Podcasts about injunctions

Emma Humphreys and Laura Bushaway are joined by Guy Fetherstonhaugh KC and Imogen Dodds of Falcon Chambers to look at what lies ahead for property law during 2025.  Themes discussed include the Law Commission's consultation on the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, upcoming appeals related to the Building Safety Act 2022 in March 2025 and an interesting case on injunctions against protestors. The cases and legislation referred to in this episode of Property Patter are: Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (and Guy refers to TFS Stores Ltd v. BMG (Ashford) Ltd & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 688 – see TFS Stores Ltd v Designer Retail Outlet Centres (Mansfield) General Partner: The end of the road | Falcon Chambers) Leisurespace v. CRT Property Investments – Newcastle-Upon-Tyne Crown Court – Hearing in February 2025 University of London v. Harvie-Clark [2024] EWHC 2895 – Final Injunction to be heard in 2025 (relating to protestors) Building Safety Act 2022 Adriatic Land 5 Limited v. Long Leaseholders at Hippersley Point [2023] UKUT 271 – Court of Appeal hearing on 17 March 2025 Triathlon Homes LLP v. Stratford Village Development Partnership & Others [2024] UKFTT 26 – Court of Appeal hearing on 19 March 2025 Other references: Forthcoming book “Injunctions protecting land” by Falcon Chambers (due for publication later in 2025) The 50th anniversary of the Blundell Lecture series – this is an annual series of four lectures discussing topical issues in Property Law. Guy Fetherstonhaugh KC will be speaking at one of the lectures taking place in June 2025.  The dates for 2025 are 3, 10, 17 and 24 June.

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

Text Version of the Material The Black Box Training Store --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/mark-hatmaker/support

Extinction Rebellion's co-founder Clare Farrell and conservation scientist Dr Charlie Gardner team up once more to discuss issues and stories they feel are not getting enough airtime. They want to make sure that the latest news in science and important reports that are relevant to the climate and ecological crisis are flagged and explained in ways that are easy to understand.EPISODE 15: Insects, injunctions, and upgrading democracyThis time, Clare and Charlie discuss the worrying decline in insect populations and what that means, as well as the further suppression of climate activists by the use of private injunctions. Join Charlie, Clare, and the whole team at Upgrade Democracy 30th August - 1st September in Windsor.https://extinctionrebellion.uk/upgrade-democracy/Please, share, comment, subscribe, like, mobilise, and donate! https://chuffed.org/xr/uk 

Summary of Chapter 8: Nuisance. Chapter 8 explores the concept of nuisance within tort law, focusing on two primary types: Private Nuisance and Public Nuisance. This chapter delves into the legal principles, elements, defenses, and remedies associated with nuisance claims, providing a comprehensive understanding of how the law addresses these issues. Private Nuisance. Definition: Private nuisance involves an unreasonable interference with an individual's use and enjoyment of their property. The interference must be substantial, going beyond minor inconveniences. Elements: To establish a private nuisance claim, a plaintiff must prove unreasonable interference, causation, and actual harm or damage. Types: Private nuisance can manifest as physical damage to property, interference with comfort and convenience, or encroachment. Examples: Common examples include noise pollution, odor pollution, water damage, and light pollution. Defenses: Defenses to private nuisance include statutory authority, coming to the nuisance, prescription, and consent. Remedies: Remedies for private nuisance include injunctions, damages, and abatement. Public Nuisance. Definition: Public nuisance affects the rights of the general public rather than just an individual or small group. It involves an unreasonable interference with public rights, such as public health, safety, or access to public spaces. Elements: To prove public nuisance, the plaintiff must show interference with a public right, unreasonableness, and actual harm or danger to the public. Examples: Examples of public nuisance include environmental pollution, obstruction of public highways, noise pollution in public spaces, and maintaining dangerous premises. Defenses: Defenses to public nuisance include statutory authority, public benefit, contributory negligence, and prescription. Remedies: Remedies for public nuisance include injunctions, abatement, damages, and public compensation. Remedies for Nuisance. Injunctions: Court orders that require the defendant to stop or refrain from the nuisance-causing activity. Injunctions can be prohibitory or mandatory. Damages: Monetary compensation awarded to the plaintiff for harm suffered due to the nuisance. Damages can be compensatory, consequential, or exemplary. Abatement: A self-help remedy that allows the plaintiff to take direct action to stop the nuisance, such as removing the source of interference. Public Remedies: In public nuisance cases, remedies often involve public authorities seeking relief on behalf of the community, including public injunctions, compensation funds, and abatement orders. Key Case Studies. Sturges v Bridgman (1879): A significant case in private nuisance law that established the principle of reasonable use of land, highlighting the importance of locality in nuisance claims. Attorney General v PYA Quarries Limited (1957): A landmark case in public nuisance law that affirmed the concept of public nuisance affecting a substantial portion of the community. Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Public Limited Company (1994): A case that emphasized the importance of public remedies in addressing environmental harm caused by public nuisance. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 8: Nuisance. Chapter 8 explores the concept of nuisance within tort law, focusing on two primary types: Private Nuisance and Public Nuisance. This chapter delves into the legal principles, elements, defenses, and remedies associated with nuisance claims, providing a comprehensive understanding of how the law addresses these issues. Private Nuisance. Definition: Private nuisance involves an unreasonable interference with an individual's use and enjoyment of their property. The interference must be substantial, going beyond minor inconveniences. Elements: To establish a private nuisance claim, a plaintiff must prove unreasonable interference, causation, and actual harm or damage. Types: Private nuisance can manifest as physical damage to property, interference with comfort and convenience, or encroachment. Examples: Common examples include noise pollution, odor pollution, water damage, and light pollution. Defenses: Defenses to private nuisance include statutory authority, coming to the nuisance, prescription, and consent. Remedies: Remedies for private nuisance include injunctions, damages, and abatement. Public Nuisance. Definition: Public nuisance affects the rights of the general public rather than just an individual or small group. It involves an unreasonable interference with public rights, such as public health, safety, or access to public spaces. Elements: To prove public nuisance, the plaintiff must show interference with a public right, unreasonableness, and actual harm or danger to the public. Examples: Examples of public nuisance include environmental pollution, obstruction of public highways, noise pollution in public spaces, and maintaining dangerous premises. Defenses: Defenses to public nuisance include statutory authority, public benefit, contributory negligence, and prescription. Remedies: Remedies for public nuisance include injunctions, abatement, damages, and public compensation. Remedies for Nuisance. Injunctions: Court orders that require the defendant to stop or refrain from the nuisance-causing activity. Injunctions can be prohibitory or mandatory. Damages: Monetary compensation awarded to the plaintiff for harm suffered due to the nuisance. Damages can be compensatory, consequential, or exemplary. Abatement: A self-help remedy that allows the plaintiff to take direct action to stop the nuisance, such as removing the source of interference. Public Remedies: In public nuisance cases, remedies often involve public authorities seeking relief on behalf of the community, including public injunctions, compensation funds, and abatement orders. Key Case Studies. Sturges v Bridgman (1879): A significant case in private nuisance law that established the principle of reasonable use of land, highlighting the importance of locality in nuisance claims. Attorney General v PYA Quarries Limited (1957): A landmark case in public nuisance law that affirmed the concept of public nuisance affecting a substantial portion of the community. Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Public Limited Company (1994): A case that emphasized the importance of public remedies in addressing environmental harm caused by public nuisance. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Summary of Chapter 8: Nuisance. Chapter 8 explores the concept of nuisance within tort law, focusing on two primary types: Private Nuisance and Public Nuisance. This chapter delves into the legal principles, elements, defenses, and remedies associated with nuisance claims, providing a comprehensive understanding of how the law addresses these issues. Private Nuisance. Definition: Private nuisance involves an unreasonable interference with an individual's use and enjoyment of their property. The interference must be substantial, going beyond minor inconveniences. Elements: To establish a private nuisance claim, a plaintiff must prove unreasonable interference, causation, and actual harm or damage. Types: Private nuisance can manifest as physical damage to property, interference with comfort and convenience, or encroachment. Examples: Common examples include noise pollution, odor pollution, water damage, and light pollution. Defenses: Defenses to private nuisance include statutory authority, coming to the nuisance, prescription, and consent. Remedies: Remedies for private nuisance include injunctions, damages, and abatement. Public Nuisance. Definition: Public nuisance affects the rights of the general public rather than just an individual or small group. It involves an unreasonable interference with public rights, such as public health, safety, or access to public spaces. Elements: To prove public nuisance, the plaintiff must show interference with a public right, unreasonableness, and actual harm or danger to the public. Examples: Examples of public nuisance include environmental pollution, obstruction of public highways, noise pollution in public spaces, and maintaining dangerous premises. Defenses: Defenses to public nuisance include statutory authority, public benefit, contributory negligence, and prescription. Remedies: Remedies for public nuisance include injunctions, abatement, damages, and public compensation. Remedies for Nuisance. Injunctions: Court orders that require the defendant to stop or refrain from the nuisance-causing activity. Injunctions can be prohibitory or mandatory. Damages: Monetary compensation awarded to the plaintiff for harm suffered due to the nuisance. Damages can be compensatory, consequential, or exemplary. Abatement: A self-help remedy that allows the plaintiff to take direct action to stop the nuisance, such as removing the source of interference. Public Remedies: In public nuisance cases, remedies often involve public authorities seeking relief on behalf of the community, including public injunctions, compensation funds, and abatement orders. Key Case Studies. Sturges v Bridgman (1879): A significant case in private nuisance law that established the principle of reasonable use of land, highlighting the importance of locality in nuisance claims. Attorney General v PYA Quarries Limited (1957): A landmark case in public nuisance law that affirmed the concept of public nuisance affecting a substantial portion of the community. Cambridge Water Company v Eastern Counties Leather Public Limited Company (1994): A case that emphasized the importance of public remedies in addressing environmental harm caused by public nuisance. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

Muslim jurists infer, or justify, knowledge of Sharia regulations by primarily taking recourse to the apparent linguistic indication (ẓāhir) of the scriptural sources of the Quran and hadith corpora. These scriptural injunctions of Sharia are regarded as being based on values, with adherence to them considered beneficial to humanity and capable of mitigating harm. While Sharia's scriptural injunctions originated in the context of physical reality, contemporary society is increasingly becoming familiar with virtual environments, including virtual reality, augmented reality, video games and virtual worlds, broadly referred to as the Metaverse. As virtual reality unfolds as a multifaceted digital environment with interactive capabilities akin to the physical world, and with new user interfaces and more realistic graphics, it inevitably introduces new dimensions of ethical and religious inquiry, intersecting with technology, ethics, and fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence). For instance, Sharia has plentiful injunctions relating to actual reality including injunctions concerning sexuality, violence, deception, economics/trade, unlawful social interaction etc; however, the question that arises is whether these injunctions are also applicable and extendable to human actions in virtual reality? In navigating this uncharted terrain, Muslim jurists and theologians must grapple with a spectrum of normative dilemmas pertaining to both deontological Sharia regulations (al-aḥkām al-taklīfiyya) and situational Sharia regulations (al-aḥkām al-waḍʿiyya). As such, they must meticulously scrutinise semantic and interpretative methodologies to decern the applicability of Sharia injunctions to the complexities of virtual reality. The paper will explore the applicability and extension of scriptural injunctions to the following areas: 1. Individuals' interaction with virtual objects and the virtual economy. 2. Individuals' interaction with virtual characters, known as NPCs (non-playable characters), or AI avatars. 3. Individuals' interaction with another real person's avatar This paper embarks on a thought-provoking inquiry: to what extent can scriptural injunctions of Sharia be extended from their original context to the domain of virtual reality? If such extension is deemed plausible, what implications arise regarding the applicability of these injunctions in assessing an individual's actions, interactions, and behaviours within virtual environments? Specifically, our analysis will focus on the relevance of technical Uṣūlī hermeneutical concepts, notably exploring linguistic principles such as the primacy of unrestricted meaning (aṣālat al-iṭlāq) and the primacy of generality (aṣālat al-ʿumūm) of scripture. We seek to determine whether these linguistic principles, traditionally applied in physical reality, retain their validity within virtual reality contexts. This examination encompasses existing virtual environments as well as potential future technologies, such as brain-computer interfaces or haptic suits, which augment users' sensory experiences within the virtual realm.

Special guest Professor Alan Trammell of Washington and Lee University School of Law joins us today for a deep dive into universal injunctions and the related topics of associational standing and judicial forum shopping, and how these elements come into play in litigation challenging regulations and other government policies and actions. Recent developments in litigation critical to the consumer financial services industry have brought universal injunctions into the spotlight. We begin today's episode by providing a working definition of a universal injunction, some historical background, and examples that illustrate the benefits, effects and power of this sweeping remedy. We then turn to an in-depth discussion of objections raised by detractors; real-world concerns that may flow from universal injunctions, including a “one and done problem” cited by Professor Trammell; and various circumstances where Professor Trammell argues universal injunctions are and are not appropriate. We also cover associational standing and its interaction with universal injunction: whether and when a trade association should have standing to bring an action seeking relief for its members, and how and when the outcome of the action might expand into a universal injunction that also would benefit non-members. Our next areas of focus are forum shopping and judge shopping, particularly in the context of such litigation brought by an association. We then turn to speculation as to whether and how the U.S. Supreme Court may proceed to bring some uniformity to how the courts are dealing with these issues. Our episode concludes with comments on recent input on these topics from sources such as Congress and the Judicial Conference of the United States. Alan Kaplinsky, former practice leader and current Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, hosts this week's episode.

Sarah and David answer listener emails, covering everything from judicial federalism, to the Supreme Court's upcoming tech term, to potential SCOTUS reforms. The Agenda: —Constitutionality of the special counsel —The Nixon precedent —Independent judgment of lower courts —Predictability and the rule of law —The Texas pornography case: children's rights or adult's rights? —Injunctions as extraordinary relief —Biden's proposed SCOTUS reforms —The grossness of ethics violations Show Notes: —Atul Gawande's The Checklist Manifesto —United States v. Nixon —Advisory Opinions episode on NetChoice v. Moody —Texas' H.B. 1181 —Ginsberg v. New York —The “Angry Cheerleader” case —Judge Bibas' Third Circuit opinion on assault weapons —Federalist Papers No. 83 —The Dispatch's Project 2025 Fact-Check —Presumed Innocent Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Interim Injunctions in judicial review: key points to take away from British Standards Institution v RRR Manufacturing In the latest edition of our Public Law Podcast series, James Wood and Antonia Smith are joined by Tim Johnston of Brick Court Chambers, to discuss interim injunctions in the context of judicial review proceedings, including in the light of the recent Court of Appeal decision in British Standards Institution v RRR Manufacturing Pty Ltd, R (on the application of) [2024] EWCA Civ 530. The podcast includes a refresher from Antonia on interim injunctions in judicial review – what they are, why they are sought and the legal tests that the court applies. Having successfully represented the British Standards Institution in the appeal, Tim explains the background to the decision and discusses with James its implications, as well as practical points to take away. The podcast will be of particular interest to businesses that deal with public bodies, whether that be Government or regulators. Don't forget to subscribe to the channel to receive updates on future episodes. Speakers: James Wood (Partner), Antonia Smith (Senior Associate), Tim Johnston (Barrister, Brick Court Chambers).

The Book Review Programme – Injunctions Pertaining to the Traveller by Radio Islam

The spate of conflicting orders by courts of coordinate jurisdiction has again attracted public criticism in the country.It is no longer a question of whether or not such issues occur in Nigeria, as they have been witnessed for a while now.On today's episode of Nigeria Daily, we discuss this issue and how it affects the Nigerian judicial system.

There's not much worth discussing yet in Donald Trump's criminal trial in New York, so Sarah and David focus on the Supreme Court and a case on Idaho's law restricting gender-transition treatment for minors. Plus: Murmurs about Clarence Thomas' brief absence. The Agenda: —Election law crimes, tax crimes, and falsification of business records —Challenges of broad injunctions —Idaho's Vulnerable Child Protection Act —SCOTUS exhausted with emergency docket applications —Justices call to retire universal injunctions —January 6 arguments before SCOTUS —SCOTUS declines to intervene in a police lawsuit against a Black Lives Matter activist —Obstructions in official proceedings —Legal issues in the Iran-Israel conflict Show Notes: —Labrador v. Poe —Counterman v. Colorado —18 U.S. Code § 1512 - Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

***UNSCHEDULED EPISODE & EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW *** Following a week where a FIFA appeal over an injunction blocking the introduction of new football agent regulations was rejected by a court in Germany, 'The Agents Angle' presents an unscheduled bonus episode on the injunction and FIFAs failed appeal over the FFAR (FIFA Football Agent Regulations). Bringing you an exclusive interview with Michael Frank, one of the agents who led that challenge - a case that resulted in an injunction that arguably gave FFAR its first 'bloody nose', and prompted other such challenges and subsequent blows to FIFA's problematic agent regulation proposals. And whilst this could be perceived by some as the 'beginning of the end' for FFAR as we know it, the European 'elephant in the room' that is seemingly FIFA's 'last hope', is still lurking in the shadows and could potentially make matters far worse for everyone in the future. ⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠EMAIL : ⁠⁠questions@theagentsangle.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ====== SHOW RUNNING ORDER : (00:09) - 'Introduction to a special episode of 'The Agents Angle'. > (00:23) - FIFA Appeal Over German Injunction on FFAR Rejected. > (02:11) - Possibly The First Case to Put FIFA 'On Notice' Over FFAR, Goes 'Under The Radar'. > (05:03) - EXCLUSIVE GUEST INTERVIEW: With An Agent Behind the Successful German Injunction - An Unsung Hero for Agents on FFAR. > (06:48) - Guest Introduction (Michael Frank), and Operating as an Agent Between Brazil and Germany. > (08:11) - A Pivotal Case for All Agents and The Motivation for An Individual Agent to Take on FIFA and FFAR in Court. > (11:32) - Chances of Success vs FIFA - There Was No Alternative. > (13:02) - The Risks and Cost of a 'David vs Goliath' Battle. > (14:43) - Differences, Similarities & Cohesion Between the Various German FFAR Cases & Injunctions. > (15:47) - Building Support and Unity for the Challenge - from Agents, Agent Associations and Others. > (18:22) - Any Regrets, or Things That Would Be Done Differently With the Case. > (19:14) - How The Future Looks for FFAR, Agent Regulations and the Other Challenges. > (20:54) - Have the FFAR Injunctions in Germany Prompted Changes in the German Football Agent Market? > (22:38) - Guest Interview Roundup & The Importance of Getting a 'Coal-Face' Picture. > (24:29) - Still Need for Clarity on the Impact of This Injunction and Rejected Appeal on FFAR in Germany and Around the World. > (25:24) - The Challenge Points to FFAR From The German Injunction/Case. > (26:51) - The Confusing Enigma of 'A Link to Germany' Still Remains Outside of Germany. > (29:23) - FIFAs Last Hope? : 'The Elephant (Not Yet) in the Room', The ECJ Ruling (European Court of Justice). > (32:14) - Do Such Rulings Advantage Some Football Markets, and Disadvantage Others? > (33:33) - Could The Nightmare of FFAR Be Nearing a Conclusion, or Possibly Get Worse? > (35:16) - Closing Remarks - Like, Subscribe, Sign Off, Farewell. > (36:03) - Disclaimer > ====== RELATED LINKS : March 2024 FIFA, German association fail to overturn temporary ban on rules for football agents⁠⁠⁠ > Injunction against FIFA agent rules remains in place - German court > May 2023 Injunction granted in Germany over new FIFA regulations and entry exam > Oral Hearing in the Preliminary Injunction Proceedings Concerning the FIFA Football Agents Regulations (FFAR)⁠ > (FIFA) FFAR : FIFA Football Agent Regulations (PDF) ===== SHOW LINKS: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠EMAIL : ⁠⁠questions@theagentsangle.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠WEBSITE : ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.theagentsangle.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠LinkedIn⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Facebook⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter (X)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ====== CREDITS : Theme Music : Agent Red by Abbynoise Music from #Uppbeat : https://uppbeat.io/t/abbynoise/agent-red

1. Damages. Damages are monetary compensation awarded to a party who has suffered loss or harm due to another party's breach of contract. They are intended to put the injured party in the position they would have been in if the contract had been performed as agreed. Compensatory Damages. Definition: Compensatory damages are intended to compensate the non-breaching party for the loss of the bargain. Calculation: These damages are calculated based on the actual loss incurred and the expected benefit of the contract. Hawkins v McGee (1929): Often cited in law schools, this case involved a breach of a surgery contract, demonstrating the calculation of compensatory damages as the difference between the promised result and the actual result. Consequential Damages (Special Damages). Definition: Consequential damages are awarded for losses that do not flow directly from the breach but result from the non-breaching party's unique circumstances. Requirements: The breaching party must have known or had reason to know that such damages would result from the breach at the time the contract was made. Hadley v Baxendale (1854): This seminal case established the principle that consequential damages must be foreseeable and directly related to the breach. Punitive Damages. Rarity in Contract Law: Punitive damages are rare in contract law and are typically awarded only when the breach involves a tort, such as fraud. Purpose: They are intended to punish the breaching party and deter future misconduct. Nominal Damages. Symbolic Award: Nominal damages are a small monetary amount awarded when a breach has occurred, but the non-breaching party has not suffered a quantifiable financial loss. Significance: They are significant in establishing that a breach occurred, even if no actual damages resulted. 2. Equitable Remedies. Equitable remedies are non-monetary and are awarded when monetary damages are insufficient to remedy the harm caused by a breach. Specific Performance. Definition: Specific performance is an order by the court requiring the breaching party to perform their obligations under the contract. Applicability: It is typically used in cases involving unique goods or property, where monetary damages would be inadequate. Limitations: Courts are hesitant to order specific performance in contracts for personal services to avoid involuntary servitude. Injunctions. Definition: An injunction is a court order directing a party to do or refrain from doing a specific act. Use in Contract Law: Injunctions may be used to prevent a party from breaching a contract or to stop ongoing breaches. Rescission. Definition: Rescission is the cancellation of the contract, with both parties returning any benefits received under the contract. Grounds for Rescission: It can be granted in cases of misrepresentation, fraud, mistake, duress, or undue influence. 3. Liquidated Damages and Penalty Clauses. Liquidated Damages. Definition: Liquidated damages are a specific sum agreed upon by the parties at the time of contract formation as a reasonable estimation of damages in the event of a breach. Enforceability: To be enforceable, the amount must be a reasonable forecast of the probable loss and not a penalty. Penalty Clauses. Distinction from Liquidated Damages: Penalty clauses are not enforceable because they are intended to punish the breaching party rather than to compensate the non-breaching party for losses. Determining a Penalty: A clause is likely a penalty if the liquidated damages are excessively high compared to the actual harm. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

American Bar Association Opposition to Proposals that Restrict Asylum and Humanitarian Parole in Supplemental Funding Request Click me!Matter of M-R-M-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 757 (BIA 2023)asylum; nexus; particular social group; family membership; L-E-A-; incidental, tangential, or superficial; cartel desire for land Tellez-Ramirez v. Garland, No. 22-1168 (9th Cir. Nov. 29, 2023)possession of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver in violation of Idaho Code § 37-2732(a)(1)(A); controlled substance trafficking; INA § 101(a)(43)(B); different punishments or penalties; divisibility; Alfred; accomplice liability Babaria, et al. v. Antony Blinken, et al., No. 22-16700 (9th Cir. Dec. 1, 2023)injunction; mandamus; visa bulletin; EB-2; India; TRO; jurisdiction and review; INS § 245(B) Khanal Singh v. Garland, No. 21-1665 (1st Cir. Nov. 27, 2023)unable or unwilling to protect; need only show unable or unwilling; failure to report; government action; Nepal; MaoistsSponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!CONTACT INFORMATIONEmail: kgregg@kktplaw.comFacebook: @immigrationreviewInstagram: @immigrationreviewTwitter: @immreviewAbout your hostCase notesRecent criminal-immigration article (p.18)Featured in San Diego VoyagerDISCLAIMER:Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide legal advice. Rather, it offers general information and insights from publicly available immigration cases. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the host. The podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state.MUSIC CREDITS:"Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod - Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 Support the show

Get ready to plunge into the riveting world of legal complexities as we welcome Michael Mulligan, a seasoned barrister and Solicitor, to our podcast. Packed with insights and thought-provoking perspectives, we'll unravel the collateral consequences of committing an offence and the intricate aspects of third-party records in criminal cases. Mulligan guides us through the maze of evidence collection, especially in scenarios where the police don't possess the evidence, as in the case of a prison assault video. We also delve into the privacy concerns surrounding the people featured in such videos. Moving on, we dive headfirst into the challenging terrain of the prison disciplinary process. Mulligan sheds light on the current system where a standard of "probably" is adopted while punishing inmates, a practice that could be at odds with the constitutional right of presumption of innocence until proven guilty. We debate the fairness of this system, especially for inmates awaiting trial while presumed innocent. To add to the mix, Mulligan paints a vivid picture of the realities of prison life, underscoring how this environment influences legal proceedings. Buckle up for this intense exploration of the legal intricacies within the prison system!Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed. 

Mya has taken actions with Insulate Britain, Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil. In this episode she explains how companies and the court system use injunctions against protesters and tells us her experiences in activism, including the occupying a gantry above the M25.motorway in November 2022. We also learn about her time in prison and discuss food industries and other environmental issues. Please subscribe to our channel:  @activismuncensored  Buy us a coffee :): https://www.buymeacoffee.com/activismunc Get exclusive content and help to support us: https://patreon.com/Activismuncensored #podcast #climateemergency #climateaction #climatechange #activism #environment #sustainability #climatechange #climateemergency #gogreen #nature #ecofriendly #greenliving #conservation #renewableenergy #protectourplanet

A case has been filed in the Federal Court, seeking an injunction to stop the use of COVID mRNA jabs due to the fact that they are Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) and prior approval from the Office of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR) was neither sought nor obtained prior to their use. This is a legal requirement whenever a new product containing GMOs are to be used. The case, (File Number: VID510/2023 Julian Fidge v. Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd & Anor) is seeking to get the matter heard as quickly as possible in order for the court to understand and acknowledge the evidence, and request Injunctions against Pfizer and Moderna to prevent them from any further 'dealings' with their products in this country, which will effectively stop any additional shots being administered. Katie Ashby-Koppens, whom many of you will have heard of since she was one of the AVN's instructing solicitors in its previous cases before the Federal and High Court, is the solicitor representing Dr Julian Fidge, the applicant in this case. Julian Gillespie is also working closely with her and the rest of the legal team.  I will be speaking with Katie about the injunction and she will be explaining why she and the rest of the legal team feel we must stop administering unapproved mRNA injectables and why those who are responsible for not following legal requirements must be held accountable. To support this case with a donation - large or small - click this link And you will find the download files referred to in this episode here.

You can watch this podcast over on Youtube too https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCh7HBW11XdL1jxAyDWwG8mg The Therapy Show - Behind Closed Doors. * Do you want to know what actually happens behind closed doors of the therapy session? * Do you want to explore the mind of a master psychotherapist and demystify the therapeutic process? * Do you want to know about the various models of psychotherapy and counselling and how they are implemented within the therapeutic hour? * Do you want to know the makings of a professional psychotherapist and how to achieve that goal? Bob Cooke, an international Psychotherapist , Trainer and Supervisor, talks with Jacci Jones about the world of therapy and counselling. Jacci Jones is herself a Psychotherapist and Coach. These podcasts are for anyone interested in the questions above and psychotherapy in general. The podcasts are aimed at people who are curious in psychotherapy and counselling, how therapy works, and how therapy helps you towards a more healthy sense of self, both mentally and spiritually. The podcasts will also be of interest to students of therapy and counselling and what it takes to be a psychotherapist and counsellor in the 21st century. Bob Cooke, who is the Founder of the Manchester Institute of Psychotherapy - UK -  will through the conversations with Jacci Jones help “demystify” the therapeutic hours and therapy session.  Finally, the podcasts will also be aimed at people who might be interested in the variety of methods and techniques of the various different therapeutic models such as Transactional Analysis, Person Centred Counselling, Gestalt Psychotherapy and Integrative Psychotherapy. So please join us on this voyage of discovery and co-creative conversations. https://bobcooke.org/ https://jaccijones.co.uk/ #borderlinepersonalitydisorder #BPD #bpd #therapy #psychotherapy #livinglifebeinghuman #positivethoughts #positivemind #positivelife #dailymotivation #keepmovingforward #personalgrowth #mentalhealthawareness #helpothers #innerstrength #believeinyou #endthestigma #breakthesilence #talkaboutit #stopthestigma #mentalillnessawareness #anxietyrecovery #mentalhealthrecovery #anxietysupport #createyourownhappiness #selfhelp #anxiety #anxietyawareness #recoveryispossible #healing #gratitude #selfcare #selflove #endthestigma

Today we continue our discussion on trust injunctions part 2 at 9pm eastern 

Today we discuss how to do injunctions for your trust and personal property 

Could a legal injunction be the answer to reinstating SFU's Varsity Football Program? Guest: Glen Orris, Lawyer Filing Injunction and Director of the Simon Fraser Football Alumni Society Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week: The function of injunctions. When First Nations challenge the authority of a province or corporation to enact decisions that ignore Indigenous consent, there's a handy legal tool those non-Indigenous parties can turn to: the injunction. Basically a court order which forces someone (or someones) to immediately put an end to a particular action, an injunction is, in principle, available to anyone who can make their case. But according to research by the Yellowhead Institute, decades of injunctions reveal how, in practice, they all too often expedite the use of force against First Nations who push back against reckless resource extraction. Now a new paper extends that research to more closely exam and explain how Canada's legal system tends to favour corporate over Indigenous interests when it comes to injunctions—a tendency they argue is baked into its very core. On this episode, host/producer Rick Harp and MI regular Trina Roache (Rogers Chair in Journalism at the University of King's College) are joined by Shiri Pasternak, Associate Professor of Criminology at Toronto Metropolitan University, and Irina Cerić, Assistant Professor of Law, University of Windsor, co-authors of “‘The Legal Billy Club': First Nations, Injunctions, and the Public Interest”   Indigenous owned + operated, our podcast is 100%-audience-funded. Learn how you can support our work so we can keep our content free for all to access. // CREDITS: Our theme is 'nesting' by birocratic.

New PA Avian Influenza Outbreak Draws Additional Quarantine Order for Live Bird Production Premises; U.S. District Court Orders Injunctions Against WOTUS Final Rule in Texas and Idaho.   Hosted by Al Jones, Research Assistant—With Brook Duer, Staff Attorney—Produced & Written by Al Jones Penn State Center for Agricultural and Shale Law https://aglaw.psu.edu/ Follow us on Twitter: @AgShaleLaw Like us on Facebook: Penn State Center for Agricultural and Shale Law This material is based upon work supported by the National Agricultural Library, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Jeffrey Chan and Geraint Ho discuss frauds involving cryptocurrencies and the possible remedies available to scam victims to recover assets, including different types of injunctions. Moreover, they highlight how bankers trust orders and Norwich Pharmacal orders can be used in order to trace funds and then pursuing the scammers in court to obtain and then enforce a judgment against them, or alternatively by obtaining a vesting order or a garnishee application. They conclude the podcast episode by highlighting some UK and Hong Kong court cases, as well as talking about differences between recovering fiat and crypto currencies in the ever-developing methods Show Notes01:04 Different types of scams 04:23 Mareva injunctions 05:23 Proprietary freezing injunctions 06:43 Tracking down the funds 09:07 Obtaining and enforcing a judgement 10:35 Court cases: AA vs Persons Unknown 11:24 Court cases: Lavinia Deborah Osborne 12:47 Court cases: Ion Science 13:31 Court cases: Samara v Dan 19:00 Traceability of transactions To learn more about our Dispute Resolution practice: https://www.hugillandip.com/legal-services/dispute-resolution/

Incidental damages. Incidental damages refers to the type of legal damages that are reasonably associated with, or related to, actual damages. In American commercial law, incidental damages are a seller's commercially reasonable expenses incurred in stopping delivery or in transporting and caring for goods after a buyer's breach of contract, (UCC Sec. 2-710) or a buyer's expenses reasonably incurred, for example, searching for and obtaining substitute goods. (UCC Sec. 2-715(1)). … Injunction. An injunction is a legal and equitable remedy in the form of a special court order that compels a party to do or refrain from specific acts. "When a court employs the extraordinary remedy of injunction, it directs the conduct of a party, and does so with the backing of its full coercive powers." A party that fails to comply with an injunction faces criminal or civil penalties, including possible monetary sanctions and even imprisonment. They can also be charged with contempt of court. Counter Injunctions are injunctions that stop or reverse the enforcement of another injunction. Rationale. The injunction is an equitable remedy, that is, a remedy that originated in the English courts of equity. Like other equitable remedies, it has traditionally been given when a wrong cannot be effectively remedied by an award of money damages. (The doctrine that reflects this is the requirement that an injunction can be given only when there is "no adequate remedy at law.") Injunctions are intended to make whole again someone whose rights have been violated. Nevertheless, when deciding whether to grant an injunction, courts also take into account the interests of non-parties (that is, the public interest). When deciding whether to give an injunction, and deciding what its scope should be, courts give special attention to questions of fairness and good faith. One manifestation of this is that injunctions are subject to equitable defenses, such as laches and unclean hands. Injunctions are given in many different kinds of cases. They can prohibit future violations of the law, such as trespass to real property, infringement of a patent, or the violation of a constitutional right (for example, the free exercise of religion). Or they can require the defendant to repair past violations of the law. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/law-school/support

The post Drag Queens, Injunctions and Tax Credits appeared first on Montana Family Foundation.

Adam and Mark connect remotely to discuss a variety of cases that have been in the news lately including the recent preliminary injunction being granted to block California's AB 2098, the latest out of the Alex Murdaugh murder trial in South Carolina, news of impending body cam footage in the Paul Pelosi case and more. Please Support Our Sponsor: Fundrise.com/Doubt Watch Beyond A Reasonable Doubt and all Reasonable Doubt video content on YouTube exclusively at YouTube.com/ReasonableDoubtPodcast and subscribe while you're there.

Hosts: Leah Murray and Greg Skordas In our ongoing coverage of bills submitted for the upcoming legislature, one very interesting submission has caught Greg's eye- and he's not happy. ‘H.J.R. 2' would change the rules of granting injunctions both in the future and, interestingly, in the past. Leah and Greg discuss whether this is legislative overreach or a simple matter of checks and balances.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In This Episode It's an ACP Round Table! Join Weer'd, Erin, David, and Oddball as they exchange gifts and discuss these news stories: There was a mass shooting in Australia,  despite all the stories saying this never happens. There was also a mass shooting in Canada,  which they admit happens, but certainly not as much in America. In America there could have been a spree killing,  but a brave armed citizen shot the attacker. The CDC colluded with anti-gun groups to scrub defensive gun uses from data. Injunctions against Oregon and California anti-gun laws were made. And...  California Police are allowed to use lethal force with robots? Did you know that we have a Patreon? Join now for the low, low cost of $4/month (that's $1/podcast) and you'll get to listen to our podcast on Friday instead of Mondays, as well as patron-only content like mag dump episodes, our hilarious blooper reels and film tracks. Show Notes Wieambilla police killers obsessed with guns, father says Wieambilla police shootings Residents fearful of neighbors after Wieambilla cop shooting Mass Shooting in Toronto LBJ Quote Florida man arrested after writing ‘mass murder coming soon' Worker wounded and suspect killed in Amazon warehouse shooting in Arizona Emails Show CDC Removed Defensive Gun Use Stats After Gun-Control Advocates Pressured Officials in Private Meeting Analysis: CDC Deleting Gun Defense Stats Further Strains Fraught Relationship With Gun Owners [Member Exclusive] Judge refuses to place injunction on Road Island magazine ban Injunction Against Oregon Magazine Ban Operation Blazing Sword's Press Release regarding Oregon Ballot Measure 114 Judge Banitez beats up California over law against suing state San Francisco decides killer police robots aren't such a great idea Bear sighted in downtown Knoxville garage  

Greeting's Trashlings! Molly's in Dublin lookin' like Legolas and Sara's stuffed with croissants. Welcome back to Space Trash Podcast! Quite bits on The World Cup, a sound engineering disclaimer, and Game of Thrones before we get into the main event!7:00 Netflix "Harry & Meghan" Part 2 overshadowed by offensive op-ed in the Sun penned by Jeremy Clarkson, Meghan's latest Media bully and whether or not Queen Consort Camilla approved in advance. In defense of the Harkle's capitalizing on complaining. Half-in & half-out Royal agreements of times past that ruined H & M's original proposal is a lost oppurtunity. Harry's media misunderstanding, how NOT to get the press off your back, and how much the Royal family can actually control. Injunctions, the impact of the Royal's "keep calm and carry on" mentally vs the Leonine American actresses desire to express herself publicly.32:00 Harry is Kendall Roy. Beatrice & Euginie as examples of relatively normal people. Piers Morgan makes an appearance in a37:00 Working Royal women appear at Kate's Christmas Carol Concert with colored coats coordinated in response to Meghan's claim she was relegated to beige.42 Leo's in the Royal Family: Meghan's Sun / Mercury in Leo vs the late Queen's Leo moon and how they choose to manage their emotionality. Understanding Meghan's Libra Moon. Piers Morgan's hopeful road to knighthood.47:30 Jeremy Clarkson Astrology: Aries Sun - plot twist - Libra Moon! Mercury in Pisces triggers & communication style. Markle vs Clarkson's Libra Moon similarities and the differences between the expression of an Aries Sun vs Leo Sun. Being received vs. being heard. Tyler Perry's Cameo! Virgo Sun's Beyonce & Tyler Perry to the rescue.57 Tyler Perry Astrology : Venus in Leo, Virgo Sun (like Harry) and LIBRA RISING LIBRA MOON!! Rising Sign vs Midheaven when intuiting celebrity astrology. Tyler Perry as a case study for healing the chiron wound. 1:04 Institutional inertia creates royal blind spot around thinking in terms of the future. Unnamed sources in royal reporting, Meghan's friends Lucy Frazier & Silver Tree. 1:07:00 King Charles invites Harry & Meghan to his coronation. Charles vs Harry totally opposite childhood mommy trauma. Emotional detachment, Royal cuckolding & the future of social hierarchy according to Astrology. Pluto in Capricorn vs Pluto in Aquarius. 1:18:00 Kim K's midlife crisis style. William & Harry's birth announcements vs. the yet-to-be-seen nameless Kardashian newborn sons. Ancestors in the cold. 1:24:00 Did Harry really fly commercial? Sara's Dad sheds some light on the new celeb-studded Dreamliner flights. Andrew Armour sits with Fat Joe and his friend, and a corgi on a United Dreamliner last night and spirits were high. S/o to Will Ferrell's Elf, the Kate Chris Farley & the value of flying Premium Economy. 1:30:00 Join the Patreon for our exclusive coupon code for astrology readings 1:31:00 Relationship Astrology : Compatibility in Synastry vs Composite a chart of the Relationship itself. JOIN THE PATREON for exclusive episodes and patron-only discounts on readings & cosmic coaching with Sara!Leave a five star review on apple podcasts, too!Happy Astrolodays, Trashlings -- we love you!! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Following on from last weeks Drivers episode, this week Richard & Fiona talk about the injunctions themselves, the messages so easily passed down from parent to child that tell us who we are and who we should and shouldn't be.LinksSubmit a question The Richard Nicholls PodcastThe Brookhouse Hypnotherapy Group YouTube ChannelRichard's Social Media LinksTwitter Instagram Facebook Youtube TikTok ThreadsSupport Richard on Patreonhttps://www.patreon.com/richardnicholls

This Morning's Headlines 1. Tensions in the air 2. Reorganization plan 3. Inflation 4. Global growth 5. Injunctions rejected

In this episode of the podcast I had the pleasure of chatting with Garrett Clancy who is the director of the new Docu-Movie "Crazy Cat Lady". The film is now released and streaming on many platforms including Amazon Prime so you may have already seen it.The movie is really important for those who care about cats to understand the many issues faced in everyday life as it follows the struggles of cat overpopulation within Los Angeles however could apply to so many areas where there is a need for TNR and rescue to help keep the cat population down.The problem in Los Angeles has become worse over the years since an injunction was put in place which restricted any form of government funding being spent on spaying, neutering or any form of population control. The problem then became one for the people of L.A who had to find ways to try and solve this themselves. It has been compared to emptying the ocean with a teaspoon as we all know how prolifically cats breed and with this comes endless suffering which is unnecessary and cruel. There is no easy fix and ultimately the years of overbreeding has caused an explosion of cats being born into harsh conditions and this problem is not one which will go away overnight.Garrett follows several different people who are involved with cat rescue, TNR, veterinary care and who deeply care for these neglected cats. Each person involved in the movie is different to the other, come from different backgrounds and have various reasons why they do what they do. They all completely crush the notion of the "Crazy Cat Lady" which is why it is such a perfect title for this gem!You will see in great detail what their work involves being on the front line and the challenges they face for Garrett has been able to showcase to the viewer wonderful stories which weave together perfectly through the movie and you cannot help but warm to each character for different reasons. This movie is important not only for animal rights but to also understand the political movements which many may support but not realise they are detrimental for many reasons. Injunctions like this one are not helpful or beneficial to anyone and cause only suffering and pain, not only for the cats who are the innocent victims, but to the ones who care enough to try and do something and by doing so witness what they do whilst doing so. Please watch this movie and please consider helping cats in your local communities after doing so in any way you can because they all need help and this movie shows this very clearly and although this is L.A focused it is a worldwide issue and this movie flies the flag for this serious and complex problem on a global scale. I know you will enjoy this creative yet raw piece of work.Happy Listening!Fiona XSupport the show

Today I attempt to understand one of rap's most recent tragedies, the murder of Young Dolph, through his music, through his life, and through his environment. Along the way, I discuss Memphis and Shelby County law enforcement and its controlling interests - Memphis realty and big business. We're talking the Memphis Shelby Crime Commission, Authorization of Agency, the Multi-Gang Agency Unit, and multi-million dollar urban revitalization development projects. I speculate on Young Dolph's rap beefs, such as they are, and discuss the many facets of Dolph's life, as well as the police investigation into his murder. More importantly, I discuss the frankly anomalous treatment that one of his murderers received over and over from the Shelby County court system. I explain the uses and abuses of criminal informants in the local, state, and federal judicial systems, and attempt to come to a conclusion about who may have ordered Young Dolph to be killed. Memphis Truth Commission: https://memphistruth.org/ Songs: Fuck It - Young Dolph Talking to My Scale - Young Dolph 100 Shots by Young Dolph Get Paid - Young Dolph Preach - Young Dolph Major - Young Dolph Track Hawk - Straight Drop Blood All On It - Gucci Mane feat. Young Dolph and Key Block Large Amounts - Young Dolph I'm Assuming - Blac Youngsta Long Live Dolph - Gucci Mane Patreon/Merch: https://www.patreon.com/ProgrammedToChill https://programmed-to-chill.myshopify.com/ --- This episode is sponsored by · Anchor: The easiest way to make a podcast. https://anchor.fm/app

For real, things are not going well for Trump. We get that he's Teflon Don, but even those teflon pans get messed up if you scratch them with a knife or if they steal a bunch of top secret documents. Listen and enjoy as Andrew details the many ways Trump is having a very bad law thingy. Links: Response to Media Queries About Presidential Records, Redacted warrant affidavit, Trump's terrible motion, Cover sheet, rule 41g, Judge Slapdown, trump response, "Anomalous" Federal Jurisdiction, Rule 65. Injunctions and Restraining Orders, letter from archives, Navarro reply brief

With special guest Michael Morley, the Sheila M. McDevitt Professor of Law at Florida State Law School. Hosted by Scott Dodson.

Things you need to knowBrennans solicitors Lawyers - Property, commercial, disputes, Wills and estates Brennans solicitors Lawyers - Property, commercial, disputes, Wills and estates Brennans solicitors Lawyers - Property, commercial, disputes, Wills and estates

Garland v. Gonzalez, et al., No. 20-322 (U.S. June 13, 2022)INA § 242(f)(1); injunctions; class action; individual; statutory interpretation; detention Johnson v. Arteaga-Martinez, No. 19-896 (U.S. June 13, 2022)statutory interpretation; canon of constitutional avoidance; detention; withholding-only proceedings; reinstatement; Jennings Aguirre-Zuniga  v. Garland, No. 21-1201 (7th Cir. June 16, 2022)methamphetamine; isomers; categorical approach; internal divisibility; Ind. Code § 35-48-4-1.1; realistic probability test; legislative silence Cabrera-Ruiz v. Garland, No. 21-2085 (7th Cir. June 14, 2022)CAT; acquiesce; fear of cartels; gang tattoo; credibility; Mexico Reyes Pujols v. Garland, No. 21-1128 (1st Cir. June 14, 2022)credibility; aggregate inconsistencies; demeanor; unconscious bias; trauma survivors; Dominican Republic  Matter of D-L-S-, 28 I&N Dec. 568 (BIA 2022)particularly serious crime; final judgment; deferred adjudication; assault; Fla. Stat. § 784.041; conviction; canon on consistent usage Holmes v. Garland, No. 21-2135 (8th Cir. June 17, 2022)remand; pro se admissions & concessions; due process; fundamental fairness Donnelly v. CARRP, No. 20-4243 (2d Cir. June 14, 2022)INA § 310(c); jurisdiction; mandatory claims processing rule; exhaustion; naturalization; Ireland Molina v. Garland, No. 19-73028 (9th Cir. June 13, 2022)asylum; past persecution; threats; fleeing; terrorist accusations; cumulative harm for asylum; El Chipote; risk percentage; protesting; CAT; detention at airport; Nicaragua  Greenwood v. Garland, No. 17-72389 (9th Cir. June 16, 2022)changed country condition motion to reopen; credibility; Matter of F-S-N-; identity; sua sponte; Jamaica Marquez-Reyes v. Garland, No. 17-71367 (9th Cir. June 14, 2022)alien smuggling; INA § 212(a)(6)(E)(i); encouraged; knowing; dictionaries; cannon of constitutional avoidance; First Amendment; pro-immigration political advocacy; Equal Protection; vagueness; administrative closure *Sponsors and friends of the podcast!Kurzban Kurzban Tetzeli and Pratt P.A.Immigration, serious injury, and business lawyers serving clients in Florida, California, and all over the world for over 40 years.Docketwise"Modern immigration software & case management"Want to become a patron?Click here to check out our Patreon Page!DISCLAIMER:Immigration Review® is a podcast made available for educational purposes only. It does not provide legal advice. Rather, it offers general information and insights from publicly available immigration cases. By accessing and listening to the podcast, you understand that there is no attorney-client relationship between you and the host. The podcast should not be used as a substitute for competent legal advice from a licensed attorney in your state.MUSIC CREDITS:"Loopster," "Bass Vibes," "Chill Wave," and "Funk Game Loop" Kevin MacLeod - Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 Support the show

Stay current with Wisconsin law regarding recent changes to law related to Injunctions, specifically protective orders in Wisconsin. Read the full article here: https://www.oflaherty-law.com/learn-about-law/wisconsin-order-of-protection-changes O'Flaherty Law now serves over 105 counties across Illinois, Iowa, and Indiana. If you have any questions regarding a case or would like to speak to one of our attorneys after watching a #LearnAboutLaw video, give us a call at (630) 324-6666 or send us an email at info@oflaherty-law.com to get in contact with someone from our team. Subscribe to our channel for daily videos dedicated to all things law and leave a comment with any questions about this topic. Find us online for more legal content and to stay connected with our team - Website: https://www.oflaherty-law.com/ - LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/oflahertylaw - Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/oflahertylaw - Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/oflahertylawGroup/ **None of the content in this series is intended as paid legal advice. #Protective order can protect a wide range. It can protect the person seeking the #order. Still, it can include all people residing in the person's home benefiting from the order. This protection often includes a #provision to #safeguard the person's home and place of business‍.

David and Sarah start with a short talk about Elon Musk and his quest to buy Twitter, then talk about a fascinating 6th Circuit concurrence that's the best two-page explainer of nationwide injunctions that's available anywhere, and they wind up with an extended discussion of library book bans, and how to judge what's best for kids. Show Notes:-House passes bill to honor Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg-Arizona, et al. v. Biden, et al.-PEN America: “Banned in the USA: Rising School Book Bans Threaten Free Expression and Students' First Amendment Rights”

UVA Law professor Aditya Bamzai discusses In re Debs and the federal government's use of injunctions with hosts John Harrison and Risa Goluboff.

In this episode, Trey Cammack reviews three separate nationwide preliminary injunctions on federal mandates for COVID-19 vaccine and testing in the workplace. These separate injunctions apply to CMS's Interim Final Rule, OSHA's ETS, and the vaccine mandate established for federal contractors pursuant to Executive Order 14042. Trey discusses some practical considerations for employers in light of the current stays and litigation.

Live Group Coaching #20: Accessing Equity: Refinancing vs. HELOCs vs. Reverse Mortgage vs. Buying Mom's House vs. Living Trusts?? Plus More on Navigating Marketing, Prospecting, and Transaction Engineering with Probate Leads Full Show Notes and links to all books, content, and other resources mentioned: https://probatemastery.com/live-probate-training-podcast-20Watch with video on YouTube: https://youtu.be/XR47xV4Gb8A Join our Facebook Mastermind Group, Estate Professionals MastermindTHIS WEEK'S CHALLENGE: Probate Mastery's top performers are challenged to meet with small community banks (or even bigger banks in their area) and interview lenders until they find the right fit for their investment strategy.Time Stamps (YouTube links):0:00 How To Streamline and Scale Your Probate Real Estate Business1:09 Probate Video Marketing Strategy for Paid Facebook Advertising5:10 Brand Marketing: Choosing a Name That's Scalable7:05 Making Sure Your Video Advertising is Fully Accessible7:34 Call to Actions and Customer Testimonials: Where To Incorporate Them9:10 How To Name Your Facebook Group For Maximum Visibility10:53 Corey Richardson's Closing Opportunities13:04 Accessing Equity: Refinancing vs. HELOCs vs. Reverse Mortgage vs. Buying Mom's House vs Living Trusts17:47 Reverse Mortgage and Foreclosure: Using TROs and Injunctions to Stop a Probate Property from going into Foreclosure?24:10 Private Money Lenders: How Creative Financing Can Save A Family Equity and Provide Capital for Your Next Investment26:02 Finding the Right Lender: Community Banks and Big Banks That Hold Portfolio Loans28:40 Joint Tenancy and Reverse Mortgages: Surviving Spouse Options for Keeping or Selling the House31:33 Handling Objections: How to Motivate Multiple Siblings to SellCorey Takes 5 Listings in One Week! Check out his success story.Estate Professionals Mastermind content is recorded via zoom and can be viewed in video format in the Estate Professionals Mastermind community, YouTube, or our podcast archive.Take Chad Corbett's Probate Mastery coursePre-Roll Information: Join our Facebook Group: Estate Professionals MastermindCheck out ProbateMastery.com for the probate certification course and more content.

Listen in to the LEC's virtual Symposium on the Economics and Law of Civil Remedies: Developments in Damages and Nationwide Injunctions to hear a panel discussion on "An Update on the Ongoing Debate over Nationwide Injunctions, Especially with a Change in Presidential Administration" featuring:  Samuel L. Bray, Professor of Law, The Notre Dame University Law School Scott A. Keller, Former Solicitor General State of Texas (2015-2018) Amy Marshak, Senior Counsel, Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection and Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center Michael T. Morley, Associate Professor, Florida State University College of Law Moderator: Trevor N. McFadden, District Judge, US District Court for the District of Columbia   To watch the full video recording of the panel discussion, click here.

This episode discusses cases and procedures in appealing preliminary injunctions. Appellate Specialist Jeff Lewis' biography. Appellate Specialist Tim Kowal's biography .Cases mentioned in this episodeABBA Rubber Co. v. Seaquist (1991) 235 Cal.App.3d 1 Abbott Laboratories v. The Superior Court (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1 (2018)Amgen v. Health Care Services (2020) 47 Cal.App.5th 716 Ashburn v. AIG Fin'l Advisors, Inc. (2015) 234 Cal.App.4th 79Bearden v. Ballad Health (2020) DOE v. Regents of the University of California (2020) 51 Cal.App.5th 531Fletcher v. Superior Court (2002) 100 Cal.App.4th 386Global Protein Products, Inc. v. Le (2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 352Hayworth v. City of Oakland (1982) 129 Cal.App.3d 723Ligon v. New York (2013) 925 F.Supp.2d 478Luckett v. Panos (2008) 161 Cal.App.4th 77Newsom v. Superior Court of Sutter County (July 10, 2020, No. C092070) People v. HomeAdvisor (May 14, 2020 No. A154960)People v. Tyson Theodore Mayfield (2020) 50 Cal.App.5th 1096PV Little Italy v. MetroWork Condo Association (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 132 (2012)Welsch v. Goswick (1982) 130 Cal.App.3d 398Yost v. Forestiere (Jun. 29, 2020 No. F078582) Other Resources Mentioned in the Episode

“If I lived in China, or even Russia, or any Totalitarian country…maybe I could understand some of these illegal Injunctions. Maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic 1st Amendment privileges, because they haven't committed themselves to that, over there. But somewhere I read, of the Freedom of Assembly. Somewhere I read, of the Freedom of Speech. Somewhere I read, of the Freedom of Press. Somewhere I read, that the greatness of America is The Right to Protest For Right! And so just as I say we aren't gon' let any dogs or water hoses turn us around, we aren't gonna let any injunction turn us around!” - Martin Luther King Jr. Make sure you visit www.istandardproducers.com to check out our full Credit Checks and Chopping Block reviews... and, as always SUPPORT YOUR LOCAL CREATORS. This episode was recorded at Twelve Studios in Atlanta, GA. Hosted by @Cizzurp215 and @SaintBoogie Produced by Anatomē for @istandard --- Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/thechopblockpod/support