Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
NAME SEARCHED: Neptune, LLC
PWM 81S-RESEARCH performed due diligence research in accordance with the standards set by AML Compliance for your business. We completed thorough searches
on your subject name(s) in the required databases and have attached the search results under the correct heading below.
Significant negative media results may require escalation to senior business. Legal and Compliance management. Also. all accounts involving PEPs must be escalated.
Search:
Result:
Click here for results:
Reviewer Comments (as necessary):
RIX:
0 No lilt ❑O Not RoliumAl
Hit
I Rix Rcsidis
\o RD(' ;do i (Plaice sec attached)
l'CR
No I lit 0 Na Required
0 Hit
II. PCR Results
No PCR alert (Please see attached)
BIS
III. Negative Media
Result Found(please see attached)
ID Yes
No
0 Not Required
IV. Non-Negative Media
There was no information found
V. Other Language Media Not Required
D&B
VI. D&B,
Result Found(please see attached)
Results? -
Yes •
No
0 Not Required
Smartlinx
VII. Smartlinx
Result Found(please see attached)
Results? 0 4
Yes 0
No
0 Not Required
Court Cases
rC Review by Legal May
be Required 0 No Results
0
Search not inquired
VIII. Court Cases
Result Found(please see attached)
Prepared by: Prachi Pawa Da e:10/11/2013
Research Analyst
Instructions:
I. Review and confirm that all results are returned for your client.
2. Please note that you arc still required to perform any Martindale-Hubbell search (if applicable) on each search subject. We have attached the a eb
link below for your convenience: Martindale-Hubbellhttp://www
arti n d a le.coni/s p/ NI a rt indale/home.tml
3. As needed, provide comment for any negative results.
4. If applicable, please obtain clearance from Compliance for all alerts.
5. Save any changes you make to this document and attach file to your KV('.
Please note: Submission of a signed KYC is your confirmation that you have fully reviewed the research documents.
For internal use only
SON Y_GM_00064708
CONFIDENTIAL — PURSUANT TO FED. R. GRIM. P. 6(e)
CONFIDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027533
EFTA00I752I I
EFTA01255806
OFAC RESULTS
RDC:
11527459 Not Alerted 6893312 Neptune, LLC Country:United States
PC R:
C20131019175368 Neptune, LLC 6893312 NCA customised Closed - No Hit 11/10/2013
ISIS RESULTS
Negative Media:
RETURN
Copyright 2013 Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
Executive Affiliations
NEPTUNE LLC
4001 KENNETT PIKE
WILMINGTON, DE 19807-2315
USA
LENGTH: 23 words
DUNS NUMBER: 13-502-5992
LOAD-DATE: August 26, 2013
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064709
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.cON(F IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027534
EFTA 00175212
EFTA01255807
Page 2
Dun's Market Identifiers Plus, 07/14/13, Neptune LLC
Copyright 2013 Dun & Bradstreet, Inc.
July 14, 2013
Dun's Decision Makers
View the DMI Record
Neptune LLC
4001 Kennett Pike Wilmington,
DE 19807-2315
United States
BUSINESS ADDRESS: 4001 Kennett Pike, Wilmington, DE 19807-2315, United States
MSA: Wilmington-Newark, De-MD - 9160
COUNTY: New Castle
DUNS NUMBER: 13-502-5992
EXECUTIVES
Managing Member:
Robert Repetto, Mng MBR
DESCRIPTION
INDUSTRY TYPE: Finance, Insurance, And Real Estate; Holding Company
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064710
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctON(F IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027535
EFTA 00175213
EFTA01255808
Page 3
Worldbase, 02/09/2005, NEPTUNE. LLC
Copyright 2013 Dun & Bradstreet, Inc
Worldbase
February 9, 2005
NEPTUNE, LLC
GREEN BAY. WI 543045303
USA
COUNTY: BROWN
DUNS: 18-465-9261
COMPANY INFORMATION * " * * * * " *
COMPANY TYPE: Private
DESCRIPTION
UNDETERMINED
SIC CODES:
9999 - Nonclassified establishment
LOAD-DATE: September 5, 2013
Non-Negative Media:
There was no information found
Other Language Media:
Not Required
Public Records:
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064711
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctit;)N(FIDENTIAL
DS-SDNY-0027536
EFTA 00175214
EFTA01255809
Page 2
1 OF 10 RECORD(S)
Copyright 2013 LexisNexis
a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Subject Summary
Name
NEPTUNE LLC
Name Variations/DBAs
#
Name Variations
1
NEPTUNE. LLC
Address
APOLLO BEACH. FL 33572-
3029
Phone Summary -1 records found
#
Telephone Number
1.
Addresses - 2 records found
#
Address
Dates
1.
8/2004 -
APOLLO BEACH, FL 33572
11/4/2009
2.
1/12/2011 -
RUSKIN, FL 33570
Profile Information -4 recor
1: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
2: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
3: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
7/24/2013
ds found
Phone
County/FIPS
County
HILLSBOROUGH
HILLSBOROUGH
NEPTUNE, LLC
12/1/2003
FL
L03000050201
ACTIVE
NEPTUNE. LLC
12/1/2003
FL
L03000050201
ACTIVE
NEPTUNE, LLC
12/1/2003
FL
L03000050201
ACTIVE
For internal use only
MSA
Tampa-St.
Petersburg-
Clearwater. FL -
8280
Tampa-St.
Petersburg-
Clearwater, FL -
8280
SDNY_GM_00064712
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027537
EFTA_00 175215
EFTA01255810
Page 3
4: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
NEPTUNE, LLC
12/1/2003
FL
L03000050201
ACTIVE
Executives - 8 records found
#
Name
Titles
1.
BYER. KIM
MANAGER
2.
CALLISON, D
MANAGER
3.
4.
DYER. KIMBERLY
MANAGER
5.
HALVA, LOREN
MEMBER MANAGER
6.
MOORE. AIXA
7.
PEAREY, ELWIN
8.
WALTON, HOWARD
OWNER
Registered Agents - 2 records found
#
Name
1
BEHM
VICTORIA
P
2
PLIS
ALAINE
M
Industry Information - 2 records found
Industry Numbers
SIC Codes:
Address
5812 EATING PLACES
5900 MISCELLANEOUS RETAIL STORES
Company ID Numbers - 2 records found
Company ID Numbers
FEINs:
Sec. of State Charter No(s):
FL, L03000050201
Real Property - 7 records found
1: Assessment Record for HILLSBOROUGH County, FL
Owner Information
NEPTUNE LLC
Name:
Address:
County/FIPS:
Address:
Data Source:
SAFETY HARBOR, FL 34695-
RUSKIN. FL 33570-2768
APOLLO BEACH. FL 33572-3029
HILLSBOROUGH
Property Information
1007 NEPTUNE DR
Legal Information
Assessors Parcel U123218=000001093800
Number:
Recording Date: 12121/2005
Book/Page: 15981/1724
Assessment Information
Assessed Value: $110529
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064713
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027538
EFTA_00l 752 16
EFTA01255811
Page 4
Market Land Value:
Market Improvement
Value:
Total Market Value:
2: Assessment Record for
Name:
Address:
County/FIPS:
Data Source:
Assessors Parcel
Number:
Recording Date:
Book/Page:
Assessed Value:
Market Land Value:
Total Market Value:
3: Assessment Record for
Name:
Address:
County/FIPS:
Address:
Data Source:
Assessor's Parcel
Number:
Recording Date:
Book/Page:
Assessed Value:
Market Land Value:
Market Improvement
Value:
Total Market Value:
4: Assessment Record for
Name:
Address:
County/FIPS:
$39960
$70569
$110529
HILLSBOROUGH County, FL
Owner Information
NEPTUNE LLC
APOLLO BEACH. FL 33572-3029
HILLSBOROUGH
Property Information
B
Legal Information
U123218ZZZ000001093700
12/21/2005
15981/1724
Assessment Information
$105750
$105750
$105750
HILLSBOROUGH County, FL
Owner Information
NEPTUNE LLC
APOLLO BEACH. FL 33572-3029
HILLSBOROUGH
Property Information
1007 NEPTUNE DR
B
Legal Information
u123218ZZZ000001093800
12/21/2005
15981/1724
Assessment Information
$110529
$39960
$70569
$110529
HILLSBOROUGH County, FL
Owner Information
NEPTUNE LLC
APOLLO BEACH. FL 33572-3029
HILLSBOROUGH
Property Information
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064714
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027539
EFTA 00175217
EFTA01255812
Page 5
Data Source: B
Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel u123218ZZZ000001093700
Number:
Recording Date: 08/31/2004
Book/Page: 14247/252
Sale Information
$180000
Assessment Information
$105750
Sale Price:
Assessed Value:
Market Land Value:
Total Market Value:
$105750
$105750
5: Assessment Record for HILLSBOROUGH County, FL
Owner Information
NEPTUNE LLC
Name:
Address:
County/FIPS:
Address:
Data Source:
Assessors Parcel
Number:
Recording Date:
Book/Page:
Sale Price:
Assessed Value:
APOLLO BEACH. FL 33572-3029
HILLSBOROUGH
Property Information
1007 NEPTUNE DR
B
Legal Information
u123218222000001093800
08/31/2004
14247/252
Sale Information
$180000
Assessment Information
$112337
Market Land Value: $39960
Market Improvement $72377
Value:
Total Market Value: $112337
6: Deed Record for HILLSBOROUGH County
Buyer Information
NEPTUNE LLC
Name:
Address:
County/FIPS:
Name:
Name:
Address:
County/FIPS:
Data Source:
APOLLO BEACH, FL 33572-3029
HILLSBOROUGH
Seller Information
APOLLO BEACH, FL 33572-2112
HILLSBOROUGH
Property Information
B
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064715
IDENTIAL
DB-SONY-0027540
EFTA_00175218
EFTA01255813
Page 6
Contract Date:
Recording Date:
Document Number:
Legal Information
12/21/2005
01/11/2006
2006017246
Document Type: CORRECTION DEED
Book/Page: 15981/1724
Mortgage Information
Title Company: BEST EVER TITLE SERVICES LLC
7: Deed Record for HILLSBOROUGH County
Buyer Information
NEPTUNE LLC
Name:
Address:
County/FIPS:
Name:
Name:
Address:
County/FIPS:
Data Source:
Name:
Contract Date:
Recording Date:
Document Number:
Document Type:
Book/Page:
Sale Price:
Loan Amount:
Loan Type:
Title Company:
Business Associates - 8 records found
#
1.
Name
AIXA MOORE, P A
Address
2.
AY LLC
APOLLO BEACH FL 33572-3029
3.
GARCIA'S LAWN CARE INC
111111.133572-3029
4.
MOORE ROBERT E
alinia
33572-3029
5.
NEPTUNE LLC
APOLLO BEACH FL 33572-3029
6.
APOLLO B 1.133572-3029
7.
APOLLO Blia33572-3029
APOLLO BEACH. FL 33572-3029
HILLSBOROUGH
Seller Information
APOLLO BEACH, FL 33572-2112
HILLSBOROUGH
Property Information
B
Lender Information
Legal Information
08/31/2004
09/24/2004
2004372262
WARRANTY DEED
14247/252
Sale Information
$180000
Mortgage Information
$145000
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064716
DB-SDNY-0027541
EFTA 00175219
EFTA01255814
Page 7
#
Name
8.
Person Associates - 8 records found
#
Name
1.
BYER, KIM
2.
CALLISON, D
APOLLO BEACH FL 33572-3029
APOLLO BEACH, FL 33572-3029
Address
APOLLO BEACH, FL 33572-3029
3.
CALLISON, WESLEY 0
PIRIT
l
i m
ral/..I
-7045
4.
DYER, KIMBERLY
JACKSONVILLE FL 32259
5.
HALVA. LOREN
APOLLO BEACH, FL 33572-3029
6.
MOORE, AIXA
SPIRIT LAKE IA 51360-7045
APOLLO BEACH, FL 33572-3029
7.
PEAREY, ELWIN
RR 1
8.
WALTON. HOWARD
AMBRIDGE IA 50046
APOLLO BEACH, FL 33572-3029
Address
Sources - 32 records found
All Sources
Business Contacts
Business Finder
Corporate Filings
Experian Business Reports
Property
32 Source Document(s)
19 Source Document(s)
4 Source Document(s)
1 Source Document(s)
1 Source Document(s)
7 Source Document(s)
Important: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes
entered poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as
definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies. it should be independently verified. For Secretary
of State documents, the following data is for information purposes only and is not an official record. Certified copies may
be obtained from that individual state's Department of State.
Your DPPA Permissible Use is: Debt Recovery/Fraud
Your GLBA Permissible Use is: Legal Compliance
Copyright 2013 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
2 OF 10 RECORD(S)
Subject Summary
Name
NEPTUNE, LLC
Name Variations/DBAs
#
Name Variations
1.
NEPTUNE, LLC
Copyright 2013 LexisNexis
a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Address
SEATTLE, WA 98121-1209
Phone
County/FIPS
None Listed
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064717
DB-SDNY-0027542
EFTA_001 75220
EFTA01255815
Page 8
Addresses -1 records found
#
Address
Dates
County
M SA
1.
2/28/1997 -
KING
Seattle-Bellevue-
SEATTLE. WA 98121
Everett. WA -
7600
4/2009
Profile Information - 4 records found
1: NEPTUNE SEA LLC
Company Name: NEPTUNE SEA LLC
Date Of Incorporation: 4/20/1998
State Of Incorporation: WA
Charter Number: 601870403
Duration: DATE OF EXPIRATION
Status Of Incorporation: INACTIVE
Corporation Structure: LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
2: NEPTUNE SEA LLC
Company Name: NEPTUNE SEA LLC
Date Of Incorporation: 4/20/1998
State Of Incorporation: WA
Charter Number: 601870403
Duration: PERPETUAL
Status Of Incorporation: INACTIVE OR DISSOLVED
Corporation Structure: LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
3: NEPTUNE SEA LLC
Company Name: NEPTUNE SEA LLC
Date Of Incorporation: 4/20/1998
State Of Incorporation: WA
Charter Number: 601870403
Duration: PERPETUAL
Status Of Incorporation: INACTIVE OR DISSOLVED
Corporation Structure: LIMITED LIABILTIY COMPANY
4: NEPTUNE SEA LLC
Company Name: NEPTUNE SEA LLC
Date Of Incorporation: 4/20/1998
State Of Incorporation: WA
Charter Number: 601870403
Duration: PERPETUAL
Status Of Incorporation: INACTIVE OR DISSOLVED
Corporation Structure: LIMITED LIABILTIY COMPANY
Executives - 1 records found
#
Name
Titles
1
OWNER
Registered Agents -1 records found
#
Name
1
BARRY E WOLF
Company ID Numbers - 1 records found
Company ID Numbers
Sec. of State Charter No(s):
WA, 601870403
Address
Business Associates - 34 records found
#
Name
Address
For internal use only
SEATTLE. WA 98121-1209
SDNY_GM_00064718
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027543
EFTA_00 I 75221
EFTA01255816
Page 9
#
1.
Name
Address
2.
ARMOURTRIM LLC
SEATTLE WA 98121-1209
3.
BARGE, LLC
SEATTLE WA 98121-1209
4.
SEATTLE. WA 98121-1209
5.
SEATTLE. WA 98121-1209
6.
SEATTLE WA 98121-1209
SEATTLE. WA 98121-1209
7.
8.
FUELSATSEA INC
SEATTLE. WA 98121-1209
9.
SEATTLE. WA 98121-1209
10.
SEATTLE. WA 98121-1209
SEATTLE. WA 98121-1209
11.
MANAGEMENT LLC
SEATTLE WA 98121-1209
12.
HELP CO USA
SEATTLE. WA 98121-1209
13.
SEATTLE WA 98121-1209
14.
15
SEATTLE WA 98171-1209
16.
SEATTLE. WA 98121-1209
17.
SEATTLE. WA 98121.1209
18.
NON-QUALIFIED FOREIGN INTO QUALIFIED •
SEATTLE. WA 98121-1209
19.
SEATTLE, WA 98121-1209
20.
SEATTLE. WA 98121-1209
21.
SEATTLE. WA 98121-1209
22.
SEATTLE. WA 98121-1209
23.
LLC
SEATTLE WA 98121-1209
24.
SEATTLE. WA 98121-1209
25.
SEATTLE. WA
1-1209
26.
SEATTLE. WA 98121-1209
SEATTLE. WA 98121-1209
27.
28.
SEATTLE WA 98121-1209
29
SEATTLE. WA 98121-1209
SEATTLE. WA 98121-1209
30.
SEATTLE, WA 98121-1209
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064719
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027544
EFTA 00175222
EFTA01255817
Page I0
#
31.
Name
Address
- 09
32.
- 09
33
SEATTLE WA
121-1209
34.
SEATTLE, WA 98121-1209
Person Associates -1 records found
#
Name
1.
Sources - 6 records found
All Sources
Business Contacts
Business Finder
Corporate Filings
Experian Business Reports
Address
SEATTLE, WA 98121-1209
6 Source Document(s)
1 Source Document(s)
3 Source Document(s)
1 Source Document(s)
1 Source Document(s)
Important: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes
entered poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as
definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified. For Secretary
of State documents, the following data is for information purposes only and is not an official record. Certified copies may
be obtained from that individual state's Department of State.
Your OPPA Permissible Use is: Debt Recovery/Fraud
Your GLBA Permissible Use is: Legal Compliance
Copyright® 2013 LexisNexis. a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
3 OF 10 RECORD(S)
Subject Summary
Name
NEPTUNE, LLC
Name Variations/DBAs
Copyright 2013 LexisNexis
a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Address
UNIT NO
NORTH BRANFORD. CT 06471
Phone
County/FIPS
None Listed
#
Name Variations
1.
NEPTUNE, LLC
Addresses - 3 records found
#
Address
Dates
County
MSA
1.
10/5/2003 -
NEW HAVEN
New Haven-
NORTH BRANFORD. CT 06471
Menden, CT -
5480
9/17/2007
2.
N BRANFORD, CT 06471
9/18/2001 -
NEW HAVEN
New Haven-
Meriden, CT -
For internal use only
5480
SDNY_GM_00064720
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.cON(F
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027545
EFTA_00175223
EFTA01255818
Page I I
#
Address
3.
Dates
12/21/2001
NO
9/12/2007 -
NORTH BRANFORD, CT 06471
6/17/2013
Profile Information - 7 records found
1: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Duration:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
2: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Duration:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
3: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Duration:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
4: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Duration:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
5: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Duration:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
6: NEPTUNE,
Date
State
Status
LLC
Company Name:
Of Incorporation:
Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Duration:
Of Incorporation:
County
NEW HAVEN
NEPTUNE. LLC
9/19/1995
CT
0522323
ACTIVE
NEPTUNE, LLC
9/19/1995
CT
0522323
ACTIVE
NEPTUNE, LLC
9/19/1995
CT
0522323
ACTIVE
NEPTUNE, LLC
9/19/1995
CT
0522323
ACTIVE
NEPTUNE, LLC
9/19/1995
CT
0522323
ACTIVE
NEPTUNE, LLC
9/19/1995
CT
0522323
ACTIVE
For internal use only
MSA
New Haven-
Meriden, CT -
5480
SDNY_GM_00064721
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027546
EFTA_00I 75224
EFTA01255819
Page 12
6: NEPTUNE, LLC
Corporation Structure: DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
7: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name: NEPTUNE, LLC
Date Of Incorporation: 9/19/1995
State Of Incorporation: CT
Charter Number: 0522323
Duration: DATE OF EXPIRATION
Status Of Incorporation: ACTIVE
Corporation Structure: DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Registered Agents -1 records found
#
Name
Address
1
JAMES KATZ
WIGGIN & DANA •
06103
Company ID Numbers - 1 records found
Company ID Numbers
Sec. of State Charter No(s):
CT. 0522323
Business Associates -1 records found
#
Name
1.
NEPTUNE, LLC
Person Associates - 2 records found
#
Name
1.
2.
Sources - 10 records found
All Sources
Business Contacts
Business Finder
Corporate Filings
Address
HARTFORD, CT
NORTH BRANFORD, CT 06471-1846
Address
NORTH BRANFORD. CT 06471-1853
NORTH BRANFORD, CT 06471-1853
10 Source Document(s)
6 Source Document(s)
3 Source Document(s)
1 Source Document(s)
Important: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes
entered poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect This system should not be relied upon as
definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified. For Secretary
of State documents. the following data is for information purposes only and is not an official record. Certified copies may
be obtained from that individual state's Department of State.
