25. Clearly, the entry into the May 2012 agreement with Alliacense and the offset were
part of the Debtor’s pre-bankruptcy planning. No matter how the Debtor now attempts to justify
these dubious transactions, the conflicts of interest and self-dealing are unavoidable. The fact that
the Debtor has gone to extensive lengths to defend and argue on behalf of Alliacense only further
demonstrates where the Debtor’s allegiances lay. Clearly, these are transactions which the Debtor
will not pursue and, in fact, have defended against, counter to the interests of the estate.
Appointment of a trustee, therefore, is appropriate.
E. The Debtor’s Reprehensible Behavior
26. As set forth in the Motion, Mr. Leckrone has threatened to take action against certain
Committee members unless they acquiesce to his demands on behalf of Alliacense at TPL’s expense.
In his declaration in support of the Opposition, Mr. Leckrone does not deny that he has engaged in
such conduct, he instead argues the truth behind his baseless threats. These threats show that Mr.
Leckrone is not fit to run TPL.
27. In addition, Mr. Leckrone has filed a declaration in the Marcoux Litigation on
January 9, 2014 in which he states that he has recently received information from one or more
Committee members regarding confidential communications among the Committee members. He
has attempted to obtain copies of these communications from the Committee members but states he
cannot do so without a subpoena. [RJN Exhibit A.] Such conduct is outrageously inappropriate.
Not only is Mr. Leckrone knowingly and willingly receiving (and apparently soliciting) confidential
communications among Committee members, he is also using the confidential information as a
weapon against one of the Committee members in state court litigation.
Case: 13-51589 Doc# 374 Filed: 01/16/14 Entered: 01
| 