Steve Wise Jim Bunch Joe Siemer George Dege
Steve Wise Jim Bunch Joe Siemer George Dege
Executive Committee Executive Committee Chairman Executive Committee

Also: John Morgan, Montgomery AL, Marty Johnson, Wichita, KS  Wayne Holland, Lubbock, TX Carl Bryan, Bonham, TX

EIGHT  NAMES YOU WILL NOT FIND

 MENTONED IN A VPG ANNUAL REPORT -

Mark Anderson, Owner of Anderson's Seed & Garden, Inc. in Logan, Utah,

Carl D. Bryan is Partner of Bryan & Mattison, Attorneys at Law, Sulphur Springs, Texas,

Jim Bunch is Co-President and Chief Executive Officer of BWI, Inc..in Nash, Texas,

Jay Carter is Chief Executive Officer of Farmers Coop in Van Buren, Arkansas,

M. Wayne Holland is owner of Holland Gardens, Inc. in Lubbock, Texas

Marty Johnson is owner of Johnson's Garden Center, Inc. in Wichita, Kansas,

John Morgan, President of Gro-South, Inc. in Montgomery,

Joe Siemer is President of Siemer Enterprises in Teutopolis, Illinois,

Stephen T. Wise is President of Gard'n-Wise Distributors. Inc. in Denver, Colorado

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 DIRECTORS REMAIN CLUELESS

REFUNDS OFF 87% SINCE 2006 COUP

Annual Report Clip

_______________

"NUTS" 

The Mighty Acorn

 Strengthening The Lawn & Garden World One Lost Patron at a Time

 ______________________________________

Let the Shell Game Begin

Shell Game

With no clue how to restore profitability for refunds

Directors start taking funds from thousands of small dealers

-----------------------------

Directors accelerate destruction in 2012

Hire Industry Scoundrel to Turnaround Company

Refunds down 64% in one year

88% Since Director Takeover



Bonham Spin: "Just Internet Chatter"

"Favorable (but secret) Settlement"

Industry Laughing Stock

Steve Money

____________________________________________________________________________________

  

Case 10-39032-sgj11 Doc 723 Filed 09/11/12 Entered 09/11/12 16:02:04 Desc

Main Document Page 1 of 8

Deborah D. Williamson George H. Tarpley
State Bar No. 21617500 State Bar No. 19648000

COX SMITH MATTHEWS INCORPORATED COX SMITH MATTHEWS INCORPORATED

112 East Pecan Street, Suite 1800 1201 Elm Street, Suite 3300
San Antonio, Texas 78205 Dallas, Texas 75270

(210) 554-5500 (214) 698-7800
(210) 226-8395 (Fax) (214) 698-7899 (Fax)
dwilliamson@coxsmith.com gtarpley@coxsmith.com

COUNSEL FOR ALBERT S. CONLY, TRUSTEE

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION

In re: §

Chapter 11

ESTES, INCORPORATED,

§ Case No. 10-39032-sgj-11
§
Debtor.

ALBERT S. CONLY, TRUSTEE OF THE §

ESTES CREDITOR TRUST §

Plaintiff,

vs.

STEVE MONEY

Defendant.

Adversary No. _____________

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

Albert S. Conly, the duly appointed trustee (“Trustee” or “Plaintiff”) of the Estes Creditor
Trust (the “Trust”) established pursuant to the order (“Confirmation Order”) confirming the
Official Unsecured Creditor Committee’s Second Amended Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation for

4149427.4


Case 10-39032-sgj11 Doc 723 Filed 09/11/12 Entered 09/11/12 16:02:04 Desc

Main Document Page 2 of 8

Estes, Incorporated in the captioned cause (the “Plan”) files this Complaint and shows as
follows:

I.
PARTIES
1. Plaintiff is the Trustee appointed pursuant to the Plan and Confirmation Order in
the above-referenced bankruptcy case (the “Bankruptcy Case”) of Estes, Incorporated (“Estes” or
the “Debtor”). Pursuant to the Plan, Confirmation Order and that certain General Conveyance
and Assumption and Assignment Agreement, all of the Debtor’s assets have vested in the Trust.
Pursuant to the Plan, Confirmation Order and section 1123(b)(3) of title 11 of the United States
Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”), the Trustee is authorized to pursue all causes of action formerly
held by the Debtor, including without limitation, this action to recover damages for breaches of
fiduciary duty owed to the Debtor.
2. Defendant Steve Money is an individual resident in Texas, who at all times
relevant here was a director, chief operating officer and president of Estes. He may be served
with process at Roanoke, TX 76262, or wherever he may be found. On or
about June 17, 2011, Defendant Steve Money filed a proof of claim in the Bankruptcy Case
seeking payment under an employment agreement between Estes and Defendant Steve Money.
On July 16, 2011, the Trustee timely filed an objection to the allowance of such claim. As of the
filing of this Complaint, the Bankruptcy Court has not ruled on the Trustee’s objection.
II.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
3. Plaintiff commences this proceeding pursuant to Rules 7001 of the Federal Rules
of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”). The Court has jurisdiction over this
adversary proceeding pursuant to section 1334 of title 28 of the United States Code, and the
Court may enter final orders and judgments with respect to this proceeding, as it is a core
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 2 of 8

4149427.4


Case 10-39032-sgj11 Doc 723 Filed 09/11/12 Entered 09/11/12 16:02:04 Desc

Main Document Page 3 of 8

proceeding pursuant to section 157(b)(1) and (b)(2)(A),(E), (F), (H) & (O) of title 28 of the
United States Code.

4. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to section 1409 of title 28 of the United
States Code.
III.
CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST STEVE MONEY FOR BREACH OF FIDUCIARY
DUTIES—COLDSTREAM TRANSACTIONS
5. In September 2009, Estes formed a new entity then known as Estes Supply, LLC,
a Texas limited liability company (“Estes Supply”). Estes Supply subsequently changed its
name to Coldstream Development, LLC (“Coldstream”).1
6. Coldstream had three initial members: Estes, Greenbrier Investments LP
(“Greenbrier”, a Patrick Powers entity), and CLE Family Ltd. (“CLE Family”, a Craig Estes
entity).
7. On information, the original purpose of Coldstream was to continue the
development of certain proprietary software originally owned and developed by Estes.
8. Coldstream was capitalized and the original ownership percentages were derived
from the following contributions:
a.
Estes contributed $2,098,000 in cash and its interests in its proprietary
software that Coldstream was to further develop, in return for which Estes
received an approximate 78.6% ownership interest in Coldstream;
b.
Greenbrier contributed $ 1,001,000 in cash, in return for which Greenbrier
received an approximate 21.3% ownership interest in Coldstream; and
c.
CLE Family contributed $ 1,000 in cash, in return for which it received an
approximate 0.02% ownership interest in Coldstream.
For consistency, all references to “Coldstream” in this Complaint shall mean the same entity:
Coldstream Development, LLC, formerly known as Estes Supply, LLC.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Page 3 of 8

4149427.4


Case 10-39032-sgj11 Doc 723 Filed 09/11/12 Entered 09/11/12 16:02:04 Desc

Main Document Page 4 of 8

9. Estes was the initial manager of Coldstream, and importantly, was the majority
owner.
10. Defendant Steve Money, acting as President of Estes, approved the formation of
Coldstream and its initial capitalization by Estes.
11. Almost immediately after the formation of Coldstream, in the month of October
2009, the Greenbrier capital contribution was converted into a demand promissory note as a
consequence of a consent agreement among the members of Coldstream dated October 30, 2009.
The effect of this change was that Greenbrier’s equity contribution was changed into a debt
obligation of Coldstream, e.g. a demand promissory note dated November 1, 2009, bearing 10%
interest. Significantly and inexplicably, the consent agreement provided that there would be no
reduction to Greenbrier’s equity ownership interest, “even if Greenbrier demands and receives
payment of the Note.”
12. Subsequently, on June 1, 2010, Coldstream transferred $1,067,638.89 to
Greenbrier in satisfaction of Coldstream’s obligations under the demand promissory note—in
effect refunding the entirety of the Greenbrier equity investment, plus approximately $66,638.89
in “interest” as a return on that equity investment. No corresponding reduction of Greenbrier’s
equity ownership interest in Coldstream was ever effectuated as a result of such payment.
13. Steve Money, acting on behalf of Estes as majority owner of Coldstream,
approved both the conversion of Greenbrier’s equity investment into debt and the agreement by
which no reduction of Greenbrier’s equity interests occurred. Money, acting though Estes as the
manager of Coldstream, signed the promissory note.
14. Subsequently in September 2010, a year after the formation of Coldstream, the
proprietary software that Estes had contributed to Coldstream was returned by Coldstream to
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 4 of 8

4149427.4


Case 10-39032-sgj11 Doc 723 Filed 09/11/12 Entered 09/11/12 16:02:04 Desc

Main Document Page 5 of 8

Estes (and then immediately sold to Winfield Solutions LLC as part of the overall auction sale of
the Estes assets).

15. During the time the software was held by Coldstream, another Powers affiliate
Emerald Hill Strategic Partners LP was paid, upon belief, significant sums amounting to
hundreds of thousands of dollars to “further develop” the software.
16. While the software had originally been contributed by Estes in return for
1,594,550 member units in Coldstream, when it was returned a year later, Estes’ membership
units were reduced by 2,744,550, representing a reduction of units more than 72% greater than
what Estes had originally received for the software when it was originally contributed.
17. Steve Money approved the return of the software to Estes at the significantly
enhanced member unit “cost”, both on behalf of Estes the recipient and on behalf of Coldstream
as transferor.
18. The effect of the 72% greater “cost” to Estes of the returned software (compared
to what Estes received when it transferred the software to Coldstream in the first place), was that
Estes lost its majority and thereby controlling interest in Coldstream. This change in control
occurred even though almost immediately after the formation of Coldstream (once the
Greenbrier equity contribution was turned into debt), the cash capital contributions of the three
owners were:
a.
Estes $2,098,000;
b.
Greenbrier: $0.00 (its $1,001,000 million capital contribution turned
promissory note was fully repaid, with “interest” in June 2010); and
c.
CLE Family $1,000.
19. Indeed, the federal tax return for Coldstream for its fiscal year ending September
30, 2010, one year after its formation, showed that Estes’ ownership interest had shrunk from
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Page 5 of 8

4149427.4


Case 10-39032-sgj11 Doc 723 Filed 09/11/12 Entered 09/11/12 16:02:04 Desc

Main Document Page 6 of 8

78% to 48%, while the corresponding interest of Greenbrier had grown to a majority of 52%.
This change in control occurred with Greenbrier contributing nothing as additional capital and
indeed, after having been repaid virtually its entire “equity” investment.

20. Steve Money, acting through Estes as the manager of Coldstream, was in charge
of Coldstream at the time Greenbrier’s “equity” investment was repaid in June 2010.
21. The implication of losing majority control of Coldstream was significant and
extremely detrimental to Estes.
22. In December 2010, Estes was replaced as manager of Coldstream and Poteres
Corporation, an entity owned and controlled by Patrick Powers, became the new manager.
23. As of December 8, 2010, the date of Estes’ resignation as manager, Coldstream
held at least $1.8 million in cash and securities. Immediately upon becoming manager, Poteres
began distributing the remaining assets of Coldstream (in which Estes still owned 48%) to
affiliates of Patrick Powers through numerous checks and/or wire transfers, including but not
limited to the following:
a.
December 10, 2010 (the day Poteres became manager): Coldstream acting
through Poteres transferred $225,000 to Powers’ affiliate 1819 NW 5th
OKC LLC, an entity that Poteres also manages, as an unsecured “Loan”;
b.
December 19, 2010: Coldstream, acting through Poteres, transferred
$250,000 to Powers’ affiliate 2716 Commerce WF, LLC, an entity that
Poteres also manages, as an unsecured “Loan”;
c.
December 27, 2010: Coldstream, acting through Poteres, transferred
$250,000 to Powers’ affiliate Consolidated Pest Services, LLC, an entity
that Poteres also manages, as an unsecured “Loan”; and
d.
February 6, 2012: Coldstream, acting through Poteres, transferred
$50,000 to Powers’ affiliate 2220 NE 286 Paris, LLC, an entity that
Poteres also manages, as an unsecured “Loan.”
24. On information and belief, the effect of these transfers was to virtually wipe out
any value remaining in Coldstream, effectively making worthless Estes’ interests therein. Thus,
PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Page 6 of 8

4149427.4


Case 10-39032-sgj11 Doc 723 Filed 09/11/12 Entered 09/11/12 16:02:04 Desc

Main Document Page 7 of 8

reduced to basics, Estes’ original $2,098,000 million cash investment in Coldstream, which
represented 99.9% of the net equity cash invested in Coldstream as of Estes’ resignation (given
the conversion and repayment of Greenbrier’s investment), had been fully transferred to Powers’
affiliates.

25. All of the transfers to Coldstream by Estes, the agreements that put Powers’
affiliates in control of Coldstream and allowed repayment in cash of Powers’ affiliates “equity”
interests, and the employment of Powers’ affiliates to “further develop” Estes’ existing software,
were each accomplished through the affirmative actions of Steve Money, acting as the President
of Estes.
26. At all times relevant, Money was also a director of Estes and in that capacity
responsible for the business operations of Estes, including the oversight of actions taken by
officers of the company.
27. At all relevant times, Money owed fiduciary duties, including the duty of care,
loyalty and obedience, to Estes as both president and a director. The intentional actions of
Money as president and the inactions of him as a director to stop the dissipation of Estes’ assets
described above constitute breaches of his fiduciary duties to Estes and caused damages of at
least $ 1.5 million and up to $2.1 million.
28. The Trustee now sues to recover all damages caused by the breaches of fiduciary
duty by Steve Money.
IV.COSTS, FEES AND INTEREST

29. To the extent allowed by law, the Trustee also seeks to recover of Money all of
the attorneys fees, costs, and expenses incurred by the Trustee in the prosecution of this claim,
together with such pre and post judgment interest as allowed by law.

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT Page 7 of 8

4149427.4


Case 10-39032-sgj11 Doc 723 Filed 09/11/12 Entered 09/11/12 16:02:04 Desc

Main Document Page 8 of 8

V.PRAYER

WHEREFORE, the Trustee seeks to recover of Steve Money all of the damages suffered

or incurred by Estes, the Trustee’s attorney fees and costs incurred herein, and pre and post

judgment interest as allowed by law, and such other and further relief to which he is entitled.

Dated: September 11, 2012 Respectfully submitted,

COX SMITH MATTHEWS INCORPORATED

By:
/s/George H. Tarpley
George H. Tarpley
State Bar No. 1964800
Aaron M. Kaufman
State Bar No. 24060067
1201 Elm Street, Suite 3300
Dallas, TX 75270

(214) 698-7800
(214) 698-7899 (Fax)
and

Deborah D. Williamson
State Bar No. 21617500
112 East Pecan Street, Suite 1800
San Antonio, Texas 78205

(210) 554-5500
(210) 226-8395 (Fax)
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF ALBERT S. CONLY,
TRUSTEE OF THE ESTES CREDITOR TRUST

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT
Page 8 of 8

4149427.4


Case 10-39032-sgj11 Doc 663 Filed 07/16/12 Entered 07/16/12 15:29:51 Desc

Main Document Page 1 of 8

Deborah D. Williamson Aaron M. Kaufman
State Bar No. 21617500 State Bar No. 24060067

COX SMITH MATTHEWS INCORPORATED COX SMITH MATTHEWS INCORPORATED

112 East Pecan Street, Suite 1800 1201 Elm Street, Suite 3300
San Antonio, Texas 78205 Dallas, Texas 75270

(210) 554-5500 (214) 698-7800
(210) 226-8395 (Fax) (214) 698-7899 (Fax)
dwilliamson@coxsmith.com akaufman@coxsmith.com
COUNSEL FOR ALBERT S. CONLY, CREDITOR TRUSTEE

IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION


§


In re:

§

Chapter 11 Case

§

ESTES, INCORPORATED

§

CASE NO. 10-39032-SGJ-11

§

Debtor.

§

OBJECTION OF THE ESTES CREDITOR TRUSTEE TO
PROOF OF CLAIM NO. 91 FILED BY STEVE MONEY
[RELATES TO PROOF OF CLAIM NO. 91]

TO THE HONORABLE STACEY G.C. JERNIGAN,
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY JUDGE:

Albert S. Conly, the duly appointed trustee (“Trustee”) of the Estes Creditor Trust (the

“Trust”), established pursuant to order (“Confirmation Order”)1 confirming the Official

Unsecured Creditor Committee’s Second Amended Chapter 11 Plan of Liquidation for Estes,

Incorporated (the “Plan”),2 files this objection (the “Objection”) to Claim No. 91 (the “Claim”),3

filed by Steve Money (“Money”), and, in support of this Objection, would respectfully show the

following:

1 Docket No. 543.
2 Docket No. 534.
3 A true and correct copy of the Claim is attached hereto as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by reference.

7/16/2012 10:49 AM

3706681.2


Case 10-39032-sgj11 Doc 663 Filed 07/16/12 Entered 07/16/12 15:29:51 Desc

Main Document Page 2 of 8

I. JURISDICTION
1. The Court has jurisdiction over the above referenced chapter 11 case pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334. Matters concerning the allowance or disallowance of claims are
core proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2)(A)&(B). Venue is proper before this Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. The statutory authority for allowance of claims is
sections 501, 502 and 503 of title 11 of the United States Code (the “Bankruptcy Code”)4 and
Rules 3001 and 3007 of the Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure (the “Bankruptcy Rules”).
II. BACKGROUND
The Bankruptcy Case

2. On December 30, 2010 (the “Petition Date”), certain petitioning creditors
commenced this case by filing an involuntary petition under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code,
seeking an order for relief as to Estes Incorporated (the “Debtor”). On February 8, 2011, the
Debtor filed a stipulation, consenting to relief under the Bankruptcy Code and notifying the
Court that it intended to convert the case to chapter 11. [Doc. No. 19]. On February 15, 2011,
the Court entered the Order for Relief and a separate order converting the case to chapter 11.
[Doc. Nos. 43 & 44]. The United States Trustee first appointed the Official Unsecured
Creditors’ Committee (the “Committee”) on March 8, 2011. The most recently amended
Committee appointment was filed on April 1, 2011. [Doc. Nos. 90, 91, 99, 108 and 128].
3. From the entry of the Order for Relief until the effective date of the Plan, the
Debtor remained in possession and control of this bankruptcy case and estate. Under the Plan
and the Confirmation Order, all property belonging to the Debtor’s estate, including all
privileges, rights and defenses, were transferred to the Trust, and the Trustee was appointed to
4 See 11 U.S.C. §§ 101-1532 et seq. (2010).

OBJECTION OF THE ESTES CREDITOR TRUSTEE TO CLAIM NO. 91

3706681.2


Case 10-39032-sgj11 Doc 663 Filed 07/16/12 Entered 07/16/12 15:29:51 Desc

Main Document Page 3 of 8

administer the Trust. The Trustee was further charged with the responsibility of administering
claims asserted against the Debtor’s bankruptcy estate.

The Sale of Debtor’s Assets

4. Before the Petition Date, the Debtor sold substantially all of its assets to Winfield
Solutions, LLC, a Land O’Lakes Company (“Winfield”). Under the terms of the auction rules,
Winfield, as the successful bidder, acquired substantially all of the Debtor’s business and
operational assets, including all fixed assets and the right to assume the Debtor’s interests in all
real and personal property. Winfield also obtained the right to employ any of the Debtor’s
employees by assuming the applicable employment agreements.
5. On information and belief, the sale to Winfield closed on or about September 30,
2010. From and after the time of the sale to Winfield, the Debtor ceased its ordinary operations,
and any further business conducted from the Debtor’s facilities, using the Debtor’s trade name,
was so conducted by Winfield.
The Claim and Employment Agreement

6. Winfield did not employ Mr. Money following the sale closing. Mr. Money
continued to be employed by the Debtor. The Claim requests payment of $180,000.00 pursuant
to the September 14, 2010 employment agreement (the “Agreement”), a copy of which was
attached to the Claim and incorporated herein by reference. A true and correct copy of the Claim
is attached hereto as Exhibit “A.” Among other things, the Agreement provides:
If the Employee is employed by the Employer on September 30,
2010, or has been terminated by the Employer without cause prior
to September 30, 2011, a bonus equal to 25% of the compensation
paid by Estes to the Employee for the period from October 1, 2009,
to September 30, 2010.

OBJECTION OF THE ESTES CREDITOR TRUSTEE TO CLAIM NO. 91

3706681.2


Case 10-39032-sgj11 Doc 663 Filed 07/16/12 Entered 07/16/12 15:29:51 Desc

Main Document Page 4 of 8

7. The Claim for $180,000.00 apparently arises from the above-quoted “Retention
Bonus” provision. Mr. Money was the Debtor’s President and Chief Executive Officer and, thus,
was an insider of the Debtor.
8. On information and belief, Mr. Money voluntarily agreed to modify his
Agreement, effective May 15, 2011. Pursuant to the agreed-upon modifications, Mr. Money’s
compensation was limited to an hourly wage for a fixed number of hours per week. The effect of
the modification was to release the estate of ongoing obligations to pay Mr. Money’s fixed salary
and any severance or retention bonuses, including the one that is the subject of the Claim now
asserted by Mr. Money. On information and belief, Mr. Money continued to accept
compensation from the Debtor on and after September 30, 2011.
III. OBJECTIONS AND AUTHORITY
9. The Claim cannot be allowed under section 503(c) of the Bankruptcy Code. To
the extent the Court finds that the “Retention Bonus” is an incentive offered to the Claimant
“for the purpose of inducing such person to remain with the debtor’s business,” the Claim must
be disallowed on the present record, because there has been no showing that:
(a)
the transfer or obligation is essential to retention of the person because the
individual has a bona fide job offer from another business at the same or
greater rate of compensation;
(b)
the services provided by the person are essential to the survival of the
business; and
(c)
either
i.
the amount of the transfer made to, or obligation incurred for the
benefit of, the person is not greater than an amount equal to 10
times the amount of the mean transfer or obligation of a similar
kind given to nonmanagement employees for any purpose during
the calendar year in which the transfer is made or the obligation is
incurred; or
ii.
if no such similar transfers were made to, or obligations were
incurred for the benefit of, such nonmanagement employees during
OBJECTION OF THE ESTES CREDITOR TRUSTEE TO CLAIM NO. 91

3706681.2


Case 10-39032-sgj11 Doc 663 Filed 07/16/12 Entered 07/16/12 15:29:51 Desc

Main Document Page 5 of 8

such calendar year, the amount of the transfer or obligation is not
greater than an amount equal to 25 percent of the amount of any
similar transfer or obligation made to or incurred for the benefit of
such insider for any purpose during the calendar year before the
year in which such transfer is made or obligation is incurred.

11 U.S.C. § 503(c)(1).

10. Further, to the extent the “Retention Bonus” is deemed by this Court to be a
“severance payment,” the Claim must also be disallowed because there has been no showing
that:
(a)
the payment is part of a program that is generally applicable to all full-
time employees; and
(b)
the amount of the payment is not greater than 10 times the amount of the
mean severance pay given to nonmanagement employees during the
calendar year in which the payment is made.
Id. § 503(c)(2).

11. Retention and severance packages are strictly scrutinized to ensure that
management does not abuse its authority to obligate a debtor to pay insiders and executives for
merely staying with the company. See generally In re Dana Corp., 351 B.R. 96, 102 n.3 (Bankr.
S.D.N.Y. 2006); In re Global Home Products, LLC, 369 B.R. 778, 780-82 (Bankr. D. Del.
2007); In re Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 401 B.R. 229, 233-35 (Bankr. N.D. Tex. 2009); In re
Foothills Texas, Inc., 408 B.R. 573, 578-80 (Bankr. D. Del. 2009). Where a party seeks to pay a
bonus or bind the Debtor to do so, courts require a sufficient record to show, among other things,
that the obligation is beneficial to the estate and that the bonus or severance is not excessive or
extraordinary. In this matter Claimant cannot demonstrate that the amount requested in his
Claim is allowable under section 503(c). As such, the Claim must be denied.
12. The Claim must also be disallowed to the extent it exceeds the amount allowable
under section 502(b)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code.
OBJECTION OF THE ESTES CREDITOR TRUSTEE TO CLAIM NO. 91

3706681.2


Case 10-39032-sgj11 Doc 663 Filed 07/16/12 Entered 07/16/12 15:29:51 Desc

Main Document Page 6 of 8

13. Finally, the Claim should be disallowed because Mr. Money has no enforceable
claim under the Employment Agreement. On information and belief, he was still employed by
the Debtor on September 30, 2011, and thus the Claim is neither enforceable under applicable
non-bankruptcy law nor allowable under section 502(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.
IV. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
14. The Trustee, for the benefit of the Debtor’s bankruptcy estate and the Trust,
reserves any and all rights in the estate’s Causes of Action, as more particularly defined in, and
reserved, under the Committee Plan. To the extent the Claim is not disallowed under section
502(b) or 503(c) of the Bankruptcy Code, the Trustee reserves the rights to avoid the Agreement
under section 548(a)(1)(B) of the Bankruptcy Code, because the Debtor was insolvent at the time
the Agreement was executed, the Agreement benefitted an insider, and the Agreement was not in
the ordinary course of the Debtor’s business.
V. PRAYER
WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Trustee respectfully requests an order
disallowing the Claim for all purposes and granting such other relief as is just and proper under
the circumstances.

OBJECTION OF THE ESTES CREDITOR TRUSTEE TO CLAIM NO. 91

3706681.2


Case 10-39032-sgj11 Doc 663 Filed 07/16/12 Entered 07/16/12 15:29:51 Desc

Main Document Page 7 of 8

Dated: July 16, 2012
Respectfully submitted,

COX SMITH MATTHEWS INCORPORATED

By:
/s/ Aaron M. Kaufman
Deborah D. Williamson
State Bar No. 21617500
112 East Pecan Street, Suite 1800
San Antonio, Texas 78205

(210) 554-5500
(210) 226-8395 (Fax)
and

Aaron M. Kaufman
State Bar No. 24060067
1201 Elm Street, Suite 3300
Dallas, Texas 75270

(214) 698-7800
(214) 698-7899 (Fax)
COUNSEL TO ALBERT S. CONLY, TRUSTEE

OBJECTION OF THE ESTES CREDITOR TRUSTEE TO CLAIM NO. 91

3706681.2


Case 10-39032-sgj11 Doc 663 Filed 07/16/12 Entered 07/16/12 15:29:51 Desc

Main Document Page 8 of 8

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 16th day of July, 2012, the foregoing
Objection was filed with the Court and served via the Court’s CM/ECF system to all of the
parties registered to receive such notice. Copies of the Objection were also served upon Steve
Money to the address below, which was the address listed in Claim No. 91.

Steve Money

/s/ Aaron M. Kaufman

Aaron M. Kaufman

OBJECTION OF THE ESTES CREDITOR TRUSTEE TO CLAIM NO. 91

3706681.2

United States Bankruptcy Court Northern District of Texas PROOF OF CLAIM
Name of Debtor Estes Inc. Case Number 10−39032
NOTE: This form should not be used to make a claim for an administrative expense arising after the commencement of the case. A "request" for payment of an
administrative expense may be filed pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 503.
Name of Creditor (The person or other entity to whom the debtor owes money or property):
Steve Money
Check this box to indicate that this
claim amends a previously filed claim.
Court Claim Number:
(If known)
Filed on:
Name and address where notices should be sent:
Keller, TX 76262
Telephone number:
Name and address where payment should be sent (if different from above):
Telephone number:
Check this box if you are aware that
anyone else has filed a proof of claim
relating to your claim. Attach copy of
statement giving particulars.
Check this box if you are the debtor or
trustee in this case.
1. Amount of Claim as of Date Case Filed: $ 180000.00
If all or part of your claim is secured, complete item 4 below; however, if all of your claim is
unsecured, do not complete item 4.
If all or part of your claim is entitled to priority, complete item 5.
Check this box if claim includes interest or other charges in addition to the principal amount of
the claim. Attach itemized statement of all interest or additional charges.
5. Amount of Claim Entitled to Priority
under 11 U.S.C. §507(a). If any
portion of your claim falls in one of
the following categories, check the box
and state the amount.
Specify the priority of the claim.
Domestic support obligations under 11
U.S.C. § 507(a)(1)(A) or (a)(1)(B).
Wages, salaries, or commissions (up to
$11,725*), earned within 180 days
before filing of the bankruptcy petition
or cessation of the debtor's business,
whichever is earlier − 11 U.S.C. §
507(a)(3).
Contributions to an employee benefit
plan − 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4).
Up to $2,600* of deposits toward
purchase, lease, or rental of property or
services for personal, family, or
household use − 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(6).
Taxes or penalties owed to
governmental units − 11 U.S.C. §
507(a)(8).
Other − Specify applicable paragraph of
11 U.S.C. § 507(a)( ).
Amount entitled to priority
$
* Amounts are subject to adjustment on 4/1/2013
and every 3 years thereafter with respect to cases
commenced on or after the date of adjustment.
2. Basis for Claim: Employment Agreement
(See instruction #2)
3. Last four digits of any number by which creditor identifies debtor: 8899
3a. Debtor may have scheduled account as:
(See instruction #3a)
4. Secured Claim (See instruction #4)
Check the appropriate box if your claim is secured by a lien on property or a right of setoff and
provide the requested information.
Nature of property or right of setoff: Real Estate Motor Vehicle Other
Describe:
Value of Property: $ Annual Interest Rate: %
Amount of arrearage and other charges as of time case filed included in secured claim,
if any: $ Basis for perfection:
Amount of Secured Claim: $ Amount Unsecured: $
6. Credits: The amount of all payments on this claim has been credited for the purpose of making this
proof of claim.
7. Documents: Attach redacted copies of any documents that support the claim, such as promissory
notes, purchase orders, invoices, itemized statements of running accounts, contracts, judgments,
mortgages, and security agreements. You may also attach a summary. Attach redacted copies of
documents providing evidence of perfection of a security interest. You may also attach a summary.
(See definition of "redacted" on reverse side.)
FOR COURT USE ONLY
FILED
U.S. Bankruptcy Court
Northern District of TX
6/17/2011
Tawana C. Marshall, Clerk
Date
6/17/2011
Print the name and title, if any, of the creditor or other person authorized to file this claim (attach
copy of power of attorney, if any): s/ Steve Money
Penalty for presenting fraudulent claim: Fine of up to $500,000 or imprisonment for up to 5 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. §§ 152 and 3571.

Full docket text:
Hearing held on 9/25/2012. (RE: related document(s)663 Objection to claim(s) 91 of Creditor(s) Steve Money.. Filed by Trustee Albert S. Conly. Appearances: A. Kaufman for Plan Trustee; no appearance by claimant. Evidentiary hearing (S. Hammond). Objection sustained. Counsel to upload order. (Baird, Dennis)

Proposed order regarding Sustaining Objection to Claim (RE: related document(s)663 Objection to claim(s) 91 of Creditor(s) Steve Money.. Filed by Trustee Albert S. Conly. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit A)). Document uploaded on 9/26/2012 (Ref-ID: 1347282311437_4005). (Kaufman, Aaron)

For complete information see http://pacer.gov

Sam Mayo Knoxville TN    

Vote "yes" for director term limits.

 ______________________________

PATRONAGE REFUNDS LOST SINCE DIRECTOR COUP IN 2006
(Yes that reads 20 million plus)

PROJECTED DIRECTOR/SELECT DISTRIBUTOR PROFsITS DUE TO NEW "NATIONAL RETAILER" PROGRAM


TIME TO CLEAN HOUSE? PAST TIME? TOO LATE?



 

INDUSTRY SALES

Directors Excuse for Exceptional Decline       Both Today and Tomorrow

"Difficult Times Continue to Plague Our Industry

With No Immediate Improvements Forecasted"

VPG'S Board of Directors 01/10/2012

Consolidated Statement of Operations

 




 
 
\