Your DPPA Permissible Use is: Debt Recovery/Fraud
Your GLBA Permissible Use is: Legal Compliance
Copynght. 2013 LexisNexis. a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
4 OF 10 RECORD(S)
Subject Summary
Copyright 2013 LexisNexis
a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064722
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027547
EFTA_00 175225
EFTA01255820
Page 13
Name
NEPTUNE, LLC
Name Variations/DBAs
#
Name Variations
1.
NEPTUNE, LLC
Address
NASHVILLE, TN 37205-4800
Addresses -1 records found
#
Address
1
NASHVILLE. TN 37205
Dates
10/20/2000 -
10/20/2000
Phone
County/FIPS
None Listed
County
DAVIDSON
Profile Information - 4 records found
1: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name: NEPTUNE, LLC
Date Of Incorporation: 1/24/1997
State Of Incorporation: TN
Charter Number: 000324699
Duration: PERPETUAL
Status Of Incorporation: INACTIVE - DISSOLVED (ADMINISTRATIVE)
Corporation Structure: LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
2: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Duration:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
3: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Charter Number:
Duration:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
4: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Duration:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
NEPTUNE, LLC
1/24/1997
TN
000324699
PERPETUAL
NEPTUNE, LLC
000324699
PERPETUAL
ADMIN DISSOLVED
NEPTUNE, LLC
1/24/1997
000324699
PERPETUAL
ADMIN DISSOLVED
Registered Agents -1 records found
#
Name
1
Company ID Numbers -1 records found
Company ID Numbers
Sec. of State Charter No(s):
TN. 000324699
Business Associates - 3 records found
Address
For internal use only
MSA
Nashville, TN -
5360
NASHVILLE, TN 37205-4800
SDNY_GM_00064723
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027548
EFTA 0(1175226
EFTA01255821
Page 14
#
Name
1.
ANDREWS, LLC
2.
3.
Sources - 2 records found
All Sources
Business Finder
Corporate Filings
Address
NASHVILLE, TN 37205-4800
NASHVILLE, TN
NASHVILLE, TN
2 Source Document(s)
1 Source Document(s)
1 Source Document(s)
Important: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes
entered poorly. processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as
definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified. For Secretary
of State documents, the following data is for information purposes only and is not an official record. Certified copies may
be obtained from that individual state's Department of State.
Your DPPA Permissible Use is: Debt Recovery/Fraud
Your GLBA Permissible Use is: Legal Compliance
Copyright® 2013 LexisNexis. a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
5 OF 10 RECORD(S)
Subject Summary
Name
NEPTUNE, LLC
Name Variations/DBAs
#
Name Variations
1.
NEPTUNE. LLC
Copyright 2013 LexisNexis
a division of Reed Elsevier Inc All Rights Reserved.
Address
MORRISTOWN. NJ 07960-6362
Addresses - 1 records found
#
Address
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960
Dates
3/2004 -
2005
Phone
County/FIPS
None Listed
County
MORRIS
Real Property - 9 records found
1: Assessment Record for MONMOUTH County, NJ
Owner Information
NEPTUNE, LLC
Name:
Address:
County/FIPS:
Address:
Data Source:
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960-6362
MORRIS
Pro e
Information
B
Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel 43 00006- -00006
For internal use only
MSA
Newark, NJ -
5640
SDNY_GM_00064724
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027549
EFTA_00 175227
EFTA01255822
Page 15
Number:
Recording Date: 02/05/2004
Book/Page: 8341/6682
Assessment Information
Assessed Value: $3179200
2: Assessment Record for MONMOUTH County, NJ
Owner Information
NEPTUNE, LLC
Name:
Address:
County/FIPS:
Address:
Data Source:
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960.6362
MORRIS
Pro e
Information
B
Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel 43 00006-0000-00006
Number:
Book/Page: 8341/6682
Assessment Information
Assessed Value: $3179200
3: Assessment Record for MONMOUTH County, NJ
Owner Information
NEPTUNE. LLC
Name:
Address:
County/FIPS:
Address:
Data Source:
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960-6362
MORRIS
Pro e
Information
B
Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel 43 00006-0000-00006
Number:
Book/Page: 8341/6682
Assessment Information
Assessed Value: $3179200
4: Assessment Record for MONMOUTH County, NJ
Owner Information
NEPTUNE, LLC
Name:
Address:
County/FIPS:
Address:
Data Source:
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960-6362
MORRIS
Pro e
Information
B
Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel 43 00006-0000-00006
Number:
Book/Page: 8341/6682
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064725
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027550
EFTA_00 175228
EFTA01255823
Page 16
Assessment Information
Assessed Value: $3179200
5: Assessment Record for MONMOUTH County, NJ
Owner Information
NEPTUNE, LLC
Name:
Address:
County/FIPS:
Address:
Data Source:
Assessors Parcel
Number:
Book/Page:
Assessed Value:
6: Assessment Record for
Name:
Address:
County/FIPS:
Address:
Data Source:
Assessor's Parcel
Number:
Book/Page:
Assessed Value:
7: Assessment Record for
Name:
Address:
County/FIPS:
Address:
Data Source:
MORRISTOWN. NJ 07960-6362
MORRIS
Pro e
Information
B
Legal Information
43 00006-0000-00006
8341/6682
Assessment Information
$3179200
MONMOUTH County, NJ
Owner Information
NEPTUNE. LLC
MORRISTOWN. NJ 07960-6362
MORRIS
Pr
om o
Information
B
Legal Information
43 00006-0000-00006
8341/6682
Assessment Information
$3179200
MONMOUTH County, NJ
Owner Information
NEPTUNE, LLC
MORRISTOWN. NJ 07960.6362
MORRIS
Pro e
Information
B
Legal Information
Assessors Parcel 43 00006-0000-00006
Number:
Book/Page: 8341/6682
Assessment Information
Assessed Value: $3179200
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064726
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027551
EFTA 00175229
EFTA01255824
Page 17
8: Assessment Record for MONMOUTH County, NJ
Owner Information
NEPTUNE, LLC
Name:
Address:
County/FIPS:
Address:
Data Source:
Assessors Parcel
Number:
Book/Page:
Assessed Value:
9: Assessment Record for
Name:
Address:
County/FIPS:
Address:
Data Source:
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960-6362
MORRIS
Pr
om o
Information
B
Legal Information
43 00006-0000-00006
8341/6682
Assessment Information
$3179200
MONMOUTH County, NJ
Owner Information
NEPTUNE, LLC
MORRISTOWN, NJ 07960-6362
MORRIS
Pr
om o
Information
B
Legal Information
Assessor's Parcel 43 00006-0000-00006
Number:
Book/Page: 8341/6682
Assessment Information
Assessed Value: $3179200
Business Associates - 5 records found
#
Name
1.
NDT FINANCIAL
Address
2.
NJ 07960-6362
3.
MORRISTOWN NJ 07960-6362
4.
NTI CORP
MORRISTOWN NJ 07960-6362
5.
MORRISTOWN NJ 07960-6362
MORRISTOWN. NJ 07960-6362
Sources - 11 records found
All Sources
11 Source Document(s)
Business Finder
2 Source Documents)
Property
9 Source Document(s)
Important: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes
entered poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as
definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified. For Secretary
of State documents, the following data is for information purposes only and is not an official record. Certified copies may
be obtained from that individual state's Department of State.
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064727
DB-SDNY-0027552
EFTA_00 175230
EFTA01255825
Page 18
Your DPPA Permissible Use is: Debt Recovery/Fraud
Your GLBA Permissible Use is: Legal Compliance
Copyright® 2013 LexisNexis. a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All nghts reserved.
6 OF 10 RECORD(S)
Copyright 2013 LexisNexis
a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Subject Summary
Name
NEPTUNE. LLC
Name Variations/DBAs
#
Name Variations
1.
NEPTUNE, LLC
Address
GREEN BAY. WI 54304-5303
Addresses -1 records found
#
Address
1
GREEN BAY. WI 54304
Dates
7/17/2000 -
8/2008
Phone
County/FIPS
None Listed
County
BROWN
Profile Information - 6 records found
1: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name: NEPTUNE, LLC
Date Of Incorporation: 7/17/2000
State Of Incorporation: WI
Charter Number: N027804
Status Of Incorporation: DISSOLVED
Corporation Structure: DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
2: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
3: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
4: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
NEPTUNE, LLC
WI
N027804
ORGANIZED
NEPTUNE, LLC
7/17/2000
WI
N027804
DISSOLVED
NEPTUNE. LLC
7/17/2000
WI
N027804
For internal use only
MSA
Green Bay. WI -
3080
SDNY_GM_00064728
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027553
EFTA_00i 75231
EFTA01255826
Page 19
4: NEPTUNE, LLC
Status Of Incorporation: DISSOLVED
Corporation Structure: DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
5: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
6: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
NEPTUNE, LLC
7/17/2000
WI
N027804
DISSOLVED
NEPTUNE, LLC
7/17/2000
WI
N 027804
DISSOLVED
Registered Agents -1 records found
#
Name
1.
DAVID CUENE
Company ID Numbers - 2 records found
Company ID Numbers
Sec. of State Charter No(s):
WI, N 027804
WI, N027804
UCC Liens -1 records found
1:WI UCC LIEN FILING
Name:
Address:
Name:
Address:
Original Filing Number:
Original Filing Date:
Filing Type:
Filing Date:
Filing Number:
Filing Type:
Pages:
Filing Number:
Filing Date:
Expiration Date:
Address:
Filing Agency:
Description:
Address
GREEN BAY, WI 54304-5303
Debtor Information
NEPTUNE LLC
GREEN BAY. WI 54304-5303
Secured Party Information
GREEN BAY. WI 54307-9006
Filing Information
030000304209
1/6/2003
Filing 1
TERMINATION
8/24/2004
040013506318
Filing 2
INITIAL FILING
1
030000304209
1/6/2003
1/6/2008
Filing Offices
MADISON, WI 53702
Collateral Information
01/06/2003 030000304209 - COMPUTER EQUIPMENT ALL INCLUDING
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064729
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027554
EFTA_00 175232
EFTA01255827
Page 20
1:WI UCC LIEN FILING
Business Associates - 17 records found
#
Name
Address
1.
ATM
2.
3.
GREEN BAY WI 54304-5303
BROADWAY SAAB
GREEN BAY, WI 54304-5303
4.
GREEN BAY, WI
BENEFIT TRUST
5.
6.
-5303
7.
GREEN
-5303
8.
GF
k/BAYi aral-5303
9.
5303
10
GREEN BAY, WI 54304-5303
11.
12.
5303
13.
GREEN BAY WI 54304-5303
14.
SELMER COMPANY
GREEN BAY WI 54304-5303
15.
GREEN BAY WI 54304-5303
16.
5303
GREEN BAY. WI 54304-5303
17.
GREEN BAY, WI 54304-5303
Sources - 4 records found
All Sources
Business Finder
Corporate Filings
UCC Lien Filings
4 Source Document(s)
2 Source Document(s)
1 Source Document(s)
1 Source Document(s)
Important: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes
entered poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as
definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified. For Secretary
of State documents, the following data is for information purposes only and is not an official record. Certified copies may
be obtained from that individual state's Department of State.
Your DPPA Permissible Use is: Debt Recovery/Fraud
Your GLBA Permissible Use is: Legal Compliance
Copyright® 2013 LexisNexis. a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
7 OF 10 RECORD(S)
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064730
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.c2C;IN(F IDENTIAL
DB-SONY-0027555
EFTA_00 175233
EFTA01255828
Page 2 I
Copyright 2013 LexisNexis
a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Subject Summary
Name
NEPTUNE, LLC
Name Variations/DBAs
#
Name Variations
1.
NEPTUNE. LLC
Address
BELLEVUE. WA 98004-5598
Addresses -1 records found
#
Address
1.
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
Profile Information - 5 recor
1: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Duration:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
2: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Duration:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
3: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Duration:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
4: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Duration:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
Dates
7/1/2004 -
10/11/2006
ds found
Phone
County/FIPS
None Listed
County
KING
NEPTUNE, LLC
2/13/1997
WA
601769833
INACTIVE
NEPTUNE. LLC
2/13/1997
WA
601769833
PERPETUAL
INACTIVE
NEPTUNE. LLC
2/13/1997
WA
601769833
PERPETUAL
INACTIVE
NEPTUNE, LLC
2/13/1997
WA
601769833
PERPETUAL
ACTIVE
5: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name: NEPTUNE, LLC
For internal use only
MSA
Seattle-Bellevue-
Everett. WA -
7600
SDNY_GM_00064731
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027556
EFTA_00 175234
EFTA01255829
Page 22
5: NEPTUNE, LLC
Date Of Incorporation: 2/13/1997
State Of Incorporation: WA
Charter Number: 601 769 833
Duration: PERPETUAL
Status Of Incorporation: ACTIVE AND IN GOOD STANDING
Corporation Structure: LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
Executives - 4 records found
#
Name
Titles
1.
ANDERSON. ALICE
MEMBER
2.
MEMBER
3.
LEIV, LEA
MANAGER
4.
MANAGER
Registered Agents -1 records found
#
Name
1.
BARRY WOLF
Company ID Numbers - 2 records found
Company ID Numbers
Sec. of State Charter No(s):
WA. 601 769 833
WA. 601769833
Address
98004-5598
Watercrafts -1 records found
1: Boat Registration
Registration Status: VALID
Registration Issue Date: 11/17/2004
Registration Expiration Date: 12/31/2005
Vessel Make: HALTER MARINE SERVICES
Use: COMMERCIAL
Propulsion Type: Diesel Reduction
Vessel Year: 1978
Length (Ft-In): 155'8"
Width: 456
Weight: 293214
Vessel Name: FIERCE CONTENDER
Date Last Seen: 11/17/2004
Owner Information
Company Name: EPTUNE LLC
Address:
BELLEVUE. WA UNITED STATES 98004-5598
KING COUNTY
Engine Information
Horse Power: 1800
Business Associates - 1 records found
#
Name
1.
NEPTUNE. LLC
Person Associates - 4 records found
#
Name
1.
ANDERSON, ALICE
2.
Address
BELLEVUE, WA 98004-5598
Address
BOTHELL. WA 98021-8588
For internal use only
BELLEVUE. WA
SDNY_GM_00064732
IDENTIAL
DB-SONY-0027557
EFTA_00 175235
EFTA01255830
Page 23
#
Name
3.
LEIV, LEA
4.
Sources - 9 records found
All Sources
Business Contacts
Business Finder
Corporate Filings
Watercraft Registrations
Address
SEATTLE WA 98115-7763
SEATTLE WA 98109-2033
CLYDE HILL, WA 980O4-3328
9 Source Document(s)
4 Source Documents)
3 Source Document(s)
1 Source Document(s)
1 Source Document(s)
Important: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes
entered poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as
definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified. For Secretary
of State documents, the following data is for information purposes only and is not an official record. Certified copies may
be obtained from that individual state's Department of State.
Your DPPA Permissible Use is: Debt Recovery/Fraud
Your GLBA Permissible Use is: Legal Compliance
Copyright. 2013 LexisNexis. a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
8 OF 10 RECORD(S)
Subject Summary
Name
NEPTUNE, LLC
Name Variations/DBAs
#
Name Variations
1.
NEPTUNE, LLC
Copyright 2013 LexisNexis
a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Address
BOULDER. CO 80302-6746
Phone
County!FIPS
None Listed
Addresses -1 records found
#
Address
Dates
County
MSA
1
8/21/2007 -
BOULDER
Boulder-
BOULDER. CO 80302
Longmont. CO -
1125
8/8/2013
Profile Information - 6 records found
1: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name: NEPTUNE, LLC
Date Of Incorporation: 5/21/2005
State Of Incorporation: CO
Charter Number: 20051206385
Duration: PERPETUAL
Status Of Incorporation: DELINQUENT
Corporation Structure: DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064733
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctc;IN(F IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027558
EFTA_00 175236
EFTA01255831
Page 24
2: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Duration:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
3: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Duration:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
4: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Duration:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
5: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Duration:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
6: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Duration:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
NEPTUNE, LLC
5/21/2005
CO
20051206385
PERPETUAL
DELINQUENT
NEPTUNE, LLC
5/21/2005
CO
20051206385
PERPETUAL
DELINQUENT
NEPTUNE, LLC
5/21/2005
CO
20051206385
PERPETUAL
NONCOMPLIANT
NEPTUNE, LLC
5/21/2005
CO
20051206385
PERPETUAL
NONCOMPLIANT
NEPTUNE, LLC
5/21/2005
CO
20051206385
PERPETUAL
GOOD STANDING
Registered Agents -1 records found
#
Name
1.
DOUG MARCY
Company ID Numbers - 1 records found
Company ID Numbers
Sec. of State Charter No(s):
Sources - 2 records found
All Sources
Business Finder
Corporate Filings
CO, 20051206385
Address
80302-6720
For internal use only
2 Source Document(s)
1 Source Documentrs,
1 Source Document(s)
SDNY_GM_00064734
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.cON(F
IDENTIAL
DB-SONY-0027559
EFTA_00 175237
EFTA01255832
Page 25
Important: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes
entered poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as
definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system suppfies, it should be independently verified. For Secretary
of State documents, the following data is for information purposes only and is not an official record. Certified copies may
be obtained from that individual state's Department of State.
Your DPPA Permissible Use is: Debt Recovery/Fraud
Your GLBA Permissible Use is: Legal Compliance
Copyright® 2013 LexisNexis. a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
9 OF 10 RECORD(S)
Copyright 2013 LexisNexis
a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Subject Summary
Name
NEPTUNE, LLC
Name Variations/DBAs
#
Name Variations
1.
NEPTUNE. LLC
Addresses - 3 records found
#
Address
Dates
County
MSA
1.
5/5/2009 -
SACRAMENTO
Sacramento, CA -
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814
6920
6/19/2012
2.
7/24/2012-
NEW YORK
NEW YORK, NY 10018
7/9/2013
3.
7/24/2012 -
LOS ANGELES
SANTA MONICA, CA 90401
Address
NEW YORK. NY 10018-3308
Phone
County/FIPS
None Listed
7/9/2013
Profile Information - 6 records found
1: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name: NEPTUNE, LLC
State Of Incorporation: CA
Charter Number: 199730910007
Status Of Incorporation: ACTIVE
Corporation Structure: DOMESTIC LLC
2: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name: NEPTUNE, LLC
State Of Incorporation: CA
Charter Number: 199730910007
Status Of Incorporation: ACTIVE
Corporation Structure: DOMESTIC LLC
3: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name: NEPTUNE, LLC
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064735
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.Q11;)N(F IDENTIAL
DB-SONY-0027560
EFTA_0nl 75238
EFTA01255833
Page 26
3: NEPTUNE, LLC
State Of Incorporation: CA
Charter Number: 199730910007
Status Of Incorporation: ACTIVE
Corporation Structure: DOMESTIC LLC
4: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name: NEPTUNE, LLC
State Of Incorporation: CA
Charter Number: 199730910007
Status Of Incorporation: ACTIVE
Corporation Structure: DOMESTIC LLC
5: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name: NEPTUNE, LLC
State Of Incorporation: CA
Charter Number: 199730910007
Status Of Incorporation: ACTIVE
Corporation Structure: DOMESTIC LLC
6: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name: NEPTUNE, LLC
State Of Incorporation: CA
Charter Number: 199730910007
Status Of Incorporation: ACTIVE
Corporation Structure: DOMESTIC LLC
Executives - 1 records found
#
Name
1.
Company ID Numbers -1 records found
Company ID Numbers
Sec. of State Charter No(s):
CA, 199730910007
Business Associates -1 records found
#
Name
1.
NEPTUNE, LLC
Person Associates -1 records found
#
Name
1.
Sources - 6 records found
All Sources
Business Contacts
Business Finder
Corporate Filings
Titles
MEMBER
Address
SACRAMENTO, CA 95814.3705
Address
6 Source Document(s)
1 Source Document(s)
4 Source Document(s)
1 Source Document(s)
Important: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes
entered poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as
definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified. For Secretary
of State documents. the following data is for information purposes only and is not an official record. Certified copies may
be obtained from that individual state's Department of State.
Your DPPA Permissible Use is: Debt Recovery/Fraud
Your GLBA Permissible Use is: Legal Compliance
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064736
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.cON(F
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027561
EFTA_00 175239
EFTA01255834
Page 27
Copyright® 2013 LexisNexis. a division of Reed Elsevier Inc All rights reserved.
10 OF 10 RECORD(S)
Copyright 2013 LexisNexis
a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Subject Summary
Name
NEPTUNE, LLC
Name Variations/DBAs
#
Name Variations
1.
