Podcasts about third circuit

For most of the second half of 20th century, the Supreme Court has wrestled with finding a balance between the Free Exercise of religion and the Establishment Clause, offering several tests to test the limits of permissible accommodation without the undue appearance of government endorsement. Among those tests has been a little-thing called the “play in the joints,” famously introduced in Walz v. Tax Commissioner of New York (1970). In this episode, I explore this concept with Falco Anthony Muscante II, whose paper in the Ave Marie Law Review is called “Play in the Joints” Among the Religion Clauses: Rebuilding the Strong Joints the Framers Formed. In our conversation, we discuss the history of the religious clause and what the framers intended, how the concept emerged and became weaponized in Locke v. Davey (2003), why the Court has latched on to the idea of state neutrality and how that impacts religion, and more. Falco Anthony Muscante II earned his J.D. in 2023 from the Duquesne University School of Law, where he served on the executive boards for the Law Review and Appellate Moot Court Board. He is an alumnus of Grove City College, where he graduated summa cum laude with a B.S. Management, minor in Pre-Law, and concentration in Human Resources. Falco is a litigation associate at a big law firm in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, soon headed to clerk for the Third Circuit. Cross & Gavel is a production of CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY. The episode was produced by Josh Deng, with music from Vexento

Where should the line be drawn between the government's role in stopping discrimination and a university's right to run itself? Today on Heterodox Out Loud, John Tomasi sits down with Joe Cohn, Policy Director at Heterodox Academy, to discuss the complexities of federal intervention in higher education.Cohn, a First Amendment expert, delves into the implications of recent federal actions, including those by the Trump administration, to combat anti-Semitism and enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. They explore the tension between academic freedom and the necessity of preventing discrimination, examining specific cases of funding pauses and immigration enforcement actions. Cohn argues for procedural rigor in federal oversight to protect both institutional autonomy and individual rights, advocating for persuasion over censorship in addressing bigotry. In This Episode:

https://vimeo.com/1048354337?share=copy#t=0 https://www.currentfederaltaxdevelopments.com/podcasts/2025/1/19/2025-01-20-secure-20-act-proposed-guidance This week we look at: IRS updates residential energy credit Fact Sheet, adds details about the PIN requirements that take effect for 2025 property Proposed regulations on catch-up contributions added by the SECURE 2.0 Act Proposed regulations on the automatic enrollment provisions of IRC §414A US Supreme Court agrees to review a Third Circuit ruling on Tax Court jurisdiction in a Collection Due Process case IRS issues final regulations on resolution of tax controversies by the IRS Independent Office of Appeals Under TFA of 2019

This week we look at: IRS updates residential energy credit Fact Sheet, adds details about the PIN requirements that take effect for 2025 property Proposed regulations on catch-up contributions added by the SECURE 2.0 Act Proposed regulations on the automatic enrollment provisions of IRC §414A US Supreme Court agrees to review a Third Circuit ruling on Tax Court jurisdiction in a Collection Due Process case IRS issues final regulations on resolution of tax controversies by the IRS Independent Office of Appeals Under TFA of 2019

Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman and I recap the first confirmation hearing for Donald Trump's Attorney General nominee, Pam Bondi. We talk about why it could spell trouble for the political influence of gun-rights advocates. We also cover the Supreme Court's latest rejection of multiple Second Amendment appeals and where things stand with a closely-watched pending 'assault weapon' ban case. Finally, we wrap up with discussions around the Third Circuit's re-vindication of the carry rights of young adults in Pennsylvania, a guest post on the questionable state of firearms forensics, and a collection of key gun stories from outside The Reload.

This week, while recognizing that it's far from “business as usual” in California and keeping our friends and clients in mind, we look at a new ruling in California regarding Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) arbitrations. We also examine a federal appeals court decision limiting the authority of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and the flurry of new employment laws taking effect in 2025. PAGA Ruling in California In what's seen as a win for California employers, the California Court of Appeal recently ruled that every PAGA action necessarily includes an individual PAGA action. Third Circuit Limits NLRB's Authority Over the last year, the NLRB expanded its enforcement priorities and tested the limits of its authority. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit finished 2024 with a rebuke of those efforts, curbing the NLRB's authority to order legal relief. New Employment Laws in 2025 A new year brings new laws and regulations, many of which took effect on January 1. Employers can stay up to date on local and state laws and regulations by downloading our Wage & Hour Guide for Employers app, which is updated each February. Visit our site for this week's Other Highlights and links: https://www.ebglaw.com/eltw374 Subscribe to #WorkforceWednesday: https://www.ebglaw.com/subscribe/ Visit http://www.EmploymentLawThisWeek.com This podcast is presented by Epstein Becker & Green, P.C. All rights are reserved. This audio recording includes information about legal issues and legal developments. Such materials are for informational purposes only and may not reflect the most current legal developments. These informational materials are not intended, and should not be taken, as legal advice on any particular set of facts or circumstances, and these materials are not a substitute for the advice of competent counsel. The content reflects the personal views and opinions of the participants. No attorney-client relationship has been created by this audio recording. This audio recording may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules. The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. No representation is made that the quality of the legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers.

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

Today Jim Garrity revisits the headaches caused by examining lawyers who frequently interrupt your deponents' answers. To combat this problem, Garrity offers you a six-pronged strategy for stopping this practice and/or creating a strong record that will allow your deponents to later add materially to their interrupted testimony, whether by errata sheet, affidavit, or live testimony. Courts are far more likely to allow that where you've used Garrity's strategies. (By the way, if you have a moment, would you send our production team a small "thank you" by leaving us a five-star rating wherever you listen to our podcast? It takes just 30 seconds - we timed it! - and it's deeply appreciated. Our crew devotes a great deal of time to research and production, and the podcast is not only free, but also uncluttered by pesky advertising. Thank you so much.)SHOW NOTESIn re Injectafer Prod. Liab. Litig. ALL CASES, No. CV 19-276, 2022 WL 4280491  (E.D. Pa. Sept. 15, 2022) (“Defendants propose. . . changing “It would be one of the—yes” to “It would be one of the sources of information. Yes.” This change is not necessarily inconsistent with the original testimony because it appears that the deponent was cut off or otherwise stopped speaking in the middle of the sentence and is justified as making the answer more complete. See id. While finishing a thought is not necessarily a proper justification for an errata modification, here it appears to be justified and within the flexible scope of the Third Circuit's approach to Rule 30(e)")Grey v.  Amex Assurance Company, 2002 WL 31242195, No. B152467 (Ct. App. Calif. Oct. 7, 2002) (reversing summary judgment in part because trial court abused discretion in failing to consider errata sheet containing “changes. . . made because the witness was interrupted before completing her answers;” further noting that the defendant “. . .took the risk that [the plaintiff's] corrections would bring some of its undisputed facts into controversy”)Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority, 311 F.R.D. 504, 512 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (denying, without prejudice, motion to strike errata sheet, as motion failed to specifically discuss many of the 67 changes defendant wanted stricken; noting that “The reason given for the vast majority of the 67 changes was that [Plaintiff] “did not finish” her answer during the deposition, though the transcript does not reflect that she was interrupted and prevented from doing so,” and outlining how various courts and commentators deal with the extent to which changes to testimony can be made on errata sheets)Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority, F.R.D. 504, 512, fn. 5 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (noting that, if one looks back at the early origins of the rule on errata sheets, quoted in this opinion, it may be argued that the intent of the drafters was indeed to limit changes to clerical-level mistakes, not to allow substantive changes): "One commentator who examined the history of the rule dating back to the original Equity Rule 67, and the twin Equity Rules 50 and 51 that succeeded it, concluded that Rule 30 was never intended to allow for more than the correction of transcription errors: "Appeals to the plain language of Rule 30(e) are incomplete and misleading without reference to the Rule's transcriptive focus. Read in historical context, the Rule appears to be distinctly clerical, ill-equipped—and never intended—to embrace substantive changes. Although its wording has changed over time, Rule 30(e) has retained one modest but steady focus: the who, how, and what of accurate transcription. The Rule is meant to secure an accurate representation of what was said, leaving to another day (and frequently to the mechanisms of Rule 56) the question of the meaning and implication of the deposition content for purposes of material factual disputes. The common understanding of Rule 30(e) has moved far afield from that mild ambition, giving us the confusion and circuit split we know today. Read in light of its history, the Rule clearly embraces a transcriptive focus. Ruehlmann, Jr., supra, at 915. Rule 30(e)'s counterpart in Illinois state court, Supreme Court Rule 207(a), was amended to limit corrections to transcription errors because the “potential for testimonial abuse” had “become increasingly evident as witnesses submit[ted] lengthy errata sheets in which their testimony [was] drastically altered....” Ill. Sup. Ct. R. 207(a), Rules Committee Comment to Paragraph (a) (1995)Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority, 311 F.R.D. 504, 511 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (citing Deposition Dilemmas: Vexatious Scheduling and Errata Sheets, 12 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 1, 60 (1998), for its author's argument that Rule 30(e) permits “opposing counsel, at her choosing, to introduce both versions to the jury”)Thorn v. Sundstrand Aerospace Corp., 207 F.3d 383 (7th Cir.2000) (observing, as to changes in errata sheet, that what the witness “tried to do, whether or not honestly, was to change his deposition from what he said to what he meant;” quoting the common refrain that “a deposition is not a take home examination,” the court remarked that while this was a “questionable basis for altering a deposition.” the court would allow the change under Rule 30(e) since the rule expressly “authorizes ‘changes in form or substance'.”Tchankpa v. Ascena Retail Group, Inc., No. 2:16-CV-895, 2018 WL 1472527 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 26, 2018) (refusing, based on Sixth Circuit's strict interpretation of errata sheet changes, to allow “. . .impermissible substantive alterations to Tchankpa's testimony. . .”, including explanations stating “Incomplete; I was cut off,” allegedly because “defense counsel interrupted him;” “In this circuit, a deponent cannot make substantive changes to his deposition testimony under Rule 30(e) based on defense counsel's interruptions. . .”)Hirsch v. Humana, Inc., No. CV-15-08254-PCT-SMM, 2017 WL 9991896, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 17, 2017) When a party makes changes to his deposition pursuant to Rule 30(e), the original answers remain part of the record. See Thorn v. Sundstrand Aerospace Corp., 207 F.3d 383, 389 (7th Cir. 2000) (“[T]he rule requires that the original transcript be retained (it is implicit in the provision of that rule that any changes made by the deponent are to be appended to the transcript) so that the trier of fact can evaluate the honesty of the alteration.”); Arce v. Chicago Transit Authority, 311 F.R.D. 504, 511 (N.D. Ill. 2015) (“Subject to the rules of evidence, the jury is permitted to hear the original answer, the change, and the reasons for the change and decide – in the context of all the other evidence – whether to credit either answer and what weight to assign it.”); Coleman v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 997 F. Supp. 1197, 1205 (D. Ariz. 1998) (accepting the argument that “a change in a deposition statement does not eradicate the deponent's original answers”); Lugtig v. Thomas, 89 F.R.D. 639, 641-42 (N.D. Ill. 1981) (“Nothing in the language of Rule 30(e) requires or implies that the original answers are to be stricken when changes are made.”). The reason for this is obvious: “[t]he Rule is less likely to be abused if the deponent knows that ... the original answers[,] as well as the changes and the reasons will be subject to examination by the trier of fact")Hirsh v. Humana, Inc., No. CV-15-08254-PCT-SMM, 2017 WL 9991896, at *2 (D. Ariz. Nov. 17, 2017) (court-ordered second deposition of plaintiff did not extend deadline for submitting errata sheet following delivery of transcript from first deposition; counsel claimed he “believed that the first deposition did not ‘count,' because it was ordered [to] be redone, and therefore corrections were reserved”; errata sheet rejected as untimely)Neutrion Dev. Corp. v. Sonosite, Inc., 410 F. Supp. 2d 529, 550 (S.D. Tex. 2006) (allowing and considering – without apparent challenge or concern – expert's substantive changes to errata sheet, necessitated “. . . [because he] began to explain the knowledge that one of ordinary skill in the art would possess, but was interrupted by Neutrino's counsel”)Trout v. FirstEnergy Generation Corp., 339 F. App'x 560, 565 (6th Cir. 2009) (noting argument made by defendant that plaintiff “. . . is not entitled to benefit from her corrected deposition testimony because her counsel did not rehabilitate her statements during the deposition,” meaning plaintiff's counsel could and should have asked followup questions while the deposition was in progress)Bahrami v. Maxie Price Chevrolet-Oldsmobile, Inc., No. 1:11-CV-4483-SCJ-AJB, 2014 WL 11517837, at fn. 2 (N.D. Ga. Aug. 4, 2014) (Although Plaintiff's brief in response to Defendant's objections discusses a long day and interruptions by Defendant's counsel during the deposition, those reasons were not provided in the errata sheet. The Court also notes that if Defendant's counsel interrupted Plaintiff such that he could not elaborate much as he wished, Plaintiff's counsel had the opportunity afterwards to examine her client on those points and did not do so.”)Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(e)(1)(B) (federal rule of civil procedure on errata sheets, which expressly contemplates possible changes in form or substance)Fed. R. Civ. P. 30(c)(2) (requiring objections not just to evidentiary issues but to a party's conduct, to the manner of taking the deposition, and to any other aspect of the deposition)Fed. R. Civ. P. 32(d)(3)(B)(i) (requiring objections to errors or irregularities at an oral examination if they relate to the manner of taking the deposition, a party's conduct, or other matters that might have been corrected at that time)

