In the Superior Court of Muscogee County State of Georgia

GEORGIA, MUSCOGEE COUNTY SUPERIOR/STATE COURT eFILED 6/1/2018 3:44 PM SHASTA GLOVER, CLERK

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF MUSCOGEE COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA

WILLIAM T. HEARD, and ERIC LANIGAN, ) AS TRUSTEE OF THE WILLIAM T. HEARD ) IRREVOCABLE LIFE INSURANCE TRUST II, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) CIVIL ACTION v. ) ) FILE NO. SU15CV3681-68 J. BARRINGTON VAUGHT, and, HATCHER, ) STUBBS, LAND, HOLLIS & ROTHSCHILD, ) LLP, ) ) Defendants. )

PROPOSED CONSOLIDATED PRE-TRIAL ORDER

The following constitutes the Proposed Consolidated Pretrial Order submitted by the parties in the above-styled case:

The name, address and phone number of the attorneys who will conduct the trial are as follows:

Plaintiffs W. Winston Briggs Georgia Bar No.081653 W. Winston Briggs Law Firm 1005 Howell Mill Road Building C Atlanta, Georgia 30318

Peter V. Hasbrouck Georgia Bar No.335608 Martenson, Hasbrouck & Simon, LLP 3379 Peachtree Road, NE Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30326

Chris J. Perniciaro Georgia Bar No. 618477 Martenson, Hasbrouck & Simon, LLP 3379 Peachtree Road, NE Suite 400 Atlanta, Georgia 30326

Defendant J. Barrington Vaught Eric J. Frisch Georgia Bar No. 261683 Carlock, Copeland & Stair, LLP 191 Peachtree Tower, Suite 3600 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Defendant Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis & Rothschild, LLP

M. Elizabeth O’Neill Georgia Bar No. 058163 Womble Bond Dickinson (US) LLP 217 17th Street NW, Suite 2400 Atlanta, Georgia 30363

The estimated time required for trial is:

By the Plaintiffs: 10 days

By the Defendants: 10 to 15 days

There are no motions or other matters pending for consideration by the Court except as follows:

By the Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs have filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and a Motion to Compel that have not yet been ruled on by the Court. Plaintiffs also intend to file Motions in Limine prior to trial. Defendants have filed Motions for Summary Judgment and a Motion in Limine that have not yet been ruled on by the Court. Plaintiffs object to any Motions in

2 Limine of Defendants that have not been filed by Defendants or served on Plaintiffs prior to trial.

By the Defendants: The Defendants have filed motions for summary judgment and a motion to exclude testimony from Plaintiffs’ expert Thomas Kaplan, which were submitted to the Court for argument on April 19 and May 17, 2018. Defendants have filed motions in limine which have not yet been heard by the Court. Defendants object to Plaintiffs filing any motions outside the time limits set forth in the Case Management Order or pursuant to other Order of this Court.

The jury will be qualified as to relationship with the following:

By the Plaintiffs: 1. Officers, directors, employees and shareholders of Endurance American Specialty Insurance Company 2. Officers, directors, employees and shareholders of Allied World Surplus Lines Insurance Company a/k/a Darwin Insurance 3. The Parties and Counsel in this case

By the Defendants: William T. Heard, III Eric Lanigan Lanigan & Lanigan, P.L. W. Winston Briggs W. Winston Briggs Law Firm Edward B. Heard Wesson Tribble J. Barrington Vaught Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis & Rothschild, LLP

(A). All discovery has been completed, unless otherwise noted, and the Court will not consider any further motions to compel discovery except for good cause shown. The

3 parties, however, shall be permitted to take depositions of any person(s) for the preservation of evidence for use at trial.

(B). Unless otherwise noted, the names of the parties as shown in the caption to this order are correct and complete and there is no question by any party as to the misjoinder or nonjoinder of any parties.

The following is the Plaintiffs brief and succinct outline of the case and contentions:

It is difficult to give a brief and succinct outline of this case. The facts including record citations are set forth in Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment and supporting Brief and

Statement of Facts as well as Plaintiffs’ Responses to Defendants’ multiple Motions for

Summary Judgment. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for Defendants’ legal malpractice,

Breach of Fiduciary Duty and Breach of Trust. Plaintiffs’ Briefs in support of Motion for

Summary Judgment and in Opposition to Defendants’ Motions for Summary Judgment, including record citations and legal arguments, are incorporated herein by reference. Plaintiffs seek to recover Compensatory damages, Attorney’s Fees and Litigation expenses, and Punitive damages.

The following is the Defendants brief and succinct outline of the case and contentions:

Defendant J. Barrington Vaught:

In 1996, Plaintiff William T. Heard, III (“Mr. Heard”) set up a life insurance trust known as the William T. Heard, III Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust II (the “Trust”). Mr. Heard appointed J. Barrington Vaught (“Mr. Vaught”) as trustee. In the Trust instrument, Mr. Heard indicated that Synovus would serve as successor trustee. If Synovus could not serve as

successor trustee, then Mr. Heard wanted a corporate fiduciary with at least $50 million in assets to serve. Mr. Heard set up the Trust to hold life insurance policies on the lives of his parents and to use the proceeds for purposes of purchasing the existing shares of Bill Heard

Enterprises, Inc. (“BHE”).

In 1996 and 1998, the Trust came to own two life insurance policies with values of $10 million and $15 million. The life insurance policies were to pay out after the second to die of

Mr. Heard’s parents. BHE paid the premiums for the policies under what is called a “split dollar agreement,” which was a form of bonus compensation for company executives. The premiums were $352,000 per year, due on July 1. The life insurance policies were “universal whole life,” meaning that any amounts paid by BHE over and above the cost of insurance built up inside the life insurance policies as an investment, known as the accumulated cash value.

BHE paid the premiums for the life insurance policies through 2003 in the amount of

$1.778 million. In 2003, the IRS issued guidance regarding the taxability of such “split dollar arrangements.” As a result of the IRS guidance and the tax consequences, BHE’s financial advisors recommended unwinding the split dollar agreement. On November 28, 2003, the

Board of Directors of BHE unanimously voted to terminate the written split dollar agreement and accept two promissory notes from the Trust, which memorialized the obligation to pay back BHE for the premiums. The promissory notes indicated the amounts totaling $1.778 million were due and payable in October 2006 with interest. BHE collected interest on the promissory notes from 2004 to 2007.

On September 27, 2008, BHE declared bankruptcy. In its bankruptcy filings, BHE, which continued to operate the business, promised to collect as much money as it could to pay of its creditors. Mr. Vaught learned that BHE would likely demand payment on the notes. Mr.

5 Vaught then contacted Mike Taylor, the insurance broker who sold the policies to BHE, about options. Mr. Taylor provided Mr. Vaught with three options: sell the policies, take out a loan against the policies, or surrender the policies for the cash value. Mr. Taylor advised Mr. Vaught that if a loan was taking out, the Trust would need cash from outside to pay the premiums in

July 2009 and going forward to keep the policies.

On October 8, 2008, BHE sent a letter to Mr. Vaught, as trustee, to collect on the promissory notes. BHE demanded payment of the notes in a letter that referred to the original due date of October 2006. BHE demanded that Mr. Vaught access the accumulated cash value to pay back BHE for the premiums that had been advanced. Mr. Vaught then contacted Mr.

Heard and his family by letter regarding the demand. Mr. Vaught wrote to Mr. Heard regarding the options given to him by Mr. Taylor. Mr. Vaught wrote that he had not sought legal advice regarding whether there was a defense to BHE’s collection on the notes but offered to do so if

Mr. Heard wanted.

In the fall of 2008, Mr. Heard began taking courses to get his insurance license.

Mr. Vaught was told to attempt to sell the policies. He retained a company that specializes in selling life insurance policies, who marketed the policies. By March 2009, Mr.

Vaught had received only one offer for a very low amount. Mr. Vaught did not accept the offer.

In early March 2009, Mr. Heard retained a lawyer in Florida named Eric Lanigan to get a “second opinion” regarding what to do with the insurance policies in the Trust. Mr. Lanigan advised Mr. Heard there could be other options. Mr. Lanigan told Mr. Heard to request a copy of the notes, original Trust instrument, and the policies. Mr. Heard contacted Mr. Vaught, who provided the copies.

6 On April 12, 2009, Mr. Heard wrote to Mr. Vaught that he felt there were “other options” available for the life insurance policies. Mr. Vaught responded by telling him that there was no money available to pay BHE and the premiums, that there were no offers, and that BHE’s demand was adverse to Mr. Heard’s interests.

On April 15, 2009, Mr. Heard instructed Mr. Vaught to send BHE’s demand to Mr.

Lanigan. Mr. Heard also instructed Mr. Vaught that the Trust would not make any payment to

BHE.

On April 21, 2009, on the advice of Mr. Lanigan, Mr. Heard terminated Mr. Vaught as trustee and ended any attorney-client relationship he had with Mr. Vaught. Mr. Vaught accepted this by letter dated April 22, 2009. When he set up the Trust, Mr. Heard designated

Synovus as the successor trustee and that if Synovus could not serve, the next trustee had to be a corporate fiduciary with at least $50 million in assets. On April 21, 2009, Mr. Heard designated Synovus as the successor trustee. Synovus, however, declined to serve.

On April 23, 2009, BHE filed a lawsuit against Mr. Vaught, as trustee, and Mr. Heard, to collect on the promissory notes. Mr. Heard did not tell Mr. Vaught to represent him in the lawsuit. Mr. Vaught then received the notice that Synovus was not going to serve as the successor trustee. At that point, Mr. Vaught was not sure whether he was still trustee. Mr.