NEPTUNE. LLC
Address
CORVALLIS. OR 97330-1153
Addresses -1 records found
#
Address
Dates
1.
5/19/2011 -
CORVALLIS, OR 97330
7/10/2013
Phone
County/FIPS
None Listed
County
BENTON
Profile Information - 3 records found
1: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name: NEPTUNE. LLC
Date Of Incorporation: 5/19/2011
State Of Incorporation: OR
Charter Number: 77332097
Status Of Incorporation: ACTIVE
Corporation Structure: DOMESTIC LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
2: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
3: NEPTUNE, LLC
Company Name:
Date Of Incorporation:
State Of Incorporation:
Charter Number:
Status Of Incorporation:
Corporation Structure:
NEPTUNE, LLC
5/19/2011
OR
77332097
ACTIVE
NEPTUNE, LLC
5/19/2011
OR
77332097
ACTIVE
Executives -1 records found
#
Name
1
COLE. DARIN F
Registered Agents -1 records found
#
Name
1.
DARIN F COLE
Titles
MANAGER
Address
For internal use only
MSA
CORVALLIS, OR 97330-
SDNY_GM_00064737
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027562
EFTA_00 175240
EFTA01255835
Page 28
#
Name
Company ID Numbers - 1 records found
Company ID Numbers
Sec. of State Charter No(s):
OR, 77332097
UCC Liens -1 records found
1:OR UCC LIEN FILING
Address
1153
Debtor Information
Debtor 1
Name: NEPTUNE. LLC
Address:
Debtor 2
Address:
Name:
Address:
Name:
Address:
Name:
Address:
Original Filing Number:
Original Filing Date:
Filing Type:
Filing Number:
Filing Date:
Expiration Date:
Address:
Filing Agency:
CORVALLIS. OR 97330-1153
ALBANY, OR 97322-6315
Debtor 3
LLC
CORVALLIS. OR 97339-1583
Debtor 4
'tar
LLC
CORVALLIS. OR 97339.1583
Secured Party Information
allISREDIT
UNION
CORVALLIS, OR 97330-2179
Filing Information
89002575
9/15/2011
INITIAL FILING
89002575
9/15/2011
9/15/2016
SALEM, OR 97310
Collateral Information
Description: 09/15/2011 89002575
Business Associates - 6 records found
#
Name
1.
1WINSTON, LLC
2.
BULJAM 2. LLC
- FIXTURES AND PROCEEDS:GENERAL
Address
330.1153
3.
CADDI, LLC
ALBANY OR 97322-6315
4.
CORV
ALLIS
OR 97330.1153
5.
I OR 97339-1583
6.
R
IS OR 97339-1583
Person Associates -1 records found
#
Name
1.
COLE. DARIN F
CORVALLIS. OR 97330-1153
Address
CORVALLIS, OR 97330-1153
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064738
DB-SONY-0027563
EFTA_00175241
EFTA01255836
Page 29
Sources - 6 records found
All Sources
Business Contacts
Business Finder
Corporate Filings
Experian Business Reports
UCC Lien Filings
6 Source Document(s)
1 Source Documents)
2 Source Document(s)
1 Source Documents)
1 Source Document(s)
1 Source Document(s)
Important: The Public Records and commercially available data sources used on reports have errors. Data is sometimes
entered poorly, processed incorrectly and is generally not free from defect. This system should not be relied upon as
definitively accurate. Before relying on any data this system supplies, it should be independently verified. For Secretary
of State documents, the following data is for information purposes only and is not an official record. Certified copies may
be obtained from that individual state's Department of State.
Your CIPPA Permissible Use is: Debt Recovery/Fraud
Your GLBA Permissible Use is: Legal Compliance
Copynghte 2013 LexisNexis, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
D& B:
There was no information found
LEGAL RESULTS:
Court Cases:
Donna Discala v. Ralph F. Arcamone, Jr. et al.
FSTCV064007607S
2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3665
November 22, 2006, Decided
November 22, 2006, Filed
NOTICE: rli THIS DECISION IS UNREPORTED AND MAY BE SUBJECT TO
PRIOR HISTORY: Discala v. Arcamone, 2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3576 (Conn. Super.
Ct., Nov. 21, 2006)
CASE SUMMARY:
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064739
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctc;IN(f
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027564
EFTA_00 175242
EFTA01255837
Page 2
2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3665, *
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: The court had previously granted plaintiff property owner's
request for an injunction prohibiting defendant property owners from subdividing their
property and selling a portion of it. Subsequently. plaintiff sought to enjoin defendants from
renting to a third party one of two residences on defendants' property. Plaintiff sought
removal of one of the two residences.
OVERVIEW: After purchasing their property, defendants built a second residence.
Although they had originally planned to subdivide the property. they later sought only to
rent the original residence and to occupy the new residence as their family home. Plaintiff
claimed that the rental of the original property violated certain restrictive covenants and
that the residence located at that address had to be removed. The court held that plaintiff
did not meet her burden of proof concerning the alleged violations of the restrictions. The
court held that plaintiff did not prove that the restrictions (1) prevented the use of the
residence for any purpose other than as the principal residence on defendants' property:
(2) limited the size of any building on defendants' property: or (3) imposed any use
limitation on buildings on defendants' property. Plaintiff did not show that the rental of the
original residence for residential purposes would violate the restrictions as set forth in the
deed to defendants' property. Accordingly, the court did not need to determine whether
enforcement of the restrictions by requiring the removal of the original residence would be
inequitable.
OUTCOME: The court entered final judgment enjoining defendants from subdividing their
property. but the court declined to require removal of one of the residences or to enjoin the
owners from renting one of the residences.
CORE TERMS: cottage, deed, guest, restrictive covenants, gardener's, zoning, rental,
square feet, dwelling house, residential, outbuildings, bedrooms, burden of proof,
appurtenant, dwelling, erected, parcel, new residence, enlarged, acre, bath, purposes of
sale, square foot, injunction, grantor's, urges, floor area, accessory, improved, built
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes
Real Property Law > Restrictive Covenants > Enforcement
[HN11 Restrictions that were personal to a common grantor cannot be enforced by the
successors in title of other grantees whose properties were not subjected to the same
restriction.
Real Property Law > Restrictive Covenants > Enforcement
Real Property Law > Zoning & Land Use > General Overview
[HN21Zoning provisions, unless incorporated, either explicitly or implicitly, by reference are
irrelevant to the interpretation and enforcement of restrictive covenants.
Real Property Law > Restrictive Covenants > General Overview
Real Property Law > Zoning & Land Use > General Overview
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064740
DB-SDNY-0027565
EFTA_00175243
EFTA01255838
Page 3
2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3665, *
[HN3] Restrictive covenants in a deed as to use of property are distinct from the provisions
of a zoning law.
Real Property Law > General Overview
[HN4]The term "cottage" has no fixed meaning under Connecticut law that precludes
structures exceeding a certain size from being considered cottages.
Real Property Law > Restrictive Covenants > Creation
[HN51A restrictive covenant must be narrowly construed and ought not to be extended by
implication.
Civil Procedure > Remedies > Injunctions > Permanent Injunctions
Real Property Law > Restrictive Covenants > Creation
Real Property Law > Restrictive Covenants > Enforcement
[HN61A permanent injunction is warranted only when the terms of a restrictive covenant
have specified and expressly defined meanings, and, if that is the case, such particularized
meanings and definitions will control.
Civil Procedure > Remedies > Costs & Attorney Fees > Costs > General Overview
[HN7] Conn. Gen. Prac. Book, R. Super. Ct. § 18-5(a) provides that disputes concerning
costs shall be heard by a clerk. The provisions of § 18-5(b) make it clear that the judicial
authority acts only after the clerk has taxed costs and a motion is filed for review.
JUDGES: David R. Tobin, J.
OPINION BY: David R. Tobin
OPINION
This memorandum of decision addresses the issue of whether the plaintiff has proven that
the provisions of certain restrictive covenants require the removal of either of the two
residences located on the defendants' property.
This action was brought by the plaintiff in 2005 seeking injunctive relief to enforce the
provisions of restrictive covenants applicable to a 31-lot subdivision know as "Overbrook."
The action filed after the defendants began construction of second residential structure on
their 3+-acre lot and listed their original residence and a 1+-acre portion of their lot for sale.
In her complaint the plaintiff claimed that she was the owner of 2+-acre lot also subject to
the "Overbrook" restrictions. She claimed that the defendants' activities violated the
provisions of the restrictive covenants in a number of ways. The court heard the parties'
testimony and other evidence over four days of trial from March 1, 2006 to March 8, 2006.
The 2] facts found by the court are set forth in detail in the court's memorandum of
decision dated May 24, 2006.
In summary, the court found that:
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064741
DB-SDNY-0027566
EFTA_00 175244
EFTA01255839
Page 4
2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3665, *
1. Both the plaintiff's property and the defendants' property were subject to the
"Overbrook" restrictions which were substantially uniform.
2. The plaintiff had standing to enforce the restrictions.
3. The restrictions were viable.
4. Changed circumstances were insufficient to negate the validity of the restrictions.
5. Laches did not bar the plaintiffs action to enforce the restrictions.
6. Paragraph 5 of the restrictions requiring prior approval of construction plans was
personal to the original grantor and could not be enforced by plaintiff.
7. Paragraph 2 of the restrictions prevented the defendants from subdividing their property
for purposes of sale.
8. The plaintiff had not shown that the defendants had yet used any structure on their
property in a manner which would violate paragraph 1 of the restrictions.
The court granted the plaintiff an injunction preventing the defendants from subdividing
their property for purposes of sale and retained jurisdiction for a period of one year to
determine r3] any issues which might arise out of the use of any structure on the
defendant's property.
On June 5, 2006 the defendants, Ralph F. Arcamone, Jr. and Claire Ann Clark, filed a
motion to reargue which the court granted in part. The court permitted the defendants to be
heard on their claim that the evidence produced at trial was sufficient to permit the court to
determine the permissible uses of the structures on their property under the provisions of
paragraph 1 of the restrictive covenants. The parties were heard on August 1, 2006. On
August 4, 2006 the court entered an order finding that the evidence produced at trial was
insufficient to permit the court to make such a determination.
On August 11, 2006 the defendants filed a motion for further order and a motion for
extension of time to file appeal. In the motion for further order the defendants requested
the court to hold a hearing to ". . . consider all pending issues relating to proposed uses of
defendants' property and the two dwellings thereon . . ." On August 21, 2006 the parties
appeared before the court and presented additional evidence and argument concerning
the issues.
The evidence produced at the August 21, 2006 hearing [*4] established that the
defendants no longer intend to subdivide their property for sale. Instead they plan to rent
their original residence (145 West Norwalk Road) and to occupy the new residence, now
designated as 143 West Norwalk Road, as their family home. The original residence is a
one and a half-story structure built in 1830 and renovated and expanded in the early
1990s. As presently configured the structure has seven rooms including three bedrooms
and two bathrooms. The records of the Norwalk assessor show that the structure has a
gross useable floor area of approximately 3,500 square feet. At the time of the hearing, the
new residence was nearly completed. When finished it will have a useable floor area of
approximately 5,200 square feet.
In its memorandum of decision of May 24, 2006, the court found that both the plaintiff's
property and the defendants' property were subject to substantially uniform restrictions set
For internal use only
SONY_GM_00064742
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctON(F IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027567
EFTA_00 175245
EFTA01255840
Page 5
2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3665, *
forth in the "Overbrook" deeds. Those restrictions are not, however, identical. Paragraph 1
of the restrictions as set forth in the plaintiffs deed and in the deeds conveying 29 of the
31 "Overbook" lots reads as follows:
1. No building shall be erected upon [' 5] the premises above described except one
single family dwelling house: and in addition thereto there may be erected thereon one separate garage and separate
buildings for such uses as a greenhouse. gardener's cottage, a shop for use in connection with said premises but not
for commercial use, or other outbuildings suitable for use in connection with and as appurtenant to said dwelling house
The restrictions on the defendant's property are set forth in a deed dated February 27,
1942, from John Sherman Hoyt ("Hoyt") to William H. Pinckard conveying the 3.14-acre
parcel presently owned by the defendants. Paragraph 1 of the restrictions in that deed
differs from those in the other "Overbrook" deeds in two significant respects. First, there is
a preamble which is absent from the plaintiffs deed and from the other 29 deeds
conveying "Overbrook" lots. That preamble reads as follows:
A house now stands on said Lot and said house may be enlarged and improved
but any addition to said house shall be so constructed as not to bring said house a any part thereof nearer than the
same now is to said West Norwalk Avenue. Should said building be destroyed or removed, no raj new building shall
be erected on the premises above described except a one family dwelling, nor shall the old building, if improved and
enlarged be made into other than a one family dwelling house . . .
The second difference between the paragraph 1 restrictions in the plaintiffs deed and
paragraph 1 in the defendants' deed is in the list of permitted accessory buildings. In
common with 28 other "Overbrook" deeds, the plaintiffs deed expressly permits a separate
garage, greenhouse, gardener's cottage and a shop for use in connection with the
premises. However, paragraph 1 of the defendant's deed also expressly permits the
construction of a "guest cottage." The only other "Overbrook" deed expressly permitting a
"guest cottage" is the deed to the 3.89-acre lot (Lot Q) presently owned by Catherine
Brinckerhoff. That lot is adjacent to the defendants' lot and also fronts on West Norwalk
Road. The defendants' lot and the Brinckerhoff lot are the only "Overbrook" lots not having
frontage on either Maywood Road or Maywood Court. The defendants' lot and the
Brinckerhoff lot are two of the larger "Overbrook" lots, each having in excess of three
acres. Most "Overbrook" lots are approximately rn the size of the plaintiff's lot which
contains 2.12 acres.
The plaintiff claims that the rental of 145 West Norwalk Road violates paragraph 1 of the
restrictive covenants and that the residence located at that address must be ordered
removed. She supports these claims with an array of arguments. First, the plaintiff argues
that the restrictions expressly forbid the use of the residence at 145 West Norwalk Road
for any purpose other than as a principal residence. Accordingly, that structure cannot
qualify as a permitted accessory building. Second, the plaintiff argues that because the
residence at 145 West Norwalk Road is situated on a separate lot for zoning purposes, it
cannot be considered accessory to a principal residence located on another lot. Third, the
plaintiff argues that the size of the structure at 145 West Norwalk Road precludes it being
considered either as a guest cottage or a gardener's cottage. In support of this claim the
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064743
DB-SDNY-0027568
EFTA_00 175246
EFTA01255841
Page 6
2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3665, *
plaintiff urges the court to either adopt the size of the guest cottage built on the
Brinckerhoff lot, adjacent to the defendants' property, as the upper limit of the permissible
size of cottages, or to make an ad hoc determination that the sheer
size of the
structure at 145 West Norwalk Road prevents it from being considered a cottage of any
sort. Fourth and finally, the plaintiff argues that even if the defendants were permitted to
use the structure at 145 West Norwalk Road as a cottage, they could only use it to
accommodate either guests or household servants such as gardeners. In making these
arguments the plaintiff asserts that because the defendants applied to the court to
determine whether the rental of 145 West Norwalk Road was permitted under the
restrictions, the burden of proof shifted from the plaintiff to the defendants.
On their part the defendants claim that the plaintiff has failed to sustain her burden of
showing that the proposed rental of 145 West Norwalk Road would constitute a violation of
the "Overbrook" restrictive covenants. In addition, the defendants claim that the plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate that she has suffered or will suffer irreparable harm if the
defendants should proceed with the proposed rental.
Before discussing the parties' respective claims, the court will consider the issue of burden
of proof and the standard for granting injunctive relief if a violation of the restrictions is ['9]
established. Despite the plaintiffs assertions to the contrary, the court finds that the
plaintiff has the burden of proof with respect to her claims of violations of the restrictions.
As the court noted in its memorandum of decision of May 24, 2006, the court did not have
sufficient evidence to grant the plaintiffs application for an injunction requiring the
defendant to remove one of the structures on their property. By simply reserving
jurisdiction to hear any further applications concerning the use of the structures on
defendant's property, the court could not and did not shift the plaintiffs burden of proof to
the defendants.
If the plaintiff were able to sustain her burden of proof that the defendants' rental of 145
West Norwalk Road violates paragraph 1 of the restrictive covenants, she is not required
to show that she has or will sustain irreparable injury. She need only show that the relief
requested would not be inequitable. Hartford Electric Light Co. v. Levitz, 173 Conn. 15, 22,
376 A.2d 381 (1977).
The court will consider each of plaintiffs claims separately. The plaintiff first argues that
even if the plaintiffs could otherwise use the original no] residence as a guest cottage or
gardeners cottage, the express provisions of the restrictions prohibited such uses once
that structure had been improved and enlarged. The plaintiff points to the following
language in paragraph 1 of the restrictions as set forth in the Pinckard deed: ". . . nor shall
the old building, if improved and enlarged be made into other than a one family dwelling
house . . ." The plaintiff points out that the evidence in this case establishes that original
residence on the defendants' lot was substantially enlarged by the defendants in the early
1990s. The plaintiff claims that such enlargement precludes any use of the residence for a
different purpose. The court finds that the plaintiff's reliance on the above-quoted provision
of the restriction in the defendants' deed is misplaced.
The portion of paragraph 1 of the restrictions at issue is not a uniform one imposed on all
properties in the "Overbrook" subdivision. A number of "Overbrook" lots had existing
structures located on them when they were conveyed to purchasers by John Sherman
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064744
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctON(F IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027569
EFTA_00 175247
EFTA01255842
Page 7
2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3665, *
Hoyt. However, no deed, other than the Pinckard deed purported to limit the use to which
those existing structures might rig be put. To the extent they are uniform, the
"Overbrook" restrictions do not place any limitations on the conversion of one permitted
structure (whether existing at the time of the deed or erected thereafter) to a different
permitted use. The court concludes that the provision of the restrictions limiting the use to
which the existing residence on the defendants' property could be put was not part of the
uniform set of restrictions, but rather was one which was personal to the common grantor,
John Sherman Hoyt. [HN1] Such restrictions cannot be enforced by the successors in title
of other grantees whose properties were not subjected to the same restriction. Pulver v.
Mascolo, 155 Conn. 644, 651, 237 A.2d 97 (1967): Gilbert v. Beaver Dam Ass'n. of
Stratford, Inc., 85 Conn. App. 663, 679, 858 A.2d 860 (2004).
The plaintiff's second argument is that the restrictions do not permit the existence of two
dwellings on one lot. The plaintiff claims that the new residence was built on a separate lot
for zoning purposes. Under Norwalk zoning regulations the old residence is a principal use
on its zoning parcel, while the new residence is a principal use on its separate r12]
zoning parcel. The plaintiff urges that since both residences are principal uses, the original
residence cannot be considered to be appurtenant or accessory to the new residence. This
argument overlooks that fact that [HN2] zoning provisions, unless incorporated, either
explicitly or implicitly, by reference are irrelevant to the interpretation and enforcement of
the restrictive covenants. In this case there was no evidence as to whether or not zoning
regulations were in force in Norwalk in the early 1940s when the restrictions were created
or if there was any intent of the grantor, either express or implied, to incorporate the
provisions of such regulations into the restrictions he placed upon the lots he was carving
out of his Overbrook estate.
In its May 24, 2006 memorandum of decision the court granted the plaintiffs request for an
injunction prohibiting the subdivision of the defendants' lot of purposes of sale.
Accordingly, for purposes of enforcement of the restrictions the defendant's property must
be considered to be one parcel or lot and the zoning compliance of the defendants'
property or lack thereof is not relevant to the plaintiffs action which seeks only to enforce
restrictive r131 covenants. "The law is well established that [HN3] restrictive covenants in
a deed as to use of property are distinct from the provisions of a zoning law." Whiting v.
Seavey, 159 Me 61, 68, 188 A.2d 276 (1963); Johnson v. Guarino, 22 Conn.Sup. 235,
238, 168 A.2d 171 (1960).
Thirdly, the plaintiff argues that the original residence is too large to be considered either a
"guest cottage" or a "gardener's cottage." In its memorandum of decision of May 24, 2006,
the court determined that the restrictions on the defendants' property (Plot R) and the
adjacent parcel (Plot Q) were unique in that they permitted the construction of a "guest
cottage" in addition to other permitted appurtenant structures. The evidence showed that in
1946 a second residence was constructed on plot Q. Over the years either the original
residence or the newer one has been rented to tenants while the other residence was
occupied by the owners of plot Q. The court concluded that the second residence,
containing approximately 1,136 sq. feet of floor area was, most likely, a permitted "guest
cottage."
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064745
DB-SDNY-0027570
EFTA_00 175248
EFTA01255843
Page 8
2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3665, *
The plaintiff urges that the 1,136 square foot structure ' on the neighboring property [14]
should be accepted by the court as the largest structure which could qualify as a "cottage."
The plaintiff has not cited any authority for her contention that a "cottage" must necessarily
be a structure of limited size. The term "cottage" does not have any well defined meaning
under the law. Courts in other states have used the term in context to describe a variety of
structures--"a residential dwelling situated on the same lot as a primary residential
dwelling" Dawson v. Zoning Board of Appeals of Southold, 12 A. D.3rd 444, 445, 785
N.Y.S.2d 84, 86 (2004)--"a two story cottage" Petrocelli v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the
Village of Kings Point, 281 App.Div.2d 423, 424, 722 N.Y.S.2d 34, 35 (2001)—"[a]
residence [to] provide care for up to eight children." St Mary's Home for Children v. Hays,
Providence Superior Court, State of Rhode Island, C.A. No. 97-2720 (October 30, 1997,
Rogers, P.J.)
Despite the court's finding in its May 24. 2006 memorandum of decision as to the size of the Brinkerhoff guest cottage based
on the records of the Norwalk tax assessor, the plaintiff insists that the cottage contain only 696 sq. ft.
M 5] In four recent tax appeals to the Superior Court cases, three different trial courts
have referred to structures of substantial size as "cottages." In Anderson v. Madison, New
Haven JD, CV 03 0477257 S, (October 12, 2004, Arnold, J.) the following residences were
all described as "cottages" - two stories 1,632 square feet; two stories 2,482 square feet
with seven rooms, four bedrooms, three baths, two wood decks. In Neptune, LLC v.
Madison, New Haven JD, CV 040378100S, (June 2, 2005, Lopez, J.) the court referred to
a 3,022 square foot, 2 1/2-story residence containing ten rooms, five bedrooms and four
baths as a "cottage." In Fremantle v. Madison, New Haven JD, CV 03 0478105 S, (July 22,
2005, Lopez, J.) the court described three 'cottages" one containing 2,552 square feet in a
2 3/4-story structure containing four bedrooms and three baths, a second containing 1,868
square feet with seven rooms, four bedrooms and two bath, and a third containing 3,131
square feet in 2 1/2-story residence containing nine rooms, six bedrooms and three baths.
In Noonan v. Madison, New Haven JD, CV 030477358 S, (July 22, 2005, Hadden, J.T.R.)
the court described a "cottage" containing ['1 6] 1,846 square feet of finished living area
which did not include a 246 square foot enclosed porch and a 425 square foot deck.
In different contexts, other Superior Courts have described "cottages" of substantial
dimensions. For example in NSA Properties, Inc. v. Stamford, Stamford/Norwalk JD CV
94-0144003819-S, 2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 878 (March 29, 2005, Lewis, J.T.R.) [39
Conn. L. Rptr. 95] the court described a "caretakers cottage" as having a library upstairs
which was used for gatherings, study and education.
The court finds that [HN4] the term "cottage" has no fixed meaning under Connecticut law
that precludes structures exceeding a certain size from being considered cottages. The
plaintiff has presented no evidence regarding the intention of the parties to the 1942 deed
or as to circumstances surrounding them at time of the execution of the deed from which
the meaning of the term "cottage" could be inferred. The court also notes that the
restrictions place no limitation on the floor area, height or any other dimension of any of the
structures which might be built on a Overbrook lot. Accordingly, the court concludes that
the plaintiff cannot prevail on her claim that the original residence on the defendants' ["17]
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064746
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027571
EFTA_00 175249
EFTA01255844
Page 9
2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3665, *
property violates the restrictive covenants because its size alone precludes its
consideration as either a "gardener's cottage" or a "guest cottage."
Finally the plaintiff argues that even if the court should find that the original residence
might be considered a "cottage," the rental of the property to unrelated third parties is
inconsistent with the uses permitted under the restrictions. In her fourth argument, the
plaintiff also urges that paragraph 1 of the restrictive covenant should be construed as
imposing a use restriction on the defendant's property. She argues that even if the original
residence can remain, as a permitted guest cottage or gardeners cottage, its use should
be limited to the housing of guests and/or household servants such as gardeners. She
claims that the defendants admitted intention or renting out their original residence is
inconsistent with the uses permitted under the terms of paragraph 1 of the restrictions. The
court does not agree.
The language of the relevant portion of the restrictions manifests the grantor's intention to
permit, not only a principal residence on each lot, but also a wide variety of separate
outbuildings as long as the uses of ["18] such outbuildings were residential and not
commercial in character. The "Overbrook" restrictions contain no prohibition against rental
of all or any portion of the properties subject to the restrictions. The language of paragraph
1 of the restrictions expressly permits:
. . . separate buildings for such uses as a greenhouse, guest cottage, gardeners
cottage, a shop for use in connection with said premises but not for commercial use. or other outbuildings for use in
connection with and as appurtenant to said dwelling house
The use of the phrases "such uses as" and "other outbuildings for use in connection with
and as appurtenant to said dwelling house" makes it clear that the parties to the deed had
no intention of restricting the occupancy of any cottages or other outbuildings which might
be erected on the premises to only gardeners and guests. (HN5] "A restrictive covenant
must be narrowly construed and ought not to be extended by implication." Neptune Park
Ass'n. v. Steinberg, 138 Conn. 357, 361, 84 A.2d 687 (1951) The plaintiff has not shown
that paragraph 1 of the "Overbrook" restrictions imposed any use restriction beyond the
prohibition against [99] commercial uses.
[HN6] A permanent injunction is warranted only when the terms of a restrictive covenant
have specified and expressly defined meanings, and, if that is the case, such particularized
meanings and definitions will control. Southbury Land Trust v. Andricovich, 59 Conn.App.
785, 789, 757 A.2d 1263 (2000); Hartford Electric Light Co. v. Levitz, 173 Conn. 15, 22,
376 A.2d 381 (1977).
The court finds that the plaintiff has not sustained her burden of proving that: the
"Overbrook" restrictions: 1) prevent the use of the residence at 145 West Norwalk Road for
any purpose other than as the principal residence on the defendant's property; or 2) limit
the size of any building (cottage or otherwise) on the defendant's property; or 3) impose
any use limitation (beyond requiring residential use only) on buildings on the defendants'
property.
The court concludes that the plaintiff has not shown that the rental of the residence at 145
West Norwalk Road for residential purposes would violate paragraph 1 of the "Overbrook"
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064747
DB-SONY-0027572
EFTA_00 175250
EFTA01255845
Page 10
2006 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3665, *
restrictions as set forth in the deed to the defendants' property. Accordingly, the court does
not need to determine whether, under the [' 20] circumstances of this case, enforcement
of the restrictions by requiring the removal of the original residence would be inequitable.
For the reasons set forth in the court's memorandum of decision dated May 24, 2006, a
final judgment may enter enjoining the defendants from subdividing their property for
purposes of sale.
In her brief the plaintiff invites the court to adjudicate a dispute concerning a bill of costs
submitted by the plaintiff on June 1, 2006 and the defendants' timely objection thereto.
[HN7] Practice Book § 18-5(a) provides that such disputes shall be heard by the clerk. The
provisions of Practice Book § 18-5(b) make it clear that the judicial authority acts only after
the clerk has taxed costs and a motion is filed for review. As the record does not reflect
that the clerk has taxed costs in this matter, the court declines the plaintiffs invitation to
consider any issues concerning costs at this time.
David R. Tobin, J.
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064748
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctON(F IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027573
EFTA_00175251
EFTA01255846
Page 11
2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1427, *
Neptune, LLC. v. Town of Madison
CV030478100
2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1427
June 2, 2005, Decided
June 2, 2005, Filed
NOTICE:
CASE SUMMARY:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: Appellant. a property owner, filed an application with the trial
court, appealing from the action of the Board of Tax Review of the Town of Madison
(Connecticut). In its application. the owner alleged that the valuation placed on its property
by respondent, the town, was excessive. disproportionate and unlawful.
OVERVIEW: The property in question was a waterfront parcel in one of the most desirable
areas of the town. The property was improved by a two-story dwelling. The dwelling was in
fair condition. but the bulk of the value of the property lay in the land, because it was a
large lot with a sandy beach. The appraiser for the town appraised the value of the
property at $ 2.600.000.00. The appraiser hired by the company appraised the property at
$1,496,000. Both appraisers used the comparable sale method. The court found that the
town's appraiser had clearly demonstrated he fair market value of the property. Although
some questions were raised regarding the use of a particular property as a comparable.
the court found and accepted. from the evidence presented. the reasons provided by the
town's for consistently using large parcels of waterfront property as comparables.
Therefore. the court adopted the town's appraisal of the value of the fair market value of
the property of $2.589200.
OUTCOME: The court adopted the town's valuation of a fair market value of $
2,589,200.00 on the assessment date, and judgment was entered accordingly.
CORE TERMS: comparable, subject property, dwelling, square feet, dollar, beach,
appraisal report, sale price, fair market value, appraiser, lot size, bath, comparable sales,
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064749
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctQN(E IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027574
EFTA_00 175252
EFTA01255847
Page 12
2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1427, *
square foot, adjusted, parcel, column, bedroom, smaller, acres, parcel of land, net
adjustment, valuation, garage, adjust, floor, mile, arrive, much larger, waterfront
LexisNexis(R) Headnotes
Tax Law > Federal Tax Administration & Procedure > Burdens of Proof > General
Overview
Tax Law > Federal Tax Administration 8 Procedure > Tax Court (IRC secs. 7441-
7491) > Standards of Review > General Overview
Tax Law > State 8, Local Taxes > Administration 8 Proceedings > Judicial Review
[HN1] In Conn. Gen. Stat. § 12-117a tax appeals, the trial court tries the matter de novo
and the ultimate question is the ascertainment of the true and actual value of the
taxpayers property. At the de novo proceeding, the taxpayer bears the burden of
establishing that the assessor has overassessed its property. Once the taxpayer has
demonstrated aggrievement by proving that its property was overassessed, the trial court
will then undertake a further inquiry to determine the amount of the reassessment that
would be just. The trier of fact must arrive at its own conclusions as to the value of the
taxpayer's property by weighing the opinion of the appraisers, the claims of the parties in
light of all the circumstances in evidence bearing on value, and his own general knowledge
of the elements going to establish value.
Civil Procedure > Judicial Officers > Judges > General Overview
Evidence > Testimony > Credibility > General Overview
[HN2] In a case tried before a court, the trial judge is the sole arbiter of the credibility of the
witnesses and the weight to be given specific testimony. The credibility and the weight of
expert testimony is judged by the same standard, and the trial court is privileged to adopt
whatever testimony he reasonably believes to be credible,
JUDGES: Carmen L. Lopez, J.
OPINION BY: Carmen L. Lopez
OPINION
On May 29, 2003, the appellant Neptune, LLC, (Neptune) filed an Application with the
Superior Court Judicial District of New Haven, appealing from the action of the Board of
Tax Review of the Town of Madison (Town). In its application, Neptune alleges that the
valuation placed on its property by the Town for the Grand List of October 1, 2002 "was
not and is not that percentage of its true and actual value on that assessment date, but
was and is grossly excessive, disproportionate and unlawful."
Although the return date of the application is June 17, 2003, the Town did not file an
appearance, through counsel, until March 26, 2004. On July 15, 2004, Neptune filed an
appraisal report with the court. On August 13, 2004, the Town filed an appraisal report
with the Court. 2
For internal use only
SONY_GM_00064750
DB-SDNY-0027575
EFTA_00 175253
EFTA01255848
Page 13
2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1427,
1 Exhibit 1.
2 Exhibit E.
r2] On August 16, 2004, the Town filed an Answer and Special Defense along with a
Statement of Evaluation with the court. In its Special Defense, the Town represents that
since Neptune voluntarily paid its total 2002 tax bill without protest, it is precluded from
challenging its assessment for that tax year.
In its Statement of Evaluation, the Town represents that the one hundred per cent (100%)
valuation of the property as of October 1, 2002, is $ 2,589,200.00. Of this number, $
2,286,800.00 represents the value of the unimproved land and $ 302,400 represents the
value of the dwelling and outbuilding.
The Town further represents that the seventy per cent (70%) valuation for assessment
purposes, as of October 1, 2002 is $ 1,812,600. Of this number, $ 1,600,800.00 represents
the value of the unimproved land and $ 211,800 represents the value of the dwelling and
outbuilding.
The matter was tried to the court on March 1, 2005. The parties were given until March 24,
2005 to file post-trial briefs and until April 7, 2005 to file reply briefs. The court is in receipt
of post-trial briefs and reply briefs from each of the parties.
After a review of the file, the evidence and testimony of r31 the witnesses, the Court finds:
t FACTS
The court heard the testimony of two real estate appraisers, Mr. Philip W. Ball, on behalf of
Neptune and Mr. Albert W. Franke on behalf of the Town. Both of the appraisers used the
sales comparable approach to determine the fair market value of the property.
49 Neptune Ave is located on a water front parcel of land running approximately 140 feet
of frontage along Long Island Sound and approximately 200 feet of frontage along the east
side of Neptune Avenue, in the Town of Madison. There is a seawall and sandy beach in
front of the house. The total land area consists of approximately 39,200 square feet, or
0.89 acres. This property is located in the "Liberty Street" area of Madison which is
considered one of the most desirable and better water front and water influenced area of
the town.
This property is improved with a two-story, winterized detached frame dwelling as well as a
separate structure which at one time was a garage and has presently been converted into
a two-story small apartment. The total gross living area of the frame dwelling is
approximately 2,716 square feet while the total gross living area of the former garage is
NI 864 square feet.
The dwelling consists of a living room with fireplace, enclosed sun porch, library, modem
kitchen and bath on the first floor. The second floor contains six bedrooms, one stall
shower bath, one full bath and one lavatory. The first floor of the apartment contains a
combination living room, bedroom, kitchenette and bath on the first floor. The second floor
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064751
DB-SONY-0027576
EFTA_00175254
EFTA01255849
Page 14
2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1427, *
consists of one office with sliding glass doors to a deck. The dwelling is in fair condition.
"The bulk of the value of this property lies in the land because it is such a large lot with a
sandy beach along the water in a . . . highly, highly desirable area of Madison . . . so that
the improvement, the house . . . contributes very little to the value."
3 Testimony of Ste. Franke. Transcript. page 47.
The property is located in a R-2 zone, which is a single-family residential zone. This zone
requires a minimum lot of 40,000 square feet. This property, with a square footage of
39,200 square feet, does not conform to the present zoning requirements. r5] It is a legal
non-conforming lot.
A. Appraisal Report of Mr. Philip W. Ball
In the opinion of Mr. Ball, the fair market value of the subject property as of October 1,
2002, is $ 1,496,000.00. In arriving at this opinion, Mr. Ball compared this property to three
parcels of land in the Town of Madison. In arriving at value, Mr. Ball explained that he
divides "the number of square feet into the sale price to come out with a unit of
measurement which is the rate per square foot of building including land."
4 Mt. Ball's testimony. Transcript. page 24
Mr. Ball also explained that he makes adjustments to the comparable sales for time, water,
location, view, lot size, building size, building conditions, functional utility and amenities.
These adjustments, however are not included in his appraisal report. They are contained in
a separate hand written loose leaf of paper that was not introduced into evidence by
Neptune, it was introduced by the Town.
5 Defendant's Exhibit C
r6] This paper, which the court will refer to as a chart, contains five columns. The first
column is a list of the nine areas in which he makes adjustments to the comparable sales.
The other four columns are a list of the actual adjustments, in percentages, made to each
of his comparables. During his testimony, Mr. Ball explained that he does not "put a dollar
value on those adjustments." In this particular case, column number two is 160 Middle
Beach Road, the third column is 146 Middle Beach Road, the fourth column is 109
Hartford Ave and the fifth column is 57 Hotchkiss Lane.
6 Mr. Bats testimony. Transcript. page 24.
1. Comparable Sale number 1 is located on 160 Middle Beach Road. Mr. Franke also uses
this property as a comparable. This property mostly recently sold on August 28, 2001 for $
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064752
DB-SDNY-0027577
EFTA_00175255
EFTA01255850
Page 15
2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1427, *
1,825,000. It is a much smaller parcel than the subject lot in that it consists of 0.36 acres.
However, the dwelling is much larger in that it contains a much larger living area, 3,022
square feet. It is a 2.75-story ri converted cottage, totally renovated in the 1990s,
containing ten rooms, five bedrooms, four baths, one lavatory, and direct water frontage.
According to Mr. Ball the rate per square foot for this property is $ 603.90.
This property is located in a different neighborhood than the subject property. Mr. Ball's
appraisal report does not indicate how far this property is from the subject property. In
order to explain the distance between the subject property and the comparables, Mr. Ball
was asked by Neptune's counsel to mark up a Location Map, attached to Mr. Franke's
appraisal report; with a "B" on or near the site of one of his comparables and an "F" for one
of Mr. Franke's comparables. Mr. Franke's appraisal report, on the other hand, clearly
states the distance between the comparables and the subject property. According to Mr.
Franke's report, this comparable is three-fifths of a mile west of the subject property.
7 Appellant's Exhibit 8
Regarding the adjustments, Mr. Ball started by describing how he [' 8] made his
adjustment for time. He testified that since this property sold on August 28, 2001, and "we
are dealing with October 1, 2002" and "there are thirteen months so I made a plus thirteen
percent adjustment." He made no adjustments for water views, because, in his view, both
of the properties have excellent water views. However, he made a plus three percent
adjustment for location because, "Neptune is excellent and 160 Middle Beach Road" is
"good to excellent." Because the Neptune property is much larger than the comparable, he
made a plus fifteen percent adjustment for lot size. He made a minus twenty-five percent
adjustment for building condition, because, in his assessment of the condition of the
property, the Neptune property is in fair condition, whereas the comparable is in good
condition.
Mr. Ball continued describing all of his adjustments, in percentages, and concluded by
saying that "when you add up all of the adjustments it came to minus five percent. It
originally sold at six hundred and three dollars and ninety cents ($ 603.90). When you
multiply that by ninety five percent it comes to five hundred and seventy three dollars and
seventy cents ($ 573.70)." This would [' 9] be "the rate that would be applicable to the
subject property based on those adjustments to its sale at six hundred and three dollars a
square foot (603.90)."
8 We. Bat's testimony. Transcript page 26.
2. Comparable sale number two is located on 146 Middle Beach Road. This property
mostly recently sold on September 2, 2002 for $ 1,277,500.00. According to Mr. Ball this
translates into a $ 517.20 rate per square foot. It is a much smaller parcel than the subject
lot in that it consists of only 7,400 square feet. The dwelling contains a living area, of 2,470
square feet. It is a 1.67-story and basement frame Cape Cod style dwelling built in the
1940s. It contains eight rooms, four bedrooms, two baths, one lavatory. It also contains a
For internal use only
SONY_GM_00064753
DB-SONY-0027578
EFTA_00 175256
EFTA01255851
Page 16
2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1427, *
separately assessed lot with garage with loft apartment above. It also has a seawall and
has been totally renovated. It is a smaller lot. Mr. Franke testified that this is not a
reasonable comparable because it is too small to make the comparison worthwhile.
This property is no] located next door to comparable number one. As stated in the
discussion of comparable number one, this property is three-fifths of a mile from the
subject property. Regarding the adjustments, Mr. Ball's chart indicates that positive
adjustments were made in two areas, time and location. He made no adjustments for
water views, because, in his view, both of the properties have excellent water views.
Because the subject property is so much larger than the comparable, he made a thirty
percent adjustment for lot size. He made a minus twenty-five percent adjustment for
building condition, because, in his assessment of the condition of the property, the
Neptune property is in fair condition, whereas this comparable is in good condition.
His net adjustment figure for this property is minus twelve percent. Using his method of
calculation Mr. Ball determined that the rate applicable to the subject property based on
those adjustments, is five hundred and seventeen dollars and twenty cents ($ 517.20) per
square foot.
3. Comparable sale number three is located at 109 Hartford Avenue. This property most
recently sold on January 17, 2001 for $ 980,000.00. It is a much smaller parcel than the
subject rt.!) property in that it consists of 0.31 acres of land. It contains 2,016 square feet
of living area. It is a two-story dwelling with a basement. It was built in the 1980s and
contains seven rooms, three bedrooms, three baths, and a detached garage. It is located
between 4-5 miles away from the subject property in an area of town known as the Neck
Road area.
Mr. Ball adjusted for time, location, lot size, building size, building condition, and utility. His
net adjustment amount in percentage, is a plus two percent. Using his previously explained
method of calculation, Mr. Ball determined that the rate applicable to the subject property
based on those adjustments is four hundred and eighty-one dollars and fourteen cents ($
481.08) per square foot.
