Podcasts about third parties

Helping Kids Navigate Divorce with Parent Coach Danielle LindnerSeth Nelson and Pete Wright welcome parent coach and early childhood education expert Danielle Lindner to discuss how children process divorce and what parents can do to help them stay resilient. Lindner, author of "The Parent's Pocket Guide to Surviving the Preschool Years" and several children's books, specializes in helping families raise emotionally healthy kids while maintaining their own wellbeing during major life transitions.Seth and Pete explore key indicators that children might be struggling with divorce, often manifesting in behavior changes opposite to their typical personality. The discussion delves into positive parenting strategies during divorce—including the importance of consistency, emotional validation, and avoiding negative talk about the other parent. Lindner emphasizes the power of age-appropriate communication and explains how "scaffolding"—building supportive steps toward greater emotional agency—can help children develop resilience during challenging times.Questions we answer in this episode:How can you tell if your child is struggling with divorce beyond what they're telling you?When should you consider bringing in professional help for your children?How do you handle introducing new partners when kids express negative feelings?Key Takeaways:Maintain consistency and kindness across both householdsValidate children's feelings without overloading them with informationConsider early intervention with counseling—it's better to start early than wait for problemsThis episode provides practical, actionable advice for parents navigating divorce with young children. Whether you're just beginning the process or already co-parenting, Lindner's expertise offers valuable insights into supporting children's emotional health while maintaining positive family relationships during and after divorce.Links & NotesFind Danielle on her website, LinkedIn, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTubeCheck out Danielle's booksSchedule a consult with SethGot a question you want to ask on the show? Click here! (00:00) - Welcome to How to Split a Toaster (00:26) - Danielle Lindner and Positive Parenting (01:35) - First Signs a Child Is Struggling (06:01) - Myths Around Kids and Divorce (10:27) - Positive Parenting (11:57) - Coaching Parents (15:07) - Tools for Struggling Children (18:21) - Scaffolding (20:19) - Learning to Be Emotionally Resilient (22:12) - Social Media (26:35) - Third Parties (30:35) - Daily Reminder (33:23) - When to Use a Counselor (34:40) - Danielle's Book (38:27) - Wrap Up

This lecture explores the principles of contract interpretation, performance obligations, breach of contract, and the rights of third parties. It covers how courts interpret contracts, the significance of performance standards under common law and UCC, the implications of breach, and the conditions under which performance may be excused. The lecture emphasizes the importance of understanding these concepts for effective contract law practice.TakeawaysCourts interpret contracts to reflect the parties' intentions.The plain meaning rule is the starting point for interpretation.Substantial performance allows enforcement despite minor defects.The perfect tender rule requires exact conformity in UCC contracts.Conditions can be express, implied, or constructive.Material breaches excuse the non-breaching party's performance.Anticipatory repudiation allows for immediate legal action.Third parties can acquire rights through assignment or delegation.Impossibility and impracticability can excuse performance.Frustration of purpose can prevent enforcement of contracts.Chapters00:00 Understanding Contract Interpretation04:13 Performance Obligations in Contracts08:01 Breach of Contract and Its Consequences11:49 Rights of Third Parties and Excusing Performancecontract interpretation, performance obligations, breach of contract, third-party rights, contract law, UCC, common law, anticipatory repudiation, conditions, legal doctrines

