UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION (DETROIT)

In re: COLLINS & AIKMAN CORP., et al., Debtors. Tax Identification No. 13-3489233 ____________________________________/ AMENDED CONDITIONAL OBJECTION OF PULLMAN INDUSTRIES, INC. TO FIRST AMENDED JOINT PLAN OF REORGANIZATION Chapter 11 Case No. 05-55927-SWR Hon. Steven W. Rhodes

NOW COMES Pullman Industries, Inc. (Pullman), d/b/a Concept Engineering & Manufacturing Corp. (Concept), by counsel, Silverman & Morris, P.L.L.C., and as and for its Amended Conditional Objection to Debtors First Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization provides as follows: 1. The Conditional Objection of Noble International, Ltd. to First Amended Joint

Plan of Reorganization (Docket No. 4461) (the Conditional Objection) was filed in the name of Noble International, Ltd. (Noble). This was in error. Noble is the parent corporation of Pullman. Concept is a division of Pullman, and not a separate entity. The Conditional Objection should have recited Pullman as the owner of such rights, title, claims and interest, and filed in its name. Pullmans Concept division shall hereinafter be referred to as Pullman/Concept. 2. Pullman/Concept finds the First Amended Joint Plan of Collins & Aikman

Corporation and Its Debtor Subsidiaries (the Plan) to be vague and ambiguous with respect to

0W[;''%

0555927070705000000000012

,3

the treatment of the rights and claims of Pullman/Concept. This objection is filed to preserve such rights, to the extent that they are impaired by the Plan. 3. Prior to filing of Debtors Petition herein on May 17, 2005, Pullman/Concept and

Debtor (through its Dura subsidiary or division) entered into contracts for the manufacture by Concept of certain tooling (Tooling) desired by Dura and to be used by Pullman/Concept for the benefit of Dura. Pullman/Concept produced such Tooling and invoiced Debtor. However, Debtor failed to pay in full. At the Petition date, the sum of $191,621.67 was due and owing Pullman/Concept for such Tooling. 4. Pullman/Concept utilized the Tooling to produce component parts (the Parts)

for Dura pursuant to purchase orders from Dura. 5. As of the Petition Date, Pullman/Concept was owed the sum of $61,724.47 for

Parts manufactured for Dura and delivered to Dura within twenty (20) days prior to May 17, 2005. Pullman/Concept made a demand upon Dura for reclamation of the Parts, and filed a written demand with the Bankruptcy Court on June 3, 2005. As a result, Pullman/Concept has an administrative claim in such amounts in addition to its secured claim discussed below. 6. The Tooling has at all times remained in the possession of Pullman/Concept.

Pullman/Concept has liens upon all such Tooling to secure all such obligations of the Debtors to Pullman/Concept pursuant to both M.C.L. 570.185 et seq. and M.C.L. 570.541 et seq. 7. The Tooling remains the property of Pullman/Concept, and Pullman/Concept

retains the right to possess the same pursuant to M.C.L. 440.2702 (1). 8. Pullman/Concept has not filed a proof of claim with respect to its secured claims

and its lien rights. However, Pullman/Concept has neither forfeited nor waived such rights and

-2-

retains the same. As no Proof of Claim has been filed, the secured claims do not fall within the Plan definition of Allowed Claims. 9. On May 25, 2007, Debtor filed its Exhibit F to the Plan, which identifies

executory contracts between Dura and Concept, which Debtor intends to reject. Debtor purports to reject these contracts effective August 30, 2007. 10. Debtors Plan appears to violate 11 U.S.C. 1129(a)(1), (7)(A) and (8) for

several reasons, including, but not necessarily limited to, the following: A. The Plan seems to include the claims of Pullman/Concept as Other Priority Claims In Case II. Such Class II Claims are purported to be unimpaired. However, the Plan contains no provision for payment of the Pullman/Concept claim, as the same is not an Allowed Claim. B. Article IV of the Plan provides for release of certain liens. It contemplates that statutory liens on tooling will remain in effect until satisfied pursuant to the Plan, but the Plan does not otherwise provide for payment of the secured claims of Pullman/Concept. C. The Plan appears to attempt to override the ownership and other rights of Pullman/Concept granted under M.C.L. 440.2702 (1), without legal basis therefor. D. The provision of Third Party Releases in Article XII(C) purports to effect a release by Pullman/Concept of all claims against the Debtors, but the Plan provides no consideration therefore. Nor has Pullman/Concept voted for the Plan or otherwise affirmatively agreed to such releases.

-3-

E.

Article XII(E) of the Plan purports to enjoin persons such as Pullman/Concept from enforcing their lien rights upon the Tooling, but is without a basis in law, without consideration to Pullman/Concept, without consent, and in direct contravention of 11 U.S.C. 1129(a)(7)(A)(ii).

F.

The Bankruptcy Code does not provide for rejection of contracts with an effective date of rejection after the effective date of the order confirming the Plan. Such attempt appears to seek to impermissibly alter the effect of 11 U.S.C. 365(g)(1). It would appear that Debtor is impermissibly attempting to retain benefits of continued performance of the subject contracts post-confirmation, without having to provide the cure for assumption of the contracts required under 11 U.S.C. 365.

WHEREFORE, Pullman Industries, Inc. objects to confirmation of Debtors Plan and seeks all other relief which is just and equitable.

SILVERMAN & MORRIS, P.L.L.C.

By:

/s/ Karin F. Avery Thomas R. Morris (P39141) Geoffrey L. Silverman (P34011) Karen F. Avery (P45364) Attorneys for Pullman Industries, Inc. 7115 Orchard Lake Road, Suite 500 West Bloomfield, Michigan 48322 silverman@silvermanmorris.com morris@silvermanmorris.com telephone (248) 539-1330; fax (248) 539-1355

Dated: July 6, 2007

X:\Clients\Pullman Industries, Inc\Amended Conditional Obj to First Amended Joint Plan of Reorg 070607.doc

-4-