Xxxxxxx Bank, N. A. (“Xxxxxxx Bank”), first mortgagee will not be required to submit a deposit and may credit bid pursuant to the terms and conditions of the Order of the Court dated November 12, 2014.
Xxxxxxx Bank, N. A. (“Xxxxxxx Bank”);
Xxxxxxx Bank, N. A. - original principal $34,120.05, dated November 8, 1996 for Chevy Suburban owned by Wholesale Acquisitions, Inc.
Xxxxxxx Bank, N. A. Name of Employer By: _______________________ Authorized Person
Xxxxxxx Bank, N. A. Employee Stock Ownership Plan*
Xxxxxxx Bank, N. A., C.A. No. 6103-VCN (Del. Ch. Feb. 25, 2011) (ORDER) (Trans. ID No. 36153276). 14 Pl.'s Opp'n to Unsealing ¶ 2. that good cause exists for sealing the Arbitration Award because: “(1) Delaware law favors enforcement of confidentiality orders on which parties have relied; (2) it would be unjust to allow XxXxxxx to ignore the terms of the order; and (3) the award is based on confidential Chartis business information and trade secrets.”15 In response, XxXxxxx contends that the Confidentiality Order “does not extend confidential treatment to the Arbitration Award” and, as a result, Chartis is incorrect in its conclusion that the Arbitration Award cannot be made public.16 More specifically, because the Confidentiality Order limits a party's ability to designate as confidential only that party's own documents, argues XxXxxxx, “[t]he Arbitration Award is not a Chartis document and, therefore, Chartis has no right to designate the document as confidential.”17 Moreover, XxXxxxx asserts that because the Arbitration Panel never ordered that the Arbitration Award be treated as confidential, disclosure of that award is unrestricted. Although Chartis purports to demonstrate good cause for sealing the Arbitration Award, Xxxxxxx fails to make the necessary showing, according to LaSalle; “rather, the interests of LaSalle, the bondholders [of the loan pools that beneficially own the Policies,] and the general public support public access to the award.”18 For that reason, LaSalle requests that 15 Id. ¶ 20.