(03:59) Brought to you by Swimm.io.⁠⁠⁠⁠Start modernizing your mainframe faster with Swimm.Understand the what, why, and how of your mainframe code.Use AI to uncover critical code insights for seamless migration, refactoring, or system replacement.Stop fearing Friday and late-night deployments!Discover how the most painful part of software development—deploying to production—can become routine, safe, and even boring.In this episode, I sit down with Valentina Servile (ThoughtWorks lead developer and author of “Continuous Deployment”) to discuss the principles, practices, and mindset shift required to achieve true Continuous Deployment.Key topics discussed:The key differences between Continuous Integration, Continuous Delivery, and Continuous DeploymentWhy “if it hurts, do it more often” is the secret to safer, faster releasesApplying Lean principles like one-piece flow and reducing batch size for higher quality and speedThe importance of removing the final manual deployment gate and automating everythingEssential minimum practices: robust automated testing, feature flags, static analysis, and zero-downtime deploymentsSeparating deployment from release with feature flags and expand/contract patternsOvercoming challenges in regulated industries, technical hurdles, and third-party integrationsThe critical mindset shift: treating production as a first-class citizen and embracing “shift left” for quality and securityCautions and advice on using AI tools in a continuous deployment workflowTune in to level up your software delivery and learn how to make deployments so routine that you'll never dread another release.  Timestamps:(02:00) Career Turning Points(06:05) Tips for Juniors Starting Their Careers(08:00) Continuous Deployment Book(10:16) Definitions of CI, CD, Continuous Deployment(15:42) If It Hurts, Do It More Often(19:18) Why Remove The Final Manual Gate to Production(24:56) Common Challenges in Adopting Continuous Deployment(30:02) Minimum Practices for Continuous Deployment(35:17) Hiding Work-in-Progress(38:46) The Difference Between Deployment vs Release(41:40) Slicing the Work(45:10) Coordinating Changes Between Systems & Third Parties(47:58) The Importance of Backward Compatibility(50:05) The Required Mindset Shift(53:16) AI Caution in Continuous Deployment(55:35) 3 Tech Lead Wisdom_____Valentina Servile's BioValentina Servile is a full-stack software craftswoman and Lead Software Developer at Thoughtworks.She has worked with over a dozen companies in 5 different countries, ranging from start-up to enterprise scale. Her work has been focused on clean code, distributed systems and microservices, CI/CD practices, and evolutionary architectures in a variety of tech stacks. As a technical lead, she also coordinates delivery, and ensures a shared vision around ways of working and technical health in her cross-functional teams.Valentina is passionate about creating an engineering baseline of clean code, testing and automation as the the most fundamental enabler of Agile, Lean and DevOps principles.Follow Valentina:LinkedIn – linkedin.com/in/valentina-servileBluesky – @valentinaservile.bsky.social

Esperando al lanzamiento final este 5 de junio, la Switch 2 por fin se ha anunciado con todo lujo de detalles en París, en una Premiére internacional en el Grand Paláis de París a la que tuvimos el privilegio de asistir para comprobar, in situ, el desempeño de la heredera de la consola más éxitosa de Nintendo y una de las consolas más vendidas de la historia y de mayor y amplio impacto social y cultural en la industria del videojuego, la Switch (1). Probamos juegos, pudimos hablar con los responsables, así como con los estudios Third Parties implicados en el lanzamiento (como Cyberpunk 2077, Hades 2, Streetfighter o Yakuza). Toca compartir opiniones con colegas de otros medios y poner encima de la mesa un asunto que, al hilo del precio de lanzamiento de la consola y del precio de sus juegos con especial sobresalto por los 90 € de Mario Kart World, además de otros asuntos tampoco menores, hemos lanzado una pregunta: ¿NintenDOES what NintenDON’T? ¿Es este movimiento en pos de una consola muy dotada tecnológicamente y con esos precios un movimiento Nintendo? ¿Sigue en su propia liga o su nueva liga es la de más competencia? ¿Son los precios justificables teniendo en cuenta el contexto internacional y lo que realmente ofrecen consola y juegos? ¿Cómo de bueno son Mario Kart o DK Bananza? Respondemos con un Superpodcast especial con los siguientes invitados:Paula Balandín - Europa PressRuben Márquez - 3D JuegosCarlos Yllobre - NintenderosRaquel Díaz - Vandal / El MundoDavid Caballero - GamereactorEscuchar audio

China and Russia have reaffirmed ties during Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi's visit, as the two countries mark 80 years since the Allied victory in World War II (01:06). Chinese teams are disinfecting earthquake-affected areas in Myanmar to reduce the risk of diseases amid high temperatures (09:02). And the world is bracing for new U.S. tariffs, as many trading partners vow to come up with countermeasures (17:27).

This week is an attempt to organize disparate content pieces from the past few weeks. Thoughts on third parties, Trump’s address to the joint session of Congress (which we mistakenly referred to as the State of the Union, oops!), notes on the final non-negotiables and random thoughts Max is working through. We’ve got a mashup of sorts on our hands so prepare for a bit of rambling. Resources UNFTR Non-Negotiables Associated Press: Elissa Slotkin delivers Democratic response to Trump’s speech Britannica: United States presidential election of 1912 Time: How Ross Perot Changed Political Campaigns LWV: The League's History Sponsoring Presidential Debates The Commission on Presidential Debates Tampa Bay Times: Nader, Buchanan kept out of debate -- If you like #UNFTR, please leave us a rating and review on Apple Podcasts and Spotify: unftr.com/rate and follow us on Facebook, Bluesky, TikTok and Instagram at @UNFTRpod. Visit us online at unftr.com. Buy yourself some Unf*cking Coffee at shop.unftr.com. Check out the UNFTR Pod Love playlist on Spotify: spoti.fi/3yzIlUP. Visit our bookshop.org page at bookshop.org/shop/UNFTRpod to find the full UNFTR book list, and find book recommendations from our Unf*ckers at bookshop.org/lists/unf-cker-book-recommendations. Access the UNFTR Musicless feed by following the instructions at unftr.com/accessibility. Unf*cking the Republic is produced by 99 and engineered by Manny Faces Media (mannyfacesmedia.com). Original music is by Tom McGovern (tommcgovern.com). The show is hosted by Max and distributed by 99. Podcast art description: Image of the US Constitution ripped in the middle revealing white text on a blue background that says, "Unf*cking the Republic."Support the show: https://www.buymeacoffee.com/unftrSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Fragmento del programa 7x26 - Sección de Third Parties

Peggy talks about the hard numbers—and the risks with third-party access to tech systems. She says we need to know this is an ongoing uphill battle that we need to continually face, sharing her four-step approach. She also discusses: An example from more than a decade ago—and what we can learn about it. A new report that highlights some recent numbers. What steps we can take next to prepare for a better tomorrow. peggysmedleyshow.com  (2/18/25 - 908) IoT, Internet of Things, Peggy Smedley, artificial intelligence, machine learning, big data, digital transformation, cybersecurity, blockchain, 5G, cloud, sustainability, future of work, podcast This episode is available on all major streaming platforms. If you enjoyed this segment, please consider leaving a review on Apple Podcasts.

As companies grow, they face an ever-increasing number of third-party providers. Learn how to scale your third-party risk management program effectively to meet this challenge.

Fragmento del programa 7x23 centrado en las Third Parties, hoy toca Informe Financiero de Take-Two y Warner Bros Games

Fragmento del programa 7x21 de la sección dedicada a Third Parties, hoy Electronic Arts

Fragmento del programa 7x19 centrado en las Third Parties, hoy Ubisoft

We discuss January anniversaries for some of our favorite Apple gear, and then a look at what new devices Apple may be planning to introduce during the year. Show Notes: Twenty years of the Mac mini, the little Mac that could Apple Focusing on These Eight New Low-Cost Devices in 2025 No, Siri's "Learn from this app" Setting Is Not Sending Data From Your Apps to Third Parties Apple's weird iPhone alarm problems are still happening macOS flaw that allowed attackers to bypass core system protections is now fixed Sony BMG copy protection rootkit scandal “Banshee Stealer” Mac malware resurfaced in new campaigns French TV show pulled after ridicule of woman who fell for AI Brad Pitt How to Delete Your Social Media Accounts: Facebook, X, Instagram, TikTok, and More Should you think twice about RedNote as a TikTok alternative? Microsoft January 2025 Patch Tuesday fixes 8 zero-days, 159 flaws Intego Mac Premium Bundle X9 is the ultimate protection and utility suite for your Mac. Download a free trial now at intego.com, and use this link for a special discount when you're ready to buy.

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

Ep 456 - We're back from the holiday break, checking in on what everyone played while they were out, from Balatro to Dragon Quest, and we also get caught up on the November sales report. (0:00) - Intro (2:36) - Damiani Catch Up (4:58) - Secret Level (9:50) - FF XIV Raid (19:44) - Dragon Quest III HD-2D Remake (32:37) - Isla - Wilmot's Warehouse Board Game (38:48) - Ballionaire (42:08) - Warframe 1999 (50:34) - The Thing Remastered (56:29) - Gabby - Balatro (58:45) - Gabby Catch Up (1:00:49) - Isla Catch Up (1:04:11) - Don Catch Up (1:11:54) - Huber Catch Up (1:13:04) - The Last of Us Part II Remastered (1:14:35) - Darkest Dungeon II (1:18:03) - November Sales Report (1:35:01) - L&R: Switch 2 Third Parties (1:44:03) - L&R Game: Character Select (1:50:43) - L&R: Opening Cinematics (1:54:19) - Or Wars (2:02:40) - Closing