Tort: Can an online betting app be held liable for preying on problem gamblers? - Argued: Wed, 11 Dec 2024 9:3:23 EDT

This year, in a pair of decisions known as Loper Bright, the Supreme Court overruled the Chevron doctrine. As courts begin to apply the principles announced in Loper Bright, important changes are expected to occur within the federal government and its relationship to the states. For example, Congress may begin to write federal statutes with increasing specificity, courts may begin to apply their own reasoned judgment instead of deferring to agency experts in litigation involving the Administrative Procedure Act, and the states may have greater success in asserting their authority over important legal matters within their domain.These developments in administrative law will likely have a large effect on the realm of environmental and energy regulation. If courts can no longer presume that statutory ambiguities are implicit delegations by Congress to the Executive Branch, how ought Congress, federal agencies, and the states respond to a post-Chevron world?Featuring:Prof. Todd Aagaard, Professor of Law, Charles Widger School Of Law, Villanova UniversityHon. Lindsay See, Commissioner, Federal Energy Regulatory CommissionHon. Andrew Wheeler, Partner and Head of Federal Affairs, Holland & Hart; Former EPA AdministratorModerator: Hon. Thomas M. Hardiman, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

As international courts have addressed issues arising from the Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Hamas wars, we will explore whether engagement with the ICC and ICJ institutions is beneficial or harmful to the United States and how U.S. policymakers should approach these courts.Feature:Hon. Charles Brower, Judge, Iran-United States Claims Tribunal and Arbitrator Member, Twenty Essex ChambersProf. Diane Desierto, Professor of Law and Global Affairs, Notre Dame Law School; Faculty Director, LL.M. in International Human Rights Law; Global Director, Notre Dame Law School Global Human Rights ClinicProf. Richard Epstein, Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law; Director, Classical Liberal Institute, New York University LawProf. Michael A. Newton, Professor of the Practice of Law and Professor of the Practice of Political Science, Vanderbilt Law SchoolModerator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

The generation of political leaders that produced the landmark legislation of the Civil Rights Era no doubt saw themselves as working to make one’s race, ethnicity, religion, sex, etc. matter less to one’s future prospects. And in many ways, they clearly succeeded. They would almost certainly be surprised and disappointed to learn how much emphasis those factors are still getting. Why has this happened? Is the problem that our focus on issues of race, ethnicity, sex, religion, gender, etc. has gone too far? Or is the problem that we haven’t yet focused on them enough? To what extent has the law helped create the current state of affairs? How can the law help us move in a better direction?Featuring: Mr. Jonathan Berry, Managing Partner, Boyden Gray PLLCProf. Tyler Austin Harper, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies, Bates CollegeHon. Gail L. Heriot, Professor of Law, University of San Diego School of LawProf. Andrew Koppelman, John Paul Stevens Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of LawMs. Heather Mac Donald, Thomas W. Smith Fellow, Manhattan Institute; Contributing Editor, City JournalModerator: Hon. Paul Matey, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit

The Atlantic City Fire Department requires all personnel who respond to fires or other emergencies to follow the proper use of an air mask when exposed to hazardous air. To ensure a proper fit, employees are prohibited from growing facial hair that could interfere with the mask seal. Plaintiff, Pastor Alexander Smith requested a religious accommodation to wear a short beard, arguing that growing the beard was an exercise of his faith and that wearing the mask was not part of his technician role in the department. This request was denied, citing safety concerns, prompting Smith to pursue legal action, alleging First Amendment, Equal Protection, and Title VII violations. However, the District Court of New Jersey ruled in favor of the fire department. Together, the Harvard Religious Freedom Clinic and First Liberty Institute are appealing his case to the Third Circuit, with oral argument on October 30. Join Kayla Toney, who is arguing the case, and Katie Mahoney, Clinical Instructional Fellow at the Harvard Religious Freedom Clinic, as they break down the argument.Featuring:Kayla Toney, Associate Counsel, First Liberty Institute(Moderator) Kathryn Mahoney, Clinical Instructional Fellow, Religious Freedom Clinic, Harvard Law School

Administrative Law: Does a statute that empowers Medicare to negotiate the prices it pays for prescription drugs violate the pharmaceutical company's due process rights? - Argued: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 14:12:40 EDT

Episode 21: Bristol Myers Squibb Co v. Secretary United States Department of HHS Bristol Myers Squibb Co. v. Secretary United States Department of HHS, consolidated under AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al v. Secretary United States Department of HHS, argued before Circuit Judges Thomas M. Hardiman, Peter J. Phipps, and Arianna J. Freeman in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit on October 30, 2024. First Amendment question argued by Kevin F. King (on behalf of Bristol Myers Squibb Co., et al.) and Catherine M. Padhi (on behalf of the government). Note: the court separated the various constitutional issues from the consolidated cases into distinct portions of the oral arguments.  What follows, both in terms of content and audio, relates specifically to the First Amendment question, which is the second of the three issues listed below. The other portions of the oral argument are not included in this podcast.Statement of the Issues, from the Opening Brief for Appellant: Whether the Program effects takings that require just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. Whether the Program compels speech in violation of the First Amendment. Whether a manufacturer's submission to the Program's demands is “voluntary” and immune from constitutional scrutiny. Background on the Drug Price Negotiation Program, from the Institute's case page: The program requires drug manufacturers to adopt these messages [that they “agreed” to a new “maximum fair price,”]—even when those companies disagree. Failure to do so would subject the companies to staggering excise tax penalties on every domestic sale, as well as forced withdrawal of all products from Medicare and Medicaid. Resources: Court Listener docket page Opening Brief for Appellant Brief for Appellees Institute for Free Speech amicus brief Institute for Free Speech case page (includes additional information) The Institute for Free Speech promotes and defends the political speech rights to freely speak, assemble, publish, and petition the government guaranteed by the First Amendment. If you're enjoying the Free Speech Arguments podcast, please subscribe and leave a review on your preferred podcast platform. To support the Institute's mission or inquire about legal assistance, please visit our website: www.ifs.org

This Day in Legal History: West Law Reports PublishedOn October 21, 1876, the West Publishing Company, founded by John B. West, published its first legal reporter, The Syllabi. This marked the beginning of a transformation in how American legal professionals accessed and utilized case law. The Syllabi aimed to provide Minnesota lawyers with timely, accurate, and reliable legal information, distinguishing itself through its promise to be "prompt, interesting, full, and at all times thoroughly reliable." Over time, The Syllabi evolved into the Northwestern Reporter, which played a significant role in shaping the broader National Reporter System. West's innovation was groundbreaking because it standardized the reporting of judicial decisions across multiple jurisdictions, creating a centralized, accessible body of case law. The National Reporter System expanded to cover decisions from various courts in different regions, making it easier for lawyers to research case law beyond state boundaries. This system eventually became the foundation for modern legal research and was essential for the creation of tools like Westlaw, which revolutionized legal research with digital access in the 20th century. It is worth noting, the development of a centralized legal reporting system, while transformative, also raises important access to justice issues. West Publishing's dominance in legal reporting and the eventual emergence of paid research platforms like Westlaw created barriers for individuals and smaller firms with limited financial resources. The high cost of accessing comprehensive legal databases places those without the means at a significant disadvantage, potentially hindering their ability to conduct thorough legal research or build strong cases. This disparity underscores the ongoing challenge of ensuring equal access to legal resources, a critical factor in promoting fairness within the justice system.China-based drone manufacturer DJI has filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Defense Department, challenging its inclusion on a list of companies allegedly linked to Beijing's military. DJI claims the designation is inaccurate and has caused substantial financial harm, including lost business deals and a tarnished reputation. The company, which controls over half of the U.S. commercial drone market, argues it is neither owned nor controlled by the Chinese military and seeks removal from the list. DJI alleges that the Pentagon did not engage with the company for over 16 months regarding the designation, leaving it no choice but to pursue legal action. The Pentagon has not commented on the suit. DJI is also facing increasing scrutiny in the U.S., with concerns raised about potential security risks from its drones. Earlier this week, U.S. Customs stopped some DJI imports under the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, though DJI denies any involvement with forced labor. Meanwhile, the U.S. House has passed a bill to ban new DJI drones, pending Senate action.Drone maker DJI sues Pentagon over Chinese military listing | ReutersEli Lilly has filed lawsuits against three medical spas and online vendors—Pivotal Peptides, MangoRx, and Genesis Lifestyle Medicine—over selling unauthorized versions of its weight-loss drug, Zepbound, which contains tirzepatide. These lawsuits, filed in federal and state courts, accuse the companies of false advertising and promotion, including selling products without medical prescriptions and making unverified claims about the drug's safety and efficacy. Pivotal Peptides allegedly marketed tirzepatide for research but sold it directly to consumers, while MangoRx offered an unapproved oral version of the drug. Genesis was accused of selling compounded tirzepatide with vitamin B12, a combination that Lilly says is unsafe and untested. Lilly's lawsuits follow earlier legal actions against other companies for similar offenses. The drugmaker aims to protect consumers from potential health risks and seeks to stop the defendants from selling these products, as well as pursuing monetary damages.Lilly sues online vendors, medical spa over copycat weight-loss drugs | ReutersFour prominent labor lawyers from Baker McKenzie's New York employment practice—Paul Evans, Krissy Katzenstein, Blair Robinson, and Jeffrey Sturgeon—have moved to Paul Hastings, leaving Baker McKenzie short one-third of its employment lawyers. The team has represented Fox News in several high-profile employment disputes, including defending the network in cases involving former host Britt McHenry and a COVID-19 workplace exposure claim. The team has also worked with clients like CBS Broadcasting, Paramount Global, and Panda Express. Their move to Paul Hastings follows collaborations with the firm's employment lawyers, and they plan to continue growing Paul Hastings' client relationships. The transition strengthens Paul Hastings' East Coast employment practice, enhancing its capacity in complex employment matters, including Title VII representation, pay equity, and class actions. Paul Hastings' leadership sees this as a significant boost, especially ahead of regulatory shifts tied to the 2024 presidential election.Fox News Employment Defense Team Moves Over to Paul HastingsNew Jersey Transit Corp. (NJ Transit) is facing a patent infringement lawsuit from Railware Inc., which claims NJ Transit is using its railworker-safety technology without permission. NJ Transit is seeking to dismiss the case, asserting sovereign immunity as an "arm of the State of New Jersey." The issue is complicated by the fact that NJ Transit operates in both New Jersey and New York. While the Third Circuit, which covers New Jersey, has previously ruled that NJ Transit qualifies for immunity, the Second Circuit, which covers New York, uses a stricter test to determine state immunity. This case is significant because it could set a precedent for how sovereign immunity is applied across jurisdictions.Railware argues that NJ Transit's immunity claim is invalid, citing the agency's independent operation and non-state funding. The case also touches on broader legal debates about when state agencies can claim immunity in patent cases. NJ Transit is awaiting a key ruling from the New York Court of Appeals on whether it is immune from another lawsuit, which could influence this case. If conflicting rulings emerge from different courts, the matter may be escalated to the U.S. Supreme Court for resolution.NJ Transit Patent Immunity Claim Crosses Circuit-Court Divide This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

On this episode of Conduct Detrimental: THE Sports Law Podcast, Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠and Sam Tanenbaum (⁠LinkedIn⁠) guide you through the latest updates in the sports law world as we MLB playoffs continue to heat up and the NFL season is in mid-season form. The two first cover the recent developments in Deshaun Watson's settlement with another related case to his initial controversy as well as the arrest of Jabrill Peppers. Which, has led the NFL to place Peppers on the player-exempt list. The duo also analyze the NCAA's preliminary approval of the House v. NCAA settlement by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, discussing the potential impacts on athletes and college sports governance. They cover the legal battle that has ensued over the ownership of Shohei Ohtani's 50th home run ball, with fan Max Matus filing a lawsuit claiming the ball was wrongfully taken from him by Chris Belanski. The auction for the ball is currently paused pending a hearing. Dan and Sam discuss the ongoing lawsuit between Devin Haney and Ryan Garcia, including allegations of battery, fraud, and breach of contract filed by Haney in September. Conduct Detrimental has launched its 2024 Sports Law Writing Competition, focusing on sports and employment law. The prompt challenges participants to analyze the Third Circuit's economic realities test for assessing student-athlete employment claims. Submissions are due by November 8, 2024. Have a topic you want to write about? ANYONE and EVERYONE can publish for ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ConductDetrimental.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Let us know if you want to join the team. *** As always, this episode is sponsored by Themis Bar Review: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.themisbarsocial.com/conductdetrimental⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Host: Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)  Featuring Sam Tanenbaum (LinkedIn) Produced by: Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) Connect with us:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/condetrimental/support

On this episode of Conduct Detrimental: THE Sports Law Podcast, Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠and Sam Tanenbaum (⁠LinkedIn⁠) guide you through the latest updates in the sports law world as we MLB playoffs continue to heat up and the NFL season is in mid-season form. The two first cover the recent developments in Deshaun Watson's settlement with another related case to his initial controversy as well as the arrest of Jabrill Peppers. Which, has led the NFL to place Peppers on the player-exempt list. The duo also analyze the NCAA's preliminary approval of the House v. NCAA settlement by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, discussing the potential impacts on athletes and college sports governance. They cover the legal battle that has ensued over the ownership of Shohei Ohtani's 50th home run ball, with fan Max Matus filing a lawsuit claiming the ball was wrongfully taken from him by Chris Belanski. The auction for the ball is currently paused pending a hearing. Dan and Sam discuss the ongoing lawsuit between Devin Haney and Ryan Garcia, including allegations of battery, fraud, and breach of contract filed by Haney in September. Conduct Detrimental has launched its 2024 Sports Law Writing Competition, focusing on sports and employment law. The prompt challenges participants to analyze the Third Circuit's economic realities test for assessing student-athlete employment claims. Submissions are due by November 8, 2024. Have a topic you want to write about? ANYONE and EVERYONE can publish for ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ConductDetrimental.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Let us know if you want to join the team. *** As always, this episode is sponsored by Themis Bar Review: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.themisbarsocial.com/conductdetrimental⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Host: Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)  Featuring Sam Tanenbaum (LinkedIn) Produced by: Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) Connect with us:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Email --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/condetrimental/support

On this episode of Conduct Detrimental: THE Sports Law Podcast, Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠and Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Find him on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) guide you through the latest updates in the sports law world as we go across baseball, college football, the NFL, and so much more...including two special updates from the Conduct Detrimental team. Dan first proposes a theory that the Mets and Braves may have colluded to split wins in their recent series, raising questions after suspicious betting odds surfaced during a critical game. Both teams celebrated after the games, further fueling suspicion. The duo also discuss former UNLV quarterback Matt Sluka claims the university failed to honor a promised $100,000 NIL deal, paying him only $3,000. This has sparked discussions about NIL transparency and pay-for-play dynamics in college sports. They cover the legal battle that has ensued over the ownership of Shohei Ohtani's 50th home run ball, with fan Max Matus filing a lawsuit claiming the ball was wrongfully taken from him by Chris Belanski. The auction for the ball is currently paused pending a hearing. Former Jacksonville Jaguars employee Amit Patel is suing FanDuel, claiming the platform exploited his gambling addiction, leading to $1 million in losses. Patel seeks $250 million in damages, alleging the sportsbook continued to market to him despite his self-exclusion efforts. Conduct Detrimental has launched its 2024 Sports Law Writing Competition, focusing on sports and employment law. The prompt challenges participants to analyze the Third Circuit's economic realities test for assessing student-athlete employment claims. Submissions are due by November 8, 2024. The second annual Conduct Detrimental “10 Under 10” awards will recognize ten exceptional sports law professionals within ten years of their law school graduation. Winners are chosen based on peer nominations and their contributions to the sports law field. Have a topic you want to write about? ANYONE and EVERYONE can publish for ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ConductDetrimental.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Let us know if you want to join the team. *** As always, this episode is sponsored by Themis Bar Review: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.themisbarsocial.com/conductdetrimental⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Host: Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)  Featuring and Produced by: Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) Connect with us:⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Email --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/condetrimental/support

On this episode of Conduct Detrimental: THE Sports Law Podcast, Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠and Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Find him on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) guide you through the latest updates in the sports law world as we go across baseball, college football, the NFL, and so much more...including two special updates from the Conduct Detrimental team. Dan first proposes a theory that the Mets and Braves may have colluded to split wins in their recent series, raising questions after suspicious betting odds surfaced during a critical game. Both teams celebrated after the games, further fueling suspicion. The duo also discuss former UNLV quarterback Matt Sluka claims the university failed to honor a promised $100,000 NIL deal, paying him only $3,000. This has sparked discussions about NIL transparency and pay-for-play dynamics in college sports. They cover the legal battle that has ensued over the ownership of Shohei Ohtani's 50th home run ball, with fan Max Matus filing a lawsuit claiming the ball was wrongfully taken from him by Chris Belanski. The auction for the ball is currently paused pending a hearing. Former Jacksonville Jaguars employee Amit Patel is suing FanDuel, claiming the platform exploited his gambling addiction, leading to $1 million in losses. Patel seeks $250 million in damages, alleging the sportsbook continued to market to him despite his self-exclusion efforts. Conduct Detrimental has launched its 2024 Sports Law Writing Competition, focusing on sports and employment law. The prompt challenges participants to analyze the Third Circuit's economic realities test for assessing student-athlete employment claims. Submissions are due by November 8, 2024. The second annual Conduct Detrimental “10 Under 10” awards will recognize ten exceptional sports law professionals within ten years of their law school graduation. Winners are chosen based on peer nominations and their contributions to the sports law field. Have a topic you want to write about? ANYONE and EVERYONE can publish for ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ConductDetrimental.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠. Let us know if you want to join the team. *** As always, this episode is sponsored by Themis Bar Review: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.themisbarsocial.com/conductdetrimental⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠  Host: Dan Lust (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠@SportsLawLust⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠)  Featuring and Produced by: Mike Kravchenko (⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Watch on YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠) Connect with us:⁠⁠⁠⁠Twitter⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠TikTok⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠YouTube⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Website⁠⁠⁠⁠ | ⁠⁠⁠⁠Email --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/condetrimental/support

Welcome to Supreme Court Opinions. In this episode, you'll hear the Court's opinion in Wilkinson v Garland. In this case, the court considered this issue: Is an agency determination that a given set of established facts does not rise to the statutory standard of “exceptional and extremely unusual hardship” a mixed question of law and fact reviewable under 8 U-S-C § 1252(a)(2)(D), or instead a discretionary judgment call unreviewable under Section 1252(a)(2)(B)(i)? The case was decided on March 19, 2024. The Supreme Court held that an immigration judge's discretionary decision that a given set of established facts does not satisfy 8 U-S-C § 1229b(b)(1)(D)'s “exceptional and extremely unusual” hardship standard for determining eligibility for cancellation of removal is a mixed question of law and fact, reviewable under §1252(a)(2)(D)'s jurisdiction restoring exception for “questions of law.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored the majority opinion of the Court. The application of the statutory hardship standard to an established set of facts presents a quintessential mixed question of law and fact. While this determination requires close examination of the facts, under the Court's precedent in Guerrero-Lasprilla v Barr, a mixed question that requires factual analysis is still a mixed question and therefore a “question of law” that courts have jurisdiction to review. The Court rejected the government's arguments that Guerrero-Lasprilla should be limited to judicially created standards, that the statutory history precludes review, and that a primarily factual mixed question is a question of fact. Nothing in § 1252(a)(2)(D) suggests “questions of law” is limited to only certain types of mixed questions. While courts still cannot review the underlying factual determinations, the application of the hardship standard to those facts is reviewable as a mixed question of law and fact, albeit under a deferential standard of review given the factual nature of the inquiry. The Third Circuit's holding that it lacked jurisdiction to review hardship determinations was therefore erroneous. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson authored an opinion concurring in the judgment, expressing skepticism that Congress intended the phrase “questions of law” in § 1252(a)(2)(D) to encompass all mixed questions of law and fact, as the majority concluded. However, she agreed with the majority's judgment based on the controlling precedent of Guerrero-Lasprilla. Chief Justice John Roberts authored a dissenting opinion in which he agreed with Justice Samuel Alito's dissent that while Guerrero-Lasprilla was correctly decided, the majority erred in this case by reading the language in that case too broadly. Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Clarence Thomas, dissented, arguing that the Court's broad reading of “questions of law” in Guerrero-Lasprilla defies common sense and would result in the exception nearly swallowing the rule, which Congress could not have intended when it enacted §1252(a)(2)(B) and §1252(a)(2)(D). He contended that the hardship determination is overwhelmingly a factual question that should not be classified as a reviewable “question of law.” The opinion is presented here in its entirety, but with citations omitted. If you appreciate this episode, please subscribe. Thank you.  --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scotus-opinions/support

We interview Leo Strine on the purpose of the corporation, differentiating between shareholder primacy and stakeholder theory. We discuss ESG and the power of stockholders and workers. Leo Strine applies his perspective on corporate purpose to corporate acquisitions and lays out his hopes for the future of corporations. Some critical articles to learn more about the shareholder primacy vs stakeholder theory debate:Origins of the argument: - Merrick Dodd, For Whom Are Corporate Managers Trustees?, 45 HARV. L. REV. 1145 (1932) - Adolph A. Berle, Jr., For Whom Corporate Managers Are Trustees: A Note, 45 HARV.. L. REV. 1365, 1372 (1932)Shareholder primacy ownership argument: - Milton Friedman, A Friedman doctrine– The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits, N.Y. Times, Sept. 13 1970.Critique on shareholder primacy: - Lynn A. Stout, Bad and Not-so-Bad Arguments for Shareholder Primacy, 75 S. CAL. L. REV. 1189 (2002).Example of Application: - Lucian Bebchuk and Roberto Tallarita, The Illusory Promise of Stakeholder Governance. 106 Corn. L. Rev. 91 (2020).Example of Court Case Application: - Revlon, Inc. v. MacAndrews & Forbes Holdings, Inc., 506 A.2d 173, 177 (Del. 1986)A bit about Leo Strine:Leo E. Strine, Jr., is Of Counsel in the Corporate Department at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz.  Prior to joining the firm, he was the Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court from early 2014 through late 2019.  Before becoming the Chief Justice, he served on the Delaware Court of Chancery as Chancellor since June 22, 2011, and as a Vice Chancellor since November 9, 1998.In his judicial positions, Mr. Strine wrote hundreds of opinions in the areas of corporate law, contract law, trusts and estates, criminal law, administrative law, and constitutional law.  Notably, he authored the lead decision in the Delaware Supreme Court case holding that Delaware's death penalty statute was unconstitutional because it did not require the key findings necessary to impose a death sentence to be made by a unanimous jury.For a generation, Mr. Strine taught various corporate law courses at the Harvard and University of Pennsylvania law schools, and now serves as the Michael L. Wachter Distinguished Fellow in Law and Policy at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School and a Senior Fellow of the Harvard Program on Corporate Governance. From 2006 to 2019, Mr. Strine served as the special judicial consultant to the ABA's Committee on Corporate Laws. He also was the special judicial consultant to the ABA's Committee on Mergers & Acquisitions from 2014 to 2019. He is a member of the American Law Institute.Mr. Strine speaks and writes frequently on the subjects of corporate and public law, and particularly the impact of business on society, and his articles have been published in The University of Chicago Law Review, Columbia Law Review, Cornell Law Review, Duke Law Journal, Harvard Law Review, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, and Stanford Law Review, among others.  On several occasions, his articles were selected as among the Best Corporate and Securities Articles of the year, based on the choices of law professors.Before becoming a judge in 1998,  Mr. Strine served as Counsel and Policy Director to Governor Thomas R. Carper, and had also worked as a corporate litigator at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom from 1990 to 1992.  He was law clerk to Judge Walter K. Stapleton of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and Chief Judge John F. Gerry of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey.  Mr. Strine graduated magna cum laude from the University of Pennsylvania Law Sc

Tracing the history that led to the decline of Intel, why Ben is conflicted about the potential solutions to the company's woes, and a Third Circuit verdict on Section 230 that could upend three decades of precedent across the tech ecosystem.

It's News Day Tuesday! Sam is back from vacation, and he and Emma break down the biggest headlines from over the long weekend. First, they run through updates on the final 9 weeks before the US presidential election, Russia's bombardment on Ukraine, domestic dissent to Israel's expanding offensive as they turn to the West Bank, Unite Here labor action, Trump's Arlington fiasco, RFK's ballot fiasco, and Venezuela's political crisis, before parsing through JD Vance's Dimaggio-esque run of the most clinically insane misogyny. Next, they dive into updates on the presidential race with the election just 63 days out, tackling Biden's backdown bump and RFK's failed attempt to remove himself from swing-state ballots before parsing deeper through swing-state polling as the Harris campaign comes into full swing. Next, Sam and Emma look to a devastating and dominant decision coming out of the Third Circuit, with TikTok's role in boosting an adolescent social media “Blackout” challenge resulting in the accidental death of a 10-year-old and producing the first successful challenge to Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that established social media platforms as third-party speech, finally allowing for social media megacorporations to be held to account for their active curation of the speech that occurs on their sites. They then look to Israel's shifting fronts in their ethnic cleansing of Palestine, first unpacking this weekend's news about the death of six hostages in Palestinian captivity, and the underrecognized role that both Biden and Bibi's uninhibited bloodlust played in making these murders possible, wrapping up the first half of the show by diving deep into Donald Trump's eagerness to take on Zionist money in his continued commitment to the erasure of Palestine, including a plan to fund the annexation of the West Bank, and exploring what David Friedman's take on the issue can illuminate for us all. And in the Fun Half: Sam and Emma have an expansive conversation with John from San Antonio with the 2024 US Presidential Election some nine weeks away, tackling historical parallels, the politics of polling, and the swing-state situation with polls. Brett Cooper (aka Femme Shapiro) celebrates the seminal moment of a conspiracy-backed grifter endorsing another conspiracy-backed grifter, Adam from New Hampshire unpacks AOC's critique of the Green Party and helps the show dive deep into the idea of Harris separating herself from Biden's zionist bloodlust, plus, your calls and IMs! Donate IF YOU CAN to friend of the show Mohamed Aldaghma's Gaza Bakery project to help displaced families: https://www.gofundme.com/f/gaza-bakery-feeding-displaced-families Check out the LIMITED EDITION Vergogna shirt on the MR shop!: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/collections/all-items/products/the-majority-report-vergogna-t-shirt Check out Tony Y, who designed the Vergogna shirt's website!: https://linktr.ee/tonyyanick AND! Check out Anne from Portland's website for HER Vergogna t-shirt! INQUIRE MORE HERE FOR DETAILS!: https://www.bonfire.com/store/pictrix-design/ Become a member at JoinTheMajorityReport.com: https://fans.fm/majority/join Follow us on TikTok here!: https://www.tiktok.com/@majorityreportfm Check us out on Twitch here!: https://www.twitch.tv/themajorityreport Find our Rumble stream here!: https://rumble.com/user/majorityreport Check out our alt YouTube channel here!: https://www.youtube.com/majorityreportlive Join Sam on the Nation Magazine Cruise! 7 days in December 2024!!: https://nationcruise.com/mr/ Check out StrikeAid here!; https://strikeaid.com/ Gift a Majority Report subscription here: https://fans.fm/majority/gift Subscribe to the ESVN YouTube channel here: https://www.youtube.com/esvnshow Subscribe to the AMQuickie newsletter here: https://am-quickie.ghost.io/ Join the Majority Report Discord! http://majoritydiscord.com/ Get all your MR merch at our store: https://shop.majorityreportradio.com/ Get the free Majority Report App!: http://majority.fm/app Check out today's sponsors: Express VPN: Protect your online privacy TODAY by visiting https://ExpressVPN.com/majority. That's https://ExpressVPN.com/majority and you can get an extra three months FREE.  Sunset Lake CBD: Visit https://SunsetLakeCBD.com before September 9th and use code LABOR to save 30% on their CBD tinctures and participating bundles. See their website for terms and conditions. Follow the Majority Report crew on Twitter: @SamSeder @EmmaVigeland @MattLech @BradKAlsop Check out Matt's show, Left Reckoning, on Youtube, and subscribe on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/leftreckoning Check out Matt Binder's YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/mattbinder Subscribe to Brandon's show The Discourse on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/ExpandTheDiscourse Check out Ava Raiza's music here! https://avaraiza.bandcamp.com/ The Majority Report with Sam Seder - https://majorityreportradio.com/

No more headaches with managing your leave process. Head over to Cocoon.com/hr to learn more and get up to a fifty percent implementation fee discount.  In this episode, we dive into a game-changing development in college sports.  A recent ruling has opened the door to the possibility that some NCAA college athletes could be classified as employees under federal wage and hour laws. Exciting, right? But it's not as simple as it sounds. The ruling highlights the need for a clear test to determine when an athlete's passion for sports transforms into actual work in the eyes of the law.  This could shake things up in a big way, folks! We're talking potential major shifts in how college athletes are paid and managed. It might even turn the traditional concept of amateurism in college sports on its head. Join us as we unpack what this means for the future of college athletics! Mentioned in this episode: Third Circuit holds that NCAA athletes can be considered employees under FLSA Court ruling seeks test to decide if athletes are employees Appeals Court Rules Some NCAA Athletes Qualify as Employees US college athletes may be employees under new test, court rules Connect with Traci here: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://linktr.ee/HRTraci⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Visit our website: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠HRTraci.com⁠⁠⁠⁠ Chapters: 00:00 Introduction and Background on NCAA 02:22 The Recent Ruling and the Need for a Test 03:16 Implications for Compensation and Management 09:56 The Potential for Unionization 19:23 Considerations for Scholarships and Long-Term Consequences 21:43 Gender Disparity in Recovery Amounts 25:02 Conclusion and Call to Action We hope you enjoyed this deep dive into the changing landscape of college sports! If you found our discussion insightful, we'd like you to take a moment to rate our podcast. Your feedback helps us grow and reach more listeners who are passionate about these topics.  You can also leave a review and tell us what you loved or what you'd like to hear more of - we're all ears!  Remember to hit that subscribe button so you can catch all of the episodes.   Disclaimer: Thoughts, opinions, and statements made on this podcast are not a reflection of the thoughts, opinions, and statements of the Company Traci Chernoff is actively employed by. --- Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/hrtraci/support

NCLA is taking a stand in Bristol Myers Squibb Company v. Becerra! We've filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, challenging the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) attempt to hold a company's business hostage to force it to give up its constitutional property rights. Our brief argues that this violates the “unconstitutional conditions” doctrine, which protects against indirect violations of constitutional rights. Tune in as NCLA Senior Litigation Counsel joins Mark and Vec to break down this critical legal battle and its broader implications.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

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

Paul McDonald, the lead plaintiff's lawyer in Johnson v. NCAA, joins to discuss the Third Circuit's recent and potentially historic decision in...Johnson v. NCAA.  Hear why Paul thinks this case ends up with all Division I athletes becoming employees and what comes next...Thank you for listening! For the latest in sports law news and analysis, you can follow Gabe Feldman on twitter @sportslawguy .

On this episode, we tackle the recent Third Circuit decision in Johnson vs. NCAA, where the court held that the “frayed tradition of amateurism” does not prevent college athletes from being classified as employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. The decision doesn't mean that college athletes ARE now employees, but it means that they could be. What does it all mean and where do we go from here? To help me break it all down, I am joined by Joshua Nadreau, Regional Managing partner and Chair of the Labor Relations Group at Fisher Phillips. Thank you for listening! For the latest in sports law news and analysis, you can follow Gabe Feldman on twitter @sportslawguy .

Administrative Law: Are members of "Fishery Management Councils" principal or inferior officers under the Appointments Clause? - Argued: Thu, 11 Jul 2024 9:40:21 EDT

Commerce Clause: May New Jersey compel companies to pay temporary workers provided by staffing agencies the same wages and benefits as full-time employees? - Argued: Tue, 04 Jun 2024 16:7:0 EDT

First Amendment: What statute of limitations governs a libel action on the internet? - Argued: Tue, 07 May 2024 17:32:21 EDT

Join Ben for his discussion with attorneys Taylor Asen and Trevor Savage about their recent $2.4 million verdict in Bangor, Maine in a case involving a surgical mal positioning that caused an arm injury and CRPS.  Taylor and Trevor explain how they worked closely with the client to get her to the right specialist who could diagnose her medical condition.  They talk about the challenges of presenting a CRPS injury at trial.  They discuss how they resisted the defense effort to stipulate to liability and were able to present compelling evidence of corporate indifference and system failure in the lack of safeguards or systems to make sure that the surgery was done safely, and the lack of follow through, investigation, or changes that came out of this incident.  They discuss how they responded to the defense's 11th hour surprise surveillance video, which the judge allowed into evidence over objection.  They used the surveillance to further polarize the case and show the lie in the hospital's claim to be taking responsibility for its actions.  They discuss the use of data analysis to recognize the true value of the case and to formulate the amount asked for in closing. About Taylor Asenwww.gideonasen.com Taylor specializes in medical malpractice cases, trucking accident cases, and other complex personal injury cases. He has recovered tens of millions of dollars for his clients. Taylor possesses a unique combination of intellect, competitive drive, and human empathy that makes him a powerful advocate for his clients. Taylor has dedicated his career to championing the interests of individuals who have suffered harm or injury from corporate misconduct, individual negligence, and bad medical care. Taylor's efforts on behalf of injured Mainers have resulted in several of the largest case settlements in Maine history. Recently, Taylor and his colleague Meryl obtained one of the largest jury verdicts in a child sex abuse case in Maine's history. Taylor has been recognized as one of Maine's leading plaintiff's attorneys. He is only one of two lawyer from Northern New England listed in Lawdragon's list of the top 500 plaintiff's attorneys in the nation—the other lawyer from Northern New England is his partner, Ben Gideon. Taylor is also included in Best Lawyers – Ones to Watch and Super Lawyers Rising Stars; these designations are given to attorneys that distinguish themselves during their first decade of practice. “Nobody is more committed to his clients than Taylor,” said Ben Gideon. “His mind is always working. It's not unusual for me to receive a call after midnight from Taylor, wanting to brainstorm about a thorny problem or about case strategy. Taylor is also a gifted legal writer, enabling our clients to gain the upper hand in motions and briefs submitted to the courts. When it comes to the full range of personal qualities and skills needed to achieve extraordinary client results, there are few lawyers I've met who can match Taylor.” Taylor is on the Board of Governors of the Maine Trial Lawyers Association and has served as Co-Chair of the MTLA's Legislative Committee for the past three years. Taylor has testified in the Maine Legislature on numerous occasions, and played a critical role in the fight to raise Maine's cap on wrongful death damages in 2019. Taylor also has experience litigating class action cases on behalf of employees, consumers, and victims of civil rights abuses. From 2019 to 2020, he co-counseled a class action on behalf of Maine prisoners who were denied treatment for Hepatitis C. That lawsuit resulted in a historic settlement with the Maine Department of Corrections, under which the DOC agreed to treat all incarcerated individuals who have chronic Hepatitis C. Taylor is an Adjunct Professor at Maine Law School, where he co-teaches Trial Advocacy. A native of Maine, Taylor is a graduate of Yale Law School. At Yale, Taylor worked in the Veterans Legal Services Clinic, representing veterans who were improperly denied disability benefits. After graduating from law school, Taylor clerked for federal judges in New York City and Newark, New Jersey. Taylor began his career at a law firm in New York, before returning to Maine to represent individual plaintiffs in personal injury lawsuits. Taylor's wife, Becca, is the Director of Recruiting and Professional Development at Bernstein Shur. Taylor and Becca live in Cumberland County with their three children, Davida, Vivienne, and Leon. What Clients Say About Taylor“The most fantastic Lawyer I have ever met. Caring considerate and great results.” – Hilarie B. “Taylor went above and beyond during the entire case. I felt valued, respected and as if I was the #1 and only client he had.” – Adam D. “Taylor was there, step by step, fighting for what is right and just, making sure we understood each process. He helped my family get the best outcome to move forward with our lives without regret.” – Cheri H. “Taylor Asen was everything we needed in a lawyer: professional, communicative, straight forward and determined. He also was everything we didn't expect: personable, always available, kind and thoughtful. We highly recommend his services.” – Arianna S. “Taylor Asen is the ultimate professional. He navigated us through the toughest time in our lives and handled our medical malpractice case with mastery. . . Most of all, he was human. His confidence and his friendly demeanor put us at ease and his empathy towards our situation made us feel like we wanted to win this case not just for us, but for him.” – Lisa H. EDUCATIONJ.D., Yale Law School, 2012M.A., Columbia University, 2007B.A., George Washington University (summa cum laude), 2006 RECOGNITIONSLawdragon's 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers, 2022The Best Lawyers in America ― “Ones to Watch,” 2021 – presentSuper Lawyers ― “Rising Star,” 2017 – presentAVVO – Rated 10/10 MEMBERSHIPSBoard Member, Maine Trial Lawyers AssociationCo-chair, Legislative Committee, Maine Trial Lawyers AssociationMember, Academy of Truck Accident AttorneysMember, American Association for JusticeMember, Right to Know Advisory Committee, Maine State Legislature, 2019-2022Member, U.S. Attorney for the District of Maine Selection Advisory Committee (2021)Chair, Maine Supreme Judicial Court IOLTA Working Group (2020) ADMISSIONSMaine (2016)U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (2014)U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York (2014)U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York (2014)New York (2013) CLERKSHIPSLaw Clerk, Hon. Julio Fuentes, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 2014Law Clerk, Hon. J. Paul Oetken, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, 2013  About Trevor Savagewww.gideonasen.com Trevor is a skilled trial attorney who represents clients in claims involving medical malpractice, wrongful deaths and other complex personal injury cases. After completing a clerkship with the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, Trevor began his career at a large firm in Portland, representing medical providers, businesses, and insurance companies. Trevor's experience as a defense attorney gives him a unique perspective that he uses to give Gideon Asen's clients an advantage during litigation with insurance companies. A native of Maine, Trevor is a graduate of Emerson College in Boston, Massachusetts, and then the University of Maine School of Law. At Maine Law, he served as Managing Editor of the Maine Law Review and as a legal writing teaching assistant for first-year students. During law school—alongside his then-classmate and current colleague, Meryl Poulin—he distinguished himself as one of two “Prize Arguers” of their class and argued before the Maine Supreme Judicial Court. He and Meryl Poulin—another Gideon Asen attorney—later competed nationally as teammates on the Maine Law Moot Court Team, finishing in the top three of a competition of more than forty teams. While at law school, Trevor interned with the Appellate Division of the United States Attorney's Office and then with Judge Kermit V. Lipez of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. He also worked as a Student Attorney at the Cumberland County District Attorney's Office (winning his first two jury trials as a second-year law student). Trevor lives in North Berwick, Maine, with his wife, Amy, and two children, Jacob and Will. EDUCATIONJ.D., Maine Law School (cum laude), 2017B.S., Emerson College (summa cum laude), 2013 RECOGNITIONSSuper Lawyer's: Rising Star 2022- present MEMBERSHIPSAmerican Bar Association, MemberMaine State Bar Association, MemberMaine Trial Lawyers Association, MemberEdward Thaxter Gignoux Inn of Court, MemberManaging Editor, Maine Law Review (2016-2017)Maine Law Class of 2017 Prize ArguerFaculty Significant Achievement Award, 2017 ADMISSIONSMaine (2017)United States District Court for the District of Maine (2018)United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (2018) CLERKSHIPSLaw Clerk, Hon. Joseph M. Jabar, Maine Supreme Judicial Court, 2017-2018

We're taking a brief recess from the primary view interview series this week but will be back next week with our regularly scheduled dose of industry leading discussions on leveraged finance and more. As always, we also bring you our weekly summary of interesting developments in the restructuring world as well as a preview of what's on tap for this week. We're looking for feedback to improve the podcast experience! Please share your thoughts here: www.research.net/r/Reorg_podcast_survey For more information on our latest events and webinars: reorg.com/resources/events-and-webinars/ Sign up to our weekly newsletter Reorg on the Record: reorg.com/resources/reorg-on-the-record/

Under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, loss is a critical factor in calculating a sentence for a defendant facing white-collar criminal charges. Yet methods of calculating loss can be far from clear. This panel of current and former federal prosecutors will walk through the basics of loss calculations and other financial penalties facing white-collar defendants. In addition, the panel will examine recent case law, including the Third Circuit's recent decision in United States v. Banks, with the potential to impact how courts in Massachusetts and across the country approach loss calculations moving forward.   Questions? Inquiries about program materials? Contact Trenon Browne at tbrowne@bostonbar.org

Judge Stephanos Bibas of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit discusses the importance of storytelling to deliver judgments that are fair, impartial and grounded in law. (University of Virginia School of Law, April 5, 2024)

Can states reject mail ballots if voters fail to fill in the date next to their signatures? Some federal judges have said no, but the Third Circuit appeals court now sets a precedent that could help stabilize the 2024 election rules. Meantime, Lara Trump says the GOP needs to play the early turnout game, plus FTX founder Sam Bankman-Fried is sentenced to 25 years in prison for crypto fraud. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This Day in Legal History: Andrew Johnson is a Scoundrel On this day in legal history, March 27, 1866, President Andrew Johnson enacted one of the most consequential vetoes in American history. Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Bill, a pivotal piece of legislation intended to extend full U.S. citizenship to all former slaves and to fundamentally reshape the landscape of civil rights in the aftermath of the Civil War. This bill was a direct response to the Black Codes, laws passed by Southern states that severely restricted the rights of newly freed African Americans.Johnson, a Southern Democrat who ascended to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination, argued that the bill encroached upon states' rights and would lead to federal overreach. His veto underscored a profound political and ideological rift between the President and the Radical Republicans in Congress, who advocated for more stringent Reconstruction policies and greater protections for former slaves.The veto of the Civil Rights Bill did not mark the end of the struggle for equality; rather, it galvanized Congress to action. In a rare and historic move, Congress overrode Johnson's veto in April 1866, marking the first time in U.S. history that a major piece of legislation became law over a presidential veto. This event signaled a shift in the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches and underscored the growing commitment of the federal government to civil rights.The passage of the Civil Rights Bill set the stage for the 14th Amendment, which would be ratified two years later in 1868. The amendment enshrined in the Constitution the principles of birthright citizenship and equal protection under the law, fundamentally transforming the nature of American citizenship and laying the groundwork for future civil rights advancements. Johnson's veto, and the legislative response it provoked, remain a testament to the turbulent and transformative nature of the Reconstruction era, highlighting the enduring struggle for justice and equality in the United States.The U.S. Justice Department strategically filed its significant antitrust lawsuit against Apple Inc. in New Jersey, aiming to leverage the Third Circuit Court's history of plaintiff-friendly rulings in monopoly cases. This move is part of the broader Biden administration effort to regulate the dominance of Big Tech through antitrust law, targeting practices Apple uses to maintain its smartphone market monopoly. The Third Circuit, known for its openness to cracking down on monopolistic behavior, contrasts with other circuits perceived as more defendant-friendly in antitrust matters.Legal experts point out the Third Circuit's precedents in supporting the government's stance against monopolistic practices, citing past rulings against companies like Dentsply and 3M Co. for violating the Sherman Act. These precedents underline the court's stricter standards for monopolists, relevant to the DOJ's allegations against Apple for Section 2 violations of the same act. The choice of New Jersey also reflects tactical considerations regarding subpoena power and the desire for a court that might approach the case with fresh eyes, avoiding circuits like the Ninth, where Apple has previously secured favorable rulings.The DOJ's lawsuit, joined by New Jersey and other states, underscores the strategic legal and geographic considerations at play in selecting a venue. This reflects a deliberate effort to position the case advantageously within the U.S. legal landscape, aiming for a fresh judicial examination of Apple's business practices and their impact on competition and consumers.DOJ's Apple Suit Filed in New Jersey for Friendly Third CircuitThe 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals has temporarily halted a Texas law, SB4, which authorizes state officials to arrest, detain, and deport individuals entering the U.S. illegally, pending an appeal. This decision represents a temporary victory for the Biden administration in a legal battle with significant ramifications for U.S. immigration policy. The court's 2-1 ruling maintains the suspension of the law, following a lower court judge's determination that it conflicts with federal immigration statutes.Chief Judge Priscilla Richman, writing for the court, underscored that immigration enforcement predominantly falls within federal jurisdiction, despite Texas' efforts to address what it perceives as a failure by Congress to fund adequate responses to increased illegal entries into the United States. She emphasized that Texas cannot assume the federal government's role in immigration matters according to the Constitution and laws.The contested law has caused considerable confusion and uncertainty in Texas, especially regarding its potential enforcement mechanisms. Texas officials argue that SB4 is necessary to mitigate the border crossing influx, criticizing federal inaction. Conversely, the Biden administration contends that the law unlawfully encroaches on federal authority to manage immigration policy and could hinder border management efforts.The appeals court noted that the Texas statute would likely disrupt the federal government's established processes for managing the removal of individuals in the country illegally, pointing out the federal system's complexity and national scope. The 5th Circuit is set to further review the state's appeal of a February ruling by US District Judge David Ezra, who blocked the law on grounds that it would effectively nullify federal law and authority. Oral arguments for the appeal are slated for April 3, as the broader legal challenge to SB4's enforceability continues, with the federal government, a Texas border county, and immigrant rights organizations seeking its permanent injunction.Texas Deportation Law Stays Blocked Until Appeal Is Resolved (1)Disney has settled a lawsuit with the state of Florida, marking the end of its dispute with Governor Ron DeSantis. This resolution came about after a board, appointed by DeSantis to manage the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District which oversees Disney's operations in the region, accepted Disney's settlement offer. The conflict, lasting nearly a year, stemmed from Disney's implementation of certain changes that diminished the municipal authority's powers, specifically limiting the new board's oversight on theme park expansions and billboard advertising.These changes were enacted just before the takeover by the DeSantis-appointed board, leading to a significant legal and public relations battle between the state and Disney, one of Florida's largest employers. Under the terms of the settlement, Disney has agreed to withdraw these controversial changes, thereby restoring the authority of the municipal board.Jeff Vahle, president of Walt Disney World Resort, expressed satisfaction with the settlement, highlighting that it not only concludes the ongoing litigation in Florida's state court but also initiates a period of positive engagement with the district's new leadership. He emphasized that this agreement facilitates further investments and job creation in Florida, benefiting both the state's economy and its workforce. This settlement represents a significant step towards resolving the tensions between Disney and the Florida government, opening the door to future cooperation and development.Disney Ends Fight With Ron DeSantis by Settling Florida LawsuitFlorida governor, Disney reach settlement | ReutersA consumer lawsuit accusing Apple of anti-competitive practices related to cryptocurrency transactions in its App Store was dismissed by a federal judge in San Francisco. The lawsuit, filed in November 2023, claimed Apple's restrictions on cryptocurrency technology stifled competition and increased transaction fees for services like Venmo and Cash App. U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria criticized the lawsuit as "speculative," identifying several critical flaws, but allowed the plaintiffs 21 days to amend their complaint. Apple, which has faced various antitrust challenges, including a notable lawsuit from the U.S. Justice Department over smartphone market monopolization, denied any wrongdoing. This dismissal adds to the ongoing debate about Apple's influence on app market competition and its regulatory compliance amidst growing legal scrutiny.Apple defeats consumers' crypto-payment antitrust case for now | ReutersHunter Biden is set to request the dismissal of tax evasion charges against him, claiming the case is politically motivated. His legal team will argue before a Los Angeles federal court that the prosecution was influenced by Republican scrutiny of his father, President Joe Biden. Hunter has pleaded not guilty to charges of evading $1.4 million in taxes from 2016 to 2019, despite having repaid the amount. His trial is scheduled for June, ahead of the contentious November presidential election. Additionally, Hunter faces separate charges in Delaware related to the alleged purchase of a handgun while using illegal drugs, to which he has also pleaded not guilty. His defense includes claims of selective prosecution and challenges the appointment of Special Counsel David Weiss, asserting the case should be dismissed due to an earlier plea deal that fell through.Hunter Biden to ask judge to dismiss tax charges as politically motivated | Reuters Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Returning guest Eamonn Moran, Senior Counsel in our Washington, DC office, joins host Patrick Dolan to discuss the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruling on a case involving the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and a group of trusts associated with the National Collegiate Student Loan Trust. Eamonn clarifies why CFPB initiated enforcement proceedings against the trusts and their alleged violations related to servicing and collecting student loans, the trusts' counterargument, and finally, why the court held that the trusts were indeed "covered persons" under the CFPA.Eamonn shares why this ruling has implications for securitization trusts and their classification as “covered persons” under the CFPA, as well as potential enforcement actions by the CFPB in the future.Listen and subscribe to the Securitization Insight podcast on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your preferred podcast app.

Ted Cruz (R-TX), senator from Texas and author of Unwoke: How to Defeat Cultural Marxism in America, joined the Guy Benson Show today to discuss the border and the recent SCOTUS on Texas' enforcement of current border law. Benson and Cruz also discuss the 2024 presidential election and the Democratic strategy heading into this year. Finally, Cruz and Benson discuss the latest nomination to the Third Circuit , Adeel Mangi, who is quickly losing Democrat support. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It has been said that American-style split sovereignty provides the people a “double security” for their liberties. And a distinct security too: where the Framers’ primary restraint on the avarice of the United States was the enumeration of its powers, each state is omnipotent and yet typically bound by a thicker conception of the proper ends of government. But these separate sovereigns interact in unique and sometimes puzzling ways that leave the state of the vertical separation of powers in flux. And given that “split[ting] the atom of sovereignty,” as Justice Kennedy characterized it in US Term Limits v. Thornton, is a uniquely American contribution, is it really necessary to secure the people’s liberty?FeaturingProf. Maureen Brady, Louis D. Brandeis Professor of Law and Deputy Dean, Harvard Law SchoolHon. Sarah K. Campbell, Justice, Tennessee Supreme CourtHon. James E. Tierney, Lecturer on Law, Harvard Law School and former Attorney General, MaineProf. Ernest A. Young, Alston & Bird Distinguished Professor of Law, Duke University School of LawModerator: Hon. Stephanos Bibas, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

NJ Second Amendment Headline News for Sunday, March 17th, 2024South Carolina finally joins as the latest Constitutional Carry State, Motion for Summary Judgement filed in a NY AWB case, oral arguments were held in the Third Circuit in the Delaware AWB/Mag ban case, and NJ AG Matt Platkin releases PTC data and wants everyone to post gun free zone signs. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

This Day in Legal History: Janet Reno Sworn in as U.S. Attorney GeneralOn March 12, 1993, a groundbreaking moment in the annals of American legal and political history unfolded as Janet Reno was sworn in as the first female U.S. Attorney General. Appointed by President Bill Clinton, Reno's confirmation by the Senate marked a significant milestone, shattering a glass ceiling in the highest echelons of the U.S. justice system. Her tenure, which lasted until January 20, 2001, remains the longest in the 20th century for this pivotal role. Reno was known for her straightforward approach and her commitment to addressing complex issues directly, which earned her both admiration and criticism.Reno's time in office was characterized by her involvement in some of the most contentious and high-profile cases of the 1990s. She oversaw the prosecution of the 1993 World Trade Center bombers and the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, demonstrating her dedication to combatting domestic terrorism. Her decisions, such as the authorization of the armed seizure of Elián González, a Cuban boy embroiled in international custody and immigration controversy, and her handling of the Branch Davidian siege in Waco, Texas, were sources of national debate, highlighting the challenges and pressures of her role.Despite the controversies, Reno's contributions to justice and her trailblazing role as the first woman to serve as U.S. Attorney General had a lasting impact on the legal landscape. Her tenure helped pave the way for future generations of women in law and public service, inspiring countless individuals to pursue careers in these fields. Janet Reno's legacy is a testament to her resilience, leadership, and unwavering commitment to justice, marking March 12 as a notable date in legal history for celebrating her historic swearing-in and the doors it opened for women in the legal profession.An anonymous ethics complaint has been filed against William Lee, a distinguished attorney from WilmerHale, urging the Massachusetts attorney general's office to delve into the firm's interactions with Harvard University. Lee, who also served on Harvard's governing board for over a decade, and WilmerHale represented Harvard in its legal fight to maintain its race-based admissions policy, a battle ultimately lost at the Supreme Court. Additionally, the firm prepared former Harvard president Claudine Gay for a congressional hearing on antisemitism, which contributed to her resignation. Despite these incidents highlighting the connections between WilmerHale and Harvard, experts like Stephen Gillers from NYU suggest there's no apparent wrongdoing based solely on Lee's dual roles.The complaint alleges Lee may have breached conflict of interest regulations for public entities due to his position at Harvard and his involvement in its legal affairs, especially the affirmative action litigation. WilmerHale defended its legal representation of Harvard, stating Lee recused himself from any school decisions regarding the case, and Harvard, in a 2018 statement, claimed Lee received no payment for his work on the affirmative action case or any related revenue from the firm's billing to Harvard. Legal ethics professionals note that Lee's actions, including his decision to recuse himself, likely didn't violate any rules, though questions about compensation remain partially unanswered.Lee's role in WilmerHale's relationship with Harvard during the legal challenges to its admissions policies has drawn scrutiny, especially considering the firm's substantial legal fees from Harvard during this period. However, both Harvard and WilmerHale have maintained that Lee's involvement and the firm's compensation practices were ethical and transparent. Lee's significant contributions to both Harvard and WilmerHale, including his leadership in a pivotal lawsuit and his recusal from fiduciary duties related to the case, illustrate the complexities of navigating legal ethics in high-profile cases.WilmerHale's Work for Harvard Scrutinized in Ethics ComplaintThe parent company of Alex Jones' Infowars, Free Speech Systems LLC, amidst its bankruptcy proceedings, has obtained court approval to change its legal representation as it faces a pivotal phase that could lead to either a restructure or a systematic shutdown. This decision was sanctioned by Judge Christopher Lopez from the US Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, emphasizing that this switch in counsel should not decelerate the ongoing case. The approval came after stakeholders in the Chapter 11 bankruptcy case, filed under a special chapter for small businesses separate from Jones himself in 2022, consented to the replacement of lead attorney Ray Battaglia with the O'ConnorWechsler PLLC firm.This strategic move is part of broader efforts to navigate through bankruptcy while addressing over $1.5 billion in judgments against Jones and Infowars for defaming Sandy Hook victims' families. Jones had previously called the tragedy, where 26 were killed in Newtown, Connecticut, a hoax perpetrated by "crisis actors." The trustee overseeing the bankruptcy highlighted concerns about the viability of Free Speech Systems' reorganization and suggested that the court might need to consider converting the case to a Chapter 7 liquidation. This comes as litigation continues against PQPR Holdings, an Infowars vendor implicated in insider payments, suggesting an intricate web of financial and legal challenges as the company seeks to resolve its liabilities and navigate through bankruptcy.Infowars Parent Gets New Lawyer Amid Bankruptcy Case ConcernsIn a significant development in the ongoing opioid crisis litigation, Walmart Inc. achieved a partial victory when a federal judge dismissed two of the three charges against it brought by the US government. Chief Judge Colm F. Connolly of the US District Court for the District of Delaware ruled in favor of Walmart by dismissing charges that accused the retail giant of failing to report suspicious orders of controlled substances and not adhering to standard pharmacy practice in filling prescriptions. These dismissals were grounded in interpretations of the Controlled Substances Act, with Connolly stating that the act does not deem the failure to comply with reporting requirements or to adhere to standard pharmacy practices as unlawful, nor does it subject violators to civil penalties.However, Walmart's motion to dismiss a third charge was denied. This charge alleges that Walmart, through its agents and employees, knowingly dispensed controlled substances on prescriptions that were not issued for legitimate medical purposes or were outside the usual course of professional treatment. The decision to keep this charge intact was influenced by precedent from the Third Circuit, underscoring that knowledge of wrongdoing by any employee is attributable to the corporation itself. This mixed ruling leaves Walmart partially vindicated but still facing serious allegations related to its handling of opioid prescriptions, highlighting the complexities of legal responsibilities in the context of the opioid epidemic. Walmart has yet to comment on the judge's rulings.Walmart Scores Partial Win in Opioid Crisis Suit Brought by USLegislation aimed at compelling TikTok's parent company, ByteDance, to divest the app or face a U.S. ban is gaining momentum in Congress, despite former President Donald Trump's recent remarks questioning the necessity of a ban. The bipartisan bill, led by House China Committee Chairman Mike Gallagher, seeks to prohibit app stores and ISPs like Apple and Google from hosting TikTok unless ByteDance divests it within six months. This legislative effort received a unanimous vote of approval from the Energy and Commerce Committee. Trump's shift in stance, from previously attempting to ban TikTok due to national security concerns to now suggesting Meta's Facebook poses a greater threat, introduces a complex variable for Republican lawmakers. FBI Director Christopher Wray and the annual report from the Office of the Director for National Intelligence have reiterated significant national security risks associated with TikTok, citing instances of China's alleged use of the platform to influence U.S. politics. TikTok has countered these allegations by denying any data sharing with Beijing and by investing over $1.5 billion to safeguard its U.S. operations, including a partnership with Oracle for oversight. The bill's future in the Senate remains uncertain, though some senators have expressed potential support. TikTok has mobilized efforts to oppose the bill, including enlisting Republican figures. Meanwhile, voices within Congress advocate for broader internet data protection measures rather than focusing solely on TikTok. This ongoing debate highlights the complexities of addressing cybersecurity, data privacy, and the influence of social media on public discourse.TikTok Divestment Bill Moves Ahead in House as Trump WaversIn my column, I delve into the urgent need for the United States to adopt a global minimum tax as a means to combat rampant corporate tax avoidance, a situation exacerbated by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) of 2017. Despite the act's promises, its aftermath has primarily seen the institutionalization of tax evasion practices rather than the anticipated economic growth. I argue that President Joe Biden's proposal for a global minimum tax of 21% on multinational earnings in each jurisdiction is a critical step towards halting the detrimental race to the bottom in corporate tax rates, thus leveling the playing field for U.S. businesses.My analysis points out that following the TCJA, many corporations have paid significantly less in taxes than intended, with a study showing an effective tax rate of just 14.1% for 342 of the most profitable companies. This starkly contrasts with the act's reduced rate of 21%, underscoring the policy's failure to curb tax evasion effectively. I contend that revisiting the advocacy for a global minimum tax is not only timely but essential for the integrity of the corporate tax framework, especially as Biden's administration's tax policies face uncertainty with the approaching presidential election.I emphasize the necessity of tax transparency in achieving equitable corporate taxation. This involves mandating standardized disclosures of taxes paid across jurisdictions and the specifics of tax benefits and credits received, thereby allowing tax authorities, the public, and stakeholders to scrutinize corporations' tax strategies more effectively.Further, I discuss the broader context of the global minimum tax initiative led by the G20 and OECD, which the U.S. has yet to join. This reluctance leaves the U.S. missing out on potential revenue from the global minimum tax rate of 15% agreed upon by over 140 countries, which could support critical domestic investments. I challenge the arguments against the global minimum tax, highlighting the benefits of discouraging harmful tax competition and simplifying compliance for multinational corporations.In sum, I tried through my column to underscore the imperative for the U.S. to embrace the global minimum tax as a robust solution to corporate tax avoidance, fostering fairness, equity, and the necessary fiscal resources to invest in the nation's future.US Must Adopt Global Minimum Tax to Fight Corporate Tax Avoidance Get full access to Minimum Competence - Daily Legal News Podcast at www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

NJ Second Amendment Headline News for Monday, February 26th, 2024Louisiana moves one step closer to Constitutional Carry, Judge Benitez provides another 2A victory in California, Arguments in an important Third Circuit case are scheduled, and yet another antigun/anticarry bill is introduced in the NJ Senate. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Voting Rights: May private plaintiffs challenge a Pennsylvania rule that rejects mail-in ballots marked with an erroneous date? - Argued: Tue, 20 Feb 2024 9:48:39 EDT

NJ Second Amendment Headline News for Friday, February 16th, 2024The Third Circuit issues a decision in a NJ LEOSA case, PA appeals its Third Circuit 18-20 year old case, PA State Court Contradicts itself in an anti-2a decision, and Facebook antigun censorship forces a move for prominent NJ 2A group New Jersey Firearm Owners Syndicate. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

FPC Action Foundation vice president and general counsel Cody J. Wisniewski joins the show to talk about the Fourth Circuit's premature "en banc-inization" of the Bianchi case, while Cam has details on a big FPC/SAF win in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals.

Bloomberg Radio host Barry Ritholtz speaks to Matt Levine, a Bloomberg Opinion columnist and the author of Money Stuff, a daily newsletter about Wall Street and finance. A former investment banker at Goldman Sachs, he was a mergers and acquisitions lawyer at Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz; a clerk for the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit; and an editor of Dealbreaker. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Koons v. Platkin is a challenge to certain provisions of New Jersey Bill A4769/S3214 – now known as Chapter 131 – that overhauled the state's firearms and concealed carry laws following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Among other things, the law features 25 broad categories of “sensitive places” where permit holders may not carry a firearm. Additionally, the law makes all private property presumptively a “sensitive place” and requires permit holders to obtain consent from the property owner before carrying on their property. Chapter 131 faced legal challenge immediately upon being signed into law by the Governor of New Jersey. At the District Court level, plaintiffs argued that several of the “sensitive place” restrictions plainly violated the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs also challenged a provision that required permit holders to render their weapons inoperable while inside a moving vehicle. The State of New Jersey has maintained that Chapter 131 is consistent with the Second Amendment and the decision in Bruen. The District Court granted a TRO and later a preliminary injunction noting that certain parts of the law were “plainly unconstitutional.” The case is now being litigated in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit where oral arguments were heard on October 25, 2023. Peter A. Patterson, Partner at Cooper & Kirk and counsel to plaintiffs, discussed the case.

On Monday, it was Binance. On Tuesday, Coinbase. Electric Capital General Counsel Emily Meyers joins the show to read between the lines of an action-packed week for Gary Gensler's SEC. Meyers lends her lawyerly eye to the key differences between the two lawsuits, the SEC's potential strategy, and whether federal legislation will beat the courts in providing clarity.  Listen to the episode on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Overcast, Podcast Addict, Pocket Casts, Stitcher, Castbox, Google Podcasts, TuneIn, Amazon Music, or on your favorite podcast platform. Show highlights: why Emily thinks the SEC's actions don't represent the end of crypto in the U.S. what the similarities and differences are in the lawsuits against Coinbase and Binance why it's fundamental to the SEC's allegations that the court determines that at least one of the named tokens is in fact a security whether Coinbase and Binance will file motions to dismiss whether allegations against Binance are comparable to those against FTX whether Gary Gensler's interactions with Binance in 2019 raise ethical questions about his involvement in the case  why Emily thinks that Gensler's approach to crypto is not aligned with the SEC's mission to protect investors why the SEC allowed Coinbase to go public and is now suing them how the SEC sued Coinbase only after the exchange sued the agency first whether the Third Circuit will press the SEC to issue the rules that Coinbase has petitioned for why Emily believes that there's not an effective path for crypto companies to properly register in the U.S. why the SEC has listed large-market-cap tokens such as SOL, ADA, and MATIC but has not gone after ETH Thank you to our sponsors! Crypto.com Copilot Money Proton Guest Emily Meyers, general counsel at Electric Capital Links Previous coverage of Unchained on the topic: The Chopping Block: Jake Chervinsky on How the SEC Has Lost Credibility These 2 Crypto Trading Platforms Agree With SEC Chair Gary Gensler Coinbase's Legal Action Against the SEC: How It Will Likely Unfold  ‘Is ETH a Security?' Why Gary Gensler Couldn't Give Congress a Straight Answer Gary Gensler vs. Crypto: What Will the SEC Attack Next? Rep. Emmer on Why He Believes Gary Gensler Is a ‘Bad-Faith Regulator' LINKS Unchained: SEC Sues Coinbase for Breaking Securities Laws SEC Files Motion to Freeze Binance's Assets, Asks for ‘Sworn Accounting' SEC Files 13 Charges Against Binance Including the Mishandling of Funds, Sale of Unregistered Securities SEC Calls Solana, Polygon, Algorand and Other Tokens Securities but Misses Ether in Binance Lawsuit US House Republicans Propose Bill That May Give Crypto Assets a Path to Becoming Commodities Coinbase Seeks to Compel SEC Response to Rulemaking Petition CoinDesk:  SEC Seeks Temporary Restraining Order to Freeze Binance.US Assets Crypto Exchange Binance Says Gensler Once Offered to Be an 'Informal Advisor' Binance Redirected $12B to Firms Controlled by CEO Changpeng Zhao, SEC Says Fortune: Former Coinbase employee and his brother settle with the SEC, which again dodges proving whether cryptocurrencies are securities Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices