Podcasts about Bankruptcy Code

In this case, the court considered this issue: May a bankruptcy trustee avoid a debtor's tax payment to the United States under 11 U-S-C § 544(b) when no actual creditor could have obtained relief under the applicable state fraudulent-transfer law outside of bankruptcy?The case was decided on March 26, 2025.The Supreme Court held that Section 106(a) of the Bankruptcy Code abrogates sovereign immunity for the federal cause of action created by §544(b), but it does not take the additional step of abrogating sovereign immunity for whatever state-law claim supplies the “applicable law” for a trustee's §544(b) claim.The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. 

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 case, the court considered this issue: Does the Bankruptcy Code authorize a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by non-debtors against non-debtor third parties, without the claimants' consent? The case was decided on June 27, 2024. The Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code does not authorize a release and injunction that, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11, effectively seek to discharge claims against a nondebtor without the consent of affected claimants. Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 5-4 majority opinion of the Court. Applying the ejusdem generis canon of statutory interpretation to Section 1123(b)(6), which is a catchall provision allowing "any other appropriate provision" in a bankruptcy plan, the Court reasoned that this provision should be read in light of the specific provisions that precede it, all of which concern the debtor's rights and responsibilities. Therefore, Section 1123(b)(6) cannot be fairly read to grant the radically different power to discharge debts of non-debtors without affected claimants' consent. The broader context of the Bankruptcy Code further supports this conclusion. Discharges are generally reserved for debtors who place their assets in the bankruptcy estate, and even then, certain types of claims (like fraud or willful injury) cannot be discharged. The Sacklers, as non-debtors, seek greater protection than the Code typically allows for actual debtors, without meeting the Code's usual requirements. Congress has only explicitly authorized third-party releases in asbestos-related bankruptcies, suggesting that such releases are not generally permissible in other contexts. Therefore, Section 1123(b)(6) does not authorize the nonconsensual release of claims against the Sacklers, who are non-debtors in Purdue Pharma's bankruptcy case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan joined. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In this podcast show, we explore with our repeat guest, Professor Dan Awrey of Cornell University Law School, his working paper “Money and Federalism” in which he advocates for the enactment of Federal legislation creating a Federal charter for non-banks engaged in the payments business, like PayPal and Venmo. The article may be accessed online at SSRN and will likely be published in a law review at some time in the future. The abstract of Professor Awrey's article describes in general terms what we discussed: The United States is the only country in the world in which both federal and state governments possess independent and yet overlapping authority for bank chartering, regulation and supervision. The roots of this unique dual banking system can be traced back to the Constitution, written almost a century before banks rose to the apex of the financial system and became the dominant source of money. Beginning with the landmark Supreme Court decision in Maryland v. McCulloch, the system has been a wellspring of jurisdictional conflict. Yet over time, this highly contested and highly fragmented system has also produced strong federal oversight and a financial safety net that protects bank depositors, prevents destabilizing runs, and promotes monetary stability. This system is now under stress. The source of the stress is a new breed of technology-driven financial institutions licensed and regulated almost entirely at the state level that provide money and payments outside the perimeter of both conventional bank regulation and the financial safety net. This article examines the rise of these new monetary institutions, the state-level regulatory frameworks that govern them and the nature of the threats they may one day pose to monetary stability. It also examines the legal and policy cases for federal supremacy over the regulation of these new institutions and advances two potential models, one based on complete federal preemption, the other more tailored to reflect the narrow yet critical objective of promoting public confidence and trust in our monetary system. Professor Awrey explained why existing state money transmitter statutes under which non-bank payments firms are generally licensed provide insufficient protection for consumers who use these firms. State money transfer statutes were created many years ago to protect consumers that were using Western Union. These laws were not designed to protect consumers that deploy non-bank Fintech companies using new technologies to transfer funds. These companies don't have access to the Federal Reserve's central payments system that banks have access to. These non-bank companies, unlike banks, are subject to federal bankruptcy law.  That increases the likelihood that consumers can lose their funds deposited in one of these non-bank companies in the event of its failure. Professor Awrey concludes that the answer to this problem is the enactment of federal legislation which would create a federal charter for non-bank companies engaged in transmitting payments. A company that is granted such a charter would have access to the Fed's payment rails and would be exempt from the federal Bankruptcy Code. Such a company would be very restricted in the types of investments it may hold. The federal charter would ideally preempt many state laws, including state money transmitter laws. We also spent some time at the beginning of the show discussing the status of FedNow, the instant payments system launched by the Federal Reserve System in July 2023. Professor Awrey was previously a guest on our podcast show on September 14, 2023 entitled “What is FedNow and its Role in the U.S. Payments System.” At that time, Professor Awrey predicted that FedNow was too little, too late and too expensive for small banks. Professor Awrey's opinion is unchanged. He noted that the Fed has so far refused to share any data about FedNow usage. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former practice group leader for 25 years of the Consumer Financial Services Group, hosted the podcast show.

Welcome to Top of the Morning by Mint, your weekday newscast that brings you five major stories from the world of business. It's Friday, November 8, 2024. This is Nelson John, let's get started. One of India's marquee airlines finally ended its journey yesterday. The Supreme Court ordered the liquidation of Jet Airways, ending a long quest for survival. Krishna Yadav writes that the Jalan Kalrock Consortium had failed to meet obligations such as infusing ₹350 crore and settling worker dues, leading to this decision. Jet Airways has been bankrupt since April 2019. Krishna adds that this case has raised concerns about the effectiveness of India's Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, particularly regarding airline insolvencies. Have you ever thought why we get pizzas and groceries in 10 minutes, but not life-saving medicines? That might change soon. Jessica Jani writes that companies like Tata 1mg, PharmEasy, and Apollo 24/7 are piloting ultra-fast medicine delivery services. 1mg is collaborating with fellow Tata brand BigBasket for quick delivery in select cities, while Apollo 24/7 has launched a 19-minute delivery in major markets. Swiggy is also partnering with PharmEasy for under-10-minute deliveries in Bengaluru. However, inventory management, medicine storage, and regulatory compliance are big challenges.  In a surprise decision, the government announced that it will stop paying interest on National Savings Scheme accounts from October 1. This means that both principal and interest will be taxable on withdrawal. Aprajita Sharma spoke to NSS holders who expressed concerns about the negative impact on their tax liabilities as senior citizens. The sudden change has also prompted calls for the government to reconsider its decision, and offer tax relief or alternative investment options. This move undermines trust in small savings schemes, and it also triggers fears about the stability of other savings products like the Public Provident Fund. A day after the big result, we're still assessing the implication of Donald Trump's victory. Shouvik Das writes that Trump's pro-business and anti-regulations will be favourable for Big Tech companies like Twitter and Meta. These companies have faced some issues in India as well as Europe, where they are under scrutiny for their trade practices. Lawyers and policymakers that Shouvik spoke to told him that Trump's backing could ease their worries in India, which has often been tough on Big Tech's practices so far. For most, homes are private spaces. It's where you come to relax, take a breather, and sometimes escape from the outside world. Not for influencers, though: Pratishtha Bagai writes about content creators who share tours of their homes on social media. House tours have become a major "self-expression trend", as Pratishtha writes. Experts suggest this fascination reflects aspirational consumer behavior. Viewers seem to be actually influenced and inspired to recreate the aesthetics of their favorite influencers in their own homes, irrespective of the high costs involved in such a practice. 

Franchise Group Inc. just voluntarily filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection, which maybe means something to The Vitamin Shoppe…but probably less than you initially assume. Last week, there were rumblings in the legacy financial media that Franchise Group Inc., the owner of specialty retail brands including The Vitamin Shoppe, was preparing to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy within the next week. Then, this weekend, I get an email from a PR agency (representing The Vitamin Shoppe) providing me with a nice, pre-packaged quote…likely because The Vitamin Shoppe leadership knew I'd be creating a “what does this news really mean” content for supplement industry professionals (many of which own, lead, or work at vendor brands). About five years ago, The Vitamin Shoppe was in the midst of an aggressive strategic turnaround plan under new CEO…when it was determined that the best go-forward strategy included selling itself to an entity (at the time) known as Liberty Tax for $208 million. After that acquisition, Liberty Tax would change its name to Franchise Group, Inc. and go on to acquire several other franchise businesses. Over the next 3.5 years, it would operate as a publicly traded entity until it was decided in May 2023 that the portfolio would be taken private through a $2.6 billion management buyout. The group that bought Franchise Group was led by then-CEO Brian Kahn…but included a consortium of other investment banks and private equity firms (like B. Riley Financial). But this is where things get a bit messy…because a handful of months later, Brain Kahn (amid a criminal investigation into his role in a securities fraud case tied to the collapse of a defunct hedge fund) stepped down as the CEO. Yet, that's not the primary reason why Franchise Group just filed voluntary petitions for protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. The actual explanation requires knowledge of the Franchise Group portfolio businesses, recent operational performance, and a bit of economics 101. At the time of the management buyout, Franchise Group owned an assortment of retail assets that obviously included The Vitamin Shoppe, but also Pet Supplies Plus, Buddy's Home Furnishings, Badcock Furniture, American Freight and Sylvan Learning. And in the last quarter of performance (with that retail brand portfolio), Franchise Group generated $1.1 billion in revenue…but had a net loss from operations of about $108 million. And the economy hasn't materially improved (or shifted) since that May 2023 management buyout timing…so Franchise Group started shedding troubled assets. But that wasn't enough…especially as even The Vitamin Shoppe and Pet Supplies Plus underperformed operationally to Franchise Group expectations. So, then when you consider that the Federal Reserve hadn't started cutting interest rates until just recently…there was just too much debt on the balance sheet, and the business continuity outlook was grim without seeking out bankruptcy protection. But because this bankruptcy lists assets and liabilities each between $1 billion and $10 billion…it will most likely take months to be finalized. So, consider this the first content piece in a series. But based on what we know right now, my latest first principles thinking content will breakdown how this Franchise Group bankruptcy impacts the different stakeholders of The Vitamin Shoppe including employees, customers, vendors, and the corporate entity. FOLLOW ME ON MY SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LINKEDIN⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YOUTUBE⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TWITTER⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠INSTAGRAM⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠FACEBOOK⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/joshua-schall/support

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Truck Insurance Exchange v Kaiser Gypsum Co.      In this case, the court considered this issue: Is an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim a “party in interest” that may object to a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code? The case was decided on June 6, 2024. The Supreme Court held that an insurer with financial responsibility for bankruptcy claims is a “party in interest” under 11 U-S-C §1109(b) that “may raise and may appear and be heard on any issue” in a Chapter 11 case. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the 8-0 opinion of the Court (Justice Samuel Alito did not participate in the consideration or decision of the case). The text of § 1109(b) is broad, providing a non-exhaustive list of “parties in interest” who have a direct financial stake in the outcome of the case. The plain meaning refers to entities potentially concerned with or affected by the proceeding. The historical context shows Congress has consistently acted to promote greater participation in reorganization proceedings. Section 1109(b) continues this tradition by using the capacious term “party in interest.” The purpose of § 1109(b) is to promote a fair and equitable reorganization process by allowing a broad range of interests to intervene and prevent dominant interests from controlling the process. Applying these principles, insurers like Truck are parties in interest because bankruptcy proceedings can affect their interests in many ways, such as impairing their contractual rights or exposing them to fraudulent claims. Truck's potential financial harm from the plan gives it an interest. Giving insurers like Truck an opportunity to be heard is consistent with § 1109(b)'s purpose, as they may be the only ones with an incentive to identify problems with a plan that puts them on the hook financially. The lower court's "insurance neutrality" doctrine, which looks only at whether a plan alters the insurer's contract rights or quantum of liability, is wrong conceptually and too limited practically in ignoring the many other ways plans can affect insurers. Thus, the text, history, and purpose of § 1109(b) support the understanding that financially responsible insurers like Truck have a sufficiently direct stake to be "parties in interest" entitled to be heard. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In this episode of The Subchapter V Podcast, David Mawhinney is joined by Hon. Frank J. Bailey, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge for the District of Massachusetts (Ret.) and Andrew Lizotte, shareholder at Murphy & King P.C. to discuss small business reorganization under Subchapter V of chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code and, specifically, the debtor's requirement to commit projected disposable income to paying creditor claims. The show begins by breaking down a debtor's revenue projections and what expense deductions are reasonable in arriving at projected disposable income. The team then turns to the plan term and arguments for extending it beyond the three-year minimum.

The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision on 27 June ruled that a bankruptcy court does not have the statutory authority to provide non-consensual third party releases. Such releases had been a crucial part of the Purdue Pharma Chapter 11 plan, among others, where the bankruptcy system was being employed to shield non-debtors from litigation without full creditor consent.The decision coincided with the timely publication of Unjust Debts by UNC law professor Melissa Jacoby, which provides a critical history of how the use of Chapter 11 has expanded far beyond the initial scope laid out in the Bankruptcy Code enacted in 1978.For this week's episode of Cloud 9fin, global head of distressed and restructuring Max Frumes discusses this refreshing and crucial snapshot of bankruptcy law that is both technical and accessible with Professor Jacoby, and how current events might further shape the bankruptcy courts around the country.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v Coughlin. In this case, the court considered this issue: Does the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally abrogate tribal sovereign immunity? The case was decided on June 15, 2023.  The Supreme Court held that The Bankruptcy Code unequivocally abrogates the sovereign immunity of all governments, including federally recognized Indian tribes. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the majority opinion of the Court. To abrogate sovereign immunity, Congress must make its intent to abrogate “unmistakably clear in the language of the statute.” The statute at issue here contains such unmistakably clear language. First, 11 U.S.C. § 106(a) expressly abrogates the sovereign immunity of “governmental units” for certain enumerated purposes. Section 101(27), defines “governmental unit” as “United States; State; Commonwealth; District; Territory; municipality; foreign state; department, agency, or instrumentality of the United States . . . , a State, a Commonwealth, a District, a Territory, a municipality, or a foreign state; or other foreign or domestic government.” This definition “exudes comprehensiveness from beginning to end,” and other provisions of the Bankruptcy Code support this understanding as well. Federally recognized tribes are “indisputably” governments, so the § 106(a) unequivocally abrogates their sovereign immunity. Justice Clarence Thomas authored an opinion concurring in the judgment. Justice Thomas reiterated an argument he has made before that to the extent that tribes possess sovereign immunity at all, that immunity does not extend to “suits arising out of a tribe's commercial activities conducted beyond its territory.” Justice Neil Gorsuch authored a dissenting opinion arguing that the Court's clear-statement rule requires the statute to expressly mention Indian tribes in order to abrogate their sovereign immunity. Because the Bankruptcy Code does not, he would hold that it does not abrogate federally recognized Indian tribes' sovereign immunity. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

The Supreme Court on June 27, 2024 issued its long awaited decision in Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P., holding 5-4 that a Chapter 11 plan of reorganization that releases claims against nondebtors without the consent of the claimants is prohibited by the Bankruptcy Code.  Come hear the petitioner himself, William K. Harrington, United States Trustee for the New England states and New York, discuss the opinion with other experts and consider its likely effects on future Chapter 11 practice.   Questions? Inquiries about program materials? Contact Trenon Browne at tbrowne@bostonbar.org  

Earth Files Chapter 7 - The Global Reconciliation PlanWebsite: http://www.battle4freedom.com/studio/?dtt-earth-files-chapter7Network: https://www.mojo50.comStreaming: https://www.rumble.com/Battle4Freedomhttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Habakkuk+1%3A13&version=CJBHabakkuk 1:13Your eyes are too pure to see evil, you cannot countenance oppression. So why do you countenance traitors? Why are you silent when evil people swallow up those more righteous than they?https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+29%3A28&version=CJBDeuteronomy 29:28(29)28 (29) Things which are hidden belong to Adonai our G_d. But the things that have been revealed belong to us and our children forever, so that we can observe all the words of this Torah.https://www.merriam-webster.com/legal/Bankruptcy%20CodeBankruptcy Code summarytitle of the U.S. Code governing insolvency and debt adjustment. Individuals, whether merchants or not, as well as private corporations, with the exception of certain financial institutions, are subject to the Bankruptcy Code. .... The Code defined bankruptcy procedure and strengthened the hand of bankruptcy judges. Chapter 7 of the code governs liquidation, in which assets are sold and the proceeds are given to creditorshttps://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+7%3A1&version=CJBGenesis 7:1Adonai said to Noach, "Come into the ark, you and all your household; for I have seen that you alone in this generation are righteous before me. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+7%3A2-3&version=CJBGenesis 7:2-3Of every clean animal you are to take seven couples, and of the animals that are not clean, one couple; also of the birds in the air take seven couples — in order to preserve their species throughout the earth. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+7%3A4-5&version=CJBGenesis 7:4-5For in seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights; I will wipe out every living thing that I have made from the face of the earth." Noach did all that Adonai ordered him to do.https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+7%3A6-9&version=CJBGenesis 7:6-9Noach was 600 years old when the water flooded the earth. Noach went into the ark with his sons, his wife and his sons' wives, because of the floodwaters. Of clean animals, of animals that are not clean, of birds, and of everything that creeps on the ground, couples, male and female, went in to Noach in the ark, as G_d had ordered Noach.https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+7%3A10-12&version=CJBGenesis 7:10-12After seven days the water flooded the earth. On the seventeenth day of the second month of the 600th year of Noach's life all the fountains of the great deep were broken up, and the windows of the sky were opened. It rained on the earth forty days and forty nights.https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+7%3A13-14&version=CJBGenesis 7:13-14On that same day Noach entered the ark with Shem, Ham and Yefet the sons of Noach, Noach's wife and the three wives of his sons accompanying them; they, and every animal of every species, all the livestock of every species, every animal that creeps on the ground of every species, and every bird of every species — all sorts of winged creatures. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+7%3A15-16&version=CJBGenesis 7:15-16They went in to Noach in the ark, couples from every kind of living thing that breathes. Those that entered went in, male and female, from every kind of living being, as G_d had ordered him; and Adonai shut him inside.https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+7%3A17-20&version=CJBGenesis 7:17-20The flood was forty days on the earth; the water grew higher and floated the ark, so that it was lifted up off the earth. The water overflowed the earth and grew deeper, until the ark floated on the surface of the water. The water overpowered the earth mightily; all the high mountains under the entire sky were covered; the water covered the mountains by more than twenty-two-and-a-half feet. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+7%3A21-22&version=CJBGenesis 7:21-22All living beings that moved on the earth perished — birds, livestock, other animals, insects, and every human being, everything in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life; whatever was on dry land died. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+7%3A23-24&version=CJBGenesis 7:23-24He wiped out every living thing on the surface of the ground — not only human beings, but livestock, creeping animals and birds in the air. They were wiped out from the earth; only Noach was left, along with those who were with him in the ark. The water held power over the earth for 150 days.

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in M-O-A-C Mall Holdings LLC v Transform Holdco LLC.  In this case, the court considered this issue: Does Bankruptcy Code Section 363(m) limit the jurisdiction of appellate courts over an order approving the sale of a debtor's assets or instead simply limit the remedies available on appeal from such an order? The case was decided on April 19, 2023. The Supreme Court held that Section 363(m) of the Bankruptcy Code—which restricts the effects of certain successful appeals of judicially authorized sales or leases of bankruptcy-estate property—is not a jurisdictional provision. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored the unanimous opinion of the Court. Congressional statutes often contain restrictions and conditions on relief, but absent a “clear statement” that a provision is jurisdictional, courts must not treat these restrictions and conditions as jurisdictional. Jurisdictional provisions limit the power of the district court, whereas other limitations bear on the rights or obligations of the parties. Nothing in the limiting language of § 363(m)'s purports to “govern a court's adjudicatory capacity.” First, the text does not address a court's authority or refer to the jurisdiction of district courts. Second, the structure of the Code and context of § 363(m) suggest it is not jurisdictional. The provision is separate from other provisions in the code that address federal courts' jurisdiction over bankruptcy matters, and unlike other provisions, § 363(m) contains no “clear tie” to the jurisdictional provisions. The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

In this case, the court considered this issue: Can a bankruptcy debtor be held liable for another person's fraud, even when they were not aware of the fraud? The case was decided on February 22, 2023. The Supreme Court held that the Bankruptcy Code exemption from discharge for debts involving fraud precludes the partner of the individual who committed the fraud from discharging a debt, regardless of her own culpability. Justice Barrett filed an opinion for a unanimous Court. Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Jackson joined. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

Is VA disability compensation exempt from bankruptcy? In 2019, the HAVEN Act was signed into law, making VA benefits protected income during bankruptcy proceedings. Prior to the HAVEN Act – from 2005 to 2019 – the federal Bankruptcy Code commonly required veterans to give up their VA disability benefits to creditors to obtain bankruptcy relief. Tune in to this episode to learn more about bankruptcy and VA disability compensation. For more information, visit our website at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠cck-law.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow us on social media: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/CCKYTL⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/CCKFBL⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/CCKINL⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://bit.ly/CCKTL

QUESTION PRESENTED: Whether an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a “party in interest” that may object to a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

A case in which the Court will decide whether an insurer with financial responsibility for a bankruptcy claim is a “party in interest” that may object to a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court's upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Murthy v. Missouri (March 18) - Whether the Supreme Court should stay the injunction of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana restricting federal officials' and employees' speech concerning content moderation on social media platforms.NRA v. Vullo (March 18) - Whether the First Amendment allows a government regulator to threaten regulated entities with adverse regulatory actions if they do business with a controversial speaker, as a consequence of (a) the government's own hostility to the speaker's viewpoint or (b) a perceived “general backlash” against the speaker's advocacy.Diaz v. United States (March 19) - Criminal Law & Procedure; Whether in a prosecution for drug trafficking — where an element of the offense is that the defendant knew she was carrying illegal drugs — Federal Rule of Evidence 704(b) permits a governmental expert witness to testify that most couriers know they are carrying drugs and that drug-trafficking organizations do not entrust large quantities of drugs to unknowing transporters.Truck Insurance Exchange v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (March 19) - Bankruptcy law - This case addresses whether an insurer with responsibility for a bankruptcy claim qualifies as a "party in interest" able to object to a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. It touches on the rights and roles of insurance companies within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings.Gonzalez v. Trevino (March 20) - Constitutional Law, First Amendment - It explores the standards required for a plaintiff alleging an arrest in retaliation for speech protected by the First Amendment, focusing on what evidence must be shown to prove such a claim, especially in light of exceptions outlined in precedent cases.Texas v. New Mexico and Colorado (March 20) - Environmental Law - This dispute involves the apportionment of the waters of the Rio Grande among the states and the role of the federal government in such agreements. It represents the latest chapter in a long-running legal battle over water rights and usage.Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe (March 25) - Federal Indian Law, Medical Law - The question is whether Native American tribes that manage their own healthcare programs are entitled to receive funds from the Indian Health Service to cover costs associated with services that are covered by insurance. This case examines the intersection of tribal sovereignty, healthcare, and federal funding obligations.Harrow v. Department of Defense (March 25) - Ad Law - It questions whether the 60-day deadline for a federal employee to petition the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to review a final decision of the Merit Systems Protection Board is jurisdictional, impacting the rights of federal employees in the review process.Food and Drug Administration v. Alliance For Hippocratic Medicine (March 26) - Ad Law - It centers on the FDA's approval process and actions to increase access to mifepristone, a drug used in medication abortions. The case challenges the FDA's decisions on drug safety and accessibility, testing the limits of agency authority and judicial review.Erlinger v. United States (March 27) - Criminal Law - The question is whether, for the purposes of imposing an enhanced sentence under the ACCA, it should be a jury or a judge who decides if the defendant's previous convictions occurred on different occasions.Connelly v. Internal Revenue Service (March 27) - Tax Law - The case examines whether the proceeds of a life insurance policy, taken out by a closely held corporation on a shareholder to facilitate the redemption of the shareholder's stock, should be considered a corporate asset when calculating the value of the shareholder's shares.Featuring:Robert Corn-Revere, Chief Counsel, FIRETony Francois, Partner, Briscoe Ivester & Bazel Eli Nachmany, Associate, Covington & Burling LLPBrett Nolan, Senior Attorney, Institute for Free Speech Jennifer Weddle, Shareholder, Greenberg TraurigModerator: Michael Francisco, Partner, McGuireWoods

Anant Merathia is a practicing commercial litigation and disputes resolution lawyer with over 18 years' experience in India and Singapore. Anant started off his career with practice in civil and commercial laws in Chennai, India in 2004 focusing on shareholder disputes & commercial documentation followed by pursuing an LLM at NUS, Singapore. After completing his LLM, he worked with Singapore law firms as a Registered Foreign Lawyer, in the corporate and arbitration practice groups. Anant moved back to India in 2009 and over the years has advised clients on corporate and commercial advisory and litigations, shareholder issues, cross border disputes and insolvency and restructuring of Indian companies. He has advised and represented Promoters, Financial Institutions, Insolvency Professionals, Resolution Applicants and other stakeholders in IBC matters across NCLTs and NCLAT in Chennai and Delhi. His 1st book 'Defaulter's Paradise Lost: Demystifying the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016' is out.

This Day in Legal History: Happy Birthday Cicero!On January 3rd, we mark a significant moment in legal history with the birth of the Roman lawyer, Marcus Tullius Cicero, in 106 BC. Cicero, a figure renowned for his oratory and prose style, was not only a lawyer but also a philosopher and politician, playing a pivotal role in the late Roman Republic. His legal career, characterized by his eloquence and deep understanding of Roman law, made him one of the era's most respected and influential lawyers.Cicero's legal philosophy was deeply entrenched in the concept of natural law, a principle suggesting that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature. He believed that law and justice were not a product of human creation, but rather derived from a higher, universal source. This belief laid the groundwork for many modern legal principles that emphasize natural rights and justice.Cicero's view of natural law was not just philosophical; it had practical implications for how laws should be crafted and interpreted. He argued that human-made laws should reflect the fundamental principles of justice and fairness inherent in natural law. This idea was a significant departure from the notion of legal positivism, which holds that law is defined solely by the edicts of the state or the decrees of rulers. Cicero's approach advocated for a higher moral standard in legal proceedings, suggesting that laws unjust in their essence were invalid, regardless of their source.As a statesman, Cicero often found himself entangled in the complex political machinations of the Roman Republic. His commitment to the Republic's ideals often put him at odds with more autocratic figures. His orations, including the famous "Catiline Orations," showcase his skill in using the law and rhetoric as tools to address public policy and political corruption.Cicero's legal writings, such as "De Legibus" (On the Laws) and "De Re Publica" (On the Republic), offer insight into Roman law and political theory. These works have had a lasting impact on Western legal thought, influencing legal theorists and practitioners for centuries. His ideas contributed significantly to the development of the concept of individual rights and the rule of law, principles that are central to many modern legal systems.Interestingly, Cicero's career also highlights the dangers faced by legal professionals in politically turbulent times. His outspoken nature and political stances eventually led to his downfall and assassination. Despite this tragic end, his legacy endured, and his works continued to be studied and revered.Cicero's influence extends beyond the legal realm; he is considered one of the greatest Roman orators and prose stylists. His writings not only provide historical insight into Roman law and governance but also offer timeless wisdom on ethics, duty, and the nature of good and evil.As we reflect on this day in legal history, Cicero's birth serves as a reminder of the profound impact one individual, born at a pivotal point, can have on the legal profession and the enduring nature of the principles Cicero specifically championed. His life and work continue to resonate, underscoring the importance of justice, integrity, and the power of the law in shaping society.The Biden administration's negotiations with hydrogen industry leaders about legally binding commitments for new jobs and lower emissions are crucial for community support and achieving U.S. environmental justice goals. However, the secrecy surrounding these negotiations is a major concern in the Department of Energy's strategy to engage communities in its $8 billion hydrogen hub program. The department and hub leaders have kept their applications private, citing confidential business information, leading to frustration among communities and environmental justice advocates.These hydrogen hubs, a key federal clean energy program, are drawing attention from various sectors, but the lack of transparency is creating issues for hydrogen proponents. The DOE is aware of the negative public perception risks and sees the community benefits plan as a way to shape the industry. This plan requires applicants to explain how they will benefit residents and meet the Biden administration's Justice40 goals.The DOE estimates that by 2030, the U.S. demand for hydrogen could create 100,000 new jobs and the hubs alone could reduce 25 million metric tons of CO2 emissions annually. The hub model aims to demonstrate hydrogen production, transport, and consumption technologies in diverse U.S. regions. However, measuring the benefits and harms of these hubs and making them public is seen as crucial.A significant concern is the extent to which the hubs will rely on fossil fuel production. Although two-thirds of the project investment is for green hydrogen, a substantial portion involves natural gas with carbon capture and storage, raising questions about the overall 'green' impact of these hubs. Transparency in project details, given the use of public funding, is a priority for industry experts.In the Midwest, a hub plans to use all three types of hydrogen production, raising concerns about seismic activity, water quality, and potential CO2 contamination. Community benefits and labor agreements are in place, but releasing plans too early might create false expectations among communities. The hub leaders aim for transparency but are cautious about revealing details prematurely.Secretive Hydrogen Hub Talks Test Energy Agency Community PlansIn the case of In re Envision Healthcare Corp., the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas addressed a conflict between the Bankruptcy Code and the Delaware Limited Liability Company Act (LLC Act). The court ruled that section 541 of the Bankruptcy Code, which creates an estate of all a debtor's interests at the bankruptcy commencement date, overrides section 18-304(1)(b) of the LLC Act, which strips an LLC member of its membership interest upon bankruptcy filing. This decision means that a member of a Delaware LLC retains all legal and equitable interests in the LLC when they file for bankruptcy.Before the bankruptcy filing, one of the debtors, Amsurg Holdings LLC, along with other entities, held management and voting membership interests in Folsom Endoscopy Center, a Delaware LLC. After the bankruptcy filing, other members amended the operating agreement, reflecting the debtor's loss of voting and managerial interest. However, the court, rejecting a motion to compel arbitration, found that the dispute was about the legal rights held by the debtor in the LLC at the bankruptcy's commencement.The court rejected the argument that the debtor only retained an economic interest in the LLC, asserting that any managerial or voting rights became part of the bankruptcy estate. It concluded that section 18-304 of the LLC Act conflicts with the Bankruptcy Code and cannot strip LLC members of their rights upon filing for bankruptcy. This decision emphasizes the protection of property rights of debtors who are LLC members and has implications for LLC members in terms of counterparty risk and business dealings in the event of co-member or manager bankruptcy.Court refuses to enforce Delaware statutory provision stripping LLC interests upon bankruptcy filing | ReutersUS Senior District Judge William Young, based in Boston, recently presided over a bench trial remotely for a case in Asheville, North Carolina. This unique trial involved judiciary officials' handling of misconduct claims by former federal defender Caryn Strickland, where all judges in the circuit had to recuse themselves, leading to Young's appointment. Despite the distance, Young effectively managed the trial, showcasing the growing normalcy of remote legal proceedings, a trend accelerated by the Covid-19 pandemic.The trial, which stretched over five half-days, wasn't without technical difficulties, such as audio delays and screens occasionally turning off. These challenges highlighted the imperfections of remote courtroom technology. Judge Young, known for conducting remote jury-waived trials for years, took on this case as part of his efforts to assist overburdened court districts. He has a history of helping in various districts, including managing tobacco product liability litigation in Florida and handling dispositive motions for the Northern District of Oklahoma post the McGirt v. Oklahoma decision.During the trial, there were moments of disconnect due to the technology, with Young apologizing for not being able to distinguish the attorneys and sometimes asking for identification before they spoke. Despite these challenges, the trial proceeded with Young and his staff adeptly handling logistics.The physical contrast between the two courtrooms was notable, with Asheville surrounded by local businesses and the Boston federal courthouse located in a trendy district. The trial culminated with Young insisting on the public nature of court proceedings, denying a request for attorneys to appear remotely for closing arguments, emphasizing the importance of maintaining the public and formal aspects of the judicial process.Veteran Boston Judge Leads a North Carolina Trial From Afar Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants' consent.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by non-debtors against non-debtor third parties, without the claimants' consent.

Bankruptcy: Does the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties without the claimants' consent? - Argued: Mon, 04 Dec 2023 14:8:46 EDT

QUESTION PRESENTED:Issue(s): Whether the Bankruptcy Code authorizes a court to approve, as part of a plan of reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, a release that extinguishes claims held by nondebtors against nondebtor third parties, without the claimants' consent. ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

For news about this oral argument to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, see https://reorg.com/ftx-examiner-appointment-appeal/.Third Circuit Hears Argument in FTX Examiner Appointment Appeal; Parties Spar Over Whether Statute Is Mandatory, Sullivan & Cromwell Potential Conflicts of InterestWed 11/08/2023 18:48 PMA three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral argument today in the appeal in the FTX Group cases by the Office of the U.S. Trustee of a bankruptcy court order denying its motion for the appointment of an examiner. The panel, consisting of Judges Luis Felipe Restrepo, Stephanos Bibas and Anthony Joseph Scirica, took the appeal under advisement without indicating the timing of their decision. The FTX Group debtors are seeking to confirm a plan in June 2024 and targeting a July 2024 effective date.The appeal was certified by U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly in the absence of controlling precedent regarding whether the appointment of an examiner is mandatory if the debt threshold in section 1104(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code is met. The statute provides that a bankruptcy court “shall” appoint an examiner to investigate the debtor “as is appropriate” if the UST or a party makes such a request and the debtors' fixed, liquidated, general unsecured debts exceed $5 million. The UST's mandatory interpretation of the statute is challenged by the FTX group debtors and the official committee of unsecured creditors, which argue that the appointment of an examiner is discretionary.Bankruptcy Judge John Dorsey found that he had discretion to deny the UST's request for an examiner, citing to the “as is appropriate” phrase in the statute as the operative language. He decided that appointing an examiner would result in substantial costs and duplicate the parallel FTX investigations by the debtors, the UCC, federal prosecutors, regulators and Congress and thus denied the request...[for more see https://reorg.com/ftx-examiner-appointment-appeal/]

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below. Brown v. United States (November 27) - Criminal Law; Whether the definition of “serious drug offense” in the Armed Career Criminal Act incorporates the federal drug schedules that were in effect when the individual committed the firearm offense, or instead the schedules that were in effect at the time of the state drug offense. McElrath v. Georgia (November 28) - Criminal Law, Double Jeopardy; A challenge by a Georgia man who was found not guilty by reason of insanity on one charge arising from the stabbing death of his mother and guilty but mentally ill on another charge to the state’s ability to try him again on the charge on which he was acquitted. Wilkinson v. Garland (November 28) - Immigration; Whether federal courts have the power to review an agency’s determination that a noncitizen did not meet the “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship requirement to cancel deportation. Securities and Exchange Comm’n v. Jarkesy (November 29) - Administrative Law, Financial Services; A challenge to the SEC’s use of in-house judges. Harrington v. Purdue Pharma, L.P (December 4) - Whether the Bankruptcy Code gives a court the power to approve a release that extinguishes claims against third parties, without the consent of the individuals or entities holding the claims. Moore v. United States (December 5) Federalism & Separation of Powers - Whether a federal “mandatory repatriation tax” violates the 16th Amendment. Muldrow v. City of St. Louis, Missouri (December 6) - What protections does Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provide to employees who contend they were the victim of a discriminatory transfer? Featuring: Justin Aimonetti, Attorney, Dechert LLP Adi Dynar, Attorney, Pacific Legal Foundation Prof. Jennifer Jenkins, Associate Professor of Law, Ave Maria School of Law Prof. Lindsey Simon, Associate Professor of Law, Emory University Law School Moderator: Stephanie Maloney, Chief of Staff and Associate Chief Counsel, U.S. Chamber Litigation Center

Audio of the opinion of the Court in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin (2023) Access Additional resources about this case at oyez.org: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022/22-227 Follow What SCOTUS Wrote Us for audio of Supreme Court opinions. Anywhere you listen to podcasts.

In this podcast, Kushal speaks with Anant Merathia about his book "Defaulter's Paradise Lost: Demystifying the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016". Book: https://amzn.eu/d/0AxrjVD #insolvency #bankruptcy #ibc ------------------------------------------------------------ Listen to the podcasts on: SoundCloud: https://soundcloud.com/kushal-mehra-99891819 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1rVcDV3upgVurMVW1wwoBp Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-c%C4%81rv%C4%81ka-podcast/id1445348369 Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/show/the-carvaka-podcast ------------------------------------------------------------ Support The Cārvāka Podcast: Become a Member on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKPxuul6zSLAfKSsm123Vww/join Become a Member on Fanmo: https://fanmo.in/the_carvaka_podcast Become a Member on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/carvaka UPI: kushalmehra@icici To buy The Carvaka Podcast Exclusive Merch please visit: http://kushalmehra.com/shop ------------------------------------------------------------ Follow Kushal: Twitter: https://twitter.com/kushal_mehra?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/KushalMehraOfficial/? Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thecarvakapodcast/?hl=en Koo: https://www.kooapp.com/profile/kushal_mehra Inquiries: https://kushalmehra.com/ Feedback: kushalmehra81@gmail.com

In today's episode for 6th October 2023, we tell you why the government recently tweaked the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code specifically for airlines and how it temporarily solves a long-lurking problem. Talk to Ditto - https://bit.ly/45uvyDL

On this day in legal history, October 6, 1981, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was assassinated in retaliation for signing a peace treaty with Israel. The assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat on October 6, 1981, had profound legal and political ramifications for Egypt. Prior to his assassination, Sadat had initiated a crackdown on opposition figures, including Islamists and intellectuals, arresting more than 1,500 people. This move was highly unpopular and was seen as a suppression of civil liberties, including freedom of the press. Despite the crackdown, the government failed to apprehend a key cell within the military that was plotting Sadat's assassination.The assassination was orchestrated by the Islamic Jihad, although numerous other groups claimed responsibility. The killing was not just a political act but also had legal implications, as it led to further crackdowns on opposition groups and increased state security measures. The assassin, was tried and executed, setting a precedent for how the Egyptian legal system would handle cases of high-profile political violence.Vice President Mubarak, who was wounded in the attack, succeeded Sadat and continued policies of political repression, including the enforcement of emergency laws that gave sweeping powers to the state.The assassination led to a reevaluation of the legal frameworks surrounding political dissent, terrorism, and state security. It also raised questions about the effectiveness of existing laws in preventing such acts of violence, leading to legal reforms aimed at bolstering state security mechanisms.The group Students for Fair Admissions, led by affirmative action opponent Edward Blum, has filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Naval Academy, challenging its race-conscious admissions policies. This lawsuit comes on the heels of a similar case filed against the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. Both lawsuits aim to overturn an exemption in a recent Supreme Court ruling that allows military academies to consider race in admissions. The Supreme Court had previously invalidated race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard and the University of North Carolina but left the door open for military academies, citing "potentially distinct interests."Blum argues that the Naval Academy has no legal basis for treating applicants differently based on race and ethnicity. The Naval Academy declined to comment on the lawsuit. The Biden administration has defended the use of race in military academy admissions, stating that a diverse officer corps is essential for an effective military. A 2020 Defense Department report highlighted disparities in racial representation among military officers compared to enlisted personnel.The lawsuit alleges that the Naval Academy's admissions practices are discriminatory and violate the Fifth Amendment's principle of equal protection. It criticizes the academy for trying to "racially balance" each incoming class rather than focusing on leadership potential and other objective metrics. The lawsuit seeks to bar the academy from considering race in future admissions processes. Given the ongoing debates and legal challenges surrounding affirmative action, this case could have significant implications for admissions policies not just in military academies but also in educational institutions at large.Anti-affirmative action group challenges US Naval Academy's admissions policy | ReutersThe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) is suing Elon Musk to compel him to testify in an investigation related to his $44 billion acquisition of Twitter. The probe focuses on whether Musk violated federal securities laws in 2022 when he purchased Twitter stock and renamed the platform "X," as well as the statements and SEC filings he made concerning the deal. The SEC had previously subpoenaed Musk in May 2023 for testimony, to which he initially agreed but later refused, citing "spurious objections." Among Musk's objections was the claim that the SEC was trying to "harass" him.Musk's attorney, Alex Spiro, stated that the SEC has already taken Musk's testimony multiple times and called the investigation "misguided." The SEC, however, maintains that it seeks Musk's testimony to obtain information relevant to its "legitimate and lawful investigation." This lawsuit is the latest episode in a long-standing feud between Musk and the SEC, which began with Musk's 2018 tweet about taking Tesla private.Musk's acquisition of Twitter has been fraught with complications, including his initial late filing disclosure and his vacillation over accepting a board seat at Twitter. He also tried to back out of the acquisition, alleging that Twitter was not fully disclosing bot activity. Despite a trial that sought to compel him to complete the deal, Musk finalized the acquisition in late October 2022.The lawsuit adds another layer to Musk's existing legal challenges, which include a Justice Department investigation into Tesla over self-driving claims and a federal probe into Musk's corporate perks and vehicle driving range claims. Legal experts find Musk's refusal to appear for the September testimony extraordinary, given his positions at public companies.SEC tries to force Musk to testify in Twitter takeover probe | ReutersThree directors, two former and one current, designated to serve on the board of Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. by activist investor Ryan Cohen, have sought permission from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey to use a $10 million Directors and Officers (D&O) insurance policy for unspecified legal costs. These costs are related to a "non-public, confidential matter" concerning their tenure on the company's board. The directors were appointed in March 2022 as part of an agreement with Cohen and his investment firm, RC Ventures LLC.At that time, Cohen was using a 10% stake in Bed Bath & Beyond to criticize its business strategy and advocate for either a separation of its buybuy Baby Inc. chain or a potential sale of the company. Cohen, who is now the CEO of GameStop Corp., is currently facing shareholder litigation accusing him of manipulating Bed Bath & Beyond's stock prices through a pump-and-dump scheme. A federal judge declined to dismiss this lawsuit, citing the suspicious timing of Cohen's trades, which took place just before the company announced layoffs, an investment rating downgrade, and issues with supplier payments.Additionally, Cohen is under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission concerning his sale of Bed Bath & Beyond stocks. The directors stated that the "confidential demand" they are facing will result in defense costs and other potential losses covered under the D&O policy. Both the company and its insurer, Zurich American Insurance Co., have agreed that the matter triggers the insurance policy.Bed Bath & Beyond filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in April, burdened with over $5.2 billion in debt. During the bankruptcy process, the company sold its name brand to Overstock.com for $21.5 million and its buybuy Baby brand to Dream on Me Industries Inc. for $15.5 million. Bed Bath & Beyond Directors Seek ‘Confidential Matter' CoverageAlex Jones, a right-wing conspiracy theorist, is facing opposition from his own company, Free Speech Systems, and a court-appointed bankruptcy trustee over his request for $680,000 in disputed, unpaid salary. Free Speech Systems, the parent company of Infowars, and the trustee have asked a judge to reject Jones' request. Both Jones and Free Speech Systems are undergoing separate bankruptcy proceedings. The company had previously agreed to an annual salary of $1.3 million for Jones but filed for bankruptcy after being ordered to pay nearly $1.4 billion to the families of Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting victims.Following the bankruptcy filing, court-approved budgets limited the company's ability to pay Jones his original salary. His salary was reduced to $20,000 every two weeks, down from the previous $50,000. In July, Jones asked the court to direct the company to pay him $680,000 in back salary, arguing that the reduction has resulted in a $290,000 administrative claim that is increasing by $30,000 per month.Free Speech Systems disputed the amount claimed by Jones, stating that certain offsets should further reduce any claim. The company also argued that the Bankruptcy Code does not provide for immediate payment of the claim. The bankruptcy trustee overseeing the Free Speech estate supported the company's arguments against the back payments.Judge Christopher Lopez, who is overseeing both bankruptcy cases, has indicated a willingness to increase Jones' salary, stating that Jones is critical to the Infowars business. Jones has argued that he cannot pay the nearly $1.4 billion he owes to the Sandy Hook families with less than $12 million in assets. Alex Jones Fights Bankrupt Infowars Over $680,000 in Back Pay Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Everywhere you turn, iron-clad sports nutrition brands of the past are now showing cracks in their armor. So, should the recent BPI Sports news have really surprised you? I'm going to let you in on a not so little secret within the supplement industry. Supplement brands are competing for every dollar from consumers who have a heightened sensitivity to costs, and though the supplement consumer has proved once again that it's highly resilient…gone are the days of generating a reliable, perpetual growth trajectory through the previous business strategies that fueled decades of industry success. For those not familiar with the sports nutrition brand, I'll quickly walk down memory lane...detailing the strategies that made BPI Sports into one of the fastest-growing sports nutrition brands of that early to mid-2010s era. But for those that haven't already read the headlines last week, BPI Sports filed voluntary petitions for protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. It was listed that BPI Sports had revenue of $12 million year-to-date and $23.4 million in 2022. It also stated the company had $2.2 million in estimated assets, with three-fourths of that coming from inventory. On the other side of the accounting ledger, BPI Sports had an estimated debt load of $7.6 million. Its largest creditor was supplement contract manufacturer and brand portfolio Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, which was owed $4.9 million in trade debt as its main supplier. In its case summary, BPI Sports stated that it negotiated a restructuring agreement with Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals that will convert its remaining debt to 100% of the equity in the legacy sports nutrition brand. You might be asking…why didn't BPI Sports just look for a buyer itself? The court dockets note it did in fact try but had a “failed sale process that did not obtain the approval of the minority investor.” So, with BPI Sports facing business difficulties caused by insufficient cash flow to address debt servicing requirements and operational requirements that necessitated several merchant cash advance loans…it was best for the going concern value of BPI Sports' assets and operations to file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. Finally, assuming Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals does indeed acquire BPI Sports, I'll give my prediction on what happens next. FOLLOW ME ON MY SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS LINKEDIN - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshuaschallmba⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ YOUTUBE - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.youtube.com/c/joshuaschall⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ TWITTER - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.twitter.com/joshua_schall⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ INSTAGRAM - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/joshua_schall⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ FACEBOOK - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/jschallconsulting⁠ --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/joshua-schall/support

In today's episode for 25th September 2023, we discuss how creditors have been misusing the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code and why they do it. Talk to Ditto - https://bit.ly/45uvyDL

This episode features Alan Condon, Editor-in-Chief at Becker's Healthcare. Here, he discusses Ascension reporting $3B annual operating loss and American Physician Partners voluntarily filing for Chapter 11 protection under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.

ABI Editor-at-Large Bill Rochelle discusses the Supreme Court's opinion in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin with Prof. Jack F. Williams of Georgia State University College of Law (Atlanta) and Thomas Salerno of Stinson LLP (Phoenix). The Court held that the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally abrogates the sovereign immunity of all governments, including federally recognized Indian tribes.

Follow along with all my trades and journal your own here -  https://savvytrader.com/Dailystockpick/2023-trading-portfolio I love Webull - Sign up here and get FREE STOCKS $GOOG and $MSFT earnings - wait for good prices - $META I like under $300 - $TSLA - I may have missed - but have patience.  I'll expand some charts in the newsletter so be sure to subscribe.  FREE NEWSLETTER WITH CHARTS - subscribe at dailystockpick.substack.com  SPONSORED BY VISIBLE - Check out this page: https://www.visible.com/get/?3MFGCRG  $20 off your first month - only $5 for the first month Use code DSP25 for 25% off Trendspider's platform - https://trendspider.com/?_go=gary93 Sign up for Webull and get free stocks like I did - https://a.webull.com/yNyte9iTQnfaDYFHdv Social Links and more - https://linktr.ee/dailystockpick  NOTES https://finviz.com/published_map.ashx?t=sec&st=d1&f=072623&i=sec_d1_085308998 $SPY Monthly - can we continue? Well the monthly just crossed up on the MacD which has been HUGE in the past. https://share.trendspider.com/chart/SPY/18946iwc070 FTC has a lawsuit ready to sue and break up $AMZN as soon as next month Between $MSFT and $GOOG, the CEO's said AI 145 times on their earnings call $upst on brads portfolio Teamsters and $ups agree to deal - that's huge  $wfc announced a $30b buyback - huge again for this name you should have bought under $40 - it's a $60 stock this year  $goog beat earnings - anything under $130 at this point is a buy - I think it goes to $145 on this run and $ggll would be the play  $msft beat too - $msft just has run too much - buy it on pullback though - they also did not provide details about copilot which seemed to be the key when it fell - they declined to give any details  The valuation would say buy $goog here long term. $msft is priced higher and has perfection priced in.  $snap missed - their ad revs probably went to $meta - the only question is whether $meta has run too much - but I bet they blow it out  I think also with $goog and $msft cloud- $amzn may be in trouble - remember they valuation of $am zn is based on aws and them reporting late has traditionally meant some trouble. Any pullback should be bought imo  $DISH and $AMZN partner for wireless service - $25/mo unlimited  https://finance.yahoo.com/news/1-dish-network-partners-amazon-123420911.html With all these earnings and banks - I think $dpst is a go  $ba beat  $ko beat  $spot earnings  It was another frustrating quarter for growth stocks that aren't growing fast enough for the market's liking, including Spotify. An example - love the company but the stock never made sense  AppHarvest announces bankruptcy. The sustainable food company backed by Martha Stewart has filed voluntary petitions for protection under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Its largest secured creditor, Equilibrium, has agreed to provide approximately $30 million of debtor-in-possession financing to support operations during the process. Day trading video Low float high volume is the key to day trading - great video - but you don't need a news scanner -  https://youtu.be/Wk-h2CwEH5k $simo Want a master class on how to build your own portfolio? Watch this  https://youtu.be/2Ohw3XZWFIg And he also analyzed dividend etfs  https://youtu.be/S4_1ZNaTTpA Largest stocks that report earnings tomorrow Facebook $META Coca-Cola $KO Thermo Fisher $TMO Union Pacific $UNP Boeing $BA ServiceNow $NOW AT&T $T ADP $ADP Equinor $EQNR Lam Research $LRCX Fiserv $FI CME $CME General Dynamics $GD O'Reilly $ORLY Chipotle $CMG Stellantis $STLA $ODD - Cramer made a very compelling case based on the valuation of $ELF SCANS $CLF $NXE $FAZ $BIDU $BABA $OKTA --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/dailystockpick/support

If you ain't delaying…are you really Chapter 11 bankruptcy auction banging? Believe it or not…it's been something like 250 days since Bang Energy filed voluntary petitions for protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. That might seem like a long time, but Chapter 11 bankruptcy cases, especially complex ones involving creditor claims in the billion-dollar range, are not quick…and that doesn't consider the hostile takeover element that's relatively unique here. But this isn't a piece of content about how the Bang Energy bankruptcy proceedings have amounted to almost 1500 document filings that equal 10s of thousands of total pages…thus likely making this one of the most expensive cases in Florida bankruptcy court history. Instead, I want to focus on the recent delays to the bankruptcy auction announcement. To be honest, it's hard to keep up on how many delays they've had, but it's probably up to four or five at this point. Now…there are two schools of thought on why this has been happening. The first one revolves around the theory that Bang Energy was such an attractive asset that the initial bankruptcy auction was filled with many strong and diverse bids. And so, to make the best decision for creditors, it would require a longer review period. That makes sense, right? But what if the most recent delay is due to an outside regulatory agency...which can only mean that my original prediction in mid-March that Monster Energy would acquire Bang Energy (https://youtu.be/Kr_PMyydlCw) is still alive. Because something I hadn't noted in earlier content was the potential regulatory hurdle that Monster Energy would face because of its leadership position in the U.S. energy drinks market. Finally, I'll talk through a few hypothetical scenarios based on what would happen next if each of the different diverse categories of acquirors won the Bang Energy bankruptcy auction. FOLLOW ME ON MY SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS LINKEDIN - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshuaschallmba⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ TWITTER - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.twitter.com/joshua_schall⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ INSTAGRAM - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/joshua_schall⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ FACEBOOK - ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.facebook.com/jschallconsulting --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/joshua-schall/support

On Legal Docket, whether Native Americans are subject to the Bankruptcy Code; on the Monday Moneybeat, what shrinking populations really mean for economic growth, and on the World History Book, the life and legacy of Pat Robertson. Plus, the Monday morning newsSupport The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donate.Additional support comes from Ambassadors Impact Network, a nationwide group of angel investors committed to funding entrepreneurs whose Christian convictions have hindered secular financing sources. More at ambassadorsimpact.comFrom Dordt University. Dordt's online grad programs help students advance careers while pursuing Christ-centered renewal in their fields. Learn more at Dordt.edu/gradAnd from Children's Hunger Fund:--Over 700 million meals distributed since 1991.-Just 25¢ can provide a meal for a hungry child.-Serving in 30 countries, including the US.Since 1991, Children's Hunger Fund (CHF) has come alongside the local church in 30 countries, including the US, to deliver food, aid, and the hope of the gospel. To date, 96% of total contributions—over 1 billion dollars in food and other aid—have been distributed through programs serving more than 20 million children across America and around the world. CHF has consistently received a four-star rating from Charity Navigator. CHF has distribution centers in San Antonio, Frisco, and their Los Angeles headquarters. To learn more, visit ChidrensHungerFund.org/world.

LTL Management LLC (LTL) is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (J&J) that was established in 2021 to hold and manage claims related to a mass tort alleging that J&J's talc-based baby powder caused many cases of ovarian cancer, mesothelioma, and other serious health issues. J&J claims that settling the mass tort in this manner is a reasonable and legitimate course of action. Some plaintiffs' attorneys claim that J&J is using a bad faith strategy that serves no legitimate business purpose, and the tort litigation should be allowed to continue. The case began in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. Chief Judge Michael Kaplan ruled in favor of LTL in February 2022 holding that LTL's filing for Chapter 11 protection was “unquestionably a proper purpose under the Bankruptcy Code.” Upon an expedited appeal, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit reversed and narrowly held in favor of claimants.Hours later, LTL once again filed for Chapter 11 protection; the new filing includes an $8.9 billion settlement offer. Some – including the U.S. Department of Justice's Trustee Program – continue to argue that J&J is misusing bankruptcy law through LTL, but others think the massive settlement is in the best interest of claimants. Both LTL and parent J&J reject that its bankruptcy filing is illegitimate, illegal, or in bad faith. This webinar served as a second installment of the February 16, 2023 webinar titled Chapter 11 Bankruptcy & Mass Torts: A Review of the Third Circuit's LTL Opinion with Professors Lindsey Simon and Tony Casey. Featuring:--Professor Tony Casey, Deputy Dean, Donald M. Ephraim Professor of Law and Economics & Faculty Director, The Center on Law and Finance, University of Chicago Law School--Professor Lindsey Simon, Robert Cotten Alston Associate Chair in Corporate Law, University of Georgia School of Law--Mikal C. Watts, Partner, Watts Guerra LLP

On April 24, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians v. Coughlin. At issue is whether the Bankruptcy Code abrogates tribal sovereign immunity. Join us to hear from Prof. Tom Gede as he breaks down the case.

Whether the Bankruptcy Code expresses unequivocally Congress's intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes.

Audio of Part 2: MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC (April 19, 2023)  Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Supreme Court.      

Federalism: Does the Bankruptcy Code abrogate the sovereign immunity of Indian tribes? - Argued: Mon, 24 Apr 2023 15:5:47 EDT

The unanimous opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court in MOAC Mall Holdings LLC v. Transform Holdco LLC (April 19, 2023) written by Justice Jackson. Next episode will begin with part III of the opinion.

A case in which the Court held the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally expresses Congress's intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Native American tribes.

A case in which the Court will decide whether the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally expresses Congress's intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Native American tribes.

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court's upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Slack Technologies v. Pirani (April 17) - Securities, Financial Services; Whether, to bring a securities lawsuit alleging misstatements in a registration statement, a plaintiff must plead and show that he bought shares registered under the allegedly misleading statement.US ex rel. Schutte v. SuperValu Inc. & United States ex rel. Proctor v. Safeway [Consolidated] (April 18) - Financial Services; Whether and when a defendant's subjective knowledge about whether its conduct was legal is relevant to whether it “knowingly” submitted false claims for payment to the government or “knowingly” made false statements in support of such claims in violation of the False Claims Act.Groff v. Dejoy (April 18) - Labor, Religious Liberties; Whether to overrule the Supreme Court's 1977 decision in Trans World Airlines v. Hardison, on the accommodations that employers must provide for their employees' religious practices.Counterman v. Colorado (April 19) - Free Speech; To determine whether statements are “true threats” that are not protected by the Constitution, should courts apply an objective test that considers whether a reasonable person would regard the statement as a threat of violence, or instead a subjective test that requires prosecutors to show that the speaker intended to make a threat?Lac du Flambeua Band v. Coughlin (April 24) - Tribal Law; Whether the Bankruptcy Code unequivocally expresses Congress's intent to abrogate the sovereign immunity of Native American tribes.Tyler v. Hennepin County (April 26) - Property Rights; Whether the foreclosure on and sale of a home that was worth $25,000 more than the owner owed in taxes violated the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, which bars the government from taking private property for public use without adequately compensating the property owners.Featuring: Thomas F. Gede, Counsel, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLPSharon Fast Gustafson, Principal, Sharon Fast Gustafson, Attorney at Law, PLCBrian Hauss, Senior Staff Attorney, Speech, Privacy & Technology Project, ACLUProf. Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University Moderator: Anastasia P. Boden, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute

In 2021, LTL Management LLC (LTL), a newly created and separate subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson that was established to hold and manage claims in the cosmetic talc litigation, filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The goal was to resolve all current and future claims fairly and efficiently. Opposition filed a motion to dismiss the case arguing it does not serve a valid restructuring purpose and suggesting J&J filed it in bad faith. In February 2022, Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey Michael Kaplan ruled in favor of LTL, holding that LTL's filing for Chapter 11 protection was “unquestionably a proper purpose under the Bankruptcy Code.” Upon an expedited appeal, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit reversed Chief Judge Kaplan and narrowly held in favor of claimants. The case is now under appeal for en banc review by the Third Circuit. Given the enormous national significance of the issue for corporate liability and civil justice, this case may advance to the Supreme Court for further adjudication.Please join as a panel of bankruptcy law experts discuss the Third Circuit ruling, its impact, significance, and the path forward, including how to assess both the split between Chief Judge Kaplan and the Third Circuit. The panel will discuss the purpose of Chapter 11 in preserving economic and social value and discuss the Third Circuit's ruling in light of other Circuits that are reviewing similar legal questions. The panel will review core questions that the Third Circuit left unanswered and share their expert perspectives on the ruling's precedent and what it may mean for mass tort litigation going forward.Featuring:Professor Tony Casey, Deputy Dean, Donald M. Ephraim Professor of Law and Economics & Faculty Director, The Center on Law and Finance, University of Chicago Law SchoolProfessor Lindsey Simon, Robert Cotten Alston Associate Chair in Corporate Law, University of Georgia School of Law

Just like midnight changes everything for Cinderella, MusclePharm did something right before the start of the intellectual property public auction that also changes everything. While MusclePharm being the Cinderella “underdog story” of the sports nutrition industry might be a huge stretch, the company is certainly down on its luck and dreaming of a better life someday. To even have the chance at a better life, we must swap an important detail around in this Disney story. Instead of the fairy godmother, MusclePharm has the United States Bankruptcy Court District of Nevada. Yes, many of you already read the headlines, but on December 15, 2022, MusclePharm filed voluntary petitions for protection under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code. Why did it take me so long to get this MusclePharm bankruptcy content created for you? Well…at first the bankruptcy filing was quite bare, which signals to me that it was obviously rushed. So, I waited for more details to emerge because I wasn't going to make content on boiler plate nonsense that just wastes everyone's time. But what started slow, sped up fast, and in the last about 80 days, there's been about 300 court documents (and counting) that amounts to more than 1000 pages. I've read through much of that in hopes that I can provide facts on the MusclePharm bankruptcy and breakdown what everything ultimately means for the company and the entire sports nutrition market. This includes a hedge fund battle between a portion of the hedge fund Empery Asset Management and White Winston, a list of the major creditors in the MusclePharm bankruptcy case, confirmation that Eric Hillman is CEO and an update of January 2023 financial progress, and what's the likely post-bankruptcy path for the legacy sports nutrition brand MusclePharm. FOLLOW ME ON MY SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS LINKEDIN - https://www.linkedin.com/in/joshuaschallmba TWITTER - https://www.twitter.com/joshua_schall INSTAGRAM - https://www.instagram.com/joshua_schall FACEBOOK - https://www.facebook.com/jschallconsulting MEDIUM - https://www.medium.com/@joshuaschall

Many people say we need a lot of different skills for our career path, but has anyone ever actually taught you these skills? That's what Mark Herschberg discusses today. Mark is a CTPO, Speaker, MIT Instructor, and Author of The Career Toolkit, Essential Skills for Success That No One Taught You. In this episode, Mark shares the career skills, tools, and approaches that are often undervalued and underutilized but are actually essential, especially in this generation. He also discusses in-depth resilience and what it looks like in the tech world. Tune in now and learn the essentials for your career path! Show Notes: [01:27] Mark Herschberg's Past[08:28] Renaissance Weekend[12:47] Pivot[15:18] MIT's Career Success Accelerator: The 10 Essential Skills[15:29] Section 1, Chapter 1: Career Planning [15:49] Section 1, Chapter 2: Working Effectively[16:01] Section 1, Chapter 3: Interviewing[16:25] Section 2, Chapter 1: Leadership and Management [16:32] Section 3, Chapters 1-4: Communication, Networking, Negotiations, Ethics[18:05] Leadership is Not Atomic[19:40] The Reason Behind the Bankruptcy Code[23:17] Why We Have Rules[31:08] How Companies Approach Culture[44:52] There Is A Change

Bankruptcy: Does the Bankruptcy Code limit appellate court jurisdiction over any sale order or order deemed integral to a sale order? - Argued: Mon, 05 Dec 2022 16:2:51 EDT