Podcasts about united states bankruptcy court

Question of Ethics Conversation: January 23, 2025Artificial intelligence has the potential to reshape the judicial system. AI-powered tools, from legal research assistants to sentencing algorithms and customer service chatbots, offer efficiency but also introduce risks, particularly bias. Additionally, the confidentiality of court records and legal proceedings becomes a pressing concern, as AI systems require vast sums of data for training—potentially exposing sensitive information to breaches or misuse.While AI chatbots improve accessibility by guiding litigants through procedural questions, the possibility of providing incorrect information and the prohibition against providing legal advice highlights the need for careful human oversight.As courts integrate AI into their operations, how do we ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness? What ethical and legal questions arise?Today's Moderator Creadell Webb, Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer for the 1st Judicial District in Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaToday's ModeratorCreadell Webb Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer for the 1st Judicial District in Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaToday's PanelCourtney Whiteside Director, Municipal Court St. Louis, MissouriAlison Braaton Clerk of District Court, Grand Forks County, North DakotaAndrea Powers Human Resources Director, Idaho Court System, Boise, IdahoAmy Emig Business Development Manager, Enterprise Technology Services Division, Oregon Judicial Department, Salem, OregonKelly Hutton Court Administrator, North Dakota Court System, Grand Forks, North DakotaPeter Kiefer host of the Court Leader's Advantage Podcast SeriesNickolas Brackley Technology and Solutions Specialist, Enterprise Technology Services Division, Oregon Judicial Department, Salem, OregonNorman Meyer, Retired Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New MexicoRoger Rand IT Manager, Multnomah Circuit Court, Portland, Oregon

Question of Ethics Conversation January 23, 2025 EpisodeArtificial intelligence has the potential to reshape the judicial system. AI-powered tools, from legal research assistants to sentencing algorithms and customer service chatbots, offer efficiency but also introduce risks, particularly bias. Additionally, the confidentiality of court records and legal proceedings becomes a pressing concern, as AI systems require vast sums of data for training—potentially exposing sensitive information to breaches or misuse.While AI chatbots improve accessibility by guiding litigants through procedural questions, the possibility of providing incorrect information and the prohibition against providing legal advice highlights the need for careful human oversight.As courts integrate AI into their operations, how do we ensure transparency, accountability, and fairness? What ethical and legal questions arise?Today's Moderator Creadell Webb Chief Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officer for the 1st Judicial District in Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaToday's PanelCourtney Whiteside Director of the Municipal Court in St. Louis, MissouriAlison Braaton Clerk of District Court in Grand Forks County, North DakotaAndrea Powers Human Resources Director of the Idaho Court System, BoiseAmy Emig Business Development Manager, Multnomah Circuit Court, Portland, OregonKelly Hutton Court Administrator, North Dakota Court System, Grand ForksPeter Kiefer Host, Court Leader's Advantage Podcast SeriesNickolas Brackley IT Specialist for the Oregon Judicial Department Circuit Court, SalemNorman Meyer Retired Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court, District of New Mexico andRoger Rand IT Manager for the Multnomah Circuit Court, in Portland, Oregon

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

**FTX Bankruptcy Plan Approved: A Turning Point for Sam Bankman-Fried and Cryptocurrency**In a significant development, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware has approved FTX's bankruptcy plan, paving the way for the defunct cryptocurrency exchange to repay billions of dollars to its creditors. This decision marks a crucial milestone in the aftermath of FTX's collapse, which was triggered by the misuse of customer funds by its founder, Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF).SBF, once hailed as a visionary in the cryptocurrency space, is now facing severe consequences. In March, he was sentenced to 25 years in prison for his role in the collapse of FTX. The court's approval of the bankruptcy plan allows FTX to prioritize customer repayments over regulatory fines and taxes, a move that has been welcomed by many creditors.Under the approved plan, FTX aims to repay 98% of customers who held $50,000 or less on the platform, with payments expected within 60 days of the plan's effective date. The company estimates it will have between $14.7 billion and $16.5 billion available for distribution, which includes assets recovered from various sources worldwide.The collapse of FTX was a stark reminder of the risks and vulnerabilities in the cryptocurrency market. SBF's misuse of customer funds to cover risky bets made by his hedge fund, Alameda Research, led to a chaotic collapse that left many investors financially devastated.Despite the approval of the bankruptcy plan, not all creditors are satisfied. Some argue that the repayment amounts do not fully reflect the recent surge in cryptocurrency prices, particularly Bitcoin, which has more than tripled in value since FTX's bankruptcy.The approval of FTX's bankruptcy plan is a significant step towards resolving the complex Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. It reflects the tireless efforts of the team of professionals supporting the case, who have recovered billions of dollars by rebuilding FTX's books from the ground up and marshaling assets from around the globe.As FTX moves forward with its plan to repay creditors, it also underscores the need for stronger corporate controls and regulatory oversight in the cryptocurrency industry. The saga of FTX serves as a cautionary tale about the risks and consequences of unchecked financial practices in the digital age.

Host Paul Musser welcomes as his guest Judge Timothy A. Barnes, who presides over matters in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois in Chicago. Judge Barnes brings a unique perspective to the bench, having worked in private practice at major law firms in different segments of the insolvency industry, including on behalf of debtors, then lenders, and in complex litigation and international cases. As part of their conversation, Paul and Judge Barnes discussed the personalities that drew Judge Barnes to the law, the bankruptcy practice and the bench. And they talked about current trends that he is seeing in his courtroom, his passion for Chapter 15 cases and international insolvency law, and why the Seventh Circuit's K-Mart decision should not stop commercial debtors from filing their Chapter 11 cases in Chicago.

EPISODE DESCRIPTION In this episode Host Cang Le speaks to a guest panel live from our 2024 Legal Symposium featuring Tinnelly Law Group Attorneys Corey Todd and Carrie Heieck; Mark Dodge, Regional Vice President at Associa; and Michelle Lopez, Director of Community Management at Powerstone Property Management, regarding the rights of entry for deceased homeowners. KEY POINTS Exercising the right of entry provisions in the CC&Rs What constitutes an emergency in order to gain entry without notice Gaining entry when the owner is deceased How to seek judicial assistance Recouping delinquent assessments, attorney's fees and costs ABOUT OUR GUESTS Mark Dodge is the Regional Vice President of Associa and the President and CEO of Associa - Desert Resort Management, the largest HOA management company in the Coachella Valley. His experience is wide and includes both senior management and financial positions in the publishing, sports marketing, automotive, technology, and event management industries. Read more about Mark here. Michelle Lopez is the Director of Community Management at Powerstone Property Management and oversees the Coachella Valley office. As a lifelong resident of Coachella Valley, Michelle understands the needs and way of life in the desert. She is an experienced supervisor and senior community association manager. Read more about Michelle here. Corey is a Senior Attorneys with Tinnelly Law Group and Alterra Assessment Recovery. Prior to Tinnelly, Corey completed an externship with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Central District of California, where he clerked for the Honorable Erithe Smith. Corey also spent several years working for a civil litigation firm that built its core business on the representation of financial institutions in the servicing of both commercial and residential property portfolios. Carrie is a Senior Attorney with Tinnelly Law Group practicing for over 15 years primarily representing corporate and institutional clients in areas including corporate formation, contracts, and real estate issues. It was by chance that she began representing several HOAs through word of mouth and discovered a niche of the law that she loves.

22nd Jan Crypto & Coffee at 8

Lewis got incredible access to Sam Bankman-Fried, the billionaire behind the spectacular FTX fraud. His book is a bestseller, but some critics say he went too easy on S.B.F. Lewis tells us why the critics are wrong — and what it's like to watch your book get turned into a courtroom drama. SOURCES:Michael Lewis, author. RESOURCES:Going Infinite: The Rise and Fall of a New Tycoon, by Michael Lewis (2023)."Column: In Michael Lewis, Sam Bankman-Fried Found His Last and Most Willing Victim," by Michael Hiltzik (Los Angeles Times, 2023)."Even Michael Lewis Can't Make a Hero Out of Sam Bankman-Fried," by Jennifer Szalai (The New York Times, 2023)."Michael Lewis Goes Close on Sam Bankman-Fried — Maybe Too Close," by James Ledbetter (The Washington Post, 2023)."What You Won't Learn From Michael Lewis' Book on FTX Could Fill Another Book," by Julia M. Klein (Los Angeles Times, 2023)."Michael Lewis's Big Contrarian Bet," by Gideon Lewis-Kraus (The New Yorker, 2023)."He-Said, They-Said," by John Lanchester (London Review of Books, 2023)."Downfall of the Crypto King," by Jesse Armstrong (The Times Literary Supplement, 2023)."FTX Debtors vs. Joseph Bankman and Barbara Fried," in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware (2023).Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses: Eighth Edition, by Richard C. Pilger (2017)."Pay Candidates to Drop Out? That Should Be Legal," by Stephen L. Carter (Bloomberg, 2016)."The History of the Term 'Effective Altruism,'" by William MacAskill (Effective Altruism Forum, 2014). EXTRAS:"Is This 'The Worst Job in Corporate America' — or Maybe the Best?" by Freakonomics Radio (2023)."A Million-Year View on Morality," by People I (Mostly) Admire (2022).“Did Michael Lewis Just Get Lucky with 'Moneyball'?” by Freakonomics Radio (2022).