4. Comparable number 4 is located on 57 Hotchkiss Lane. According to Mr. Ball's
testimony, this comparable is located "one very long block" away from the subject
property. It is therefore in the same area as the subject property. It most recently sold on
April 29, 2002 for $ 1,675,000.00. It is a much smaller parcel than the subject property in
that it consists of 0.30 acres of land. It contains 3710 square feet of living area. It is a two-
story r 1 2] dwelling. It was totally renovated in the 1980s and contains nine rooms, four
bedrooms, three baths, and an oversized two-car garage.
9 Me. Ball's testimony. Transcript page 28
This property does not have direct water frontage. It does, however, have an unobstructed
view of Long Island Sound, in that the property that it borders on does not have a house on
it. Mr. Ball adjusted for time, location, lot size, building size, building condition, and utility.
His net adjustment amount, in percentage, is a plus two percent Using his previously
explained method of calculation, Mr. Ball determined that the rate applicable to the subject
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064754
DB-SDNY-0027579
EFTA_00 175257
EFTA01255852
Page 17
2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1427, *
property based on those adjustments is four hundred and eighty-one dollars and fourteen
cents ($ 481.08) per square foot.
B. Appraisal Report of Mr. Albert W. Franke.
In Mr. Franke's opinion, as of October 1, 2002, the subject property has a fair market value
of $ 2,600,000.00. Like Mr. Ball, Mr. Franke arrives at his determination of the fair market
value by using the comparable [*13] sales approach to market value. Mr. Franke
compared the subject to three parcels of land in the Town of Madison.
1. Comparable Sale number one is located at 160 Middle Beach Road. As stated above,
this is the one comparable that Mr. Franke and Mr. Ball have in common. Mr. Franke's
adjustments lead him to conclude that the adjusted sales price of this comparable is $
2,577,000. As clearly stated in his report, he arrives at this by assigning a positive or
negative dollar amount to an item that he is adjusting. For example, like Mr. Ball, he is of
the opinion that the location of the subject property is superior to that of this comparable.
To adjust for this difference, he adds $ 100,000.00 to the sales price of the comparable. In
addition, he adjusts, in dollar amounts, for time of sale, lot size and living area, condition,
and several others. His total net adjustment figure is $ 752,000.00. According to Mr.
Franke, given this adjustment figure, the adjusted sales price of the comparable is $
2,577,000.
2. Comparable Sale number two is located at 155 Buffalo Bay. It is located three and one-
fifth mile away from the subject property. It most recently sold on March 29, 2001 for $
2,750,000.00. ['lit] This parcel of land consists of 0.57 acres of waterfront land. Mr.
Franke adjusts for this difference in lot size by adding $ 415,000.00 to the comparable's
purchase price. The dwelling consists of 3,690 square feet of gross living area; this
difference is accounted for by deducting $ 39,000.00 from the sales price of the
comparable.
Mr. Franke is of the opinion that the location of this comparable is superior to that of the
subject property. He has adjusted for this difference by deducting $ 600,000.00 from the
sales price. After deducting the total net adjustments of $ 125,000.00, Mr. Franke is of the
opinion that the adjusted sales price of this property is $ 2,625,000.00. During his
testimony, Mr. Franke explained that he used this as a comparable because "it is a larger
parcel of land . . land being the dominant component . . you are trying to measure as
best as you can apples with apples and land value is driving most of these sales." '°
10 Testimony of Mr. Franke. Transcript page 56.
Mr. Ball testified ['1 5] that in his opinion this comparable is not a reasonable comparable
sale for the subject property. He stated that Buffalo Bay is a "private cove that was
originally developed by an extended family. It is inordinately private. It is the most serene
piece of waterfront property that I know of." " Mr. Ball elaborated that this property is
actually part of a larger piece of property that has lots of common areas, including tennis
courts, open areas going to the beach as well as a quarter to half mile long unpaved road
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064755
DB-SDNY-0027580
EFTA_00 175258
EFTA01255853
Page 18
2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1427, *
to get to the houses. These are the reasons that he believes that the property is not
comparable to Neptune.
11 Testimony of Mr. Ball Transcript page 96.
3. Comparable Sale number three is located at 72 Webster Point Road. It is three blocks
east of the subject property. It most recently sold on January 12, 2001 for $ 2,300,000.00.
This parcel consists of 0.47 acres of waterfront land. The dwelling has 4405 square feet of
gross living area. Mr. Franke has added $ 550,000.00 to the sales price of [' 1 6] this
comparable to adjust for the smaller lot size. He has deducted $ 500,000.00 for the
superior condition of the dwelling and he has added $ 589,500.00 to adjust for the time
between the sale and October 1, 2002.
After adjusting for the differences between the properties, which Mr. Franke believes total
$ 552,000.00, the adjusted sales price for this comparable is $ 2,852,000.00.
"Before addressing the merits of the parties' claims, we first set forth the well settled legal
principles underlying a § 12-117a tax appeal, as well as our applicable standard of review.
[HN1] In § 12-117a tax appeals, the trial court tries the matter de novo and the ultimate
question is the ascertainment of the true and actual value of the [taxpayer's] property . .
At the de novo proceeding, the taxpayer bears the burden of establishing that the assessor
has overassessed (sic) its property . . . Once the taxpayer has demonstrated aggrievement
by proving that its property was overassessed, (sic) the trial court [will] then undertake a
further inquiry to determine the amount of the reassessment that would be just . . . The
trier of fact must arrive at [its] own conclusions [17] as to the value of [the taxpayer's
property] by weighing the opinion of the appraisers, the claims of the parties in light of all
the circumstances in evidence bearing on value, and his own general knowledge of the
elements going to establish value . ." Aetna Life Insurance Co. v. Middletown, 77
Conn.App. 21, 25, 822 A.2d 330 (2003).
"It is well established that [HN2] "in a case tried before a court, the trial judge is the sole
arbiter of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given specific testimony."
Kimberly-Clark Corporation v. Dubno, 204 Conn. 137, 153, 527 A.2d 679 (1987). The
credibility and the weight of expert testimony is judged by the same standard, and the trial
court "is privileged to adopt whatever testimony he reasonably believes to be credible."
(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Transportation Plaza Associates v. Powers, 203 Conn.
364, 378, 525 A.2d 68 (1987). See Newbury Commons Limited Partnership v. Stamford,
226 Conn. 92, 99, 626 A.2d 1292 (1993) 626 A.2d 1292.
lit ISSUES IN DISPUTE
The appellant and the Town, in their respective briefs, each correctly state that the issue
["18] presented in this case is the value of 49 Neptune Avenue as of October 1, 2002.
They have each presented the court with evidence in the form of appraisal reports by two
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064756
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctitM(F IDENTIAL
DB-SONY-0027581
EFTA_00 175259
EFTA01255854
Page 19
2005 Conn. Super. LEXIS 1427, *
experts in the field of determining the value of property. Each appraiser relied on the sales
comparable approach to arrive at their conclusion of the value of the property.
As stated previously, the Town believes that the fair market value of the property is $
2,589,200. The Town's appraiser, Mr. Franke is of the opinion that the fair market value of
the property is $ 2,600,000. Neptune's appraiser, Mr. Ball is of the opinion that the property
has a fair market value of $ 1,496,000. The difference between the appraisers opinions is
over one million dollars.
The Town alleges, as a special defense, that Neptune has waived its right to appeal
because it has voluntarily paid its taxes for the tax year in question. It has not argued this
position nor provided the court with any authority for such a position. In addition, no
evidence was presented to the court regarding the payment of taxes. The court will
therefore not address this issue.
The court finds that Albert Franke, the Town's (''1 9] appraiser, has clearly demonstrated
the fair market value of this property to the court. Although some questions were raised
regarding his use of the Buffalo Bay property as a comparable, the court finds and
accepts, from the evidence presented, the reasons provided by Mr. Franke for consistently
using large parcels of waterfront property as comparables.
Given the condition of the dwelling on this property, there is little question but that the
dominant value here is the land itself. As Hon. Anthony de Mayo, stated in Patrice/6 v.
Town of Madison, No. CV -03-0478099S (September 27, 2004), "The property would
appear to be a prime shore front parcel with a sandy beach" located on a dead end street.
It is the conclusion of the court that the appellant has failed to sustain its burden regarding
the Town's valuation of the property. The court adopts the Town's valuation of a fair market
value of $ 2,589,200.00 on the assessment date of October 1, 2002.
Judgment may enter accordingly.
Lopez, J.
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064757
DB-SONY-0027582
EFTA_00 175260
EFTA01255855
Page 20
2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 487, *
A. NEUMANN & ASSOCIATES, LLC, Plaintiff-Respondent, v.
DR. MICHAEL COHEN, and NEPTUNE SENIOR HEALTH, LLC,
Defendants-Respondents, and ARON ROSENBERG, Defendant-
Appellant.
DOCKET NO. A-3772-07T1
2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 487
January 13, 2009, Argued
February 27, 2009, Decided
DIVISION.
PLEASE CONSULT NEW JERSEY RULE 1:36-3 FOR CITATION OF UNPUBLISHED
OPINIONS.
PRIOR HISTORY: fli
On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County,
Docket No. L-221-05.
CORE TERMS: discovery, purchase agreement, engagement, seller, cross-claim, pre-
judgment, broker's commission, broker, adjournment, confidentiality agreement, severally,
jointly, discovery requests, reconsider, notice, adult, agreement provided, sale price,
individually, contending, purchaser, legal conclusions, counsel informed, civil cases,
credible evidence, indemnification, automatically, contractual, exceptional, requesting
COUNSEL: William H. Michelson argued the cause for appellant.
Harry V. Osborne, II, argued the cause for respondent, A. Neumann & Associates, LLC
(Evans, Osborne and Kreizman, LLC, attorneys; Mr. Osborne, II, on the brief).
Michael Cohen, respondent, Pro se, has not filed a brief.
JUDGES: Before Judges Fuentes, Gilroy and Chambers.
OPINION
PER CURIAM
On February 25, 2008, following a bench trial, the trial court entered judgment against
defendants Dr. Michael Cohen and Aron Rosenberg, "individually, jointly and severally," in
the amount of $ 54,000, together with pre-judgment interest from March 1, 2005.
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064758
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctON(FIDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027583
EFTA_00175261
EFTA01255856
Page 21
2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 487,
Rosenberg appeals; Cohen does not. We affirm in part; reverse in part; and remand to the
trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
1 Neptune Senior Health. LLC (NSH) is owned by defendant Cohen. Although NSH was named a direct defendant in the action.
the trial court pierced the corporate veil and entered judgment against Cohen individually, along with Rosenberg. On June 23.
2008. Cohen advised this court by letter that NSH vms dissolved post-judgment.
I.
Plaintiff, A. Neumann and Associates, 2] LLC, engages in the brokering of businesses
and is affiliated with Business Brokers Network of Dallas, Texas. Achim Neumann is
plaintiffs principal owner and president. Cohen is a retired physician and the former owner
of NSH, a licensed, but non-operating adult day health care (ADHC) facility. 2 The primary
asset of NSH is the March 13, 2001 approval by the State of New Jersey, Department of
Health and Senior Services, the Division of Long-Term Care Systems, to establish and
operate a 185-slot ADHC facility 3 in Neptune City.
2 M ADHC facility is referenced in the Administrative Code as an "adult day health services facility and is defined therein as "a
facility or a distinct part of a facility which is licensed . . to provide preventive. diagnostic. therapeutic. and rehabilitative
services under medical and nursing supervision to meet the needs of functionally impaired adult participants . — ." N.J.A.C.
8:43F-1 2. Such facilities "provide services to participants for a period of time, which does not exceed twelve hours during any
calendar day." ibid. Rosenberg cites as an example of the services rendered by an ADHC. the providing of a place for "working
people (to pace) their N) elderly parents during the day, so they can go to work and not worry about them."
3 The term 'slot' refers to an ADHC services participant and is analogous to the process by which nursing homes are provided
certificates of needs for a certain number of beds.
On March 16, 2004, Cohen and Neumann executed plaintiffs Standard Engagement
Agreement (engagement agreement). Under the engagement agreement, Cohen, as
seller, granted plaintiff an exclusive right to sell NSH for a period of one year at a price of $
450,000. Paragraph 3 of the engagement agreement provided that, for a period of two
years after termination of the one-year exclusivity period, plaintiff would be entitled to a full
commission if Cohen sold the business to a purchaser introduced to him by plaintiff.
Paragraph 10 of the engagement agreement governs the brokers commission. The
agreed-upon commission was 15% of the listed sale price ($ 450,000) or $ 67,500. That
paragraph also provided for a 15% minimum commission of the actual sale price, but
under no circumstances less than 15% of 80% of the listed sale price ($ 360,000), or $
54,000, if Cohen sold NSH for less than $ 450,000. Paragraph 11D of that agreement set
forth raj events triggering Cohen's obligation to pay plaintiff a broker's commission for
reasons other than procuring a sale. Included among the triggering events was Cohen's
unilateral withdrawal of the "[b]usiness from the market and/or [if Cohen] otherwise
attempt[ed] to terminate th[e] Agreement prior to its expiration date."
Pursuant to the engagement agreement, Neumann produced several prospective
purchasers of NSH, one of whom was Rosenberg. On May 12, 2004, prior to providing
Rosenberg with confidential information pertaining to NSH, at Neumann's request,
Rosenberg signed plaintiffs "Standard Buyers Confidentiality and Warranty Agreement"
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064759
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.QC;IN(f
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027584
EFTA_00175262
EFTA01255857
Page 22
2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 487,
(confidentiality agreement) to protect not only Cohen's privacy, but also plaintiff's broker
commission.
In the preamble to the confidentiality agreement, Rosenberg acknowledged that plaintiff
possessed a valid broker's agreement with Cohen for the sale of NSH on a commission
basis. Pursuant to Paragraph 3 of the confidentiality agreement, Rosenberg agreed not to
contact Cohen "for any reason whatsoever without the prior consent of [plaintiff]. All
contacts with [Cohen] . . will be made through or by [plaintiff] unless otherwise agreed to
by [plaintiff] ['5] in writing."
Paragraph 7 of the confidentiality agreement provided, in pertinent part, that Rosenberg,
for a period of three years from the date of its execution, would not enter into any
agreement for the purchase of NSH, "unless such agreement to purchase provides for
commission to be paid [to plaintiff], with the commission . . . defined as the amount agreed
upon by [plaintiff] and [Cohen] in the '[s]tandard [I]isting [a]greement' . . . ." Under the same
paragraph, Rosenberg agreed that if he violated that provision he would be liable "for and
pay said commission to [plaintiff] upon demand without any obligation on [plaintiff's] part to
first exhaust any legal remedies against [Cohen]."
After Rosenberg reviewed NSH's confidential information, he made an offer to purchase
NSH through plaintiff for $ 325,000. On July 14, 2004, plaintiff telefaxed the offer to Cohen.
The offer was not accepted. Rather, Cohen's attorney sent a letter to Neumann on the
same day terminating the engagement agreement. Subsequent to the July 14, 2004 letter,
Neumann conversed with Cohen's attorney about Rosenberg's offer. During that
conversation, Cohen's attorney advised Neumann that Cohen was negotiating ['6] directly
with Rosenberg. Following that telephone conference, Neumann sent e-mails to both
Cohen and his attorney, demanding payment of a broker's commission.
On September 27, 2004, Premier of Neptune, LLC, as purchaser, and NSH as seller,
entered into an asset purchase agreement (purchase agreement) for the purchase and
sale of the assets of NSH. 4 Rosenberg signed the agreement on behalf of Premier, and
Cohen signed on behalf of NSH. Neither Cohen nor Rosenberg informed plaintiff of that
purchase agreement.
4 A copy of the September 27. 2004 purchase agreement is not cortained in the appendix.
5 Premier of Neptune, LLC. akhough formed by Rosenberg. never operated as a business. Accordingly. Rosenberg does not
contend that plaintiff improperly named him personaly in the action.
On January 13, 2005, plaintiff filed its complaint against Cohen and NSH, contending that
it was owed a broker's commission because those defendants terminated the engagement
agreement prior to its expiration date. On March 1, 2005, Rosenberg, on behalf of Premier,
and Cohen, on behalf of NSH, executed a second purchase agreement for the purchase
and sale of NSH's assets for the sum of $ 250,000. Under Paragraph N] 5c of that
purchase agreement, NSH represented that no litigation was pending or threatened
against it, relating to the assets or the sale transaction. Paragraph 12a of the March 2005
purchase agreement provided:
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064760
DB-SDNY-0027585
EFTA_00 175263
EFTA01255858
Page 23
2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 487, *
Expenses. Buyer and (Ostler each agrees to pay its own costs and expenses in connection with the transactions
contemplated by this (ajgreement. including without limitation legal and accounting expenses and brokerage
commissions. Seller has engaged a third party as a broker with respect to this transaction and Isleller is solely
responsible fa any fees and commissions that are due with respect to the sale. My sales. transfer or similar taxes
arising due to the transfers hereunder shall be paid by (*her.
NSH agreed in Paragraph 10 of the March 2005 purchase agreement to indemnify Premier
and hold it harmless from and against "any loss, costs, damages, or expense (including
reasonable attorneys' fees)" arising from or relating to all liabilities or obligations of NSH,
not specifically assumed by Premier, and for any damages resulting from any
misrepresentation or breach of the agreement on behalf of NSH. Lastly, Paragraph 12b
provided that "all representations, covenants, ['8] warranties and agreements contained
in this Agreement shall survive the Closing."
At a court ordered mediation proceeding, Cohen informed Neumann that in March 2005
NSH had sold its right to establish and operate the 185-slot ADHC facility and its trade
name to Rosenberg. Plaintiff moved for leave to file an amended complaint to add
Rosenberg as an additional defendant. On June 23, 2006, the trial court granted plaintiffs
motion. On July 12, 2006, plaintiff filed its amended complaint, asserting a breach of
contract claim against Rosenberg, contending that, contrary to the provisions of the
confidentiality agreement, he negotiated directly with Cohen and did not protect plaintiff's
brokers commission.
Because Rosenberg resided out of State, plaintiff had difficulty effecting service of
process. In early 2007, the court dismissed plaintiff's amended complaint as to Rosenberg
pursuant to Rule 1:13-7(a). In the interim, the discovery period closed on March 6, 2007,
and Rosenberg's New Jersey attorney agreed to accept service of the amended complaint
and summons.
In early April 2007, Rosenberg attempted to file his answer and cross-claim, but the
pleading was returned with advice that before 9] the court would accept the answer for
filing, plaintiff needed to reinstate the amended complaint. On or about April 24, 2007,
plaintiff moved to reinstate the amended complaint. On May 11, 2007, an order was
entered vacating the dismissal and granting Rosenberg leave to file his answer. On May
30, 2007, the court filed Rosenberg's answer nunc pro tunc as of May 11, 2007.
On June 19, 2007, unaware that the discovery period had closed on March 6, 2007,
Rosenberg served plaintiff and Cohen with interrogatories and a demand for production of
documents. On June 28, 2007, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, asserting that
defendants had tortously interfered with its contractual rights and prospective economic
advantage. Plaintiff also sought an injunction against Cohen, seeking to prohibit him from
dissipating his assets pending judgment in the action.
On September 18, 2007, after plaintiff and Cohen failed to answer the discovery requests,
Rosenberg moved to dismiss the amended complaint and to suppress Cohen's cross-
claim pursuant to Rule 4:23-5(a). Although no one objected, the court denied the motion,
advising Rosenberg's counsel that the motion should have been filed prior to [90] the
discovery end date, citing Rule 4:24-2, and that the matter was scheduled for trial on
January 7, 2008.
For internal use only
SONY_GM_00064761
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027586
EFTA_00 175264
EFTA01255859
Page 24
2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 487,
Unfortunately, Rosenberg neither formally moved for reconsideration nor for an extension
of the discovery end date. Rather, Rosenberg's counsel only sent letters to the trial judge
and Civil Division Case Manager, requesting that the judge reconsider the motion,
contending that his client had only recently been joined in the action after the close of the
discovery period, and that he would be prejudiced if forced to try the matter without
discovery responses from either adversary. The trial court denied the requests.
The matter proceeded to trial on January 7, 2008, with counsel waiving trial by jury. The
only witnesses to testify were Neumann and Cohen. Although Rosenberg's counsel
appeared at trial and cross-examined the witnesses, Rosenberg did not appear. During
opening statements. Rosenberg's counsel informed the court that his discovery motion had
been denied and that, other than receiving "some of the central documents in the case at
the end of last week" from Cohen's attorney, he had not received discovery in the action.
