Equitable transfer of the risk of a loss, from one entity to another in exchange for payment
POPULARITY
9 episodes with insurer
9 episodes with insurer
12 episodes with insurer
7 episodes with insurer
6 episodes with insurer
3 episodes with insurer
4 episodes with insurer
3 episodes with insurer
2 episodes with insurer
4 episodes with insurer
6 episodes with insurer
3 episodes with insurer
2 episodes with insurer
54 episodes with insurer
2 episodes with insurer
2 episodes with insurer
3 episodes with insurer
3 episodes with insurer
Welcome to The Chrisman Commentary, your go-to daily mortgage news podcast, where industry insights meet expert analysis. Hosted by Robbie Chrisman, this podcast delivers the latest updates on mortgage rates, capital markets, and the forces shaping the housing finance landscape. Whether you're a seasoned professional or just looking to stay informed, you'll get clear, concise breakdowns of market trends and economic shifts that impact the mortgage world.In today's episode, we go through some surprising insurance trends. Plus, Robbie sits down with Rob Chrisman to discuss how the mixed messages from the Trump administration about the future of the GSEs are impacting those in the mortgage industry. And we close with a look at the latest predictions about the demise of the economy.Today's episode is sponsored by CreditXpert—the credit optimization platform that helps today's top mortgage originators and more than 60,000 mortgage professionals qualify more applicants, make more competitive offers, reduce LLPA premiums and close more loans. Download your free copy of the credit optimization playbook today at creditxpert.com/chrisman.
In this special episode of ‘Alongside' – the third in the 'Taking on tomorrow, together' series, host Kait Borsay is joined by Managing Director Paul Jennings and Chief Financial Officer Nick Jelley. They discuss NorthStandard's latest Annual Review results, delve into significant incidents from the past year, and explore the impact of global geopolitical events on the shipping industry. The episode highlights the company's financial stability, its strategic vision to become the marine insurer of choice, and its initiatives to invest in its people and future innovations. 00:26 Meet the Guests: Paul Jennings and Nick Jelley00:58 Jeremy Grose's Adventure Race02:09 Impact of the Baltimore Harbour Incident04:12 Global Geopolitics and Shipping05:58 Annual Results Overview12:16 Financial Stability and Future Vision13:11 Strategic Goals and Initiatives16:10 Investing in People and Future Projects
12 - Australia still needs a government insurer! by Australian Citizens Party
At a fundamental level we all know that Insurance is a force for good in the world. You pay a relatively small premium and if your house burns down, an Insurer will help you rebuild it. But I'm sure most of us will at some time in their careers have felt that what we do day-to-day in our insurance jobs has become increasingly removed and disconnected from those basic principles. Well today I'm talking to someone who is trading a highly successful career in our insurance world for a new career concentrating 100% on the good that the deployment of the knowhow and structures that the insurance industry has developed can have on the poorest across the globe. Charlie Langdale is CEO of Humanity Insured, a charity that deploys its funds to subsidise insurance premiums for communities in low-income countries. The Aid and Development community is very reactive and only tends to arrive and try and pick up the pieces after a major loss event has happened. This podcast goes right to the heart of the economics of aid and development. In it Charlie shows how Insurance can be a force for good and help lift people out of poverty and eventually convert them into growing insurance customers of the future – all because of a little pump-priming from organisations like Humanity Insured. In a world filled with gloomy headlines it's easy to despair and feel that some of the problems facing humanity are simply insurmountable. I guarantee that half an hour with Charlie will inspire you and put a spring in your step. For not only does he believe that the problems can be solved with the economic resources we already have at our disposal, but that it's our industry that has already developed a lot of the solutions the world is going to need. Whether its responding to extreme weather or even saving endangered species, Charlie has a story to tell about how insurance is already helping hundreds of thousands of people. NOTES & ABBREVIATIONS: The FCDO is the UK's Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office LINKS: https://humanityinsured.org/ Do get involved. New ideas can be as important as funds. We thank our naming sponsor AdvantageGo: https://www.advantagego.com
What does it take to transform restaurant insurance into a data-rich, tech-forward experience that truly supports small businesses?In this episode of Building Tomorrow's Insurer, host and Kanopi CEO Nigel Fellowes-Freeman is joined by Bill Deemer, Head of Insurance at Rainbow, to explore how his team is redesigning small business insurance from the ground up. From launching in high-risk markets like Texas to building a platform tailored for restaurants and service-based SMEs, Rainbow is bringing discipline and innovation back to underwriting.Tune in as Bill shares:Why restaurants were Rainbow's first frontier—and what they learnedHow deeper, industry-specific data unlocks better coverage and pricingThe role of agents, relationships, and real-world insight in commercial insuranceWhy Rainbow's approach to prevention and risk visibility goes beyond the claims processWhat's next: scaling to beauty, wellness, and beyondFor anyone working in commercial lines, MGA growth, or insurance tech strategy, this is a must-listen episode on how to build coverage that truly serves small businesses.
Lowenstein Sandler's Insurance Recovery Podcast: Don’t Take No For An Answer
In this episode of "Don't Take No For An Answer," host Eric Jesse and Heather Weaver from Lowenstein's Insurance Recovery Group invite guest Michael Young, partner at Reichardt Noce and Young, to discuss an insurer's duty to indemnify, a lesser discussed but equally important coverage obligation as the duty to defend. The conversation notes key differences between the insurer's duty to indemnify and duty to defend, emerging approaches that courts have adopted to determine whether an insurer must pay in whole or in part for a judgment entered against or settlement reached with its insured, and ways insurers and policyholders can work together to encourage settlement of a lawsuit with duty to indemnify strategies and considerations. Speakers: Eric Jesse, Partner, Insurance RecoveryHeather Weaver, Counsel, Insurance RecoveryMichael Young, Partner, Reichardt Noce & Young LLC
In this episode, Jakob Emerson, Associate News Director at Becker's Healthcare, joins Scott Becker to discuss surprising Q1 trends in the insurance market, including the rise of niche health plans and challenges facing major players like UnitedHealth and Aetna. They also dive into a DOJ lawsuit against major insurers over alleged Medicare Advantage kickback schemes.
In an era where insurance must do more than protect—it must empower—how are insurers rethinking the role of data, compliance, and design?In this episode of Building Tomorrow's Insurer, host and Kanopi CEO Nigel Fellowes-Freeman is joined by Aurora Voss, co-founder and CEO of Zemble, to explore how insurers can move from monolithic systems to modular, intelligent experiences. From reimagining claims workflows to embedding governance into the fabric of insurance tech, Aurora shares a bold and deeply practical vision for the future.Tune in as Aurora unpacks:Why data isn't just for assessing risk—it's the foundation for stronger customer relationshipsHow embedded governance can unlock innovation rather than restrict itWhat it takes to scale compliance in a digital-first worldThe “Zemble Manifesto” and how it's reshaping how insurers work and thinkHer founder journey—from venture capital to building insurance infrastructure from the ground upWhether you're rethinking your claims stack or designing the next-gen data layer, this is a must-listen for insurance leaders ready to break the mold.
Welcome to Insurance Covered, the podcast that covers everything insurance. In this episode Peter is once again joined by Crum & Forster CEO, Marc Adee and they discuss the fall and rise of an American insurer and Marc's book; 'The Once and Future C&F'.In this conversation, Peter Mansfield and Mark Adee discuss the history of Crum and Forster, an American insurer, focusing on its rise, fall, and eventual resurgence. They explore the origins of the company, its innovative business model, the challenges it faced during the 1960s and 70s, and the lessons learned from its eventual sale in 1982. The discussion highlights the complexities of the insurance industry and the importance of understanding market cycles and financial discipline. In this conversation, Marc Adee discusses his experiences and insights from his time in the insurance industry, particularly focusing on his tenure at Crum & Forster and the challenges faced by Xerox in the insurance sector. He emphasises the importance of corporate culture, the need for stewardship in business, and the lessons learned from navigating market challenges. Adee also reflects on the evolution of Crum & Forster and the significance of understanding the insurance business deeply.You can download a free copy of the book here.We hope you enjoyed this episode, if you did please subscribe to be notified when new episodes release.keywords Crum and Forster, insurance history, American insurer, Marc Adee, Peter Mansfield, Fairfax Group, insurance industry, corporate structure, market cycles, financial discipline, Xerox, insurance, Crum & Forster, corporate culture, leadership, business strategy, financial services, market challenges, stewardship, insurance industry Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The Cybercrime Wire, hosted by Scott Schober, provides boardroom and C-suite executives, CIOs, CSOs, CISOs, IT executives and cybersecurity professionals with a breaking news story we're following. If there's a cyberattack, hack, or data breach you should know about, then we're on it. Listen to the podcast daily and hear it every hour on WCYB. The Cybercrime Wire is brought to you Cybercrime Magazine, Page ONE for Cybersecurity at https://cybercrimemagazine.com. • For more breaking news, visit https://cybercrimewire.com
Insurance only works if we can all keep up with the rapid changes being brought on by climate change. In this podcast, Max Rudolph explores the challenges insurers face with wildfires, hurricanes, and the struggle to set fair premiums. They discuss the need for community resilience, regulatory shifts, and innovative predictive modeling. Join them to discover how homeowners can protect themselves in an unpredictable market and why sustainable practices are essential for the future of insurance.