Vaught also knew that he needed to respond to the lawsuit.

Mr. Heard notified Mr. Vaught that Mr. Lanigan was his attorney. On April 30, 2009,

Mr. Vaught told Mr. Lanigan that the Court had proposed certain deadlines for the case and that a hearing would be held on May 5, 2009. On May 5, 2009, Mr. Vaught filed an answer, which avoided the Trust from admitting liability to BHE.

7 Mr. Heard also hired a lawyer named Brent King to represent him in the bankruptcy case. Mr. King told Mr. Lanigan that the judge was strict about enforcing deadlines. The Court entered an order with specific deadlines, including a deadline of June 5, 2009 to take depositions, June 5, 2009 to file motions for summary judgment, exhibit lists, and witness lists, and June 17, 2009 for trial. Mr. King and Mr. Heard were provided with a copy of the order.

On May 7, 2009, Mr. Vaught received notice that Mr. Heard had appointed Jack

Morgan as trustee. There was no indication that Mr. Morgan was a corporate fiduciary with

$50 million in assets. Mr. Vaught was not certain whether he was still trustee because it did not appear that Mr. Heard had appointed an appropriate successor trustee.

BHE took Mr. Vaught’s deposition on June 2, 2009. Mr. Heard and Mr. Lanigan were present. BHE asked Mr. Vaught whether he was aware of an agreement that the notes would not be collected until the policies matured. Mr. Vaught testified that he was not aware of such an agreement. Mr. Lanigan cross-examined Mr. Vaught.

On June 5, 2009, BHE filed a motion for summary judgment, an exhibit list, and a witness list. Mr. Vaught did not participate in preparing the motion or lists. Mr. Heard did not file anything. Rather, on June 5, 2009, Mr. Heard appointed Regions Bank to serve as successor trustee. As of June 5, 2009, the insurance policies were in force and there were no loans against it. After learning that Regions Bank was serving as trustee, Mr. Vaught filed a motion to be relieved of any further duties as trustee. Mr. Heard did not oppose the motion.

Around June 8, 2009, Mr. Lanigan spoke with the lawyer for BHE. Mr. Lanigan told

BHE’s lawyer that he had taken out a loan against the policies to pay off the notes. This was not true. Upon hearing this, BHE filed a motion to prevent Mr. Heard from depleting the cash

8 value of the policies with loans and other actions. BHE also asked the Court for an emergency hearing. Mr. Heard did not file a response to the motion.

The Court held an emergency hearing on June 12, 2009. Mr. Lanigan participated in the hearing for Mr. Heard. Mr. Vaught did not participate. The Court questioned Mr. Lanigan about why the loans were taken out when there was a trial set for June 17, 2009. The Court also questioned Mr. Lanigan about why Mr. Heard had not complied with the schedule. The

Court then entered a judgment in the amount of $1.4 million because Mr. Heard had not followed the Court’s instructions. The Court also granted Mr. Vaught’s motion.

On August 12, 2009, Mr. Lanigan, as attorney for Mr. Heard and the Trust, notified Mr.

Vaught that they were looking to sue Mr. Vaught and the Firm.

Mr. Vaught denies liability to Plaintiffs. At no time did Mr. Heard ask Mr. Vaught for legal advice related to the promissory notes. Mr. Vaught did not violate the standard of care as lawyer or as trustee. Mr. Vaught complied with the Trust instrument and the instructions from

Mr. Heard regarding the trust assets after April 21, 2009. Mr. Vaught denies he committed fraud to cover up alleged malpractice or breach of trust.

Defendant Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis & Rothschild, LLP:

Until 2008, William T. Heard III’s father was a successful businessman, operating one of the largest car dealerships in the South East United States, Bill Heard Enterprises (BHE).

Both the car dealership and Bill’s father went bankrupt in 2008. Long before the bankruptcy,

Bill’s father set up a Trust for Bill’s benefit. The Trust contained insurance policies on the lives of Bill’s father and mother. BHE paid the premiums on these policies. That way, neither

Bill nor the Trust had to report the payments as income. This ended in 2003 as a result of

changes in the IRS rules. To comply with the new law, the Trust had to execute promissory notes to BHE for all the premiums it had paid to date.

The promissory notes said they were due in 2006 and that interest payments had to be made each year. Later in 2003, the BHE Corporate Controller Richard Young sent Bill Heard a memo that attached the promissory notes but also said they would not be due until the policies paid out – that is, when both of Bill’s parents had died. Interest was collected in 2004 and

2005. BHE did not attempt to collect the promissory note in 2006 because it knew neither Bill

Heard nor his Trust had any money. Instead BHE collected interest payments in 2006 and

2007. After the bankruptcy, BHE sought to collect the promissory note.

It is undisputed that Bill Heard hired Eric Lanigan to act as his lawyer in the spring of

2009 and that acting upon advice from Lanigan, on April 21, 2009, Bill Heard told Barry

Vaught he was fired. Bill Heard’s intent was to sever all relationships with Vaught that day, whether they be Vaught’s role as a lawyer or a trustee. Unfortunately, the person Bill and

Lanigan had picked to be the new trustee was not qualified and thus Vaught was caught in the middle of the dispute about who would be trustee. This was formally resolved by the appointment of Regions Bank as trustee on June 5, 2009.

Eric Lanigan was the lawyer who represented Bill Heard in the lawsuit BHE filed against Bill and his Trust to collect on the promissory note. On June 12, 2009, the bankruptcy court entered judgment against Bill Heard and his Trust, ordering them to pay the promissory note. At the instructions of Eric Lanigan, Regions Bank took out a loan against the policies to pay that judgment.

In 2010, Eric Lanigan had himself appointed as trustee of Bill’s Trust. Lanigan then hired someone to first split up the insurance policies into four different policies. This raised

the premiums but it made the policies easier to sell. Eric Lanigan then hired someone to sell the policies. When they found a buyer, the policies were sold for over $2,000,000 (Two

Million Dollars) and the money was used to pay various people whom Plaintiffs had hired to help them sell the policies or deal with Bill’s personal financial issues. The rest of it was given to Bill to pay his past-due credit cards, past-due alimony, and to buy back his former home that had been foreclosed for non-payment of the mortgage. Today, only $1,500 (Fifteen

Hundred Dollars) of that money remains in the Trust.

This lawsuit was filed in 2015 and it asserts claims against Hatcher, Stubbs, Land,

Hollis & Rothschild, LLP (the Firm) for legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of duty. The Plaintiffs blame Vaught for the fact that they had to pay the promissory notes and for the Plaintiffs’ own sale of the insurance policies. The Plaintiffs blame the Firm because

Vaught was a partner there the entire time he acted as trustee for the William T. Heard III

Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust II and Plaintiffs conclude Vaught’s work as trustee included

“practicing law” for the Firm. No claims were asserted against any member of the Firm other than Vaught.

Plaintiffs claim for breach of fiduciary duty has two facets: breach of duties owed by

Vaught as trustee and breach of duties owed by Vaught as a lawyer. Because Vaught was never legal counsel to Bill Heard related to the Trust, he owed no fiduciary duties as lawyer to

Bill with respect to the Trust. Indeed, when Bill Heard fired Vaught on April 21, 2009, there was not even a lawsuit filed to collect the promissory note. The Firm denies that Vaught violated the standard of care applicable to lawyers at any time prior to his firing on April 21,

2009 and denies that anything Vaught did or did not do caused Plaintiffs to break up the insurance policies and sell them in 2010.

Plaintiffs further claim that Vaught violated the standard of care applicable to fiduciaries when fulfilling his duties as trustee because he told them that there was no defense to the collection of the promissory notes and he did not give them a copy of the memo from

Richard Young that was addressed to Bill Heard himself. Plaintiffs claim that the Firm is vicariously liable for Vaught’s conduct as trustee because he was simultaneously a partner in the Firm and a portion of the trustee fee was paid into the Firm. The Firm denies that Vaught violated the standard of care applicable to him as trustee and denies that anything that happened with the Trust or the insurance policies was Vaught’s fault.

The issues for determination by the jury are as follows:

By the Plaintiffs:

(1) Whether Defendants committed legal malpractice, breached fiduciary duties owed to Plaintiffs, or whether Defendants committed Breach of Trust;

(2) Whether Plaintiffs sustained damages and the amount of damages caused by

Defendants’ conduct;

(3) Whether Defendants have been in bad faith, stubbornly litigious, or caused

Plaintiffs unnecessary trouble and expense warranting an award of all attorney’s fees and litigation expenses incurred by Plaintiffs in bringing this action.

(4). Whether Defendants’ conduct warrants punitive damages.

*Plaintiffs object to Defendants contention that there are issues of contributory negligence, comparative negligence or third-party liability in this case.

12 By the Defendants: a) Whether Defendants committed malpractice with respect to any alleged legal

representation provided to Bill Heard III with respect to the WTH Trust; b) Whether Vaught breached any fiduciary duties owed to Bill Heard as trustee; c) Whether Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis & Rothschild, LLP is vicariously liable for

Vaught’s action or inactions as a trustee; d) Whether any alleged act or omission by Defendants was the cause-in-fact of any

alleged damages; e) Whether the conduct of Plaintiffs and/or persons other than the Defendants are the

cause-in-fact of the alleged damages; f) Damages, if any, proximately caused by the conduct of the Defendants; g) Contributory negligence; h) Comparative negligence; i) Whether there was actual fraud to toll the statute of limitations for alleged legal

malpractice; j) Whether there was actual fraud to toll the statute of limitations for alleged breach

of duties as trustee; and k) Whether there is clear and convincing evidence of specific intent to harm.