When asked by the court whether he was seeking an rig adjournment, Rosenberg's
counsel stated:
Well. I don't think it necessarily calls for an adjournment. But what I would ask is that . . . we have a couple of weeks to
brief the issues in light of what will be. in effect, the discovery that we never received, which we're hearing for the first
time at trial. I think that that would be fair to give is a couple of weeks before judgment is issued in this case to brief the
issues.
The court concurred, and the matter proceeded to trial with the court reserving decision,
pending receipt of written summations.
On February 8, 20O8, the trial court rendered an oral decision, rejecting as "completely
unworthy of belief' Cohen's explanation for terminating plaintiff's engagement agreement.
In entering judgment against Cohen, the court reasoned that Cohen's sending of the "letter
of termination was an attempt by Cohen to evade the commission obligations to
Neumann." The trial court made the following statement in support of its decision, holding
Rosenberg and Cohen jointly and severally liable to plaintiff:
In the final analysis, this [clout finds that defendants Cohen and Rosenberg concocted a transaction between
themselves. which was intended to eliminate (121 a commission to Neumann. despite the obligation to do so.
tinder the agreement between Neumann and Rosenberg. Rosenberg agreed not to contact the seller without the prior
consent of the broker and to make all contacts with the seller through the broker. He further agreed not to enter into
any agreement with the seller, unless that agreement provided for a brokerage commission.
The parties are sophisticated businessmen who knew exactly what they were agreeing to do. And. in fact. the contact
is designed by Neumann to prevent the very acts which defendants perpetrated. What is unconscionable here is the
conduct of defendants.
Concluding that defendants had attempted to misuse their limited liability companies to
perpetrate a fraud on plaintiff, the court pierced the entities' corporate veils and entered
judgment against Cohen and Rosenberg.
The Moist will enter a judgment jointly and severally against Cohen and Rosenberg. personally, in the amount of
54.000. And I . . . set the damages at that amourC because there was .
a contract that eventualy closed, and under
the terms. that is the amount of damages.
Lastly, the court dismissed all counterclaims and cross-claims of defendants. M 3] A
confirming order was entered on February 25, 2008, entering judgment against Cohen and
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064762
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027587
EFTA_00 175265
EFTA01255860
Page 25
2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 487,
Rosenberg "individually, jointly and severally" in the amount of $ 54,000, together with pre-
judgment interest from March 1, 2005, in the amount of $ 7,289.28.
II.
A judgment shall not be overturned except where, after a careful review of the record and
weighing of the evidence, the appellate court determines that "continued viability of the
judgment would constitute a manifest denial of justice."' In re Adoption of a Child by P.F.R.,
308 N.J. Super. 250, 255, 705 A.2d 1233 (App. Div. 1998) (quoting Baxter v. Fairmont
Food Co.. 74 N.J. 588, 597-98, 379 A.2d 225 (1977)). We will not disturb the factual
findings and legal conclusions of a trial court unless they are "so manifestly unsupported
by or inconsistent with the competent, relevant and reasonably credible evidence as to
offend the interests of justice."' Rova Farms Resort, Inc. v. Investors Ins. Co., 65 N.J. 474,
484, 323 A.2d 495 (1974) (citation omitted). Consequently, "the appellate court should
exercise its original fact finding jurisdiction sparingly and in none but a clear case where
there is no doubt about the matter." Ibid. "That the case may be a close one or that the
trial ['lig court decided all evidence or inference conflicts in favor of one side has no
special effect."' Czoch v. Freeman, 317 N.J. Super. 273, 283, 721 A.2d 1019 (App. Div.)
(quoting State v. Johnson, 42 N.J. 146, 162, 199 A.2d 809 (1964)), certif. denied, 161 N.J.
149, 735 A.2d 574 (1999)).
The rationale underlying this limited scope of appellate review is that "a trial judge's
findings are substantially influenced by his or her opportunity to hear and see the
witnesses and to get a 'feel' for the case that the reviewing court [cannot] enjoy." Twp. of
W. Windsor v. Nierenberg, 150 N.J. 111, 132, 695 A.2d 1344 (1997). For this reason,
credibility determinations are entitled to particular deference, because the trial judge has a
superior perspective "in evaluating the veracity of witnesses." Id. at 132-33. However, the
same level of deference is not required when we are reviewing a legal conclusion.
Manalapan Realty, L.P. v. Twp. Comm. of Manalapan, 140 N.J. 366, 378, 658 A.2d 1230
(1995). It is against these principles that we consider plaintiffs arguments.
Rosenberg argues in Point I that the trial court erred by denying his Rule 4:23-5(a) motion
seeking to dismiss plaintiffs amended complaint and suppress Cohen's cross-claim for
failure to answer discovery [15] requests. Rosenberg contends that the discovery period
should have been automatically extended by the court for a period of sixty days on the
filing of his answer and that the failure to do so "was tantamount to holding that [he] had no
right to conduct discovery at all." Lastly, because the discovery period closed on March 6,
2007, several months prior to him filing an answer, Rosenberg asserts that he did not
receive the benefit of court notice advising parties of the discovery end date, R. 4:36-2,
depriving him of the opportunity to file for an extension of the discovery period.
A review of the court's automated case management system discloses that the parties
were originally granted 300 days of discovery and that an order was entered on December
6. 2006, extending the discovery end date to March 6, 2007. We agree with Rosenberg
that on filing of his answer on May 11, 2007, "the scheduled discovery end date [should
have been] extended for a 60-day period, unless reduced or enlarged by the court for good
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064763
DB-SONY-0027588
EFTA_00 175266
EFTA01255861
Page 26
2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 487,
cause shown." R. 4:24-1(b). Here, it was not. 6 However, we deem the court's failure to
automatically extend the discovery period for a period of sixty days harmless. While
Rosenberg's [96] service of his discovery requests on plaintiff and Cohen would have
occurred within such an extended discovery period, that extended discovery period would
have expired on July 10, 2007. Accordingly, Rosenberg's motion to dismiss filed on
September 18, 2007, would have been untimely. R. 4:24-2.
6 May 11. 2007. is also the day on which the court entered an order restoring the amended complaint under Rule 1:13-7(a) as
to Rosenberg. We note that effective September 1. 2008. Rule 4:241(c) was amended to provide that on restoration of a
complain under Rule 1:13-7(a). "the court shall enter an order extending discovery and specifying the date by which discovery
shall be completed. The extension order may describe the discovery to be completed and such other terms and conditions as
may be appropriate."
Rosenberg contends that he never received notice of the discovery end date as required
by R. 4:36-2. Although that is true, Rosenberg was not a party of the action when the
discovery end date closed. Information concerning the discovery end date for civil cases
filed in the Law Division are available to all litigants without formal notice by the court. For
example, the discovery end date for rm civil cases may be found at
http://www.judiciary.state.nj.us/acms/disc/CV0227W0E.ASP.
Moreover, we consider Rosenberg's arguments in Point I moot. On the first day of trial,
after his counsel informed the trial court that he had not received all discovery requested
from his adversaries, the court asked counsel whether he was requesting an adjournment.
Counsel informed the court that he did not want an adjournment, only time to file a brief
addressing the legal issues post-trial. The court granted the relief requested. Rosenberg
cannot now argue that he was prejudiced by the trial going forward without possessing all
discovery documents he requested. Brett v. Great Amer. Recreation, 144 N.J. 479, 503,
677 A.2d 705 (1996) ("The doctrine of invited error operates to bar a disappointed litigant
from arguing on appeal that an adverse decision below was the product of error, when that
party urged the lower court to adopt the proposition now alleged to be error.").
Rosenberg argues next that the trial court's determination that he is liable to plaintiff is not
supported by credible evidence in the record. On the trial court's determination of liability,
we conclude that Rosenberg's argument is without sufficient rill merit to warrant
discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E).
However, Rosenberg's contention that the trial court erred in determining him liable for the
full amount of pre-judgment interest has merit. The first-amended complaint was not filed
until July 12, 2006, almost eighteen months after filing of the complaint. The amended
complaint was subsequently dismissed as to Rosenberg on the court's motion pursuant to
Rule 1:13-7(a), and it was not restored until May 11, 2007. Under Rule 4:42-11(b), the
court may suspend pre-judgment interest in exceptional cases. Because the record fails to
disclose whether the trial court considered the dismissal of the amended complaint and
Rosenberg's late joinder in the case as exceptional circumstances to holding Rosenberg
liable for the total amount of pre-judgment interest, we remand the matter to the trial court
to reconsider pre-judgment interest as to Rosenberg only. See Allen v. Heritage Court
Assocs., 325 N.J. Super. 112, 121, 737 A.2d 1158 (App. Div. 1999) (suspending pre-
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064764
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027589
EFTA_00 175267
EFTA01255862
Page 27
2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 487,
judgment interest for the period during which a complaint had been dismissed when
plaintiff failed to timely move for confirmation of an arbitration award).
Lastly, defendant argues [19] that the trial court erred by dismissing his cross-claim
against Cohen. We agree. In Rosenberg's answer, he asserted a cross-claim for
contractual indemnification against Cohen based on the provisions contained in the March
2005 purchase agreement. Although Rosenberg did not testify at trial, the purchase
agreement was admitted into evidence and acknowledged by Cohen. Because the trial
court did not express its reasons for dismissing Rosenberg's cross-claim, R. 1:7-4(a), we
are not able to perform a meaningful review and are left to conjecture as to what the trial
court had in mind. See Salch v. Salch, 240 N.J. Super. 441, 443, 573 A.2d 520 (App. Div.
1990) ("[M]eaningful appellate review is inhibited unless the judge sets forth the reasons
for his or her opinion."). Accordingly, we also remand the issue of Rosenberg's cross-claim
for indemnification against Cohen for the trial court to reconsider.
Affirmed in part; reversed in part; and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings
consistent with this opinion.
*** THIS DATA IS FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY*"
FILING DATE: 5/29/2003
CASE NUMBER: CV030478100S
COURT: New Haven JD at New Haven
DEFENDANT(S)
DATE CLOSED: 6/2/2005
DATE RE-OPENED: 6/17/2003
COUNTY: New Haven
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064765
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027590
EFTA_00 175268
EFTA01255863
Page 28
MADISON TOWN OF CV0304781005
Vol. 68, No. 245
Notices
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
V.D. 032801B]
Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Fishing Capacity Reduction Program; Crab
Species Covered by the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands
King and Tanner Crabs
68 FR 71082
DATE: Monday, December 22, 2003
ACTION: Notice of qualifying bidders and voters.
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this notice to inform the public of persons who prospectively
qualify to bid, vote, or both in the fishing capacity reduction program for the crab species
covered by the Fishery Management Plan for Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands king and tanner
crabs.
DATES: Comments may be submitted on or before January 21, 2004.
ADDRESSES: Send comments about this notice to Michael L. Grable, Chief, Financial
Services Division, National Marine Fisheries Service, 1315 East-West Highway, Silver
Spring, MD 20910-3282.
TAny person who wants to contact NMFS' Restricted Access Management Program
(which issues crab species licenses) may do so at this address: Restricted Access
Management Program, National Marine Fisheries Service, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK
99802-1668.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael L. Grable,(301) 713-2390.
For internal use only
CONFIDENTIAL — PURSUANT TO FED. R.QQN(F IDENTIAL
DB-SONY-0027591
EFTA_00 175269
SDNY_GM_00064766
EFTA01255864
Page 29
68 FR 71082
I. General
Section 144(d) of Division B of Public Law 106-554, as amended, authorized this
fishing capacity reduction program. The program's objective is reducing harvesting
capacity in the Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands crab fishery. This will help financially stabilize
this limited-entry fishery and manage its fish.
This is a voluntary program. In exchange for reduction payments, program participants
will permanently relinquish their fishing licenses and their fishing vessels' catch histories
and fishing privileges.
The program's maximum cost cannot exceed $ 100 million. A 30-year loan will finance
100 percent of whatever the cost turns out to be. Future crab landing fees will repay the
loan.
In summary, the program will proceed as follows.
NMFS will publish an invitation to bid in a Federal Register notification, along with a
bidding form and terms of capacity reduction agreement. This notification will specify bid
opening and closing dates. NMFS will mail a bidding package to each person then on the
qualifying bidder list. Qualified bidders will bid, along with co-bidders where appropriate.
NMFS will score each bid amount against the bidders past ex-vessel revenues during a
bid scoring period. NMFS will, in a reverse auction, then accept bids whose amounts are
the lowest percentages of the revenues. This will create reduction contracts.
Next, NMFS will conduct a referendum about the loan repayment fees. The reduction
contracts will become inoperable unless at least two thirds of the votes cast in this
referendum approve the fees.
If the referendum is successful, NMFS will publish a 30-day reduction payment tender
notification in the Federal Register. Afterwards, NMFS will tender reduction payments and
complete the program.
NMFS published proposed program regulations on December 12, 2002 (67 FR 76329.
It published final program regulations on December 12, 2003 (68 FR 69331. Interested
persons should review these for further program details.
The final regulations require NMFS to publish this notification before inviting bids. Any
person who wants to comment about this notification may do so prior to January 21, 2004.
Comments may address:
(1) Persons who appear on a list but should not,
(2) Persons who do not appear on a list but should,
(3) Persons whose names and/or business mailing addresses are incorrect, and
(4) Any other pertinent matter.
NMFS will update the lists, as necessary, immediately before using them either for
mailing invitations to bid or referendum ballots. Mailed invitations and ballots will be
accompanied by NMFS' detailed bidding and voting guidance.
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064767
DB-SDNY-0027592
EFTA_00 175270
EFTA01255865
Page 30
68 FR 71082
The difference between the qualifying bidder list and the qualifying voter list is that the
latter includes the holders of interim crab licenses and the former does not.
NMFS based these lists upon the Restricted Access Management Program's crab
license holder records for holders which meet the requirements of 50 CFR 679.4(k)(5) as
well as the requirements of the program's final regulations.
II. Qualifying bidder and voter lists
(1) Qualifying bidder List:
NAME
57 DEGREES NORTH,
LLC
AIREDALE LLC
MAILING ADDRESS
NON-INTERIM
CRAB
LICENSE NO.
LLC3554
EATTLE WA 98107
, AK 99501
ALASKA BOAT COMPANY Mil
SEATTLE,
LLC2039
WA
98105
L.L.C.
ALASKA SEAFOOD
PRODUCERS, INC.
INC.
ALEUTIAN SPRAY
FISHERIES. INC.
WA
98105
LLC1607
EATTLE WA 98177-3153
LLC2187
NEWPORT. OR
97365
LLC2275
SEATTLE,
LLC3667
KIRKLAND. WA
ENTRALIA. WA 98531
, SEATTLE. WA
SEATTLE, LLC1971
WA 98107
, SEATTLE, WA
LLC3301
LLC3170
LLC3587
For internal use only
LLC2095
SONY_GM_00064768
DB-SDNY-0027593
EFTA 00175271
EFTA01255866
Page 31
68 FR 71082
NAME
ALEUTIAN SPRAY
FISHERIES, INC.
ALEUTIAN SPRAY
FISHERIES, INC.
ALEUTIAN SPRAY
REVERSE
LLC
MAILING ADDRESS
NON-INTERIM
CRAB
LICENSE NO.
98107
, SEATTLE, WA
98107
, SEATTLE, WA
98107
AT
1=1
,SEATTLE,
WA
98109
LLC2260
EDMONDS, WA
98020-1404
AMERICAN STAR &
LLC3200
OWNERS
BELLEV E WA 98006
AMERICAN WAY
LLC1658
FISHERIES,
INC.
KODIAK. AK 99615
ANDRONICA, INC.
LLC3809
SEATTLE WA 98155
ARCHIE GOULD
, KING COVE, LLC3031
AK 99612
SEATTLE, LLC2088
WA 98072
SEATTLE, LLC2087
WA 98072
LLC3585
LLC2099
LLC2097
LLC2555
LLC3861
• SEATTLE, WA
98107
INC.
, PORTLAND, OR
For internal use only
LLC2366
SDNY_GM_00064769
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctclINI(EIDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027594
EFTA_00 175272
EFTA01255867
Page 32
68 FR 71082
NAME
ARTHUR W. FOX
ATLANTICO. INC.
AUTUMN DAWN
PARTNERSHIP
BARBARA J
PARTNERSHIP
LLC
BLUE ATTU, LLC
INC.
MAILING ADDRESS
NON-INTERIM
CRAB
LICENSE NO.
97236
AK
99615
OR
97759
SEATTLE, WA 98109
, KODIAK,
LLC1716
, SISTERS,
LLC2471
LLC1808
GIKITig.726
LLC3824
NW,
SEATTLE WA 98107
LLC3618
RICHMOND CA 94803
SEATTLE, LLC2020
WA 98107
97014
SETTLE, WA
98107-0712
SEATTLE, WA
98107-0712
CATHLAMET.
WA 98612
WA 98109
NW
98107
, SEATTLE,
LLC4743
LLC1766
LLC3974
LLC2093
, SEATTLE, WA
SEATTLE, LLC3278
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064770
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctralFhtEIDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027595
EFTA_00 175273
EFTA01255868
Page 33
68 FR 71082
NAME
BRUCE E. JOYCE
CAPRICE, INC.
CONTROLLER BAY,
JOINT
VENTURE
COREY K. WILSON
INC.
COURAGEOUS
SEAFOODS
DAR-JEN, INC.
DEBRA D, INC.
MAILING ADDRESS
NON-INTERIM
CRAB
LICENSE NO.
WA 98107
97014
, SEATTLE, WA
98107
PORTLAND OR 91202
FRIDAY
HARBOR. WA 98250
NW
WA 98107
WA 98107
99615
99615
EDMONDS,
WA 98020
AK 99612
LLC1891
LLC3579
LLC2701
LLC2753
LLC3459
SEATTLE,
SEATTLE, LLC4860
, KODIAK, AK LLC2058
, KODIAK, AK LLC3680
LLC3342
, KING COVE, LLC3127
LLC2514
NEWPORT OR 97365
NW,
LLC1577
SEATTLE WA 98107
, KODIAK,
LLC3093
AK
99615
, MOUNT LLC3850
VERNON, WA 98273
LLC3290
PETERSBURG,
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064771
DB-SDNY-0027596
EFTA 00175274
EFTA01255869
Page 34
68 FR 71082
NAME
INC.
DENNIS DEAVER
DIAMONDBACK
SEAFOODS,
INC.
DIAMONDBACK
SEAFOODS,
INC.
DIAMONDBACK
SEAFOODS,
INC.
EARLY DAWN LLC
ERLA-N, LLC
KOSO
MAILING ADDRESS
AK 99833
EVERETT. WA 98201
LLC1923
RI HM ND
A 94803
,SEATTLE, LLC3328
WA 98107
LLC1947
STE
A, HOMER. AK 99603-
7714
NON-INTERIM
CRAB
LICENSE NO.
LLC2888
ANCHORAGE. AK 99501
ANCHORAGE AK 99501
ANCHORAGE. AK 99501
SHORELINE, WA 98133
LLC3193
SOUTHWEST,
EDM ND
WA 98026
, KODIAK,
LLC1274
AK
99615
LAHAINA. HI 96761
LLC1156
LLC2345
LLC 1380
LLC2788
LLC1782
LLC2215
EATTLE WA 98177
, KING COVE, LLC3484
AK 99612
SEATTLE WA 98199
SEATTLE, WA 98199
For internal use only
LLC3903
LLC3905
SDNY_GM_00064772
DB-SDNY-0027597
EFTA_00 175275
EFTA01255870
Page 35
68 FR 71082
NAME
INC.
F. JAMES KOCH
FN AJ, LLC
EN KETA, INC.
FN SEABROOKE
FAIRWEATHER
FISHERIES,
INC.
FAIRWEATHER
FISHERIES,
INC.
71?
MAILING ADDRESS
NON-INTERIM
CRAB
LICENSE NO.
LLC1314
BELLINGHAM,
WA 98227
LEWISTON,
1
SEATTLE WA 98121
98107
SEATTLE, WA
LLC2742
LLC3655
LLC4010
LLC3687
lila
SEATTLE, LLC3632
98020
LLC1960
AN H RA E AK 99501
LLC3196
, ASTORIA, OR
EATTLE WA 98103
3290
ARNATI N WA 98014
OR
97862
NEWPORT, OR 97365
For internal use only
LLC1639
LLC3356
LLC3224
LLC2925
LLC1733
LLC2943
SDNY_GM_00064773
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctIc)INE IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027598
EFTA_00 175276
EFTA01255871
Page 36
68 FR 71082
NAME
FAR NORTH
FISHERMEN,
INC.
