Podcasts about docket no

Case Law Update  •             True Care Physical Therapy, PLLC v Auto Club Group Ins Co, ___ Mich App; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) •             Spectrum Health Hospitals, et al. v Citizens Insurance Company, et al., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued May 18, 2023 (Docket No. 362042)  Trending Topics in PIP Litigation       •             Testimony of Biomechanical Engineers  

What happens when a predator lurks in the shadows, waiting for the right moment to strike? This episode of Almost Fiction delves into the dark and disturbing case of Thomas Whisenhant, a killer whose crimes haunted Alabama for decades. Join us as we unravel the chilling details of his past, the investigation that led to his capture, and the twisted psychology behind his horrific acts.Sources: Whisenhant v. State. 370 So.2d 1080 (Ala.Cr.App.). (Direct Appeal). 1979. THOMAS WARREN WHISENHANT v RICHARD F. ALLEN. No. 04-15810. Docket No. 02-00397-CV-WS-C. February 3, 2009. Thomas Whisenhant executed for 1976 kidnapping, rape and murder. By Brendan Kirby for  Al.com. May 27, 2010.A lifetime on death row: Thomas Warren Whisenhant was murderous mama's boy. By Gary McElroy or Brendan Kirby for Al.com. October 06, 2002.Inmate executed after 32 years on death row. By Bob Johnson for MontgomeryAdvertiser.com. Associated Press. May 28, 2010.Thomas Whisenhant: Serial killer executed for murdering 3 Mobile women. By Summer Poole for WKRG 5 News. January 7, 2023. https://www.wkrg.com/true-crime/thomas-whisenhant-serial-killer-executed-for-murdering-3-mobile-women/. Thomas Warren WHISENHANT v. STATE. Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals. 370 So.2d 1080. 20 February 1979. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_WhisenhantThomas Whisenhant executed for 1976 kidnapping, Rape and Murder. By Brendan Kirby for AL.com. May 27, 2010. A lifetime on death row: Thomas Warren Whisenhant was murderous mama's boy. By Gary McElroy for AL.com. October 6, 2002. https://www.al.com/live/2002/10/whisenhant.html.http://www.clarkprosecutor.org/html/death/US/whisenhant1212.htmAccess ad-free episodes, bonus content, and get all of the 11:59 Media Podcast library!Access hours of extra content each week, exclusive merch, and early access to new podcasts.Visit https://1159plus.com or https://www.patreon.com/1159media 

Case Law Update   VHS of Michigan v MAIPF, ___ Mich App ___ (2025) (Docket No. 368755)  Trending Topics in PIP Litigation Employee v. Independent Contractor and the No-Fault Act  

Case Law Update  •             NuCare Therapy LLC v Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW3d ___ (January 7, 2025) (Docket No. 366779)  Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •             Unlawful Solicitation  

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

Case Law Update Scott v EAN Holdings, LLC, et al., unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued November 20, 2024 (Docket No. 366706) (Plaintiff's insurer was represented by Secrest Wardle on appeal.) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation Lack of Supervision in Controversial Laser Treatment

Case Law Discussion Payton v Meemic Insurance Company and Willie King, issued July 28, 2022 (Docket No. 357736) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation Bakeman v Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest, ___ Mich App ___ (2022) (Docket No. 357195) Great Lakes Pain & Injury Chiropractic Ctr., et al. v Farm Bureau Mut Ins Co of Michigan, issued July 28, 2022 (Docket No. 357702

Case Law Discussion •            Margot Parraghi v Edward Chodyniecki, et al., Docket No. 358829 (Mich Ct App, November 2, 2022) •            Michigan Spine & Brain Surgeons, PLLC v Home-Owners Insurance Company, Docket No. 349367, issued February 18, 2021 Trending Topics in PIP Litigation •            Reasonable Witness Fees for Treating Physicians •            Johnson v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued November 22, 2022 (Docket No. 355137)   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Executive Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Discussion •            Yee v AAA Insurance, issued February 24, 2022 (Docket No. 356603) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation •            Negotiating Terms of Arbitrations •            Alice Jenkins v Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation, issued January 13, 2022 (Docket No. 355452)   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Executive Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

August 13, 2024 Reidsville City Council MeetingAGENDA1. Call to Order.2. Invocation by Dr. Lance Cole, Pastor of First Baptist Church, 409 South Main Street, Reidsville.3. Pledge of Allegiance.4. Approval of Consent Agenda.(A) Approval of July 9, 2024 Regular Meeting Minutes.(B) Approval of An Amendment to The Employment Agreement With the City Manager.- End of Consent Agenda -5. Public Hearings:(A) Consideration of a Conditional Rezoning Request for an undeveloped property located off Reid School Road, Rockingham County PIN #799410259246, with a current zoning designation of Residential S-12 (RS-12) to Traditional Neighborhood (TN). The applicant and property owner is Reidsville Bowman, LLC. (Docket No. CZ 2024-02) (Enclosure #1) - Jason Hardin, Planning & Community Development Director- End of Public Hearings -6. Presentations:(A) Approval of Resolution Supporting the Rockingham County Outdoor Recreation Master Plan (Enclosure #2) - Anna Wheeler with Dan River Basin Association and Lindsey Pegg with Rockingham County7. Budgetary Items:(A) Consideration of Budget Ordinance Amendment No. 1 for $24,500 to repair the wood beams at Market Square. (Enclosure #3) - Montana Brown, Marketing & Economic Development Director8. Projects:(A) Consideration of Resolution Accepting Funding, Corresponding Capital Project Ordinance Amendment and Awarding of Professional Services Agreement to Davis-Martin-Powell for Piedmont Street & Annie Penn Outfall Rehabilitation Project. (Enclosure #4) - Chris Phillips, Assistant City Manager of Administration/Finance Director and Josh Beck, Public Works Director(B) Consideration of Resolution to Apply for a State Loan for the Water Treatment Plant's Whole Plant Generator Project. (Enclosure #5) - Chris Phillips, Assistant City Manager of Administration/Finance Director9. Public Comments.10. Board & Commission Appointments:(A) August Appointments. (Enclosure #6)11. City Manager's Report:(A) Month of August. (Enclosure #7)12. Council Members' Reports.13. Announcement of Board & Commission Appointments.14. Miscellaneous:(A) For Information Only.15. Move to the First-Floor Conference Room for a closed session to discuss a legal matter pursuant to NCGS 143-318.11(a)(3).16. Adjourn.###

Case Law Update   •                  Kim Bradley v Westfield Insurance Company and American Select Insurance Company, ___ Mich  ___; ___NW3d ___ (July 11, 2024) (Docket No 365828) published opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals   Trending Topics in PIP Litigation   •            Business Auto Policies: PIP Benefits & Potential Summary Disposition   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Executive Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

July 17, 2024 Reidsville Planning Board MeetingAGENDA1. CALL PLANNING BOARD MEETING TO ORDER2. ROLL CALL3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES – June 19, 20244. ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION•    Consideration of a conditional rezoning request for an undeveloped property located off Reid School Road, Rockingham County PIN 799410259246, with a current zoning designation of Residential S-12 (RS-12) to Traditional Neighborhood (TN). The applicant and property owner is Reidsville Bowman, LLC. Docket No. CZ 2024-02.•    Rescheduling the July UDO Steering Committee Meeting.5. DIRECTOR'S REPORT6. PLANNING BOARD MEMBER'S COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT OF PLANNING BOARD###

July 9, 2024 Reidsville City Council MeetingAGENDA1. Call to Order.2. Invocation by Pastor Christopher Brown of Friendship Tabernacle Holiness Church, 8658 Friendship Church Road, Reidsville.3. Pledge of Allegiance.4. Approval of Consent Agenda.(A) Approval of June 11, 2024 Regular Meeting Minutes.(B) Approval of Revised Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Budget Ordinance.(C) Approval of Changes to City Attorney Contract.(D) Approval of Resolution for the Wastewater Treatment Plant Bulk Nutrient Removal Project.- End of Consent Agenda –5. Public Hearings:(A) Consideration of an application to rezone the property located at 2025 US 29 Business, Rockingham County Plat Book 1666, Page 1728, from a current split zoning designation of Industrial-1 (I-1), Industrial-2 (I-2) and Residential-20 (R-20) to Industrial-2 (I-2). The property owner, Jerry Barker, submitted the application. (Docket No. Z 2024-03.) (Enclosure #1) - Jason Hardin, Planning & Community Development Director(B) Consideration of an application for a Consideration of an application for a Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow a Personal Services business to operate at 600 W. Harrison Street, Reidsville, specifically Rockingham County Tax Parcel No. 149807. The SUP application was submitted by Andrea Moore. (Docket No. S 2024-01) (Enclosure #2) - Jason Hardin, Planning & Community Development Director- End of Public Hearings –6. Projects:(A) Update on Rural Ready Diesel Drive Project. (Enclosure #3) - Josh Beck, Public Works Director & Glynn Fleming, WithersRavenel7. Policies:(A) Consideration of Revisions to the City of Reidsville Information Technology (IT) Policy.(Enclosure #4) - Shirrell Williams, Information Technology Director8. Fee Schedule:(A) Consideration of Changes to the Wireless Facility Review Fee. (Enclosure #5) – Jason Hardin, Planning & Community Development Director9. Public Comments.10. City Manager's Report:(A) Month of July. (Enclosure #6)11. Council Members' Reports.12. Miscellaneous:(A) For Information Only.13. Move to the First-Floor Conference Room for a closed session to discuss the acquisition of real property and personnel pursuant to NCGS 143-318.11(a)(5) & (6).14. Adjourn.###

Case Law Update   •                  MPCGA v Progressive, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW3d ___ (June 7, 2024) (Docket No.s 164190, 164953-4)   Trending Topics in PIP Litigation   •            Fee schedule disputes and durable medical equipment (DME)   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Aaron D. Swayne, Associate Secrest Wardle, Troy

Kevonte and Lance discuss the twenty first episode of Arrow's sixth season, "Docket No. 11-19-41-73." They talk Oliver being in legal trouble for being the Green Arrow...again, the return of "Tommy Merlyn", a real return for another hero, and Diggle's ridiculous opening action sequence.BULLSEYE, OFF THE MARK, MISS, or FAILED THIS CITY?Lance: BULLSEYEKevonte: BULLSEYEArtwork by Tom Gehrke: https://tomsart.threadless.com/PATREON: https://www.patreon.com/alwaysmallvilleTWITTER: https://twitter.com/donotfailourpodFACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/alwaysmallvilleEMAIL: alwaysarow@gmail.com

Case Law Update   •                  Estate of McDuffie-Connor v Neal and NSS Construction, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued February 8, 2024 (Docket No. 358870)   •                 Christensen v Amazon Logistics, LLC., unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued April 11, 2024 (Docket No. 364919)   Trending Topics in PIP Litigation   •            Mota-Peguerp v Falls Lake Nat'l Ins Co, Docket No. 364103 (Mich Ct App, March 28, 2024) •            Innocent Third-Parties   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Nicholas R. Aukerman, Associate Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update   •                  Central Home Health Care Servs Inc v Progressive Mich Ins Co, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (Docket No. 364653)   •                 Bakeman v Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest, ___ Mich App ___ (2022) (Docket No. 357195)   •                  Ronnie Fields, et al. v National General Insurance Company, et al., unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued August 17, 2023 (Docket No. 361959)   Trending Topics in PIP Litigation   •            Impact of the Latest Changes to the One-Year-Back Rule of MCL 500.3145   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Kaitlynn M. Milroy, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update   •                 Parraghi v Chodyniecki, et al., Docket No. 358829 (Mich Ct App, November 2, 2022)   •                 Wasik v Auto Club Ins Assn, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___(2022) (Docket No. 355848)   Trending Topics in PIP Litigation   •            Assignments in PIP Claims   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Joseph J. Giacolone, Associate Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update   •                 Johnson v SMART, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued November 16, 2023 (Docket No. 363891)   •                 Bellmore v Friendly Oil Change, Inc., opinion of the Michigan Supreme Court, issued February 7, 2024 (Docket No. 164534)   Trending Topics in PIP Litigation   •            State of Michigan Department of Insurance and Financial Services (“DIFS”) Bulletin 2024-06-INS   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Zach Diederichs, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

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

Case Law Update  •              Duato v Denise Mellon, Indian Harbor Ins Co. and Progressive Marathon Ins. Co., ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 362823) •              Farm Burau General Insurance Company v Maple Manor Neuro Center, Inc., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued November 16, 2023 (Docket No. 362824) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •          No-Fault Reform and Changes to Liability Coverage   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update  •          Auto Club Ins Assoc/Memberselect Ins Co v Farm Bureau General Ins Co of Michigan, et al., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued September 23, 2021 (Docket No. 353439) •          State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co v Protective Insurance Co., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued December 21, 2021 (Docket No. 355532) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •          Testimony of Biomechanical Engineers Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update  •          Finch v Gewin, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued October 5, 2023 (Docket No. 360189) •          Clinton v Singh, et al., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued October 12, 2023 (Docket No. 364398) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •          Independent verification of loss required under the No-Fault Act Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Federal Workers Compensation Coffee Break Podcast is an educational and informative training on how to navigate the DOL -OWCP claims filing process for all types of injured US government and federal workers. The podcaster has 28 years in assisting with federal workers compensation as a consultant and trainer. The podcast is free and is educational. If you need help with anything related to a federal workers compensation claim...help is just a cup of coffee away.Loss of Wage Earning Capacity (LWEC). The loss of wage-earning capacity determination performed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8115 provides that an injured worker will not be penalized for returning to a lower-paying job because of a disabling condition. It also permits the adjustment of compensation to reflect partial rather than total disability, if the requirements of the law are strictly met. So how does wage loss compensation get denied based on a LWEC decision by a OWCP claims examiner? Some government  employees who have had their medically suitable job withdrawn by the Employee agency as a result of the National Reassessment Process (NRP) are being denied wage loss compensation by OWCP because of a previous LWEC decision. How does this happen?OWCP DFEC Procedure Manual lists procedures that establish that after an employee with an accepted claim has returned to work for at least 60 days, (you guys have heard me call this the “60 day rule” in previous podcasts. The claims examiner  has the right to  determine if the salary that the injured worker/claimant is being paid, fairly and reasonably represents that employee's actual wage earning capacity.The Employees' Compensation Appeals Board (ECAB) has ruled repeatedly that once a formal LWEC has been issued, it can only be changed  in three circumstances: ·        The original LWEC rating was in error; ·        The claimant's medical condition has changed; or ·        The claimant has been vocationally rehabilitated, i.e. is working in a new job which             pays at least 25% more than the current pay of the job he or she was working            when the original LWEC was performed.ECAB decisions that that support your appeal of a odd-lot job offer withdraw and/or LWEC 0% decision:Baggett, 50 ECAB 560; Wade, 37 ECAB 556 (1986); Rowe, Docket No.88-1179 (issued September 27, 1988); and Moss, Docket No. 89-846 (issued July 26, 1989), Woolever, 29 ECAB 114, Emory, 47 ECAB 371, and in Weisman, 50 ECAB 418For more information please read the attached transcript! Dr. Taylor's contact information is: https://fedcompconsultants@protonmail.com If you need a provider or assistance with a DOL claim in Tampa, Pensacola or Jacksonville Florida  you can make an appointment to see him and the other providers at the clinic at  M & R Medical & Therapy Center. To make a consult with Dr. Taylor  to discuss your case or if you know someone if Florida who is recently injured you can call the clinic at 813-877-6900 or go  to our website at https://mrtherapycenter.com/Fed Comp Coffee Break Podcast on Youtube 

