Podcasts about bankruptcy court

This is the official audio recording of the hearing conducted by the US Bankruptcy Court in the 23andMe bankruptcy proceedings on March 26, 2025 and is available for download as an MP3 that is contained in the PDF filed on the Bankruptcy Court docket as docket number 79.Given the massive public interest in the 23 and Me bankruptcy case due to #privacy concerns and other issues, a free docket and more information about the 23andMe bankruptcy proceedings are available through this link: https://restructuring.ra.kroll.com/23andMe/Home-DocketInfo

This Day in Legal History: Last Quaker Executed for Religious Beliefs in USOn March 24, 1661, William Leddra was executed in Boston, becoming the last Quaker in the American colonies to be put to death solely for his religious beliefs. Leddra, a devout Quaker, had previously been banished from Massachusetts under the colony's anti-Quaker laws but returned in defiance of the order. His return led to his arrest, imprisonment in harsh conditions through the winter, and eventual execution by hanging on Boston Common. His death marked the culmination of a brutal period of religious persecution in Puritan-controlled Massachusetts, where Quakers were seen as heretical threats to civil and religious order.Between 1659 and 1661, four Quakers—Marmaduke Stephenson, William Robinson, Mary Dyer, and William Leddra—were executed under laws banning Quakers from the colony. Their trials and punishments drew condemnation from other colonies and even from England. Leddra's hanging, in particular, caught the attention of King Charles II, who soon after issued a royal order halting capital punishment for religious dissent in Massachusetts. This effectively ended the execution of Quakers in the colonies.The persecution stemmed from Puritan authorities' intolerance of dissent and fear of Quaker evangelism, which rejected formal clergy and embraced equality, pacifism, and direct spiritual experience. Quakers continued to face fines, whippings, and imprisonment, but the death penalty was no longer enforced. Leddra's martyrdom, like that of his fellow Friends, became a symbol of religious freedom's cost and the struggle for tolerance in early America. His execution helped galvanize early opposition to theocratic rule and contributed to evolving colonial attitudes toward religious liberty.Paul Weiss Chairman Brad Karp alleged in a firmwide email that rival law firms attempted to take advantage of the firm's vulnerability following a March 14 executive order from President Donald Trump. The order directed federal agencies to sever contracts with Paul Weiss clients, prompting the firm to negotiate a deal with Trump rather than pursue litigation. Karp expressed disappointment that instead of receiving support, competitors tried to poach both clients and attorneys during the turmoil.The deal Paul Weiss struck included backing off diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and committing $40 million to pro bono work aligned with Trump administration priorities. Karp stressed that the administration is not selecting or approving the firm's matters. He acknowledged internal backlash and intense emotions over the firm's course of action but maintained that litigation would have likely jeopardized the firm's future, even with a legal victory.Perkins Coie, targeted by a similar March 6 order, has chosen to sue and has already lost clients as a result. On March 21, Trump issued an additional executive order directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to sanction attorneys and firms pursuing what the administration deems frivolous or vexatious litigation against the government.Paul Weiss Chairman Accuses Rival Firms of Pursuing Clients (1)Law firm Paul Weiss defends deal with Trump as lawyers sound alarm | Reuters23andMe Holding Co. has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri as it seeks to restructure and pursue a sale of the business. Despite financial challenges, the company plans to keep operating during the court-supervised process. The move is intended to help reduce costs, address legal and lease obligations, and stabilize operations.Once valued at $3.5 billion after going public in 2021, the DNA testing company has since struggled financially. Court filings list $277.4 million in assets and $214.7 million in liabilities. It secured up to $35 million in debtor-in-possession financing from JMB Capital Partners to support its operations during the bankruptcy.Co-founder Anne Wojcicki, who attempted unsuccessfully to take the company private earlier this month, has stepped down as CEO but will remain on the board. Joe Selsavage has been named interim CEO. The board's special committee chair, Mark Jensen, expressed hope that the bankruptcy process will allow 23andMe to address its challenges more effectively.23andMe Starts Chapter 11 Process, Co-Founder Steps Down - BloombergAt a recent hearing, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg criticized Trump administration lawyers for being “intemperate and disrespectful” in filings related to a case blocking the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members. The administration used the rarely invoked 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify removing alleged members of Tren de Aragua without immigration court orders. Boasberg issued a 14-day freeze on those deportations, questioning the administration's interpretation of the law and whether the individuals had any real opportunity to challenge their designation as gang members.The administration filed documents accusing Boasberg of a "judicial fishing expedition," prompting his public rebuke. Boasberg emphasized the importance of professional conduct in court and asked the Justice Department to explain by Tuesday whether it had violated his order by allowing two deportation flights to land in El Salvador after his ruling.Though Trump has said he would not defy court orders, the situation has raised constitutional concerns about executive overreach. Some deportees were reportedly refused by El Salvador's government for not fitting the criteria or being the wrong nationality or gender. Lawyers for the migrants argue the administration's reliance on the Alien Enemies Act could lead to broad and discriminatory applications.Judge in deportations case says Trump administration lawyers were 'disrespectful' | ReutersA U.S. federal judge in Chicago has approved a highly unusual class-action settlement against facial recognition firm Clearview AI that doesn't include an immediate cash payout for affected individuals. Instead, under the agreement, class members—estimated to number between 65,000 and 125,000—may receive a 23% equity stake in the company. This could eventually translate into monetary compensation if Clearview is sold, merges, or goes public.The lawsuit accused Clearview of violating Illinois' Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by scraping billions of facial images from the internet and using them without consent. Clearview denied any wrongdoing. U.S. District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman called the settlement “novel” but fair, emphasizing that the equity share isn't speculative, given the company's estimated valuation of up to $225 million. Based on that figure, the fund could reach $51.75 million.As an alternative to equity, a court-appointed official may require Clearview to pay 17% of its post-settlement revenue in cash by 2027. The deal also drew criticism from 22 states and D.C., which argued that the plaintiffs' attorneys' fees—nearly 40% of the settlement value—were excessive. Coleman defended the fees, noting that such awards are typical in the 7th Circuit.The judge further noted that continuing the litigation would be complex, costly, and time-consuming, justifying the settlement's structure.US judge approves 'novel' Clearview AI class action settlement | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of the TMA Chicago/Midwest podcast, Judge Deborah Thorne of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois sits down with host Paul Musser to discuss her path to becoming a bankruptcy judge and her transition from private practice to the bench. Judge Thorne also shares perspectives from her experience as a woman in the restructuring and legal industries, as well as current trends she's observed in her commercial bankruptcy cases. Additionally, she and Paul discuss the impact of virtual hearings on courtroom dynamics and collegiality between legal professionals as well as recommendations for younger attorneys starting out in the restructuring field, including engaging with peers and mentors, participating in industry networks and volunteering for pro bono opportunities.