FARWEST LEADER
PARTNERSHIP
LLC
FLYING CLOUD
PARTNERSHIP
FRANK MCFARLAND
GENE E. WATSON
GLACIER BAY
FISHERIES,
LLC
MAILING ADDRESS
NON-INTERIM
CRAB
LICENSE NO.
LLC3334
FRIDAY
HARBOR WA 98250
NEW
CASTLE
WA 98059
NW.
SEATTLE WA 98107
SOUTHWEST,
EDMONDS, WA 98026
NW,
EATTLE WA 98107
MANKATO.
MN 56001
FRIDAY
H
WA 98250
, NOME, AK
99762
7
EATTLE WA 98107
, NEWPORT,
OR
97365
CURTIS,
WA 98538
For internal use only
LLC1285
LLC2941
LLC3472
L LC2206
LLC3383
LLC4681
LLC2770
LLC1539
LLC2621
LLC2540
LLC2790
LLC3297
LLC3733
SONY_GM_00064774
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctIcANI(FIDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027599
EFTA_00 175277
EFTA01255872
Page 37
68 FR 71082
NAME
GLEN EVANS
INC.
GORDON E. GILES
GREAT WEST
SEAFOODS,
L P.
GULF WINDS LLC
LLC
GUNN-WIDING
ENTERPRISES
INC.
HAERLING
ENTERPRISES,
INC.
HAL LEWIS
HARLAN DEAN
MAILING ADDRESS
NON-INTERIM
CRAB
LICENSE NO.
KIRKLAND,
WA 98033
98292
NW.
SEATTLE. WA 98107
NEWPORT. OR
97365
SEATTLE, WA 98199
, SELDOVIA.
AK
99663
SEATTLE. WA 98119
SEATTLE, WA 98119
SEATTLE. WA 98107-3726
LLC3382
LLC3735
LLC3856
LLC2063
LLC1434
LLC1849
LLC3135
LLC3559
LLC3218
EDMONDS WA
98020
, KODIAK,
LLC3598
AK
99615
LLC3283
MILTON,
WA 98354
DUTCH
LLC3700
HARBOR AK 99692
, STRYKER,
LLC2808
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064775
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctf;;?INEIDENTIAL
DB-SONY-0027600
EFTA_00 175278
EFTA01255873
Page 38
68 FR 71082
NAME
HARVESTER
ENTERPRISES,
LLC
HIGHLAND LIGHT
SEAFOODS
LLC.
INC.
LLC
HUSKY CO-OWNERS
ICELANDER, INC.
ICY BAY. INC.
MAILING ADDRESS
NON-INTERIM
CRAB
LICENSE NO.
MT
59933
[
, SEATTLE,
WA 98109
LAKE
FOREST PARK, WA
98155
97014
70'
1
lL
mi
LLC2326
LLC3705
LLC1814
LLC3590
LLC3952
E, SEATTLE, WA 98119
PO BOX 17012, SEATTLE, LLC3319
WA 98127
N,
LLC3844
SEATTLE, WA
98107
SEATTLE.
WA 98105
AK
99615
LLC3664
KODIAK,
LLC2874
LLC2351
diK THi 1A
.1119
EATTLE. WA 98199
For internal use only
LLC2699
LLC1725
SDNY_GM_00064776
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.cf1;NE IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027601
EFTA_00 175279
EFTA01255874
Page 39
68 FR 71082
NAME
INC.
LLC
MAILING ADDRESS
SEATTLE. WA 98109
SEATTLE WA 98109
KODIAK,
AK
NON-INTERIM
CRAB
LICENSE NO.
LLC1997
LLC3249
99615
AK
, HOMER,
LLC2362
99603
JEFF T. STEELE
AK
, KODIAK,
LLC2762
99615
JEFF T. STEELE
AK
, KODIAK,
LLC2817
AK
UNALASKA, LLC2570
99685
AK
, UNALASKA, LLC3527
99685
LLC3657
REDM ND WA 98053
LLC
,
MUKILTEO WA 98275
LLC3553
KODIAK,
AK
LLC2778
99615
KDS, INC.
WA
, SILVANA,
LLC3716
98287
KDS, INC.
WA
, SILVANA,
LLC2775
7
WA
SEATTLE,
LLC3675
PARTNERS
98105
LLC1279
ANCHORAGE, AK 99524-
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064777
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.Qc)FNI(EIDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027602
EFTA_00 175280
EFTA01255875
Page 40
68 FR 71082
NAME
KEVIN SUYDAM
KEVIN SUYDAM
KEVIN SUYDAM
KEVLEEN K, LLC
KIRSTEN MARIE
FISHERIES,
LLC
KISKA SEA
PARTNERSHIP
ENT., INC.
ENT., INC.
ENT., INC.
L.T.D., INC.
LABRADOR GROUP
LADY HELEN LLC
LANGESATER
FISHERIES,
INC.
MAILING ADDRESS
NON-INTERIM
CRAB
LICENSE NO.
0449
99615
99615
99615
I
SEATTLE. WA 98199
M KILTE
WA 98275
NEWPORT OR 97365
SEATTLE WA 98177
EATTLE WA 98107
SEATTLE WA 98107
EATTLE WA 98107
, KODIAK,
AK
99615
SEATTLE.
WA 9 '
m
ill
=
, KODIAK, AK
, KODIAK, AK
LLC3264
LLC3337
, KODIAK, AK LLC5383
LLC3462
LLC1729
LLC3116
LLC3879
LLC1863
LLC 1885
LLC1882
LLC1450
LLC2037
LLC3737
H RELINE WA 98133
,SEATTLE, LLC2223
WA 98107
LLC2695
EATTLE WA 98177
UNALASKA,
LLC2007
AK
99685
SEATTLE, LLC2546
WA 98107
For internal use only
S0NY_GM_00064778
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctahl(E IDENTIAL
DB-SONY-0027603
EFTA_00175281
EFTA01255876
Page 41
68 FR 71082
NAME
LLC
LIGHTSHIP, INC.
LONGRICH
ENTERPRISES,
INC.
LUDGER
DOCHTERMANN
MARCY J. INC.
LLC
MARK I, INC.
MARWIN, INC.
MATTHEW HEGGE
INC.
INC.
MICHEAL K. KING
MAILING ADDRESS
NON-INTERIM
CRAB
LICENSE NO.
LLC3638
, SEATTLE, WA
98107
EDMONDS. WA
98020
, KODIAK,
LLC1453
AK
99615
99615
AK
LLC3107
, KODIAK, AK LLC2750
KODIAK,
LLC2646
, KODIAK, LLC2279
AK
99615
SEATTLE. WA 98109
EA
rl
-LE WA 811
, STE
212 EATTLE, WA 98109
PETERSBURG,
AK 99833
, KODIAK,
LLC2106
AK
99615
WA
98370
WA
98370
, MAGNOLIA LLC3020
SPRINGS, AL 36555
NORTHERN LIGHTS
LLC1485
LLC3629
LLC2638
LLC3954
LLC1801
, POULSBO, LLC2577
POULSBO, LLC3541
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064779
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctahl(E IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027604
EFTA_00 175282
EFTA01255877
Page 42
68 FR 71082
NAME
MAILING ADDRESS
NON-INTERIM
CRAB
LICENSE NO.
HAVEN,
YAK TAT AK 99689
NEPTUNE, LLC
,
LLC2156
EATTLE WA 98121
, KING COVE, LLC3922
INC.
AK 99612
NINILICHIK LTD.
, LLC3931
PARTNERSHIP
ANCHORAGE AK 99515
LLC3274
03
LLC2309
SEATTLE, WA
NORDIC STAR
LLC2629
FISHERIES,
INC.
, SISTERS,
LLC3989
OR
97759
INC.
INC.
INC.
INC.
LLC
SPOKANE. WA 99206
NW.
SEATTLE WA 98107
NW
EATTLE WA 98107
NW.
EATTLE WA 98107
SEATTLE. WA 98199
ATTLE
•:1'7
, KIRKLAND, WA
98033
For internal use only
LLC3331
LLC3698
LLC3696
LLC 1243
LLC3087
LLC3256
LLC3581
SDNY_GM_00064780
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctaN(F IDENTIAL
DB-SONY-0027605
EFTA_00 [7528.1
EFTA01255878
Page 43
68 FR 71082
NAME
PARTNERSHIP
ODIAK MARITIME
OLUF K. VEDOY
INC.
PACIFIC STAR
FISHERIES,
LLC
PAR-PAC. INC.
PAUL GRONHOLDT
MAILING ADDRESS
NON-INTERIM
CRAB
LICENSE NO.
, SEATTLE,
WA 98107
SEATTLE, WA 98109
LLC3035
, KODIAK, AK LLC2288
LLC3934
N3.
ANCHORAGE AK 99515
ENTRALIA WA 98531
ENTRALIA WA 98531
CENTRALIA WA 98531
LAKEWOOD WA 98499
KIRKLAND. WA
98033
LLC3195
LLC3914
LLC3916
LLC3945
LLC3941
LLC1229
LAKEWOOD, WA 98499
, CORDOVA, LLC3061
AK
9 7‘
fi
90
, SEATTLE, WA
17
,NEWPORT,
OR
KLAND WA 98033
L'iAPIAM503
For internal use only
LLC1946
LLC3583
LLC3494
LLC4857
LLC2252
LLC3384
SDNY_GM_00064781
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctrAl(F IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027606
EFTA_00 175284
EFTA01255879
Page 44
68 FR 71082
NAME
PAVLOF, INC.
INC.
POINT FIVE, INC
POLAR SEA
PARTNERSHIP
PROVIDER, INC.
PROWLER, LLC
INC.
R.W. BARK CORP.
RAGNVALD SVINO
INC.
INC.
INC.
MAILING ADDRESS
NON-INTERIM
CRAB
LICENSE NO.
POINT,
AK 99661
LLC1740
SEATTLE WA 98199
LLC3401
FRIDAY
HARBOR WA 98250
LLC1937
97014
LLC1826
SHORELINE, WA 98177-
3825
LLC5663
, SEATTLE,
WA
98115
, KODIAK, AK
LLC2781
99615
LLC3682
PETERSBURG.
,SEATTLE, LLC1817
WA 98107
LEAVENWORTH, WA
H RELINE WA 98177
EDMONDS,
WA 98020
EDMONDS,
WA 98020
EDMONDS,
WA 98020
For internal use only
LLC1994
LLC1391
LLC2170
LLC2172
LLC3417
SDNY_GM_00064782
DB-SDNY-0027607
EFTA_00 175285
EFTA01255880
Page 45
68 FR 71082
NAME
RETRIEVER CO-
OWNERS
ROBERT NEHUS
COMPANY
LLC
RONALD R. BRILL
RONDYS, INC.
RONDYS, INC.
ROYAL AMERICAN
FISHERIES. LLC
MAILING ADDRESS
NON-INTERIM
CRAB
LICENSE NO.
, SEATTLE, LLC3669
WA
98105-0030
MILL
LLC3091
CREEK WA 98082-2946
, KODIAK, AK LLC1720
99615
UNALASKA,
IN=
EATTLE WA 98107
BELLINGHAM, WA 98226
-,PORT
ANGELES,
, SEATTLE,
WA 98107
WA 98029
SEATTLE WA 98119
NW,
EATTLE WA 98107
NW.
SEATTLE. WA 98107
LLC3010
LLC1579
LLC3114
LLC2195
LLC3956
LLC2884
LLC3898
LLC1754
LLC1731
LLC2236
LLC2625
LLC2601
NW
EATTLE WA 98107
MILL
LLC1973
CREEK WA 98082
MILL
LLC1975
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064783
DB-SDNY-0027608
EFTA_00 175286
EFTA01255881
Page 46
68 FR 71082
NAME
INC
INC
INC
SCANDIES LTD
PARTNERSHIP
SEA FISHER LLC
SEA ROVER, LLC
SEA SPRAY, LLC
PARTNERSHIP
SHISHALDIN, LLC
SIBERIAN SEA
PARTNERSHIP
SILVER SPRAY
SEAFOODS.
MAILING ADDRESS
NON-INTERIM
CRAB
LICENSE NO.
CREEK WA 98082
, SISTERS,
LLC3982
KODIAK,
LLC2078
LLC3742
LLC3757
LLC3750
LLC3336
OR
97759
AK
99615
BELLINGHAM,
WA 98225
BELLINGHAM,
WA 98225
BELLINGHAM.
WA 98225
, SEATTLE,
WA 98107
EATTLE WA 98107
EDMONDS.
WA 98020
SEATTLE
WA 98119
SEATTLE WA 98103
KENM RE WA 98028
SEATTLE, WA 98107
LLC3917
LLC3723
LLC2289
LLC1896
LLC3930
LLC1734
LLC3197
NEWP RT
R 97365
SEATTLE, LLC3326
WA 98107
, SISTERS,
LLC3984
OR
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064784
DB-SDNY-0027609
EFTA_00 175287
EFTA01255882
Page 47
68 FR 71082
NAME
MAILING ADDRESS
NON-INTERIM
CRAB
LICENSE NO.
LLC
97759
SNOW KING, INC.
LLC3213
SEAL ROCK, OR 97376
FISHERIES, INC.
SULTAN. LLC
NEWP RT
R 97365
[
SEATTLE,
WA 98109
. HOMER, AK
99603
LLC
KENT,
WA 98042
LLC4843
LLC
.SEATTLE,
WA 98109
LLC3670
ANACORTES
BURLINGTON. WA 98233
HOMER,
LLC1625
AK
99603
C/O
, LLC2818
[
. SEATTLE,
WA 98109
C/O
, LLC3330
[
, SEATTLE,
\A/
G.110
TODD HINER
, KODIAK, AK LLC3354
99615
ATTN: ALASKA
LLC2267
SUPPORT
CORPORATION
LLC1673
LLC3848
LLC3457
LLC3690
CORPORATION
NW,
SEATTLE, WA 98107
ATTN: ALASKA
SUPPORT.
NW,
For internal use only
LLC2515
SDNY_GM_00064785
DB-SDNY-0027610
EFTA_00 175288
EFTA01255883
Page 48
68 FR 71082
NAME
CORPORATION
CORPORATION
CORPORATION
INC.
CO
LLC
MAILING ADDRESS
SEATTLE, WA 98107
ATTN: ALASKA
SUPPORT.
NW.
SEATTLE, WA 98107
ATTN: ALASKA
SUPPORT.
NW.
SEATTLE. WA 98107
ATTN: ALASKA
PP RT
NW.
SEATTLE, WA 98107
AND
WIs
i
lt Mr
SEATTLE,
WA 98177
EATTLE WA 98119
, KODIAK,
AK
99615
AK
99615
NON-INTERIM
CRAB
LICENSE NO.
LLC3788
LLC2538
LLC2269
LLC2544
LLC3530
LLC3775
, KODIAK,
LLC3777
REEDSPORT. OR 97467
REEDSPORT. OR 97467
SEATTLE,
WA
98105-0030
410, SEATTLE, WA 98107
For internal use only
LLC3479
LLC3557
LLC3003
LLC2321
SDNY_GM_00064786
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.callE
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027611
EFTA_00 175289
EFTA01255884
Page 49
68 FR 71082
NAME
WINDY BAY, INC.
(2) Qualifying Voter List:
NAME
MAILING ADDRESS
NON-INTERIM
CRAB
LICENSE NO.
LLC3911
BELLINGHAM, WA 98225
BELLINGHAM,
WA 98225
SEATTLE, WA 98109
Number
, SEATTLE, WA 98107
57 DEGREES NORTH,
LLC
AIREDALE LLC
L.L.C.
ALASKA SEAFOOD
PRODUCERS, INC.
ALASKA TROJAN
FISHERIES
LLC1906
LLC2061
LLC1481
MAILING ADDRESS
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
LLC3554
ATTLE WA
107
AN
E, AK 99501
,SEATTLE.
LLC2039
WA
98105
WA
98105
LLC1607
SEATTLE WA 98177-3153
LLC2187
NEWPORT, OR
97365
LLC2275
SEATTLE,
LLC3667
NEWPORT, OR 97365
C/O FMS INC,
M, KIRKLAND, WA
98033
For internal use only
LLC3873
LLC3301
SDNY_GM_00064787
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctQFNI(EIDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027612
EFTA 00 [ 75290
EFTA01255885
Page 50
68 FR 71082
NAME
INC.
ALEUTIAN SPRAY
FISHERIES, INC.
ALEUTIAN SPRAY
FISHERIES, INC.
ALEUTIAN SPRAY
FISHERIES, INC.
ALEUTIAN SPRAY
REVERSE
LLC
AMERICAN STAR &
OWNERS
AMERICAN WAY
FISHERIES,
INC.
ANDRONICA, INC.
MAILING ADDRESS
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
LLC3170
CENTRALIA WA 98531
LLC3587
NW
, SEATTLE, WA
98107
SEATTLE, LLC1971
WA 98107
, SEATTLE, WA
98107
. SEATTLE. WA
98107
, SEATTLE. WA
98107
1
.SEATTLE,
WA
98109
EDMONDS WA
98020-1404
MG11.06
KODIAK, AK 99615
SEATTLE, WA 98155
For internal use only
LLC2095
LLC2099
LLC2097
LLC2555
LLC3861
LLC2260
LLC3200
LLC1658
LLC3809
S0NY_GM_00064788
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.cf;;?N(E IDENTIAL
DB-SONY-0027613
EFTA_00175291
EFTA01255886
Page 51
68 FR 71082
NAME
MAILING ADDRESS
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
ARCHIE GOULD
, KING COVE, LLC3031
AK 99612
SEATTLE, LLC2087
WA 98072
SEATTLE, LLC2088
WA
72
LLC3891
SEATTLE WA 98177
NW
, SEATTLE, WA
98107
INC.
PORTLAND, OR
ARTHUR W. FOX
ATLANTICO, INC.
AUTUMN DAWN
PARTNERSHIP
AK
WA 98109
KODIAK,
LLC1716
LLC3585
LLC2366
99615
, SISTERS,
LLC2471
LLC1808
SEATTLE. WA 98107-3726
LLC3824
OR
97759
BARBARA J
PARTNERSHIP
NW,
7
LLC3618
RI .1.F 1111
A 94803
,SEATTLE,
LLC2020
LLC
WA 98107
SEATTLE, LLC3661
LLC
WA 98107
LLC4743
97014
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064789
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctc;fi(E IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027614
EFTA_00 175292
EFTA01255887
Page 52
68 FR 71082
NAME
MAILING ADDRESS
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
C/O H.A.S..
LLC3889
=,
SEATTLE, WA
98107-0712
C/O H.A.S.,
LLC3965
=,
SEATTLE, WA
98107-0712
LLC1766
CATHLAMET,
WA 98612
,
LLC3849
SEATTLE, WA
98109
BLUE ATTU, LLC
,
LLC3974
SEATTLE, WA
981O9
LLC2093
`.SEATTLE, WA
98107
BLUE DUTCH, LLC
,
LLC3846
SEATTLE. WA
98109
BOWLDEN, INC.
LLC4019
EVERETT,
WA 98208
SEATTLE, LLC3278
INC.
WA 98107
LLC1891
97014
LLC3579
,SEATTLE.. WA
98107
BRUCE E. JOYCE
LLC2701
P RTLAND
R 91202
FRIDAY
HARBOR WA 9825O
LLC3459
CAPRICE, INC.
For internal use only
LLC2753
SDNY_GM_00064790
DB-SONY-0027615
EFTA_00 175293
EFTA01255888
Page 53
68 FR 71082
NAME
MAILING ADDRESS
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
SEATTLE, WA
98107
SEATTLE, LLC4860
WA 98107
, KODIAK, AK LLC2058
99615
, KODIAK, AK LLC3680
99615
CHARLES REHDER
, HOMER,
LLC3340
AK
OAK
LLC3947
INC.
HARBOR,
WA 98277
CONTROLLER BAY,
LLC3342
JOINT
EDMONDS,
VENTURE
WA 98020
COREY K. WILSON
, KING COVE, LLC3127
AK 99612
LLC2514
INC.
NEWPORT OR 97365
COURAGEOUS
LLC1577
SEAFOODS
SEATTLE WA 98107
DAR-JEN. INC.
KODIAK,
LLC3093
AK
15
DEBRA D, INC.
INC.
INC.
DENNIS DEAVER
,MOUNT
VERN N WA 98273
PETERSBURG,
AK 99833
EVERETT WA 98201
EVERETT WA 98201
For internal use only
LLC3850
LLC3290
LLC1418
LLC2888
LLC1923
SDNY_GM_00064791
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.callE
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027616
EFTA_00 175294
EFTA01255889
Page 54
68 FR 71082
NAME
DIAMONDBACK
SEAFOODS,
INC.
