POPULARITY
67 episodes with amended
71 episodes with amended
47 episodes with amended
22 episodes with amended
5 episodes with amended
5 episodes with amended
3 episodes with amended
4 episodes with amended
2 episodes with amended
In this episode we take a look at a warrant for Match Group (Tinder.)(commercial at 7:07)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:030723 Order to Seal Redact - Match Group LLC 4.pdf (idaho.gov)
Our journey through the court documents continues in this episode as we take a look at the Apple warrant that recently hit the docket. (commercial at 9:06)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:090823-Order-to-Seal-and-Redact-Apple.pdf (amazonaws.com)
A review of the new items within Blake's amended lawsuit, including details about issues she and other women had with Justin Baldoni, Jamey Heath, and Wayfarer. A comparison of differing perspectives on incidents and information gleaned about those incidents from a new Hollywood Reporter article - that we'll talk about further in Part 14.All opinions are personal and not representative of any outside company, person, or agenda. Information shared is cited via published articles, legal documents, press releases, government websites, public videos, news reports, and/or direct quotes and statements, and all may be paraphrased for brevity. Wanna support this independent pod? Links below:BuyMeACoffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/BBDBVenmo @TYBBDB Get ad-free listening with a Patreon membership Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The dive into the court documents continues in this episode as we take a look at the updated Tik Tok warrant.(commercial at 9:20)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Idaho Judicial Cases of Interest
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONSCB2025-016/017: A Resolution Approving the Appointment of Nicholas Kut to the Human Relations Commission in the City of Champaign; A Resolution Approving the Appointment of Prince Robertson to the Citizen Review Subcommittee of the Human Relations Commission in the City of Champaign CB2025-018: An Ordinance Amending Sections 14-21, 14-22, 14-23, and 19-8.8 of the Champaign Municipal Code, 1985, as Amended CB2025-019: An Ordinance Vacating a Right-of-Way North of 612 North Walnut Street CB2025-020: A Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Change Order No. 1 for the Public Works Parking Building HVAC and Storage Area Design Project CB2025-021: A Resolution Accepting a Bid and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute an Agreement for the 2025 Street Patching Project CB2025-022: A Resolution Accepting a Bid and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract for the Fire Station No. 1 Dorm Renovation Project CB2025-023: A Resolution Accepting a Bid for the Purchase of One Dump Truck and Declaring One Dump Truck to be Surplus
Stacey Plaskett, Democrat and Delegate to Congress from the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), has been actively seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. The lawsuit, which targets various officials from the USVI, accuses them of enabling Epstein's sex trafficking activities. Plaskett has described the suit as "legally and factually frivolous" and argues that the claims against her lack any substantial basis, suggesting that her inclusion is an attempt to unfairly malign her reputation due to her high profile.Plaskett's legal team contends that the lawsuit does not meet the necessary pleading standards and that there is no evidence connecting her to Epstein's criminal activities. They argue that her interactions with Epstein, including accepting campaign donations from him, do not imply any knowledge or involvement in his illegal actions. Plaskett asserts that the lawsuit is a scattershot attempt at monetary gain, aiming to exploit her public status to increase the case's visibility and pressure for a settlement.(commercial at 8:39)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)
Stacey Plaskett, Democrat and Delegate to Congress from the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), has been actively seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. The lawsuit, which targets various officials from the USVI, accuses them of enabling Epstein's sex trafficking activities. Plaskett has described the suit as "legally and factually frivolous" and argues that the claims against her lack any substantial basis, suggesting that her inclusion is an attempt to unfairly malign her reputation due to her high profile.Plaskett's legal team contends that the lawsuit does not meet the necessary pleading standards and that there is no evidence connecting her to Epstein's criminal activities. They argue that her interactions with Epstein, including accepting campaign donations from him, do not imply any knowledge or involvement in his illegal actions. Plaskett asserts that the lawsuit is a scattershot attempt at monetary gain, aiming to exploit her public status to increase the case's visibility and pressure for a settlement.(commercial at 8:39)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)
Lauren Pisciotta, a former assistant to Kanye West, has accused him of drugging and sexually assaulting her during a studio session in 2021, which was co-hosted by Sean "Diddy" Combs. Pisciotta alleges that she was given a drink laced with an unknown drug, leaving her disoriented and impaired. She claims to have blacked out after consuming the drink and only learned years later that she had been assaulted. According to Pisciotta, West later admitted that they "hooked up" at the event, a revelation that shocked her as she had no memory of the incident.In addition to these allegations, Pisciotta also claims West subjected her to sexual harassment throughout her employment. She described instances where West sent her explicit messages and photos, and even forced his way into her hotel room in 2021, attempting to assault her. Pisciotta's lawsuit, which was initially filed for wrongful termination, was amended to include these new claims of sexual assault and harassment, further complicating West's ongoing legal issues.(commercial at 9:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:LAUREN PISCIOTTA vs. KANYE WEST, ET AL. - Adobe cloud storage
Lauren Pisciotta, a former assistant to Kanye West, has accused him of drugging and sexually assaulting her during a studio session in 2021, which was co-hosted by Sean "Diddy" Combs. Pisciotta alleges that she was given a drink laced with an unknown drug, leaving her disoriented and impaired. She claims to have blacked out after consuming the drink and only learned years later that she had been assaulted. According to Pisciotta, West later admitted that they "hooked up" at the event, a revelation that shocked her as she had no memory of the incident.In addition to these allegations, Pisciotta also claims West subjected her to sexual harassment throughout her employment. She described instances where West sent her explicit messages and photos, and even forced his way into her hotel room in 2021, attempting to assault her. Pisciotta's lawsuit, which was initially filed for wrongful termination, was amended to include these new claims of sexual assault and harassment, further complicating West's ongoing legal issues.(commercial at 9:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:LAUREN PISCIOTTA vs. KANYE WEST, ET AL. - Adobe cloud storage
Stacey Plaskett, Democrat and Delegate to Congress from the U.S. Virgin Islands (USVI), has been actively seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by survivors of Jeffrey Epstein. The lawsuit, which targets various officials from the USVI, accuses them of enabling Epstein's sex trafficking activities. Plaskett has described the suit as "legally and factually frivolous" and argues that the claims against her lack any substantial basis, suggesting that her inclusion is an attempt to unfairly malign her reputation due to her high profile.Plaskett's legal team contends that the lawsuit does not meet the necessary pleading standards and that there is no evidence connecting her to Epstein's criminal activities. They argue that her interactions with Epstein, including accepting campaign donations from him, do not imply any knowledge or involvement in his illegal actions. Plaskett asserts that the lawsuit is a scattershot attempt at monetary gain, aiming to exploit her public status to increase the case's visibility and pressure for a settlement.(commercial at 8:39)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Microsoft Word - 15154228_7.docx (courtlistener.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Lauren Pisciotta, a former assistant to Kanye West, has accused him of drugging and sexually assaulting her during a studio session in 2021, which was co-hosted by Sean "Diddy" Combs. Pisciotta alleges that she was given a drink laced with an unknown drug, leaving her disoriented and impaired. She claims to have blacked out after consuming the drink and only learned years later that she had been assaulted. According to Pisciotta, West later admitted that they "hooked up" at the event, a revelation that shocked her as she had no memory of the incident.In addition to these allegations, Pisciotta also claims West subjected her to sexual harassment throughout her employment. She described instances where West sent her explicit messages and photos, and even forced his way into her hotel room in 2021, attempting to assault her. Pisciotta's lawsuit, which was initially filed for wrongful termination, was amended to include these new claims of sexual assault and harassment, further complicating West's ongoing legal issues.(commercial at 9:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:LAUREN PISCIOTTA vs. KANYE WEST, ET AL. - Adobe cloud storage
Lauren Pisciotta, a former assistant to Kanye West, has accused him of drugging and sexually assaulting her during a studio session in 2021, which was co-hosted by Sean "Diddy" Combs. Pisciotta alleges that she was given a drink laced with an unknown drug, leaving her disoriented and impaired. She claims to have blacked out after consuming the drink and only learned years later that she had been assaulted. According to Pisciotta, West later admitted that they "hooked up" at the event, a revelation that shocked her as she had no memory of the incident.In addition to these allegations, Pisciotta also claims West subjected her to sexual harassment throughout her employment. She described instances where West sent her explicit messages and photos, and even forced his way into her hotel room in 2021, attempting to assault her. Pisciotta's lawsuit, which was initially filed for wrongful termination, was amended to include these new claims of sexual assault and harassment, further complicating West's ongoing legal issues.(commercial at 9:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:LAUREN PISCIOTTA vs. KANYE WEST, ET AL. - Adobe cloud storage
Lauren Pisciotta, a former assistant to Kanye West, has accused him of drugging and sexually assaulting her during a studio session in 2021, which was co-hosted by Sean "Diddy" Combs. Pisciotta alleges that she was given a drink laced with an unknown drug, leaving her disoriented and impaired. She claims to have blacked out after consuming the drink and only learned years later that she had been assaulted. According to Pisciotta, West later admitted that they "hooked up" at the event, a revelation that shocked her as she had no memory of the incident.In addition to these allegations, Pisciotta also claims West subjected her to sexual harassment throughout her employment. She described instances where West sent her explicit messages and photos, and even forced his way into her hotel room in 2021, attempting to assault her. Pisciotta's lawsuit, which was initially filed for wrongful termination, was amended to include these new claims of sexual assault and harassment, further complicating West's ongoing legal issues.(commercial at 9:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:LAUREN PISCIOTTA vs. KANYE WEST, ET AL. - Adobe cloud storage
Lauren Pisciotta, a former assistant to Kanye West, has accused him of drugging and sexually assaulting her during a studio session in 2021, which was co-hosted by Sean "Diddy" Combs. Pisciotta alleges that she was given a drink laced with an unknown drug, leaving her disoriented and impaired. She claims to have blacked out after consuming the drink and only learned years later that she had been assaulted. According to Pisciotta, West later admitted that they "hooked up" at the event, a revelation that shocked her as she had no memory of the incident.In addition to these allegations, Pisciotta also claims West subjected her to sexual harassment throughout her employment. She described instances where West sent her explicit messages and photos, and even forced his way into her hotel room in 2021, attempting to assault her. Pisciotta's lawsuit, which was initially filed for wrongful termination, was amended to include these new claims of sexual assault and harassment, further complicating West's ongoing legal issues.(commercial at 9:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:LAUREN PISCIOTTA vs. KANYE WEST, ET AL. - Adobe cloud storage
Lauren Pisciotta, a former assistant to Kanye West, has accused him of drugging and sexually assaulting her during a studio session in 2021, which was co-hosted by Sean "Diddy" Combs. Pisciotta alleges that she was given a drink laced with an unknown drug, leaving her disoriented and impaired. She claims to have blacked out after consuming the drink and only learned years later that she had been assaulted. According to Pisciotta, West later admitted that they "hooked up" at the event, a revelation that shocked her as she had no memory of the incident.In addition to these allegations, Pisciotta also claims West subjected her to sexual harassment throughout her employment. She described instances where West sent her explicit messages and photos, and even forced his way into her hotel room in 2021, attempting to assault her. Pisciotta's lawsuit, which was initially filed for wrongful termination, was amended to include these new claims of sexual assault and harassment, further complicating West's ongoing legal issues.(commercial at 9:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:LAUREN PISCIOTTA vs. KANYE WEST, ET AL. - Adobe cloud storage
Lauren Pisciotta, a former assistant to Kanye West, has accused him of drugging and sexually assaulting her during a studio session in 2021, which was co-hosted by Sean "Diddy" Combs. Pisciotta alleges that she was given a drink laced with an unknown drug, leaving her disoriented and impaired. She claims to have blacked out after consuming the drink and only learned years later that she had been assaulted. According to Pisciotta, West later admitted that they "hooked up" at the event, a revelation that shocked her as she had no memory of the incident.In addition to these allegations, Pisciotta also claims West subjected her to sexual harassment throughout her employment. She described instances where West sent her explicit messages and photos, and even forced his way into her hotel room in 2021, attempting to assault her. Pisciotta's lawsuit, which was initially filed for wrongful termination, was amended to include these new claims of sexual assault and harassment, further complicating West's ongoing legal issues.(commercial at 9:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:LAUREN PISCIOTTA vs. KANYE WEST, ET AL. - Adobe cloud storage
Lauren Pisciotta, a former assistant to Kanye West, has accused him of drugging and sexually assaulting her during a studio session in 2021, which was co-hosted by Sean "Diddy" Combs. Pisciotta alleges that she was given a drink laced with an unknown drug, leaving her disoriented and impaired. She claims to have blacked out after consuming the drink and only learned years later that she had been assaulted. According to Pisciotta, West later admitted that they "hooked up" at the event, a revelation that shocked her as she had no memory of the incident.In addition to these allegations, Pisciotta also claims West subjected her to sexual harassment throughout her employment. She described instances where West sent her explicit messages and photos, and even forced his way into her hotel room in 2021, attempting to assault her. Pisciotta's lawsuit, which was initially filed for wrongful termination, was amended to include these new claims of sexual assault and harassment, further complicating West's ongoing legal issues.(commercial at 9:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:LAUREN PISCIOTTA vs. KANYE WEST, ET AL. - Adobe cloud storage
Lauren Pisciotta, a former assistant to Kanye West, has accused him of drugging and sexually assaulting her during a studio session in 2021, which was co-hosted by Sean "Diddy" Combs. Pisciotta alleges that she was given a drink laced with an unknown drug, leaving her disoriented and impaired. She claims to have blacked out after consuming the drink and only learned years later that she had been assaulted. According to Pisciotta, West later admitted that they "hooked up" at the event, a revelation that shocked her as she had no memory of the incident.In addition to these allegations, Pisciotta also claims West subjected her to sexual harassment throughout her employment. She described instances where West sent her explicit messages and photos, and even forced his way into her hotel room in 2021, attempting to assault her. Pisciotta's lawsuit, which was initially filed for wrongful termination, was amended to include these new claims of sexual assault and harassment, further complicating West's ongoing legal issues.(commercial at 9:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:LAUREN PISCIOTTA vs. KANYE WEST, ET AL. - Adobe cloud storage
City of Sacramento: Law and Legislation Committee Video Podcast
Watch Download File
City of Sacramento: Law and Legislation Committee Audio Podcast
Watch Download File
Lauren Pisciotta, a former assistant to Kanye West, has accused him of drugging and sexually assaulting her during a studio session in 2021, which was co-hosted by Sean "Diddy" Combs. Pisciotta alleges that she was given a drink laced with an unknown drug, leaving her disoriented and impaired. She claims to have blacked out after consuming the drink and only learned years later that she had been assaulted. According to Pisciotta, West later admitted that they "hooked up" at the event, a revelation that shocked her as she had no memory of the incident.In addition to these allegations, Pisciotta also claims West subjected her to sexual harassment throughout her employment. She described instances where West sent her explicit messages and photos, and even forced his way into her hotel room in 2021, attempting to assault her. Pisciotta's lawsuit, which was initially filed for wrongful termination, was amended to include these new claims of sexual assault and harassment, further complicating West's ongoing legal issues.(commercial at 9:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:LAUREN PISCIOTTA vs. KANYE WEST, ET AL. - Adobe cloud storage
A review of the amended lawsuit and a partial review of the 168 page timeline with new receipts that Justin Baldoni's legal team dropped via website. New information and details about what went on behind the scenes during production, like firing staff members for allegedly thinking Blake should be replaced, texts between Ryan Reynolds and Justin, and more texts between Justin and his Wayfarer cohorts about how to handle situations. The next dive will hopefully complete that timeline review and then we'll get into how Blake Lively and Ryan Reynolds have acted during production as well as how they've publicly responded to the legal battle. BONUS: A warning about woman hating propaganda pushers latching onto this scandal All opinions are personal and not representative of any outside company, person, or agenda. Information shared is cited via articles, legal documents, press releases, government websites, public videos, news reports, and/or direct quotes and statements and may be paraphrased for brevity.Wanna support this independent pod? Links below:BuyMeACoffee - https://www.buymeacoffee.com/BBDBVenmo @TYBBDB Get ad-free listening with a Patreon membership Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Tax season is in full swing! If you haven't made your tax appointment yet, visit drfriday.com and schedule one today. Before filing, ensure you have all necessary documents, such as 1099-B forms (which may not arrive until late February). Filing without all your documents could lead to amended returns—a costly and time-consuming mistake. Stay organized and file correctly the first time! Need help? Call Dr. Friday at 615-367-0819. Transcript: G'day, I'm Dr. Friday, president of Dr. Friday's Tax and Financial Firm. To get more info, go to www.drfriday.com. This is a one-minute moment. We are busy working on taxes! If you haven't scheduled your appointment yet, go to drfriday.com, click on the calendar, and book a time so we can help you. If you're new to our services, give us a call at 615-367-0819, and let's see how we can assist you. When preparing your taxes, don't rush! Make sure you have all your documents, or you may end up needing to file an amended return. For example, 1099-B forms—which report investment income—often don't arrive until late February. Filing without them could cause major issues. Be patient and make sure everything is in order before submitting your return. If you need help, call my firm today! You can catch the Dr. Friday Call-In Show live every Saturday afternoon from 2 to 3 p.m. right here on 99.7 WTN.