Send us a textIn the conclusion of Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle's Post-Election Analysis, we share a panel discussion hosted by Baltimore Racial Justice Action (BRJA), held the week after the election.Moderated by Julia Scott, the panel featured:Lawrence Grandpre, Director of Research at Leaders of a Beautiful StruggleAndy Ellis, Chairman of Baltimore for Democracy and 2026 Green Party candidate for Governor of MarylandCharlie Carter, long-time Baltimore community and political activistDiscussion topics included:The Left's anxiety around wielding power and the emotional toll of politics and criticismLikely outcomes of the 2024 electionUsing third parties to gain leverage over the Democratic PartyThe tension between class-first political models and the legacy of Black community activismWhile the panel focused on Baltimore and Maryland, its insights offer valuable lessons for progressives nationwide, especially as they pivot to state and local politics after Republicans took control of all three branches of the federal government.For additional resources, visit the BRJA website at bmoreantiracist.org, including a library of 13th of the Month videos on anti-racism and anti-oppression topics.Support the showIn Search of Black Power is a Black-owned internet show and podcast. This podcast is sponsored and produced by Leaders of a Beautiful Struggle (LBS). The internet show is published in collaboration with Black Liberation Media (BLM)

In this episode of un-CAPP it!, Carmen and Abbie explore the world beyond the two-party system. From the history of third parties and write-ins to their current relevance, they un-CAPP what these options mean for young voters. Featuring interviews with ten Ohio Northern University students, this episodes captures the thoughts of Gen Z when considering alternative candidates. Are these options a way to break the mold or do they split the vote? Tune in to hear the variety of perspectives on navigating candidate selection.

In this episode, we will discuss Apple's Find My enables users to share the location of lost items with third parties. Now available in beta with iOS 18.2, users can share a secure link with the location of an AirTag or Find My network accessory with others — and soon, with airlines.

So far so good

Today on a progressive and a libertarian walk into a bar Sean and Fernie take a look at Argentina to see how they are doing after electing a libertarian president. Fernie also wanted to discuss third parties as spoilers a concept Shawn thoroughly disagrees with. 

Oasis cancels 50,000 tickets that were sold by resellers    Please Subscribe + Rate & Review KMJ's Afternoon Drive with Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson wherever you listen!  ---     KMJ's Afternoon Drive with Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever else you listen.  ---   Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson – KMJ's Afternoon Drive  Weekdays 2-6 PM Pacific on News/Talk 580 & 105.9 KMJ  DriveKMJ.com | Podcast | Facebook | X | Instagram  ---   Everything KMJ: kmjnow.com | Streaming | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Oasis cancels 50,000 tickets that were sold by resellers    Please Subscribe + Rate & Review KMJ's Afternoon Drive with Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson wherever you listen!  ---     KMJ's Afternoon Drive with Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson is available on the KMJNOW app, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Amazon Music or wherever else you listen.  ---   Philip Teresi & E. Curtis Johnson – KMJ's Afternoon Drive  Weekdays 2-6 PM Pacific on News/Talk 580 & 105.9 KMJ  DriveKMJ.com | Podcast | Facebook | X | Instagram  ---   Everything KMJ: kmjnow.com | Streaming | Podcasts | Facebook | X | Instagram    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Bottom line: Who's gonna win this damn election? A question many are asking. To which, like any good poker player would answer: It depends! Well, at least ya gotta listen to find out.   We're on YouTube! Be one of our first 1,000 subscribers: https://www.youtube.com/@politicsandreligion   It would mean so much if you could leave us a review: https://ratethispodcast.com/goodfaithpolitics   It's so cool to be joined again by Carl Allen to delve into the intricacies of election predictions and polling analysis. In this conversation, we cover the inefficiencies in polling methodologies used by entities like Trafalgar and Atlas Intel to the impact of undecided and third-party voters on electoral outcomes. Important states such as Pennsylvania, Michigan, and North Carolina are analyzed, highlighting early voting trends and their potential implications for candidates like Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. The role of prediction markets and Democratic strategies in key Senate races and swing states are also scrutinized, offering insights into the dynamics of voter behavior and the critical factors shaping the 2024 general election. Throughout, the significance of accurate, transparent data in informing the public and predicting election results is emphasized. And of course we had to squeeze in a bit of poker talk!   01:13 Discussing Election Predictions 05:24 Diving into Poll Data 06:25 Pennsylvania Poll Analysis 10:40 Understanding Polling Discrepancies 31:17 Forecasting Pennsylvania's Outcome 38:47 Significance of Third Parties in Elections 40:22 Swing States Analysis: North Carolina 41:38 Registered vs. Likely Voter Polls 45:11 Undecided Voters and Polling Errors 49:31 Late Breakers and Election Predictions 01:03:04 Senate Races and Calculated Risks   substack.com/@realcarlallen   https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1032483024    https://x.com/RealCarlAllen    We're on Patreon! Join the community:  https://www.patreon.com/politicsandreligion   Let us know what you think. You can find Corey on all the socials @coreysnathan such as www.threads.net/@coreysnathan.   Talkin' Politics & Religion Without Killin' Each Other is part of The Democracy Group, a network of podcasts that examines what's broken in our democracy and how we can work together to fix it.   Very grateful for our sponsor Meza Wealth Management. Reach out to Jorge and his team: www.mezawealth.com

This week on the campaign trail, Donald Trump displayed bizarre town hall behavior, Kamala Harris pursued a strategy aimed at Black men, and the first wave of early voting offered a look at the energy of the electorate. Michael Barbaro sits down with the political reporters Lisa Lerer, Shane Goldmacher and Rebecca Davis O'Brien to make sense of it all.Guests:Lisa Lerer, a national political correspondent for The New York Times.Shane Goldmacher, a national political correspondent for The New York Times.Rebecca Davis O'Brien, a reporter covering national politics for The New York Times.Background reading: A frustrated Trump lashed out behind closed doors over money.Five takeaways from Kamala Harris's interview with Charlamagne Tha God.Georgia officials reported record turnout on the first day of early voting.Early voting has started. Here's what to watch.For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

Aired Oct. 15, 2024. Proponents of the two major parties say that third party candidates and independents are just spoilers. We talked with representatives from the United Utah Party and the Utah Libertarian Party.

Dan Harris is a founding member of Harris Sliwoski, an international law firm where he represents companies doing business in emerging market countries. Dan writes and speaks extensively on international law, with a focus on protecting foreign businesses in their overseas operations. He recently authored a blog post on his firm's website using the recent Hezbollah exploding pager attack as a case study on the pitfalls of not vetting your suppliers, which is the topic of today's discussion. You can get in touch with Dan here and read the blog post here.

In this episode, Rory Stewart, former UK Secretary of State for International Development, shares a captivating account of his multifaceted career as a veteran, nonprofit leader, and President of GiveDirectly. Rory reflects on his latest book "How Not to Be a Politician," his near-ascension to becoming the British Prime Minister, and his role in creating the UK's most popular podcast. The conversation also explores the rise of a third major political party in the UK and draws insightful parallels to the work of the Forward Party in the U.S., offering a deep dive into the shifting dynamics of modern politics. Hear your questions answered by Andrew on the next Q&A episode by emailing text or voice memos to mailbag@andrewyang.com! Watch the full episode on YouTube: https://youtu.be/lJwANP7NJW4 ---- Watch Rory's latest TED Talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt0HOe7gf7I Support Rory's effort with GiveDirectly to end extreme poverty and learn more about the power of direct cash relief at https://GiveDirectly.org/tedtalk ---- Follow Rory Stewart: https://www.rorystewart.co.uk/ | https://x.com/RoryStewartUK Follow Andrew Yang: https://andrewyang.com | https://x.com/andrewyang Get 50% off Factor at https://factormeals.com/yang50 Get an extra 3 months free at https://expressvpn.com/yang Get 20% off + 2 free pillows at https://helixsleep.com/yang code helixpartner20 Get 20% off your first order at https://ashanderie.com/ code yang ---- Subscribe to Forward: Apple — https://podcasts.apple.com/podcast/id1508035243 Spotify — https://open.spotify.com/show/25cFfnG3lGuypTerKDxKia To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On July 25, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (collectively, the agencies) issued a “Joint Statement on Banks' Arrangements with Third Parties to Deliver Bank Deposit Products and Services” to “note potential risks related to arrangements between banks and third parties to deliver bank deposit products and services to end users”. On the same day, the agencies issued a “Request for Information on Bank-Fintech Arrangements Involving Banking Products and Services Distributed to Consumers and Businesses” (the RFI) The RFI “solicits input on the nature of bank-fintech arrangements, effective risk management practices regarding bank-fintech arrangements, and the implications of such arrangements, including whether enhancements to existing supervisory guidance may be helpful in addressing risks associated with these arrangements.” The comment period for this RFI has been extended through October 30, 2024. In today's podcast episode, hosted by Alan Kaplinsky, former practice leader and current Senior Counsel in Ballard Spahr's Consumer Financial Services Group, and featuring Ballard Spahr Partners John Culhane, Jr. and Ronald Vaske, we explore the significance of these agency actions, what they may portend for banks and their non-bank partners, and the agencies' likely next steps and future areas of scrutiny. We also discuss tactics banks may want to consider in response to these actions and in preparation for potential future developments. Topics addressed in this wide-ranging episode include the scope and coverage of the RFI; which banks and other entities are likely to provide information in response, and why; and the type of input that would be most valuable for banks to provide to the agencies. We review past agency pronouncements, enforcement, and other activity in connection with bank – service provider arrangements. We list and discuss in detail those risks to banks arising in connection with third-party relationships that cause regulators the greatest concerns. We further provide some practical thoughts as to approaches banks may wish to consider now if they are contemplating a new fintech relationship, as well as ways to shore up practices and procedures in connection with existing third-party arrangements. We then conclude with some thoughts about how fintechs and other bank service providers should react to these agency initiatives