I usually try to keep my opinions out of the podcast. Sometimes though my thoughts and feelings do bleed through, but for the most part, I try to only stick to the story. But, the more cases I cover, the more I research incidents and punishments, the more I find that the system seems to be broken.This week we cover the case of Cecil Stephen Sutherland. SOURCES:https://www.themidwestcrimefiles.com/post/murder-in-kell-the-amy-schulz-storyDocumentary: From Dusk to Darkness with Paula Zahnhttps://murderpedia.org/male.S/s/sutherland-cecil.htmTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, Appellee, CECIL S. SUTHERLAND, Appellant. Docket No. 99047Access ad-free episodes, bonus content, and get all of the 11:59 Media Podcast library!Access hours of extra content each week, exclusive merch, and early access to new podcasts.Visit https://1159plus.com

Case Law Update  •          Reece v James, et al.,___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No.s 362140 and 362151) •          Bronson Healthcare Group v Esurance Prop & Cas Ins, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 363486) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •          Improper Motions to Exclude Evidence – Phillipe Martin v Geico General Insurance Company, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued August 17, 2023 (Docket No. 362010) Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Why do some courts and lawyers instinctively react to examinations under oath (EUOs), also called sworn statements, as if they're "secret depositions?" When conducted properly, they clearly aren't. But the issue still arises from time to time. In this episode Garrity talks about two recent court rulings. One is from a Florida federal judge that rejected an effort to have the court treat EUOs and depositions as one and the same. The other, from South Carolina, sanctioned a defendant for taking an EUO that the court said in essence was the very deposition the court had forbidden. Garrity offers some fantastic thoughts and tips for conducting EUOs in a way that mnimizes the risk a court will confuse them with depositions, which are an intellectually and procedurally different animal.SHOW NOTESFed. R. Civ. P. 30, Depositions by Oral Examination (main federal deposition rule, outlining the procedural requirements for an oral examination to constitute a deposition)Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Strike Sworn Statement, etc. Jett v. Del Toro, Case No. 5:22-cv-90-MW-MJF, Docket No. 46, (N. D. Fla. Sep. 21, 2023) (rejecting argument that a sworn statement taken with a court reporter under oath is a deposition; further, “The traditional practice of securing affidavits for use in support of summary judgment often involves a statement written by counsel specifically for that purpose, which is then presented to and signed by the affiant. This Court fails to see how an unedited transcription of the witness's own words, is not, if anything, substantially more reliable than the traditional alternative”)Defendant's Motion to Strike, etc., Jett v. Del Toro, Case No. 5:22-cv-90-MW-MJF, Docket No. 38, (N. D. Fla. filed August 11, 2023) (unsuccessfully arguing that sworn statements or EUO's “are simply unnoticed depositions”)Reed v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, Inc., 160 F.R.D. 572 (N.D. Ind. Mar. 29, 1995) (rejecting motion to strike statement of plaintiff conducted by plaintiff's counsel under oath and before a court reporter; rejecting arguments that statement could not be considered because it wasn't signed by the plaintiff, contained leading questions, and was taken without defendant having the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, saying defendant was in the same position it would have been if an affidavit by the witness had been filed, as the defendant would not have been able to cross-examine the affidavit, either)Bozeman v. Orum, 422 F.3d 1265 (11th Cir. 2005) (rejecting argument that statement made under oath before court reporter was inadmissible for summary judgment purposes because it was neither signed nor taken in the presence of defendants lawyers to allow cross-examination; held, “We reject this argument. Sworn statements given before court reporters or at least as reliable as signed affidavits and are properly considered on summary judgment”)Glenn v. 3M Co., 440 S.C. 34, 95, 890 S.E.2d 569, 602 (Ct. App. 2023), reh'g denied (Aug. 10, 2023) (sanctioning counsel for taking “sworn statement” of witness whose deposition court had prohibited, where statement was under oath, was “in the question-and-answer format typical of a deposition,” and taken before a reporter and at the same day and time as the proposed deposition the court has prohibited; held, “. . . Fisher Controls wholly disregarded this [c]ourt's order prohibiting Dr. Timothy Oury's deposition. Although Fisher Controls labeled the deposition a “sworn statement,” the statement is clearly a deposition submitted under a label which would not immediately invoke the [c]ourt's ire. The statement was transcribed by an official [c]ourt [r]eporter on the day and at the time that Fisher Controls had originally scheduled Dr. Oury's deposition—a deposition prohibited by an Order of Protection from this [c]ourt.”)Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Protective Order, Zorn v. Principal Life Insurance Company, No. 6:09-CV-00081-BAE-GRS, 2010 WL 4253299 (S.D.Ga. July 22, 2010) (“Plaintiff also asserts that because he underwent an examination under oath (EUO) during the claims process, he should somehow be exempt from a deposition in his own, subsequent lawsuit. Plaintiff cites no authority for this position, and the case law is to the contrary. See Kamin v. Central States Fire Ins. Co., 22 F.R.D. 220 (E.D.N.Y. 1958) (denying motion for protective order to preclude depositions on the grounds that EUOs had been taken); Oreman Sales, Inc. v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 1991 WL 87936 (E.D. La. May 23, 1991) (same); Sentry Ins. v. Shivers, 164 F.R.D. 255, 256 (D. Kan. 1996) (“Taking a statement of a party, sworn or unsworn, pursuant to investigating a claim or potential lawsuit, does not equate with deposing him or her.”); Joe's Market Fish, Inc. v. Scottsdale Ins. Co., 1998 WL 851504 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 3, 1998) (“an examination under oath does not immunize an individual from a later deposition”); Jones v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 129 F.R.D. 170 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 2, 1990)(“Undoubtedly State Farm now has information which was not available at the time of the examination under oath.”)St. Francis Hosp., Inc. v. Grp. Hosp. Serv., 598 P.2d 238, 240–41 (Okla. 1979) (saying a “[d]eposition has been defined by various jurisdictions as being confined to the written testimony of a witness given in the course of a judicial proceeding in advance of the trial or hearing, upon oral examination or in response to written interrogatories where an opportunity for cross-examination is given”)Brooks v. Tate, No. 1:11-CV-01503 AWI, 2013 WL 4049053, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2013) (“By definition , “a ‘deposition' is the examination under oath by ‘oral questions' of a party or deponent.” Paige v. Consumer Programs, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 272, 275 (C.D.Cal.2008). A party who wants to depose a person by oral questions must give written notice to every other party, stating the time and place of the deposition. Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(1). “Where a deponent is not a party to the action, he can be compelled to appear at a deposition examination only by issuance of a subpoena” pursuant to Rule 45. Cleveland v. Palmby, 75 F.R.D. 654, 656 (W.D.Okl.1977). “Unless the parties stipulate otherwise, a deposition must be conducted before an officer appointed or designated under Rule 28.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(5)(A).”)Paige v. Consumer Programs, Inc., 248 F.R.D. 272, 275 (C.D. Cal. 2008) (“Considering Rule 30 as a whole, and affording the words in that rule their plain meaning, as we must, see Business Guides, Inc. v. Chromatic Communications Enterprises, Inc., 498 U.S. 533, 540, 111 S.Ct. 922, 928, 112 L.Ed.2d 1140 (1991) (“ ‘We give the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure their plain meaning.' ” (quoting Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, 493 U.S. 120, 123, 110 S.Ct. 456, 458, 107 L.Ed.2d 438 (1989))); Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman, 313 F.3d 1094, 1111 (9th Cir.2002) (“As a rule of construction, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are given their plain meaning.”), it is clear that a deposition is the examination under oath by “oral questions” of a party or deponent. In other words, a party who merely appears for a deposition that does not take place has not “been deposed” since he has not been examined by oral questions”)Chicago Coliseum Club v. Dempsey, 8 Pa. D. & C. 420, 420–21 (Com. Pl. 1926) (“The definition of a deposition will be found in 1 Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 848, as follows: “The testimony of a witness reduced to writing, in due form of law, by virtue of a commission or other authority of a competent tribunal, or according to the provisions of some statute law, to be used on the trial of some question of fact in a court of justice”)

Case Law Update •          Ronnie Fields, et al. v National General Insurance Company, et al., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued August 17, 2023 (Docket No. 361959) •          Evans v Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued August 10, 2023 (Docket No. 361808) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •          Case Evaluation Sanctions – R.A.D. Constr., Inc. v Davis, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) Docket No.s. 361177 and 363142)   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update •          True Care Physical Therapy, PLLC v Auto Club Group Ins Co, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 165845) •          Almaswari v Lychuk, et al., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued April 27, 2023 (Docket No. 360612) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •          Andary update   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

United States v. Donald J. Trump (Aug 1, 2023) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (The Election Case). Covers pages 21 - 31 of the 45 page indictment. Docket No: 23-cr-00257-TSC https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf

Final episode of United States v. Donald J. Trump (Aug 1, 2023) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (The Election Case).  Docket No: 23-cr-00257-TSC https://www.justice.gov/storage/US_v_Trump_23_cr_257.pdf

In Andary v USAA Casualty Co., ___ Mich ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 356487), the Michigan Supreme Court affirmed the controversial lower court decision that the fee schedule portions of Michigan's 2019 No Fault Reform are inapplicable to accidents covered by insurance policies which issued before the effective date of the recent reforms

In Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc., ___ Mich ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 162907) and Pinsky v Kroger Co of Mich, ___ Mich ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 163430), the Michigan Supreme Court reversed decades old precedent, and reduced the Open and Obvious defense to a comparative negligence issue.

Case Law Update •      Spectrum Health Hospitals, et al. v Citizens Insurance Company, et al., unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued May 18, 2023 (Docket No. 362042) •      Robinson v Szczotka, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued April 6, 2023 (Docket No. 359646) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •      Business Auto Policies: PIP benefits and potential summary disposition   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Few lawsuits make it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, one brought by the family of Gorgi Talevski did just that -- and they won! The Talevski case decision is important in that it addresses the rights of nursing home residents, their ability to sue a state run (publicly owned) nursing home, and addresses the importance of the Nursing Home Reform Act in establishing the standard of care. Join our discussion with Suzana Talevski, attorney and daughter of Mr. Talevski; Maame Gyamfi, Senior Attorney at AARP Foundation Litigation; and Toby Edelman, Senior Policy Attorney with the Center for Medicare Advocacy. Ms. Gyamfi authored an amicus curiae, or friend of the court, brief on behalf of AARP and several other groups, including Consumer Voice. Ms. Edelman authored an amicus brief addressing the background and history of the Nursing Home Reform Act. In this episode, we discuss the lawsuit, the Supreme Court decision, and what this means for residents. To access the U.S. Supreme Court decision and briefs filed in this case, visit the U.S. Supreme Court website, Docket No. 21-806.

Case Law Update •      Harris v Alson, et al., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued May 18, 2023 (Docket No. 359588) •      Melvina Howard, et al. v LM General Insurance Company, et al., ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 357110) •      Morrissette and Central Home Health Care Services v Indian Harbor Insurance Company and Cantrell Mitchell, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued November 17, 2022 (Docket No. 359503)   Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •      Maple Manor Rehab Center of Novi, Inc. and Maple Manor Neuro Center, Inc. v Allstate Insurance Company and Allstate Property and Casualty Insurance Company, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 16, 2023 (Docket No. 358272) •      MCR 2.116(C)(4) •      MCR 2.116(C)(10) •      MCR 2.116(G)(4)   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

This week on Uncommon Law: the second episode in our podcast series about the Federal Trade Commission's proposed nationwide ban on noncompete agreements. We'll look at one Minnesota hair salon and see how noncompete agreements often play out in the real world. What happens when employees leave the hair salon and try to strike out on their own? Guests: Heidi Hautala, a hair stylist in Minnesota  Evan Starr, professor at University of Maryland Emily Olson, a hair stylist in Minnesota Kylee Simonson, owner of Simonson's Salon & Spa Chris Penwell, attorney at Siegel Brill The case discussed in this episode is Simonson's Salon and Spa vs. Heidi Hautala, Docket No. 27-CV-15-5647 (Minn. Dist. Ct. Apr 03, 2015) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Case Law Update •      Mapp v Progressive, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 359889) •      C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC v Allstate Insurance Company, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 30, 2023 (Docket No. 360887) •      C-Spine Orthopedics, PLLC v Progressive Mich Ins Co, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 358170)   Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •      More on MCL 500.3145 “One-year-back” •      Encompass Healthcare v Citizens Insurance Co, published opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued November 17, 2022 (Docket No. 357225) •      Spine Specialists of Michigan P.C. v Esurance Prop & Cas Ins, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued April 20, 2023 (Docket No. 359154)   Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update •          Briggs v Knapp, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued March 9, 2023 (Docket No. 358641) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •      MCL 500.3145 “One-year-back” •      “One-Year-Back” – pre and post No-Fault Reform Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update •          Advance Therapy & Rehab, Inc. v Auto-Owners Insurance Company, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 359673) •          Samone Johnson v Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART) et al., unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued February 16, 2023 (Docket No. 359478) •          Farrar v SMART, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2023) (Docket No. 358872) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation  •      Litigation Management Strategies – pre and post suit Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update Al-Hajjaj v Hartford Accident and Indem Co, ____ Mich App ____ (2023)  (Docket No. 359291) Whitney v Wilcoxson, unpublished per curiam opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals, issued December 15, 2022 (Docket No. 360647) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation PIP Basics - MCL 500.3114(3) Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update Tourkow v Fox, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued November 22, 2022 (Docket No. 357523) Parraghi v Chodyniecki, et al., Docket No. 358829 (Mich Ct App, November 2, 2022) Johnson v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, unpublished opinion per curiam of the Court of Appeals, issued November 22, 2022 (Docket No. 355137) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation COVID-19 and Executive Orders are Still Impacting the Court System Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update Bakeman v Citizens Insurance Company of the Midwest, ___ Mich App ___ (2022) (Docket No. 357195) Ophelia J. Epps and Michigan Head and Spine Institute v United Services Automobile Association, et al., (Docket No. 357818) Wasik v Auto Club Ins Assn, ___ Mich App ___; ____ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 355848)   Trending Topics in PIP Litigation Andary Update – Spine Specialists of Michigan, PC v MemberSelect Insurance Company, (Docket No. 358296)

Case Law Update Alice Jenkins v Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation, issued January 13, 2022 (Docket No. 355452) Micheli v Michigan Automobile Insurance Placement Facility, ___ Mich App ___; ___ NW2d ___ (2022) (Docket No. 356559) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation Michigan Public Health Code and Unethical Business Practices Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Guarding Against Gruesome Guardianships Get M A D with Chris Graves 11-13-2022 Lisa BelangerLisa Siegel Belanger is a Massachusetts attorney of over 25 years Following in her Dad's footsteps, she's been practicing law in Massachusetts since December 1996. She has focused her practice on constitutional law with an emphasis on appellate work, having argued several cases before the highest court in Massachusetts, and the Supreme Judicial Court.Lisa's legal career in a nutshell: dedication to righting the wrong in both trial and appellate court forums.Lisa is a featured speaker in the documentary: Guardian Inc. (Produced by Alex Gibney of Dirty Money, Season 2, Episode 5) wherein she describes the cautionary tale of a Massachusetts man who left a voicemail* message begging for her legal help because he had been placed under a sham court-appointed guardianship.The Guardian Inc. documentary provides just a glimpse into what is a pervasive nationwide and global crisis of medical abduction facilitated through court-appointed guardianships.U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, Docket No. 1:15-CV-10198-ADBFollow Lisa's journey of enduring retaliation by the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers for being a whistleblower exposing the lawlessness of specified MA Governor Baker's appointees and other attorneys and judges.Lisa is also an author having published articles exposing the lawlessness of judges, attorneys, and other law enforcement officials with regard to court-appointed guardianships.Lisa S. Belanger, J.D. in Karma (@TPCLJ) / Twitterhttps://twitter.com/TPCLJthecourtracket.comhttps://t.co/a8pwMhC74gLisa Siegel Belanger Files Federal Lawsuit Cites ‘Fabricated and Altered Docket Information' Probate Court Whistleblower Continues to Fight Back – Boston Broadside – NEWS, without the liberal spinhttps://www.bostonbroadside.com/guardianship/belangerfight/M5 News - Fight for the Truth, Video Evidence, Mass Media (m5newsgate.com)https://m5newsgate.com/America Unplugged Radio: I Protest with Donald Jeffries - with Lisa Belanger on Apple Podcastshttps://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/i-protest-with-donald-jeffries-with-lisa-belanger/id1569877572?i=1000529185038Guardianship in Massachusetts “Medical Kidnapping” – an Attorney's Accounts and her Subsequent Suspension | LOSTMESSIAH (wordpress.com)https://lostmessiahdotcom.wordpress.com/2021/02/26/guardianship-in-massachusetts-medical-kidnapping-an-attorneys-accounts-and-her-subsequent-suspension/https://www.americaunpluggedradio.com/i-protest-with-donald-jeffries-lisa-belanger-chris-graves-on-alex-jones-judgment/Chris Graves:PayPal:http://paypal.me/SirhcSevargGet Mad Archives:https://ochelli.com/category/get-m-a-d-with-chris-graves/OCHELLI LINKS:If You Appreciate Ochelli.com Radio Chip In and Support us: https://ochelli.com/donate/Ochelli Effect - Uncle - Age of Transitions - T-shirts and MORE: https://theageoftransitions.com/category/support-the-podcasts/Special Audiobook SeriesPayPal & Contact for special arrangements: blindjfkresearcher@gmail.comNETWORK:Rokfin https://rokfin.com/ChuckOchelliBitchute Channel: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/oxL96KiJtQLP/Patreon https://www.patreon.com/ochelliSign-up on Ochelli.comhttps://ochelli.com/membership-account/membership-levels/LIVE LISTENING OPTIONS:OCHELLI.COM https://ochelli.com/listen-live/ RADDIO https://raddio.net/324242-ochellicom/ ZENO https://zeno.fm/radio/ochelli-radio/ TUNEIN http://tun.in/sfxkx

Breaking News: John A Castro, a US 2024 Presidential Candidate and a Contributor the podcast has submitted a MOTIONS FOR RELIEF against Donald Trump and the FEC requesting a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) which may essentially upend Trump's candidacy if granted. The Court is to make a decision within the next 24 hours. John Castro joins us to discuss his motions and to update on this breaking news. "Plaintiff John Anthony Castro, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §§ 701-706 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, moves this Honorable Court for the entry of a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) enjoining Defendant Federal Election Commission (“FEC”) from accepting, processing, retaining, recognizing, giving consideration of, or otherwise giving effect to Donald J. Trump's FEC Form 2, Statement of Candidacy, on the basis that such action by Defendant FEC would constitute agency action not in accordance with law since Donald J. Trump is a constitutionally ineligible candidate pursuant to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Alternatively, if and only if the Court determines that a Temporary Restraining Order is not appropriate despite the time sensitive nature of the matters and threat of irreparable harm, Plaintiff moves this Honorable Court for a Preliminary Injunction and requests a Hearing with an Expedited Briefing Schedule. A. BACKGROUND On January 30, 2022, Plaintiff John Anthony Castro formally registered with the Federal Election Commission as a 2024 candidate for the Republican nomination for the Presidency of the United States. On July 25, 2022, Plaintiff John Anthony Castro filed a Complaint for Declaratory and injunctive Relief (“Compl.”) (Docket No. 1) pursuant to the judicial review provision of the Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”), 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8), and the judicial review provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 701 - 706.2 2 See https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P40007320/?tab=about-candidate. Case 1:22-cv-02176-RC Document 18 Filed 11/16/22 Page 9 of 302 Count I is based upon an administrative complaint that Plaintiff filed with Defendant on March 23, 2022. Plaintiff's administrative complaint sought to compel Defendant to declare Donald J. Trump a “candidate” within the meaning of FECA. Defendant failed to act on the administrative complaint within 120 days. Federal law, pursuant to 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A), grants the right of judicial review if the FEC fails to act on an administrative complaint within 120 days. As such, the jurisdiction for Count I stems from 52 U.S.C. § 30109(a)(8)(A) due to the FEC's failure to act within 120 days regarding Donald J. Trump's activities mandating his statutory classification as a “candidate” given the invalidity of the FEC's Testing the Waters regulations under the U.S. Supreme Court's Home Concrete standard. Count II effectively states that, because Plaintiff has alleged in his Complaint that Donald J. Trump engaged in, provided aid to, or provided comfort to the insurrectionists that violently attacked our United States Capitol on January 6, 2021, if Defendant were to accept Donald J. Trump's FEC Form 2, Statement of Candidacy, that would constitute agency action “not in accordance with law” pursuant to Section 3 of the 14th Amendment. In other words, because factual allegations in a complaint must be accepted as true and Plaintiff's Complaint specifically alleges that Trump engaged in, aided, or comforted insurrectionists, it must be accepted as true that Trump does not satisfy Section 3 of the 14th Amendment and is, therefore, ineligible to pursue public office. If Defendant were to accept Donald J. Trump's FEC Form 2, Statement of Candidacy, that would constitute final agency action under 5 U.S.C. § 704 that is “not in accordance with law” under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) specifically prohibits. As such, the jurisdiction for Count II stems from 28 U.S.C. § 1331." --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/theneoliberal/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/theneoliberal/support

Case Law Update Maple Manor Rehab Center of Novi, et al. v Travelers Casualty & Surety Co, issued July 21, 2022 (Docket No. 355775) Holman v Mossa-Basha, issued August 4, 2022 (Docket Nos. 338210, 338232) Kodra v American Select Insurance Company, et al., issued June 23, 2022 (Docket No. 365166) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation Andary update Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update Payton v Meemic Insurance Company and Willie King, issued July 28, 2022 (Docket No. 357736) Great Lakes Pain & Injury Chiropractic Ctr., et al. v Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Michigan, issued July 28, 2022 (Docket No. 357702) Wilson v Citizens Insurance Co of the Midwest, July 21, 2022 (Docket No. 356272) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation Andary questions answered Case Law Update Payton v Meemic Insurance Company and Willie King, issued July 28, 2022 (Docket No. 357736) Great Lakes Pain & Injury Chiropractic Ctr., et al. v Farm Bureau Mut. Ins. Co. of Michigan, issued July 28, 2022 (Docket No. 357702) Wilson v Citizens Insurance Co of the Midwest, July 21, 2022 (Docket No. 356272) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation Andary questions answered Hosted by: Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

Case Law Update  Criswell v Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, issued July 28, 2022 (Docket No. 355626) Pellegrino v State Farm Mut Auto Ins Co, issued June 16, 2022 (Docket No. 355805) Al-Maliky v Citizens Insurance Co., issued June 23, 2022 (Docket No. 356051) Trending Topics in PIP Litigation Utilization Reviews – a SW update Hosted by Amber Rouse Holloway, Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy  Mark F. Masters, Senior Partner Secrest Wardle, Troy

This week on The Docket, even though abortion is legal in Florida up to 15 weeks, the courts have ruled that a 16-year-old orphan, who is 10-weeks pregnant, cannot get the procedure because she is not mature enough to make the decision.  And, Miami OnlyFans internet model 26-year-old Courtney Tailor Clenney is charged with second degree murder for allegedly stabbing her boyfriend, 27 year old Christian Obumseli to death in April.