Specifications of negligence including applicable code sections are as follows:

By the Plaintiffs: Legal malpractice, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of Trust.

13 By the Defendants: Defendants object to Plaintiffs’ failure to specify negligence as required by O.C.G.A. §9-11-16. Defendants do not consent to any issue of negligence being presented to the jury other than those disclosed in discovery or contained in the Pretrial Order.

10.

If the case is based on a contract, either oral or written, the terms of the contract are as follows (or, the contract is attached as an Exhibit to this order): By the Defendants: This case is based on a contract in the form of promissory notes, which is attached hereto as Exhibit

By the Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs state that this case involves negligence and breach of fiduciary duties not breach of contract. However, to the extent the promissory notes are involved the notes would need to also include Exhibit 73 (the 12/31/03 memo) which is a contemporaneous writing that explains the parties’ entire understanding and agreement raiding the notes.

11.

The types of damages and the applicable measure of those damages are stated as follows:

By the Plaintiffs: General damages are determined by the enlightened conscious of fair and impartial jurors. Attorney’s fees and litigation expenses are those which are reasonably incurred in pursuing the case. Punitive damages are determined by the jury to be amount sufficient to punish or deter wrongful conduct on the part of Defendants.

By the Defendants: Defendants are not seeking damages in this case.

12.

If the case involves divorce, each party shall present to the Court at the pre-trial conference the affidavits required by Rule 24.2. Not Applicable.

13.

The following facts are stipulated:

By the Plaintiffs: Defendants proposed stipulated facts are improperly stated and clearly skewed in Defendants’ favor. Accordingly, Plaintiffs will not stipulate any facts.

By the Defendants:

a) The statute of limitations for legal malpractice is four years from the date of the act or omission.

b) The statute of limitations for breach of trust is six years from the date when the beneficiary should have reasonably discovered the breach.

c) Edward Heard is Plaintiff William T. Heard, III’s brother.

d) In 1996, as part of his estate planning, Bill Heard III’s father, Bill Heard, Jr., established trusts for the benefit of his sons Edward and Bill. The trusts held life insurance policies on the lives of Bill Heard, Jr. and Sara Heard. These trusts were known as “irrevocable life insurance trusts.” John Sheftall, acting as attorney for the father Bill Heard, Jr., drafted these trusts as part of Mr. Heard’s estate planning.

e) Edward Heard was the creator of the trust for his benefit. Bill Heard, III was the creator of the trust for his benefit.

f) Edward Heard appointed Mr. Vaught as the trustee of his trust. Bill Heard, III appointed Mr. Vaught as trustee of his trust.

g) Each trust came to own two life insurance policies with benefits of $10 million and $15 million, for a total of $25 million per trust.

h) Bill Heard Enterprises (BHE) paid the premiums due each year on the life insurance policies contained in each trust from 1998 – 2003 under what is known as a “split dollar agreement with a collateral assignment.” The split dollar agreements provided that BHE would be paid back this investment when the life insurance policies paid out and assigned the policies to BHE to secure repayment.

i) In 2003, the IRS regulations changed and Bill Heard’s financial advisors, Dixon

& Associates, recommended that the split dollar agreements be unwound. This included terminating the collateral assignments of the policies.

j) On November 28, 2003, the board of directors of BHE voted to terminate the split dollar agreements and collateral assignments and memorialized the action in a corporate resolution.

k) On November 28, 2003, Barry Vaught, acting as trustee, executed promissory notes in favor of BHE for both trusts. Each trust executed two promissory notes: one in the amount of $1,077,701 and the other in the amount of $710,358 – the amount of money BHE had paid in life insurance premiums on each of the policies from 1998 – 2003. The promissory notes state they are “due and payable in full in October 2006.” Each promissory note also required that interest at the rate of 1.5% be paid annually.

l) BHE did not collect the promissory notes in 2006.

m) Bill Heard, III paid interest on the promissory notes in 2004, 2005, 2006, and

2007.BHE filed for bankruptcy on September 28, 2009.

n) BHE made a demand on Mr. Vaught as trustee for payment of the promissory notes on October 8, 2008.

o) Acting as trustee and with permission of Edward Heard and Bill Heard, III, Mr.

Vaught attempted to sell the insurance policies in the trusts in order to come up with funds to pay the promissory notes and have money for the beneficiaries. Mr. Vaught received only one offer for the policies, which was rejected.

p) On April 15, 2009, BHE again demanded payment on the promissory notes that both trusts owed.

q) On April 21, 2009 Bill Heard, III fired Barry Vaught as his lawyer and as trustee.

Barry Vaught continued to act as trustee for Edward Heard’s trust.

r) On April 23, 2009 BHE filed a lawsuit – called an adversary proceeding – to collect the promissory notes. Barry Vaught was sued in his capacity as trustee for both trusts.

Bill Heard, III and Edward Heard were also sued. Bill Heard, III chose Eric Lanigan to be his lawyer and the lawyer for his trust in the adversary proceeding.

s) Edward Heard agreed to cash in the policies in his trust – known as

“surrendering the policies” – and use that money to pay the debts owed to BHE. The money obtained through this process is called “the cash surrender value.” The cash surrender value of

Edward’s policies was $1.4 million, which was less than the amount Edward’s Trust owed to

BHE, which totaled $1,788,059 (One Million Seven Hundred Eighty-Eight Thousand Fifty

Nine Dollars). Mr. Vaught negotiated with BHE to accept less than the full amount due on the promissory notes from Edward’s trust. BHE accepted the lower amount of $1.4 million as payment in full on the notes related to Edward’s trust.

t) The trust documents did not state how the trustee would be paid for the work as trustee. In such circumstances, Georgia law provides a formula to calculate the trustee fee, which is a percentage of the money coming in to and going out of the trust.

u) Under Georgia law, it is not a conflict of interest for a trustee to receive a fee for serving as trustee.

v) BHE offered to pay Mr. Vaught a trustee fee of $137,555.49 for his work as trustee of Edward’s trust.

w) On August 19, 2009, the bankruptcy court approved payment by BHE of a trustee fee of $135,000 to Mr. Vaught. The money for the fee came from BHE’s share of the cash surrender value.

x) Mr. Vaught was not paid a fee for his work as trustee of Bill’s trust.

y) In 2011 Edward Heard filed a lawsuit in Texas against the Defendants regarding their response to BHE’s efforts to collect the promissory notes executed on behalf of his trust.

He re-filed that lawsuit in Georgia in 2013. That lawsuit ended in November 2015.

14.

The following is a list of all documentary and physical evidence that will be tendered at the trial by the Plaintiff or Defendants. Unless noted, the parties have stipulated as to the authenticity of the documents listed and the exhibits listed may be admitted without further proof of authenticity. All exhibits shall be marked by counsel prior to trial so as not to delay the trial before the jury.

a. By the Plaintiff: See Plaintiffs list of exhibits attached as Exhibit A-1

b. By the Defendants: See Exhibits B-2 and B-2A (Vaught’s Exhibits)

15.

Special authorities relied upon by Plaintiff relating to peculiar evidentiary or other legal questions are as follows: Plaintiffs cite to the authorities set forth in Plaintiffs’ briefs in response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, including but not limited to O.C.G.A.

18 § 24-3-3 and Smith v. SunTrust Bank, 325 Ga. App. 531 (2014) and that related line of cases.

Plaintiffs will also submit jury charges at trial that will outline the authorities Plaintiffs contend apply in this case.

16.

Special authorities relied upon by Defendants relating to peculiar evidentiary or other legal questions are as follows:

O.C.G.A. § 13-2-2

O.C.G.A. § 13-4-4

O.C.G.A. § 24-3-1

O.C.G.A. § 53-12-240

O.C.G.A. § 53-12-241

O.C.G.A. §51-6-2

O.C.G.A. §51-12-5.1

Allen v. Lefkoff, Duncan, Grimes & Dermer, P.C., 265 Ga. 374 (1995)

17.

All requests to charge anticipated at the time of trial will be filed in accordance with

Rule 10.3.

18.

The testimony of the following persons may be introduced by depositions:

By the Plaintiffs: Steve Dansker is unavailable for medical reasons. Plaintiffs may play his video deposition in full. Plaintiffs intend to call all other witnesses live, however, to the extent any witness becomes unavailable, Plaintiffs reserves the right to read or play their

19 video deposition transcripts. Plaintiffs object to Defendants’ use of Jim Cook’s deposition in this case on the grounds of relevance.

By the Defendants: The parties reserve the right to use the deposition of any person previously taken in this matter should such be permissible pursuant to the provisions of the

Georgia Civil Practice Act, provided that page/line designations are presented in accordance with the Orders of this Court. Defendants specifically anticipate that the following testimony shall be offered by deposition:

Jim Cook

Defendants object to the use of the deposition of Steve Dansker the basis that unavailability has not been proven and hearsay. O.C.G.A. §24-8-802.

19.

The following are lists of witnesses:

a. Plaintiff will have present at trial:

William T. Heard, III.