DIAMONDBACK
SEAFOODS,
INC.
DIAMONDBACK
SEAFOODS,
INC.
EARLY DAWN LLC
ERLA-N. LLC
ERLA-N, LLC
KOSO
INC.
MAILING ADDRESS
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
RICHMOND CA 94803
SEATTLE, LLC3328
WA 98107
,
LLC1947
. HOMER, AK 99603-
7714
ANCHORAGE. AK 99501
AN H RA E AK 99501
NF
iallia01
H RELINE WA 98133
SOUTHWEST,
EDMONDS WA 98026
, KODIAK,
AK
99615
LAHAINA HI 96761
SEATTLE WA 98177
SEATTLE WA 98177
, KING COVE, LLC3484
LLC1156
LLC1380
LLC2345
LLC2788
AK 99612
dirA ATIG199
EATTLE WA 98199
BELLINGHAM,
WA 98227
For internal use only
LLC3193
LLC1274
LLC1782
LLC2215
LLC3857
LLC3903
LLC3905
LLC1314
SDNY_GM_00064792
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctallE
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027617
EFTA_00 175295
EFTA01255890
Page 55
68 FR 71082
NAME
F. JAMES KOCH
FN AJ, LLC
FN KETA, INC.
FN SEABROOKE
FAIRWEATHER
FISHERIES,
INC.
FAIRWEATHER
FISHERIES,
INC.
MAILING ADDRESS
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
LLC2742
LEWISTON,
ID 83501
EATTLE WA 98121
, SEATTLE, WA
98107
1101 EMERALD HILLS
DR,
EDM ND
WA 98020
,SEATTLE,
WA 98107
ANCHORAGE, AK 99501
ASTORIA. OR
971O3
SEATTLE WA 98103
N I H I MI H WA 98290
14
OR
97862
NEWPORT, OR 97365
FRIDAY
HARBOR, WA 98250
For internal use only
LLC3655
LLC4010
LLC3687
LLC3632
LLC1960
LLC3196
LLC1639
LLC3356
LLC3224
LLC2925
LLC1733
LLC2943
LLC3334
SONY_GM_00064793
DB-SDNY-0027618
EFTA_00 175296
EFTA01255891
Page 56
68 FR 71082
NAME
FAR NORTH
FISHERMEN,
INC.
FARWEST LEADER
PARTNERSHIP
LLC
FLYING CLOUD
PARTNERSHIP
FRANK MCFARLAND
GENE E. WATSON
GLACIER BAY
FISHERIES,
LLC
GLEN EVANS
MAILING ADDRESS
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
LLC1285
, NEW
CASTLE,
WA 98059
SEATTLE WA 98107
SOUTHWEST.
EDMONDS, WA 98026
SEATTLE, WA 98107
MANKATO,
MN 56001
FRIDAY
HARBOR WA 98250
, NOME, AK
99762
EATTLE WA 98107
SEATTLE. WA 98107
SEATTLE WA 98107
, NEWPORT,
OR
97365
CURTIS,
WA 98538
KIRKLAND,
WA 98033
For internal use only
LLC2941
LLC3472
L LC2206
LLC3383
LLC4681
LLC2770
LLC1539
LLC2621
LLC2540
LLC2790
LLC3297
LLC3733
LLC3382
SONY_GM_00064794
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.crANI(EIDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027619
EFTA_00 175297
EFTA01255892
Page 57
68 FR 71082
NAME
INC.
GORDON E. GILES
GREAT WEST
SEAFOODS,
L P.
GULF WINDS LLC
LLC
GUNN-WIDING
ENTERPRISES
INC.
HAERLING
ENTERPRISES,
INC.
HAL LEWIS
INC.
HARLAN DEAN
HARVESTER
MAILING ADDRESS
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
98292
NW,
SEATTLE WA 98107
NEWPORT, OR
97365
EATTLE, WA 98199
, SELDOVIA,
AK
99663
SEATTLE. WA 98119
SEATTLE, WA 98119
SEATTLE WA 98107-3726
EDMONDS, WA
98020
AK
99615
MILTON.
WA 98354
DUTCH
LLC3700
HARBOR AK 99692
LLC3276
LLC3735
LLC3856
LLC2063
LLC1434
LLC1849
LLC3135
LLC3559
LLC3218
KODIAK.
LLC3598
LLC3283
EATTLE WA 98177
, STRYKER,
LLC2808
MT
59933
For internal use only
LLC2326
SDNY_GM_00064795
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.cti)INE IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027620
EFTA_00 175298
EFTA01255893
Page 58
68 FR 71082
NAME
ENTERPRISES,
LLC
HIGHLAND LIGHT
SEAFOODS
LLC.
HIGHLAND LIGHT
SEAFOODS
LLC.
INC.
INC.
LLC
HUSKY CO-OWNERS
ICELANDER, INC.
MAILING ADDRESS
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
SEATTLE, WA 98109
LAKE
FOREST PARK. WA
98155
97014
97014
, C/O
DENNIS
SEATTLE. WA 98119
LLC3705
LLC1814
LLC3590
LLC4845
LLC2834
LLC3952
SEATTLE, WA 98119
PO BOX 17012, SEATTLE, LLC3319
WA 98127
WA 1.' 17
98107
SEATTLE, LLC3887
N, LLC3844
, SEATTLE, WA
SEATTLE.
WA 98105
AK
99615
LLC3664
, KODIAK,
LLC2874
LLC2351
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064796
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ccIFNI(F IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027621
EFTA_00 175299
EFTA01255894
Page 59
68 FR 71082
NAME
ICY BAY. INC.
INC.
LLC
JEFF T. STEELE
JEFF T. STEELE
LTD.
LLC
INC.
MAILING ADDRESS
SEATTLE, WA 98199
SEATTLE. WA 98199
C/O PUGET SOUND
ACCOUNTING
SEATTLE. WA 98109
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
LLC2699
LLC1725
LLC1997
SEATTLE WA 98109
KODIAK,
LLC3249
AK
99615
, HOMER,
LLC2362
AK
KODIAK,
AK
99615
AK
99615
AK
99685
AK
99685
REDMOND WA 98053
NW.
98107
M KILTE
WA 98275
EVERETT WA 98201
KODIAK,
AK
LLC2762
KODIAK,
LLC2817
, UNALASKA, LLC2570
, UNALASI<A, LLC3527
LLC3657
LLC3577
,SEATTLE. WA
For internal use only
LLC3553
LLC3332
LLC2778
SDNY_GM_00064797
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.cf:ANI(FIDENTIAL
DB-SONY-0027622
EFTA_00I75300
EFTA01255895
Page 60
68 FR 71082
NAME
KDS, INC.
KDS, INC.
PARTNERS
KEVIN SUYDAM
KEVIN SUYDAM
KEVIN SUYDAM
KEVIN SUYDAM
KEVIN SUYDAM
KEVLEEN K, LLC
KIRSTEN MARIE
FISHERIES.
LLC
KISKA SEA
PARTNERSHIP
KRISTIAN E.
ENT., INC.
KRISTIAN E.
ENT., INC.
KRISTIAN E.
ENT., INC.
L.T.D., INC.
POULSEN
POULSEN
POULSEN
MAILING ADDRESS
99615
WA
98287
WA
98287
, SILVANA,
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
LLC3716
, SILVANA,
LLC2775
SEATTLE,
LLC3675
WA
ANCHORAGE, AK 99524-
044
, KODIAK, AK
99615
, KODIAK, AK
99615
99615
99615
99615
100
EATTLE WA 98199
, KODIAK, AK
, KODIAK, AK
, KODIAK, AK
M KILTEO WA 98275
NEWP RT
R 97365
SEATTLE WA 98177
SEATTLE WA 98107
EATTLE W
8107
SEATTLE WA 98107
KODIAK,
AK
For internal use only
LLC1279
LLC3264
LLC3337
LLC4552
LLC5383
LLC3894
LLC3462
LLC1729
LLC3116
LLC3879
LLC1863
LLC1882
LLC1885
LLC1450
SDNY_GM_00064798
DB-SONY-0027623
EFTA_0017530 I
EFTA01255896
Page 61
68 FR 71082
NAME
LABRADOR GROUP
LADY HELEN LLC
MAILING ADDRESS
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
99615
LLC2037
SEATTLE,
WA 98105
LLC3737
H RELINE WA 98133
.SEATTLE, LLC2223
WA 98107
LANGESATER
LLC2695
FISHERIES,
INC.
SEATTLE WA 98177
, UNALASKA,
LLC2007
LEE ROSE, INC.
LLC
LIGHTSHIP, INC.
LLC
LONGRICH
ENTERPRISES,
INC.
LUDGER
DOCHTERMANN
MARCY J., INC.
AK
99685
SEATTLE, LLC2546
GRAYLAND, LLC4730
WA
98547
NW
98107
EDMONDS, WA
98020
, SEATTLE, WA
LLC3638
LLC3107
LLC1671
, AK 99518
, KODIAK,
L LC 1453
AK
99615
99615
AK
99615
AK
99615
, KODIAK, AK LLC2750
KODIAK,
LLC2646
KODIAK, LLC2279
LLC3629
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064799
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.caN(E
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027624
EFTA_00 175302
EFTA01255897
Page 62
68 FR 71082
NAME
LLC
MARK I, INC.
MARWIN, INC.
MATTHEW HEGGE
INC.
INC.
MELANIE, INC.
MICHEAL K. KING
NEPTUNE, LLC
INC.
NINILICHIK LTD.
PARTNERSHIP
MAILING ADDRESS
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
EATTLE WA 98109
WESTPORT,
WA 98595
PETERSBURG.
AK 99833
KODIAK,
LLC2106
AK
99615
WA
9837O
WA
98370
LLC4875
LLC2638
LLC3954
LLC1801
POULSBO, LLC2577
, POULSBO, LLC3541
, DEPOE
LLC2763
BAY,
SEATTLE, LLC3295
WA 9 107
, MAGNOLIA
LLC3020
SPRINGS. AL 36555
NORTHERN LIGHTS
LLC1485
HAVEN,
YAK TAT AK 99689
SEATTLE. WA 98121
,
LLC2156
LLC3968
STE
9
EATTLE WA 98107
, KING COVE, LLC3922
AK 99612
, LLC3931
ANCHORAGE, AK 99515
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064800
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.gtf;;?FNEIDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027625
EFTA_00I75303
EFTA01255898
Page 63
68 FR 71082
NAME
NORDIC STAR
FISHERIES,
INC.
INC.
INC.
INC.
INC.
LLC
NOTORIOUS
MAILING ADDRESS
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
LLC3274
ANCHORAGE, AK 99503
SEATTLE, WA
98107
LLC2309
LLC2629
SPOKANE WA 99206
, SISTERS,
LLC3989
LLC3331
LLC3698
LLC3696
LLC1243
LLC3087
LLC3256
LLC3581
STE LLC3035
8109
STE LLC5166
212
EATTLE, WA 98109
, KODIAK, AK LLC2288
99615
LLC3613
OR
97759
NW,
l EATLE WA ill
NW.
SEATTLE, WA 98107
NW.
SEATTLE. WA 98107
EKI-LE WA 98199
SEATTLE WA 98107
KIRKLAND, WA
033
#410, SEATTLE, WA
98107
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064801
DB-SDNY-0027626
EFTA 00175304
EFTA01255899
Page 64
68 FR 71082
NAME
PARTNERSHIP
N3.
PARTNERSHIP
ANCHORAGE. AK 99515
MAILING ADDRESS
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
EATTLE WA 98107-3726
, KODIAK,
LLC3813
AK
99615
OCEAN CAPE, LLC
OCEAN STORM
FISHERIES,
INC.
ODIAK MARITIME
OLUF K. VEDOY
N H MI H WA 98290
, PRIEST
INC.
CENTRALIA WA 98531
ENTRALIA. WA 98531
CENTRALIA. WA 98531
SEATTLE,
WA 98107
LAKEWOOD. WA 98499
C/O FMS INC.
M, KIRKLAND, WA
98O33
MERCER
I II
WA 98040
SW.
LAKEWOOD. WA 98499
CORDOVA,
AK
99574
INC.
RIVER ID 83856
NW
981O7
OR
LLC3934
LLC3195
LLC3914
LLC3916
LLC3644
LLC3945
LLC3659
LLC1229
LLC3061
LLC1946
LLC3646
LLC3583
SEATTLE, WA
, NEWPORT, LLC3494
For internal use only
SONY_GM_00064802
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.callE
IDENTIAL
DB-SONY-0027627
EFTA_00 175305
EFTA01255900
Page 65
68 FR 71082
NAME
INC.
PACIFIC STAR
FISHERIES.
LLC
PAR-PAC, INC.
PAUL GRONHOLDT
PAVLOF, INC.
INC.
POINT FIVE, INC
POLAR SEA
PARTNERSHIP
PROFS. FISHERMEN'S
ASSOC., INC.
PROVIDER, INC.
PROWLER, LLC
INC.
R.W. BARK CORP.
MAILING ADDRESS
97365
, BELLEVUE, WA
98004
KIRKLAND. WA 98033
OLYMPIA, WA 98503
POINT,
AK 99661
SEATTLE. WA 98199
FRIDAY
HARBOR, WA 98250
97014
SHORELINE, WA 98177-
3825
EATTLE, WA 98115
BELLINGHAM,
WA 98227
, KODIAK, AK
99615
PETERSBURG,
WA 98107
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
LLC3230
LLC4857
LLC2252
LLC3384
LLC1740
LLC3401
LLC1937
LLC1826
LLC5663
LLC3106
LLC2781
LLC3682
,SEATTLE, LLC1817
LLC1994
LEAVENWORTH, WA
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064803
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctallE IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027628
EFTA_00I75306
EFTA01255901
Page 66
68 FR 71082
NAME
MAILING ADDRESS
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
98826
RAGNVALD SVINO
LLC1391
SHORELINE WA 98177
LLC2170
EDMONDS.
INC.
WA 98020
LLC3417
EDMONDS,
INC.
WA 98020
LLC2172
EDMONDS.
INC.
WA 98020
LLC3338
HOMER.
AK 99603
RELIANCE, INC.
SEATTLE, LLC3333
WA 98107
RETRIEVER CO-
. SEATTLE,
LLC3669
OWNERS
WA
98105-0030
MILL
LLC3091
CREEK WA 98082-2946
RICHARD NEWBY
LLC1966
AN H RA E, AK 99517
, KODIAK, AK LLC1720
99615
ROBERT NEHUS
LLC3010
UNALASKA.
AK 99685
LLC1579
COMPANY
LLC
EATTLE WA 98107
LLC3114
BELLINGHAM, WA 98226
, PORT
LLC2195
ANGELES,
WA 98362
RONALD R. BRILL
SEATTLE WA 98177
LLC3956
, SEATTLE, WA
RONALD PETERSON
LLC3967
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064804
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.cf:ANI(E IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027629
EFTA_00 175307
EFTA01255902
Page 67
68 FR 71082
NAME
RONDYS, INC.
RONDYS, INC.
ROY RASMUSSEN
ROYAL AMERICAN
FISHERIES, LLC
INC
INC
INC
MAILING ADDRESS
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
98107
ISSAQUAH WA 98029
ISSAQUAH WA 98029
MILL CREEK, WA
98012
SEATTLE WA 98119
M KILTS
WA 98275
NW.
SEATTLE. WA 98107
NW,
EK
I
I-LE WA 98107
LLC3898
LLC2884
LLC3960
LLC1754
LLC1731
LLC2236
LLC2625
LLC2601
NW.
SEATTLE WA 98107
MILL
LLC1973
CREEK WA 98082
MILL
LLC1975
REEK WA 98082
, SISTERS,
LLC3982
OR
KODIAK,
LLC2078
AK
99615
LLC3742
LLC3750
LLC3757
LLC3806
BELLINGHAM,
WA 98225
BELLINGHAM,
WA 98225
BELLINGHAM,
WA 98225
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064805
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.callE
IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027630
EFTA_00 175308
EFTA01255903
Page 68
68 FR 71082
NAME
SCANDIES LTD
PARTNERSHIP
SEA FISHER LLC
SEA ROVER, LLC
SEA SPRAY, LLC
PARTNERSHIP
INC.
SHISHALDIN, LLC
SIBERIAN SEA
PARTNERSHIP
SILVER SPRAY
SEAFOODS,
LLC
SNOW KING, INC
FISHERIES. INC.
INC.
12
ATT E 1,98109
, STE
212. SEATTLE. WA 98109
DR,
NEWPORT. OR 97365
For internal use only
MAILING ADDRESS
EVERETT WA 98201
, SEATTLE,
WA 98107
EA
IILE
G98107
EDMONDS,
98020
SEATTLE, WA
98119
SEATTLE WA 98103
KENMORE WA 98028
SEATTLE,
WA 98107
SEATTLE. WA 98107
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
LLC3336
LLC3917
LLC3723
LLC2289
,
LLC1896
LLC3930
LLC2120
LLC1734
LLC3197
NEWP RT. OR 97365
SEATTLE, LLC3326
WA 98107
, SISTERS,
LLC3984
OR
STE LLC3033
LLC5162
LLC3213
LLC1673
LLC3379
SDNY_GM_00064806
DB-SDNY-0027631
EFTA_00 175309
EFTA01255904
Page 69
68 FR 71082
NAME
MAILING ADDRESS
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
KENMORE WA 98028
SULTAN, LLC
LLC3848
SEATTLE. WA
98109
, HOMER, AK
LLC3457
99603
LLC3690
LLC
KENT.
WA 98O42
LLC4843
LLC
SEATTLE, WA
98109
LLC3996
SOUND
ACCOUNTING.
SEATTLE. WA 981O9
LLC3670
ANACORTES
BURLINGTON. WA 98233
HOMER,
LLC1625
AK
99603
C/O
, LLC2818
, SEATTLE, WA
98109
C/O
, LLC3330
, SEATTLE, WA
TODD HINER
KODIAK, AK LLC3354
99615
ATTN: ALASKA
LLC2267
SUPPORT.
CORPORATION
CORPORATION
NW,
SEATTLE, WA 98107
ATTN: ALASKA
SUPPORT.
NW,
For internal use only
LLC3788
SDNY_GM_00064807
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.cf;;41E IDENTIAL
DB-SONY-0027632
EFTA_001753I0
EFTA01255905
Page 70
68 FR 71082
NAME
CORPORATION
CORPORATION
CORPORATION
INC.
CO.
MAILING ADDRESS
SEATTLE, WA 98107
ATTN: ALASKA
SUPPORT.
SEATTLE, WA 98107
ATTN: ALASKA
SUPPORT.
SEATTLE, WA 98107
ATTN: ALASKA
PP RT
SEATTLE. WA 98107
AND
WNER
SEATTLE,
WA 98177
-,
SEATTLE, WA 98119
PO BOX 2713, KODIAK,
AK
99615
AK
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
LLC2538
LLC2515
LLC2269
LLC2544
LLC3530
LLC1792
, KODIAK,
LLC3775
, KODIAK,
AK
99615
REEDSPORT OR 97467
REED P RT OR 97467
SEATTLE,
WA
98105-0030
For internal use only
LLC3777
LLC3479
LLC3557
L LC3003
LLC2321
SDNY_GM_00064808
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.ctclINE IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027633
EFTA_00I753I I
EFTA01255906
Page 71
68 FR 71082
NAME
LLC
INC.
WINDY BAY. INC.
MAILING ADDRESS
INTERIM OR NON-
INTERIM CRAB
LICENSE NO.
NW
410 SEATTLE. WA 98107
BELLINGHAM WA 98225
AN H RA E, AK 99501
CATHLAMET.
WA 98612
BELLINGHAM,
NEWPORT, OR 97365
C/O PUGET SO
ACCOUNTING
LLC3911
LLC3711
LLC3296
LLC1906
LLC3191
LLC2061
EATTLE WA 98109
LLC1481
EATTLE WA 98107
, SITKA, AK LLC2920
99835
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 561, 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq., 16 U.S.C. 1861a(b) through (e). 46
App. U.S.C. 1279f and 1279g, section 144(d) of Division B of Pub. L. 106-554, section
2201 of Pub. L. 107-20, and section 205 of Pub. L. 107-117
Dated: December 16, 2003.
Rebecca Lent,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries
Service.
[FR Doc. 03-31485 Filed 12-19-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-S
For internal use only
SDNY_GM_00064809
CONFIDENTIAL - PURSUANT TO FED. R.cti;;?FilE IDENTIAL
DB-SDNY-0027634
EFTA 00175312
EFTA01255907