In today's digital world, cyber risk isn't just an IT problem—it's a business problem, and a growing one at that.In this episode, host and Kanopi CEO Nigel Fellowes-Freeman speaks with Karen Stephens, CEO of BCyber, about the shifting landscape of cybersecurity and what insurers, brokers, and business owners must do to stay ahead of emerging threats.With over two decades in financial services and cybersecurity, Karen brings sharp insight, practical advice, and a dose of dry wit as she breaks down the human, emotional and financial cost of cyber breaches—and how to mitigate them.
Insurance is no longer just about policies—it's about meeting customers where they are. As embedded insurance transforms how coverage is delivered, are insurers keeping pace with shifting expectations?In this episode of Building Tomorrow's Insurer, host and Kanopi CEO Nigel Fellowes-Freeman sits down with Angus McDonald, CEO of CoverGenius, to unpack the company's remarkable journey. From disrupting traditional distribution to building partnerships with global tech giants, CoverGenius has redefined what it means to deliver protection.Tune in as Angus shares:The vision behind CoverGenius and its rise as a global embedded insurance leaderKey lessons from scaling a tech-first insurance businessHow embedded insurance is shaping the future of customer protectionThe challenges insurers face in adapting to this new model—and how to overcome themFor insurance leaders looking to innovate, this episode is a must-listen. Don't miss this deep dive into the CoverGenius success story with Angus McDonald.
During an on-stage conversation between insurance industry leaders at the 2023 10X Los Angeles Summit, former California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones described the need to mitigate the impacts of climate-driven weather in order for the state to remain insurable. His point has been clearly illustrated by news headlines the last couple years since the summit. Among the greatest risks to homes in California is the surging frequency and intensity of wildfire. Based on recent trends, the cost of recovery from these disasters is continually outpacing the viability of the insurance business. Fifteen of the 20 largest wildfires in California history have occurred since 2000, and the state's record for annual disaster costs has been broken three times over in the last seven years. Earlier this year, the Palisades, Eaton, and Hurst fires blazed for weeks on the outskirts of Los Angeles and together became the single costliest fire event in state history. Insurer losses are estimated between $28 to $52 billion—but the actual total economic loss is estimated to be around five to nine times that amount. The record-breaking cost of extreme weather in recent decades has also had regulators in Louisiana and Florida searching for solutions to insurance industry pullbacks in their states—while the country at large watches closely for answers as disaster risks everywhere visibly increase. In this episode, Dave Jones reflects on recent regulatory changes to try to lure major underwriters back into the California market and the potential courses of action for regulators and the industry as climate-driven losses trend upward each year. Related articles and resources: Watch Dave's discussion with insurance executives at our 2023 summit in Los Angeles “Climate change increased the likelihood of wildfire disaster in highly exposed Los Angeles area” (worldweatherattribution.org, Jan. 2025) “Powell predicts a time when mortgages will be impossible to get in parts of US” (Yahoo Finance, Feb. 2025) “California's 2018 wildfires caused $150 billion in damages: study” (Phys.org, Dec. 2020) Related podcasts: “10X Insurance Series: California Attempts to Reverse Insurer Exodus” (Ten Across Conversations, Oct. 2023) “10X Insurance Series: Louisiana Grapples with Growing Natural and Financial Risk” (Ten Across Conversations, Oct. 2023) “10X Insurance Series: Retaining Florida's Insurability Has National Implications” (Ten Across Conversations, Oct. 2023) Credits: Host: Duke Reiter Producer and editor: Taylor Griffith Music by: Research and support provided by: Kate Carefoot, Rae Ulrich, and Sabine Butler
Stephen and Claudette Emond lived in a home on the Ottawa River that was located in the catchment area of the Mississippi Valley Conservation Authority (“MVCA”). They had purchased a standard form residential homeowners' insurance policy from Trillium Mutual Insurance Company. The Emonds' home was deemed a total loss as a result of flooding in April 2019. Although the insurer acknowledged coverage for the loss under the policy, the parties could not agree on what, if any, costs of replacement of the insureds' home were excluded from coverage under the policy. The Emonds claimed that the Guaranteed Rebuilding Cost (“GRC”) coverage endorsement fully guaranteed their rebuilding costs. Trillium acknowledged that the GRC coverage applied to replace the insureds' home, but took the position that the costs to be incurred to comply with the MVCA's regulation policies and other by-laws and regulations enacted after the original building of the home were excluded from coverage by an exclusion in the policy. The application judge accepted the Emonds' position that the GRC coverage was intended to guarantee the costs of rebuilding their home, without any limitation of coverage resulting from the operation of any rule, regulation, by-law, or ordinance. The Ontario Court of Appeal allowed the insurer's appeal and concluded that the exclusion applied to exclude coverage for increased costs to comply with any law, including by-laws and regulations such as the MVCA regulation policies. Argued Date 2025-03-18 Keywords Insurance — Homeowner's insurance — Home deemed total loss as a result of flooding — Home insured through standard form residential homeowners' insurance policy including endorsement for guaranteed rebuilding cost — Policy containing exclusion for increased costs of replacement due to operation of any law regulating construction of buildings — Insurer disputing homeowners' claim for coverage for costs of complying with regulatory policies to rebuild home — Application judge concluding coverage included and Court of Appeal concluding coverage excluded — What is the correct interpretation of the guaranteed rebuilding cost endorsement? — Whether an exclusion clause in the basic policy can be used to deny expanded coverage granted by the guaranteed rebuilding cost endorsement. Notes (Ontario) (Civil) (By Leave) Language English Audio Disclaimers This podcast is created as a public service to promote public access and awareness of the workings of Canada's highest court. It is not affiliated with or endorsed by the Court. The original version of this hearing may be found on the Supreme Court of Canada's website. The above case summary was prepared by the Office of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada (Law Branch).
AMI Insurance has received almost 700 claims relating to vehicle theft and attempted theft since the start of the year for Auckland alone. Finn Blackwell has more.
In this episode of Life Accelerated, host Olivier LaFontaine sits down with Michael New, Chief Technology Officer at ClearView, to explore the realities of large-scale digital transformation in life insurance. Michael shares his experiences leading ClearView's migration to a modern policy admin platform, tackling legacy system challenges, and ensuring data readiness for a seamless transition. As an ultra-marathon runner, he draws compelling parallels between endurance sports and the long, strategic journey of digital modernization. From navigating data complexities to redefining the advisor experience, this conversation highlights the patience, precision, and leadership required to build a future-ready insurer. Key Takeaways: Rushing into transformation without a solid data foundation creates unnecessary roadblocks. A realistic, milestone-driven roadmap is essential for managing expectations and delivering long-term impact. Digital innovation isn't just about efficiency—it's about enhancing customer and advisor experiences meaningfully. Jump Into the Conversation: (00:00) The marathon mindset: How endurance running parallels digital transformation (03:59) Navigating ClearView's large-scale platform migration and its challenges (07:41) Addressing legacy data complexities and the role of SMEs in data integrity (12:52) Lessons learned from previous migrations: Why data baseline matters (16:57) ClearView's strategic shift: Simplifying operations to become a dynamic challenger (24:00) Balancing technology expectations and business realities in digital transformation (27:49) Future focus: Enhancing advisor experience with a stronger digital presence Resources: Connect with Michael New: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-new-1959381/ Check out ClearView: https://www.clearview.com.au/ Connect with Olivier: https://www.linkedin.com/in/olivierlafontaine/
Clement Manyathela speaks to Sharon Paterson, the CEO of Infiniti Insurance about how a lack of a tracking device can influence an insurance claim.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Anand Patel, Rajeev Janagal and Jonathan Aubrey-Smith discuss what is risk scoring and how this method helps insurers in making better decisions
James and Mitch discuss: - Where can you get the best coffee in Australia? - RBA cuts rates (!) - HECS debts being excluded from borrowing calculations. - Insurer bashing – are they taking the mickey? - Buy/Sell - Who am I? Get in touch jamesf@jlf.com.au | mitchells@jlf.com.au All views and opinions discussed are that of the hosts. They do not endorse reliability or accuracy of their information. Not for commercial use.
Australia correspondent Bernard Keane explores the scandal over the Daily Telegraph's attempted undercover story into "what it's like being Jewish in Sydney".
In this episode of Talking Tech, Charlie Samolczyk is joined by John Heidelberger and Peter Harrison to discuss what externalised rating is along with some of the key challenges and best practices insurers should consider in this area.
0:08 — John Nichols, National Affairs Correspondent for the Nation on the numerous unfavorable court rulings enjoining the Trump Administration and the defining characteristics of a constitutional crisis 0:34 — Joel Laucher, insurance expert and Program Specialist at United Policyholders explains the $1 Billion assessment made by the California FAIR plan in the aftermath of the southern California wildfires. The post What Defines a Constitutional Crisis?; California Insurer Gets $1 Billion Bailout After LA Fires appeared first on KPFA.
And Biglaw begins adjusting to Trump era. ------ If United Healthcare considered spending more on a cancer patient and less on lawyers to sue doctors for pointing out they didn't spend on the cancer patient they wouldn't be getting so thoroughly dragged online. While the mockery they're getting is funny, this underscores the dangerous weaponization of defamation (and also copyright) laws, allowing deep pocketed antagonists to squelch criticism by filing low merit suits. Also, a Biglaw firm quietly scrubbed its website of a lot of its "diversity" language as the government steps up threats against private companies. And the ABA thinks the Supreme Court needs ethical rules. Chapters 0:00 Small Talk 9:50 UnitedHealthcare 15:46 DEI 21:03 Top Law Firm Representing Trump 23:47 ABA's Stance on Supreme Court Ethics
AP's Lisa Dwyer reports on a huge shortfall for a California insurance fund.
And Biglaw begins adjusting to Trump era. ------ If United Healthcare considered spending more on a cancer patient and less on lawyers to sue doctors for pointing out they didn't spend on the cancer patient they wouldn't be getting so thoroughly dragged online. While the mockery they're getting is funny, this underscores the dangerous weaponization of defamation (and also copyright) laws, allowing deep pocketed antagonists to squelch criticism by filing low merit suits. Also, a Biglaw firm quietly scrubbed its website of a lot of its "diversity" language as the government steps up threats against private companies. And the ABA thinks the Supreme Court needs ethical rules. Chapters 0:00 Small Talk 9:50 UnitedHealthcare 15:46 DEI 21:03 Top Law Firm Representing Trump 23:47 ABA's Stance on Supreme Court Ethics Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
California's FAIR plan -- the home insurer of last resort -- needs a billion dollars to pay out claims from the firestorms. The Army Corp Of Engineers, FEMA, and local leaders have gathered as they were given the green light to start clearing out debris for hundreds of homes in the Palisades. And SoCal Edison is being accused of tampering with evidence from the Eaton Fire.
Ricardo Lara recently changed the rules so ratepayers may be on the hook if the Insurer of last resort goes underSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
International Bankruptcy, Restructuring, True Crime and Appeals - Court Audio Recording Podcast
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
Gina Hardy joins the Arch MI PolicyCast to discuss the benefits and challenges her associations have in the residual insurance market.
Terry and Jeetz talk about the 3 weirdest stories of the day! It's called the 533! Today includes: Officials encourage people to keep their urns, LA Rams To Play In Stadium Named After Insurer who cut wildfire claims, cop crashes car watching porn!
6pm: Guest - Sean Northrop - Property Developer whom Cle Elum owes $20 million // Cle Elum considers bankruptcy amid $22M debt in development dispute // Los Angeles Wildfires Leave at Least Two Dead as Unchecked Blazes Intensify // Steve Guttenberg Jumped Into Action When Wildfire Hit // California Insurer Canceled Policies Months Before Los Angeles Wildfires // John’s Wonderful Night Out in Seattle
Description: The shares of major healthcare insurance companies took a fall after President-elect Donald Trump announced he intends to reform the industry and “knock out the middleman.” Among the companies that saw drops in their shares were UnitedHealth Group Inc., CVS Health Corp., and others. Trump's comments come at an important time, following the recent shooting death of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, which is an operating division of UnitedHealth Group, the largest single health carrier in the United States.Watch our special report 'CCP Targets Americans Using Disinformation and Lawfare' here: https://ept.ms/CCPPlotUncoveredCR
UnitedHealthcare CEO's killing shows why companies spend millions to protect their top executives. Insurer reverses policy that would have limited anesthesia periods. LA Council adopts sanctuary city ordinance to thwart Trump immigration enforcement.
Did you know that putting your home in a trust can impact your homeowner's insurance? In our latest episode, we dive into the crucial question: Does your insurer know your home is in your trust? Tune in to Episode 309 for insights that could save you from potential pitfalls!
As insurers tighten their purse strings and adopt more stringent policies, shop owners must navigate this evolving landscape with adaptability and resilience. As Tiffany Menefee, president of Pronto Body Shop in El Paso, Texas, notes in her December column, by focusing on strong customer relationships, meticulous documentation, and strategic business practices, repair shops can weather the storm and continue to thrive. She joins the CollisionCast to talk more about this and how shops can partner with what some may see as an unlikely ally, the personal injury industry, who also face some of the same challenges but have more influence to help change the industry.
Today your Chef Dwayne Stein is joined by The Queen of Insurnce Collette Biedenkopf. The Queen and the Chef discuss the current state of Insurnace in the State of Louisiana. Specificaly the Insurer of last resort....now the only resort...Citizens Insurance. Also they talk about Hurricane coverage and tips for home owners...such as taking a video of your belongings before the strom. Finally the discuss Flood Insurance in regards to Hurricane Helene and it's devastating effects in Georgia, Tennessee, and the Carolinas.If you want to get in touch with Collette Biedenkopf, the Queen of Insurance visit her at https://agentpages.twfg.com/biedins/ All that and more on Mortgage Gumbo w/ Dwayne Stein 9/28/24dway
Charlie Weston, Irish Independent personal finance editor // Brian O'Connell, RTÉ Reporter
Ian Guider, columnist with the Business Post joined Matt for Friday's business news.They discussed how a new health insurer, Level Health, has launched in Ireland. The move is expected to boost competition within the market.Hit the ‘Play' button on this page to hear the conversation.
This time on Code WACK! Why have healthcare giants like United Health and Cigna been purging some of their commercial accounts and pivoting to government-funded programs like Medicare Advantage and Medicaid? How is this affecting patients? And what is the government doing about it? To find out, we spoke with Wendell Potter, a former health insurance industry executive turned whistleblower, the New York Times bestselling author of Deadly Spin and the president of the Center for Health and Democracy. He's also the author of the Substack newsletter HEALTH CARE un-covered which chronicles out-of-control profiteering in U.S. health care, its impact on everyday Americans, and potential policy solutions. Check out the Transcript and Show Notes for more!
This time on Code WACK! Why have healthcare giants like United Health and Cigna been purging some of their commercial accounts and pivoting to government-funded programs like Medicare Advantage and Medicaid? How is this affecting patients? And what is the government doing about it? To find out, we spoke with Wendell Potter, a former health insurance industry executive turned whistleblower, the New York Times bestselling author of Deadly Spin and the president of the Center for Health and Democracy. He's also the author of the Substack newsletter HEALTH CARE un-covered which chronicles out-of-control profiteering in U.S. health care, its impact on everyday Americans, and potential policy solutions. Check out the Transcript and Show Notes for more!
A New Zealand insurer has changed its policy to cover majority of the cost of cochlear implants.
On this episode of the Scouting For Growth podcast, Sabine VdL talks to Ola Jacob, Business Development Director for the UK & Ireland at Descartes Underwriting, a specialist Parametric Insurance MGA and Insurer. On today's episode, Ola will provide an educational deep dive into the world of parametric insurance. He'll explain what parametric insurance is, how it differs from traditional insurance, and why it is gaining traction as a data-driven solution to cover risks like natural catastrophes. Ola will share real-world examples of how parametric insurance has provided significant value to corporate clients and industries adopting this innovative approach as part of their risk management strategies. KEY TAKEAWAYS When I started in insurance I didn't know much about it, but when you strip it down to its bare bones it's the idea of making good on your promise. That was a big draw for me because it felt altruistic. When it's done right, and someone receives their cheque for the claim after it's all gone smoothly is the best feeling in the world. The stigma we get from the bad experiences is what damages the image of insurance. The best solutions are ones that people don't know about, and ones that don't get in the way and make things better. If you're going to create a solution that helps it should have another login or portal, something clunky that gets in people's way, it should be cool and slick like a Rolex. Innovation can't be done on your own, when I won the Insurance Times Technology Champion of the Year Award, it was a reflection of the whole industry and all the people I've met on my journey that have been open to change. I don't think we've done it yet, I think there's so much more change to be had and I'm excited to see how we can push further. The biggest problem in parametric insurance is the name, because it sounds so complicated. But it's actually the simplest form of insurance there is. The Mantra behind all parametric policies is: When a pre-agreed parameter is met then a pre-agreed pay out is made. This forms the backbone of all parametric contracts. That differs from indemnity because indemnity is a promise to put you back in the same condition you were in before the loss, parametric is pretty much black and white. BEST MOMENTS ‘If you add parametric to indemnity it could really be a game changer that could change the face of how we do insurance forever.' ‘I've always wanted to come in and do something to help change insurance for the better with technology.' ‘In parametric products, the parameters must be measurable and independent, something that's not controllable by somebody else, like weather.' ‘Clients recover, using parametric insurance, with 10X less limit than they'd previously because of the speed of payout. And they'd planned how they would use that payout because they already knew what they were going to get if this event happened.' ABOUT THE GUEST Ola Jacob is the Business Development Director for the UK & Ireland at Descartes Underwriting, a specialist Parametric Insurance MGA and Insurer covering Natural Catastrophe exposure globally. With over 12 years of experience in the London Market Insurance Sector, Ola has worked on UK Retail, Product Recall, Terrorism, Onshore Energy and Parametric insurance. Ola's background in Human-Computer Interaction and Psychology has fueled his passion for developing new approaches to risk transfer and managing risk for clients. As one of the pioneers of parametric insurance, Ola helped build a distribution strategy for one of the first successful parametric solutions in the London Market. In 2024, he was named Insurance Times Technology Champion of the Year for his innovative work. LinkedIn ABOUT THE HOST Sabine is a corporate strategist turned entrepreneur. She is the CEO and Managing Partner of Alchemy Crew a venture lab that accelerates the curation, validation, & commercialization of new tech business models. Sabine is renowned within the insurance sector for building some of the most renowned tech startup accelerators around the world working with over 30 corporate insurers, accelerated over 100 startup ventures. Sabine is the co-editor of the bestseller The INSURTECH Book, a top 50 Women in Tech, a FinTech and InsurTech Influencer, an investor & multi-award winner. Twitter LinkedIn Instagram Facebook TikTok Email Website
Shiyan Koh, Managing Partner of Hustle Fund, and Jeremy Au discussed: 1. Singapore Vetoes Allianz $4.4B Insurer Acquisition: They discussed the Singapore government's veto of the NTUC Income and Allianz merger, primarily over concerns of an undisclosed plan for $2B capital withdrawal post-merger. This case illustrated the delicate balance required between pursuing financial strategies and adhering to a social mission, especially in a cooperative structure transitioning to a corporatized entity. 2. NTUC 1961 History & Income Cooperative Mandate: They expanded on the broader historical role of National Trade Unions Congress with the People's Action Party since 1961, vs. the now-defunct leftist Singapore Association of Trade Unions (SATU). The central workers' union is the parent organization of NTUC Enterprise, which is a holding entity of multiple cooperatives and mission-based corporations like NTUC Fairprice (supermarkets), First Campus (childcare) and Income (insurance). They referenced analysis on other successful single-country insurer cooperatives benchmarks from former NTUC Enterprise & NTUC Income CEO Tan Suee Chieh. 3. Trump vs. Kamala Impact on Southeast Asia: Jeremy and Shiyan debated how the US election's potential outcomes could lead to dramatically different White House policies on free trade, capital gains and China relations - leading to significant ripple effects on Singapore & Southeast Asia. This highlights the deep interconnectivity of American political decisions with regional economic outcomes. Jeremy and Shiyan also touched on the impact of US interest rate cuts on global markets, the acceleration of Chinese companies entering Southeast Asia, and Singapore's higher number of work hours vs. America and the EU. Watch, listen or read the full insight at https://www.bravesea.com/blog/singapore-vetoes-allianz-acquisition Nonton, dengar atau baca wawasan lengkapnya di https://www.bravesea.com/blog/singapore-vetoes-allianz-acquisition-id 观看、收听或阅读全文，请访问 https://www.bravesea.com/blog/singapore-vetoes-allianz-acquisition-cn Xem, nghe hoặc đọc toàn bộ thông tin chi tiết tại https://www.bravesea.com/blog/singapore-vetoes-allianz-acquisition-vn Get transcripts, startup resources & community discussions at www.bravesea.com WhatsApp: https://whatsapp.com/channel/0029VakR55X6BIElUEvkN02e TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@jeremyau Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/jeremyauz Twitter: https://twitter.com/jeremyau LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/bravesea English: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Bahasa Indonesia: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Chinese: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Vietnamese: Spotify | YouTube | Apple Podcasts Learn more about Nika.eco! Reach out to info@nika.eco if you are a geospatial data scientist or climate researcher who is interested to partner on a pilot or research opportunities
Thousands of foster children in the state are at risk of being moved from their homes. That's after a major insurer for foster family agencies says it will no longer cover these organizations, starting this month. These agencies recruit and oversee foster parents, and without insurance, they can't operate. Reporter: Elly Yu, LAist California needs to do more to contain bird flu on dairy cattle ranches. That's what one infectious disease expert says, as state health officials investigate the first two confirmed human cases of bird flu in the state. Reporter: Keith Mizuguchi, The California Report Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
A port strike could cost the economy $5BIL per day… here is what it will mean for you. Insurer experiments with drug giveaway, bypassing secret fees. Couple in a severe Uber crash can't sue because of an Uber Eats order… do you understand what you're sending. Shhhh… ChatGPT. Researchers are probably looking at your private conversations.
Rancho Mesa's Alyssa Burley and Vice President of the Human Services Group Sam Brown discuss the importance of reporting claims to the carrier right way. Show Notes: Subscribe to Rancho Mesa's Newsletter Director/Host: Alyssa Burley Guest: Sam Brown Producer/Editor: Megan Lockhart Music: "Home" by JHS Pedals, “News Room News” by Spence © Copyright 2024. Rancho Mesa Insurance Services, Inc. All rights reserved.
———— Garth Heckman The David Alliance TDAgiantslayer@gmail.com BAM - watch them every Tuesday night on our Facebook page. INTRO: What is the most common sin in man? Lust? Lust for power? Pride? Its actually none of these… but so common it is overlooked. You do it, I do it, we all do it… So we should probably know what it is… right? Health Insurance Follies: (1) Blue Shield California twice refused to pay $2,700 emergency-room claims by Rosalinda Miran- Ramirez, concluding that it was not a "reasonable" decision for her to go to the ER that morning that she awoke to a shirt saturated with blood from what turned out the be a breast tumor. Only after a KPIX-TV reporter intervened in September did Blue Shield pay the claim. (2) National Women's Law Center found that the laws of eight states permit insurance companies to deny health coverage to a battered spouse (as a "pre-existing condition," since batterers tend to be recidivists), according to a September report by Kaiser Health News. [KPIX-TV, 9-25-09] [MSNBC, 10-7-09] Garth's note: I am sure that being Hispanic the Insurer thought it was a clear Cut case of spousal abuse. The insurance agency probably justified their Actions because that is the way it always is (in there minds) So what is the most common sin of man? Rationalization! We can rationalize anything. Rationalize Satan can sound very reasonable, but he is never reliable. Gary Zarlingo Its not a baby, its a fetus, its not a fetus its just tissue, its not tissue its about a woman's reproductive rights… and by that we mean a health issue… Or back to step one… its Murder. Jeremiah 17:9 " The heart is deceitful above all things, And desperately wicked; Who can know it? What does deceitful mean? It means it can twist logic to get away with anything… rationalization! Morris Siegel, the owner of a small Kosher New York deli, was being questioned by an IRS agent about his tax return. He had reported a net profit of $60,000 for the year. Why dont you people leave me alone? the deli owner said. I work like a dog, everyone in my family helps out, the place is only closed three days a year. And you want to know how I made $60,000? Its not your income that bothers us, the agent said. Its these business travel deductions of $125,000. You listed ten trips to Israel for you and your wife. Oh, that? the owner said smiling. Well....we also deliver. [haruth.com]. The problem with rationalization is we can rationalize ourselves right out of the presence of God… and even then rationalize why he is no longer felt in our presence.
A.M. Edition for April 8. Insurance companies are deploying drones, airplanes and even high-altitude balloons to document the condition of homes nationwide. WSJ reporter Jean Eaglesham explains how the ensuing wealth of aerial imagery is helping the industry ditch higher-risk properties. Plus, Israel withdraws troops from southern Gaza to prepare for a next, potentially larger offensive. And Elon Musk vows to fight Brazil's Supreme Court in a free-speech showdown. Luke Vargas hosts. Listening on Google Podcasts? Here's our guide for switching to a different podcast player. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