Eric Lanigan.

b. Plaintiff may have present at trial:

Edward Heard;

William T. Heard Jr. (“Mr. Heard”);

Sara Heard;

J. Barrington Vaught;

Charles Staples;

John Sheftall;

Richard Young;

20 Douglas Chandler;

Thomas Kaplan;

Jack Morgan;

Mike Taylor;

Eric Sharpe;

Wade Watson;

John Christy;

Brad Naso;

Baker Crow;

David Puckett;

Regions Bank;

W. Winston Briggs;

Peter V. Hasbrouck

Jim Cook;

Brent King; and

Any witnesses identified by Defendants. c. Defendants will have present at trial:

J. Barrington Vaught

Charles Staples d. Defendants may have present at trial:

Rebecca Cummings

David Lefkowitz

Cynthia Wright

21 Darryl Laddin

Wess Eric Sharpe

Richard Young

John Sheftall

Charles Denaburg

Marvin Franklin

Karen Witczak

Mike Taylor

Edward Peterson

David Puckett, as representative of Regions Bank

Baker Crow

Opposing counsel may rely on representation by the designated party that he will have a witness present unless notice to the contrary is given in sufficient time prior to trial to allow the other party to subpoena the witness or obtain his testimony by other means.

20.

The form of all possible verdicts to be considered by the jury are as follows:

By the Plaintiffs:

(1). _____ We, the jury find in favor of the Plaintiffs and against Defendant J.

Barrington Vaught and award $______damages

_____ We the jury find in favor of Defendant J. Barrington Vaught.

(2). _____ We the jury find in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendant Hatcher

Stubbs Land, Hollis, & Rothschild, LLP and award $ ______damages

22 OR

______We the jury find in favor of Defendant Hatcher Stubbs Land, Hollis, &

Rothschild, LLP.

(In the event you find in favor of Plaintiffs as to either or both Defendants, move on to questions (3) and (4)).

(3). ______We the jury find Plaintiffs are entitled to recover attorney’s fees and litigation expenses in the amount of $ ______

______We the jury find Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

(4). We find the conduct of Defendants warrants punitive damages:

_____ yes

_____ no

By the Defendants: See Exhibit C.

21.

a. The possibilities of settling the case are: Poor

b. The parties do want the case reported.

c. The cost of take-down will be paid by:

By the Plaintiffs: Shared by Parties

By the Defendants: Shared one half by Plaintiffs and one half by Defendants.

d. Other matters: None at this time and Defendants will timely raise any issues that arise in the future.

23 W. WINSTON BRIGGS LAW FIRM CARLOCK, COPELAND & STAIR, LLP

/s/ W. Winston Briggs /s/ Eric J. Frisch

W. Winston Briggs Eric J. Frisch Georgia Bar No. 081653 Georgia Bar No. 261683 1005C Howell Mill Road, NW 191 Peachtree Street, NE, Suite 3600 Atlanta, Georgia 30318 Atlanta, Georgia 30303 T: (404) 522-1500 T: (404) 221-2270 F: (404) 574-2967 F: (404) 523-2345 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Attorney for Plaintiffs Attorney for Defendant, J. Barrington Vaught

*by WWB with express permission WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP

/s/ M. Elizabeth O’Neill

M. Elizabeth O’Neill Georgia Bar No. 058163 271 17th Street, N.W., Suite 2400 Atlanta, GA 30363-1017 T: (704) 350-6310 direct phone F: (704) 338-7810 direct fax Email: [email protected] Attorney for Defendant, Hatcher, Stubbs, Land, Hollis & Rothschild, LLP

*by WWB with express permission

24 It is hereby ordered that the foregoing, including the attachments thereto, constitutes the CONSOLIDATED PRE-TRIAL ORDER in this case and supersedes the pleadings which may not be further amended except by Order of the Court to prevent manifest injustice.

IT IS SO ORDERED this ______day of ______, 2018.

Judge William Rumer Superior Court of Muscogee County

25 EXHIBIT "A" PTO EX. A

BILL HEARD ENTERPRISES, INC.

NOTE RECEIVABLE

Due to changes in the IRS Regulations regarding split dollar life insurance arrangements, Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. and J. Barrington Vaught, as Trustee of the William. T. Heard, Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust II under Agreement dated as of March 1, 1996 (the "Trust"), has therefore terminated the split dollar life insurance arrangement. J. Barrington Vaught, as Trustee of the Trust, therefore agrees to pay to the order of Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. the accumulated value of the American General Life Insurance Company Policy No. A10173341L in the amount of $1,077,701.00. The interest due annually is based on the AFR Rate in effect November 2003 at 1.5%. This note will be due and payable in full in October, 2006.

Dated as of November 28, 2003,

1,4 J. Barrington Vaught, as Trustee of the William T. Heard, III, Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust II

340992-141368-08689

EXHIBIT "A" PTO Ex. A

BILL HEARD ENTERPRISES, INC.

NOTE RECEIVABLE

Due to changes in the IRS Regulations regarding split dollar life insurance arrangements, Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. and J. Barrington Vaught, as Trustee of the William T. Heard, III, Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust II under Agreement dated as of March 1, 1996 (the "Trust"), has therefore terminated the split dollar life insurance arrangement. I. Barrington Vaught, as Trustee of the Trust, therefore agrees to pay to the order of Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. the accumulated value of the American General Life Insurance Company Policy No. A70000373L in the amount of $710,358,00. The interest due annually is based on the APR Rate in effect November 2003 at 1.5%. This note will be due and payable in full in October, 2006.

Dated as of November 28, 2003.

J. Barrington Vaught, as Trustee of the William T. Heard, III, Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust II

340992-1/1436K-08689 PTO EXHIBIT A-1

PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBIT LIST

NO. DESCRIPTION

1. 5/16/90 letter to Feldner from Vaught 2. Copy of William T. Heard, III Irrevocable Insurance Trust II 3. Vaught’s acceptance as Trustee 3A. Bill Split Dollar Agreement 3B. Edward Split Dollar Agreement 4. Note Receivables dated 11/28/03 5. 9/22/08 email Vaught to Sheftall 5A. 9/22/08 email Sheftall to Vaught 5B. 9/22/08 email from Sheftall to Vaught 6. 9/23/07 email from Feldner, Young to Sheftall 7. 9/23/08 email from Vaught to Sheftall 8. 9/23/08 email from Sheftall to Vaught 9. 9/30/08 email from Vaught to Young 9A. 9/30/08 email from Young to Vaught 10. 10/8/08 letter to Heards from Vaught 11. 10/20/08 email from Vaught to Naso 12. 10/20/08 email response from Naso P-11 13. Insurance Information Request Forms and Exclusive Agency Agreement 14. 11/21/08-12/02/08 email change between Naso and Vaught 15. 1/23/09 letter to Naso from Vaught 16. 2/27/09 email from Vaught to Peterson 17. 3/3/09 email from Vaught to Heards 18. 3/10/09 email from Vaught to Peterson 19. 3/10/09 - 3/18/09 email chain between Vaught and Naso 20. 3/18/09 - 3/25/09 email chain between Vaught and Naso 21. 3/12/09 - 3/23/09 email chain between Vaught and Dansker 23. 3/30/09 email from Bill Heard to Vaught 24. 3/30/09 email response to P-23 25. 3/31/09 email from Bill Heard to Vaught 26. 3/31/09 email chain between Bill Heard and Vaught 27. 3/31/09 email chain between Bill Heard and Vaught 28. 4/10/09 email chain between Lanigan and Bill Heard 29. 4/12/09 email from Bill Heard to Vaught 30. 4/13/09 email from Vaught to Bill Heard 31. 4/14/09 letter from Peterson to Vaught 32. 4/15/09 - 4/16/09 email chain between Vaught and Bill Heard 33. 4/17/09 email from E. Lanigan to R. Lanigan 34. 4/20/09 email between Vaught and Sheftall

1 34A. 420/09 Sheftall Response to Vaught 34B. 4/20/09 Vaught Response to Sheftall 35. 4/20/09 email from Vaught to Edward 36. 4/21/09 termination letter from Bill Heard to Vaught 37. 4/22/09 letter from Vaught to Mr. and Mrs. Heard, copy to Bill 38. 4/22/09 Bill Heard email to Lanigan 38A. Lanigan 4/22/09 Response to Bill 39. 4/20/09 0 4/24/09 email exchange between Vaught and Edward 40. 4/27/09 email from Vaught to Sheftall (fee calculation) 42. 4/30/09 email from Vaught to Lanigan 43. 4/30/09 email from Vaught to Edward with Release attached 44. 4/30/09 email from Sheftall to Vaught 45. 4/30/09 email from Vaught to Sheftall 46. Signed Release as in P-43 47. 5/4/09 email from Bill Heard to Vaught 48. 5/4/09 email exchange between Peterson and Mills 49. 5/5/09 email exchange between Peterson, Vaught and Mills 50. 5/5/09 email exchanges with multiple parties 51. 5/6/09 email from Vaught to Peterson 52. Hatcher Stubbs document outlining two scenarios 53. 5/11/09 email from Vaught to Dansker with Policy Cancellation and Disbursement Request Form attached 54. 5/12/09 email from Vaught to Georgia Bar 55. 5/14/09 email from Vaught to Denaburg 56. 5/15/09 email from Vaught to Sheftall and Young 56A. 5/15/09 email from Vaught to Peterson 57. 5/17/09 email from Lanigan to Bill Heard 58. 5/18/09 email chain between Bill Heard, Lanigan and Vaught 59. 5/18/09 email from Sheftall to Vaught and Young 60. 5/19/09 email from Vaught to Sheftall 60A. Split Dollar Question Answered 61. 5/18/09 - 5/19/09 email exchange between Vaught and Lanigan 62. 5/19/09 letter to Edward from Vaught with Release attached 63. 5/20/09 email from Vaught to Lanigan 64. 5/21/09 email from Lanigan to Vaught 65. 5/4/09 - 5/21/09 email change between Edward and Vaught 66. 5/21/09 - 5/22/09 email exchange between Fink and Vaught 67. Signed Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release 68. 5/27/09 email from Vaught to Denaburg 69. 6/4/09 email from Vaught to Denaburg 70. 6/8/09 email chain between Lanigan and Vaught (12:23pm) 70A. 6/8/09 Vaught email to Lanigan (4:25pm) 70B. 6/8/09 Lanigan email to Vaught (5:32pm)

70C. 6/9/09 Vaught email to Lanigan (8:24 am) 70D. 6/9/09 Lanigan email to Vaught (8:45am) 70E. 6/9/09 Vaught email to Lanigan (8:46 am) 71. 6/10/09 - 6/11/09 email exchange between Vaught and Edward 72. Undated typed note to John from Barry 73. 12/31/03 memo from Young to Mr. Heard and Edward Heard 74. Defendants’ Responses to Plaintiffs Interrogatories 75. Defendants privileged log 76. Complaint seeking turn over of cash value 77. Vaught Bankruptcy Depo (6/2/09) 78. Plaintiffs MSJ (6/5/09) 79. Sheftall Affidavit 80. Richard Young Affidavit #1 81. Richard Young Affidavit #2 82. Emergency Motion of BHE 83. Transcript 6/12/09 Hearing 84. Sua Sponte Order 85. Mortality Table 86. Batch exhibit Litigation expenses 87. Summary of litigation expenses

3 PTO Ex. B-2

Def. Jt. Trial Ex. # Description 1 Defendants' Joint Subpoena for Taking Deposition of Regions Bank dated 5/10/2016

2 Defendants' Joint Notice of Deposition of Regions Bank and Duces Tecum dated 5/23/2016 Regions Discretionary Distribution Request dated 7/1/2009 describing reason/purpose of loan 3 request 4 D. Puckett's handwritten notes re administration of the trust dated 2009 E-mail string last from Steven Dansker to Backer Crow and Eric Lanigan dated 7/6/2009 5 regarding Heard Policy #A70000373L & #A10173341L American General Letter dated 7/9/2009 to Regions Bank regarding maximum loan, 6 A10173341L Investment Profile run on 7/14/2009 re WTH III Irrevocable Trust with Notification of Incoming 7 Wire-Receipt of Cash E-mail from Angela Roach to Trust Incoming Wires dated 11/6/2009 regarding incoming funds 8 wire in the amount of $66,200.65 re WTH III David Puckett's handwritten notes dated 11/9/2009 re: Bill Heard's plans to sell 15M policy in 9 near future E-mail from David Puckett to Angela Roach dated 11/9/2009 requesting check in the amount of 10 $9,466.32 to WTH III 11 Letter from David Puckett to Eric Lanigan dated 7/2/2010 enclosing AIG policies E-mail from David Puckett to Angela Roach dated 4/26/2010 regarding Heard Trust and 12 transmittal of items to Eric Sharpe E-mail from Barry Vaught to David Puckett dated 6/15/2009 re Bill Heard III Life Insurance Trust 13 following Court's Order with handwritten notes Acceptance of Successor Trusteeship by Regions Bank dated 6/5/2009 with Letter from Barry 14 Vaught to Brad Naso at Melville Capital dated 1/23/2009

15 Plaintiffs Supplemental Response to Discovery of J. Barrington Vaught dated 1/6/2017

16 E-mail string last from Brent King to Eric Lanigan dated 5/5/2009 re Heard Enterprises, Inc. E-mails dated 5/11/2009 between Brent King and Eric Lanigan re deadlines in bankruptcy 17 proceeding Document prepared by Eric Langian titled "Summary of the Action" prepared after the Court's 18 ruling on the Summary Judgment Transcript of Telephonic Hearing dated 6/12/2009 before Judge Caddell (Adversary proceeding - 19 09-80051) 20 Affidavit of Richard M. Young dated 6/5/2009 21 E-mail from Eric Lanigan to Roddy Lanigan regarding Bill Heard dated 4/17/2009 E-mail string to/from Bill Heard Ill and Eric Lanigan dated 4/22/2009 -4/21/2009 regarding Barry 22 Vaught's termination letter and reasons for termination

23 E-mail from Bill Heard Ill to Eric Lanigan dated 4/29/2009 regarding Cayman Follow-up 24 E-mail from Eric Lanigan to Bill Heard Ill dated 5/13/2009 regarding split dollar docs E-mail from Bill Heard III to Eric Lanigan dated 5/14/2009 regarding WTH Ill Defense Details for 25 Director Lawsuit 26 Notice of Appeal of Defendants dated 6/25/2009 (Adversary proceeding 09-80051) PTO Ex. B-2 27 Amended Notice of Appeal of Defendants dated 6/27/2009

28 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice of Appeal by Defendants dated 7/17/2009 29 E-mail from Eric Lanigan to Baker Crow dated 7/2/2009 re Bill Heard Trust 30 Litigation Hold Letter from Eric Lanigan to Barry Vaught dated 8/12/2009 Writ of FiFa in Superior Ct Fulton Co. – SunTrust Bank v. William T. Heard, III; Judgment Date: 31 2/25/2009 E-mail from Wess Sharpe to Jason Gaylor dated 8/26/2009 re: Insurance Company Recapture 32 and attaching spreadsheet

33 E-mail chain from David Puckett to Angela Roach dated 11/6/2009 re: Premium Notice E-mail chain from Wess Sharpe to David Puckett dated 3/5/2010 re: A1017334 1L William T. 34 Heard

35 E-mail chain from John Sheftall to Bill Heard dated 3/5/2010 re: ERIC SHARPE (404-909-2220)

36 E-mail from David Puckett to Angela Roach dated 4/29/2010 re: Heard Trust #1011013813 E-mail chain from Bill Heard III to Eric Lanigan dated 5/14/2010 re: WTH III Defense Details for 37 Director Lawsuit E-mail from Bill Heard III to David Puckett dated 6/29/2010 re: Successor Trustee and attaching Acceptance of Appointment as Successor Trustee of the Williams T. Heard III Irrevocable Life 38 Insurance Trust II Letter from Eric Lanigan to: To Whom It May Concern dated 7/6 /2010 re: contemplates that the four agreements will be completed and that the referenced funds will be paid to Mr. Sharpe 39 on or before August 15, 2010. Institutional Life Service, LLC – Insured’s List of Primary Designated Contacts form signed by Eric 40 Sharpe and Bill III and completed for policy UM0066816L Letter from Eric Lanigan to Eric Sharpe dated 9/23/2010 re: SunTrust Bank v. William T. Heard, III and attaching (unexecuted) Agreement, Transfer and Assignment of Loan Documents and Judgment (unexecuted) and Transfer and Assignment of Loan Documents and Judgment 41 (unexecuted) to be signed E-mail chain from Eric Lanigan to Bill Heard III dated 4/1/2011 re: 1099s for Insurance 42 Commissions Paid 43 E-mail chain from Wess Sharpe to Eric Lanigan dated 4/8/2011 re: 20110 Form 1099 E-mail from Bill Heard III to Eric Lanigan dated 2/19/2012 re: Condo Foreclosure; E-mail from Wess Sharpe to Jason Gaylor dated 8/26/2009 re: Insurance Company Recapture and attaching 44 spreadsheet title “Insurance Company Recapture” 45 E-mail chain from Eric Lanigan to David Muller dated 4/5/2012 re: Heard Mediation

46 Defendants' Third Joint Notice of Deposition of Plaintiff William T. Heard, III dated 5/31/2017 Letter dated 10/8/2008 from. J. Barrington Vaught to Mr. and Mrs. W.T. Heard, Jr. re: changes 47 in IRS regulations and bankruptcy Letter dated 5/19/2009 from Jack Morgan to American General re: authorization to disclose 48 information to Lanigan & Lanigan Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc., Notes Receivable for William T. Heard III and Edward B. Heard Trusts 49 dated November 28, 2003 PTO Ex. B-2 Memo dated 11/15/2004 from Ronald Feldner to Bill Heard III and Edward Heard re Insurance 50 Trust, with attachments E-mail dated 10/14/2008 from J. Barrington Vaught to W. T. Heard Jr. re: receipt of demand 51 letter for payment of the notes E-mail dated 3/30/2009 to and from Bill Heard III and J. Barrington Vaught re: working with 52 bankruptcy court

E-mail chain dated April 10, 2009 to/from Erick Lanigan and Bill Heard III re: Vaught’s attempt to 53 sell policies and lack of communication between trustee and beneficiaries E-mail chain dated 4/12-4/13/2009 to/from Bill Heard III and J. Barrington Vaught re: demands 54 of the bankruptcy court and status of selling the policies E-mail chain dated 4/13-4/14-2009 to/from Bill Heard III and J. Barrington Vaught re: 55 termination documents and memo from Ron about termination ready for pick up

56 E-mail dated 4/15/2009 from Bill Heard III to J. Barrington Vaught requesting copy of demand E-mail dated 4/20/2009 from Bill Heard III to Eric Lanigan re: termination of B. Vaught and CB&T 57 Bank as trustees E-mail dated 4/21/2009 from Bill Heard III to J. Barrington Vaught re: letter of termination as 58 trustee E-mail chain dated 4/21-4/22/2009to/from Bill Heard III to Eric Lanigan re: termination of J. 59 Barrington Vaught Complaint Seeking Turnover of Cash Surrender Value of Life Insurance Policies, Damages for Breach of Promissory Notes, and Declaratory Judgment, filed 4/23/2009 in BHE bankruptcy 60 proceeding E-mail chain dated 5/15-5/18-2009 to/from J. Barrington Vaught, John Sheftall, Richard Young, Eric Lanigan and Bill Heard III re: maturity date of promissory notes, appointment of Jack Morgan as Trustee and Lanigan’s request for a conference call with Vaught to discuss present 61 settlement package to the bankruptcy trustee. Invoice dated 7/2/2009 from Thomas Kaplan to Eric Lanigan for Life Insurance Consulting 62 Services Transmittal memo dated 9/24/2010 and copy of check for $127,000 from Lanigan & Lanigan to 63 Edward Heard Invoice dated 7/2/2009 from Eric Sharpe to Eric Lanigan for commission for the sale of life 64 insurance policies on Sara Heard and W.T. Heard Jr.

65 Invoice dated 7/2/2009 from David Tucker to Eric Lanigan for Life Insurance Consulting Service 66 Financial Supplement form signed by Eric Lanigan on 8/30/2010 Plaintiffs' Objections and Responses to Defendant J. Barrington Vaught's First Interrogatories 67 and Request for Production of Documents dated 3/7/2016 68 William T. Heard, III, Statement of Financial Condition, May 2008 E-mail from Bill Heard III to J. Barrington Vaught dated 3/31/2009 re: requesting copy of 69 promissory note Letter dated 4/22/2009 from J. Barrington Vaught to Mr. and Mrs. W. T. Heard, Jr. re: receipt of 70 letter removing him as trustee and withdrawal as lawyer as to all matters E-mail dated 5/4/2009 from J. Barrington Vaught to Bill Heard III re: pre trial conference on Wednesday . . . will not do anything about cashing in the policies without either an agreement 71 or court order PTO Ex. B-2

Letter dated 5/21/2009 from Jason Gaylor of CB&T to Bill Heard III re: notice, acceleration and 72 demand letter for repayment of outstanding loan owed to CB&T Defendants’ Vaught and Hatcher Stubbs Joint Notice of Deposition of Thomas R. Kaplan and 73 Duces Tecum 74 Biography of Thomas Kaplan

75 American General Life Insurance Company policy on Sara B. Heard (policy #: UM0066816L) American General Life Insurance Company policy on William T. Heard Jr. (policy #: 76 UM0066817L) American General Life Insurance Company policy on William T. Heard Jr. (policy #: 77 UM0066818L)

78 American General Life Insurance Company policy on Sara B. Heard (policy #: UM0066819L) Life Insurance Policy Purchase Agreement for Sarah B. Heard policy # UM0066819L, signed by 79 Eric Lanigan on 7/19/2010 Life Insurance Policy Purchase Agreement for Sarah B. Heard policy # UM0066816L, signed by 80 Eric Lanigan on 7/19/2010 Imperial Life Settlements LLC Life Settlement Agreements (2 total) for William T. Heard Jr. 81 policy#s UM0066817L and UM0066818L,signed by Eric Lanigan on 7/26/2011 American General Producer Exchange – Inforce Policy Summary (as of 10/12/2009) for William 82 T. Heard Jr. policy # E040A10173341L AG Term Conversion Request form – Sara Heard policy A10173341L, signed by Eric Lanigan and 83 Thomas Kaplan on July 1, 2010 84 July/August 2005 “Simply The Best” article by Thomas R. Kaplan 85 November/December 2005 “Simply the Best” article by Thomas R. Kaplan 86 Spring 2005 “Partner” magazine with Thomas Kaplan on the cover Defendants’ Joint Notice of Deposition of Wade H. Watson III and Duces Tecum, dated July 5, 87 2017 88 Affidavit of Wade H. Watson III, dated February 17, 2017

89 William T. Heard, III Life Insurance Trust II – Key Dates/Events timeline, dated August 1, 2017 Memorandum from Wade Watson to W. Winston Briggs dated November 11, 2014 re: Interim 90 consulting expert report regarding EBH’s Trust Watson’s client correspondence folder titled “(a)-1 BRIGGS (Bill Heard Trust Lit.) – Client 91 Correspondence” (38 pages total)

92 Bill Heard Litigation billing record detail with Wade Watson’s invoices to W. Winston Briggs

93 Edward Heard Litigation billing record detail with Wade Watson’s invoices to W. Winston Briggs 94 Folder titled “(a)-4 BRIGGS (Bill Heard Trust Lit.) – Attorney Notes” (31 pages total) 95 Folder titled “(a)-4 BRIGGS, WINSTON – Attorney Notes” (59 pages total) CONFIDENTIAL – E-mail dated October 30, 2015 from Wade Watson to Dan Codman, cc: Tracey 96 Paul disclosing settlement amount in EBH’s case 202 pages bate stamped WWB000001-000202 produced by Wade Watson during his 8/3/2017 97 deposition Split Dollar Agreements for William T. Heard, III, Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust II, dated March 98 1, 1996 for policy # A70000373L and policy # 7036317 PTO Ex. B-2

Collateral Assignment in Connection with Split Dollar Plan for William T. Heard III, Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust II, dated July 5, 1998 for policy # A70000373L; and Collateral Assignment in Connection with Split Dollar Plan for William T. Heard III, Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust II, 99 dated March 7, 1998 for policy # A1017334IL Defendants’ Joint Notice of Deposition of Douglas Chandler and Duces Tecum, dated July 5, 100 2017 101 “Billing” folder (Douglas Chandler's File) 102 “Drafts” folder (Douglas Chandler's File) 103 “Pleadings” folder (Douglas Chandler's File) 104 “Documents” folder (Douglas Chandler's File)

Amended Answer Answer of Vaught, dated May 27, 2009; AND Answer and Defensive Pleadings 105 of J. Barrington Vaught, as Trustee, dated May 5, 2009 (Adversary proceeding - 09-80051) 106 May 17, 2009 e-mails between Bill III to Eric Lanigan with Subject: Further Thoughts

107 May 17, 2009 e-mails between Bill III to Eric Lanigan with Subject: Defense to Promissory Notes 108 Affidavit of Douglas Chandler, dated February 17, 2017

109 September 22, 2008 e-mails between J. Barrington Vaught, John Sheftall cc: Karen Witczak

E-mail from Ronald Feldner to J. Barrington Vaught dated September 23, 2008, Subject: life insurance trusts of which I am trustee; and E-mail from B. Vaught to R. Feldner, R. Young cc: J. 110 Sheftall dated September 23, 2008, Subject: life insurance trusts of which I am trustee Defendants’ Second Amended Joint Notice of Deposition of Jack Morgan and Duces Tecum, 111 dated October 10, 2017 Appointment of Jack Morgan as Successor Trustee William T. Heard, III Irrevocable Life 112 Insurance Trust II, dated May 7, 2009 Acceptance of Appointment as Successor Trustee William T. Heard, III Irrevocable Life Insurance 113 Trust II, dated May 7, 2009 Answer and Affirmative Defense of Jack H. Morgan as Trustee of the William T. Heard III 114 Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust II (filed May 22, 2009, PACER Docket No. 16) Letter dated June 12, 2009 from American General to Jack Morgan as Trustee regarding value as 115 of 7/7/2009 of policy # A10173341L Letter dated June 12, 2009 from American General to Jack Morgan as Trustee regarding value as 116 of 6/12/2009 of policy # A70000373L Acceptance of Appointment as Successor Trustee Edward B. Heard Irrevocable Life Insurance 117 Trust II, dated April 2, 2011 118 William T. Heard III Trust Documents dated 3/1/1996 119 Edward B. Heard Trust Documents dated 3/1/1996 Plaintiff Eric Lanigan's Objections and Responses to Defendant J. Barrington Vaught's First 120 Request for Admissions dated 3/7/2016 Defendants’ First Amended Joint Notice of Deposition of John A. Christy and Duces Tecum, 121 dated October 24, 2017 Plaintiffs’ Third Supplemental Response to Defendants’ Interrogatories to Plaintiffs, dated. 122 October 11, 2017 PTO Ex. B-2

Unanimous Written Consent of Board of Directors of Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. in Lieu of Special Meeting Dated: November 28, 2003; with attached Notices of Termination of Split 123 Dollar Agreements, and Notes Receivable dated November 28, 2003; Board of Directors of Bill Heard Enterprises, Inc. Consent to Corporate Action, dated March 11, 1996; with attached Fax Transmittal Sheet from Dean Taulbe to Debbie Macon, dated January 124 22, 1997 Split Dollar Agreement For William T. Heard, III Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust II, dated March 1, 1996, with attached “Exhibit A” referencing American General Life Insurance Company policy 125 A10173341L Collateral Assignment in Connection with Split Dollar Plan for William T. Heard III, Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust II, dated July 5, 1998 for policy # A70000373L; and Collateral Assignment in Connection with Split Dollar Plan for William T. Heard III, Irrevocable Life Insurance Trust II, 126 dated March 7, 1998 for policy # A1017334IL

October 8, 2008 letter from Edward Peterson to J. Barrington Vaught, cc: Richard Young 127 regarding notice of default of notes receivable and demand for payment in full April 15, 2009, letter from Edward Peterson to J. Barrington Vaught, cc: Richard Young, Fred Caruso, John Mills, Charles Tatelbaum, Jeff Kelley, Kim Rollins, and John Elrod regarding demand 128 for payment of cash surrender value to BHE Index of Exhibits for Introduction into Evidence, dated June 10, 2009, on behalf of BHE in the 129 BHE bankruptcy proceeding

Notice and scheduling Order, dated May 8, 2009, and filed May 11, 2009 in the BHE bankruptcy 130 proceeding (PACER Doc. 13 - USBC, Northern District of Alabama - 09-80051) (John Christy's File) Transcript of 6/12/2009 telephonic proceedings in BHE adversary 131 proceeding;

(John Christy's File) Sua Sponte Order Granting Final Judgment, in BHE adversary proceeding, entered 6/29/2009, attaching 6/18/2009 e-mail from J. Barrington Vaught to Edward Peterson 132 requesting modification to Order to regarding trustee fees for EBH’s trust; (John Christy's File) BHE’s motion for payment of trustee fees to J. Barrington Vaught as trustee 133 of EBH’s trust, dated July 21, 2009; (John Christy's File) BHE’s motion for approval of settlement agreement with J. Barrington 134 Vaught as trustee of EBH’s trust, dated May 2009; (John Christy's File) BHE’s complaint for cash surrender value insurance policies in WTH III’s and 135 EBH’s trusts, dated April 22, 2009; (John Christy's File) J. Barrington Vaught’s Answer to BHE’s complaint for cash surrender value 136 insurance policies in WTH III’s and EBH’s trusts, dated May 5, 2009; (John Christy's File) Transcript of 6/2/2009 deposition of J. Barrington Vaught in BHE 137 bankruptcy/adversary proceedings; (John Christy's File) Notice of Appeal of Defendants in BHE bankruptcy/adversary proceeding, 138 dated 6/25/2009; PTO Ex. B-2

(John Christy's File) E-Transcript E-Index of documents filed on PACER in BHE adversary proceeding; with Docket #: 1, 1-1, 1-2, 9, 13, 13-1, 16, 18, 19-A, 19-B, 19-C, 19-D, 19-E, 19-F, 19- G1, 19-G2, 19-H1, 19-H2, 19-H3, 19-I, 19-J, 21.J, 23, 23-A, 29, 29-A, 29-B, 29-C, 29-D1, 29-D2, 29- 139 E, 40, 40-1, 44, 48, 48-1, 48-2, 50, 54, 54-A, 54-B, 56, 57, 59, 61, 62 140 (John Christy's File) William T. Heard, III deposition transcript held 7/10/2015 141 (John Christy's File) Darryl Laddin deposition transcript held 10/5/2017 (John Christy's File)Eric Lanigan deposition transcript held 11/24/2014 (Edward Heard, et al. v. 142 Vaught) (John Christy's File)Transcript of John Sheftall's deposition dated 7/13/2015 (Edward Heard, et 143 al. v. Vaught) 144 (John Christy's File)Transcript of J. Barrington Vaught dated 11/21/2014

(John Christy's File)Plaintiffs’ deposition exhibits 1 through 73, marked during deposition of J. 145 Barrington Vaught held on November 21, 2012 (Edward Heard, et al. v. Vaught) 146 (John Christy's File) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, dated March 7, 2017; (John Christy's File) Statement of Plaintiffs’ Theory of Recovery and Statement of Material Facts 147 as to Which There Are No Issues to Be Tried, dated March 7, 2017; (John Christy's File) Plaintiffs’ Brief in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment, dated March 7, 148 2017 149 (John Christy's File) Complaint in WTH III’s action, dated 12/22/2015 150 (John Christy's File) undated 2 page biography of John Christy (John Christy's File) 11/15/2017 biography of John Christy with photo from Schreeder, Wheeler 151 & Flint LLP website (John Christy's File) 9/21/2017 Letter from W. Briggs to John Christy enclosing check in the amount of $8,000; with attached e-mail from John Christy to Winston Briggs requesting copies of pleadings and documents; and unsigned retainer letter agreement dated 6/30/2017 from 152 John Christy to Winston Briggs

153 (John Christy's File) print out of PACER docket for BHE adversary proceeding as of 7/17/17 Plaintiffs' Amended Responses to Defendant J. Barrington Vaught's Second Request for 154 Admissions to Plaintiffs dated 11/28/2017 155 AIG to Edward B. Heard Trust re illustration for policy A10173340L dated 11/10/2008 American General Life Insurance Policy No. A70000372L on William and Sara Heard dated 156 7/5/1998 157 Affidavit of Richard Young dated 10/18/2017 158 Checks from Edward B. Heard to J. Barrington Vaught, as Trustee dated 12/28/2004 First Amended Complaint of William Perkins as Trustee of debtors Bill Heard Enterprises, etc. 159 (USBC, Northern District of Alabama) dated 1/11/2010 Bill Heard Enterprises Bankruptcy Petition (PACER Doc. 1 - USBC, Northern District of Alabama - 160 08-83029) dated 9/28/2008 Application to Employ Stichter Riedel Blain and Prosser as Conflicts Counsel (PACER Doc. 14 - 161 USBC, Northern District of Alabama - 08-83029) dated 9/29/2008 162 PACER Docket (Adversary proceeding 09-80051) as of 10/6/2009 termination date Debtors' Motion for Authority to Destroy and Retain Recs (PACER Doc 842, 08-83029) dated 163 12/4/2008 PTO Ex. B-2 Katie King of Kilpatrick Townsend letter to M. Elizabeth O'Neill acknowledging custody of certain 164 documents from BHE offices dated 7/17/2017 E-mails between J. Vaught and M. Taylor re Vaught's options to respond to BHE's demand dated 165 10/8/2008 E-mail dated 10/8/2008 from M. Taylor to J. Vaught re marketing policies and letter to William 166 T. Heard III E-mails between William T. Heard III and J. Vaught dated 3/31/2009 re promissory note 167 document and exclusive agreement with Melville to sell policies Plaintiff William T. Heard III's Objections and Responses to Defendant J. Barrington Vaught's 168 First Request for Admissions dated 3/7/2016 William T. Heard III Letter to George Flowers of Synovus requesting renunciation of designation 169 as Trustee dated 4/21/2009 170 Synovus renunciation of designation as successor Trustee dated 4/21/2009

171 E-mails dated 4/30/2009 between Vaught Lanigan Sheftall re conference and successor trustee Certified copy of SUA Sponte Order (PACER Doc. 40, Adversary Proceeding - 09-80051) dated 172 6/15/2009 173 Appointment of Eric Lanigan as Successor Trustee dated 5/7/2009

174 E-mail from J. Vaught to J. Sheftall and R. Young re Promissory Notes dated 5/15/2009

Letter from Eric Lanigan to S. Dansker enclosing copies of termination and renunciation letters, 175 appointment, acceptance and authorization letter from J. Morgan dated 5/19/2009 176 E-mail from Eric Lanigan to William T. Heard III Re Vaught response dated 5/19/2009

177 E-mail from Eric Lanigan to William T. Heard III Re Vaught demand for Fees 5/19/2009 6/12/2009 Audio file of telephonic proceedings before Judge Caddell (Adversary proceeding - 178 09-80051) 6/5/2009 BHE's Motion for Summary Judgment with Exhibits A thru J - (Adversary proceeding - 179 09- 80051) (PACER docket No. 19) Motion of J. Barrington Vaught for Order Relieving Him From Obligations to the Trust (PACER 180 Docket No. 13, Adversary proceeding - 09-80051) dated 6/9/2009 6/11/2009 BHE's Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction and-or Temporary Restraining 181 Order (PACER docket No. 29) American General checks for loan amounts taken out on policies A70000373L and A10173341L 182 payable to Regions Bank Trustee dated 7/13/2009 E-mail from Edward Peterson to R. Young re will accept cash surrender value in satisfaction of 183 judgment against Regions dated 7/10/2009 184 Outgoing wire transfer of $1,410,313.80 from Regions to BHE dated 7/15/2009 185 E-mail from Eric Lanigan to Baker Crow re loan on the policies dated 6/10/2009 9/4/2009 Satisfaction of 6-12-09 Judgment as to defendants (PACER Doc. 62, Adversary 186 Proceeding - 09-80051) E-mails between Eric Lanigan and Robert Taylor re pursue claims in Texas on behalf of Edward 187 Heard dated 10/14/2009 7/6/2010 Regions Bank AC - PT Account closing form regarding resignation as Trustee due to 188 fees PTO Ex. B-2

189 Letter from D. Puckett to William T. Heard III re resignation as Trustee dated 6/29/2010 190 BHE Board of Directors Minutes and Resolutions 2003 3/16/2011 Contempt Order against William T. Heard III - William Tillman Heard, III v. Caroline 191 Crews Heard (Muscogee Co. Superior Ct., GA, CAF #SU-06-DM-4112-9) Synovus Bank Lien against William T. Heard III - Muscogee Lien Book 590 Page 35 dated 192 5/20/2015 5/16/2011 Petition - Edward Heard vs. Vaught (District Court of Harris County, TX, Cause No. 193 2011-29258)

194 Letter from A. Forstie to R. Harris enclosing CD with File & Privilege Log dated 2/22/2013

Fourth Supplemental Responses and Objections of Defendant J. Barrington Vaught to Plaintiffs' 195 First Continuing Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents dated 1/29/2018 Complaint - Edward Heard v. Vaught (Muscogee Co. Superior Ct., CAF #SU13CV2815-08) dated 196 9/10/2013 Plaintiffs' Second Supplemental Response to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs 197 (Edward Heard v. Vaught) dated 1/20/2015 Plaintiffs' Objections and Responses to Defendant J. Barrington Vaught's Third Interrogatories to 198 Plaintiffs dated 9/27/2017 Letter from R. Harris J. Vaught and J. Sheftall re representation of Edward Heard and requesting 199 documents dated 11/28/2012 200 R. Young E-mail dated 10/8/2009 to J. Vaught re cannot locate the 4 original policies E-mail to/from Elizabeth Gottehrer and Debbie Snipes, both of New Traditions National Bank with wire transfer details for proceeds from the sale of policies on Sara Heard wired to the 201 Trust’s account on 9/23/2010

202 E-mail from Kaplan to Lanigan attaching revised illustrations for splitting policies on Sara Heard

203 Letter from Eric Lanigan to Steve Dansker enclosing paperwork to split policies on Sara Heard AG Term Conversion Request form – Sara Heard policy A70000373L, signed by Eric Lanigan and 204 Thomas Kaplan on July 1, 2010 205 BHE Board of Directors Minutes & Resolutions 2003 206 BHE Board of Directors Minutes & Resolutions 2004 207 BHE Board of Directors Minutes & Resolutions 2006 Charles Staples handwritten accounting on yellow paper listing Hatcher Stubbs' income from 208 various sources from 1994 - 2010 209 2009 O.C.G.A. 53-12-173.1 [Trustees] Compensation from business enterprise 210 2009 O.C.G.A. 53-12-173. [Trustees] Compensation for services $7,600.00 Writ of Fieri Facias filed 10/4/11 by Synovus Bank against Sara B. Heard (Muscogee 211 County, Book 409 / Page 302) $4,973.13 2014 Muscogee County Tax FIFA filed 3/25/15 against Sara B. Heard (Muscogee 212 County, Book 577 / Page 113; and CANCELLATION at Book 635 / Page 170)

$10,742,770.40 Consent Judgment filed 1/14/10 by GE Commerical Finance Business Property Corporation and Leeward Strategic Properties, Inc. against William Heard Jr. and Heardco, L.P. 213 (USDC, Middle District of GA, Case No.: 4:08-CV-137-CDL, Cobb County, Book 43 / Page 5617) PTO Ex. B-2 $6644.61 2004 Muscogee County Tax FIFA filed 2/16/05 against William Heard Jr. (Muscogee 214 County, Book 59 Page 262) CANCELLATION OF $6644.61 2004 Muscogee County Tax FIFA filed 2/16/05 against William 215 Heard Jr. (Muscogee County, Book 93 Page 25) $22,780,000.00 Writ of Fieri Facias filed 4/2/09 by Columbus Bank and Trust Company against William Heard Jr. (DeKalb County, Case No.: 09A03723-4, Book 768 Page 237; and Muscogee 216 County Book 516 Page 257 filed 10/25/13)

$1,041,267.95 Writ of Fieri Facias filed 2/1/10 by The Frost National Bank against William Heard 217 Jr (Muscogee County, Civil Action No.: SU2009CV4574E, Book 308 Page 20) $10,428,149 Writ of Execution filed 7/1/10 against William Heard Jr pursuant to judgment filed and entered in the USDC Middle District on 7/1/09, 4:08-CV-138, General Electric Capital Corp. 218 v. Heard Exhibit B2-A – Vaught’s Exhibit List

1. November 10, 2014 Ruling by Judge Gino Brogdon

6455809v.1 Ruling re: Defendant’s Purported Privileged Materials In Heard vs Vaught

Pursuant to agreement of counsel and having read applicable law, written arguments by counsel and materials submitted (via CD) ex parte by Defendants’ counsel, the undersigned finds as follows:

The central issues submitted for decision by the undersigned are

1. Whether communications between the Hatcher Stubbs law firm and the corporate entity, Bill Heard Enterprises (BHE), are protected by the attorney-client privilege and thus are not subject to discovery? 2. Whether communications between trustee, J. Barrington Vaught (JBV), and his law partner, John Sheftall are protected by the attorney-client privilege and thus are not subject to discovery? 3. Whether communications between trustee, J. Barrington Vaught, and bankruptcy counsel, the Najjar Denaburg law firm, are protected by the attorney client privilege and thus are not subject to discovery?

Hatcher Stubbs/BHE Communications

The attorney-client privilege certainly attaches to communications between BHE and Hatcher Stubbs. Any individual in the corporate control group, including officers and directors, can waive this privilege on behalf of BHE. As a corporate officer, William Heard Jr. has the capacity to waive the corporate privilege but his written waiver is unclear as to whether he intended to waive the privilege on behalf of BHE. See Southern Guaranty vs Ash, 192 Ga. App. 24, 27 (1989) Such waiver must be clear and specific in its intent. Here it is unclear whether William Heard Jr intended to act in his official capacity when he executed the subject written waiver. Thus, at this point, the attorney- client privilege protects from discovery all communications between BHE and the Hatcher Stubbs law firm. This protection does not extend

1 to communications between JBV and BHE because presumably JBV was acting as trustee, not as legal counsel to BHE.

PAGES 395 and 1845 Sheftall handwritten notes regarding the trusts from communications with BHE = NOT DISCOVERABLE.

JVB/Sheftall Communications

At all pertinent times, JBV is presumed to be acting in his capacity as trustee for the subject trusts. The trusts act through the trustee, JBV. Therefore all communications between JBV and Sheftall are the same as trusts/Sheftall communications. Generally these communications are protected from discovery by the attorney-client privilege. How ever, Georgia recognized a fiduciary duty exception to the attorney-client privilege which applies here. A trustee or similar fiduciary has a duty of full disclosure to beneficiaries of the trust. A fiduciary cannot use the attorney-client privilege to shield its communications with counsel from the beneficiaries of the fiduciary relationship. See St. Simons Waterfront, LLC vs Hunter McLean PC, 293 Ga. 419 (2013). JBV’s communications with Sheftall regarding trust matters would be for the benefit of the beneficiaries. Thus all JBV/trusts communications with Sheftall regarding trust business and on behalf of the trust are discoverable. Once JBV was aware of a potential dispute or conflict with the beneficiaries and consults counsel for his own benefit, such communications are not for the benefit of the trust. Instead, such communications would be for JBV’s benefit and are protected by the attorney-client privilege and not discoverable.

PAGES 123-124 JBV communication with John Sheftall regarding trust matter = DISCOVERABLE.

PAGES 264-265 JBV communications with Sheftall and Lanigan about trust matters = DISCOVERABLE.

PAGE 266 Sheftall communication with JBV regarding status at trustee copying Denaburg = DISCOVERABLE.

2 PAGES 269-271 JBV communications with Eric Lanigan regarding trustee status and copying Billy Heard = DISCOVERABLE.

PAGES 273-275 Communications between Sheftall, Lanigan, Young and JBV regarding trust matters = DISCOVERABLE.

PAGE 407 JBV note to “John” (presumably Sheftall) regarding trust matters = DISCOVERABLE.

PAGE 1597 Communications between JBV and Sheftall re trust matter = DISCOVERABLE.

PAGES 1661 Communications between JBV and Sheftall re trust matter = DISCOVERABLE.

JBV/Najjar Denaburg Communications

The above-stated fiduciary duty exception applies here. At all times as shown in the subject documents, JBV communicated with the Najjar Denaburg law firm in his capacity as trustee and regarding bankruptcy issues affecting the trusts. In light of the fiduciary duty explained in the St. Simons Waterfront case such communications are likewise discoverable.

PAGE 119 JBV communication with Denaburg regarding removal as trustee = DISCOVERABLE

PAGE 129 JBV communication with Charles Denaburg regarding trustee fees = DISCOVERABLE.

PAGE 496 Unsigned typewritten note to “Chuck” requesting review of the trusts = DISCOVERABLE.

PAGE 575 Email from JBV to Denaburg re trustee commission = DISCOVERABLE.

3 JBV/BHE Communications

The subject materials also included communications between JBV and BHE officers. Since JBV is acting as a trustee, there is no privilege that protects these communications from discovery.

PAGE 141 JBV communication with Feldner and young at BHE regarding trust matters = DISCOVERABLE.

PAGE 142 JBV communication regarding trust matters = DISCOVERABLE.

PAGES 145-146 JBV communications with Young, Feldner and Mike Taylor regarding trust matters = DISCOVERABLE.

PAGES 401-404 JBV letter to Young enclosing policy assignments = DISCOVERABLE.

PAGES 428-429 JBV letter to Young sending draft of trusts = DISCOVERABLE.

PAGES 463-495 JBV letter to Young and drafts of trusts = DISCOVERABLE.

PAGE 910 Feldner letter to JBV regarding life ins policy = DISCOVERABLE.

PAGES 917-921 JBV letter to Feldner sending refund checks relating to the trusts = DISCOVERABLE.

PAGES 390-391 Feldner & Young communication with JBV and Tom Spencer regarding trust matters = DISCOVERABLE.

PAGES 1101-1104 JBV letter to Feldner regarding grace period and attaching same = DISCOVERABLE.

PAGES 1144-1189 JBV letter to Feldner enclosing numerous American General life insurance documents = DISCOVERABLE.

4 PAGE 1571 Communications between JBV, Sheftall and Young regarding trusts = DISCOVERABLE.

PAGES 1738-1739 Communications between JBV and Young regarding trust matters = DISCOVERABLE.

Other Communications

Materials submitted by counsel also include communications between the Hatcher Stubbs law firm and its malpractice insurance carrier. These are protected from discovery because such are materials prepared in anticipation of litigation and protected by the attorney client privilege.

PAGES 1-3 Communications with malpractice carrier = NOT DISCOVERABLE

PAGES 1846-1869 HATCHER STUBBS bills and expenses ledger = NOT DISCOVERABLE.

PAGES 1870-1874 HATCHER STUBBS bills and expense ledger = NOT DISCOVERABLE.

PAGES 1875-1877 Communications between HATCHER STUBBS and insurance carrier = NOT DISCOVERABLE.

PAGES 1833 Charles Staples letter to insurance carrier re potential claim = NOT DISCOVERABLE.

PAGES 1834-1844 Staples letter and file packet to malpractice carrier = NOT DISCOVERABLE.

PAGES 1385 JBV email to Susan @ Lanier regarding malpractice coverage. NOT DISCOVERABLE.