IN MATTER OF BRIDGE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC. (Bankr.E.D.Mo. 2004)


IN THE MATTER OF BRIDGE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Chapter 11, Reorganized Debtors.

Case No. 01-41593-293 #1222, #1257 6/24.United States Bankruptcy Court, E.D. Missouri.
June 30, 2004

MICHAEL CARDOZO, Hugh H. Shull III, (HS-0236), Assistant Corporation Counsel, New York, New York, CORPORATION COUNSEL, CITY OF NEW YORK, ATTORNEY FOR CITY OF NEW YORK.

BRYAN CAVE LLP, Craig D. Jeffrey, Gregory D. Willard, Esq., #30192 David M. Unseth, Esq., #480861, Craig D. Jeffrey, Esq., #109491, St. Louis, Missouri, COUNSEL FOR SCOTT P. PELTZ, PLAN ADMINISTRATOR.

STIPULATION AND ORDER WITH RESPECT TO DEBTORS’ OBJECTION TO CLAIMS NO. 6 (TAX CLAIMS) AND OBJECTION TO CLAIMS NO. 13 (PRIORITY TAX CLAIMS) AS IT RELATES TO PROOFS OF CLAIM FILED BY THE CITY OF NEW YORK
DAVID McDONALD, Chief Judge, Bankruptcy

The New York City Department of Finance (the “City”) stipulates and agrees with Scott P. Peltz, in his capacity as Plan Administrator (the “Plan Administrator”), for the estates of BIS Administration, Inc. (f/k/a Bridge Information Systems, Inc.) (“Bridge”) and certain of its subsidiaries, reorganized debtors (“Debtor Subsidiaries”) (Debtor Subsidiaries collectively with Bridge, the “Debtors”), as follows:

RECITALS
WHEREAS, the Debtors filed their respective voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of Title 11 of the United States Code on February 15, 2001;

WHEREAS, on March 12, 2002, the Debtors filed Objection toClaims Number 6 (Tax Claims) (“Objection No. 6”), which objected to, among other proofs of claim, Claim Number 566 against Debtor Telerate Holdings, Inc., filed by the City;

WHEREAS, the City contacted Debtor’s counsel to object to Objection No. 6 prior to the hearing on Objection No. 6, which communication was determined to be in lieu of a formal, written response;

Page 2

WHEREAS, on March 22, 2002, Debtors filed the Objection toClaims No. 13 (“Objection No. 13”), which objected to, among other proofs of claim, claim number 1489 against Bridge Information Systems America, Inc.;

WHEREAS, the City contacted Debtor’s counsel to object to Objection No. 13 prior to the hearing on Objection No. 13 which communication was determined to be in lieu of a formal, written response;

WHEREAS, the City timely filed proof of claim numbers 566 and 1489;

WHEREAS, the Court conducted a hearing on Objection No. 6 and Objection No. 13 on January 25, 2004, and, at Plan Administrator’s request, set trial on the matters for April 21, 2004;

WHEREAS, Plan Administrator and the City worked earnestly and in good faith to resolve the matters before trial and were near settlement prior to April 21, 2004, the City, with the consent of Plan Administrator, filed the Motion for Adjournment of Claims Objection Hearing;

WHEREAS, by consent of counsel to each of Debtors, the City requested an adjournment and the counsels consented to continuing the trial until June 24, 2004 at 9:00 a.m.; and

WHEREAS, the City and the Plan Administrator have resolved the matters with respect to proofs of claim numbers 566 and 1489.

Based on the foregoing Recitals, and good cause appearing therefore, it is hereby STIPULATED AND AGREED as follows:

1. Proof of claim number 566, filed by the City, is hereby reduced and allowed as a priority claim for a total amount equal to $161,319. No additional principal, interest and/or penalties shall apply.

Page 3

2. Proof of claim number 1489, filed by the City, is hereby reduced and allowed as a priority claim for a total amount equal to $809,089. No additional principal, interest and/or penalties shall apply.

3. All of the terms and provisions of this Stipulation shall be binding in all respects upon, and shall inure to the benefit of the parties hereto, all parties in interest, and their successors and assigns.

4. It is expressly understood and agreed by the parties hereto that this Stipulation is being entered solely to resolve the issues raised by Objection No. 6 and Objection No. 13 and the proof of claim numbers 566 and 1489, respectively, asserted by the City and shall not be construed, under any circumstances, to contain an admission by either party.

5. Debtors are directed to serve a copy of this order on all parties listed below.

Page 1