In October 2024, a lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York under case number 1:24-cv-07777, titled Doe v. Combs et al. The plaintiff, identified as Jane Doe, alleges that Sean Combs, also known as "P. Diddy," "Puff Daddy," and other monikers, sexually assaulted her during a party at his residence. The complaint details that Combs forcibly raped the plaintiff in a bathroom, subsequently threatening her to ensure her silence. The lawsuit seeks both compensatory and punitive damages for the alleged assault.(commercial at 7:19)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
In the case CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger's legal team filed an Amended Motion to Strike the State's Notice of Intent to Seek Death on the grounds that Idaho's execution methods—lethal injection and firing squad—constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The defense argued that Idaho currently lacks the means to carry out executions humanely, citing issues such as the unavailability of lethal injection drugs and the potential psychological distress caused by prolonged uncertainty on death row.During a hearing on November 7, 2024, Ada County District Judge Steven Hippler considered these arguments. The prosecution maintained that Idaho law provides for both lethal injection and firing squad as legal execution methods, asserting that the state retains the capability to enforce capital punishment. Judge Hippler agreed with the prosecution, noting that even if Kohberger were convicted and sentenced to death, it would likely be many years before an execution date, during which time methods and protocols could evolve. Consequently, on November 20, 2024, Judge Hippler denied the defense's motion, allowing the death penalty to remain a potential sentence in Kohberger's upcoming trial scheduled for August 2025.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:102424-Amended-Motion-to-Strike-Intent-Seek-Death-Method-Execution.pdf
In the case CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger's legal team filed an Amended Motion to Strike the State's Notice of Intent to Seek Death on the grounds that Idaho's execution methods—lethal injection and firing squad—constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The defense argued that Idaho currently lacks the means to carry out executions humanely, citing issues such as the unavailability of lethal injection drugs and the potential psychological distress caused by prolonged uncertainty on death row.During a hearing on November 7, 2024, Ada County District Judge Steven Hippler considered these arguments. The prosecution maintained that Idaho law provides for both lethal injection and firing squad as legal execution methods, asserting that the state retains the capability to enforce capital punishment. Judge Hippler agreed with the prosecution, noting that even if Kohberger were convicted and sentenced to death, it would likely be many years before an execution date, during which time methods and protocols could evolve. Consequently, on November 20, 2024, Judge Hippler denied the defense's motion, allowing the death penalty to remain a potential sentence in Kohberger's upcoming trial scheduled for August 2025.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:102424-Amended-Motion-to-Strike-Intent-Seek-Death-Method-Execution.pdf
The Laken Riley Act has passed the U.S. House, giving DHS expanded powers to detain and deport foreign nationals accused of serious crimes. With bipartisan support, the bill now heads to Donald Trump's desk for approval. Read more at https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/amended-laken-riley-act-passes-u-s-house-to-be-sent-to-trump www.ClarkCountyToday.com #LakenRileyAct #ImmigrationReform #DeportationPolicy #USDHS #USHouse #USSenate #DonaldTrump #HouseRepublicans #ICEEnforcement #SanctuaryPolicies #ClarkCountyWa #WashingtonState #LocalNews
In the case CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger's legal team filed an Amended Motion to Strike the State's Notice of Intent to Seek Death on the grounds that Idaho's execution methods—lethal injection and firing squad—constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The defense argued that Idaho currently lacks the means to carry out executions humanely, citing issues such as the unavailability of lethal injection drugs and the potential psychological distress caused by prolonged uncertainty on death row.During a hearing on November 7, 2024, Ada County District Judge Steven Hippler considered these arguments. The prosecution maintained that Idaho law provides for both lethal injection and firing squad as legal execution methods, asserting that the state retains the capability to enforce capital punishment. Judge Hippler agreed with the prosecution, noting that even if Kohberger were convicted and sentenced to death, it would likely be many years before an execution date, during which time methods and protocols could evolve. Consequently, on November 20, 2024, Judge Hippler denied the defense's motion, allowing the death penalty to remain a potential sentence in Kohberger's upcoming trial scheduled for August 2025.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:102424-Amended-Motion-to-Strike-Intent-Seek-Death-Method-Execution.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the case CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger's legal team filed an Amended Motion to Strike the State's Notice of Intent to Seek Death on the grounds that Idaho's execution methods—lethal injection and firing squad—constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The defense argued that Idaho currently lacks the means to carry out executions humanely, citing issues such as the unavailability of lethal injection drugs and the potential psychological distress caused by prolonged uncertainty on death row.During a hearing on November 7, 2024, Ada County District Judge Steven Hippler considered these arguments. The prosecution maintained that Idaho law provides for both lethal injection and firing squad as legal execution methods, asserting that the state retains the capability to enforce capital punishment. Judge Hippler agreed with the prosecution, noting that even if Kohberger were convicted and sentenced to death, it would likely be many years before an execution date, during which time methods and protocols could evolve. Consequently, on November 20, 2024, Judge Hippler denied the defense's motion, allowing the death penalty to remain a potential sentence in Kohberger's upcoming trial scheduled for August 2025.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:102424-Amended-Motion-to-Strike-Intent-Seek-Death-Method-Execution.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
In the case CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger's legal team filed an Amended Motion to Strike the State's Notice of Intent to Seek Death on the grounds that Idaho's execution methods—lethal injection and firing squad—constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The defense argued that Idaho currently lacks the means to carry out executions humanely, citing issues such as the unavailability of lethal injection drugs and the potential psychological distress caused by prolonged uncertainty on death row.During a hearing on November 7, 2024, Ada County District Judge Steven Hippler considered these arguments. The prosecution maintained that Idaho law provides for both lethal injection and firing squad as legal execution methods, asserting that the state retains the capability to enforce capital punishment. Judge Hippler agreed with the prosecution, noting that even if Kohberger were convicted and sentenced to death, it would likely be many years before an execution date, during which time methods and protocols could evolve. Consequently, on November 20, 2024, Judge Hippler denied the defense's motion, allowing the death penalty to remain a potential sentence in Kohberger's upcoming trial scheduled for August 2025.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:102424-Amended-Motion-to-Strike-Intent-Seek-Death-Method-Execution.pdf
In the case CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan Kohberger's legal team filed an Amended Motion to Strike the State's Notice of Intent to Seek Death on the grounds that Idaho's execution methods—lethal injection and firing squad—constitute cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The defense argued that Idaho currently lacks the means to carry out executions humanely, citing issues such as the unavailability of lethal injection drugs and the potential psychological distress caused by prolonged uncertainty on death row.During a hearing on November 7, 2024, Ada County District Judge Steven Hippler considered these arguments. The prosecution maintained that Idaho law provides for both lethal injection and firing squad as legal execution methods, asserting that the state retains the capability to enforce capital punishment. Judge Hippler agreed with the prosecution, noting that even if Kohberger were convicted and sentenced to death, it would likely be many years before an execution date, during which time methods and protocols could evolve. Consequently, on November 20, 2024, Judge Hippler denied the defense's motion, allowing the death penalty to remain a potential sentence in Kohberger's upcoming trial scheduled for August 2025.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:102424-Amended-Motion-to-Strike-Intent-Seek-Death-Method-Execution.pdf
International Bankruptcy, Restructuring, True Crime and Appeals - Court Audio Recording Podcast
1UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISIONIn re:INTRUM AB, et al.,1Debtors.Chapter 11Case No. 24-90575 (CML)(Jointly Administered)NOTICE OF APPEALPursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 158(a) and Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 8002 and 8003,notice is hereby given that the Ad Hoc Committee of holders of 2025 notes issued by Intrum AB(the “AHC”) hereby appeals to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texasfrom (i) the Order Denying Motion of the Ad Hoc Committee of Holders of Intrum AB Notes Due2025 to Dismiss Chapter 11 Cases Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) and Federal Rule ofBankruptcy Procedure 1017(f)(1) (ECF No. 262) (the “Motion to Dismiss Order”) and (ii) theOrder (I) Approving Disclosure Statement and (II) Confirming Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11Plan of Intrum AB and Its Affiliated Debtor (Further Technical Modifications) (ECF No. 263) (the“Confirmation Order”). A copy of the Motion to Dismiss Order is attached as Exhibit A and acopy of the Confirmation Order is attached as Exhibit B. Additionally, the transcript of theBankruptcy Court's oral ruling accompanying the Motion to Dismiss Order and ConfirmationOrder (ECF No. 275) is attached as Exhibit C.Below are the names of all parties to this appeal and their respective counsel:1 The Debtors in these Chapter 11 Cases are Intrum AB and Intrum AB of Texas LLC. The Debtors'service address in these Chapter 11 Cases is 801 Travis Street, Ste 2101, #1312, Houston, TX 77002.Case 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 1 of 62I. APPELLANTA. Name of Appellant:The members of the AHC include:Boundary Creek Master Fund LP; CF INT Holdings Designated Activity Company; CaiusCapital Master Fund; Diameter Master Fund LP; Diameter Dislocation Master Fund II LP; FirTree Credit Opportunity Master Fund, LP; MAP 204 Segregated Portfolio, a segregated portfolioof LMA SPC; Star V Partners LLC; and TQ Master Fund LP.Attorneys for the AHC:QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLPChristopher D. Porter (SBN 24070437)Joanna D. Caytas (SBN 24127230)Melanie A. Guzman (SBN 24117175)Cameron M. Kelly (SBN 24120936)700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3900Houston, TX 77002Telephone: (713) 221-7000Facsimile: (713) 221-7100Email: chrisporter@quinnemanuel.comjoannacaytas@quinnemanuel.commelanieguzman@quinnemanuel.comcameronkelly@quinnemanuel.com-and-Benjamin I. Finestone (admitted pro hac vice)Sascha N. Rand (admitted pro hac vice)Katherine A. Scherling (admitted pro hac vice)295 5th AvenueNew York, New York 10016Telephone: (212) 849-7000Facsimile: (212) 849-7100Email: benjaminfinestone@quinnemanuel.comsascharand@quinnemanuel.comkatescherling@quinnemanuel.comB. Positions of appellant in the adversary proceeding or bankruptcy case that isthe subject of this appeal:CreditorsCase 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 2 of 63II. THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPEALA. Judgment, order, or decree appealed from:The Order Denying Motion of the Ad Hoc Committee of Holders of Intrum AB Notes Due2025 to Dismiss Chapter 11 Cases Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 1112(b) and Federal Rule ofBankruptcy Procedure 1017(f)(1) (ECF No. 262); the Order (I) Approving Disclosure Statementand (II) Confirming Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Intrum AB and Its Affiliated Debtor(Further Technical Modifications) (ECF No. 263); and the December 31, 2024 Transcript of OralRuling Before the Honorable Christopher M. Lopez United States Bankruptcy Court Judge (ECFNo. 275).B. The date on which the judgment, order, or decree was entered:The Motion to Dismiss Order and the Confirmation Order were entered on December 31,2024. The Court issued its oral ruling accompanying the Motion to Dismiss Order and theConfirmation Order on December 31, 2024.III. OTHER PARTIES TO THIS APPEALIntrum AB and Intrum AB of Texas LLCMILBANK LLPDennis F. Dunne (admitted pro hac vice)Jaimie Fedell (admitted pro hac vice)55 Hudson YardsNew York, NY 10001Telephone: (212) 530-5000Facsimile: (212) 530-5219Email: ddunne@milbank.comjfedell@milbank.com–and–Andrew M. Leblanc (admitted pro hac vice)Melanie Westover Yanez (admitted pro hac vice)1850 K Street, NW, Suite 1100Washington, DC 20006Telephone: (202) 835-7500Facsimile: (202) 263-7586Email: aleblanc@milbank.commwyanez@milbank.com–and–PORTER HEDGES LLPJohn F. Higgins (SBN 09597500)Case 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 3 of 64Eric D. Wade (SBN 00794802)M. Shane Johnson (SBN 24083263)1000 Main Street, 36th FloorHouston TX 77002Telephone: (713) 226-6000Facsimile: (713) 226-6248Email: jhiggins@porterhedges.comewade@porterhedges.comsjohnson@porterhedges.comIV. OTHER PARTIES THAT MAY HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS APPEALThe following chart lists certain parties that are not parties to this appeal, but that may havean interest in the outcome of the case. These parties should be served with notice of this appealby the Debtors who are aware of their identities and best positioned to provide notice.All Other Creditors of the Debtors, Including, But Not Limited To:• Certain funds and accounts managed by BlackRock Investment Management (UK)Limited or its affiliates;• Capital Four;• Davidson Kempner European Partners, LLP;• Intermediate Capital Managers Limited;• Mandatum Asset Management Ltd;• H.I.G. Capital, LLC;• Spiltan Hograntefond; Spiltan Rantefond Sverige; and Spiltan Aktiefond Stabil;• The RCF SteerCo Group;• Swedbank AB (publ).Any Holder of Stock of the Debtors• Any holder of stock of the Debtors, including their successors and assigns.Case 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 4 of 65Respectfully submitted this 13th day of January, 2025.QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART &SULLIVAN, LLP/s/ Christopher D. PorterChristopher D. Porter (SBN 24070437)Joanna D. Caytas (SBN 24127230)Melanie A. Guzman (SBN 24117175)Cameron M. Kelly (SBN 24120936)700 Louisiana Street, Suite 3900Houston, TX 77002Telephone: (713) 221-7000Facsimile: (713) 221-7100Email: chrisporter@quinnemanuel.comjoannacaytas@quinnemanuel.commelanieguzman@quinnemanuel.comcameronkelly@quinnemanuel.com-and-Benjamin I. Finestone (admitted pro hac vice)Sascha N. Rand (admitted pro hac vice)Katherine A. Scherling (admitted pro hac vice)295 5th AvenueNew York, New York 10016Telephone: (212) 849-7000Facsimile: (212) 849-7100Email: benjaminfinestone@quinnemanuel.comsascharand@quinnemanuel.comkatescherling@quinnemanuel.comCOUNSEL FOR THE AD HOC COMMITTEE OFINTRUM AB 2025 NOTEHOLDERSCase 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 5 of 6CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEI, Christopher D. Porter, hereby certify that on the 13th day of January, 2025, a copy ofthe foregoing document has been served via the Electronic Case Filing System for the UnitedStates Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas./s/ Christopher D. PorterBy: Christopher D. PorterCase 24-90575 Document 296 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 6 of 6EXHIBIT ACase 24-90575 Document 296-1 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 1 of 31IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISION)In re: ) Chapter 11)Intrum AB, et al.,1 ) Case No. 24-90575 (CML)))Jointly AdministeredDebtors. ))ORDER DENYING MOTION OF THE AD HOCCOMMITTEE OF HOLDERS OF INTRUM AB NOTES DUE 2025TO DISMISS CHAPTER 11 CASES PURSUANT TO 11 U.S.C. § 1112(B) ANDFEDERAL RULE OF BANKRUPTCY PROCEDURE 1017(F)(1)(Related to Docket No. 27)This matter, having come before the Court upon the Motion of the Ad Hoc Committee ofHolders of Intrum AB Notes Due 2025 to Dismiss Chapter 11 Cases Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §1112(b) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1017(f)(1) [Docket No. 27] (the “Motion toDismiss”); and this Court having considered the Debtors' Objection to the Motion of the Ad HocCommittee of Holders of Intrum AB Notes Due 2025 to Dismiss Chapter 11 Cases Pursuant to 11U.S.C. § 1112(b) and Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1017(f)(1) (the “Objection”) andany other responses or objections to the Motion to Dismiss; and this Court having jurisdiction overthis matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1334 and the Amended Standing Order; and this Court havingfound that this is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(2); and this Court having foundthat it may enter a final order consistent with Article III of the United States Constitution; and thisCourt having found that the relief requested in the Objection is in the best interests of the Debtors'1 The Debtors in these Chapter 11 Cases are Intrum AB and Intrum AB of Texas LLC. The Debtors' serviceaddress in these Chapter 11 Cases is 801 Travis Street, STE 2101, #1312, Houston, TX 77002.United States Bankruptcy CourtSouthern District of TexasENTEREDDecember 31, 2024Nathan Ochsner, ClerkCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29662-1 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 2 o of f2 32estates; and this Court having found that the Debtors' notice of the Objection and opportunity fora hearing on the Motion to Dismiss and Objection were appropriate and no other notice need beprovided; and this Court having reviewed the Motion to Dismiss and Objection and havingheard the statements in support of the relief requested therein at a hearing before this Court; andthis Court having determined that the legal and factual bases set forth in the Objectionestablish just cause for the relief granted herein; and upon all of the proceedings had beforethis Court; and after due deliberation and sufficient cause appearing therefor, it is HEREBYORDERED THAT:1. The Motion to Dismiss is Denied for the reasons stated at the December 31, 2024 hearing.2. This Court retains exclusive jurisdiction and exclusive venue with respect to allmatters arising from or related to the implementation, interpretation, and enforcement of this Order.DAeucegmubste 0r 23,1 2, 0210294CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29662-1 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 3 o of f2 3EXHIBIT BCase 24-90575 Document 296-2 Filed in TXSB on 01/13/25 Page 1 of 135IN THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURTFOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXASHOUSTON DIVISION)In re: ) Chapter 11)Intrum AB et al.,1 ) Case No. 24-90575 (CML)))(Jointly Administered)Debtors. ))ORDER (I) APPROVINGDISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND(II) CONFIRMING JOINT PREPACKAGED CHAPTER 11PLAN OF INTRUM AB AND ITS AFFILIATEDDEBTOR (FURTHER TECHNICAL MODIFICATIONS)The above-captioned debtors and debtors in possession (collectively, the“Debtors”), having:a. entered into that certain Lock-Up Agreement, dated as of July 10, 2024 (asamended and restated on August 15, 2024, and as further modified,supplemented, or otherwise amended from time to time in accordance with itsterms, the “the Lock-Up Agreement”) and that certain Backstop Agreement,dated as of July 10, 2024, (as amended and restated on November 15, 2024 andas further modified, supplemented, or otherwise amended from time to time inaccordance with its terms), setting out the terms of the backstop commitmentsprovided by the Backstop Providers to backstop the entirety of the issuance ofNew Money Notes (as may be further amended, restated, amended and restated,modified or supplemented from time to time in accordance with the termsthereof, the “Backstop Agreement”) which set forth the terms of a consensualfinancial restructuring of the Debtors;b. commenced, on October 17, 2024, a prepetition solicitation (the “Solicitation”)of votes on the Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of IntrumAB and its Debtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (asthe same may be further amended, modified and supplemented from time totime, the “Plan”), by causing the transmittal, through their solicitation andballoting agent, Kroll Restructuring Administration LLC (“Kroll”), to theholders of Claims entitled to vote on the Plan of, among other things: (i) the1 The Debtors in these chapter 11 cases are Intrum AB and Intrum AB of Texas LLC. The Debtors' serviceaddress in these chapter 11 cases is 801 Travis Street, STE 2102, #1312, Houston, TX 77002.United States Bankruptcy CourtSouthern District of TexasENTEREDDecember 31, 2024Nathan Ochsner, ClerkCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 2 o of f1 133452Plan, (ii) the Disclosure Statement for Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan ofReorganization of Intrum AB and its Debtor Affiliate (as the same may befurther amended, modified and supplemented from time to time, the“Disclosure Statement”), and (iii) the Ballots and Master Ballot to vote on thePlan (the “Ballots”), (iv) the Affidavit of Service of Solicitation Materials[Docket No. 7];c. commenced on November 15, 2024 (the “Petition Date”), these chapter 11 cases(these “Chapter 11 Cases”) by filing voluntary petitions in the United StatesBankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas (the “Bankruptcy Court”or the “Court”) for relief under chapter 11 of title 11 of the United States Code(the “Bankruptcy Code”);d. Filed on November 15, 2024, the Affidavit of Service of Solicitation Materials[Docket No. 7] (the “Solicitation Affidavit”);e. Filed, on November 16, 2024 the Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan ofReorganization of Intrum AB and its Debtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11of the Bankruptcy Code (Technical Modifications) [Docket No. 16] and theDisclosure Statement for Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Intrum AB andits Debtor Affiliate [Docket No. 17];f. Filed on November 16, 2024, the Declaration of Andrés Rubio in Support of ofthe Debtors' Chapter 11 Petitions and First Day Motions [Docket No. 14] (the“First Day Declaration”);g. Filed on November 17, 2024, the Declaration of Alex Orchowski of KrollRestructuring Administration LLC Regarding the Solicitation of Votes andTabulation of Ballots Case on the Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan ofReorganization of Intrum AB and its Debtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11of the Bankruptcy Code [Docket No. 18] (the “Voting Declaration,” andtogether with the Plan, the Disclosure Statement, the Ballots, and theSolicitation Affidavit, the “Solicitation Materials”);h. obtained, on November 19, 2024, the Order(I) Scheduling a Combined Hearingon (A) Adequacy of the Disclosure Statement and (B) Confirmation of the Plan,(II) Approving Solicitation Procedures and Form and Manner of Notice ofCommencement, Combined Hearing, and Objection Deadline, (III) FixingDeadline to Object to Disclosure Statement and Plan, (IV) Conditionally (A)Directing the United States Trustee Not to Convene Section 341 Meeting ofCreditors and (B) Waiving Requirement to File Statements of Financial Affairsand Schedules of Assets and Liabilities, and (V) Granting Related Relief[Docket No. 71] (the “Scheduling Order”), which, among other things: (i)approved the prepetition solicitation and voting procedures, including theConfirmation Schedule (as defined therein); (ii) conditionally approved theDisclosure Statement and its use in the Solicitation; and (iii) scheduled theCombined Hearing on December 16, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. (prevailing CentralCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 3 o of f1 133453Time) to consider the final approval of the Disclosure Statement and theconfirmation of the Plan (the “Combined Hearing”);i. served, through Kroll, on November 20, 2025, on all known holders of Claimsand Interests, the U.S. Trustee and certain other parties in interest, the Noticeof: (I) Commencement of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Cases; (II) Hearing on theDisclosure Statement and Confirmation of the Plan, and (III) Certain ObjectionDeadlines (the “Combined Hearing Notice”) as evidence by the Affidavit ofService [Docket No. 160];j. caused, on November 25 and 27, 2024, the Combined Hearing Notice to bepublished in the New York Times (national and international editions) and theFinancial Times (international edition), as evidenced by the Certificate ofPublication [Docket No. 148];k. Filed and served, on December 10, 2024, the Plan Supplement for the Debtors'Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization [Docket 165];l. Filed on December 10, 2024, the Declaration of Jeffrey Kopa in Support ofConfirmation of the Joint Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization of Intrum ABand its Debtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code [DocketNo. 155];m. Filed on December 14, 2024, the:i. Debtors' Memorandum of Law in Support of an Order: (I) Approving, on aFinal Basis, Adequacy of the Disclosure Statement; (II) Confirming theJoint Prepackaged Plan of Reorganization; and (III) Granting Related Relief[Docket No. 190] (the “Confirmation Brief”);ii. Declaration of Andrés Rubio in Support of Confirmation of the JointPrepackaged Plan of Reorganization of Intrum AB and its Debtor Affiliate.[Docket No. 189] (the “Confirmation Declaration”); andiii. Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan of Reorganization of Intrum AB and itsDebtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code (FurtherTechnical Modifications) [Docket No. 191];n. Filed on December 18, 2024, the Joint Prepackaged Chapter 11 Plan ofReorganization of Intrum AB and its Debtor Affiliate Pursuant to Chapter 11of the Bankruptcy Code (Further Technical Modifications) [Docket No. 223];CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 3 4 o of f1 133454WHEREAS, the Court having, among other things:a. set December 12, 2024, at 4:00 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) as the deadlinefor Filing objection to the adequacy of the Disclosure Statement and/orConfirmation2 of the Plan (the “Objection Deadline”);b. held, on December 16, 2024 at 1:00 p.m. (prevailing Central Time) [andcontinuing through December 17, 2024], the Combined Hearing;c. heard the statements, arguments, and any objections made at the CombinedHearing;d. reviewed the Disclosure Statement, the Plan, the Ballots, the Plan Supplement,the Confirmation Brief, the Confirmation Declaration, the SolicitationAffidavit, and the Voting Declaration;e. overruled (i) any and all objections to approval of the Disclosure Statement, thePlan, and Confirmation, except as otherwise stated or indicated on the record,and (ii) all statements and reservations of rights not consensually resolved orwithdrawn, unless otherwise indicated; andf. reviewed and taken judicial notice of all the papers and pleadings Filed(including any objections, statement, joinders, reservations of rights and otherresponses), all orders entered, and all evidence proffered or adduced and allarguments made at the hearings held before the Court during the pendency ofthese cases;NOW, THEREFORE, it appearing to the Bankruptcy Court that notice of theCombined Hearing and the opportunity for any party in interest to object to the DisclosureStatement and the Plan having been adequate and appropriate as to all parties affected or to beaffected by the Plan and the transactions contemplated thereby, and the legal and factual bases setforth in the documents Filed in support of approval of the Disclosure Statement and Confirmationand other evidence presented at the Combined Hearing establish just cause for the relief grantedherein; and after due deliberation thereon and good cause appearing therefor, the BankruptcyCourt makes and issues the following findings of fact and conclusions of law, and orders for thereasons stated on the record at the December 31, 2024 ruling on plan confirmation;2 Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein have meanings given to them in the Plan and/or theDisclosure Statement. The rules of interpretation set forth in Article I.B of the Plan apply to this CombinedOrder.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 4 5 o of f1 133455I. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAWIT IS HEREBY FOUND AND DETERMINED THAT:A. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.1. The findings and conclusions set forth herein and in the record of theCombined Hearing constitute the Bankruptcy Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law underRule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as made applicable herein by Bankruptcy Rules7052 and 9014. To the extent any of the following conclusions of law constitute findings of fact,or vice versa, they are adopted as such.B. Jurisdiction, Venue, Core Proceeding.2. This Court has jurisdiction over these Chapter 11 Cases pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1334. Venue of these proceedings and the Chapter 11 Cases in this district is properpursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1408 and 1409. This is a core proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§ 157(b)(2) and this Court may enter a final order hereon under Article III of the United StatesConstitution.C. Eligibility for Relief.3. The Debtors were and continue to be entities eligible for relief under section109 of the Bankruptcy Code and the Debtors were and continue to be proper proponents of thePlan under section 1121(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.D. Commencement and Joint Administration of the Chapter 11 Cases.4. On the Petition Date, the Debtors commenced the Chapter 11 Cases. OnNovember 18, 2024, the Court entered an order [Docket No. 51] authorizing the jointadministration of the Chapter 11 Case in accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 1015(b). The Debtorshave operated their businesses and managed their properties as debtors in possession pursuant toCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 5 6 o of f1 133456sections 1107(a) and 1108 of the Bankruptcy Code. No trustee, examiner, or statutory committeehas been appointed in these Chapter 11 Cases.E. Adequacy of the Disclosure Statement.5. The Disclosure Statement and the exhibits contained therein (i) containssufficient information of a kind necessary to satisfy the disclosure requirements of applicablenonbankruptcy laws, rules and regulations, including the Securities Act; and (ii) contains“adequate information” as such term is defined in section 1125(a)(1) and used in section1126(b)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code, with respect to the Debtors, the Plan and the transactionscontemplated therein. The Filing of the Disclosure Statement satisfied Bankruptcy Rule 3016(b).The injunction, release, and exculpation provisions in the Plan and the Disclosure Statementdescribe, in bold font and with specific and conspicuous language, all acts to be enjoined andidentify the Entities that will be subject to the injunction, thereby satisfying Bankruptcy Rule3016(c).F. Solicitation.6. As described in and evidenced by the Voting Declaration, the Solicitationand the transmittal and service of the Solicitation Materials were: (i) timely, adequate, appropriate,and sufficient under the circumstances; and (ii) in compliance with sections 1125(g) and 1126(b)of the Bankruptcy Code, Bankruptcy Rules 3017 and 3018, the applicable Local Bankruptcy Rules,the Scheduling Order and all applicable nonbankruptcy rules, laws, and regulations applicable tothe Solicitation, including the registration requirements under the Securities Act. The SolicitationMaterials, including the Ballots and the Opt Out Form (as defined below), adequately informedthe holders of Claims entitled to vote on the Plan of the procedures and deadline for completingand submitting the Ballots.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 6 7 o of f1 1334577. The Debtors served the Combined Hearing Notice on the entire creditormatrix and served the Opt Out Form on all Non-Voting Classes. The Combined Hearing Noticeadequately informed Holders of Claims or Interests of critical information regarding voting on (ifapplicable) and objecting to the Plan, including deadlines and the inclusion of release, exculpation,and injunction provisions in the Plan, and adequately summarized the terms of the Third-PartyRelease. Further, because the form enabling stakeholders to opt out of the Third-Party Release (the“Opt Out Form”) was included in both the Ballots and the Opt Out Form, every known stakeholder,including unimpaired creditors was provided with the means by which the stakeholders could optout of the Third-Party Release. No further notice is required. The period for voting on the Planprovided a reasonable and sufficient period of time and the manner of such solicitation was anappropriate process allowing for such holders to make an informed decision.G. Tabulation.8. As described in and evidenced by the Voting Declaration, (i) the holders ofClaims in Class 3 (RCF Claims) and Class 5 (Notes Claims) are Impaired under the Plan(collectively, the “Voting Classes”) and have voted to accept the Plan in the numbers and amountsrequired by section 1126 of the Bankruptcy Code, and (ii) no Class that was entitled to vote on thePlan voted to reject the Plan. All procedures used to tabulate the votes on the Plan were in goodfaith, fair, reasonable, and conducted in accordance with the applicable provisions of theBankruptcy Code, the Bankruptcy Rules, the Local Rules, the Disclosure Statement, theScheduling Order, and all other applicable nonbankruptcy laws, rules, and regulations.H. Plan Supplement.9. On December 10, 2024, the Debtors Filed the Plan Supplement with theCourt. The Plan Supplement (including as subsequently modified, supplemented, or otherwiseCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 7 8 o of f1 133458amended pursuant to a filing with the Court), complies with the terms of the Plan, and the Debtorsprovided good and proper notice of the filing in accordance with the Bankruptcy Code, theBankruptcy Rules, the Scheduling Order, and the facts and circumstances of the Chapter 11 Cases.All documents included in the Plan Supplement are integral to, part of, and incorporated byreference into the Plan. No other or further notice is or will be required with respect to the PlanSupplement. Subject to the terms of the Plan and the Lock-Up Agreement, and only consistenttherewith, the Debtors reserve the right to alter, amend, update, or modify the Plan Supplementand any of the documents contained therein or related thereto, in accordance with the Plan, on orbefore the Effective Date.I. Modifications to the Plan.10. Pursuant to section 1127 of the Bankruptcy Code, the modifications to thePlan described or set forth in this Combined Order constitute technical or clarifying changes,changes with respect to particular Claims by agreement with holders of such Claims, ormodifications that do not otherwise materially and adversely affect or change the treatment of anyother Claim or Interest under the Plan. These modifications are consistent with the disclosurespreviously made pursuant to the Disclosure Statement and Solicitation Materials, and notice ofthese modifications was adequate and appropriate under the facts and circumstances of the Chapter11 Cases. In accordance with Bankruptcy Rule 3019, these modifications do not require additionaldisclosure under section 1125 of the Bankruptcy Code or the resolicitation of votes under section1126 of the Bankruptcy Code, and they do not require that holders of Claims or Interests beafforded an opportunity to change previously cast acceptances or rejections of the Plan.Accordingly, the Plan is properly before this Court and all votes cast with respect to the Plan priorto such modification shall be binding and shall apply with respect to the Plan.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Filieledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 8 9 o of f1 133459J. Objections Overruled.11. Any resolution or disposition of objections to Confirmation explained orotherwise ruled upon by the Court on the record at the Confirmation Hearing is herebyincorporated by reference. All unresolved objections, statements, joinders, informal objections,and reservations of rights are hereby overruled on the merits.K. Burden of Proof.12. The Debtors, as proponents of the Plan, have met their burden of provingthe elements of sections 1129(a) and 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code by a preponderance of theevidence, the applicable evidentiary standard for Confirmation. Further, the Debtors have proventhe elements of sections 1129(a) and 1129(b) by clear and convincing evidence. Each witness whotestified on behalf of the Debtors in connection with the Confirmation Hearing was credible,reliable, and qualified to testify as to the topics addressed in his testimony.L. Compliance with the Requirements of Section 1129 of the BankruptcyCode.13. The Plan complies with all applicable provisions of section 1129 of theBankruptcy Code as follows:a. Section 1129(a)(1) – Compliance of the Plan with Applicable Provisions of theBankruptcy Code.14. The Plan complies with all applicable provisions of the Bankruptcy Code,including sections 1122 and 1123, as required by section 1129(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.i. Section 1122 and 1123(a)(1) – Proper Classification.15. The classification of Claims and Interests under the Plan is proper under theBankruptcy Code. In accordance with sections 1122(a) and 1123(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code,Article III of the Plan provides for the separate classification of Claims and Interests at each Debtorinto Classes, based on differences in the legal nature or priority of such Claims and Interests (otherCaCsaes e2 42-49-09507557 5 D oDcoucmumenetn 2t 9266-32 FFiilleedd iinn TTXXSSBB oonn 1021//3113//2245 PPaaggee 91 0o fo 1f 3143510than Administrative Claims, Professional Fee Claims, and Priority Tax Claims, which areaddressed in Article II of the Plan and Unimpaired, and are not required to be designated asseparate Classes in accordance with section 1123(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code). Valid business,factual, and legal reasons exist for the separate classification of the various Classes of Claims andInterests created under the Plan, the classifications were not implemented for any improperpurpose, and the creation of such Classes does not unfairly discriminate between or among holdersof Claims or Interests.16. In accordance with section 1122(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, each Class ofClaims or Interests contains only Claims or Interests substantially similar to the other Claims orInterests within that Class. Accordingly, the Plan satisfies the requirements of sections 1122(a),1122(b), and 1123(a)(1) of the Bankruptcy Codeii. Section 1123(a)(2) – Specifications of Unimpaired Classes.17. Article III of the Plan specifies that Claims and Interests in the classesdeemed to accept the Plan are Unimpaired under the Plan. Holders of Intercompany Claims andIntercompany Interests are either Unimpaired and conclusively presumed to have accepted thePlan, or are Impaired and deemed to reject (the “Deemed Rejecting Classes”) the Plan, and, ineither event, are not entitled to vote to accept or reject the Plan. In addition, Article II of the Planspecifies that Administrative Claims and Priority Tax Claims are Unimpaired, although the Plandoes not classify these Claims. Accordingly, the Plan satisfies the requirements of section1123(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 101 o of f1 1334511iii. Section 1123(a)(3) – Specification of Treatment of Voting Classes18. Article III.B of the Plan specifies the treatment of each Voting Class underthe Plan – namely, Class 3 and Class 5. Accordingly, the Plan satisfies the requirements of section1123(a)(3) of the Bankruptcy Code.iv. Section 1123(a)(4) – No Discrimination.19. Article III of the Plan provides the same treatment to each Claim or Interestin any particular Class, as the case may be, unless the holder of a particular Claim or Interest hasagreed to a less favorable treatment with respect to such Claim or Interest. Accordingly, the Plansatisfies the requirements of section 1123(a)(4) of the Bankruptcy Code.v. Section 1123(a)(5) – Adequate Means for Plan Implementation.20. The Plan and the various documents included in the Plan Supplementprovide adequate and proper means for the Plan's execution and implementation, including: (a)the general settlement of Claims and Interests; (b) the restructuring of the Debtors' balance sheetand other financial transactions provided for by the Plan; (c) the consummation of the transactionscontemplated by the Plan, the Lock-Up Agreement, the Restructuring Implementation Deed andthe Agreed Steps Plan and other documents Filed as part of the Plan Supplement; (d) the issuanceof Exchange Notes, the New Money Notes, and the Noteholder Ordinary Shares pursuant to thePlan; (e) the amendment of the Intercreditor Agreement; (f) the amendment of the FacilityAgreement; (g) the amendment of the Senior Secured Term Loan Agreement; (h) theconsummation of the Rights Offering in accordance with the Plan, Rights Offering Documentsand the Lock-Up Agreement; (i) the granting of all Liens and security interests granted orconfirmed (as applicable) pursuant to, or in connection with, the Facility Agreement, the ExchangeNotes Indenture, the New Money Notes Indenture, the amended Intercreditor Agreement and theCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 112 o of f1 1334512Senior Secured Term Loan Agreement pursuant to the New Security Documents (including anyLiens and security interests granted or confirmed (as applicable) on the Reorganized Debtors'assets); (j) the vesting of the assets of the Debtors' Estates in the Reorganized Debtors; (k) theconsummation of the corporate reorganization contemplated by the Plan, the Lock-Up Agreement,the Agreed Steps Plan and the Master Reorganization Agreement (as defined in the RestructuringImplementation Deed); and (l) the execution, delivery, filing, or recording of all contracts,instruments, releases, and other agreements or documents in furtherance of the Plan. Accordingly,the Plan satisfies the requirements of section 1123(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Codevi. Section 1123(a)(6) – Non-Voting Equity Securities.21. The Company's organizational documents in accordance with the SwedishCompanies Act, Ch. 4, Sec 5 and the Plan prohibit the issuance of non-voting securities as of theEffective Date to the extent required to comply with section 1123(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.Accordingly, the Plan satisfies the requirements of section 1123(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.vii. Section 1123(a)(7) – Directors, Officers, and Trustees.22. The manner of selection of any officer, director, or trustee (or any successorto and such officer, director, or trustee) of the Reorganized Debtors will be determined inaccordance with the existing organizational documents, which is consistent with the interests ofcreditors and equity holders and with public policy. Accordingly, the Plan satisfies therequirements of section 1123(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code.b. Section 1123(b) – Discretionary Contents of the Plan23. The Plan contains various provisions that may be construed as discretionarybut not necessary for Confirmation under the Bankruptcy Code. Any such discretionary provisionCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 123 o of f1 1334513complies with section 1123(b) of the Bankruptcy Code and is not inconsistent with the applicableprovisions of the Bankruptcy Code. Thus, the Plan satisfies section 1123(b).i. Section 1123(b)(1) – Impairment/Unimpairment of Any Class of Claims orInterests24. Article III of the Plan impairs or leaves unimpaired, as the case may be,each Class of Claims or Interests, as contemplated by section 1123(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code.ii. Section 1123(b)(2) – Assumption and Rejection of Executory Contracts andUnexpired Leases25. Article V of the Plan provides for the assumption of the Debtors' ExecutoryContracts and Unexpired Leases as of the Effective Date unless such Executory Contract orUnexpired Lease: (a) is identified on the Rejected Executory Contract and Unexpired Lease List;(b) has been previously rejected by a Final Order; (c) is the subject of a motion to reject ExecutoryContracts or Unexpired Leases that is pending on the Confirmation Date; or (4) is subject to amotion to reject an Executory Contract or Unexpired Lease pursuant to which the requestedeffective date of such rejection is after the Effective Date. Thus, the Plan satisfies section1123(b)(2).iii. Compromise and Settlement26. In accordance with section 1123(b)(3)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code andBankruptcy Rule 9019, and in consideration for the distributions and other benefits provided underthe Plan, the provisions of the Plan constitute a good-faith compromise of all Claims, Interests,and controversies relating to the contractual, legal, and subordination rights that all holders ofClaims or Interests may have with respect to any Allowed Claim or Interest or any distribution tobe made on account of such Allowed Claim or Interest. Such compromise and settlement is theproduct of extensive arm's-length, good faith negotiations that, in addition to the Plan, resulted inCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 134 o of f1 1334514the execution of the Lock-Up Agreement, which represents a fair and reasonable compromise ofall Claims, Interests, and controversies and entry into which represented a sound exercise of theDebtors' business judgment. Such compromise and settlement is fair, equitable, and reasonableand in the best interests of the Debtors and their Estates.27. The releases of the Debtors' directors and officers are an integral componentof the settlements and compromises embodied in the Plan. The Debtors' directors and officers: (a)made a substantial and valuable contribution to the Debtors' restructuring, including extensive preandpost-Petition Date negotiations with stakeholder groups, and ensured the uninterruptedoperation of the Debtors' businesses during the Chapter 11 Cases; (b) invested significant timeand effort to make the restructuring a success and maximize the value of the Debtors' businessesin a challenging operating environment; (c) attended and, in certain instances, testified atdepositions and Court hearings; (d) attended and participated in numerous stakeholder meetings,management meetings, and board meetings related to the restructuring; (e) are entitled toindemnification from the Debtors under applicable non-bankruptcy law, organizationaldocuments, and agreements; (f) invested significant time and effort in the preparation of the Lock-Up Agreement, the Plan, Disclosure Statement, all supporting analyses, and the numerous otherpleadings Filed in the Chapter 11 Cases, thereby ensuring the smooth administration of the Chapter11 Cases; and (g) are entitled to all other benefits under any employment contracts existing as ofthe Petition Date. Litigation by the Debtors or other Releasing Parties against the Debtors'directors and officers would be a distraction to the Debtors' business and restructuring and woulddecrease rather than increase the value of the estates. The releases of the Debtors' directors andofficers contained in the Plan have the consent of the Debtors and the Releasing Parties and are inthe best interests of the estates.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 145 o of f1 1334515iv. Debtor Release28. The releases of claims and Causes of Action by the Debtors, ReorganizedDebtors, and their Estates described in Article VIII.C of the Plan in accordance with section1123(b) of the Bankruptcy Code (the “Debtor Release”) represent a valid exercise of the Debtors'business judgment under Bankruptcy Rule 9019. The Debtors' or the Reorganized Debtors' pursuitof any such claims against the Released Parties is not in the best interests of the Estates' variousconstituencies because the costs involved would outweigh any potential benefit from pursuingsuch claims. The Debtor Release is fair and equitable and complies with the absolute priority rule.29. The Debtor Release is (a) an integral part of the Plan, and a component ofthe comprehensive settlement implemented under the Plan; (b) in exchange for the good andvaluable consideration provided by the Released Parties; (c) a good faith settlement andcompromise of the claims and Causes of Action released by the Debtor Release; (d) materiallybeneficial to, and in the best interests of, the Debtors, their Estates, and their stakeholders, and isimportant to the overall objectives of the Plan to finally resolve certain Claims among or againstcertain parties in interest in the Chapter 11 Cases; (e) fair, equitable, and reasonable; (f) given andmade after due notice and opportunity for hearing; and (g) a bar to any Debtor asserting any claimor Cause of Action released by the Debtor Release against any of the Released Parties. Theprobability of success in litigation with respect to the released claims and Causes of Action, whenweighed against the costs, supports the Debtor Release. With respect to each of these potentialCauses of Action, the parties could assert colorable defenses and the probability of success isuncertain. The Debtors' or the Reorganized Debtors' pursuit of any such claims or Causes ofAction against the Released Parties is not in the best interests of the Estates or the Debtors' variousCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 156 o of f1 1334516constituencies because the costs involved would likely outweigh any potential benefit frompursuing such claims or Causes of Action30. Holders of Claims and Interests entitled to vote have overwhelmingly votedin favor of the Plan, including the Debtor Release. The Plan, including the Debtor Release, wasnegotiated before and after the Petition Date by sophisticated parties represented by able counseland advisors, including the Consenting Creditors. The Debtor Release is therefore the result of ahard fought and arm's-length negotiation process conducted in good faith.31. The Debtor Release appropriately offers protection to parties thatparticipated in the Debtors' restructuring process, including the Consenting Creditors, whoseparticipation in the Chapter 11 Cases is critical to the Debtors' successful emergence frombankruptcy. Specifically, the Released Parties, including the Consenting Creditors, madesignificant concessions and contributions to the Chapter 11 Cases, including, entering into theLock-Up Agreement and related agreements, supporting the Plan and the Chapter 11 Cases, andwaiving or agreeing to impair substantial rights and Claims against the Debtors under the Plan (aspart of the compromises composing the settlement underlying the revised Plan) in order tofacilitate a consensual reorganization and the Debtors' emergence from chapter 11. The DebtorRelease for the Debtors' directors and officers is appropriate because the Debtors' directors andofficers share an identity of interest with the Debtors and, as previously stated, supported and madesubstantial contributions to the success of the Plan, the Chapter 11 Cases, and operation of theDebtors' business during the Chapter 11 Cases, actively participated in meetings, negotiations, andimplementation during the Chapter 11 Cases, and have provided other valuable consideration tothe Debtors to facilitate the Debtors' successful reorganization and continued operation.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 167 o of f1 133451732. The scope of the Debtor Release is appropriately tailored under the factsand circumstances of the Chapter 11 Cases. In light of, among other things, the value provided bythe Released Parties to the Debtors' Estates and the critical nature of the Debtor Release to thePlan, the Debtor Release is appropriate.v. Release by Holders of Claims and Interests33. The release by the Releasing Parties (the “Third-Party Release”), set forthin Article VIII.D of the Plan, is an essential provision of the Plan. The Third-Party Release is: (a)consensual as to those Releasing Parties that did not specifically and timely object or properly optout from the Third-Party Release; (b) within the jurisdiction of the Bankruptcy Court pursuant to28 U.S.C. § 1334; (c) in exchange for the good and valuable consideration provided by theReleased Parties; (d) a good faith settlement and compromise of the claims and Causes of Actionreleased by the Third-Party Release; (e) materially beneficial to, and in the best interests of, theDebtors, their Estates, and their stakeholders, and is important to the overall objectives of the Planto finally resolve certain Claims among or against certain parties in interest in the Chapter 11Cases; (f) fair, equitable, and reasonable; (g) given and made after due notice and opportunity forhearing; (h) appropriately narrow in scope given that it expressly excludes, among other things,any Cause of Action that is judicially determined by a Final Order to have constituted actual fraud,willful misconduct, or gross negligence; (i) a bar to any of the Releasing Parties asserting anyclaim or Cause of Action released by the Third-Party Release against any of the Released Parties;and (j) consistent with sections 105, 524, 1123, 1129, and 1141 and other applicable provisions ofthe Bankruptcy Code.34. The Third-Party Release is an integral part of the agreement embodied inthe Plan among the relevant parties in interest. Like the Debtor Release, the Third-Party ReleaseCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 178 o of f1 1334518facilitated participation in both the Debtors' Plan and the chapter 11 process generally. The Third-Party Release is instrumental to the Plan and was critical in incentivizing parties to support thePlan and preventing significant and time-consuming litigation regarding the parties' respectiverights and interests. The Third-Party Release was a core negotiation point in connection with thePlan and instrumental in developing the Plan that maximized value for all of the Debtors'stakeholders and kept the Debtors intact as a going concern. As such, the Third-Party Releaseappropriately offers certain protections to parties who constructively participated in the Debtors'restructuring process—including the Consenting Creditors (as set forth above)—by, among otherthings, facilitating the negotiation and consummation of the Plan, supporting the Plan and, in thecase of the Backstop Providers, committing to provide new capital to facilitate the Debtors'emergence from chapter 11. Specifically, the Notes Ad Hoc Group proposed and negotiated thepari passu transaction that is the basis of the restructuring proposed under the Plan and provideda much-needed deleveraging to the Debtors' business while taking a discount on their Claims (inexchange for other consideration).35. Furthermore, the Third-Party Release is consensual as to all parties ininterest, including all Releasing Parties, and such parties in interest were provided notice of thechapter 11 proceedings, the Plan, the deadline to object to confirmation of the Plan, and theCombined Hearing and were properly informed that all holders of Claims against or Interests inthe Debtors that did not file an objection with the Court in the Chapter 11 Cases that included anexpress objection to the inclusion of such holder as a Releasing Party under the provisionscontained in Article VIII of the Plan would be deemed to have expressly, unconditionally,generally, individually, and collectively consented to the release and discharge of all claims andCauses of Action against the Debtors and the Released Parties. Additionally, the release provisionsCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 189 o of f1 1334519of the Plan were conspicuous, emphasized with boldface type in the Plan, the DisclosureStatement, the Ballots, and the applicable notices. Except as set forth in the Plan, all ReleasingParties were properly informed that unless they (a) checked the “opt out” box on the applicableBallot or opt-out form and returned the same in advance of the Voting Deadline, as applicable, or(b) timely Filed an objection to the releases contained in the Plan that was not resolved beforeentry of this Confirmation Order, they would be deemed to have expressly consented to the releaseof all Claims and Causes of Action against the Released Parties.36. The Ballots sent to all holders of Claims and Interests entitled to vote, aswell as the notice of the Combined Hearing sent to all known parties in interest (including thosenot entitled to vote on the Plan), unambiguously provided in bold letters that the Third-PartyRelease was contained in the Plan.37. The scope of the Third-Party Release is appropriately tailored under thefacts and circumstances of the Chapter 11 Cases, and parties in interest received due and adequatenotice of the Third-Party Release. Among other things, the Plan provides appropriate and specificdisclosure with respect to the claims and Causes of Action that are subject to the Third-PartyRelease, and no other disclosure is necessary. The Debtors, as evidenced by the VotingDeclaration and Certificate of Publication, including by providing actual notice to all knownparties in interest, including all known holders of Claims against, and Interests in, any Debtor andpublishing notice in international and national publications for the benefit of unknown parties ininterest, provided sufficient notice of the Third-Party Release, and no further or other notice isnecessary. The Third-Party Release is designed to provide finality for the Debtors, theReorganized Debtors and the Released Parties regarding the parties' respective obligations underthe Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, and notwithstanding anything to the contrary, anyparty who timely opted-out of the Third-Party Release is not bound by the Third-PartyRelease.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 1 290 o of f1 133452038. The Third-Party Release is specific in language, integral to the Plan, andgiven for substantial consideration. The Releasing Parties were given due and adequate notice ofthe Third-Party Release, and thus the Third-Party Release is consensual under controllingprecedent as to those Releasing Parties that did not specifically and timely object. In light of,among other things, the value provided by the Released Parties to the Debtors' Estates and theconsensual and critical nature of the Third-Party Release to the Plan, the Third-Party Release isappropriatevi. Exculpation.39. The exculpation described in Article VIII.E of the Plan (the “Exculpation”)is appropriate under applicable law, including In re Highland Capital Mgmt., L.P., 48 F. 4th 419(5th Cir. 2022), because it was supported by proper evidence, proposed in good faith, wasformulated following extensive good-faith, arm's-length negotiations with key constituents, and isappropriately limited in scope.40. No Entity or Person may commence or continue any action, employ anyprocess, or take any other act to pursue, collect, recover or offset any Claim, Interest, debt,obligation, or Cause of Action relating or reasonably likely to relate to any act or commission inconnection with, relating to, or arising out of a Covered Matter (including one that alleges theactual fraud, gross negligence, or willful misconduct of a Covered Entity), unless expresslyauthorized by the Bankruptcy Court after (1) it determines, after a notice and a hearing, such Claim,Interest, debt, obligation, or Cause of Action is colorable and (2) it specifically authorizes suchEntity or Person to bring such Claim or Cause of Action. The Bankruptcy Court shall have soleand exclusive jurisdiction to determine whether any such Claim, Interest, debt, obligation or Causeof Action is colorable and, only to the extent legally permissible and as provided for in Article XI,CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 201 o of f1 1334521shall have jurisdiction to adjudicate such underlying colorable Claim, Interest, debt, obligation, orCause of Action.vii. Injunction.41. The injunction provisions set forth in Article VIII.F of the Plan are essentialto the Plan and are necessary to implement the Plan and to preserve and enforce the discharge,Debtor Release, the Third-Party Release, and the Exculpation provisions in Article VIII of thePlan. The injunction provisions are appropriately tailored to achieve those purposes.viii. Preservation of Claims and Causes of Action.42. Article IV.L of the Plan appropriately provides for the preservation by theDebtors of certain Causes of Action in accordance with section 1123(b) of the Bankruptcy Code.Causes of Action not released by the Debtors or exculpated under the Plan will be retained by theReorganized Debtors as provided by the Plan. The Plan is sufficiently specific with respect to theCauses of Action to be retained by the Debtors, and the Plan and Plan Supplement providemeaningful disclosure with respect to the potential Causes of Action that the Debtors may retain,and all parties in interest received adequate notice with respect to such retained Causes of Action.The provisions regarding Causes of Action in the Plan are appropriate and in the best interests ofthe Debtors, their respective Estates, and holders of Claims or Interests. For the avoidance of anydoubt, Causes of Action released or exculpated under the Plan will not be retained by theReorganized Debtors.c. Section 1123(d) – Cure of Defaults43. Article V.D of the Plan provides for the satisfaction of Cure Claimsassociated with each Executory Contract and Unexpired Lease to be assumed in accordance withsection 365(b)(1) of the Bankruptcy Code. Any monetary defaults under each assumed ExecutoryCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 212 o of f1 1334522Contract or Unexpired Lease shall be satisfied, pursuant to section 365(b)(1) of the BankruptcyCode, by payment of the default amount in Cash on the Effective Date, subject to the limitationsdescribed in Article V.D of the Plan, or on such other terms as the parties to such ExecutoryContracts or Unexpired Leases may otherwise agree. Any Disputed Cure Amounts will bedetermined in accordance with the procedures set forth in Article V.D of the Plan, and applicablebankruptcy and nonbankruptcy law. As such, the Plan provides that the Debtors will Cure, orprovide adequate assurance that the Debtors will promptly Cure, defaults with respect to assumedExecutory Contracts and Unexpired Leases in accordance with section 365(b)(1) of theBankruptcy Code. Thus, the Plan complies with section 1123(d) of the Bankruptcy Code.d. Section 1129(a)(2) – Compliance of the Debtors and Others with the ApplicableProvisions of the Bankruptcy Code.44. The Debtors, as proponents of the Plan, have complied with all applicableprovisions of the Bankruptcy Code as required by section 1129(a)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code,including sections 1122, 1123, 1124, 1125, 1126, and 1128, and Bankruptcy Rules 3017, 3018,and 3019.e. Section 1129(a)(3) – Proposal of Plan in Good Faith.45. The Debtors have proposed the Plan in good faith, in accordance with theBankruptcy Code requirements, and not by any means forbidden by law. In determining that thePlan has been proposed in good faith, the Court has examined the totality of the circumstancesfiling of the Chapter 11 Cases, including the formation of Intrum AB of Texas LLC (“IntrumTexas”), the Plan itself, and the process leading to its formulation. The Debtors' good faith isevident from the facts and record of the Chapter 11 Cases, the Disclosure Statement, and the recordof the Combined Hearing and other proceedings held in the Chapter 11 CasesCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 223 o of f1 133452346. The Plan (including the Plan Supplement and all other documents necessaryto effectuate the Plan) is the product of good faith, arm's-length negotiations by and among theDebtors, the Debtors' directors and officers and the Debtors' key stakeholders, including theConsenting Creditors and each of their respective professionals. The Plan itself and the processleading to its formulation provide independent evidence of the Debtors' and such other parties'good faith, serve the public interest, and assure fair treatment of holders of Claims or Interests.Consistent with the overriding purpose of chapter 11, the Debtors Filed the Chapter 11 Cases withthe belief that the Debtors were in need of reorganization and the Plan was negotiated and proposedwith the intention of accomplishing a successful reorganization and maximizing stakeholder value,and for no ulterior purpose. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1129(a)(3) of the BankruptcyCode are satisfied.f. Section 1129(a)(4) – Court Approval of Certain Payments as Reasonable.47. Any payment made or to be made by the Debtors, or by a person issuingsecurities or acquiring property under the Plan, for services or costs and expenses in connectionwith the Chapter 11 Cases, or in connection with the Plan and incident to the Chapter 11 Cases,has been approved by, or is subject to the approval of, the Court as reasonable. Accordingly, thePlan satisfies the requirements of section 1129(a)(4).g. Section 1129(a)(5)—Disclosure of Directors and Officers and Consistency with theInterests of Creditors and Public Policy.48. The identities of or process for appointment of the Reorganized Debtors'directors and officers proposed to serve after the Effective Date were disclosed in the PlanSupplement in advance of the Combined Hearing. Accordingly, the Debtors have satisfied therequirements of section 1129(a)(5) of the Bankruptcy Code.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 234 o of f1 1334524h. Section 1129(a)(6)—Rate Changes.49. The Plan does not contain any rate changes subject to the jurisdiction of anygovernmental regulatory commission and therefore will not require governmental regulatoryapproval. Therefore, section 1129(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code does not apply to the Plan.i. Section 1129(a)(7)—Best Interests of Holders of Claims and Interests.50. The liquidation analysis attached as Exhibit D to the Disclosure Statementand the other evidence in support of the Plan that was proffered or adduced at the CombinedHearing, and the facts and circumstances of the Chapter 11 Cases are (a) reasonable, persuasive,credible, and accurate as of the dates such analysis or evidence was prepared, presented orproffered; (b) utilize reasonable and appropriate methodologies and assumptions; (c) have not beencontroverted by other evidence; and (d) establish that each holder of Allowed Claims or Interestsin each Class will recover as much or more value under the Plan on account of such Claim orInterest, as of the Effective Date, than the amount such holder would receive if the Debtors wereliquidated on the Effective Date under chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code or has accepted the Plan.As a result, the Debtors have demonstrated that the Plan is in the best interests of their creditorsand equity holders and the requirements of section 1129(a)(7) of the Bankruptcy Code are satisfied.j. Section 1129(a)(8)—Conclusive Presumption of Acceptance by UnimpairedClasses; Acceptance of the Plan by Certain Voting Classes.51. The classes deemed to accept the Plan are Unimpaired under the Plan andare deemed to have accepted the Plan pursuant to section 1126(f) of the Bankruptcy Code. EachVoting Class voted to accept the Plan. For the avoidance of doubt, however, even if section1129(a)(8) has not been satisfied with respect to all of the Debtors, the Plan is confirmable becausethe Plan does not discriminate unfairly and is fair and equitable with respect to the Voting Classesand thus satisfies section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code with respect to such Classes as describedCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 245 o of f1 1334525further below. As a result, the requirements of section 1129(b) of the Bankruptcy Code are alsosatisfied.k. Section 1129(a)(9)—Treatment of Claims Entitled to Priority Pursuant to Section507(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.52. The treatment of Administrative Claims, Professional Fee Claims, andPriority Tax Claims under Article II of the Plan satisfies the requirements of, and complies in allrespects with, section 1129(a)(9) of the Bankruptcy Code.l. Section 1129(a)(10)—Acceptance by at Least One Voting Class.53. As set forth in the Voting Declaration, all Voting Classes overwhelminglyvoted to accept the Plan. As such, there is at least one Voting Class that has accepted the Plan,determined without including any acceptance of the Plan by any insider (as defined by theBankruptcy Code), for each Debtor. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1129(a)(10) of theBankruptcy Code are satisfied.m. Section 1129(a)(11)—Feasibility of the Plan.54. The Plan satisfies section 1129(a)(11) of the Bankruptcy Code. Thefinancial projections attached to the Disclosure Statement as Exhibit D and the other evidencesupporting the Plan proffered or adduced by the Debtors at or before the Combined Hearing: (a)is reasonable, persuasive, credible, and accurate as of the dates such evidence was prepared,presented, or proffered; (b) utilize reasonable and appropriate methodologies and assumptions; (c)has not been controverted by other persuasive evidence; (d) establishes that the Plan is feasibleand Confirmation of the Plan is not likely to be followed by liquidation or the need for furtherfinancial reorganization; (e) establishes that the Debtors will have sufficient funds available tomeet their obligations under the Plan and in the ordinary course of business—including sufficientamounts of Cash to reasonably ensure payment of Allowed Claims that will receive CashCCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 256 o of f1 1334526distributions pursuant to the terms of the Plan and other Cash payments required under the Plan;and (f) establishes that the Debtors or the Reorganized Debtors, as applicable, will have thefinancial wherewithal to pay any Claims that accrue, become payable, or are allowed by FinalOrder following the Effective Date. Accordingly, the Plan satisfies the requirements of section1129(a)(11) of the Bankruptcy Code.n. Section 1129(a)(12)—Payment of Statutory Fees.55. Article XII.C of the Plan provides that all fees payable pursuant to section1930(a) of the Judicial Code, as determined by the Court at the Confirmation Hearing inaccordance with section 1128 of the Bankruptcy Code, will be paid by each of the applicableReorganized Debtors for each quarter (including any fraction of a quarter) until the Chapter 11Cases are converted, dismissed, or closed, whichever occurs first. Accordingly, the Plan satisfiesthe requirements of section 1129(a)(12) of the Bankruptcy Code.o. Section 1129(a)(13)—Retiree Benefits.56. Pursuant to section 1129(a)(13) of the Bankruptcy Code, and as provided inArticle IV.K of the Plan, the Reorganized Debtors will continue to pay all obligations on accountof retiree benefits (as such term is used in section 1114 of the Bankruptcy Code) on and after theEffective Date in accordance with applicable law. As a result, the requirements of section1129(a)(13) of the Bankruptcy Code are satisfied.p. Sections 1129(a)(14), (15), and (16)—Domestic Support Obligations, Individuals,and Nonprofit Corporations.57. The Debtors do not owe any domestic support obligations, are notindividuals, and are not nonprofit corporations. Therefore, sections 1129(a)(14), 1129(a)(15), and1129(a)(16) of the Bankruptcy Code do not apply to the Chapter 11 Cases.CCaassee 2 244-9-900557755 D Dooccuummeennt t2 29663-2 F Fileiledd i nin T TXXSSBB o onn 1 021/3/113/2/245 P Paaggee 2 267 o of f1 1334527q. Section 1129(b)—Confirmation of the Plan Over Nonacceptance of VotingClasses.58. No Classes rejected the Plan, and section 1129(b) is not applicable here,but even if it were, the Plan may be confirmed pursuant to section 1129(b)(1) of the BankruptcyCode because the Plan is fair and equitable with respect to the Deemed Rejecting Classes. ThePlan has been proposed in good faith, is reasonable, and meets the requirements and all VotingClasses have voted to accept the Plan. The treatment of Intercompany Claims and IntercompanyInterests under the Plan provides for administrative convenience does not constitute a distributionunder the Plan on account of suc
In this episode we finish off the court filings with: The Second Amended Order Governing courthouse and courtroom conduct, the notice of hearing and the order changing the preliminary status hearing.(commercial at 7:17)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:010423 Second Amended Order Governing Courthouse and Courtroom Conduct.pdf (idaho.gov)010523 Notice of Hearing Criminal.pdf (idaho.gov)010623 Order Changing Time of Preliminary Status Hearing.pdf (idaho.gov)
John Doe, a former employee of Reign, made serious allegations against Sean Combs, detailing instances of sexual harassment, coercion, and a hostile work environment. Doe claims that Combs engaged in inappropriate behavior during work-related events and meetings, creating an atmosphere of fear and manipulation. The allegations include unwelcome sexual advances, pressure to partake in illicit activities, and retaliation when Doe attempted to resist or report the misconduct.Doe further alleges that Reign's management ignored or dismissed his complaints, allowing Combs' behavior to continue unchecked. He describes a pattern of intimidation, where Combs leveraged his power to silence those who opposed him, including threats to derail careers and reputations. The case underscores the broader issue of systemic abuse of power in the entertainment industry, with John Doe seeking legal action not only for personal justice but to support other victims who may have experienced similar treatment.(commercial at 14:33)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
The allegations against Sean "Diddy" Combs, made by Tony Buzbee's client, claim that Diddy sexually assaulted her at an afterparty following the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards. The plaintiff, who was 13 years old at the time, alleges that she was drugged before the assault. The lawsuit also names an unnamed male celebrity as an additional assailant, with a female celebrity allegedly witnessing the incident.That male celebrity has now been unmasked as Jay-Z.The case is part of a broader legal effort by Buzbee's firm, representing over 120 individuals accusing Combs of sexual misconduct spanning decades, including claims from minors. Diddy denies all allegations, calling them false and defamatory.In this episode, we take a look at that amended lawsuit. (commercial at 7:20)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630244.29.0.pdf
In this episode of Food Safety Matters, we discuss the top food safety stories of 2024 and their implications. We cover: The Boar's Head Listeria Outbreak [6:24] USDA Announces Immediate Changes to Listeria Rule, Inspections for RTE Food Facilities Following Deadly Listeria Outbreak, USDA Launches Internal Investigation Into How it Handled Boar's Head's Unsanitary Production Facility Congress Members Question USDA About Failure to Prevent Fatal Boar's Head Listeria Outbreak Boar's Head to Face Criminal Investigation Over Listeria Outbreak as Tenth Death is Reported Following Outbreak, Boar's Head Forms Food Safety Council of Top Experts, Closes Facility, Discontinues Liverwurst Inspection Reports Show Mold, Insects, Meat Residues, and More at Boar's Head Facility Responsible for Listeria Outbreak Boar's Head RTE Deli Meats Recalled After Two Listeriosis Deaths It's Time to Reformulate Deli Meats to Reduce the Risk of Listeria monocytogenes—Feature story for Food Safety Magazine December ‘24/January '25, by Kathleen Glass, Ph.D., Wendy Bedale, Ph.D., and Daniel Unruh, Ph.D. The McDonald's/Taylor Farms E. coli Outbreak [18:53] FDA Closes Investigation of McDonald's E. Coli Outbreak Without Tests Confirming Onions as Source McDonald's E. coli Outbreak Grows to 104 Illnesses in 14 States; Testing Has Not Yet Found Outbreak Strain FDA Unable to Implicate Grower in E. coli Outbreak Linked to Taylor Farms Onions Served at McDonald's CDC Names Taylor Farms Onions as Cause of McDonald's E. coli Outbreak; Patient Count Rises to 90 Beef Ruled Out as Source of McDonald's E. coli Outbreak, Quarter Pounders Return to Restaurants Major Chains Pull Onions Due to E. coli Concerns After Taylor Farms Confirmed as McDonald's Supplier At Least One Death Caused by E. coli Outbreak Linked to McDonald's Quarter Pounders Food Safety Five Ep. 1: Fatal E. coli Outbreak Linked to Onions on McDonald's Quarter Pounders—Food Safety Five Newsreel video Grimmway Farms E. coli Outbreak [32:31] Grimmway Farms Carrot E. coli Outbreak Closed; No Match Found in Environmental Samples Canada Recalls Carrots Implicated in Fatal E. coli Outbreak Affecting U.S. Death Reported in E. coli Outbreak Linked to Nationally Distributed Organic Carrots The Yu Shang Foods Listeria Outbreak [33:48] Another Infant Death Linked to Yu Shang Listeria Outbreak Yu Shang Brand RTE Meats Cause Two-Year-Long Listeria Outbreak Resulting in Death of an Infant Food Safety Technology Developments [36:37] How Rapid Development of Technology Has Revolutionized Food Safety—Food Safety Magazine on-demand webinar How is the Revolution in Technology Changing Food Safety?—“Food Safety Insights” column for Food Safety Magazine June/July '24, by Bob Ferguson How is the Revolution in Technology Changing Food Safety?—Part 2—“Food Safety Insights” column for Food Safety Magazine August/September '24, by Bob Ferguson How is the Revolution in Technology Changing Food Safety?—Part 3—“Food Safety Insights” column for Food Safety Magazine December ‘24/January '25, by Bob Ferguson Listeria, Salmonella Represent 40 Percent of FDA Food and Beverage Recalls in Last 20 Years FDA Human Foods Program Restructuring [42:39] FDA Budget Constraints Lead to International Information-Sharing for Chemical Safety Reviews FDA Human Foods Program Reveals Work Plans for 2025 FDA Introduces Streamlined Complaint Process on First Day of New Human Foods Program FDA Outlines its Developing Systematic Post-Market Review Process for Chemicals in Food FDA Reorganization Officially Approved, Will be Implemented by October 1 Food Safety Five Ep. 2: How Budget Constraints May Influence FDA Food Chemical Safety Work—Food Safety Five Newsreel video Highly Pathogenic Avian Flu (HPAI) H5N1 and Dairy Foods [50:30] California Declares State of Emergency Over HPAI H5N1 Outbreak in Dairy Cows USDA Begins Five-Part National Milk Testing Strategy for HPAI H5N1 As Outbreak Rages On, USDA to Begin Field Trials for HPAI H5N1 Vaccine in Cattle USDA-FSIS to Begin Routine Monitoring for HPAI in Dairy Cows Under National Residue Program FDA Publishes Dairy Food Safety Research Agenda for HPAI H5N1 More Canadian Milk Testing, New Pasteurization Study Shows HPAI is Not Food Safety Risk USDA Finds HPAI in Muscle of Sick Dairy Cow; Study Shows Infectious Potential of Contaminated Raw Milk USDA Experiments Show Cooking Beef Patties to “Well Done” Kills HPAI Virus USDA Testing Retail Ground Beef for HPAI H5N1; Maintains That U.S. Meat Supply is Safe FDA Testing Finds HPAI in Retail Milk Samples; Research Required to Determine Infectivity, Food Safety Risk USDA Now Requires HPAI Testing for Dairy Cattle, Mandatory Reporting USDA's Salmonella Framework for Raw Poultry Products [57:35] USDA-FSIS to Hold Two Public Meetings on Salmonella Framework for Raw Poultry in December USDA-FSIS Extends Comment Period for Proposed Salmonella Regulatory Framework Study Supports USDA's Serotype-Specific Regulatory Framework for Salmonella in Poultry USDA-FSIS Publishes Proposed Regulatory Framework for Salmonella in Raw Poultry USDA-FSIS: Salmonella Officially an Adulterant in Breaded, Stuffed Raw Chicken Products at 1 CFU/g or Higher NACMCF Reports on Reducing Salmonella in Poultry, Advises FSIS on Proposed Regulatory Framework Esteban and Eskin: On the Frontlines of the Food Safety Fight Against Salmonella in Poultry—Food Safety Matters podcast FSMA 204/Food Traceability Rule Compliance [1:04:09] Leading Food Industry Associations Join Forces to Form FSMA 204 Collaboration Public-Private, Sector-Neutral Partnership for Food Traceability Aims to Advance Industry Toward FSMA 204 Compliance Report Highlights Industry Concerns With FSMA 204 Compliance, Barriers to Implementation World's Largest Food Distributor Sysco Unveils its FSMA 204 Traceability Plan Kroger's Traceability Policy Goes Beyond FSMA 204 by Including All Foods FDA Updates Human Foods Priorities; Releases FSMA 204, Foodservice Employee Health Resources Second Bill Introduced to Weaken FSMA 204; Safe Food Coalition Voices Opposition Legislation Would Delay FSMA 204 Compliance Date, Ease Retailer Recordkeeping Requirements FSS '24: Regulatory, Industry Experts Share Best Practices Around FSMA 204 and Traceability Efforts Ep. 179. Dr. Takashi Nakamura: Ensuring Fresh Produce Safety From Field to Fork—Food Safety Matters Podcast Better Food Traceability Can't Wait—Editorial piece by Frank Yiannas Legislation Targeting Food Additives and “Generally Recognized as Safe” (GRAS) Substances [1:13:13] FDA Could Decide Whether to Ban Red Dye 3 in Food ‘In the Next Few Weeks,' Officials Reveal in Senate Hearing Congress Members Urge FDA to Ban Red Dye 3 in Food FDA Budget Constraints Lead to International Information-Sharing for Chemical Safety Reviews FDA Outlines its Developing Systematic Post-Market Review Process for Chemicals in Food BVO No Longer Authorized for Food Use by FDA The Evolving Landscape of Food Additives Regulation in the U.S., from the States to FDA California Bill Banning Some Artificial Colors in School Foods Advances, Awaits Signature Into Law FDA Reviewing Safety of Food Chemicals of Concern, Like PFAS, BPA, Red Dye 3, and More FDA Files Petitions to Rescind Approvals for Four Carcinogenic Food, Color Additives ‘Toxic Free Food Act' Would Close FDA GRAS ‘Loophole' Allowing Potentially Toxic Additives in Food Illinois Food Safety Act Banning Four Food Additives Passes State Senate, Amended to Include Manufacturers Pennsylvania is Latest State to Introduce Food Additives Legislation, While Kentucky Urges FDA to Take Control Missouri, Washington Introduce Bills to Ban Same Food Additives as California Food Safety Act Another Bill Introduced in New York to Expand State Regulation of Food Additives ‘Safe School Meals Act' Addresses Pesticides, PFAS, Food Dyes, and More in School Lunches Food Safety Five Ep. 2: How Budget Constraints May Influence FDA Food Chemical Safety Work—Food Safety Five Newsreel video Ep. 162. Brian Sylvester: How the California Food Safety Act is Shaping U.S. Food Additives Regulation—Food Safety Matters Podcast Environmental and Chemical Contaminants [1:24:42] FDA Defends Revoking Authorizations for Most Phthalates; Remaining Uses Under Review High Levels of Toxic Plasticizers Phthalates, Bisphenols Found in Nearly All Foods in U.S. EU Considering Bisphenol Ban in Food Packaging Based on Nontraditional Risk Assessment; Scientists Show Support EU Moves Closer to Possible Ban on BPA in Food Contact Materials USDA Testing for 2023 Shows 99 Percent of Foods Do Not Exceed Pesticide Residue Tolerances EFSA: Pesticide Residues Below Legal Limits in More Than 96 Percent of EU Food Samples EPA Immediately Suspends Use of Herbicide Dacthal With Emergency Order EPA Cancels Agricultural Use of Harmful Pesticide Acephate Pesticide Chlormequat is Being Detected More Frequently in Humans, EPA Poised to Allow its Use on Food Crops California Assembly Passes Bill Expediting Review of Herbicide Paraquat Center for Food Safety Petitions EPA to Ban PFAS in Pesticides, Pesticide Containers EWG Publishes 2024 Dirty Dozen List of Produce Most Contaminated With Pesticides Kraft Heinz Voluntarily Pulls Lunchables from School Lunch Program Following Consumer Reports Petition Baby Food Safety Act Would Give FDA Authority to Limit Toxic Heavy Metals in Food for Children Maryland Introduces Bill to Require Toxic Heavy Metals Testing for Baby Foods, Disclosure of Results Recall Rethink: Food Recall Vulnerabilities Exposed by the Cinnamon Applesauce Incident—Cover story for Food Safety Magazine August/September '24, by Steven Mandernach, J.D. and Carrie Rigdon, Ph.D. We Want to Hear from You! Please send us your questions and suggestions to podcast@food-safety.com
Adria English has publicly accused Sean "Diddy" Combs of physical abuse and coercion, alleging that he used his power and influence to control her and others within his circle. She claims that Diddy engaged in violent behavior and forced her into various compromising situations, leveraging his status in the entertainment industry to intimidate her into silence. English has described incidents where Diddy allegedly inflicted emotional and physical harm, manipulating her through a combination of threats and promises to maintain his control. Her allegations add to the growing list of accusations that paint a disturbing picture of abuse by the music mogul.In addition to the physical abuse, English contends that Diddy pressured her into actions against her will, using intimidation tactics to ensure her compliance. She accuses him of isolating her from support systems and creating an environment of fear, where speaking out seemed impossible. These claims have resonated with a wider audience as other individuals have come forward with similar stories, contributing to a pattern of alleged misconduct associated with Diddy. The spotlight on English's allegations has renewed public scrutiny on Diddy's past behavior, with many calling for accountability and justice.(commercial at 11:17)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
Adria English has publicly accused Sean "Diddy" Combs of physical abuse and coercion, alleging that he used his power and influence to control her and others within his circle. She claims that Diddy engaged in violent behavior and forced her into various compromising situations, leveraging his status in the entertainment industry to intimidate her into silence. English has described incidents where Diddy allegedly inflicted emotional and physical harm, manipulating her through a combination of threats and promises to maintain his control. Her allegations add to the growing list of accusations that paint a disturbing picture of abuse by the music mogul.In addition to the physical abuse, English contends that Diddy pressured her into actions against her will, using intimidation tactics to ensure her compliance. She accuses him of isolating her from support systems and creating an environment of fear, where speaking out seemed impossible. These claims have resonated with a wider audience as other individuals have come forward with similar stories, contributing to a pattern of alleged misconduct associated with Diddy. The spotlight on English's allegations has renewed public scrutiny on Diddy's past behavior, with many calling for accountability and justice.(commercial at 11:17)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
Adria English has publicly accused Sean "Diddy" Combs of physical abuse and coercion, alleging that he used his power and influence to control her and others within his circle. She claims that Diddy engaged in violent behavior and forced her into various compromising situations, leveraging his status in the entertainment industry to intimidate her into silence. English has described incidents where Diddy allegedly inflicted emotional and physical harm, manipulating her through a combination of threats and promises to maintain his control. Her allegations add to the growing list of accusations that paint a disturbing picture of abuse by the music mogul.In addition to the physical abuse, English contends that Diddy pressured her into actions against her will, using intimidation tactics to ensure her compliance. She accuses him of isolating her from support systems and creating an environment of fear, where speaking out seemed impossible. These claims have resonated with a wider audience as other individuals have come forward with similar stories, contributing to a pattern of alleged misconduct associated with Diddy. The spotlight on English's allegations has renewed public scrutiny on Diddy's past behavior, with many calling for accountability and justice.(commercial at 11:17)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
Trevor and George Ogilvie discuss the latest developments at Arizona Sonoran Copper, focusing on the permitting process, updates on the pre-feasibility study (PFS), and metallurgical testing results. They explore the implications of these developments for future production and market dynamics, particularly in light of potential tariffs on copper imports.
Adria English has publicly accused Sean "Diddy" Combs of physical abuse and coercion, alleging that he used his power and influence to control her and others within his circle. She claims that Diddy engaged in violent behavior and forced her into various compromising situations, leveraging his status in the entertainment industry to intimidate her into silence. English has described incidents where Diddy allegedly inflicted emotional and physical harm, manipulating her through a combination of threats and promises to maintain his control. Her allegations add to the growing list of accusations that paint a disturbing picture of abuse by the music mogul.In addition to the physical abuse, English contends that Diddy pressured her into actions against her will, using intimidation tactics to ensure her compliance. She accuses him of isolating her from support systems and creating an environment of fear, where speaking out seemed impossible. These claims have resonated with a wider audience as other individuals have come forward with similar stories, contributing to a pattern of alleged misconduct associated with Diddy. The spotlight on English's allegations has renewed public scrutiny on Diddy's past behavior, with many calling for accountability and justice.(commercial at 11:17)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
Adria English has publicly accused Sean "Diddy" Combs of physical abuse and coercion, alleging that he used his power and influence to control her and others within his circle. She claims that Diddy engaged in violent behavior and forced her into various compromising situations, leveraging his status in the entertainment industry to intimidate her into silence. English has described incidents where Diddy allegedly inflicted emotional and physical harm, manipulating her through a combination of threats and promises to maintain his control. Her allegations add to the growing list of accusations that paint a disturbing picture of abuse by the music mogul.In addition to the physical abuse, English contends that Diddy pressured her into actions against her will, using intimidation tactics to ensure her compliance. She accuses him of isolating her from support systems and creating an environment of fear, where speaking out seemed impossible. These claims have resonated with a wider audience as other individuals have come forward with similar stories, contributing to a pattern of alleged misconduct associated with Diddy. The spotlight on English's allegations has renewed public scrutiny on Diddy's past behavior, with many calling for accountability and justice.(commercial at 11:17)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
Jay-Z, the iconic rapper and entrepreneur, has strongly denied allegations in an amended lawsuit claiming that he, along with Sean "Diddy" Combs, drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl at a party in 2000. The lawsuit, filed under New York's Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act, alleges the assault took place at a party following the MTV Video Music Awards in New York. The accuser, identified as "Jane Doe," alleges she was lured to the party under false pretenses. According to the lawsuit, Jane Doe was dropped off at Radio City Music Hall by a friend and later driven to a private party at a white house by a limousine driver employed by Mr. Combs. At the party, she alleges she was drugged and assaulted. Jay-Z, whose real name is Shawn Carter, dismissed the allegations in a public statement, calling them a "blackmail attempt." He addressed the attorney representing the plaintiff, Tony Buzbee, saying: "My lawyer received a blackmail attempt, called a demand letter, from a 'lawyer' named Tony Buzbee. What he had calculated was the nature of these allegations and the public scrutiny would make me want to settle. No sir, it had the opposite effect! It made me want to expose you for the fraud you are in a VERY public fashion. So no, I will not give you ONE RED PENNY!!" Carter added, "The allegations are so heinous in nature that I implore you (Tony Buzbee) file a criminal complaint, not a civil one!! Whomever would commit such a crime against a minor should be locked away, would you not agree?" Carter also expressed concern about the impact on his family, saying: "My only heartbreak is for my family. My wife and I will have to sit our children down, one of whom is at the age where her friends will surely see the press and ask questions about the nature of these claims, and explain the cruelty and greed of people." Mr. Combs, who faces unrelated sex-trafficking charges and is currently in jail awaiting trial, denied the allegations through his legal team. A statement from his representatives called the lawsuit "the latest in a series of shameless publicity stunts, designed to extract payments from celebrities who fear having lies spread about them, just as lies have been spread about Mr. Combs." The statement emphasized that Mr. Combs is confident in the judicial process and believes it will prove his innocence. Combs is currently facing 30 additional lawsuits, many alleging sexual assault or harassment. The lawsuit describes a chilling series of events in 2000. Jane Doe claims she was approached outside the VMAs by a limousine driver who said she "fit what Diddy was looking for." She alleges she was taken to a party where she observed widespread drug use and was served a drink that made her feel disoriented. According to the lawsuit, Jane Doe went into a room to lie down and was later joined by Mr. Combs, Mr. Carter, and an unnamed female celebrity. The lawsuit alleges that both men sexually assaulted her while the female celebrity watched. Jane Doe claims she fought back and eventually escaped when Mr. Combs paused in surprise. The lawsuit also states that Jane Doe continues to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression as a result of the alleged assault. She is seeking unspecified damages. Tony Buzbee, the Texas-based attorney representing Jane Doe, has faced criticism from both Carter and Combs. In response, he posted on social media, sharing a picture of himself in military uniform with a caption stating, "I also won't allow anyone to scare my clients into silence. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and I am quite certain the sun is coming." Buzbee has been involved in several high-profile cases in recent months, many involving allegations against celebrities. Critics have questioned his approach, but Buzbee remains adamant about seeking justice for his clients. As the case moves forward, it highlights the challenges survivors face when bringing allegations against powerful figures. The legal process will determine the validity of the claims, but for now, the public attention underscores the broader discussions about accountability and the treatment of survivors in high-profile cases. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
Hidden Killers With Tony Brueski | True Crime News & Commentary
Jay-Z, the iconic rapper and entrepreneur, has strongly denied allegations in an amended lawsuit claiming that he, along with Sean "Diddy" Combs, drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl at a party in 2000. The lawsuit, filed under New York's Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act, alleges the assault took place at a party following the MTV Video Music Awards in New York. The accuser, identified as "Jane Doe," alleges she was lured to the party under false pretenses. According to the lawsuit, Jane Doe was dropped off at Radio City Music Hall by a friend and later driven to a private party at a white house by a limousine driver employed by Mr. Combs. At the party, she alleges she was drugged and assaulted. Jay-Z, whose real name is Shawn Carter, dismissed the allegations in a public statement, calling them a "blackmail attempt." He addressed the attorney representing the plaintiff, Tony Buzbee, saying: "My lawyer received a blackmail attempt, called a demand letter, from a 'lawyer' named Tony Buzbee. What he had calculated was the nature of these allegations and the public scrutiny would make me want to settle. No sir, it had the opposite effect! It made me want to expose you for the fraud you are in a VERY public fashion. So no, I will not give you ONE RED PENNY!!" Carter added, "The allegations are so heinous in nature that I implore you (Tony Buzbee) file a criminal complaint, not a civil one!! Whomever would commit such a crime against a minor should be locked away, would you not agree?" Carter also expressed concern about the impact on his family, saying: "My only heartbreak is for my family. My wife and I will have to sit our children down, one of whom is at the age where her friends will surely see the press and ask questions about the nature of these claims, and explain the cruelty and greed of people." Mr. Combs, who faces unrelated sex-trafficking charges and is currently in jail awaiting trial, denied the allegations through his legal team. A statement from his representatives called the lawsuit "the latest in a series of shameless publicity stunts, designed to extract payments from celebrities who fear having lies spread about them, just as lies have been spread about Mr. Combs." The statement emphasized that Mr. Combs is confident in the judicial process and believes it will prove his innocence. Combs is currently facing 30 additional lawsuits, many alleging sexual assault or harassment. The lawsuit describes a chilling series of events in 2000. Jane Doe claims she was approached outside the VMAs by a limousine driver who said she "fit what Diddy was looking for." She alleges she was taken to a party where she observed widespread drug use and was served a drink that made her feel disoriented. According to the lawsuit, Jane Doe went into a room to lie down and was later joined by Mr. Combs, Mr. Carter, and an unnamed female celebrity. The lawsuit alleges that both men sexually assaulted her while the female celebrity watched. Jane Doe claims she fought back and eventually escaped when Mr. Combs paused in surprise. The lawsuit also states that Jane Doe continues to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression as a result of the alleged assault. She is seeking unspecified damages. Tony Buzbee, the Texas-based attorney representing Jane Doe, has faced criticism from both Carter and Combs. In response, he posted on social media, sharing a picture of himself in military uniform with a caption stating, "I also won't allow anyone to scare my clients into silence. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and I am quite certain the sun is coming." Buzbee has been involved in several high-profile cases in recent months, many involving allegations against celebrities. Critics have questioned his approach, but Buzbee remains adamant about seeking justice for his clients. As the case moves forward, it highlights the challenges survivors face when bringing allegations against powerful figures. The legal process will determine the validity of the claims, but for now, the public attention underscores the broader discussions about accountability and the treatment of survivors in high-profile cases. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
The allegations against Sean "Diddy" Combs, made by Tony Buzbee's client, claim that Diddy sexually assaulted her at an afterparty following the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards. The plaintiff, who was 13 years old at the time, alleges that she was drugged before the assault. The lawsuit also names an unnamed male celebrity as an additional assailant, with a female celebrity allegedly witnessing the incident.That male celebrity has now been unmasked as Jay-Z.The case is part of a broader legal effort by Buzbee's firm, representing over 120 individuals accusing Combs of sexual misconduct spanning decades, including claims from minors. Diddy denies all allegations, calling them false and defamatory.In this episode, we take a look at that amended lawsuit. (commercial at 7:38)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630244.29.0.pdf
The allegations against Sean "Diddy" Combs, made by Tony Buzbee's client, claim that Diddy sexually assaulted her at an afterparty following the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards. The plaintiff, who was 13 years old at the time, alleges that she was drugged before the assault. The lawsuit also names an unnamed male celebrity as an additional assailant, with a female celebrity allegedly witnessing the incident.That male celebrity has now been unmasked as Jay-Z.The case is part of a broader legal effort by Buzbee's firm, representing over 120 individuals accusing Combs of sexual misconduct spanning decades, including claims from minors. Diddy denies all allegations, calling them false and defamatory.In this episode, we take a look at that amended lawsuit. (commercial at 7:38)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630244.29.0.pdf
The allegations against Sean "Diddy" Combs, made by Tony Buzbee's client, claim that Diddy sexually assaulted her at an afterparty following the 2000 MTV Video Music Awards. The plaintiff, who was 13 years old at the time, alleges that she was drugged before the assault. The lawsuit also names an unnamed male celebrity as an additional assailant, with a female celebrity allegedly witnessing the incident.That male celebrity has now been unmasked as Jay-Z.The case is part of a broader legal effort by Buzbee's firm, representing over 120 individuals accusing Combs of sexual misconduct spanning decades, including claims from minors. Diddy denies all allegations, calling them false and defamatory.In this episode, we take a look at that amended lawsuit. (commercial at 9:27)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630244.29.0.pdf
Jay-Z, the iconic rapper and entrepreneur, has strongly denied allegations in an amended lawsuit claiming that he, along with Sean "Diddy" Combs, drugged and raped a 13-year-old girl at a party in 2000. The lawsuit, filed under New York's Victims of Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Act, alleges the assault took place at a party following the MTV Video Music Awards in New York. The accuser, identified as "Jane Doe," alleges she was lured to the party under false pretenses. According to the lawsuit, Jane Doe was dropped off at Radio City Music Hall by a friend and later driven to a private party at a white house by a limousine driver employed by Mr. Combs. At the party, she alleges she was drugged and assaulted. Jay-Z, whose real name is Shawn Carter, dismissed the allegations in a public statement, calling them a "blackmail attempt." He addressed the attorney representing the plaintiff, Tony Buzbee, saying: "My lawyer received a blackmail attempt, called a demand letter, from a 'lawyer' named Tony Buzbee. What he had calculated was the nature of these allegations and the public scrutiny would make me want to settle. No sir, it had the opposite effect! It made me want to expose you for the fraud you are in a VERY public fashion. So no, I will not give you ONE RED PENNY!!" Carter added, "The allegations are so heinous in nature that I implore you (Tony Buzbee) file a criminal complaint, not a civil one!! Whomever would commit such a crime against a minor should be locked away, would you not agree?" Carter also expressed concern about the impact on his family, saying: "My only heartbreak is for my family. My wife and I will have to sit our children down, one of whom is at the age where her friends will surely see the press and ask questions about the nature of these claims, and explain the cruelty and greed of people." Mr. Combs, who faces unrelated sex-trafficking charges and is currently in jail awaiting trial, denied the allegations through his legal team. A statement from his representatives called the lawsuit "the latest in a series of shameless publicity stunts, designed to extract payments from celebrities who fear having lies spread about them, just as lies have been spread about Mr. Combs." The statement emphasized that Mr. Combs is confident in the judicial process and believes it will prove his innocence. Combs is currently facing 30 additional lawsuits, many alleging sexual assault or harassment. The lawsuit describes a chilling series of events in 2000. Jane Doe claims she was approached outside the VMAs by a limousine driver who said she "fit what Diddy was looking for." She alleges she was taken to a party where she observed widespread drug use and was served a drink that made her feel disoriented. According to the lawsuit, Jane Doe went into a room to lie down and was later joined by Mr. Combs, Mr. Carter, and an unnamed female celebrity. The lawsuit alleges that both men sexually assaulted her while the female celebrity watched. Jane Doe claims she fought back and eventually escaped when Mr. Combs paused in surprise. The lawsuit also states that Jane Doe continues to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression as a result of the alleged assault. She is seeking unspecified damages. Tony Buzbee, the Texas-based attorney representing Jane Doe, has faced criticism from both Carter and Combs. In response, he posted on social media, sharing a picture of himself in military uniform with a caption stating, "I also won't allow anyone to scare my clients into silence. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and I am quite certain the sun is coming." Buzbee has been involved in several high-profile cases in recent months, many involving allegations against celebrities. Critics have questioned his approach, but Buzbee remains adamant about seeking justice for his clients. As the case moves forward, it highlights the challenges survivors face when bringing allegations against powerful figures. The legal process will determine the validity of the claims, but for now, the public attention underscores the broader discussions about accountability and the treatment of survivors in high-profile cases. Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com
Anna Kane, the ex-wife of NHL player Evander Kane, has publicly identified herself as one of the earliest accusers of Sean "Diddy" Combs in a sexual assault lawsuit. Initially filing under the pseudonym "Jane Doe" in December 2023, she amended her complaint on December 7, 2024, to reveal her true identity. Kane alleges that in 2003, at the age of 17, she was drugged and raped by Combs, his associate Harve Pierre, and another unidentified man at Combs' New York City recording studio. The lawsuit includes photographs purportedly showing her at the studio during the incident and seeks unspecified damages under the Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law.Kane's decision to come forward was influenced by other women who have recently accused Combs of similar misconduct. She expressed that the demand to use her real name was an attempt to intimidate her, but she remains undeterred in her pursuit of justice. Combs, currently detained on charges including sex trafficking and racketeering, has denied all allegations, labeling them as attempts to tarnish his reputation. The court has dismissed claims against Combs' corporate entities, focusing solely on the assault allegations against the individuals involved. An initial pretrial conference is scheduled for January 2025.(commercial at 8:01)to contact me:bobycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.611545.71.0_5.pdf
Anna Kane, the ex-wife of NHL player Evander Kane, has publicly identified herself as one of the earliest accusers of Sean "Diddy" Combs in a sexual assault lawsuit. Initially filing under the pseudonym "Jane Doe" in December 2023, she amended her complaint on December 7, 2024, to reveal her true identity. Kane alleges that in 2003, at the age of 17, she was drugged and raped by Combs, his associate Harve Pierre, and another unidentified man at Combs' New York City recording studio. The lawsuit includes photographs purportedly showing her at the studio during the incident and seeks unspecified damages under the Gender-Motivated Violence Protection Law.Kane's decision to come forward was influenced by other women who have recently accused Combs of similar misconduct. She expressed that the demand to use her real name was an attempt to intimidate her, but she remains undeterred in her pursuit of justice. Combs, currently detained on charges including sex trafficking and racketeering, has denied all allegations, labeling them as attempts to tarnish his reputation. The court has dismissed claims against Combs' corporate entities, focusing solely on the assault allegations against the individuals involved. An initial pretrial conference is scheduled for January 2025.(commercial at 8:55)to contact me:bobycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.611545.71.0_5.pdf
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