In the long and winding court battle between John Dehlin and Jenn Kamp, the trail may be finally coming to a close after three years. RFM has covered this story from the start, and leads you through the final resolution of the matter in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Tacoma. Additionally, we take a somewhat lighthearted… Read More »John Dehlin v. Jenn Kamp [RFM 383]

In the long and winding court battle between John Dehlin and Jenn Kamp, the trail may be finally coming to a close after three years. RFM has covered this story from the start, and leads you through the final resolution of the matter in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Tacoma. Additionally, we take a somewhat lighthearted… Read More »John Dehlin v. Jenn Kamp [RFM 383] The post John Dehlin v. Jenn Kamp [RFM 383] appeared first on Mormon Discussions Podcasts - Full Lineup.

A new $7.4 billion settlement with states has been reached with Purdue Pharma and its Sackler family owners to settle lawsuits alleging that their drug OxyContin helped fuel the opioid crisis — but it still has to be approved by a U.S. Bankruptcy Court. We’ll learn more about all the deal entails. Then, we’ll discuss mortgage rates, job creation and immigration. And after, as Congress struggles with tech legislation, states aim to regulate online privacy

A new $7.4 billion settlement with states has been reached with Purdue Pharma and its Sackler family owners to settle lawsuits alleging that their drug OxyContin helped fuel the opioid crisis — but it still has to be approved by a U.S. Bankruptcy Court. We’ll learn more about all the deal entails. Then, we’ll discuss mortgage rates, job creation and immigration. And after, as Congress struggles with tech legislation, states aim to regulate online privacy

A new $7.4 billion settlement with states has been reached with Purdue Pharma and its Sackler family owners to settle lawsuits alleging that their drug OxyContin helped fuel the opioid crisis — but it still has to be approved by a U.S. Bankruptcy Court. We’ll learn more about all the deal entails. Then, we’ll discuss mortgage rates, job creation and immigration. And after, as Congress struggles with tech legislation, states aim to regulate online privacy

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

Hon. Christopher S. Sontchi, an International Judge of the Singapore International Commercial Court and a former Chief Judge of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, where he served for 16 years, talks with ABI Executive Director Amy Quackenboss about moments that helped shape his incredible restructuring career — and provides tips to new practitioners entering the industry.