Rob Kendall invited me on his radio show 'Kendall & Casey' on WIBC in Indianapolis to discuss Robert Kennedy Jr. leaving the race while asking "Why can't third parties win."  Check out his show here: https://wibc.com/kendall-and-casey/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Tonight I am joined by my College History Professor turned good friend, Professor Lawson Bowling. It's been nearly a decade since he was on the show last and I am looking forward to catching up, and learning a little something, as I always do when we get together. We'll be talking about the Professor's recent trip to Normandy, History of Third Parties in America, and much much more. Already looking forward to the next time he's on! Watch the video rerun here: https://pilled.net/topic-detail/984743 Sponsor The Show and Get VIP Perks: https://www.quitefrankly.tv/sponsor Badass QF Apparel: https://tinyurl.com/f3kbkr4s Elevation Blend Coffee: https://tinyurl.com/2p9m8ndb One-Time Tip: http://www.paypal.me/QuiteFranklyLive Send Crypto: BTC: 1EafWUDPHY6y6HQNBjZ4kLWzQJFnE5k9PK LTC: LRs6my7scMxpTD5j7i8WkgBgxpbjXABYXX ETH: 0x80cd26f708815003F11Bd99310a47069320641fC For Everything Else Quite Frankly: Official Website: http://www.QuiteFrankly.tv Official Forum: https://bit.ly/3SToJFJ Official Telegram: https://t.me/quitefranklytv GUILDED Chat: https://bit.ly/3SmpV4G Discord Chat: https://discord.gg/4R6bkxqb Twitter: @QuiteFranklyTV Gab: @QuiteFrankly Truth: @QuiteFrankly GETTR: @QuiteFrankly MINDS: @QuiteFrankly Streaming Live On: QuiteFrankly.tv (Powered by Foxhole) FULL Episodes On Demand: Spotify: https://spoti.fi/301gcES iTunes: http://apple.co/2dMURMq Amazon: https://amzn.to/3afgEXZ SoundCloud: http://bit.ly/2dTMD13 Google Play: https://bit.ly/2SMi1SF BitChute: https://bit.ly/2vNSMFq Rumble: https://bit.ly/31h2HUg

For the week of August 19, 2024, Dawn Vaughan, podcast host and The News & Observer's Capitol bureau chief, is joined by her politics team colleagues Avi Bajpai and Kyle Ingram to discuss the latest presidential poll, fundraising in the NC House, third party candidates, and, seasoning salt news. Host: Dawn Vaughan Guest: Avi Bajpai and Kyle Ingram Executive Producer: Kevin Keister Want even more North Carolina politics news? Our Under the Dome newsletter dives deep into all things #ncpol and legislative happenings. It's sent to your inbox Tuesday to Friday and Sunday. Sign up here. Please consider supporting local journalism with a subscription to The N&O. If you're already a subscriber, thank you! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Independent presidential candidate RFK Jr. will be on Nevada's ballot in November after officially filing with the state this month. He's a longshot to win the White House, polling at around 5% currently. But is that enough to spoil the election for Harris or Trump? Or is the worry about a spoiler overblown? UNLV political science professor Dan Lee joins the podcast this week to talk about how third party and independent candidates have fared in Nevada history - and whether this cycle will be any different. (Note: This episode was recorded on Monday, before a judge ruled the Green Party can be on the 2024 ballot) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

How did the US end up with a two-party dictatorship? Are Trump and Biden really the only options? Does lesser evil voting work? If it's meant to prevent the worst case scenario, then how come it didn't prevent the genocide in Gaza? Is third party voting really as useless and fascist enabling as Democrats say? To discuss this and more Rania Khalek was joined by BT's Eugene Puryear. This is just part of this episode. The full interview is available for Breakthrough News Members only. Become a member at https://www.Patreon.com/BreakthroughNews to access the full episode and other exclusive content.

How did the US end up with a two-party dictatorship? Are Trump and Biden really the only options? Does lesser evil voting work? If it's meant to prevent the worst case scenario, then how come it didn't prevent the genocide in Gaza? Is third party voting really as useless and fascist enabling as Democrats say? To discuss this and more Rania Khalek was joined by BT's Eugene Puryear. This is just part of this episode. The full interview is available for Breakthrough News Members only. Become a member at https://www.Patreon.com/BreakthroughNews to access the full episode and other exclusive content.

Jeff discusses the pivotal role Theodore Roosevelt played as a spoiler in the 1912 presidential election, and the legacy he left for Third Parties. Do they tend to be about ideas or personalities? Why don't they seem to last beyond an election cycle or two? How do they fit into our political culture and systems, and what can we learn from our past to help us grapple with today's divided political landscape? Learn more about Mike, including his books and podcast, at his website: https://www.michaelpatrickcullinane.com/ Read the Progressive Party platform from 1912: https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/the-progressive-party-platform-1912/ #thirdparty #tr #bullmoose #1912 Host: Jeff Sikkenga Executive Producer: Greg McBrayer Producer: Jeremy Gypton Subscribe: https://linktr.ee/theamericanidea

The first presidential debate is here, and voters do not seem thrilled with the two, very different candidates. How does a consumerist country built on choice produce so few options? This week, helping us to understand our two party system and why third parties don't work within it, we're joined by Max Stearns, Law Professor at University of Maryland Carey School of Law, and the author of “Parliamentary America: The Least Radical Means of Radically Repairing Our Broken Democracy,” as well as Sam Rosenfeld, Associate Professor of Political Science at Colgate University, and the co-author, with Daniel Schlozman, of “The Hollow Parties: The Many Pasts and Disordered Present of American Party Politics.” Together, they help us to understand the flaws in how our current system functions and offer some possible remedies going forward. Follow The Weekly Show with Jon Stewart on social media for more:  > YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@weeklyshowpodcast > Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/weeklyshowpodcast > TikTok: https://tiktok.com/@weeklyshowpodcast  > X: https://x.com/weeklyshowpod Host/Executive Producer – Jon Stewart Executive Producer – James Dixon Executive Producer – Chris McShane Executive Producer – Caity Gray Lead Producer – Lauren Walker Producer – Brittany Mehmedovic Video Editor & Engineer – Rob Vitolo Audio Editor & Engineer – Nicole Boyce Researcher – Catherine Nouhan Music by Hansdale Hsu --- This podcast is brought to you by: ZipRecruiter Try it for free at this exclusive web address: ziprecruiter.com/ZipWeekly   NetSuite For more info, head to netsuite.com/Weekly --- Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Welcome to Third Party Week! From time to time this election year, we're going to do some special series that highlight the rhythm of an election cycle. This week, we are looking at third parties: who runs for a third party bid, who votes for a third party, and how much do third party candidates really matter?Today, we bring you an episode we did in the fall of 2021 about Ross Perot. His presence looms large over the story of the 1992 election, but he'd actually dropped out for much of that race. In this episode, Jody, Niki, and Kellie look at the moment he worked his way back onto the stage - literally, at a memorable three-way debate.Find out more at thisdaypod.comThis Day In Esoteric Political History is a proud member of Radiotopia from PRX.Your support helps foster independent, artist-owned podcasts and award-winning stories.If you want to support the show directly, you can do so on our website: ThisDayPod.comGet in touch if you have any ideas for future topics, or just want to say hello. Follow us on social @thisdaypodOur team: Jacob Feldman, Researcher/Producer; Brittani Brown, Producer; Khawla Nakua, Transcripts; music by Teen Daze and Blue Dot Sessions; Audrey Mardavich is our Executive Producer at Radiotopia

Welcome to Third Party Week! From time to time this election year, we're going to do some special series that highlight the rhythm of an election cycle. This week, we are looking at third parties: who runs for a third party bid, who votes for a third party, and how much do third party candidates really matter?Today: The 1980 election is remembered for Jimmy Carter's "malaise" and the fresh face of Ronald Reagan reviving the Republican party. But there was a third party candidate, John Anderson, trying to provide a sensible, middle-path, alternative to what he saw as Carter and Reagan's extremism.Find out more at thisdaypod.comThis Day In Esoteric Political History is a proud member of Radiotopia from PRX.Your support helps foster independent, artist-owned podcasts and award-winning stories.If you want to support the show directly, you can do so on our website: ThisDayPod.comGet in touch if you have any ideas for future topics, or just want to say hello. Follow us on social @thisdaypodOur team: Jacob Feldman, Researcher/Producer; Brittani Brown, Producer; Khawla Nakua, Transcripts; music by Teen Daze and Blue Dot Sessions; Audrey Mardavich is our Executive Producer at Radiotopia

Welcome to Third Party Week! From time to time this election year, we're going to do some special series that highlight the rhythm of an election cycle. This week, we are looking at third parties: who runs for a third party bid, who votes for a third party, and how much do third party candidates really matter?Today: Ralph Nader's 2000 run as a Green Party candidate is largely remembered for the question of whether he drew votes away from Al Gore and "spoiled" the election. This episode, we look at why Nader was running to begin with, and what the discourse around his run was like before the Florida recount.Find out more at thisdaypod.comThis Day In Esoteric Political History is a proud member of Radiotopia from PRX.Your support helps foster independent, artist-owned podcasts and award-winning stories.If you want to support the show directly, you can do so on our website: ThisDayPod.comGet in touch if you have any ideas for future topics, or just want to say hello. Follow us on social @thisdaypodOur team: Jacob Feldman, Researcher/Producer; Brittani Brown, Producer; Khawla Nakua, Transcripts; music by Teen Daze and Blue Dot Sessions; Audrey Mardavich is our Executive Producer at Radiotopia

On today's episode of Hear Me Out: nobody wins with two parties. A competitive presidential election draws closer every day – and as ever, every vote will count. So is it fair to accuse third-party voters of wasting a vote, as often happens? Or are third-party candidates actually preserving what little we have left of a competitive democracy?  Bernard Tamas of Valdosta State University joins us to make the case for the power of the third party. If you have thoughts you want to share, or an idea for a topic we should tackle, you can email the show: hearmeout@slate.com Podcast production by Maura Currie. Want more Hear Me Out? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/hearmeoutplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On today's episode of Hear Me Out: nobody wins with two parties. A competitive presidential election draws closer every day – and as ever, every vote will count. So is it fair to accuse third-party voters of wasting a vote, as often happens? Or are third-party candidates actually preserving what little we have left of a competitive democracy?  Bernard Tamas of Valdosta State University joins us to make the case for the power of the third party. If you have thoughts you want to share, or an idea for a topic we should tackle, you can email the show: hearmeout@slate.com Podcast production by Maura Currie. Want more Hear Me Out? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/hearmeoutplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

On today's episode of Hear Me Out: nobody wins with two parties. A competitive presidential election draws closer every day – and as ever, every vote will count. So is it fair to accuse third-party voters of wasting a vote, as often happens? Or are third-party candidates actually preserving what little we have left of a competitive democracy?  Bernard Tamas of Valdosta State University joins us to make the case for the power of the third party. If you have thoughts you want to share, or an idea for a topic we should tackle, you can email the show: hearmeout@slate.com Podcast production by Maura Currie. Want more Hear Me Out? Subscribe to Slate Plus to access ad-free listening across all your favorite Slate podcasts. Subscribe today on Apple Podcasts by clicking “Try Free” at the top of our show page. Or, visit slate.com/hearmeoutplus to get access wherever you listen. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Justice Department and more than a dozen states filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple on Thursday for “smothering” the smartphone industry. Among the claims, the suit accused Apple of limiting virtual wallets other than Apple Pay, making chats with Android products less secure, and blocking new apps, all to maintain a monopoly. Apple rejected the claims of the suit and said it would fight it.The New York Times reported this week that the Democratic Party is preparing to mount an aggressive campaign to challenge the presidential ballot-access efforts of third party candidates. And on Thursday, former New Jersey Governor and twice-failed Republican presidential candidate Chris Christie didn't rule out the possibility of running with the centrist party No Labels. David Faris, an associate professor of political science at Roosevelt University, explains how third parties could tip the outcome of this election cycle.And in headlines: Lawmakers on Friday will try to pass a $1.2 trillion package to prevent a partial government shutdown, President Biden canceled nearly $6 billion more in student debt for public service workers, and Reddit made its debut on the New York Stock Exchange.Show Notes:NYT: “Democrats Prepare Aggressive Counter to Third-Party Threats” – https://tinyurl.com/yvbwakghWhat A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday