Podcasts about Injunction

Harvard's faculty has turned up the heat with a new Injunction lawsuit filed in Massachusetts Federal Court against the Trump Administration and its efforts to cut off $9 billion in federal funding to violate Harvard's academic freedom and First Amendment rights, as Harvard hires the Trump Organization's own “ethics counsel”'s firm to defend against the Trump Administration's attacks. Michael Popok ties it all together including the curious case of the Quinn Emmanuel firm and its flipping sides to go on the attack against Trump in several high-profile cases. Try VIIA Hemp! https://viia.co/legalaf and use code LEGALAF! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Our special podcast show today deals primarily with a 112-page opinion and 3-page order issued on March 28 by Judge Amy Berman Jackson of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia in a lawsuit brought, among others, by two labor unions representing CFPB employees against Acting Director Russell Vought. The complaint alleged that Acting Director Vought and others were in the process of dismantling the CFPB through various actions taken since Rohit Chopra was fired and replaced by Acting Director Scott Bessent and then Acting Director Russell Vought. This process included, among other things, the termination of probationary and term employees and possibly another 1,300 or so employees through a reduction-in-force , the issuance of a stop work order, the closure of the CFPB's main office in DC and branch offices throughout the country, the termination of most third-party contracts, the decision not to request any additional funding from the Federal Reserve Board for the balance of the fiscal year and the voluntary dismissal of several enforcement lawsuits. Alan Kaplinsky, Senior Counsel and former chair of Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, and Joseph Schuster, a Partner in the Consumer Financial Services Group, discuss each part of the preliminary injunction issued by Judge Jackson which, among other things, required the CFPB to re-hire all probationary and term employees who had been terminated, prohibited the CFPB from terminating any CFPB employee except for just cause (which apparently does not include lack of work because of the change in focus and direction of the CFPB), required the CFPB not to enforce a previous “stop work” order or reduction-in-force.  We observed that Judge Jackson's order has required the CFPB to maintain for now a work force that is not needed for the “new” CFPB. We also discuss that the preliminary injunction order does not require the CFPB to maintain any of the regulations promulgated or proposed by Rohit Chopra or to continue to prosecute any of the enforcement lawsuits brought by Director Chopra. DOJ filed a notice of appeal on March 29 and on March 31 filed a motion in the DC Court of Appeals to stay Judge Jackson's order. (After the recording of this podcast, the DOJ filed in the Court of Appeals a motion seeking a stay of Judge Jackson's order. Pending a hearing on April 9th, the Court issued an administrative stay of Judge Jackson's order. The 3-Judge panel is composed of two Trump appointees and one Obama appointee.) A copy of the blog co-authored by Alan and Joseph is linked here. We also discuss another lawsuit initiated by the City of Baltimore and one other plaintiff against Acting Director Vought in Federal District Court for the District of Maryland seeking to enjoin him from returning to the Federal Reserve Board or the Treasury funds held by the CFPB. The Court denied the motion for preliminary injunction on the basis that it was not ripe for adjudication under the Administrative Procedure Act because the CFPB never actually returned any funds. Finally, Alan expresses surprise that the Acting Director has not relied on the argument that all funds received by the CFPB after September, 2022 were unlawfully obtained because the Dodd-Frank Act stipulates that the CFPB can be funded only out of “combined earnings of the Federal Reserve Banks” and the fact that there have only been huge combined losses of the Federal Reserve Banks since Sept 2022 which continue through today and are likely to continue through the foreseeable future.

www.commsolutionsmn.com- President Trump is finally releasing the JFK files to the world, but we still know nothing about Thomas Matthew Crooks. There was a recent article that hints that FBI is reporting that he may have had an accomplice. The article asserts that there could have been a man on the inside to help Crooks, purposefully reducing President Trump's security, or that the whole thing was a government op. Our election would have been thrown into chaos, had things worked out differently. Lawfare against President Trump isn't anything new, but the left is doubling down on this tactic to stop the Trump agenda. There are currently over 130 cases that have been filed, and some injunctions from district federal judges (as if they had jurisdiction). Temporary Protective Status (TPS) was granted to Haitians and Venezuelans to stay in our country for a specific time. The Trump administration is trying to revoke the TPS of these groups, after the former head of the NSA, Alexander Mayorkas, extending the policy. The courts are trying to say that the Kristi Noem and the new administration does not have the right to govern the way they wish. The AFL/CIO sued the Trump administration to stop the voluntary buyouts of federal employees. Judge George O'Toole sided with the Trump administration, but only because they were not union employees, so they had no standing. This will allow for other lawsuits to be filed. There were cases to allow a biological female, who identified as a man, to go to a male prison and to keep transgender soldiers in the military. The Dems are trying to keep criminals that are here illegally from going to Guantanamo Bay or to the new maximum-security prison in El Salvador. There is also a challenge to birthright citizenship, due to the meaning of the 14th amendment. President Trump also signed an Executive Order that aims to clean up federal elections, including a provision that requires Voter ID and the left is beside itself, filing court cases faster than a rabbit in fox country. How will all of this work out? Who will emerge victorious? Will congress ever come and make President Trump's changes permanent in law? Where are they already? Let us know how you feel about all this lawfare!

Jerry opens the show by saying why you shouldn't be April Fooled about the carbon tax with today's lower gas prices. Clayton Campbell from the Toronto Police Association discusses bail and how it can be impacted by the federal election. Then, Frank Leo joins the show to talk about condo investors failing to close, and landlords offering incentives to rent. Then, Gavin Tighe weighs in on supervised consumption sites closing despite court injunction.

Trump Invokes STATE SECRETS and REJECTS Judge! (YOU LOSE JUDGE!)WINNING: Court of Appeals PAUSES Corrupt Judicial Order (YOU ARE STAYED!!)Trump CRUSHES Dem Lawyers with Executive Order Onslaught (THIS IS EPIC!!)

Danielle Smith's government in Alberta brought in legislation that restricts healthcare access for trans and gender diverse young people. Bill 26 prohibits medically-necessary care from being provided to gender diverse people under 16 years old in the province. Egale Canada, Skipping Stone, and five individual gender diverse youth, supported by their parents, have gone to court seeking an injunction against the legislation. We speak with Bennett Jensen, Director of Legal for Egale Canada.

Send us a textBackground- October 2023 terrorist action in Israel in which over 1,000 people were killed by Hamas has led to war in the Gaza Strip- War has resulted in displacement of Palestinians and estimates of over 30,000 killed- In response, there have been numerous pro-Palestinian protest and anti-war protests, including at University campuses in the United States and Canada- Injunctions to remove protestors in Quebec had failed- After more than a month of occupation of King's College Circle, U of T brought an application to remove pro-Palestinian encampment on the grounds that protestors were engaged in an unlawful trespass of the university's propertyInjunction proceeding- University is private education institution, not affiliated with government- Property of the university is private, but with spaces open to the public - King's College Circle is for use by the entire university population and is also a tourist attraction- After attempting to engage in negotiations with protestors, U of T finally issued a Trespass Notice under provincial Trespass legislation, but police would not enforce notice- Required U of T to go to court for an injunction- U of T argued that protestors had caused damage and had engaged in violent actions on campus, and that occupation was simply illegal as the grounds constituted private university property- To obtain an injunction, generally required to establish serious issue to be tried, irreparable harm and that balance of convenience favours the granting of an injunction; however, serious issue to be tried standard elevated to prima facie case where result is a mandatory injunction, like the removal of the encampment- Court finds that U of T's argument that protestors engaged in violent actions or were engaged in expressions of hate toward others not proven; no prima facie case on these allegations- However, court finds that there was a prima facie case on the issue of trespass; property belonged to U of T and occupation of King's College Circle was essentially exclusive to the pro-Palestinian protestors- Protestors controlled entry to King's College Circle and only permitted those sympathetic to their position entry to the King's College Circle grounds- King's College Circle, however, was an area of U of T to be used by the entire University community and others such as tourists- Protestors relied on Charter to protect themselves against removal from the encampment; contended that they had a right to freely express themselves and associate together in protest- Court finds that Charter did not apply to protect protestor because protestors had not provided notice of constitutional question as required under law, but that Charter did not provide protection in a trespass case. In any event, Trespass Act was reasonable limit prescribed by law- As well, court noted that protestors were actually violating free expression of others because of their control of King's College Circle and who was permitted entry- In connection with the injunction test, there was a clear trespass- In most cases, a clear trespass ends the inquiry and a party is not required to prove irreparable harm or satisfy the balance of convenience test- U of T, however, suffered irreparable harm because of damage to its property that would not be recoverable from the protestors; act of trespass on its own constituted strong irreparable harm- U of T also suffered reputational loss because of the protest- With respect to balance of convenience, court found that the protestors were not being absolutely prohibited from protesting; this weighed in favour of U of T who had established that it suffered harm- Public space of campus had been taken over by pro

A Dublin secondary school has been embroiled in controversy after it was claimed online that one of its teachers is the notorious GAA catfish. County Armagh woman Niamh Farrell denies being the catfish who deceived at least 40 people, including multiple Ulster GAA players. The Portadown woman has now secured a court injunction stopping Coláiste Éanna from continuing with a disciplinary process – which could have resulted in her losing her job. She insists she is not the infamous catfish but an investigation at the school found that she confided in its principal that she was. Ms. Farrell disputes that. ­ Host; Ciaran Dunbar, Guest; Ellen CoyneSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Dublin secondary school Coláiste Éanna has been embroiled in controversy after it was claimed online that one of its teachers is the notorious GAA catfish. Teacher Niamh Farrell denies being the catfish who deceived at least 40 people, including multiple Ulster GAA players. But an investigation at the school found that she confided in its principal that she was the catfish. She has now won an injunction to stop the school disciplining her. Ciarán Dunbar is joined by Irish Independent's Ellen Coyne. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Join Washington Examiner Senior Writer David Harsanyi and Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway as they break down and debate the showdown between the Trump administration and the judiciary over deportation flights and discuss former President Joe Biden's alleged autopen pardons. Mollie and David also share their culture picks for the week including "Adolescence."If you care about combatting the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.

Democrats lost every swing state in November, but they have a backup plan to keep Donald Trump from keeping any of his promises: Nationwide judicial injunctions. How can America escape the tyranny of almost 700 would-be dictators with gavels? And when are things bad enough that the Trump Admin should consider ignoring a judge entirely? Charlie weighs in, and Ben Weingarten offers his own ideas for how to navigate this crisis for the American republic. Watch ad-free on members.charliekirk.com! Get new merch on charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Join Washington Examiner Senior Writer David Harsanyi and Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway as they break down and debate the showdown between the Trump administration and the judiciary over deportation flights and discuss former President Joe Biden's alleged autopen pardons. Mollie and David also share their culture picks for the week, including "Adolescence."If you care about combatting the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.

Democrats lost every swing state in November, but they have a backup plan to keep Donald Trump from keeping any of his promises: Nationwide judicial injunctions. How can America escape the tyranny of almost 700 would-be dictators with gavels? And when are things bad enough that the Trump Admin should consider ignoring a judge entirely? Charlie weighs in, and Ben Weingarten offers his own ideas for how to navigate this crisis for the American republic. Watch ad-free on members.charliekirk.com! Get new merch on charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is the full show for March 14, 2025. We ask the American Mamas what the difference between the Democrat Party and a cult is. We Dig Deep into baseless injunctions that the Demcrats are using to try and keep President Trump from doing anything. Plus, it's Fake News Friday! And we finish off with calmer dogs that will make you say, “Whoa!” 

In this podcast, shareholders Nonnie Shivers and Scott Kelly delve into the enforcement activities after a preliminary injunction blocked key provisions (including the certification requirement) of two executive orders (EOs) issued to eliminate “illegal” diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and initiatives. Scott (who co-chairs the firm's Government Contracting and Reporting Practice Group) and Nonnie (who co-chairs the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Compliance Practice Group) discuss the implications of the national injunction recently issued by a federal judge, the ongoing enforcement activities not halted by the injunction, and the broader impact on federal contractors and DEI programs across all employers. Nonnie and Scott also highlight the importance of staying informed and assessing risk tolerance in light of the evolving legal landscapes, which employers can do with Ogletree's New Administration Resource Hub.

Hampton Dellinger is reinstated, temporarily, to his position as Special Counsel in the Office of Special Counsel.There is a mysterious $3 Million in Mayor Eric Adams' reelection account.Disappointing news about Kenneth Chesebro in Fulton County.Plus, we have an update on Rudy. Allison Gillhttps://muellershewrote.substack.com/@muellershewrote.bsky.social on BlueskyHarry DunnHarry Dunn | Substack@libradunn1.bsky.social on BlueskyWant to support this podcast and get it ad-free and early?Go to: https://www.patreon.com/aisle45podTell us about yourself and what you like about the show - http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=short

Last night, I went live to break down the latest developments in student loans, and trust me, there's a lot happening. First, we discussed the IDR injunction—why it's blocking all applications, what it means for borrowers, and what to expect next. Then, we dove into the budget reconciliation bill, which includes some major student loan changes that could impact repayment plans, forgiveness programs, and more. But here's the real question: What are the chances these changes actually pass? If you have student loans, you don't want to miss this episode. Tune in now to stay ahead of the game and make informed decisions about your financial future! If you need help with your finances, we'd love to help you find financial peace of mind. Be sure to become a Member of FitBUX today.  

The legal battle over the SAVE plan just took another turn. With the injunction now made permanent, what happens next? Learn how this latest court decision affects your repayment plan, the impact on student loan forgiveness, and what it means for current and future borrowers. We'll also cover the legal and legislative angles, what to watch for in the coming months, and how to adjust your student loan strategy. If you're wondering whether student loan forgiveness is still in play or how this affects your next steps, tune in to this episode. Key moments: (02:48) The ICR statute doesn't explicitly promise forgiveness after 25 years (04:44) What the SAVE injunction means in plain terms (07:31) How this ruling could throw a wrench into House Republicans' tax cut plans (12:09) What to consider if you're in the SAVE forbearance or going for PSLF   Like the show? There are several ways you can help! Follow on Apple Podcasts, Spotify or Amazon Music Leave an honest review on Apple Podcasts  Subscribe to the newsletter Feeling helpless when it comes to your student loans? Try our free student loan calculator Check out our refinancing bonuses we negotiated Book your custom student loan plan Get profession-specific financial planning Do you have a question about student loans? Leave us a voicemail here or email us at help@studentloanplanner.com and we might feature it in an upcoming show!  

Labor law expert Barry Covert speaks on New York State's injunction to stop the strike among corrections officers full 259 Thu, 20 Feb 2025 00:23:31 +0000 438gFibcHSqChGpBHTLPIbdtStTPSIEK news,kathy hochul,new york state,wben,corrections officers,nyscopba WBEN Extras news,kathy hochul,new york state,wben,corrections officers,nyscopba Labor law expert Barry Covert speaks on New York State's injunction to stop the strike among corrections officers Archive of various reports and news events 2024 © 2021 Audacy, Inc. News False

Welcome to the award-winning FCPA Compliance Report, the longest running podcast in compliance. In this episode, Tom welcomes back Corporate Transparency Act expert and maven Jonathan Wilson for a look at judicial insights and recent developments in the Corporate Transparent Act (CTA) litigation.  Tom and Jonathan discuss the recent developments, including a preliminary injunction by Judge Kernodle in the Smith v. Treasury case, and its implications on CTA enforcement. Important differences between this injunction and previous ones, such as the Texas Top Cop Shop case, are highlighted. Wilson offers insights into the constitutional debates, particularly regarding the Commerce Clause, and reviews key decisions from federal district courts, including the persuasive Boyle decision from the District of Maine. They also touch on upcoming appeals and the potential impacts on the CTA's nationwide enforcement. Key Highlights  ·       Current Status of the Corporate Transparency Act ·       Judge Kernodle's Injunction and Legal Arguments ·       Supreme Court's Involvement and Implications ·       Analysis of the Boyle Decision ·       Procedural Updates and Future Outlook Resources Jonathan Wilson on LinkedIn FinCEN Report Tom Fox Instagram Facebook YouTube Twitter LinkedIn For more information on the Ethico Toolkit for Middle Managers, available at no charge by clicking here. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tuesday, February 18th, 2025Today, Elon Musk is seeking access to personal taxpayer data raising alarms at the Internal Revenue Service; The Washington Post has blocked a two page ad calling for the removal of Elon Musk; January 6th rioters are arguing in court that their pardons apply to unrelated charges; Trump has fired hundreds of FAA employees despite four deadly crashes in four weeks; the Washington state judge who imposed a temporary restraining order last week on Trump's executive order blocking gender affirming care for minors has now imposed an injunction on him; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Stories:Here's the ad the Washington Post wouldn't run - Common CauseDOGE-affiliated employee expected to seek access to IRS system with sensitive taxpayer information - Garrett Haake and Megan Lebowitz | NBC NewsTrump administration firing hundreds of FAA employees despite four deadly crashes in four weeks - Edward Helmore | The GuardianJan. 6 Rioters Argue Pardons Apply to Charges Including Murder Plot, Child Porn - Scott CalvertFollow , Tawnell D. HobbsFollow, C. Ryan BarberFollow | WSJJudge Hits Donald Trump With Legal Setback: 'Unconstitutional' - Sean O'Driscoll | Newsweek Good Trouble:The FCC is accepting comments from the public regarding their case against 60 minutes on CBS. Let them know how you feel.COMPLAINT INVOLVING CBS BROADCASTING INC., LICENSEE OF WCBS, NEW YORK, NY - PDFComments - FCC.govFCC Seeks Comment on WCBS News Distortion Complaint | Federal Communications CommissionFCC case against CBS for ‘news distortion' may go far beyond precedent, scholars say | ReutersFederal workers - feel free to email me at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Check out muellershewrote.com for my interview with a systems security expert about the massive breach at opm.gov caused by Elon Musk From The Good NewsFlow (2024 film) | WikipediaComfortHouseNV.orgBureau of Consular Affairs Check out other MSW Media podcastshttps://mswmedia.com/shows/Subscribe for free to MuellerSheWrote on Substackhttps://muellershewrote.substack.comFollow AG and Dana on Social MediaDr. Allison Gill Substack|Muellershewrote, Twitter|@MuellerSheWrote, Threads|@muellershewrote, TikTok|@muellershewrote, IG|muellershewrote, BlueSky|@muellershewroteDana GoldbergTwitter|@DGComedy, IG|dgcomedy, facebook|dgcomedy, IG|dgcomedy, danagoldberg.com, BlueSky|@dgcomedyHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?Supercasthttps://dailybeans.supercast.com/Patreon https://patreon.com/thedailybeansOr subscribe on Apple Podcasts with our affiliate linkThe Daily Beans on Apple Podcasts

John Daniel Davidson from The Federalist joins the show to explain why the Supreme Court will need to settle the issue of radical district judges issuing national injunctions blocking President Trump's agenda. Visit the Howie Carr Radio Network website to access columns, podcasts, and other exclusive content.

En este Trumpwatch: múltiples órdenes de tribunales paralizan acciones de Trump, Musk y DOGE pero... ¿las acatarán?; primer encuesta de CBS News con buenos números para Trump; y los demócratas comienzan a dar (algo) señales de vida. - Si fueras partes de nuestro patreon, hubieras escuchado este episodio ayer. ¡Únete a la mejor comunidad del internet boricua en patreon.com/puestospalproblema! Aprovecha la oferta de 50% de descuento en el primer mes. - Presentado por el mejor internet de Puerto Rico - AeronetPR.com. Cambiate ahora llamando al 787 273 4143. - Nuestros Patroncitos PYMES de hoy: ¿Quieres agradar a alguien, elevar cualquier ocasión o simplemente añadir un toque de frescura a tu entorno? Comunícate con Ruscus. Comprar flores no tiene por qué ser complicado, en Ruscus te llevarán de la mano para diseñar un arreglo personalizado. Para estar al tanto de sus últimos trabajos y promociones, síguelos en sus redes sociales como Ruscuspr o visita su página ruscuspr.com. Además, puedes visitarlos en su acogedor flower shop ubicado en el casco urbano de Canóvanas. Ruscus cuenta con servicio de entrega en toda el área metro y este de Puerto Rico. Recuerda mencionar que vienes de parte de PPP para recibir 10% de descuento en tu orden. Para más información, llámanos o escríbeles al 939-408-7809. Piensa en flores, piensa en Ruscus Los expertos en sexualidad dicen que si tu quieres mantener viva la pasión con tu pareja a través de los años, tienes que meterle a la creatividad e integrar al menos 12 novedades al año. Si tú estás teniendo sexo aburrido es porque ustedes lo hacen aburrido, pero para esa ayudita está capela.love. Uno, dos, tres nuevos juguetitos sexuales al año no hacen daño, pero sacan muy buenos orgasmos. Además que te dan una ayudita cuando lo necesitan, te ayudan a bajarle al estrés y Este San Valentín, regálense amor y fuete. Capela.love, empaques discretos siempre. I.E.S Elevator Services es una compañía con más de diecisiete años ofreciendo servicios en Puerto Rico e Islas Vírgenes en todo lo relacionado a instalar, modernizar y mantener los equipos relacionados al transporte vertical.Integramos el arreglo y el mantenimiento de elevadores, reparaciones menores y de emergencia, así como la venta de piezas. Además, nuestros servicios están disponibles las 24 horas, los 365 días del año en todo Puerto Rico incluyendo Vieques, Culebra e Islas Vírgenes. Realizamos la actualización de todos los equipos existentes en el mercado para que cumplan con los más recientes códigos y con todas las regulaciones vigentes. En adición para personas mayores y/o impedidos contamos con alternativas de movilización como silla elevador al igual que todo lo relacionado a elevadores residenciales, para sillas de rueda y carga en general. Antes que otros te fallen llama a los expertos de I.E.S Elevators al 787-908-3462 con Eduardo Castillo para coordinar cualquier consulta y/o cotización. Chequea su website en elevadorespr.com. Al decir que los escucharon en Puestos Pal Problema tienen un 10% en los planes de mantenimiento preventivo. Suscríbete a nuestro Patreon y recibe contenido exclusivo, artículos: https://patreon.com/puestospalproblemaSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This week on the podcast I am joined by Gary (Middleton Tech), check out the driver tools offered at: https://garysapps.com  

In this episode Gil discusses the affidavit signed by Afshin when he gets a surprise phone call from an attorney who coincidentally was named in the same affidavit. Now we find out the Bearded Lawyer aka Beardo from Baller Busters has filed a bar complaint against Gil trying to weaponize the State Bar to attack Gil's reputation.  I guess Beardo isn't as tough as he claims after all.

He said a lot about day one and now it has happened. Around 200 'executive orders' were signed. Plenty of them were completely illegal, but let's just do whatever we want while the courts figure that out. Injunction? That's next week's problem - if you're lucky. In the meantime - here is some Ai slop shownotes cause I've had a real bastard of a week and I don't have it in me to write anything interesting. Episode is good though.oh and buy cbco beer from cbco.beer and use crp10 to get 10% offI assure you, their IPA is one of the best in the country and their NEIPA is up there with the guys who charge much much more. Get on it. AI SHOWNOTES:Trump's Inauguration: A Dive into Scams, Politics, and ControversiesIn this episode of the Conditional Release Program, hosts Jack the Insider and Joel Hill explore the chaotic first days of Donald Trump's second term as the 45th and 47th POTUS. They discuss the inauguration, the flood of executive orders, and highlight various scams and controversies, including the Trump cryptocurrency schemes and the pardoning of controversial figures. The episode also delves into the potential impact of new tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, speculating on the inflationary effects and the broader economic consequences. Amidst all this, they touch on Elon Musk's controversial Nazi salute during the inauguration and the various legal battles surrounding Trump's policies. This episode provides a detailed, and often humorous, examination of the early days of what promises to be a turbulent administration.00:00 Introduction and Hosts' Banter00:49 Trump's First Hundred Hours01:47 Raising Spirits with Humor (attempted)02:51 Discount Code for CBCo Beers04:56 Trump's Crypto Scams05:20 Crypto Community Reactions05:56 Reverend Lorenzo Sewell's memecoin08:16 Trump Coin and Melania Coin14:08 SEC and Crypto Regulations17:38 Biden and Trump's Controversial Pardons32:48 Vegan Leather Guns and Jail Time (ft q-anon shaman)33:20 The Infamous Ed Welch Incident34:18 Pardons and Reoffending36:48 Ross Ulbricht and Libertarian Support44:28 Trump's Controversial Plans59:06 Elon Musk's Nazi Salute Controversy01:07:14 Police and Nazis: A Controversial Encounter01:07:46 Tom Sewell's Media Obsession01:08:23 Libs of TikTok and Media Double Standards01:09:49 Elon Musk and Political Drama01:11:53 Trump's Tariff Plans and Economic Impact01:29:48 The Complexities of Immigration Policies01:40:56 Conclusion and Future TopicsThese are specifically shit shownotes but at least there's chapter marks. I edited it a bit cause it was so blatantly wrong originally. Enjoy!

Jezuz takes control of the show and asks Gil how does R.L.G. plan to beat G.I.L. They begin diving into Billiam's IAH before Jezuz abruptly leaves for a Taco Review (PRIORITIES).

Today, lawyers for Nikita Hand will seek a High Court injunction to stop the release of CCTV footage. Courts Correspondent Frank Greaney previews the case ahead of court proceedings.

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

Originally uploaded December 17, edited December 24th. Chris Holman welcomes back Amanda J. Dernovshek, Associate, Foster Swift Collins & Smith PC, Lansing, MI with 6 offices across the state. There were several things Chris wanted to find out from Amanda in this interview: Welcome back, bring us up to speed again on what the CTA is? We know there was an important decision made last week by a court in Texas. What happened? What happens now and what does this mean? Should companies continue to report? » Visit MBN website: www.michiganbusinessnetwork.com/ » Watch MBN's YouTube: www.youtube.com/@MichiganbusinessnetworkMBN » Like MBN: www.facebook.com/mibiznetwork » Follow MBN: twitter.com/MIBizNetwork/ » MBN Instagram: www.instagram.com/mibiznetwork/

Ralphs Seeks Preliminary Injunction Against Food Trucks Near Palisades Store. LA tenants face significant rent increases for 2025. Is living on top of a Costco the answer to affordable housing? And...will Costco give them a FREE membership? News For Your Kitchen Table...or Couch. Tesla Cybertruck explosion; Suspect was active-duty Army soldier, officials say.

A federal judge has issued a preliminary injection against the Utah High School Activities Association today... over a rule that kept some foreign exchange students from playing high school sports. Joining me live is Amy Donaldson... an Executive Producer with KSL Podcasts..

Information Reporting Requirements Under the Corporate Transparency Act are discussed.

This is an update for Profits with Pajak Episode #285  We cover the latest developments in the Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) reporting requirements.  Learn about the new deadlines, recent legal challenges to the Corporate Transparency Act, and what these changes mean for your business.  Plus, I share my perspective on why this legislation could be unconstitutional and what you can do to prepare. Learn more for yourself at the official government website Fincen.gov/boi

It is the most wonderful time of the year! The time where we give out fake trophies to the most interesting, strangest, and sometimes annoying drivers and stories of the NASCAR season! Plus - 23XI/FRM score a big win in court with a Charter injunction.The Rundown:- The 2024 ITD Awards Part 1:- Silly Season, The Wally Dallenbach Award, Driver Confrontations, and more- NASCAR News:- 23XI and FRM get a big win with an Injunction - and an even bigger win with an opinion that NASCAR does have monopoly power- The 2024 ITD Awards Part 2:- Small Team Drama, Win and Driver of the Year, the Gary B Carpenter Award for Not Showing UpFind the latest episodes at InTheDraftShow.com, follow on Twitter and Instagram @InTheDraftShow – and like the show on Facebook at facebook.com/InTheDraftShowThanks for listening!

Hour 1 of JJ & Alex with Jeremiah Jensen and Alex Kirry. Stevenson Sylvester filling in for Alex Kirry RB Wayshawn Parker commits to Utah How the courts rule on JUCO atheletes could have negative impacts on high school recruits Would You Rather?

Tom Bowles Frontstretch On 23XI FRM Injunction by Ed Lane

JJ & Alex with Jeremiah Jensen and Alex Kirry on December 19, 2024. Diego Pavia is granted eligibility for 2025 season following his time at JUCO UHC with an overtime win at home thanks to Mikhail Sergachev Utah Jazz on the road at the Detroit Pistons

In this episode of "Profits with Pajak," we explore the Beneficial Ownership Information (BOI) filing mandated by the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA) and the recent federal court ruling that has halted its enforcement. We discuss the intended purpose of the BOI filing, the implications of the court's decision for small business owners Comments and Questions are welcome.  Send to ProfitswithPajak@gmail.com Episode Links: Apple Podcast Listeners- Copy and paste the links below into your browser. Upcoming Events: Lawn Care Life Conference Get ready for an event that will energize and inspire your lawn care business—it's the Lawn Care Life Conference, happening February 21-22, 2025, at the stunning Mathews Manor in Springville, Alabama! This two-day experience brings together the industry's brightest minds, including Brandon Gray, Andy Mulder, Allyn Hane, Jason Creel, and Paul Jamison. Whether you're looking to sharpen your marketing, master pricing, or scale your operations, you'll walk away with practical strategies and fresh ideas to fuel your success. From hands-on equipment demos to exclusive giveaways, and countless opportunities to connect with other passionate professionals, this is more than a conference—it's an experience. Want to elevate your day? VIP tickets include perks like priority seating, professional headshots, and exclusive merchandise. Seats are limited, so grab your ticket now at lawncarelife.com and be part of something extraordinary! https://www.lawncarelife.com/conference   Training and Courses FREE copy of “60 Profit Producing Ideas To Make It Rain For Your Business" Get instant access to 60 profit producing ideas you can implement immediately to get more customers buying more often at higher prices. Free for a limited time... https://app.warplan.com/60ppi/pajak   Budgets, Breakevens, and Bottom Lines™ Workshop John Pajak's exclusive system is designed to help you avoid common failures and achieve your business' financial goals to be profitable and scale your business. https://www.johnpajak.com/offers/qvgvV8m3/checkout   Yardbook Training Workshops Learn one-on-one with John Pajak to use Yardbook like a pro to streamline your business and make more money! https://www.johnpajak.com/offers/aJ9YX7aB/checkout   Show Partners: Yardbook Simplify your business and be more profitable.  Please visit www.Yardbook.com  Get 30 days of Premium Business level of Yardbook for FREE with promo code PAJAK Mr. Producer Click the link to connect with Thee Best Podcast Producer in the biz! https://www.instagram.com/mrproducerusa/ Green Frog Web Design Get your first month for only $1 when you use code, PAJAK , and have your website LIVE in 3 weeks from projected start date or it's FREE for a year. https://www.greenfrogwebdesign.com/johnpajak My Service Area “Qualify Leads Based on Your Profitable Service Area.” Click on this link for an exclusive offer for being a “Profits with Pajak” listener. https://myservicearea.com/pajak   The Hardscape Academy In-Person Training Learn step-by-step with Caleb and Brittany Auman and their team of Master Hardscape Professionals at the legendary Auman HQ.  You'll get two days of instruction in a small group setting from industry experts. Training will cover how to install pavers, how to install retaining walls, basic budgeting, paver patio estimation, cutting curves, and more! Get hands-on experience for you or your crew and ascend to new levels of production.  SAVE 10% when you use promo code PAJAK! https://www.thehardscapeacademy.com/in-person-training

This Sunday on Vintage Classic Radio's "Sunday Night Playhouse," we are thrilled to present a double bill holiday special featuring two cherished radio plays. The evening begins with "Christmas in Connecticut" from NBC Author's Playhouse, originally broadcast on December 21, 1941. Starring Ronald Reagan and Jane Wyman, this delightful episode follows a food writer who struggles to live up to her perfect homemaker image when a war hero visits her for a traditional Christmas, leading to a series of humorous misunderstandings and romantic complications. Following that, we'll enjoy "Christmas by Injunction" from CBS Screen Guild Theatre, which originally aired on August 5, 1946. Based on a story by O. Henry, this heartwarming tale is set in the old West and tells the story of a wealthy miner who attempts to orchestrate an elaborate Christmas celebration for his old hometown, only to discover that the true spirit of the season requires more personal sacrifices than he anticipated. Together, these episodes offer a perfect blend of humor, nostalgia, and the timeless joy of the holiday spirit.

FF: CTA Injunction Thanks to a group of liberty loving citizens, an injunction has been issued for the Corporate Transparency Act. This would have required you to report yourself to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network & created more hurdles to running a business. There are both 1st Amendment & 4th Amendment issues with this law. In Ohio HB93 is Moving toward passing. This also restores property rights & encourages personal responsibility. America & the world are moving toward more freedom. Help out by having the courage to say NO to the government. Making donations to the Non-Profit law firms who help protect our rights. Even just shopping at places that stand up for your rights helps. 1851 Center for Constitutional Law Pacific Legal Foundation www.RealPowerFamily.com

The Center Square's Greg Bishop reviews the latest from the federal judiciary in the case against Illinois' gun and magazine ban with the Southern District of Illinois federal judge issuing an amended final judgement and permanent injunction against the law, but acknowledging the stay on the injunction pending the outcome in the appeals court. Support this podcast: https://secure.anedot.com/franklin-news-foundation/ce052532-b1e4-41c4-945c-d7ce2f52c38a?source_code=xxxxxx

US District Court issues temporary injunction barrijng enforcement of BOI reporting regime, FinCEN responds and Congress passes two not terribly major tax bills.

This week we look at: Congress enacts two tax laws: but neither is the big one that passed the House in January but stalled in the US Senate A Texas US District Court has issued a nationwide temporary injunction barring FinCEN from enforcing the BOI reporting regime DOJ files a notice of Appeal of the Texas Top Cop Shop Inc decision and FinCEN posts information regarding the impact of the case on BOI reports

Greg Bishop reviews the latest filing made Tuesday evening by the state of Illinois in the case challenging Illinois' gun and magazine ban.Support this podcast: https://secure.anedot.com/franklin-news-foundation/ce052532-b1e4-41c4-945c-d7ce2f52c38a?source_code=xxxxxx

Greg Bishop reviews the latest filings in the challenge to Illinois' gun and magazine ban with the appeals court getting separate filings from the state and plaintiffs on whether to remand the case for more clear judgement from the district court, or whether there should be a continued holding at bay the district court's injunction against the law.Support this podcast: https://secure.anedot.com/franklin-news-foundation/ce052532-b1e4-41c4-945c-d7ce2f52c38a?source_code=xxxxxx

TOP NEWS | On today's Daily Signal Top News, we break down: Virginia may not be able to prevent noncitizens from illegally voting in the Nov. 5 elections. Hillary Clinton likens Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler for holding a rally at Madison Square Garden. Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, and Republican Senate Leader, Mitch […]

TOP NEWS | On today's Daily Signal Top News, we break down: Virginia may not be able to prevent non citizens from illegally voting in the Nov. 5 elections.  Hillary Clinton likens Donald Trump to Adolf Hitler for holding a rally at Madison Square Garden.  Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, and Republican Senate Leader, Mitch McConnell, slam Kamala Harris for “dangerous rhetoric” about Donald Trump. The Washington Post will not endorse a presidential candidate for the first time in 40 years. The majority of Americans support requiring photo ID to vote. Relevant Links Listen to other podcasts from The Daily Signal: https://www.dailysignal.com/podcasts/ Get daily conservative news you can trust from our Morning Bell newsletter: DailySignal.com/morningbellsubscription   Listen to more Heritage podcasts: https://www.heritage.org/podcasts Sign up for The Agenda newsletter — the lowdown on top issues conservatives need to know about each week: https://www.heritage.org/agenda MSNBC "Anti-trans attack ads haven't won the GOP anything. Dems should stop acting scared." Wapo: Republicans lean into anti-transgender message in closing weeks AP: GOP candidates use anti-trans rhetoric to rally Christian base