True crime fans,  Here is a fun fact for your next trivia night: Ponzi schemes date back to 1879, when the eponymous Charles Ponzi was still a toddler. In this episode, top accounting experts take us behind the scenes of some of the most notorious Ponzi schemes, from Bernie Madoff to Melissa Caddick. Do you know how to spot a Ponzi scheme and protect yourself and your clients? Tune in now to find out.  Host: Jacqueline Blondell, CPA Australia Guests:  Bruce Gleeson FCPA is a registered liquidator and bankruptcy trustee. He has more than 20 years of corporate insolvency, re-organisation and bankruptcy experience. He has also worked for several ASX 100 companies.  Alex Bell is a partner and national head of forensic accounting at Grant Thornton. He has gained extensive experience across many high profile and complex litigations and investigations. He has also given expert evidence in the Federal Court of Australia, Supreme Court of New South Wales and District Court of New South Wales, and prepared an expert report for the Supreme Court of Western Australia. Kathy Bazoian Phelps is a lawyer at Raines Feldman LLP. She frequently represents operating and liquidating trustees in cases pending in the United States Bankruptcy Court as well as receivers in the United States District Court and the Superior Court of the State of California. She has also served as lead counsel in large-scale litigation involving recovery of assets in Ponzi scheme cases. Research, scripting and editing: Susan Muldowney Studio production and sound editing: Garreth Hanley Additional research and scripting: Jacqueline Blondell The Australian Government's Money Smart website has useful information for those seeking advice on how to protect themselves from fraud.  If you'd like to read more about the Ponzi schemes, including those discussed in this episode, these links have information to press releases, documents and news articles.  SEC Enforcement Actions Against Ponzi Schemes SEC Obtains Emergency Asset Freeze in Diamond-Themed Ponzi Scheme (Press Release No. 2010-231; November 23, 2010 Manager of Bogus Foreign Currency Exchange Ponzi Scheme Pleads Guilty to Obstruction of Justice | OPA | Department of Justice USDOJ: US Attorney's Office - District of Minnesota (justice.gov) Sebi clamps down goat-rearing ponzi scheme (business-standard.com) The No. 1 Ladies' Defrauding Agency - Longreads ASIC lead investigator tells Melissa Caddick inquest she was not responsible for alleged fraudster's death - ABC News 21-312MR Melissa Caddick and Maliver found to have engaged in unlicensed conduct | ASIC ASIC v Caddick - Online file (fedcourt.gov.au) CPA Australia publishes three podcasts, providing commentary and thought leadership across business, finance, and accounting:  With Interest INTHEBLACK Excel Tips Search for them in your podcast platform.  You can email the podcast team at podcasts@cpaaustralia.com.au

03rd July: Crypto & Coffee at 8

April 27, 2023, A Question of Ethics Conversation Episode “Quiet Quitting.”  It is a topic that many of us have heard about.  In an era where it is a challenge to hire employees, is “Quiet Quitting” an emerging change in the contract between the court and employees or is it just a new term for some staff not doing their jobs?   In the past it has been given many names: “retiring in place”, “phoning it in,” or “checking out.”  What makes this iteration unusual is that it seems to be a mantra heard from younger workers.  Millennials and Gen Z workers have often uttered this expression.   -What is Quite Quitting?          -What are the ethical challenges the court faces to ensure professionalism diligence of staff?          -How can we ensure that we have a common understanding with staff?          -Is this a new term for an old problem?          -What Should we do about It? Today's Moderator Eric Silverberg: Court Administrator, Municipal Court, Tucson, Arizona   Today's Panel Courtney Whiteside: Director, Municipal Court, St. Louis, Missouri Kent Pankey: Senior Planner, State Supreme Court, Richmond, Virginia Norman Meyer: Retired Clerk of Court, United States Bankruptcy Court, Albuquerque, New Mexico Peter Kiefer: Retired Court Professional Tina Mattison: Deputy Court Administrator, Consolidated Justice Court, Tucson, Arizona Karl Thoennes: Court Administrator, Second Judicial Circuit Court, Sioux Falls, South Dakota Samantha Borden: Staff Assistant, Customer Solutions Division, Water Department, Tucson, Arizona

LTL Management LLC (LTL) is a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson (J&J) that was established in 2021 to hold and manage claims related to a mass tort alleging that J&J's talc-based baby powder caused many cases of ovarian cancer, mesothelioma, and other serious health issues. J&J claims that settling the mass tort in this manner is a reasonable and legitimate course of action. Some plaintiffs' attorneys claim that J&J is using a bad faith strategy that serves no legitimate business purpose, and the tort litigation should be allowed to continue. The case began in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. Chief Judge Michael Kaplan ruled in favor of LTL in February 2022 holding that LTL's filing for Chapter 11 protection was “unquestionably a proper purpose under the Bankruptcy Code.” Upon an expedited appeal, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit reversed and narrowly held in favor of claimants.Hours later, LTL once again filed for Chapter 11 protection; the new filing includes an $8.9 billion settlement offer. Some – including the U.S. Department of Justice's Trustee Program – continue to argue that J&J is misusing bankruptcy law through LTL, but others think the massive settlement is in the best interest of claimants. Both LTL and parent J&J reject that its bankruptcy filing is illegitimate, illegal, or in bad faith. This webinar served as a second installment of the February 16, 2023 webinar titled Chapter 11 Bankruptcy & Mass Torts: A Review of the Third Circuit's LTL Opinion with Professors Lindsey Simon and Tony Casey. Featuring:--Professor Tony Casey, Deputy Dean, Donald M. Ephraim Professor of Law and Economics & Faculty Director, The Center on Law and Finance, University of Chicago Law School--Professor Lindsey Simon, Robert Cotten Alston Associate Chair in Corporate Law, University of Georgia School of Law--Mikal C. Watts, Partner, Watts Guerra LLP

ARTICLE II. THE DEBTORS' CORPORATE HISTORY, STRUCTURE, AND BUSINESS OVERVIEWA. The Debtors' Corporate HistoryOn November 5, 2021, Bread [Financial Holdings, Inc.], a Delaware corporation then known as Alliance Data Systems Corporation (“ADS”), completed a corporate spinoff (the “Spinoff Transaction”) of its loyalty programs business line, which included (i) the AIR MILES Reward Program, Canada's most recognized coalition loyalty program, and (ii) its Netherlands-based BrandLoyalty business (“BrandLoyalty”). As a result of the Spinoff Transaction, LVI, a newly formed independent, publicly-traded company, became the ultimate parent of the entities that own and operate the AIR MILES and BrandLoyalty businesses.Pursuant to the Spinoff Transaction, 81% of the outstanding shares of LVI were distributed pro rata to the holders of ADS common stock based on the outstanding shares of ADS common stock at the close of business on the record date of October 27, 2021 and ADS retained 19% of the outstanding shares of LVI.* In addition, and as described in more detail below, as part of the Spinoff Transaction, ADS caused LVI and subsidiaries comprising the spun business to make cash distributions totaling $750 million to ADS on November 3, 2021. 4 On November 8, 2021, “regular-way” trading of LVI common stock began on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “LYLT”.B. The Company's Business OperationsLVI's non-Debtor indirect subsidiaries own and operate two business segments: AIR MILES and BrandLoyalty. Through the AIR MILES and BrandLoyalty businesses, the Company provides tech-enabled, datadriven customer loyalty solutions by way of reward programs with partnering businesses, including financial institutions, retailers, grocers and other consumer-facing enterprises. These solutions are focused on helping partnering businesses achieve their strategic and financial objectives, including increased consumer basket size, shopper traffic and frequency, digital reach and enhanced program reporting and analytics. The Company also helps its partners create and increase consumer loyalty across multiple touch points, from traditional to digital to mobile and emerging technologies. The Company looks to create value for its stakeholders through the continued development of loyalty platforms for the tech-forward business and consumer era.The Company is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. As of December 2022, the Company employed approximately 1204 individuals in 18 countries around the world and provided services to over 300 participating businesses (with over 10 million Canadians actively participating in the AIR MILES Reward Program) in 41 countries worldwide through the AIR MILES and BrandLoyalty businesses. As of the December 2022, the Company leased approximately 29 properties worldwide, which are used to carry out the Company's operational, sales and administrative functions and include general office properties, warehouses, data centers, customer care centers, automobiles and equipment. The Company's principal leased facilities are located in Canada and the Netherlands.* ADS stockholders of record that did not sell their rights to receive LVI stock before the close of business on November 5, 2021 received one share of LVI common stock for every two and one-half (2.5) shares of ADS common stock.(Excerpt from LOYALTY VENTURES INC., et al., Chapter 11 Case 23-90111 Document 127 Filed in TXSB [the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas] on 03/21/23 COMBINED DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND JOINT CHAPTER 11 PLAN OF LOYALTY VENTURES INC. AND ITS DEBTOR AFFILIATES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 11 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE)

ARTICLE II. THE DEBTORS' CORPORATE HISTORY, STRUCTURE, AND BUSINESS OVERVIEWA. The Debtors' Corporate HistoryOn November 5, 2021, Bread [Financial Holdings, Inc.], a Delaware corporation then known as Alliance Data Systems Corporation (“ADS”), completed a corporate spinoff (the “Spinoff Transaction”) of its loyalty programs business line, which included (i) the AIR MILES Reward Program, Canada's most recognized coalition loyalty program, and (ii) its Netherlands-based BrandLoyalty business (“BrandLoyalty”). As a result of the Spinoff Transaction, LVI, a newly formed independent, publicly-traded company, became the ultimate parent of the entities that own and operate the AIR MILES and BrandLoyalty businesses.Pursuant to the Spinoff Transaction, 81% of the outstanding shares of LVI were distributed pro rata to the holders of ADS common stock based on the outstanding shares of ADS common stock at the close of business on the record date of October 27, 2021 and ADS retained 19% of the outstanding shares of LVI.* In addition, and as described in more detail below, as part of the Spinoff Transaction, ADS caused LVI and subsidiaries comprising the spun business to make cash distributions totaling $750 million to ADS on November 3, 2021. 4 On November 8, 2021, “regular-way” trading of LVI common stock began on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “LYLT”.B. The Company's Business OperationsLVI's non-Debtor indirect subsidiaries own and operate two business segments: AIR MILES and BrandLoyalty. Through the AIR MILES and BrandLoyalty businesses, the Company provides tech-enabled, datadriven customer loyalty solutions by way of reward programs with partnering businesses, including financial institutions, retailers, grocers and other consumer-facing enterprises. These solutions are focused on helping partnering businesses achieve their strategic and financial objectives, including increased consumer basket size, shopper traffic and frequency, digital reach and enhanced program reporting and analytics. The Company also helps its partners create and increase consumer loyalty across multiple touch points, from traditional to digital to mobile and emerging technologies. The Company looks to create value for its stakeholders through the continued development of loyalty platforms for the tech-forward business and consumer era.The Company is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. As of December 2022, the Company employed approximately 1204 individuals in 18 countries around the world and provided services to over 300 participating businesses (with over 10 million Canadians actively participating in the AIR MILES Reward Program) in 41 countries worldwide through the AIR MILES and BrandLoyalty businesses. As of the December 2022, the Company leased approximately 29 properties worldwide, which are used to carry out the Company's operational, sales and administrative functions and include general office properties, warehouses, data centers, customer care centers, automobiles and equipment. The Company's principal leased facilities are located in Canada and the Netherlands.* ADS stockholders of record that did not sell their rights to receive LVI stock before the close of business on November 5, 2021 received one share of LVI common stock for every two and one-half (2.5) shares of ADS common stock.(Excerpt from LOYALTY VENTURES INC., et al., Chapter 11 Case 23-90111 Document 127 Filed in TXSB [the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas] on 03/21/23 COMBINED DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND JOINT CHAPTER 11 PLAN OF LOYALTY VENTURES INC. AND ITS DEBTOR AFFILIATES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 11 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE)

ARTICLE II. THE DEBTORS' CORPORATE HISTORY, STRUCTURE, AND BUSINESS OVERVIEWA. The Debtors' Corporate HistoryOn November 5, 2021, Bread [Financial Holdings, Inc.], a Delaware corporation then known as Alliance Data Systems Corporation (“ADS”), completed a corporate spinoff (the “Spinoff Transaction”) of its loyalty programs business line, which included (i) the AIR MILES Reward Program, Canada's most recognized coalition loyalty program, and (ii) its Netherlands-based BrandLoyalty business (“BrandLoyalty”). As a result of the Spinoff Transaction, LVI, a newly formed independent, publicly-traded company, became the ultimate parent of the entities that own and operate the AIR MILES and BrandLoyalty businesses.Pursuant to the Spinoff Transaction, 81% of the outstanding shares of LVI were distributed pro rata to the holders of ADS common stock based on the outstanding shares of ADS common stock at the close of business on the record date of October 27, 2021 and ADS retained 19% of the outstanding shares of LVI.* In addition, and as described in more detail below, as part of the Spinoff Transaction, ADS caused LVI and subsidiaries comprising the spun business to make cash distributions totaling $750 million to ADS on November 3, 2021. 4 On November 8, 2021, “regular-way” trading of LVI common stock began on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol “LYLT”.B. The Company's Business OperationsLVI's non-Debtor indirect subsidiaries own and operate two business segments: AIR MILES and BrandLoyalty. Through the AIR MILES and BrandLoyalty businesses, the Company provides tech-enabled, datadriven customer loyalty solutions by way of reward programs with partnering businesses, including financial institutions, retailers, grocers and other consumer-facing enterprises. These solutions are focused on helping partnering businesses achieve their strategic and financial objectives, including increased consumer basket size, shopper traffic and frequency, digital reach and enhanced program reporting and analytics. The Company also helps its partners create and increase consumer loyalty across multiple touch points, from traditional to digital to mobile and emerging technologies. The Company looks to create value for its stakeholders through the continued development of loyalty platforms for the tech-forward business and consumer era.The Company is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. As of December 2022, the Company employed approximately 1204 individuals in 18 countries around the world and provided services to over 300 participating businesses (with over 10 million Canadians actively participating in the AIR MILES Reward Program) in 41 countries worldwide through the AIR MILES and BrandLoyalty businesses. As of the December 2022, the Company leased approximately 29 properties worldwide, which are used to carry out the Company's operational, sales and administrative functions and include general office properties, warehouses, data centers, customer care centers, automobiles and equipment. The Company's principal leased facilities are located in Canada and the Netherlands.* ADS stockholders of record that did not sell their rights to receive LVI stock before the close of business on November 5, 2021 received one share of LVI common stock for every two and one-half (2.5) shares of ADS common stock.(Excerpt from LOYALTY VENTURES INC., et al., Chapter 11 Case 23-90111 Document 127 Filed in TXSB [the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas] on 03/21/23 COMBINED DISCLOSURE STATEMENT AND JOINT CHAPTER 11 PLAN OF LOYALTY VENTURES INC. AND ITS DEBTOR AFFILIATES PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 11 OF THE BANKRUPTCY CODE)

In 2021, LTL Management LLC (LTL), a newly created and separate subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson that was established to hold and manage claims in the cosmetic talc litigation, filed for voluntary Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. The goal was to resolve all current and future claims fairly and efficiently. Opposition filed a motion to dismiss the case arguing it does not serve a valid restructuring purpose and suggesting J&J filed it in bad faith. In February 2022, Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey Michael Kaplan ruled in favor of LTL, holding that LTL's filing for Chapter 11 protection was “unquestionably a proper purpose under the Bankruptcy Code.” Upon an expedited appeal, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit reversed Chief Judge Kaplan and narrowly held in favor of claimants. The case is now under appeal for en banc review by the Third Circuit. Given the enormous national significance of the issue for corporate liability and civil justice, this case may advance to the Supreme Court for further adjudication.Please join as a panel of bankruptcy law experts discuss the Third Circuit ruling, its impact, significance, and the path forward, including how to assess both the split between Chief Judge Kaplan and the Third Circuit. The panel will discuss the purpose of Chapter 11 in preserving economic and social value and discuss the Third Circuit's ruling in light of other Circuits that are reviewing similar legal questions. The panel will review core questions that the Third Circuit left unanswered and share their expert perspectives on the ruling's precedent and what it may mean for mass tort litigation going forward.Featuring:Professor Tony Casey, Deputy Dean, Donald M. Ephraim Professor of Law and Economics & Faculty Director, The Center on Law and Finance, University of Chicago Law SchoolProfessor Lindsey Simon, Robert Cotten Alston Associate Chair in Corporate Law, University of Georgia School of Law

In this episode, we pass the mic to Kim Lopater to discuss overcoming challenges. Kimberly is an associate in the Casualty Department where she handles matters involving Personal Injury Protection (PIP) within the Fraud/Special Investigation Practice Group. In May 2015, Kimberly received her Bachelor of Science degree from Florida State University, with a double major in Political Science and International Affairs. Kimberly earned her juris doctor from Stetson University College of Law, where she gained experience handling mortgage foreclosure and bankruptcy disputes as a judicial intern at the Sixth Judicial Circuit in St. Petersburg and the United States Bankruptcy Court in Tampa, and veterans' appeals to the Department of Veterans Affairs for disability benefits at Stetson Law's Veterans Law Institute. Currently, Kimberly is an active member of the Hillsborough Association of Women Lawyers (HAWL) and serves as a member of HAWL's inaugural Leadership Academy. She also participates as a pro bono attorney for the Wills for Heroes program with the Hillsborough County Bar Association and for the Defending Best Interests Project with the Appellate Practice Section of the Florida Bar and the Guardian Ad Litem program. Fun fact- Kim became a monthly donor to Tampa Humane Society, Wounded Warriors, and The National Park Foundation after she graduated law school because I wanted to make sure I always had a way to support charitable causes even if I could not commit my own time to help. www.journeytoesquire.com info@journeytoesquire.com @JourneytoEsq --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/journey-to-esquire/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/journey-to-esquire/support

Ms. Woods graduated from Fordham Law School, where she worked in the Journal of Corporate and Financial Law. After graduation, Ms. Woods clerked for the Honorable Alan L. Gropper (ret.) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York.  In 2013, Ms. Woods established her law firm to make the quality representation usually associated with large firms more accessible for small businesses and individuals. The Law Offices of Adrienne Woods, P.C. represents individual and business debtors and creditors in bankruptcies and out-of-court restructurings.  Here are some of the beneficial topics covered on this week's show: The evolution of bankruptcy. Founding principles of America: No Debtors Prison. Understanding the Means Test. What does “Breathing Spell” actually mean in bankruptcy?  Why do courts defer to the business judgment of the debtor? Connect with Adrienne Woods, Esquire: Website: https://www.woodslawpc.com/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/WoodsLawPC Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/woodslawpc/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/WoodsLawPC LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-law-offices-of-adrienne-woods-p-c-/ Connect with Gary: Website: sbadvisors.cc/ Facebook: facebook.com/SmallBusinessAdvisors LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/gary-d-heldt-jr-388a051/ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to The Nonlinear Library, where we use Text-to-Speech software to convert the best writing from the Rationalist and EA communities into audio. This is: Thoughts on legal concerns surrounding the FTX situation, published by Molly on November 13, 2022 on The Effective Altruism Forum. As Open Phil's managing counsel, and as a member of the EA community, I've received an onslaught of questions relating to the FTX fiasco in the last few days. Unfortunately, I've been unable to answer most of them either because I don't have the relevant legal expertise, or because I can't provide legal advice to non-clients (and Open Philanthropy is my only client in this situation), or because the facts I'd need to answer the questions just aren't available yet. The biggest topic of concern is something along the lines of: if I received FTX-related grant money, what am I supposed to do? Will it be clawed back? This post aims to provide legal context on this topic; it doesn't address ethical or other practical perspectives on the topic. Before diving into that, I want to offer this context: this is the first few days of what is going to be a multi-year legal process. It will be drawn out and tedious. We cannot will the information we want into existence, so we can't be as strategic as we'd like. But there's an upside to that. Emotions are high and many people are probably not in a great mental place to make big decisions. This externally-imposed waiting period can be put to good use as a time to process. I understand that for some people who received FTX-related grant money, waiting doesn't feel like an option; people need to know whether they can pay rent, or if their organization still exists. I hope some of the information below will provide a little more context for individual situations and decisions. I also committed to putting out an explainer on clawbacks. That is here, though I think the information in this post is more useful. Bankruptcy and Clawbacks Background The information in this section is based on publicly available information and general conversations with bankruptcy lawyers. I do not have access to any nonpublic information about this case. None of this should be taken as legal advice to you. FTX filed for bankruptcy on Friday (November 11th, 2022). More specifically, Alameda Research Ltd. filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, by filing a standard form in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The filing includes 134 “debtor entities” (listed as Annex I); it looks like this covers the full FTX corporate group. This means that the full FTX group is now under the protection of the bankruptcy court, and over the coming months, all of the assets in the debtor group will be administered for the benefit of FTX's creditors. By filing under Chapter 11 (instead of Chapter 7), FTX has preserved the option of emerging out of the bankruptcy proceeding and continuing to operate in some capacity. You can read a useful explainer on the bankruptcy process here. The rules in the Bankruptcy Code are ultimately trying to ensure a fair outcome for creditors. This includes capturing certain payment transactions that occurred in the past. Basically, the debtor can reach back in time to undo deals it made and recoup monies it paid; this money comes back into the estate through clawbacks and gets redistributed to creditors according to the bankruptcy rules. Clawbacks There are two main types of clawback processes. The first and most common (called a “preference claim”) target transactions that happened in the 90 days prior to the bankruptcy filing. Essentially, if you received money from an FTX entity in the debtor group anytime on or after approximately August 11, 2022, the bankruptcy process will probably ask you, at some point, to pay all or part of that money back. It's almost impossible to say right now whether any specific grant or contract will be subject to clawb...

The Legends Of S.H.I.E.L.D. Agent Lauren, Agent Michelle, Agent Chris, and Producer of the show Director SP discuss the 2022 Marvel Studios Disney+ She-Hulk Series fourth episode “Is This Not Real Magic?” The Team debriefs you with a Legends Of S.H.I.E.L.D. exclusive episode synopsis, a look at the episode's creative team, all about Wongers and Madisynn, that  wedding what Wongers referring to, Morris Walter's shovel, what is the acceptable amount of time before discussing spoilers openly, the 4th Wall Break reviews, the She-Hulk dating scene, the She-Hulk or Jennifer Walters decision, Donny Blaze, agreement under duress, the snowy demon destination, the new Sorcerer Supreme onboarding process, and the amazin 104 year old Hype-Man. The Team also discusses the top Marvel Studios news stories over the past week Chadwick Boseman Wins Posthumous Emmy for ‘What If' Voice-Over Performance, the Avengers Campus' Shang-Chi character actor shares sweet ASL conversation with a fan, a She-Hulk Star Promises Marvel Cameos Nobody Knows About, and the All Elite Wrestling Champion Jade Cargill's She-Hulk cosplay. The team welcome audience feedback and stay tuned after the credits for a few bonus audio scenes.   THIS TIME ON LEGENDS OF S.H.I.E.L.D.:   She-Hulk: Attorney At Law Disney+ Episode 4 “Is This Not Real Magic?” Weekly Marvel News Chadwick Boseman Wins Posthumous Emmy for ‘What If' Voice-Over Performance Avengers Campus' Shang-Chi character actor shares sweet ASL conversation with a fan She-Hulk Star Promises Marvel Cameos Nobody Knows About Audience Feedback Twitter Responses   SHE-HULK: ATTORNEY AT LAW “IS THIS NOT REAL MAGIC?” S1E4 [6:21]   She-Hulk: Attorney At Law episode 4 Premiered on Disney+ - Thursday September 8th, 2022   S1E4 “Is This Not Real Magic?”   Directed By: Kat Coiro https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0192478/?ref_=ttfc_fc_dr1#director 30 Directing Credits starting in 2007 1x Brooklyn Nine-Nine 4xIt's Always Sunny in Philadelphia  1xModern Family 2xDead To Me 2022 Film Marry Me 6 x She-Hulk: Attorney At Law (9 Episode series)   Episode Writer: Melissa Hunter https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0402962/?ref_=ttfc_fc_wr1  13 writing credits starting in 2009 2x Maya & Marty 2x Santa Clarita Diet 2x Home Economics 9x Close Enough 1x She-Hulk   Jessica Gao is the She-Hulk Showrunner https://www.imdb.com/name/nm2005299/?ref_=ttfc_fc_wr1#producer 7 Production Credits Starting In 2017 8 x Take My Wife 10 x Corporate Easter Sunday 9 x She Hulk: Attorney At Law   She-Hulk: Attorney At Law Main Cast Tatiana Maslany as Jennifer Walters / She-Hulk - Lauren Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner / Smart Hulk Chris Ginger Gonzaga as Nikki Ramos Jameela Jamil as Titania - Anthony Josh Segarra as Augustus "Pug" Pugliese Jon Bass as Todd Renée Elise Goldsberry as Mallory Book: - Lauren Tim Roth as Emil Blonsky / Abomination Benedict Wong as Wong Charlie Cox as Matt Murdock / Daredevil Source: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10857160/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_cl_sm             MARVEL STUDIOS WEEKLY NEWS [41:51]   TOP NEWS STORY OF THE WEEK   Chadwick Boseman Wins Posthumous Emmy for ‘What If' Voice-Over Performance https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/emmys-chadwick-boseman-posthumous-honor-1235211145/ Chadwick Boseman was honored with a posthumous Emmy win during Saturday's Creative Arts ceremony for his role in Marvel's What If…? series. The late star won the outstanding character voice-over performance category for his role as Star-Lord T'Challa in the “What If… T'Challa Became a Star-Lord?” episode. He was nominated in the category alongside F. Murray Abraham (Moon Knight), Julie Andrews (Bridgerton), Maya Rudolph (Big Mouth), Stanley Tucci (Central Park), Jessica Walter (Archer) and Jeffrey Wright (What If…?). The award marked both Boseman's first win and first Emmy nomination.   MCU – MARVEL STUDIOS    Avengers Campus' Shang-Chi Shares a Sweet ASL Conversation With Fan https://www.cbr.com/shang-chi-avengers-campus-sign-language-conversation-mcu-marvel/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdQMAMC89CY A heartwarming video is going viral after a Disney Parks actor playing Marvel's Shang-Chi had an impromptu conversation with a guest entirely in American Sign Language. The footage, which appears to come from another park guest filming the interaction at the Avengers Campus in Disney California Adventure Park, was posted on YouTube by Good Morning America. It features an actor in character as the lead from the Marvel Cinematic Universe film Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, and begins with a woman telling him in ASL that she likes the rings worn on his arms as part of his costume. The conversation takes place in front of Avengers Campus' Pym Kitchen restaurant.   Top Gun: Maverick Poised to Pass Black Panther at the Box Office https://www.cbr.com/top-gun-maverick-black-panther-box-office/ Paramount Pictures' Top Gun: Maverick is set to surpass the box office of yet another Marvel Studios film. According to Erik Davis, the Tom Cruise-led sequel to the original 1986 Top Gun is currently expected to come out on top of the domestic box office for Labor Day weekend with an additional $7 million. This would push Maverick over $700 million, overtaking earnings for 2018's Black Panther and making it the fifth highest-grossing domestic release of all time. At the moment, the top five domestic releases ever include Black Panther with $700 million, Avatar with $760 million, Spider-Man: No Way Home with $804 million, Avengers: Endgame which pulled in $853 million, and Star Wars: The Force Awakens which sits at the number one spot with $936 million.   DISNEY+   Moon Knight Takes Home An Emmy https://www.cbr.com/moon-knight-book-of-boba-fett-emmys-marvel-star-wars/ Disney+ series Moon Knight just scored at the 74th Primetime Creative Arts Emmy Awards. The shows was recognized at the Creative Arts Emmys ceremony on Sept. 4, 2022, which unlike the Primetime Emmys, focuses primarily on technical achievement. The Creative Arts Emmys also spotlight excellence in genres outside scripted live-action programming, such as animated series, reality TV and documentaries. Moon Knight received its Emmy for Outstanding Sound Editing for a Limited or Anthology Series, Movie or Special.   She-Hulk Producer Reveals How Wong's Surprising Target Reveal Came to Be (Exclusive) https://thedirect.com/article/she-hulk-wong-target-job-exclusive She-Hulk Showrunner Jessica Gaodiscussed Wong's online CV/LinkedIn Profile in an interview with The Direct. "That I actually have to give credit to our graphics team [for]," she said. "And I may be mistaken but probably Olney Atwell is the one that came up with that. I mean our graphics team actually… really paid attention to details and put in a lot of little funny jokes and bits that were really, really wonderful. But, we all just had such a laugh just imagining Wong, first of all, having a LinkedIn profile and having to put a work history. Any work history that ends with 'Sorcerer Supreme' is automatically chef's kiss… I love this era of Wong discovering and exploring American pop culture."   How She-Hulk's Jameela Jamil Convinced Megan Thee Stallion to Guest Star https://www.cbr.com/she-hulk-jameela-jamil-convince-megan-thee-stallion-guest-star-mcu/ https://www.tiktok.com/@hollywoodreporter/video/7138575703074917678 Per The Hollywood Reporter on TikTok, She-Hulk: Attorney at Law star Jameela Jamil confirmed her role in convincing Megan Thee Stallion to join the series for its third episode. "I was the one that made that happen," Jamil noted. "I mean, I know Megan from Legendary and I know how legendary she is, and she's so smart and so funny and just such a star, and I'm such a fan. So I was preparing to come and do this when I was filming Legendary Season 2, and I just asked her, and she turned out to be a huge Marvel fan." https://twitter.com/RUNITUPHOTTIES/status/1566101560022687744   She-Hulk Director Explains the MCU Series' Unconventional Superhero Plot https://www.cbr.com/she-hulk-director-explains-unconventional-plot-mcu/ She-Hulk: Attorney at Law director Kat Coiro recently delved into the show's non-traditional superhero plot during an interview with Total Film, saying, "So much of what I think is fresh about [She-Hulk] is it really is about a woman living a very regular life even though she happens to be imbued with these superpowers and so, while we play into some of the tropes of the genre – like villains! – we have the luxury of a series that doesn't have a ticking plot clock." Coiro concluded by saying She-Hulk's plot is "really about getting to know the characters" and letting viewers see the moments that they never get to explore in plot-driven stories. "So we tease Titania," she continued. "She will come back but she doesn't need to come back immediately, and that way we get to really get to know our characters."   She-Hulk Star Shares Her Wong Thirst Trap Photo https://twitter.com/gingerthejester/status/1565498946981691397 https://www.cbr.com/she-hulk-star-shares-wong-thirst-trap-photo   She-Hulk writer explains Abomination's major personality change https://www.radiotimes.com/tv/sci-fi/she-hulk-abomination-personality-change-exclusive-newsupdate/ Speaking to RadioTimes, She-Hulk: Attorney at Law showrunner Jessica Gao explained how the creative team behind the hit Disney+ series evolved Emil Blonsky/Abomination from a monstrous Super-Soldier to a kind-hearted reformed criminal. The She-Hulk showrunner wanted to see the lighter side of Blonsky after a long absence in the Marvel Cinematic Universe since his first appearance in 2008's The Incredible Hulk.   Rosario Actor Rosario Dawson Talks “Heartbreaking” ‘Clerks III' and Unfinished Business with Marvel https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/rosario-dawson-on-clerks-3-hopes-for-marvel-1235213270/?fbclid=IwAR0tT9zpFt6QSLJro8WzvVUeysOfWO9TMZg4EfR3bwhWEG9MruTvcHxNMzU https://www.cbr.com/daredevil-born-again-rosario-dawson-wants-return-mcu/ In an interview with The Hollywood Reporter, Dawson said that she would be willing to reprise her role as Claire Temple in the upcoming Marvel Cinematic Universe series Daredevil: Born Again. The actor previously portrayed the former night shift nurse in a number of Marvel Television properties such as Daredevil, Luke Cage, Jessica Jones, Iron Fist and The Defenders. Dawson feels that Claire has some unfinished business and there is plenty of room for her story to be explored.   Ironheart': Shakira Barrera Joins Marvel Studios' Disney+ Series https://deadline.com/2022/09/ironheart-shakira-barrera-marvel-studios-disney-plus-1235109222/ GLOW star Shakira Barrera has been cast in Marvel Studios' upcoming Ironheart series for Disney+. While the specifics surrounding Barrera's role remain a mystery, it has been reported by Deadline that the actor will appear as a series regular. She will star alongside Dominique Thorne as Riri Williams, as well as Anthony Ramos, Manny Montana, Alden Ehrenreich, Regan Aliyah, Shea Couleé and Zoe Terakes. Barrera starred as Yolanda Rivas in the second season of Netflix's GLOW.   Bob Iger Assesses the Streaming Services: “I Don't Think They'll All Make It” https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/digital/bob-iger-assesses-the-streaming-services-i-dont-think-theyll-all-make-it-1235214146/ Over the last few years, a wide variety of streaming services have been made available to audiences around the world, offering films and television shows from every corner of the industry. According to one former Disney CEO, however, most of these services are destined to fail. Speaking at Vox Media's Code Conference, as reported by The Hollywood Reporter, former Disney CEO Bob Iger discussed services including Netflix, Apple TV+, Prime Video, HBO Max, Discovery+ and Disney+, expressing his believe that only the biggest and most well-resourced services will survive, while the rest will fail.   She-Hulk Star Promises Marvel Cameos Nobody Knows About https://tvline.com/2022/09/08/she-hulk-recap-episode-4-ginger-gonzaga-titania-lawsuit/?fbclid=IwAR3HDESVkv7_O2SpUdoVGuvPl0cSYvB4EgrSbErsaiK2flB8t-4LH3adaqY https://www.cbr.com/she-hulk-secret-marvel-cameos-mcu/ She-Hulk: Attorney at Law star Ginger Gonzaga promised that some unexpected characters from the Marvel comics will appear in the newest Disney+ Marvel Cinematic Universe series. In an interview with TVLine, Gonzaga, who plays Jen Walters' (Tatiana Maslany) best friend Nikki Ramos, was asked whether fans could expect to see some riveting law drama after Titania started legal proceedings against She-Hulk in the show's fourth episode. The actor revealed that the superpowered influencer's lawsuit marks a turning point in the series as it will now focus on superhuman law and the whacky individuals who fall under it. While She-Hulk: Attorney at Law has been no stranger to cameos with MCU alums Bruce Banner (Mark Ruffalo), Emil Blonsky/The Abomination (Tim Roth) and Wong (Benedict Wong) featuring in the first three episodes, Gonzaga shared the show will be host to even more special appearances - possibly of characters who have yet to grace the screen.   OTHER   Regal Owner Cineworld Begins Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Proceedings in U.S. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/cineworld-chapter-11-bankruptcy-filing-regal-1289208/ https://www.cbr.com/cineworld-regal-cinemas-owner-chapter-11-bankruptcy/ Regal Cinemas owner Cineworld Group just kicked off Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings. The London-based British entertainment conglomerate filed for bankruptcy on Sept. 7, 2022 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, according to The Hollywood Reporter. "As part of the Chapter 11 cases, Cineworld, with the expected support of its secured lenders, will seek to implement a de-leveraging transaction that will significantly reduce the group's debt, strengthen its balance sheet and provide the financial strength and flexibility to accelerate, and capitalize on, Cineworld's strategy in the cinema industry," Cineworld said, in a press release. "The group Chapter 11 companies enter the Chapter 11 cases with commitments for an approximate $1.94 billion debtor-in-possession financing facility from existing lenders, which will help ensure Cineworld's operations continue in the ordinary course while Cineworld implements its reorganization."   FEEDBACK [47:58]   https://twitter.com/LegendsofSHIELD/status/1568274695795134465   https://twitter.com/LegendsofSHIELD/status/1567520562729082882     OUTRO AND BONUS AUDIO [51:59]   We would love to hear back from you! Call the voicemail line at 1-844-THE-BUS1 or 844-843-2871.                    Join Legends Of S.H.I.E.L.D. next time as the Agents discuss the Disney+ Marvel Studios series Ms. Marvel episode 5. You can usually listen in live when we record Saturday Mornings at 10:00 AM Eastern Time at on YouTube or Twitch. Although the next two episodes will be at different times. Our next episode will be streamed on Thursday September 15th, 2022 at 9 PM ET.  Contact Info: Please see http://www.legendsofshield.com for all of our contact information or call our voicemail line at 1-844-THE-BUS1 or 844-843-2871   Legends Of S.H.I.E.L.D. Is a Proud Member Of The GonnaGeek Network (gonnageek.com).   This podcast was recorded on Saturday September 10th, 2022.   Standby for your S.H.I.E.L.D. debriefing ---   Audio and Video Production by SP Rupert of GonnaGeek.com.

Creditors Rights: What Do You Do If Someone Owes You Money?What do you do when someone owes your business a lot of money? Our guest on this episode of the Inside BS Show is Harold Israel, a Bankruptcy and Creditors' Rights attorney from Chicago. On today's show Dave Lorenzo interviews Harold about the options creditors have when people owe them money. Join us for this terrific episode of the Inside BS Show.Chapters:00:00 Introduction to What Do You Do If Someone Owes You Money01:01 Dave and Harold's Background Delivering Newspapers02:31 Always Answer the Phone When Creditors Call03:54 Why do creditors want to avoid litigation?07:35 Addressing the stigma of bankruptcy. Why does it exist?09:31 What are the differences between Chapter 7, Chapter 11, and Chapter 13?13:18 What is judgement-proof? Does that exist?14:22 How do bankruptcy attorneys negotiate with creditors?17:40 A Bankruptcy Case Study21:17 What is the worst thing people do when they fall behind on their bills?28:47 How did Harold grow his business?30:43 What led Harold to this particular practice?31:38 What is the role of a trustee? What to do and how to interact with a bankruptcy trustee? 33:20 Can people close their business and tell creditors that they don't have assets?35:29 What is Harold's competitive advantage?Harold IsraelPartnerLevenfeld Pearlstein, LLC(312 ) 476.7573hisrael@lplegal.comhttps://www.lplegal.com/our-talent/ha...About Harold IsraelHarold D. Israel is a partner in the Financial Services & Restructuring Practice Group. He assists clients in achieving outstanding results in a practical, responsive and cost-effective manner. Harold represents debtors, asset purchasers, secured lenders, creditors and official creditor committees in workouts (in- and out-of-court) and reorganizations throughout the country. Harold brings compassion and understanding to what usually is a very stressful period for all involved.Additionally, he represents lenders and equity sponsors in asset-based lending, foreclosure, and debtor-in-possession financing transactions. Harold also assists not-for-profit organizations in drafting corporate governance documents.  Now with 25 years of experience, Harold first started his legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable John D. Schwartz, Chief Judge, United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois. He is a Certified Public Accountant.

In this special installment of ‘Restructure This!' sponsored by the American Bankruptcy Institute, we welcome Chief Judge David R. Jones and Judge Marvin Isgur from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas. The two esteemed jurists collectively have several decades of experience on the bench and have presided over some of the largest chapter 11 filings in recent memory, including Seadrill, J.C. Penney, iHeartMedia, and Ultra Petroleum. As part of today's conversation, the judges opine on venue reform, third party releases, one day “prepacks,” and the propriety of repeat independent directors in chapter 11.  What We Discussed in This Episode: The importance that the judges place on consumer debtor cases  The basis for the rise of large chapter 11 filings in the Southern District of Texas  Whether the current venue statute needs reform Policy concerns regarding third-party releases The circumstances in which expedited chapter 11 cases are appropriate The current independent director framework and whether legislative reform is necessary What separates great restructuring lawyers from others   Contact Information:   Chief Judge David R. Jones  Judge Marvin Isgur

Ep 46: The Angels & Demons of Business Transfer Agreements  We had an absolute blast talking about business transfer agreements with lawyers Michael Robinson* and Michael Paiva* and the utter nightmares that can occur when business owners are lulled into complacency and don't prepare one. We had both lawyers discuss valuations, valuations and oh yes, valuations! (But really, so much more).   Listen now and share with others!  This Weeks Guests  MICHAEL ROBINSON*  Michael Robinson received his undergraduate degree from Hamilton College in Clinton, New York and his Juris Doctor degree from Vermont Law School. Mike is admitted to practice before all the courts of the State of New York as well as the United States District Court and the United States Bankruptcy Court. A graduate of McQuaid Jesuit High School, Mike is a life-long resident of upstate New York, and has been in private practice for 35 years, focusing his practice on estate planning, elder law and wealth preservation. Mike feels his calling is to guide each client in crafting an estate plan that best preserves their financial and non financial legacy, creating peace of mind for them and their loved ones. In addition to a commitment to educating the public about estate planning and elder law matters, Mike also believes in the need for other professionals to understand the often complex issues in estate planning. He regularly provides instruction on estate planning and elder law to other attorneys, CPAs, investment advisors and senior care community professionals.  MICHAEL PAIVA*  Michael Paiva is a partner of the firm servicing clients from its Toronto and Waterloo Region offices in Ontario, Canada. He is a fearless, dedicated and passionate lawyer focusing on commercial and municipal matters, including expropriation and construction matters.  He has successfully appeared before the Superior Court of Justice, Ontario Municipal Board and the Ontario Court of Appeal. Michael also provides integrated business law services with a focus on preventing litigation.  Michael employs a pragmatic and results-oriented approach to all matters and always considers his clients' business operations. He delivers responsive and thorough service, leaving no stone unturned and making no compromises in advancing his clients' interests.  Prior to forming Rodrigues Paiva LLP, Michael was an associate lawyer at one of Canada's largest law firms.  Throughout law school, Michael worked as a property law course tutor, legal research assistant, advanced dispute resolution teaching assistant, and assistant editor of the Ottawa Law Review.  Prior to law school, he successfully defended his Master's thesis on Canada-US trade in the Mulroney-Reagan era. His research was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC). He also obtained his Bachelor of Education and Bachelor of Arts.  EDUCATION  J.D., University of Ottawa  M.A., University of Waterloo  B.Ed., University of Western Ontario  B.A. (Hons.), University of Waterloo  PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS  Ontario Expropriation Association  Contact Info  m.paiva@RPlawyers.ca  519.729.5038  416.800.1733  ----------------  *Not affiliated with Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp.  Michael Palumbos is a registered representative of Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp.   Securities and investment advisory services offered through Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp., a broker/dealer (member SIPC) and registered investment advisor. Insurance offered through Lincoln affiliates and other fine companies.   Family Wealth and Legacy LLC is not an affiliate of Lincoln Financial Advisors Corp.  CRN-3898483-110221 

The COVID-19 pandemic has hit businesses hard. Many businesses are facing devastating revenue drops while expenses like rent and bank debt continue to mount. While some businesses may find landlords, banks, and other creditors willing to work with them, others are not so fortunate. For these businesses, it may be necessary to consider reorganizing under federal bankruptcy protection. But what options are available for small businesses, and what exactly does filing for bankruptcy entail? Can filing for bankruptcy save my small business? About the Interview In this episode of Hilary Topper on Air, Hilary speaks with Paul Aloe, named Partner at Kudman Trachten Aloe Posner LLP - a commercial law firm representing businesses and business owners, government entities, executives, and professionals in a wide variety of matters, including commercial bankruptcy. Paul discusses how bankruptcy, specifically Subchapter V, might be a lifeline for many small businesses trying to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic. About Paul H. Aloe Paul has been practicing for over 30 years in the areas of commercial litigation and trial practice, corporate bankruptcy and restructuring, land use, planning and zoning, legal and professional ethics, and constitutional law. Paul has written extensively in the area of New York practice, having authored the New York Civil Practice Review for the Syracuse Law Review for 20 years, serves on the editorial board of Weinstein-Korn-Miller New York Civil Practice, and chaired the Civil Practice New York State Bar Association Committee on Civil Practice Law and Rules from 1992 to 1999. He continues to be active in crafting legislation affecting New York practice. He handles a wide variety of litigation in both state and federal court, with a focus on commercial cases, and takes on many difficult litigation problems that at first blush may seem impossible to solve. While Paul has no hesitancy to take a case to trial or pursue an appeal, he also recognizes that cost is often a significant factor in litigation and, where possible, maps out a strategy for prompt and efficient resolution of cases either through motion practice or negotiation. Paul is also a trained mediator and serves on the mediation panel for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York. A significant portion of his practice is focused on bankruptcy and corporate restructuring law, with a particular focus on the successful restructuring of closely held businesses. In addition, Mr. Aloe has handled groundbreaking cases concerning bankruptcy law dealing with cutting-edge bankruptcy issues in numerous appellate courts. His practice also focuses on difficult bankruptcy litigations. Paul is an active marathoner and triathlete. He has completed more than 40 marathons including the past 27 New York City Marathons, and six Ironman® triathlons and is a top-ranked “All World Athlete”. Mr. Aloe was selected as a SuperLawyer® by his peers, for 2007 through 2017. He is a Martindale-Hubbell® AV-rated lawyer-the highest peer rating available. Contact Kudman Trachten Aloe Posner LLP To contact Paul or for more information about Kudman Trachten Aloe Posner LLP, call 212-868-1010 or visit www.kudmanlaw.com.

In this episode, Ellie Lo, CARE's 2020-21 Student Liaison and high school student, interviews Judge Kindred of the United States Bankruptcy Court, Eastern District of Virginia about personal finance, paying for college, and her own personal stories, experiences, and advice about how students should navigate financial decisions that will affect their future.

Episode 2: Anything can and will happen to lenders, landlords and investors in the United States Bankruptcy Court.  Examine some of the most impacting trends, as Spencer takes you through the bankruptcy demolition derby and what you can do to avoid demolition of your rights. Then listen as Spencer interviews retired Bankruptcy Judge Alan Jaroslovsky and get Judge's take on these issues along with colorful stories of his years on the bench. Finally, in the Where is the Love Segment, Spencer will examine the recent case of Martin v City of Boise. allowing homeless people to sleep or camp on public property and the potential for further devastating impact on the rule of law in this country. DISCLAIMER:  The thoughts and opinions in this podcast or on the SLG website cannot be relied on as legal or investment advice. If you have questions relating to the issues raised in this podcast or from reviewing the SLG website, review with your legal counsel or investment specialist.   Disclaimer:  None of the legal, or financial opinions or information  expressed in this podcast may be relied on as legal, or investment advice by Scheer Law Group, LLP.  Laws and economic issues  affecting the subjects of this podcast change daily. This mandates  specific review of legal or economic issues of interest or concern to you with legal counsel or financial advisors who are experienced in the areas of law or finance discussed in this podcast.

Welcome back to Fearless, Inspired and Free, a weekly conversation with Dana Wright and the women she has been fortunate to connect with to discuss their life's journey, the great things they are doing, overcoming life's obstacles, navigating their work and personal businesses; becoming Fearless in their actions, Inspired to live authentically and Free to live a life they choose! Fearless, Inspired and Free Podcast endeavors to build a community of learning, appreciation, encouragement, resilience, growth, acceptance, kindness and support! This week's guest, Shanita Straw is the epitome of PERSISTENCE. She overcame many obstacles early in life within her family and in her academic studies, but through it all, she NEVER gave up her dream of becoming an Attorney. Just wait until you hear about her applications to law school! Shanita learned how to be a woman of faith from her grandmother at an early age, which was ultimately the foundation she needed to navigate life's journey, realize the strength she needed to keep going and to discern what decisions would be best for her and her children. Shanita discusses how she never let the unexpected, no matter how bad, deter her because she says, "life happens and it happens to everyone". "Life is not easy" she goes on to say, but you "have to have faith in yourself". Tune in and listen as Shanita encourages those who are listening to trust God, be persistent, believe in yourself and to have people in your life who will tell you the truth. She says that she has learned that "delay is never deny" and to "trust the process". Shanita gives the listeners some areas in life they definitely need to prepare for and how she can help them accomplish those needs. Shanita is the founder of Golden Law, a general practice firm in Oak Park, Illinois. She practices in the areas of Real Estate, Probate/Estate Planning, Administration, Labor and Employment Law, Corporate and Business formation, Family Law and Bankruptcy. Shanita is admitted to practice before the Illinois Supreme Court, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, United States District Courts for the Northern District of Illinois and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District ofIllinois Eastern Division. She is also a member of the Federal Trial Bar. In addition to practicing law, Shanita is an adjunct professor with the City Colleges of Chicago where she teaches Sociology courses in the Social Science Department. We will definitely need a part 2 with Shanita. Tune in for some inspiration! --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/danafif20/message

Bankruptcy comes in many forms and is used for many reasons. Companies and individuals turn - sometimes voluntarily, sometimes not - to Title 11 of the United States Code - the bankruptcy code - for relief. How that relief comes and its true cost depends on a lot of variables. Bankruptcy is both easy to explain and maddeningly complex. As a lawyer once said - the thing about code-based sections of the law is this: if you want to get something done, you have to find a loophole. Join us with our guest, HoganLovells attorney Hon. Kevin Carey (Retired), former Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, as we discuss the finer points of being broke, seeking relief, and chasing the fresh start that bankruptcy promises.

Bankruptcy comes in many forms and is used for many reasons. Companies and individuals turn - sometimes voluntarily, sometimes not - to Title 11 of the United States Code - the bankruptcy code - for relief. How that relief comes and its true cost depends on a lot of variables. Bankruptcy is both easy to explain and maddeningly complex. As a lawyer once said - the thing about code-based sections of the law is this: if you want to get something done, you have to find a loophole. Join us with our guest, HoganLovells attorney Hon. Kevin Carey (Retired), former Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, as we discuss the finer points of being broke, seeking relief, and chasing the fresh start that bankruptcy promises.

Bankruptcy comes in many forms and is used for many reasons. Companies and individuals turn - sometimes voluntarily, sometimes not - to Title 11 of the United States Code - the bankruptcy code - for relief. How that relief comes and its true cost depends on a lot of variables. Bankruptcy is both easy to explain and maddeningly complex. As a lawyer once said - the thing about code-based sections of the law is this: if you want to get something done, you have to find a loophole. Join us with our guest, HoganLovells attorney Hon. Kevin Carey (Retired), former Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware, as we discuss the finer points of being broke, seeking relief, and chasing the fresh start that bankruptcy promises.

Our July Court Leader’s Advantage video podcast episode on courts and protest marches has garnered considerable interest. Over 300 viewers have accessed the episode. Among those who watched the episode was Norman Meyer, Retired Clerk of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico, who wrote in two questions to ask about court employees, protest marches, our first amendment rights, and the NACM Model Code of Conduct. Norman joins the episode to ask his two questions. About the Guest Speaker: Norman Meyer retired after serving for 38 years as a court administrator in both the state and Federal systems. Most recently, he was Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico. He is a court administration expert after a 38 year career as a trial court administrator in the state and federal U.S. courts. He has written and spoken widely on judicial administration in the United States and abroad, and is currently writing a court management blog (https://courtleader.net/vantage-point) as a member of the nonprofit Court Leader coalition. Elisa Chinn-Gary, is Clerk of Superior Court and Judge of Probate for Mecklenburg County, North Carolina. She obtained her B.A. from Winston Salem State University (magna cum laude) 1996; J.D. UNC School of Law 1999; M.A. in Social Work UNC 2000. Elisa was an Attorney Advocate for North Carolina's Guardian Ad Litem program from 1999 to 2002; Juvenile Defender for the Council for Children’s Rights (formerly Children’s Law Center) from 2000 to 2001; Administrator of the Mecklenburg Family Court from 2001 to 2015; and Adjunct Professor for the Charlotte School of Law from 2010 to 2015. Sarah Brown-Clark is a 1971 cum laude graduate of Ohio University with a B.S. degree in English; she also earned her M.A. degree in English from Ohio University in 1972 and earned hours towards a Ph.D. in English from Kent State University. Currently Ms. Brown-Clark is the Clerk of the Youngstown Municipal Court, a position to which she was elected in November 1999. She is retired from Youngstown State University where she was an Associate Professor of English since 1972 and currently has Faculty Emeritus status. Beth Baldwin has served as the Court Administrator for the Seattle Municipal Court since November, 2015. Before moving to Seattle, Beth worked for 15 years as the Court Administrator of the Fifth Judicial District of Iowa, a 16 county area including Polk County/Des Moines. Beth holds her law degree from the University of Minnesota, her MPA from the Ohio State University and her undergraduate degree from Northwestern University.

For decades we court professionals have committed ourselves to the practice diversity and inclusion. We make this commitment to earn the public’s trust and confidence in our nation’s courts. This dedication is ongoing; the work still continues. The goals of diversity and inclusion affirm our pledge to fairness, equity, impartiality, trust, and accountability. They also enhance decision-making, innovation, resiliency, responsiveness, employee engagement, and the delivery of services. Courts are constantly confronted by the demand for more access, the desire for equality, and the erosion of that very public trust and confidence we have pledged to earn. What can we do to strengthen our core values? What can we do to use diversity and inclusion as a way to solve today’s problems? What do we see on the horizon for courts as they struggle to address these issues every day? About the Co-Host: Zenell Brown Zenell Brown, Executive Court Administrator for the Third Circuit Court in Detroit, Michigan. She received her Juris Doctor from Wayne State University Law School; received a Public Service Administration Graduate Certificate from Central Michigan University; a Court Administration Certificate from Michigan State University; and is a Certified Diversity Professional from the National Diversity Council-DiversityFirst. About the Panelists: Marcia M. Anderson recently retired as Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. She was employed for over 28 years with the United States Courts, serving an Operations Manager and later as the Supervisory Staff Attorney for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City. Hector Gonzalez is the Court Executive Officer for the Superior Court in Tuolumne County, California. He was born and raised in Los Angeles. He is bilingual, speaking both Spanish and English. Hector received a certificate in Judicial Administration from Cal State, Sacramento. He has a law degree from University of California-Hasting College of the Law and a BA from Loyola Marymount University. Norman Meyer retired after serving for 38 years as a court administrator in both the state and Federal systems. Most recently, he was Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico. He is a court administration expert after a 38 year career as a trial court administrator in the state and federal U.S. courts. He has written and spoken widely on judicial administration in the United States and abroad, and is currently writing a court management blog (https://courtleader.net/vantage-point) as a member of the nonprofit Court Leader coalition. Jose Octavio Guillen retired in 2017 after working for 42 years in the California Justice System. He served as court executive officer and Jury Commissioner for the Superior Courts in Sonoma, Napa, Riverside, and Imperial Counties, as well as, served as court administrator for Beverly Hills Municipal Court, district chief for Los Angeles Superior Court, trial court services director for the California Administrative Office of the Courts, and deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Over the last forty years, our nation’s courts have been committed to diversity and inclusion, in order to live up to the ideals of fairness and equality, and to build public trust and confidence. While we can point to many improvements, there is still much work to be done. The lessons learned from diversity and inclusion practices point to benefits beyond just furthering the institutional values of fairness, equity, impartiality, trust, and accountability. They also improve decision-making, innovation, resiliency, responsiveness, employee engagement, and delivery of services. Institutions like courts today are challenged by the spread of global pandemics, the demand for more access, the desire for more equitable outcomes, and the erosion of public trust and confidence in government. Diversity and inclusion should be at the forefront to harness new solutions and to turn challenges into opportunities. What can we do to strengthen our institutional values and apply concrete diversity and inclusion practices to the problems we face today? What advice do we have for court administrators and clerks of court around the country dealing with these issues on a daily basis? About the Co-Host: Zenell Brown Zenell Brown, Executive Court Administrator for the Third Circuit Court in Detroit, Michigan. She received her Juris Doctor from Wayne State University Law School; received a Public Service Administration Graduate Certificate from Central Michigan University; a Court Administration Certificate from Michigan State University; and is a Certified Diversity Professional from the National Diversity Council-DiversityFirst. About the Panelists: Marcia M. Anderson recently retired as Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. She was employed for over 28 years with the United States Courts, serving an Operations Manager and later as the Supervisory Staff Attorney for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City. Hector Gonzalez is the Court Executive Officer for the Superior Court in Tuolumne County, California. He was born and raised in Los Angeles. He is bilingual, speaking both Spanish and English. Hector received a certificate in Judicial Administration from Cal State, Sacramento. He has a law degree from University of California-Hasting College of the Law and a BA from Loyola Marymount University. Norman Meyer retired after serving for 38 years as a court administrator in both the state and Federal systems. Most recently, he was Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Mexico. He is a court administration expert after a 38 year career as a trial court administrator in the state and federal U.S. courts. He has written and spoken widely on judicial administration in the United States and abroad, and is currently writing a court management blog (https://courtleader.net/vantage-point) as a member of the nonprofit Court Leader coalition. Jose Octavio Guillen retired in 2017 after working for 42 years in the California Justice System. He served as court executive officer and Jury Commissioner for the Superior Courts in Sonoma, Napa, Riverside, and Imperial Counties, as well as, served as court administrator for Beverly Hills Municipal Court, district chief for Los Angeles Superior Court, trial court services director for the California Administrative Office of the Courts, and deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.

Welcome to another episode of the podcast for the Chicago-Midwest Chapter of the Turnaround Management Association!  In this episode, we’re bringing you the audio from our May 29 webinar co-hosted by our chapter with the Bankruptcy Court Liaison Committee for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The webinar was conducted by Chief Judge Benjamin Goldgar and Clerk of Court Jeffrey Allsteadt. Judge Goldgar and Mr. Allsteadt reviewed the steps taken during the coronavirus pandemic to keep the court running, as well as additional steps that may be taken in the future.  Thanks for listening! Learn more about TMA Chicago/Midwest: Visit our Website, LinkedIn, Facebook, & Twitter pages

The death of a loved one is something we never want to experience and that will send your world into turmoil. Imagine adding to that having to deal with the financial maze that comes with their passing. Having a Estate Plan can make these times easier on those left behind. In this episode my guest Gigi Costa will explain the legal in’s and outs of the probate and estate process.   Virginia (Gigi) Costa, Esquire concentrates her practice in Real Estate Law, Legal Life Planning, Property Damage Insurance Claims, Foreclosure Defense, Loan Modifications, Short Sale negotiations, Bankruptcy and Real Estate Sales & Acquisitions. Ms. Costa's practice provides services to her clients in Florida, in both State and Federal Courts. Ms. Costa is a member of The Florida Bar, the Cuban-American Bar Association, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. Ms. Costa was born and raised in Miami, Florida. She is fluent in English, Spanish and Italian.  If this episode has a guest, you will include the guest bio as the second paragraph Guest Social Media links Instagram - @costalawpl Facebook - @costalaw,pl Website – www.costalawmiami.com Victoria Lowell is a financial advocate, coach, international bestselling author of “Empower your Worth: A Woman’s Guide to Increasing Self-Worth and Net Worth.” and the founder of Empowered Worth, a financial-education platform that empowers women to become active participants in their own financial future and well-being. In late 2018 she left Wall Street and followed her passion to help women assert themselves fiscally. Her expertise in this field has led to her hosting this podcast, conferences and webinars, motivational speaking and being a guest on many tv, radio and podcast shows. Thanks for listening! It means so much to us that you listened to our podcast! If you would like to continue the conversation with us, head on over to www.empoweredworth.com .  With this podcast, we are building a community of Empowered Women that we hope to inspire to a better their lives and take their place at the financial table. If you know somebody who would benefit from this message, or would be an awesome addition to our community, please share it using the social media buttons on this page. Do you have some feedback or questions about this episode? Leave a note in the comment section below! Subscribe to the podcast If you would like to get automatic updates of new podcast episodes, you can subscribe on the podcast app on your mobile device. Leave us a review We appreciate every bit of feedback to make this a value adding part of your day. Ratings and reviews from our listeners not only help us improve, but also help others find us in their podcast app. If you have a minute, an honest review on iTunes goes a long way! Thank You!!

Bryan L. Elwood focuses his practice in the corporate, transactional, and finance sectors, advising clients in negotiating and implementing asset and equity acquisitions and dispositions, corporate restructurings, and financial transactions. He has extensive experience advising dental support organizations, large dental practice groups, individual dentists, and other health care providers in a variety of corporate and regulatory matters, including buying and selling dental practices, forming dental support organizations, and preparing and implementing business support and other related agreements between dental support organizations and dental practices. In addition to his dental and other health care legal work, Bryan also provides general corporate governance and business transaction services to clients across all industries and has significant experience representing creditors, debtors, and other parties-in-interest in the areas of creditors' and debtors' rights and complex bankruptcy cases. Prior to joining Parsons Behle & Latimer, Bryan was Senior Counsel at Dykema Gossett in Dallas after spending over 11 years at Greenberg Traurig in its Dallas office. Following law school, he served as a Law Clerk to the Honorable Robert C. McGuire, Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division). What You Will Learn: How the practice acquisition timeline typically works, and why Bryan compares the process to a courting relationship Why the seller will want to share their financials early in the process, right after the non-disclosure agreement has been signed What particular metrics within the financial information the buyer should be looking for to ensure that the practice is a match for their needs Why a letter of intent is an important layer of protection, and what key steps need to be taken before closing a deal Why the existing office lease is an important consideration to keep in mind, and why lenders will typically expect a renegotiated agreement What other work Bryan does for dentists and dental practices alongside his work in practice acquisition How Bryan works with clients in multiple states, helping them with contractual and non-litigation matters Why Bryan sees a lot of new opportunities for people working in today's dental environment, and what advice he would offer about doing things right the first time How to contact Bryan Elwood Telephone: (801) 536-6781 Email: delwood@parsonsbehle.com LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/bryan-l-elwood-2034a48/ Prior to joining Parsons Behle & Latimer, Bryan was Senior Counsel at Dykema Gossett in Dallas after spending over 11 years at Greenberg Traurig in its Dallas office. Following law school, he served as a Law Clerk to the Honorable Robert C. McGuire, Chief Judge of the United States Bankruptcy Court, Northern District of Texas (Dallas Division). What You Will Learn: How the practice acquisition timeline typically works, and why Bryan likens the process to a courting relationship Why the seller will want to share their financials early in the process, right after the non-disclosure agreement has been signed What particular metrics within the financial information the buyer should be looking for to ensure that the practice is a match for their needs Why a letter of intent is an important layer of protection, and what key steps need to be taken before closing a deal Why the existing office lease is an important consideration to keep in mind, and why lenders will typically expect a renegotiated agreement What other work Bryan does for dentists and dental practices alongside his work in practice acquisition How Bryan works with clients in multiple states, helping them with contractual and non-litigation matters Why Bryan sees a lot of new opportunities for people working in today's dental environment, and what advice he would offer about doing things right the first time How to contact Bryan Elwood Telephone: (801) 536-6781 Email: delwood@parsonsbehle.com LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/in/bryan-l-elwood-2034a48/

* Use coupon code PODCAST25 for 25% off this webcast * Webcast URL: https://www.theknowledgegroup.org/webcasts/bankruptcy-process-for-limited-liability-companies/ Join us for this Knowledge Group Online CLE Bankruptcy Process Webinar. When a Limited Liability Company (LLC) flunks due to unprofitability, filing a voluntary business bankruptcy petition in the United States Bankruptcy Court is essential. However, the bankruptcy proceeding is oftentimes extensive and complicated. It is, therefore, imperative for LLCs to deeply understand the bankruptcy rules and procedures. Moreover, a well-versed bankruptcy attorney is recommended to aid in the whole process to efficiently dissolve an LLC and avoid the potential for adverse consequences. Join a seasoned panel of thought leaders and professionals brought together by The Knowledge Group as they navigate through the bankruptcy process for LLCs. Speakers will discuss significant issues and present practical tips and strategies to help practitioners in this complex legal process. For anymore information please click on the webcast url at the top of this description.

The ISDA Secure Transportation and Executive Protection News Podcast for Tuesday, October 9th, 2018  ====================== In Driving News From AutoWeek Your car is not necessarily listening to you, but it's definitely paying attention Did you ever have the feeling you were being watched? Or at least listened to? If you drive a modern General Motors vehicle, you may be correct (as long as you opted in). According to a report from the Detroit Free Press, GM recently conducted a three-month study of customers' radio listening habits using vehicles equipped with an in-car Wi-Fi system. The goal? To ascertain if there is a relationship between what drivers listen to and what they buy. Why? To increase the effectiveness of targeted radio advertising, of course. The study, implemented last year, observed the behavior of 90,000 Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac and GMC drivers who agreed to participate in the Los Angeles and Chicago metro areas.   https://autoweek.com/article/technology/your-cars-radio-may-be-listening-you ========================= In Cyber Security News From CNET Google shutting down Google+ after exposing data of up to 500,000 users But the search giant didn't disclose the vulnerability because it reportedly feared regulatory scrutiny. A vulnerability in the Google+ social network exposed the personal data of up to 500,000 people using the site between 2015 and March 2018, the search giant said Monday. Google said it found no evidence of data misuse. Still, as part of the response to the incident, Google plans to shut down the social network permanently.    https://www.cnet.com/news/google-reportedly-exposed-data-of-hundreds-of-thousands-of-google-users/   ==================== and from ABC News The recent string of celebrity home burglaries linked to social media posts Celebrities no longer seem to be just objects of fame and fortune -- but also targets of burglary. A recent pattern of celebrity burglaries has left police digging for answers and looking over surveillance videos for clues of possible suspects. "Initially, it was believed that the homes were being burglarized at random. Detectives learned, however, that this wasn't the case. The victims' homes had been selected based on social media posting, touring or travel schedules of the owners."     https://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/recent-string-celebrity-home-burglaries-linked-social-media/story?id=58230153 ====================== In Vehicle News From The Motor Report Mercedes to automatically pick the safest route Future Mercedes models will use crime data to recommend safe places to park, cross-referencing police statistics with available parking spaces to help keep customers out of harm’s way. An app currently under development for future Mercedes models in the US could reduce motorists’ likelihood to encounter vandalism, assault and other crimes in dodgy areas. Mercedes software developer Markus Ehmann says "we can select a parking spot and analyze how much crime has happened in that area over the last weeks”.   https://www.themotorreport.com.au/car-article/motor-news/mercedes-to-automatically-pick-safest-route-119597.html ====================== In Training News From Torque News Bondurant Driving School Files for Bankruptcy One of the best known driving schools in the country, the Bob Bondurant School of High-Performance Driving has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The school which teaches everyone from teens to corporate bigwigs about high-performance driving says it is trying to reorganize. The school, which advertises itself as the “Official Racing School of Dodge SRT,” has a huge facility in Chandler, Arizona. The Bondurant School released a statement on its webpage.   “In a difficult yet important step towards becoming a stronger company, Bob Bondurant School of High Performance Driving, Inc. filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Arizona on October 2, 2018. We will continue operating and serving our students and corporate groups as usual while we develop new business relationships to ensure the vitality of the Company in the future.” School Remains Open During Re-organization.   ======================   Links to all news stories mentioned in this podcast are available at the archive website securitydrivernews.libsyn.com. You can also listen to past podcast episodes and leave comments    ====================== This podcast is brought to you by the International Security Driver Association ISDA is a valuable resource for all practitioners working in the protection profession. We offer benchmark educational, networking, and marketing programs. The ISDA Membership ISDA Members represent all facets and levels of the protective services profession. The membership can be defined as a group of practitioners from different disciplines within the profession and with years of experience coming together to assist ISDA Members. Read more about our members Here is a collection of Books, and Articles authored by ISDA Members. Learn More about the ISDA Advantage and Become a Member Today

Cathy was born in Ohio and raised in the Midwest, primarily in Indiana. Cathy attended and graduated from Vincennes University with an Associates degree in paralegal studies in 1984, after which she attended and graduated from Indiana University with a degree in business management in 1998. While attending Indiana University, Cathy worked at several law firms as a paralegal and for the United States Bankruptcy Court in Indianapolis, Indiana as a deputy clerk. After graduating from Indiana University, Cathy relocated to Chicago, Illinois where she attended Chicago-Kent College of Law. While attending law school Cathy worked as a paralegal for 2 law firms, and for the Chicago Board of Education. Cathy graduated from law school in 2001 with law degree and a Certificate in Labor & Employment Law. In 2002, Cathy was hired as in-house counsel at a large Taft-Hartley Trust Fund where she worked until 2012, when she moved to Houston, Texas after her spouse took a job with a large oil company. Cathy was admitted to the Texas bar in 2014, and in April opened her own general civil practice with a focus on estate planning.    281-772-9585 rathlawkaty@gmail.com

Santa Clara, Calif., — November 28, 2017 — Avaya announced today that the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) has confirmed its second amended chapter 11 plan of reorganization (the “Plan”). As a result, Avaya expects to emerge from its restructuring process before the end of this year. “The Court’s approval of our plan is the culmination of months of hard work and extensive negotiations among our various stakeholders,” said Jim Chirico, Avaya’s President and CEO. “In the coming weeks, Avaya will emerge from this process stronger than ever and positioned for long-term success, with the financial flexibility to create even greater value for our customers, partners and stockholders.”