1

Filed 11/09/12 Entered 11/09/12 14:47:58 in Support Page 13 of 15

Memorandum

must fail. Like in that case, the Wrong Case Claimants in this case have not been fully paid by the party with which they contracted, and are seeking to impose personal liability on the operator. However, also like the plaintiffs in Terrebonne Fuel & Lube, the Wrong Case

Claimants have no agreement with Virgin Oil and no independent basis to impose liability on Virgin Oil. The designation of operator status has no bearing on this question. Thus, the Wrong Case Claimants claims are not properly asserted as against Virgin Oil. IV. CONCLUSION The Plan Trust requests that, after due proceedings had, the Court enter a partial summary judgment that (a) with respect to the issue of operatorship, (i) the findings regarding operatorship in the March Pretrial Order (as defined below) and Consent Judgment (as defined below) do not have a preclusive effect with respect to the instant Claims Objections, or (ii) alternatively, nothing in this Courts March Pretrial Order or Consent Judgment, including the finding that Virgin Oil is the operator of the Empire Lease, affords the Wrong Case Claimants an in personam claim against Virgin Oil; and (b) the LOWLA Claimants, to the extent that they are entitled to any claim against Virgin Oil, are only entitled to be treated as general unsecured creditors, and that the Court grant all other general and equitable relief that this Court deems proper. Respectfully submitted, LUGENBUHL, WHEATON, PECK, RANKIN & HUBBARD /s/ Benjamin W. Kadden____________________ STEWART F. PECK (#10403) CHRISTOPHER T. CAPLINGER (#25357) BENJAMIN W. KADDEN (#29927) JOSEPH P. BRIGGETT (#33029) 601 Poydras Street, Suite 2775 New Orleans, LA 70130 Telephone: (504) 568-1990 Facsimile: (504) 310-9195

13

Case 09-11899

Doc 1284-1

Filed 11/09/12 Entered 11/09/12 14:47:58 in Support Page 14 of 15

Memorandum

Email: speck@lawla.com; ccaplinger@lawla.com; bkadden@lawla.com; jbriggett@lawla.com Counsel for The Virgin Oil Company, Inc. Plan Trust (for all Claims Objections except Newpark Environmental Services, LLC and Key Energy Services, Inc.) AND /s/ Paul J. Goodwine Paul J. Goodwine, Bar No. 23757 Slattery, Marino & Roberts 1100 Poydras Street, Suite 1800 New Orleans, Louisiana 70163 Telephone: (504) 585.7800 Facsimile: (504) 585.7890 Special Counsel for the Virgin Oil Company, Inc. Plan Trust (solely for Claims Objections as to Newpark Environmental Services, LLC and Key Energy Services, Inc.)

Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been served upon the parties that receive electronic notice via the Courts CM/ECF System, as well as the following parties via first class mail on this 9th day of November 2012: AL of Louisiana, LLC Ivy Ruth Landry, Owner 9600 Longside Road New Iberia, LA 70560-0691 Geo-Mag MWD, LLC P.O. Box 921 Broussard, LA 70518-0921 Hunting Energy Services, Inc. P.O. Box 203931 Houston, TX 77216-3931 LandTel Communications P.O. Box 61567 Lafayette, LA 70596-1567 Nitro-Lift Technologies, Inc. P.O. Box 3307 Lafayette, LA 70502-3307 River Rental Tools, Inc. 109 Derrick Road Belle Chasse, LA 70037-1109

Tarpon Rental, Inc. P.O. Box 9023 Houma, LA 70363 Tim Morton & Associates, Inc. 730 E. Kaliste Saloom Road Lafayette, LA 70508-2547

14

Case 09-11899

Doc 1284-1

Filed 11/09/12 Entered 11/09/12 14:47:58 in Support Page 15 of 15

Memorandum

Trend Services, Inc. P.O. Box 747 Broussard, LA 70518-0747 Vanguard Vacuum Trucks P.O. Box 4276 Houma, LA 70361-4276 Precision Drilling Company, LP 10350 Richmond Avenue, Suite 700 Houston, TX Precision Drilling Company, LP c/o H. Kent Aguillard 141 S. 6th Street P.O. Box 391 Eunice, Louisiana 70535 Franks Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. Attn: Danny P. Pontiff, Controller P.O. Box 51729 Lafayette, LA 70505

Industrial & Oilfield Services, Inc. c/o Jacque B. Pucheu, Jr. P.O. Box 1109 Eunice, LA 70535 Industrial & Oilfield Services, Inc. c/o Earl Anthony Landry, Jr., Agent 707 S. Severin Street Erath, LA 70533 Intracoastal Liquid Mud, Inc. c/o Ted M. Anthony, Esq. Babineaux Poch Anthony & Slavich, LLC P.O. Box 52169 Lafayette, LA 70505-2169 Intracoastal Liquid Mud, Inc. c/o Mike Calkins, Agent 512 Highway 92 North Scott, LA 70583

/s/ Benjamin W. Kadden____________________ I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing has been served upon the parties that receive electronic notice via the Courts CM/ECF System, as well as the following parties via first class mail on this 9th day of November 2012: Newpark Environmental Services, LLC c/o Carl Dor, Jr. & Lori V. Graham Dor Mahoney Law Group, P.C. 17171 Park Row, Suite 160 Houston, TX 77084 Newpark Environmental Services, LLC P.O. Box 62600 Dept. 1089 New Orleans, Key Energy Services, Inc. c/o Carl Dor, Jr. & Lori V. Graham Dor Mahoney Law Group, P.C. 17171 Park Row, Suite 160 Houston, TX 77084 Key Energy Services, Inc. 6 Desta Dr., Ste. 4400 Midland, TX 79705

/s/ Paul J. Goodwine________________________

15