This Day in Legal History: Goodridge v. Department of HealthOn November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court issued a historic decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, becoming the first court in the United States to rule that a state ban on same-sex marriage was unconstitutional. In a narrow 4–3 decision, the court held that the denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples violated the Massachusetts Constitution's guarantees of equality and liberty. Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Margaret Marshall emphasized that marriage is a civil right and that excluding same-sex couples from this institution created a second-class status inconsistent with constitutional protections.The court ordered the Massachusetts legislature to take corrective action within 180 days, either by revising existing laws or crafting a new framework that would extend marriage rights to same-sex couples. Importantly, the ruling did not permit civil unions as a substitute for marriage, affirming that anything less than full marriage rights would perpetuate discrimination. This groundbreaking decision made Massachusetts the first state in the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriage, sparking national debates over marriage equality.The Goodridge decision laid the foundation for subsequent legal battles over marriage rights and catalyzed movements for LGBTQ+ equality nationwide. While celebrated as a milestone in civil rights history, the ruling also ignited opposition, prompting efforts to pass constitutional amendments to define marriage as between one man and one woman. Despite the controversy, Massachusetts began issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples in May 2004, cementing its role as a trailblazer in the fight for marriage equality.Former President Donald Trump's hush money criminal case is at a crossroads following his election victory. Trump was convicted in May of falsifying business records to conceal a $130,000 payment to Stormy Daniels during his 2016 campaign, but sentencing has been paused at the request of Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg. Prosecutors must now propose how to proceed, balancing the political implications of prosecuting a president-elect with the need to uphold legal standards. Their recommendations are due Tuesday.Options for prosecutors include indefinitely delaying sentencing, postponing punishment until Trump exhausts appeals, or pursuing a sentence with minimal consequences, such as an unconditional discharge. Legal experts suggest Bragg is unlikely to seek aggressive penalties before the inauguration, given the potential political fallout.Trump's defense has long claimed the case is politically motivated, arguing that it should be dismissed to avoid unconstitutional interference with his presidency. They also contend that his actions are protected by presidential immunity, though the court has yet to rule on this argument. The judge, Justice Juan Merchan, will ultimately decide whether the case moves forward, with both sides expected to appeal any unfavorable decisions.What's next in Trump's hush money criminal case | ReutersFormer IRS Contractor Sentenced for Disclosing Tax Return Information to News Organizations | United States Department of JusticeKathi Vidal, outgoing director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), will rejoin her former law firm, Winston & Strawn, as a partner on December 16 after leaving the agency. Nominated by President Joe Biden in 2021, Vidal focused on policies addressing artificial intelligence (AI) in patents, international intellectual property (IP) issues, and diversity in innovation during her tenure. She emphasized transparency and patentability standards for AI-assisted inventions to promote innovation without stifling it.Deputy Director Derrick Brent will serve as acting director until President-elect Donald Trump appoints a replacement. Trump has not announced his pick, though his first-term USPTO head, Andrei Iancu, prioritized policies favoring patent owners. Vidal noted that IP policy tends to be less partisan and highlighted the agency's unique funding model, which relies on processing fees rather than taxpayer dollars.At Winston, Vidal will advise clients on tech-related legal issues, including AI, cybersecurity, and antitrust law, leveraging her USPTO experience. The firm's leadership praised her ability to guide clients through challenges posed by technological advances and geopolitical pressures. Vidal expressed her intention to continue shaping tech policy at the intersection of law and innovation.US Patent Office's Vidal returns to law firm Winston ahead of Trump term | ReutersSpirit Airlines Inc. has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy amid financial challenges and intense competition from rival carriers. The filing in New York lists the company's assets and liabilities as between $1 billion and $10 billion. Spirit's troubles escalated after a federal judge blocked its proposed $3.8 billion merger with JetBlue Airways Corp., citing antitrust concerns that the deal would harm budget-conscious travelers by raising ticket prices. Previous merger talks with Frontier Group Holdings Inc. also collapsed.The discount airline has faced increasing pressure from major carriers offering competitive basic economy fares, which have eroded Spirit's market share. Since the COVID-19 pandemic, the company has posted consistent losses, with its stock plummeting 93% in 2023.Spirit's bankruptcy follows an agreement with bondholders on a debt restructuring plan. Bondholders will convert $795 million of debt into equity, take control of the company, and inject $350 million in fresh equity along with $300 million in debtor-in-possession financing to sustain operations during the bankruptcy process. The airline also plans to delist as part of the restructuring.In an effort to remain competitive, Spirit recently introduced upgrades such as extra legroom and free checked baggage to attract travelers seeking more premium options. However, these efforts have been insufficient to counter the financial strain. The case is being handled in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.Spirit Airlines (SAVE) Files Bankruptcy Following Failed JetBlue Tie-Up - BloombergThe U.S. Supreme Court announced it will release its first opinion of the term on November 22, earlier than in recent years, where the first opinions appeared in December or January. The specific case or cases to be decided have not been disclosed, but they are likely from the nine argued in the October session. These include issues like federal court jurisdiction, attorneys' fees, and the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies before suing in federal court. Complex cases, such as challenges to Biden's ghost gun regulations and an Oklahoma death penalty case, are expected to take longer.The timing recalls the court's earlier practice of releasing initial opinions in November, a pattern often attributed to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's quick writing pace. In contrast, recent terms have seen delays, with the first opinion in the 2022 term arriving as late as January 23, 2023, marking an unprecedented delay since the court's October term structure began in 1917.This term, the court has already agreed to hear 45 cases, avoiding controversial social issues and focusing on lower-profile matters. The November 22 release could include an opinion or even a dismissal of a case as “improvidently granted,” as suggested during recent arguments in an investor lawsuit against Nvidia.US Supreme Court Bucks Recent Trend, Announces Opinion ReleaseThe court ruling in Mem'l Hermann Accountable Care Org. v. Commissioner underscores the flaws in the current 501(c)(4) tax-exempt classification and the need for reform to address the issue of dark money in politics. This tax code section groups together vastly different organizations, from advocacy groups like the NRA to local sports leagues, under a single classification. The lack of clear, enforceable standards allows some organizations to exploit their tax-exempt status to fund political campaigns while avoiding donor disclosure. This lack of transparency fuels the dark money problem.501(c)(4) organizations can engage in political activity as long as it's not their primary purpose, a vague standard that has led to inconsistent enforcement by the IRS. The Fifth Circuit's decision in Mem'l Hermann challenges this leniency by applying a stricter “substantial nonexempt purpose” test, signaling a potential shift towards greater scrutiny of political spending by these organizations.One solution is creating a new tax-exempt subcategory—501(c)(4)(C)—for politically active social welfare groups. This would establish clearer rules, such as capping political expenditures at 50% of revenue and requiring donor disclosure for contributions above $10,000. It would also separate traditional social welfare organizations from politically active ones, reducing unnecessary regulatory burdens on the former.Breaking 501(c)(4) into more specific classifications would ensure that transparency requirements target politically active organizations without disrupting community-focused groups. It would also help regulatory bodies focus enforcement efforts and prevent misuse of tax exemptions for untraceable political contributions. This reform aligns with public demand for accountability in campaign finance while preserving the integrity of non-political nonprofits.In sum, the 501(c)(4) designation is problematic as currently drafted because it combines a wide variety of organizations with vastly different purposes under the same tax code section. This allows political advocacy groups to hide behind the same classification as traditional social welfare organizations, avoiding stricter scrutiny. This structural ambiguity hampers transparency efforts, suggesting the need to separate these groups into distinct categories for effective regulation.Getting Rid of Dark Money Requires a New Tax-Exempt Designation This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

--

The Trustee in Jenn Kamp’s Washington bankruptcy case has filed a motion to dismiss her case or transfer it to Utah. The basis is that the Trustee doesn’t believe Jenn Kamp, and certainly doesn’t believe she had resided in Washington long enough prior to filing for bankruptcy in Tacoma. Jenn Kamp’s attorney is arguing her… Read More »Did Jenn Kamp Get Kicked Out Of Bankruptcy Court?: RFM: 361

The Trustee in Jenn Kamp’s Washington bankruptcy case has filed a motion to dismiss her case or transfer it to Utah. The basis is that the Trustee doesn’t believe Jenn Kamp, and certainly doesn’t believe she had resided in Washington long enough prior to filing for bankruptcy in Tacoma. Jenn Kamp’s attorney is arguing her… Read More »Did Jenn Kamp Get Kicked Out Of Bankruptcy Court?: RFM: 361 The post Did Jenn Kamp Get Kicked Out Of Bankruptcy Court?: RFM: 361 appeared first on Mormon Discussions Podcasts - Full Lineup.

Has your Partnership generated no income for the tax year and you are wondering if you have to file a tax return? Find out in this episode the answer(s) you are looking for!Do you have tax debt? Call us at 866-8000-TAX or fill out the form at https://choicetaxrelief.com/

Once valued at $22 billion, Byju's, is undergoing insolvency proceedings initiated by the National Company Law Tribunal. This is over a $19 million payment default to the Board of Control for Cricket in India. Byju's could now see a potential buyout or liquidation. It gets worse. A couple of days ago, one of the largest foreign investors in India, the Qatar Investment Authority, requested the Karnataka High Court to block founder Byju Raveendran's personal assets.To say things are bad is an understatement.The first question that comes to mind is, of course, what happened. But that's a story that's been told too many times. Instead, today, we tell you what Olina Banerji, The Ken's edtech expert and writer of our popular newsletter, Ed Set Go, wrote about Byju's in the latest edition.She took us back to see what made Byju's the company it became in the first place and the legacy it is leaving behind.Tune in.P.S. – Check out the first episode of the latest addition to our podcast slate, Two by Two, on Spotify, Apple or YouTube!Daybreak is produced from the newsroom of The Ken, India's first subscriber-only business news platform. Subscribe for more exclusive, deeply-reported, and analytical business stories.

Welcome to the Daily Compliance News. Each day, Tom Fox, the Voice of Compliance brings to you compliance related stories to start your day. Sit back, enjoy a cup of morning coffee and listen in to the Daily Compliance News. All, from the Compliance Podcast Network. Each day we consider four stories from the business world, compliance, ethics, risk management, leadership or general interest for the compliance professional. ·       The best report yet on the corruption in the Houston Bankruptcy Court.   (WSJ) ·       Adidas probes corruption allegations. (WSJ) ·       Judge says BBVA should face corp espionage trial.  (Bloomberg) ·       Unusual betting patterns before British election announcement. (FT) For more information on the Ethico ROI Calculator and a free White Paper on the ROI of Compliance, click here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Should you shave before going to bankruptcy court? Should you shave before going to bankruptcy court? Hollins Bankruptcy Law Office FREE CONSULTATION www.hlomeet.com Toll Free 866-862-4557 #bankruptcy #bankruptcylawyer #flint #detroit #chapter7 #chapter13 #creditrepair #bankruptcylawyer #Michigan #Tennessee #memphis #nashville #debt

Michael Popok and Karen Friedman Agnifilo are back for the Midweek edition of the top-rated Legal AF podcast. On this episode, the anchors discuss and debate: (1) the Trump Trial, including Michael Cohen's direct examination and the effectiveness of Trump's cross examination and how the prosecutors should handle the “missing” Allen Weisselberg problem, (2) how the Bankruptcy Court judge will in the end liquidate all of Giuliani's assets and has denied him the right to even appeal the $148 million dollar defamation judgment against him, and so much more at the intersection of law and politics. Join the Legal AF Patreon: https://Patreon.com/LegalAF Thanks to our sponsors: Smileactives: Visit https://smileactives.com/legalaf to get this exclusive offer! Smalls: Head to https://Smalls.com/LEGALAF and use promo code: LEGALAF at checkout for 50% off your first order PLUS free shipping! HumanN: Find out how you can get a free 30-day supply on bundles of new SuperBeets Heart Chews Advanced and save 15% for a limited time only by going to https://SUPERBEETSRADIO.COM, promo code LEGALAF Fast Growing Trees: Head to https://www.fast-growing-trees.com/collections/sale?utm_source=podcast&utm_medium=description&utm_campaign=legalaf right now to get 15% off your entire order with code LegalAF! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown Lights On with Jessica Denson: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/lights-on-with-jessica-denson On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/coalition-of-the-sane/id1741663279 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The court posted this recording to its docket a few days after posting the recording starting at 11:27 am the same day.

AP correspondent Charles de Ledesma reports former tennis star Boris Becker has been discharged from bankruptcy court.

hearing concerning request for bankruptcy court approval of the proposed BlockFi settlement with FTX/Alameda

Bernstein Shur's Bob Keach, who helped establish subchapter V, the section of the bankruptcy code added in 2019 for small business debtor reorganizations, returns to Turnaround Time. This time he discusses the success of its implementation — marked by more than 6,400 filings — with Honorable Michelle M. Harner of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Maryland.     To learn more about turnaround management, news, and experts, visit turnaround.org.    Episode Links  Our episode is sponsored by Klestadt Winters Jureller Southard & Stevens, LLP. Learn more about the Hon. Michelle Harner at U.S. Bankruptcy Courts. Learn more about Bob Keach at Bernstein Shur. Learn more about Richard E. Mikels at Linkedin.   Learn more about Turnaround Time here.    Our music is by Kit and the Calltones    

oral argument in adversary proceedings 23 50379 & 23 50380adversary proceedings brought in connection with the FTX/Alameda chapter 11 proceedings in the District of Delaware styled Alameda Research Ltd v Rocket Internet Capital Partners II SCS et al.

starting with an update on distributions on claims

Wednesday, February 21st, 2024Today, Nikki Haley did NOT drop out of the presidential race; Hunter Biden's prosecutor tries to pass off a photo of sawdust as cocaine; a winery host backs up Fani Willis' testimony; Rep. Tim Burchett wrongly calls one of the Kansas City shooters an illegal immigrant; a judge demands Rudy Giuliani reveal who's paying his legal fees; President Biden will announce a major Russian sanctions package in response to the assassination of Alexei Navalny; two men are charged with murder in the Super Bowl parade shooting. Plus, Allison and Dana deliver your good news.Our GuestAlex Mohajer - Candidate for CA State Senate District 37https://alexmohajer.com/https://twitter.com/alexmohajerDA Fani Willis testified she paid cash during trips with top prosecutor. One winery host remembers her paying in paper billshttps://www.cnn.com/2024/02/20/politics/willis-wade-cash-payment-napa-valley-winery/index.htmlBankrupt Giuliani's legal woes escalate as judge demands to know 'who's paying his legal fees'https://www.alternet.org/bankrupt-giuliani-s-legal-and-financial-woes-are-going-from-bad-to-worse-2667322021GOP Rep Deletes Post Falsely Accusing ‘Illegal Alien' of Parade Shootinghttps://www.thedailybeast.com/gop-rep-tim-burchett-deletes-tweet-falsely-accusing-illegal-alien-of-kansas-city-shootingUS to impose 'major sanctions' on Russia over Navalny death​​https://www.reuters.com/world/us-announce-major-sanctions-package-friday-over-navalny-death-2024-02-20Subscribe to Lawyers, Guns, And MoneyAd-free premium feed: https://lawyersgunsandmoney.supercast.comSubscribe for free everywhere else:https://lawyersgunsandmoney.simplecast.com/episodes/1-miami-1985Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://post.news/@/MuellerSheWrote?utm_source=TwitterAG&utm_medium=creator_organic&utm_campaign=muellershewrote&utm_content=FollowMehttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://www.threads.net/@muellershewrotehttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/From The Good NewsMontana Family ASLhttps://www.montanafamilyasl.org/shop Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

For filings in the Yellow Corp chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, see https://dm.epiq11.com/case/yellowcorporation/dockets

Hearing agenda, per:UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY In re: WEWORK INC., et al., Debtors.1 Chapter 11 Case No. 23-19865 (JKS) (Jointly Administered) NOTICE OF AGENDA OF MATTERS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD ON FEBRUARY 5, 2024, AT 10:00 A.M. (ET) To: All Parties Receiving Electronic Notification of Filing via the Court's CM/ECF System 1 A complete list of each of the Debtors in these chapter 11 cases may be obtained on the website of the Debtors' claims and noticing agent at https://dm.epiq11.com/WeWork. The location of Debtor WeWork Inc.'s principal place of business is 12 East 49th Street, 3rd Floor, New York, NY 10017, and the Debtors' service address in these chapter 11 cases is WeWork Inc. c/o Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC 10300 SW Allen Blvd. Beaverton, OR 97005.Case 23-19865-JKS Doc 1289 Filed 02/03/24 Entered 02/03/24 13:36:22 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 3 2 46964033PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the following matters are currently scheduled to be heard on February 5, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. (prevailing Eastern Time) before the Honorable Judge John K. Sherwood: I.MATTERS GOING FORWARD 1. Debtors' Motion for Entry of Interim and Final Orders (I) Authorizing the Debtors to (A) Continue Using the Cash Management System, (B) Honor Certain Prepetition Obligations Related Thereto, and (C) Maintain Existing Debtor Bank Accounts, Business Forms, and Books and Records; (II) Authorizing the Debtors to Continue to Perform Intercompany Transactions; (III) Waiving Certain U.S. Trustee Requirements; and (IV) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 20] Related Documents: A. Interim Order (I) Authorizing the Debtors to (A) Continue Using the Cash Management System, (B) Honor Certain Prepetition Obligations Related Thereto, and (C) Maintain Existing Debtor Bank Accounts, Business Forms, and Books and Records; (II) Authorizing the Debtors to Continue to Perform Intercompany Transactions; (III) Waiving Certain U.S. Trustee Requirements; and (IV) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 105] B. United States Trustee's Limited Objection to Debtors' Motion for Entry of Interim and Final Orders (I) Authorizing the Debtors to (A) Continue Using the Cash Management System, (B) Honor Certain Prepetition Obligations Related Thereto, and (C) Maintain Existing Debtor Bank Accounts, Business Forms, and Books and Records; (II) Authorizing the Debtors to Continue to Perform Intercompany Transactions; (III) Waiving Certain U.S. Trustee Requirements; and (IV) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 1182] C. Notice of Filing of Revised Proposed Final Order (I) Authorizing the Debtors to (A) Continue Using the Cash Management System, (B) Honor Certain Prepetition Obligations Related Thereto, and (C) Maintain Existing Debtor Bank Accounts, Business Forms, and Books and Records; (II) Authorizing the Debtors to Continue to Perform Intercompany Transactions; (III) Waiving Certain U.S. Trustee Requirements; and (IV) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 1210] D. Debtors' Reply in Support of Entry of a Final Order (I) Authorizing the Debtors to (A) Continue Using the Cash Management System, (B) Honor Certain Prepetition Obligations Related Thereto, and (C) Maintain Existing Debtor Bank Accounts, Business Forms, and Books and Records; (II) Authorizing the Debtors to Continue to Perform Intercompany Transactions; (III) Waiving Certain U.S. Trustee Requirements; and (IV) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 1244]Case 23-19865-JKS Doc 1289 Filed 02/03/24 Entered 02/03/24 13:36:22 Desc Main Document Page 2 of 3 3 46964033E. Second Interim Order (I) Authorizing the Debtors to (A) Continue Using the Cash Management System, (B) Honor Certain Prepetition Obligations Related Thereto, and (C) Maintain Existing Debtor Bank Accounts, Business Forms, and Books and Records; (II) Authorizing the Debtors to Continue to Perform Intercompany Transactions; (III) Waiving Certain U.S. Trustee Requirements; and (IV) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 1248] Status: A hearing on this matter is going forward.II. MATTERS GOING FORWARD ON A PRELIMINARY BASIS 2. Motion of T-C 501 Boylston Street LLC and T-C 33 Arch Street LLC for Entry of an Order (i) Compelling the Debtors' Payment of Postpetition Rent and Related Charles, and (ii) Requiring Adequate Protection of the Landlords' Interests [Docket No. 1213] 3. Motion of Multiple Landlords to Compel Payment of Post-Petition Lease Obligations, Request for Adequate Protection and for Other Appropriate Relief [Docket No. 1216] 4. Joinder of the Building at 575 Fifth Office Owner LLC to Landlord Motions to Compel Payment of Post-Petition Rent and Related Charges Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3) [Docket No. 1279] Status: A hearing on these matters is going forward on a preliminary basis with approval of the Court.Dated: February 3, 2024

This Day in Legal History: Jamaican Independence On this day in legal history, February 9, 1962, marks a significant milestone for Jamaica as it achieved full independence, breaking away from the Federation of the West Indies. This pivotal moment in Jamaican history was the culmination of a long journey towards sovereignty, reflecting the island nation's desire for self-governance and control over its own destiny. Despite its newfound independence, Jamaica chose to remain a member of the British Commonwealth of Nations, signifying a continued, albeit altered, relationship with the United Kingdom.The transition to independence was not merely a political formality but a transformative legal and social shift that laid the foundation for Jamaica's future. As a fully independent nation, Jamaica adopted its own constitution, which established the legal framework for the government and guaranteed the rights and freedoms of its citizens. This constitution reflected Jamaica's unique identity and aspirations, incorporating both the legacy of British legal traditions and the influences of Jamaican culture and values.The decision to remain within the Commonwealth underscored Jamaica's commitment to maintaining ties with other nations that shared a common history and set of values, while also asserting its autonomy on the world stage. This dual approach allowed Jamaica to forge its path in international relations, trade, and legal cooperation, benefiting from the solidarity and support of the Commonwealth network.Jamaica's independence day is not only a celebration of its past struggles for sovereignty but also a recognition of the legal and democratic principles that continue to guide the nation. It serves as a reminder of the importance of self-determination, the rule of law, and the ongoing quest for justice and equality. As Jamaicans reflect on their journey since 1962, they celebrate the resilience and spirit that have defined their nation's history and look forward to a future shaped by their own hands.In the years following independence, Jamaica has made significant strides in developing its legal system, economy, and social structures, striving to address the challenges that face a modern nation while preserving the rich cultural heritage that is uniquely Jamaican. The anniversary of independence is not just a moment to reflect on the past but an opportunity to renew the commitment to building a just, prosperous, and equitable society for all Jamaicans.The recent affirmation of the suspension of 96-year-old Federal Circuit Judge Pauline Newman has sparked debate over the ethics laws governing the evaluation of federal judges for potential disability and misconduct. This decision, upheld by the US Judicial Conference's Committee on Conduct and Disability, marks only the third written decision in over three years by the panel, emphasizing the rarity of such actions. The Committee found no error in the investigation led by Chief Judge Kimberly A. Moore, indicating thorough compliance with procedural standards. However, this has led to discussions about whether the deference shown to the Judicial Council's decision was appropriate, particularly in the context of suspending an Article III judge.Legal experts are divided on the matter. While some, like Professor Arthur Hellman of the University of Pittsburgh, suggest that the standard of review might need to be more stringent when suspending a judge appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate, others like Professor Paul Gugliuzza of Temple Law School see the Committee's deferential standard as fitting within typical appellate review practices. The case has also highlighted concerns over how the judiciary handles investigations of its own, with some arguing that there is generally too much deference to judges investigating peers, yet acknowledging that the Newman case is an example of the judiciary attempting accountability.Aliza Shatzman, from the Legal Accountability Project, pointed out broader issues related to the aging federal judiciary and the silence often maintained by judicial clerks and employees due to fear of reputational damage. The Newman case involved complaints from a former judicial assistant and a clerk about being assigned personal tasks, which Judge Newman allegedly dismissed as insignificant.Jeremy Fogel, a retired federal judge, suggested that the judiciary lacks a sophisticated system for assessing judges' cognitive functions, leading to ad hoc and confrontational situations. He proposed a regular assessment protocol to avoid personal conflicts and ensure fair evaluations. The controversy surrounding Judge Newman's suspension underscores the need for a more refined system to address the challenges posed by an aging judiciary, balancing the need for accountability with respect for the complexities of judicial service.Judge Newman's Upheld Suspension Has Some Questioning Ethics LawAt the U.S. Supreme Court, former President Donald Trump's legal challenge against being disqualified from the Colorado ballot for his alleged role in the 2021 Capitol insurrection appeared likely to succeed. During the proceedings, justices from both conservative and liberal wings expressed skepticism toward the argument that Trump could be removed from the ballot under the 14th Amendment, which prohibits individuals who engaged in insurrection against the U.S. from holding office. The case, triggered by a Colorado court's decision, has significant implications for the 2024 presidential election, where Trump is a leading Republican contender.The justices grappled with the application of the 14th Amendment's Section 3, questioning whether a state could unilaterally impact the national election outcome by disqualifying a presidential candidate. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Elena Kagan highlighted the potential for a few states to dictate election results, emphasizing the national scope of presidential eligibility. Meanwhile, Justice Brett Kavanaugh pointed out the democratic principle of allowing people to choose their candidates, suggesting that disqualifying Trump could disenfranchise voters.The attorney for the plaintiffs, Jason Murray, argued that Trump's actions to undermine the 2020 election results justified his disqualification, whereas Trump's lawyer, Jonathan Mitchell, contended that even if a candidate admitted to insurrection, Section 3 would allow them to run and potentially win, leaving any sanctions to post-election congressional action.Trump, speaking in Florida, expressed confidence in the Supreme Court and his legal arguments, viewing the case as part of a broader attempt to exclude him from the ballot. This Supreme Court case echoes the institution's critical role in the 2000 presidential election, with the justices revisiting historical precedents to interpret Section 3's enforcement.The debate also touched on the nature of the January 6 Capitol riot, with Mitchell asserting it was a riot rather than an insurrection, a point challenged by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson. The case underscores the complex interplay between constitutional law, electoral politics, and the judiciary's role in adjudicating disputes that have far-reaching consequences for American democracy.Trump ballot disqualification bid gets skeptical US Supreme Court reception | ReutersGenesis Global, a cryptocurrency lender, has reached a settlement in a lawsuit brought by New York Attorney General Letitia James, marking a significant step in resolving its legal challenges amid bankruptcy proceedings. The lawsuit, filed last year by James, accused Genesis, along with its parent company Digital Currency Group (DCG) and the crypto firm Gemini Trust Co, of defrauding investors out of over $1 billion through the Gemini Earn program. This program allowed customers to lend their crypto assets to Genesis in return for interest.The settlement, pending approval by the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, entails Genesis agreeing to halt its business operations within New York state. This development follows closely on the heels of Genesis settling another lawsuit with the U.S. Securities Exchange Commission concerning the same Earn program. As part of that settlement, Genesis agreed to a $21 million fine, contingent upon its ability to fully reimburse its customers during the bankruptcy process.These legal resolutions represent a crucial phase for Genesis as it navigates through bankruptcy, aiming to alleviate its legal entanglements and financial obligations. The outcomes of these settlements could significantly impact Genesis's future operations and its efforts to address the claims of its creditors and customers. Bankrupt Genesis Global settles NY Attorney General's lawsuit | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Luigi Boccherini. Born on February 19, 1743, in Lucca, Italy, Boccherini was a distinguished composer and cellist of the Classical era, celebrated for his significant contributions to chamber music. His rich musical legacy is characterized by elegance, lyrical beauty, and the sophisticated use of the cello, an instrument he profoundly mastered and elevated in the classical music canon. Boccherini's extensive body of work includes over one hundred string quintets, quartets, and trios, alongside numerous symphonies and concertos. Despite his substantial output and unique style, Boccherini's compositions were somewhat overshadowed by his contemporaries, such as Haydn and Mozart. However, his works have gained increased recognition and appreciation over time for their inherent grace, inventiveness, and the delicate balance he achieved between melodic and harmonic elements, marking him as a pivotal figure in the development of chamber music in the Classical period. He is said to have evolved chamber music from the format developed by Haydn, elevating the cello to an equal place with the violin and viola. Today's piece is brought to us courtesy of The Internet Memory Foundation (formerly the European Archive Foundation) which is a non-profit foundation whose purpose is archiving content of the World Wide Web. It supports projects and research that include the preservation and protection of digital media content in various forms to form a digital library of cultural content.The piece we'll be closing out with is the minuet from his Quintet in C. Major, we hope you enjoy.  Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

FTX/Alameda US bankruptcy court hearing January 31, 2024, #crypto #cryptocurrency #cryptonews #sbfThis is an exceptionally interesting bankruptcy court hearing in the complex international bankruptcy proceedings of FTX/Alameda.It opens with the bankruptcy court's bench ruling with respect to certain issues concerning the estimation of the IRS claim against FTX/Alameda.Does anyone knows... if the IRS wins that it has a multi billion dollar claim then couldn't that lead to the arguably statutorily mandated and arguably optimal result in the chapter 11 cases? In other words could an IRS win lead to return to customers of their stakes, then the rest of the cash, crypto etc. goes to the government/taxpayers, and what is left over would go to creditors with lower priority.Possibly, optimally, the chapter 11 cases could be wrapped up from there without a lot of litigation hanging out on the back end like clawback litigation. But the various litigants and counsel representing them would know better what suits their interests and concerns etc.

Welcome back to another episode of the How I Lawyer Podcast, where it is my job to interview lawyers about what they do, why they do it, and how they do it well. Today's guest is Emily Stedman, a Partner at Husch Blackwell, where she helps clients resolve complex commercial litigations. Emily represents a wide range of corporate clients at all phases of litigation, from investigation to appeal, in state and federal courts. After graduating from the University of Mississippi School of Law, where she served as the Editor-in-Chief of the Law Review, Emily clerked for Judge Pamela Pepper in the United States District Court and Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Following her clerkships, Emily worked as a commercial litigation associate at another law firm in Milwaukee before joining Husch Blackwell's office there, where she was promoted to Partner in 2024. Online, Emily maintains an active LinkedIn presence and shares her perspective on lawyer well-being. In this episode, Emily shares valuable insights about the legal profession including:

Alex and Bobby try and parse Amazon's rescue of Diamond Sports Group and what it means for the future of broadcasts, then discuss Jerry Reinsdorf's quest to make his mark on the South Side with a new stadium, and dive into what Sports Illustrated's untimely demise means for the future of the media landscape (it's not great!). Links: Amazon investing in Diamond Sports Group White Sox in “serious talks” for new stadium  Matthew Trueblood on Jerry Reinsdorf's stadium dreams  Join the Tipping Pitches Patreon  Tipping Pitches merchandise  Songs featured in this episode: The Mother Hips — “White Falcon Fuzz” • Booker T & the M.G.'s — “Green Onions” --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/tipping-pitches/message

Announcing the Winner of the CTP Cup 2024! SECURE Act Benefits for 529 Plans China - turn around in gaming rule discussion Boeing Under Pressure - Loose Nuts? PLUS we are now on Spotify and Amazon Music/Podcasts! Click HERE for Show Notes and Links DHUnplugged is now streaming live - with listener chat. Click on link on the right sidebar. Love the Show? Then how about a Donation? Follow John C. Dvorak on Twitter Follow Andrew Horowitz on Twitter Warm Up - And we are back - Happy New year - Welcome to 2024 - Announcing the Winner of the CTP Cup 2024! - SECURE Act Benefits for 529 Plans - China - turn around in gaming rule discussion - Boeing Under Pressure - Loose Nuts? Market Update - Worst start to the year since ... 2015 (Whatever that means) - Market continues to have little muscle memory (Still down for the YTD) - CES getting those AI juices flowing again - BITCOIN ETF - News OUT! WELL- HACKED - Changed - WOW!!! ** Start of year 2024 - Looking for you to write dome reviews on Spotify , Apple Podcasts, Amazon Podcasts - Wherever - spread the word people! Start with this!!!!!!! -Bitcoin on the move - 13 companies filed for a spot Bitcoin ETF - Rumors that some decision will be made early this week - Bitcoin tops $47,000 on the news - May be sell the news moment.. ---- 4:15PM TODAY - UPDATE: Today the SEC grants approval for #Bitcoin ETFs for listing on all registered national securities exchanges. The approved Bitcoin ETFs will be subject to ongoing surveillance and compliance measures to ensure continued investor protection. (SEC Titter) --- 4:27PM Bitcoin down - explained as sell the news BUT- Gary Gensler private account:  @SECGov twitter account was compromised, and an unauthorized tweet was posted. The SEC has not approved the listing and trading of spot bitcoin exchange-traded products. ---- SO, was this a not approved or a not approved YET???? Podcasts Rule - Killing the Competition (or??) - Radio giant Audacy has filed for bankruptcy protection amid a slump in advertising revenue. - The Philadelphia-based company, which oversees major podcast and radio operations and has acquired CBS Radio, said it has filed a Chapter 11 petition in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas after a restructuring agreement with a majority of its debtholders. - The agreement will see the company cut roughly 80% of its nearly $2 billion in debt. No Ceiling - The U.S. federal government's total public debt has reached $34 trillion for the first time, the U.S. Treasury Department reported last week. - Each party is blaming the other - Biden plans to reduce U.S. deficits by $2.5 trillion over 10 years by increasing taxes on large corporations and wealthy Americans and cutting spending on pharmaceuticals and tax breaks for oil companies. - Trump wants the tax cuts to be permanent. Bad Start - Traders hoping that a pan-markets year-end rally would pick up where it left off got the opposite on 2024's first trading day, a session that featured one of the worst-ever concerted drops in stocks and bonds to start a year.| - The SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (ticker SPY) and iShares 20+ Year Treasury Bond ETF (TLT) each fell 0.6% Tuesday, the first time they've both slumped so much to start the year since the bond gauge began trading in 2002. --- First week was not plesant for most areas of the market - Looks like people were holding on to avoid paying taxes in 2023 (April 2024) ----- Then dumped Starbucks - Starbucks app: Coffee giant accused of rigging payments to the tune of nearly $900 million over 5 years - This is the probelm with gift cards and these plans - so much is forgotten about - “Starbucks rigs its payment platform so consumers are encouraged to leave unspent money on their cards and apps,” said Chris Carter, campaign manager for the group in a statement.

Original Air Date: Dec 19, 2021In the Hot Notes: Watchdog American oversight has sued the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security for any communications with Trump; McConnell turns a 180 on his views of the J6 Committee; we're learning the identities of some of the authors of the text messages sent to Meadows; the DoJ has released a text message between high ranking officials discussing Jeffrey Clark; the J6 Committee is considering adding a foreign influence expert; Jamie Raskin reminds us of a key element of the coup attempt from Louie Gohmert; Kanye West's 3rd party spoiler campaign was run by the GOP;  plus Allison delivers your Good News.Our Guest:Glenn Kirschnerhttps://twitter.com/glennkirschner2https://www.youtube.com/glennkirschner2Follow AG and Dana on Twitter:Dr. Allison Gillhttps://twitter.com/allisongillhttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyFollow Aimee on Instagram:Aimee Carrero (@aimeecarrero)Have some good news, a confession, a correction, or a case for Beans Court?https://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/Pictureshttps://photos.app.goo.gl/WWNwzmMEcBnYXvxE6

Friday, December 22nd, 2023Today, right after Judge Beryl Howell ordered the immediate enforcement of the $148M verdict against Giuliani, he filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the Southern District of New York; Jack Smith has filed a response in the Trump immunity battle with SCOTUS; the Colorado Supreme Court justices face a flood of threats after ruling to remove Trump from the state primary ballot; a new lawsuit says Georgia's lt. gov should be disqualified for acting as a Trump elector; 16 states beyond Colorado have open legal challenges to Trump's eligibility for office; the NRA has hit rock bottom. Plus Allison and Dana deliver your good news.Promo CodeTo learn more about microdosing THC go to microdose.com and use code DAILYBEANS  to get free shipping & 30% off your first order.Our GuestJohn Fugelsanghttps://www.johnfugelsang.com/tmehttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-john-fugelsang-podcast/id1464094232How We Win The House 2024!https://swingleft.org/fundraise/howwewin2024Want some sweet Daily Beans Merchhttps://shop.dailybeanspod.com/products/fani-t-willis-teeSubscribe to Lawyers, Guns, And MoneyAd-free premium feed: https://lawyersgunsandmoney.supercast.comSubscribe for free everywhere else:https://lawyersgunsandmoney.simplecast.com/episodes/1-miami-1985Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Follow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Follow Mueller, She Wrote on Posthttps://twitter.com/MuellerSheWrotehttps://twitter.com/dailybeanspodhttps://www.tiktok.com/@muellershewrotehttps://instagram.com/muellershewroteDana Goldberghttps://twitter.com/DGComedyhttps://www.instagram.com/dgcomedyhttps://www.facebook.com/dgcomedyhttps://danagoldberg.comHave some good news; a confession; or a correction?Good News & Confessions - The Daily BeansListener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercast https://dailybeans.supercast.com/OrPatreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts