Podcasts about united states constitution

Recorded back in November, the Minister of Defense for the Black Panther Party talks rednecks and shares his time-tested wisdom with the current social revolutionary movement, warns us of past and coming challenges to our solidarity and solutions to overcome the divide-and-conquer tactics that have separated us for far too long. https://www.blackpantherpartywa.com/https://thepantherparty.com/www.instagram.com/bpp.waSpecial thanks to Nathan Evans Fox for his beautiful song.www.instagram.com/nathan.evans.foxThe Black Panthers Ten Point Program:1. We Want Freedom. We Want Power to Determine the Destiny of Our Black Community.We believe that Black people will not be free until we are able to determine our destiny.2. We Want Full Employment for Our People.3. We Want An End to the Robbery By the Capitalists of Our Black Community.We believe that this racist government has robbed us, and now we are demanding the overdue debt of forty acres and two mules. Forty acres and two mules were promised 100 years ago as restitution for slave labor and mass murder of Black people. 4. We Want Decent Housing Fit For The Shelter of Human Beings.5. We Want Education for Our People That Exposes The True Nature Of This Decadent American Society. We Want Education That Teaches Us Our True History And Our Role in the Present-Day Society.We believe in an educational system that will give to our people a knowledge of self. If a man does not have knowledge of himself and his position in society and the world then he has little chance to relate to anything else.6. We Want All Black Men To Be Exempt From Military Service.We believe that Black people should not be forced to fight in the military service to defend a racist government that does not protect us. 7. We Want An Immediate End to Police Brutality and the Murder of Black People.We believe we can end police brutality in our Black community by organizing Black self-defense groups that are dedicated to defending our Black community from racist police oppression and brutality. The Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States gives a right to bear arms. We therefore believe that all Black people should arm themselves for self-defense.8. We Want Freedom For All Black Men Held in Federal, State, County and City Prisons and Jails.We believe that all Black People should be released from the many jails and prisons because they have not received a fair and impartial trial.9. We Want All Black People When Brought to Trial To Be Tried In Court By A Jury Of Their Peer Group Or People From Their Black Communities, As Defined By the Constitution of the United States.We believe that the courts should follow the United States Constitution so that Black people will receive fair trials. The Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution gives a man a right to be tried by his peer group. A peer is a person from a similar economic, social, religious, geographical, environmental, historical, and racial background. To do this the court will be forced to select a jury from the Black community from which the Black defendant came. We have been, and we are being, tried by all-White juries that have no understanding of the “average reasoning man” of the Black community.10. We Want Land, Bread, Housing, Education, Clothing, Justice And Peace.When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and nature's God entitle them, a decent respect of the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.#BlackPanthers #history #YoungPatriots #FredHampton #redneck #countrymusic #politics #police #racism #ice #democrats #republican #foxnews #workingclass #chicago #aoc #berniesanders #trump

The United States Constitution mandates that a nationwide census is conducted every decade. Other nations also conduct censuses. Censuses are common. Our parsha begins with a nation-wide census, the third census since the Exodus. But this census was highly uncommon. It was conducted completely differently than the way that any other census is done. When […]

The United States Constitution mandates that a nationwide census is conducted every decade. Other nations also conduct censuses. Censuses are common. Our parsha begins with a nation-wide census, the third census since the Exodus. But this census was highly uncommon. It was conducted completely differently than the way that any other census is done. When we probe the matter deeply we discover something absolutely profound. At the risk of over-promising, I highly recommend that you listen very intently to this parsha podcast. It will change your life.– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –DONATE: Please consider supporting the podcasts by making a donation to help fund our Jewish outreach and educational efforts at https://www.torchweb.org/support.php. Thank you!– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –Email me with questions, comments, and feedback: rabbiwolbe@gmail.com– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –SUBSCRIBE to my Newsletterrabbiwolbe.com/newsletter– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –SUBSCRIBE to Rabbi Yaakov Wolbe's PodcastsThe Parsha PodcastThe Jewish History PodcastThe Mitzvah Podcast This Jewish LifeThe Ethics PodcastTORAH 101 ★ Support this podcast ★

In this episode, we review the renewal of the covenant and will examine three of the four foundational pillars of a covenant/constitution.  What are these three essential pillars and how are they also to be found in our own United States Constitution?  This explains some of these aspects.

The Bill of Rights to the United States Constitution holds some of the most treasured rights held by Americans.  This includes the rights of free speech, religion, assembly, due process, and protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, and self incrimination.  However, there are other parts to the bill of rights. Parts that don't get quite as much as attention.  Learn more about the Third Amendment and why it was put into the Constitution on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily. Sponsors Newspapers.com Get 20% off your subscription to Newspapers.com Mint Mobile Cut your wireless bill to 15 bucks a month at mintmobile.com/eed Quince Go to quince.com/daily for 365-day returns, plus free shipping on your order! Stitch Fix Go to stitchfix.com/everywhere to have a stylist help you look your best Tourist Office of Spain Plan your next adventure at Spain.info  Stash Go to get.stash.com/EVERYTHING to see how you can receive $25 towards your first stock purchase and to view important disclosures. Subscribe to the podcast!  https://everything-everywhere.com/everything-everywhere-daily-podcast/ -------------------------------- Executive Producer: Charles Daniel Associate Producers: Austin Oetken & Cameron Kieffer   Become a supporter on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/everythingeverywhere Update your podcast app at newpodcastapps.com Discord Server: https://discord.gg/UkRUJFh Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/everythingeverywhere/ Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/everythingeverywheredaily Twitter: https://twitter.com/everywheretrip Website: https://everything-everywhere.com/  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Washington ends the Convention with an epic drinking party before heading home. The proposed Constitution is taken to New York where the Confederation Congress has to decide what to do with it. Blog ⁠https://blog.AmRevPodcast.com⁠ includes a complete transcript, as well as more resources related to this week's episode. Book Recommendation of the Week: ⁠The Framers' Coup: The Making of the United States Constitution, by Michael Klarman Online Recommendation of the Week: Franklin closing speech to the convention: https://archive.csac.history.wisc.edu/assessments_64.pdf Join American Revolution Podcast on Reddit: ⁠https://www.reddit.com/r/AmRevPodcast⁠ Ask your American Revolution Podcast questions on Quora: ⁠https://amrevpod.quora.com⁠ Join the Facebook group, American Revolution Podcast: ⁠https://www.facebook.com/groups/132651894048271⁠ Follow the podcast on X ⁠@AmRevPodcast⁠ Join the podcast mail list: ⁠https://mailchi.mp/d3445a9cd244/american-revolution-podcast-by-michael-troy ⁠ ARP T-shirts and other merch: ⁠https://merch.amrevpodcast.com⁠ Support this podcast on Patreon ⁠https://www.patreon.com/AmRevPodcast⁠ or via PayPal ⁠http://paypal.me/AmRevPodcast Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Voters today take for granted their right to elect their United States Senators. Americans have been directly electing their Senators for over a hundred years, but it wasn't always this way. Our Founding Fathers believed that allowing state legislatures to elect Senators would strengthen the bond between the federal and state governments. Article I, Section 3 of the United States Constitution stated, 'The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each state, chosen by the legislature thereof for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote.'

One of the main rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution is "Freedom of Religion".  Although there were numerous drivers behind guaranteeing that right, few played a more important role than the "Test Acts".  Watch this weeks episode of Revolutionary War Rarities as we welcome author Avellina Balestri. Revolutionary War Rarities is the podcast from the Sons of the American Revolution.

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION Article 1 Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Section 9 Section 10We appreciate your support! Tune in for fresh episodes every week. Let's keep the conversation going,join our community, subscribe and grow with us!Support the showWelcome to 'Facts Or Nonsense Podcast,' where the past, present, and future converge in a symphony of discovery.

This Day in Legal History: Seventeenth AmendmentOn April 8, 1913, the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was officially ratified, transforming the way U.S. senators are selected. Prior to this amendment, senators were chosen by state legislatures, a system intended by the framers to preserve state influence within the federal government. However, by the late 19th and early 20th centuries, this process had become widely criticized for being undemocratic and vulnerable to corruption, deadlocks, and backroom political deals.Progressive Era reformers pushed for change, arguing that direct election by the people would make senators more accountable and reduce the influence of powerful political machines. After years of public pressure and legislative debate, the Seventeenth Amendment was passed by Congress in 1912 and ratified by the necessary number of states the following year.The amendment mandates that senators be elected by the voters of each state, aligning the Senate more closely with democratic ideals already applied to the House of Representatives. It also established procedures for handling vacancies through temporary gubernatorial appointments followed by special elections.The ratification marked a major victory for advocates of electoral reform and remains one of the most significant changes to the structure of American democracy since the founding. It reshaped the relationship between the federal government and the people, moving power away from state political elites and toward the electorate.Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has launched an investigation into WK Kellogg over claims that the company may be misleading consumers by advertising some of its cereals as “healthy.” The probe focuses on popular products like Froot Loops, Apple Jacks, and Frosted Flakes, which the state alleges contain petroleum-based artificial colorings linked to health issues such as hyperactivity and obesity. Paxton criticized the company for continuing to use these dyes in U.S. products while removing them from versions sold in Canada and Europe. He argued that it is deceptive to market cereals containing such ingredients as healthy. WK Kellogg has not yet commented on the investigation.Texas opens probe into WK Kellogg over health claims | ReutersPresident Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to pause a federal judge's order requiring the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a legally present Salvadoran man who was wrongfully deported to El Salvador. The Justice Department argued that the lower court overstepped its authority and that the U.S. cannot guarantee swift results in international negotiations, especially under tight deadlines. U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis had found no legal basis for Abrego Garcia's arrest or removal and ordered his return by 11:59 p.m. Monday, calling his deportation "wholly lawless."Abrego Garcia had previously won a 2019 court order protecting him from deportation due to threats from gangs in El Salvador. Despite this, he was deported on March 15 after being stopped and questioned by ICE. The administration claims he is affiliated with MS-13, but no charges have been filed, and his attorneys deny the allegation. The Supreme Court filing contends that while deporting him to El Salvador was a procedural error, the removal itself was lawful. The case is part of broader legal challenges to the Trump administration's aggressive immigration tactics and its attempts to sidestep judicial checks on deportation practices.Trump asks US Supreme Court to pause order to return man deported to El Salvador in error | ReutersA U.S. appeals court has blocked President Donald Trump from removing two Democratic members of federal labor boards, reversing a previous decision and restoring legal protections for their positions. The D.C. Circuit Court, in a 7-4 vote, reinstated lower court rulings that barred Trump from firing Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board and Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board. The court reaffirmed long-standing laws that only allow such removals for neglect, malfeasance, or inefficiency—not at-will.Trump's administration argued that these protections infringe on presidential authority, and plans to appeal, potentially setting up a Supreme Court showdown. If the high court agrees to hear the case, it could revisit decades-old precedent that preserves agency independence, with potential ripple effects on bodies like the Federal Reserve and Federal Trade Commission.The judges noted that Wilcox and Harris's roles primarily involve adjudicating individual cases, not shaping executive policy, making them constitutionally protected from political dismissal. Without them, the boards would be paralyzed, with thousands of pending employee appeals left unresolved. This legal fight is part of Trump's broader effort to exert more control over independent federal agencies, a push that critics say threatens the checks and balances built into administrative law.US appeals court blocks Trump from removing Democrats from labor boards | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

In this episode of Revival Radio TV, Dr. Gene Bailey explores how the Magna Carta influenced both the laws that govern the United Kingdom and the creation of the United States Constitution. The Magna Carta was issued in June 1215 and was the first document to put into writing the principle that the king and his government were not above the law. Learn how different philosophies around these documents have influenced the views of people and how they interpret the modern U.S. Constitution.   RRTV_250330_RR

There have been plenty of questions surrounding the constitutionality of the investigation into Bryan Kohberger, and especially surrounding how evidence was collected and tested at the scene of the crime and then in Pennsylvania.In this epsiode, we discuss the 4th Amendment and how it relates to Bryan Kohberger and his trial moving forward.The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution is as follows:"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."(commercial at 9:29)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:How DNA and Cell Phone Evidence in Idaho Murders Complied With the Fourth Amendment | The Heritage FoundationBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

One of the genius aspects of the United States Constitution is the emphasis on protecting individual liberty.  The document protects liberty through separation of powers so power is not concentrated exclusively in any one branch.  To fulfill the desires of the people, the process through which national legislation is introduced begins on the floor of either the U.S. House or the U.S. Senate.  Today, we are talking about the process and procedures for legislation on the floor of the U.S. House.  To walk us through this sometimes confusing process, we are delighted to welcome former Virginia Congressman Robert Hurt. Congressman Hurt served in Congress for 6 years and is the former Dean of the Helms School of Government of Liberty University.

Patrick Henry is one of the most famous voices of the American Revolution. He was known in his own time for his powerful speeches and his unwavering commitment to liberty. But did you know that later in life, Patrick Henry opposed the United States Constitution? Did you know that during the political crisis of 1798/99, George Washington wrote to Patrick Henry and asked him to save the nation? In honor of the 250th anniversary of Patrick Henry's most famous speech, “Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death,” award-winning historian John Ragosta joins us to investigate the life and work of Patrick Henry. John's Website | Book Show Notes: https://www.benfranklinsworld.com/403   RECOMMENDED NEXT EPISODES

The 250th birthday of the Declaration of Independence is coming up... do you have your own copy? Tune in to The Public Square® today to hear more. Get your own copy of the Declaration of Independence and the United States Constitution here. Topic: Rediscovering American History The Public Square® with host Dave Zanotti thepublicsquare.com Air Date: Friday, March 21, 2025

Ukraine reacts with resignation to Russia attacking its infrastructure, hours after Vladimir Putin told President Trump he was halting such strikes.Also in the programme: we hear from a doctor in Gaza as attacks by Israel resume; and after a federal court rules that actions taken to shut down USAID by Elon Musk and DOGE 'likely violated the United States Constitution in multiple ways', we hear from the former White House counsel leading the charge.(IMAGE: View of a strike on a hospital, amid Russia's attack on Ukraine, in Krasnopillia, Sumy Region, Ukraine, March 19, 2025 / CREDIT: State Emergency Service of Ukraine via Reuters)

Let me take you on a trip to the old country, back to 1843. Thats where our story today starts. Nestled in the Tennessee landscape is Old Dominick. This was an excellent episode with Clark. Hope you find value in it. And we have a coupon code to use you wanna buy a bottle for yourselfhttps://bit.ly/od-whiskey-shaman code: whiskeyshaman25Olddominick.comTexaswhiskeyfestival.comBadmotivatorbarrels.com/shop/?aff=3https://www.instagram.com/zsmithwhiskeyandmixology?utm_source=ig_web_button_share_sheet&igsh=ZDNlZDc0MzIxNw==1843Domenico Canale is born in San Pietro di Rovereto on the Italian Riviera. A year after his birth, three of his mother's brothers leave for America, settling in Memphis, where they start a successful wholesale grocery business that includes liquor and wine.1859DOMENICO CANALE ARRIVES IN AMERICASixteen-year-old Domenico Canale sails for America, landing in New Orleans after a 65 day-long voyage. From there, he travels up the Mississippi to Memphis, Tennessee where he worked for his uncle, Abraham Vaccaro, running a modest fruit cart up and down the streets of Memphis.1866Canale formally establishes food wholesaler D. Canale & Co., and sets up operations in a warehouse at 8 Madison St. near Front. Among its offering is a whiskey, sold in ceramic jars and bottles, that Canale names Old Dominick.1880Canale develops the Dominick Toddy, a bourbon-based cordial with fruity overtones that must have spoken to the former fruit stand operator. It was described as the “one of which we are the proudest” and its label featured the now iconic Dominicker Rooster.1919Just three days before the ratification of the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution, better known as Prohibition, Domenico Canale passes away at the age of 75 in his Midtown home.1921During Prohibition, Domenico's eldest son, John Dominick Canale, expanded D. Canale's food and product operations. With distribution up and down the Mississippi from Chicago to the Gulf of Mexico, as far east as Atlanta, and west into Indian Territory, it was one of the largest grocery distributors in the region.1933By the time Prohibition was repealed in 1933, D. Canale and Company was operating the largest refrigerated warehouses in Memphis, which caught the attention of Anheuser-Busch. Most beer at the time was unpasteurized and had to be refrigerated, as a result of their refrigeration and an established distribution footprint, D. Canale was awarded exclusive regional distribution rights for Anheuser-Busch beers.1965A young John D. Canale, Jr. becomes President of D. Canale following his father's untimely death. A graduate of Yale and a Lieutenant in the Navy, John D., known by many as “The Bear”, led D. Canale into some of its most prosperous years by diversifying into institutional food and banking. He conceived of the company bywords, “Quality Products, Quality Service, by Quality People,” which we remember to this day.1982John D. Canale Jr and his wife, Peggy, had two sons; John D. Canale III and Chris W. Canale. Planning for future generations, John D. Canale Jr. spun both the food business and the beer business out from under the parent company D. Canale and Company in 1982, thereby creating D. Canale Food Services, Inc., and D. Canale Beverages, Inc.1999After 125 years of continuous operation, D. Canale Food Services is sold. At the 125th Anniversary celebration, a grateful John D. Canale Jr. reminded his friends, family, customers, and the company's hundreds of employees that “Quality and Service are remembered long after the price is forgotten.” With the beverage industry trending towards craft beer, wine and spirits, the family sold D. Canale Beverages at its peak in 2010.

Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/american-studies

Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/politics-and-polemics

Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/political-science

On this West Virginia Morning, educators across the state are bracing for federal cuts to education and wondering how to meet the new school discipline requirements lawmakers are weighing. Eric Douglas talks with the head of the West Virginia School Board Association.  Also, a look at what the United States Constitution says about women's rights.... View Article The post Bracing For Federal Education Cuts And Work To Be Done For Women's Equality, This West Virginia Morning appeared first on West Virginia Public Broadcasting.

Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Birthright citizenship is established in the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – yet Donald Trump's recent Executive Order 14160 denies some types of birthright citizenship. The Order contradicts over a century of American law, legal practice, and constitutional interpretation. Three groups have opposed the order as unconstitutional and challenged it in the courts: and cities, civil rights organizations, and labor organizations. In the podcast, three scholars to help Susan and Lilly interrogate the meaning of natural born citizenship, the political ramifications of Trump's order, and the complicated history of natural born citizenship in the United States. Dr. Anna O. Law is the Herbert Kurz Chair in Constitutional Rights and Associate Professor of Political Science at Brooklyn College, City University of New York. Julie Novkov is Dean of Rockefeller College of Public Affairs and Policy and Professor of Political Science and Women's, Gender, and Sexuality Studies, University at Albany, SUNY. Carol Nackenoff is the Emerita Richter Professor of Political Science, Swarthmore College Mentioned: Calvin's Case (1608) Donald Trump's Executive order 14160 Julie and Carol's 2021 book American by Birth: Wong Kim Ark and the Battle for Citizenship and their NBN interview with Susan. Anna's 2025 FREE open-access article “The Civil War and Reconstruction Amendments' Effects on Citizenship and Migration” Anna's NBN conversation with Heath Brown on her 2017 book, The Immigration Battle in American Courts Lilly's conversation with Martha Jones about her book, Birthright Citizens: A History of Race and Rights in Antebellum America Kate Masur, Until Justice Be Done: America's First Civil Rights Movement, from Revolution to Reconstruction (2021) Lilly's NBN conversation with Elizabeth Cohen and Cyril Ghosh about their 2019 book Citizenship Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Jake Auchincloss is a Member of the U.S. House of Representatives for Massachusetts's 4th district. He assumed office on January 3, 2021. He is a member of the Democratic Party, and has served in the Marine Corps, being deployed to Afghanistan in 2012 and to Panama in 2014. On January 6, 2021, after the 2021 attack on the United States Capitol, Auchincloss tweeted his agreement with lawmakers' calls to remove President Donald Trump from office, either through the Twenty-fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution or impeachment. Auchincloss voted to certify the results of the 2020 United States presidential election in the early morning of January 7, 2021.----------LINKS:https://auchincloss.house.gov/https://x.com/repauchinclosshttps://www.congress.gov/member/jake-auchincloss/A000148https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Auchinclosshttps://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/12/Tv/video/jake-auchincloss-russia-ukraine----------SUPPORT THE CHANNEL:https://www.buymeacoffee.com/siliconcurtainhttps://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtain----------TRUSTED CHARITIES ON THE GROUND:Save Ukrainehttps://www.saveukraineua.org/Superhumans - Hospital for war traumashttps://superhumans.com/en/UNBROKEN - Treatment. Prosthesis. Rehabilitation for Ukrainians in Ukrainehttps://unbroken.org.ua/Come Back Alivehttps://savelife.in.ua/en/Chefs For Ukraine - World Central Kitchenhttps://wck.org/relief/activation-chefs-for-ukraineUNITED24 - An initiative of President Zelenskyyhttps://u24.gov.ua/Serhiy Prytula Charity Foundationhttps://prytulafoundation.orgNGO “Herojam Slava”https://heroiamslava.org/kharpp - Reconstruction project supporting communities in Kharkiv and Przemyślhttps://kharpp.com/NOR DOG Animal Rescuehttps://www.nor-dog.org/home/----------PLATFORMS:Twitter: https://twitter.com/CurtainSiliconInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/siliconcurtain/Podcast: https://open.spotify.com/show/4thRZj6NO7y93zG11JMtqmLinkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/finkjonathan/Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/siliconcurtain----------Welcome to the Silicon Curtain podcast. Please like and subscribe if you like the content we produce. It will really help to increase the popularity of our content in YouTube's algorithm. Our material is now being made available on popular podcasting platforms as well, such as Spotify and Apple Podcasts.

“A mythbusting episode,” Ross suggested. “Great idea!” Sam and Jeff said.Then we blinked, and we had gone off-topic again, taped an entire show about 19th-century American cultural hegemony. What a corker! More specifically, we had taped a show about the life and times of a long-dead American statesman who also happened to be a strong supporter of the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution, a.k.a. Prohibition.Naw—that's an exaggeration. We wouldn't do that to you. This episode is about *20th-century* political hegemony. (Everything else above stands.)Still here? Good! Everything above is a fib, a gambit designed to root out the nonbelievers. Except the “mythbusting” part. Here's a myth for you: It's never important to read all the way to the end!This show changes format weekly, because squirrel. We call this format “IT IS VERY UNLIKELY THAT THE DISCOVERY CHANNEL WILL SUE US.”RELATED TRIVIA: Sam, Ross, and Jeff will all be at the Long Beach Grand Prix in April. Jeff will be working his day job with AWA Racing; Ross and Sam will just be hanging out. Sam will have a pocketful of free INTC stickers. And yes, that last sentence is a threat.This episode was produced by Mike Perlman.**Who We Are + Spicy Merch:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.ItsNotTheCar.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠**Support It's Not the Car:Contribute on Patreon ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠www.patreon.com/notthecar⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠**Topic suggestions, feedback, questions? Let us know what you think!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠INTCPod@gmail.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠**Check out Sam's book!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Smithology: Thoughts, Travels, and Semi-Plausible Car Writing, 2003–2023⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠**Where to find us:⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/intcpod⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/thatsamsmith/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/j.v.braun/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.instagram.com/rossbentley/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://rossbentley.substack.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://speedsecrets.com/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠**ABOUT THE SHOW:It's Not the Car is a podcast about people and speed. We tell racing stories and leave out the boring parts.Ross Bentley is a former IndyCar driver, a bestselling author, and a world-renowned performance coach. Jeff Braun is a champion race engineer. Sam Smith is an award-winning writer and a former executive editor of Road & Track magazine.We don't love racing for the nuts and bolts—we love it for what it asks of the meatbag at the wheel.New episodes every Tuesday.

#podcast #politics #19thAmendment #Michigan #Voting #VotingRights #Constitution #WomensRights #Marriage #MAGA #Republicans #Democrats #progressives #leftoflansing Here's the Left of Lansing "Monday Musing" for March 10, 2025. The MAGA Michigan Republican Party is trying to pass a resolution to reach the state ballot in 2026 that would require proof of citizenship while registering to vote.  While this does nothing to fix a non-existent "voter fraud" problem, it does do one thing Republicans across the country want: to chip away at the 19th Amendment to the United States Constitution.  It's the White Christian Nationalist goal of ripping away the rights of women. Please, subscribe to the podcast, download each episode, and give it a good review if you can! leftoflansing@gmail.com Left of Lansing is now on YouTube as well! leftoflansing.com NOTES: "Battle lines drawn in fight over Michigan voter citizenship proposal." By Haley Harding of Votebeat (via Bridge Michigan) "Millions of married women voters could be disenfranchised under proposed federal law, opponents say." By Justin Engel of MLive.com

A completely incoherent Donald Trump got on Truth Social on Sunday to launch a lengthy attack on MSNBC after the network announced that they were parting ways with host Joy Ann Reid. But Trump went further than just attacking the hosts on the network and actually demanded that the company pay "vast sums of money" for the "unpardonable sins" they have committed. Those "sins" are calling out Trump's lies and telling the truth about what he's doing, which apparently in his mind means that he's owed money. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth admitted during an interview on Fox News that Donald Trump fired the top lawyers in the military so that there would be no one left to stand in his way and tell him "no." This is a dictator move, and it could be the telltale sign that Trump is preparing, at some point, to order the military to go against the United States Constitution. Whether it is for a foreign or domestic purpose remains to be seen, but smart money is on the latter.More and more local Republican leaders from across the country are warning that Donald Trump's mass layoffs and the termination of government contracts could lead to mass unemployment that would cripple local economies. Economists themselves are now warning of a looming recession thanks to all of the cuts that are taking place, as our economy simply cannot handle the sudden impact of tens of thousands of people being out of work in a single month. This is almost like the COVID layoffs all over again.The Trump administration has been forcing engineers throughout government agencies to scan through hundreds of thousands of documents on government websites to look for what are being called "banned words." These words include things like "woman" and "disabled" in the FDA database, while Health and Human Services is removing terms like "Biden", "transgender," and "diversity." This serves no purpose other than to attack vulnerable parts of society, as Farron explains.Text and and let us know your thoughts on today's stories!Subscribe to our YouTube channel to stay up to date on all of Farron's content: https://www.youtube.com/FarronBalancedFollow Farron on social media! Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/FarronBalanced Twitter: https://twitter.com/farronbalanced Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/farronbalanced TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@farronbalanced?lang=en

Freedom of Speech & Censorship: The Trump Agenda Moves Ahead There's a new sheriff in town and he's changing the rules, back to the way the founding fathers have intended. READ THE FULL UNREDACTED ARTICLE HERE DIRECT FROM THE WHITE HOUSE https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/restoring-freedom-of-speech-and-ending-federal-censorship/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------   PRESIDENTIAL EXECUTIVE ORDER   By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and section 301 of title 3, United States Code, it is hereby ordered as follows:      Section 1.  Purpose.  The First Amendment to the United States Constitution, an amendment essential to the success of our Republic, enshrines the right of the American people to speak freely in the public square without Government interference.  Over the last 4 years, the previous administration trampled free speech rights by censoring Americans' speech on online platforms, often by exerting substantial coercive pressure on third parties, such as social media companies, to moderate, deplatform, or otherwise suppress speech that the Federal Government did not approve.  Under the guise of combatting “misinformation,” “disinformation,” and “malinformation,” the Federal Government infringed on the constitutionally protected speech rights of American citizens across the United States in a manner that advanced the Government's preferred narrative about significant matters of public debate.  Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.        Sec. 2.  Policy.  It is the policy of the United States to:       (a)  secure the right of the American people to engage in constitutionally protected speech;      (b)  ensure that no Federal Government officer, employee, or agent engages in or facilitates any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen;      (c)  ensure that no taxpayer resources are used to engage in or facilitate any conduct that would unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen; and      (d)  identify and take appropriate action to correct past misconduct by the Federal Government related to censorship of protected speech.      Sec. 3.  Ending Censorship of Protected Speech.  (a)  No Federal department, agency, entity, officer, employee, or agent may act or use any Federal resources in a manner contrary to section 2 of this order.      (b)  The Attorney General, in consultation with the heads of executive departments and agencies, shall investigate the activities of the Federal Government over the last 4 years that are inconsistent with the purposes and policies of this order and prepare a report to be submitted to the President, through the Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, with recommendations for appropriate remedial actions to be taken based on the findings of the report.      Sec. 4.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or (ii)   the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.      (b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.      (c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.   THE WHITE HOUSE, JANUARY 20TH 2025 DONALD J. TRUMP PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA  

DOGE is making sweeping changes in the federal system. There are a few Federal Judges that are willing to hold the constitutional line. Is DOGE working inside the parameters of the United States Constitution or are we experiencing a hostile take over? #DOGE #ELONMUSK #AMERICA #audits

DOGE is making sweeping changes in the federal system. There are a few Federal Judges that are willing to hold the constitutional line. Is DOGE working inside the parameters of the United States Constitution or are we experiencing a hostile take over? #DOGE #ELONMUSK #AMERICA #audits

DOGE is making sweeping changes in the federal system. There are a few Federal Judges that are willing to hold the constitutional line. Is DOGE working inside the parameters of the United States Constitution or are we experiencing a hostile take over? #DOGE #ELONMUSK #AMERICA #audits

In this episode of Leadership and Legacy, historian, political analyst, and author Dr. Yuval Levin explores the foundations of American democracy, the qualities of effective presidential leadership, and the role of compromise in governance. Levin discusses how a successful presidency requires restraint over aggression and negotiation over conflict, drawing lessons from historical administrations. He also examines the United States Constitution, arguing that while it is not a flawless document, its strength lies in its ability to adapt and unite a divided nation. With the current state of political polarization and increasing concerns over constitutional integrity, Levin highlights why preserving democratic institutions is more critical than ever. Tune in to gain insights on leadership, political philosophy, governance, and the evolving role of the presidency in American history.Leadership and Legacy: Conversations at the George Washington Presidential Library is hosted by Washington Library Executive Director Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky. It is a production of the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association and Primary Source Media. For more information about this program, go to www.GeorgeWashingtonPodcast.com.

In this episode of Leadership and Legacy, historian, political analyst, and author Dr. Yuval Levin explores the foundations of American democracy, the qualities of effective presidential leadership, and the role of compromise in governance. Levin discusses how a successful presidency requires restraint over aggression and negotiation over conflict, drawing lessons from historical administrations. He also examines the United States Constitution, arguing that while it is not a flawless document, its strength lies in its ability to adapt and unite a divided nation. With the current state of political polarization and increasing concerns over constitutional integrity, Levin highlights why preserving democratic institutions is more critical than ever. Tune in to gain insights on leadership, political philosophy, governance, and the evolving role of the presidency in American history.Leadership and Legacy: Conversations at the George Washington Presidential Library is hosted by Washington Library Executive Director Dr. Lindsay Chervinsky. It is a production of the Mount Vernon Ladies' Association and Primary Source Media. For more information about this program, go to www.GeorgeWashingtonPodcast.com.

In the United States, an executive order is a directive by the president of the United States that manages operations of the federal government.[1] The legal or constitutional basis for executive orders has multiple sources. Article Two of the United States Constitution gives presidents broad executive and enforcement authority to use their discretion to determine how to enforce the law or to otherwise manage the resources and staff of the federal government's executive branch. The ability to make such orders is also based on expressed or implied Acts of Congress that delegate to the president some degree of discretionary power (delegated legislation).[2] The vast majority of executive orders are proposed by federal agencies before being issued by the president.

On February 4, 2025, the South Dakota House debated and voted on SJR 502 (COS Action's Article V Resolution). The South Dakota Senate had previously approved the legislation by a strong majority. After a disappointing result, Regional Directors Andrew Lusch and Deanna Becket give their live reaction and a call to action. SJR 502 is a resolution "applying to the United States Congress for a convention of the states to propose amendments to the United States Constitution regarding the imposition of fiscal restraints on the federal government, further limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office for members of Congress and other federal officials."

What do Trump's executive orders do, and how do we fight them? On his first day in office as the 47th president of the United States, President Trump signed a slew of executive orders (EOs) that impact the LGBTQ+ community, as well as many others. It is important to note that executive actions do NOT have the authority to override the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or established legal precedent. Many of these directives do just that or are regarding matters over which the president does not have control. Given that, many of these orders will be difficult, if not impossible, to implement, and efforts to do so will be challenged through litigation. Currently, much is unknown about whether or how the administration or other actors will comply with these directives, and in most instances, rules will need to be promulgated, or significant administrative guidance will need to be issued in order for implementation to occur. These are processes that take time and require detailed additional plans to be developed. Today we talk to our friends Brandon Wolf, National Press Secretary of the Human Rights Campaign and journalist Christopher Kane.  We will discuss the specific anti-LGBTQ orders, what they mean, and how we collectively and individually can fight them.   With co-host Brody Levesque

This Day in Legal History: Poll Tax AbolishedOn January 23, 1964, the 24th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, marking a pivotal moment in the fight for civil rights and voting equality. This amendment abolished the use of poll taxes in federal elections, a practice that had long been used to disenfranchise low-income and minority voters, particularly African Americans. Poll taxes required individuals to pay a fee to vote, which many could not afford, effectively barring them from participating in the democratic process.The amendment's ratification was part of a broader civil rights movement aiming to dismantle systemic barriers to equality. Although the 15th Amendment prohibited racial discrimination in voting, mechanisms like poll taxes, literacy tests, and other discriminatory practices were used to suppress African American voters, especially in the South. The 24th Amendment directly confronted one of these tools of disenfranchisement, removing a significant obstacle to equal voting rights.Its passage was not universally supported and faced resistance from states that benefitted from voter suppression. However, the amendment signaled a growing federal commitment to civil rights reforms. Following its ratification, court cases like Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections in 1966 extended the prohibition of poll taxes to state elections, solidifying the impact of the amendment across all levels of government.The elimination of the poll tax was a vital step in creating a more inclusive democracy. It underscored the principle that access to voting should not depend on one's economic status, reinforcing the idea that the right to vote is fundamental and universal.President Trump's declaration of a national energy emergency, aimed at accelerating oil and gas projects, is expected to withstand legal challenges, according to experts. The order invokes the National Emergencies Act, granting broad presidential powers to expedite energy project approvals. Courts are unlikely to overturn the emergency designation due to the law's lack of a clear definition of “emergency” and historical judicial deference to such declarations. However, the order's implementation could face significant legal scrutinyThe directive requires federal agencies to identify laws and regulations that could streamline permitting for projects, including drilling, pipeline construction, and refining. Environmental statutes like the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act could be impacted, sparking concerns over weakened protections. Legal battles are anticipated over specific agency actions, such as regulatory rollbacks or lease approvals, rather than the emergency declaration itself. The involvement of the National Security Council in justifying regulatory changes may bolster the administration's defense in court, as judges often defer to national security claims. Environmental groups have criticized the move but are waiting to challenge concrete actions taken under the order. Market forces and industry strategies, such as energy companies' focus on shareholder returns, will also influence the pace of oil and gas production growth.Trump US energy emergency order should withstand court challenges | ReutersCornell University has filed lawsuits against AT&T and Verizon in federal court in Texas, alleging infringement of two patents related to Wi-Fi technology. The patents, granted to Cornell in 2010 and 2011, were developed by two engineering professors and involve innovations to improve Wi-Fi signal strength and efficiency in devices compatible with Wi-Fi 5 and Wi-Fi 6 standards. The university claims the telecom companies infringe these patents through the manufacture and sale of Wi-Fi-enabled products, including smartphones and routers.Cornell seeks monetary damages and injunctions to stop the alleged infringement. The cases are filed under separate docket numbers for AT&T and Verizon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Both companies and the university have not provided immediate comments on the litigation.Cornell University sues AT&T, Verizon over Wi-Fi patents | ReutersFormer New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez has lost his bid for a new trial following his corruption conviction. Menendez argued that jurors improperly reviewed unredacted evidence during deliberations, which his defense team claimed unfairly linked him to accusations of accepting bribes in exchange for facilitating military aid to Egypt. U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein rejected the request, stating that the defense shared responsibility for not identifying the unredacted material and that it likely did not influence the jury's decision.The ruling clears the way for Menendez's sentencing next week, where prosecutors are seeking a 15-year prison term. Menendez, convicted on all 16 counts last July, including acting as an agent for a foreign government, allegedly accepted bribes such as gold, cash, and a luxury car in exchange for political favors, including aid to Qatar. Menendez's lawyers argue for a sentence of no more than 2¼ years. He served 18½ years in the Senate and previously chaired the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.Former NJ senator Menendez loses bid for new trial after saying error tainted conviction | ReutersIn a piece I wrote for Forbes yesterday, I argue New Jersey's proposal to eliminate the 200-transaction threshold for economic nexus is a welcome step toward simplifying sales and use tax compliance. This outdated mechanism, derived from the Supreme Court's decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, was intended to ensure out-of-state sellers contributed their fair share. However, it has created unnecessary burdens, especially for small businesses, which must navigate a labyrinth of state-specific rules for both revenue and transaction counts. The inconsistency across states adds to the complexity for remote sellers.New Jersey's approach to tie tax collection responsibility solely to gross revenue—requiring collection only for sellers exceeding $100,000—represents a smarter, more equitable model. It aligns taxation with actual economic impact and removes arbitrary transaction thresholds. This eliminates a glaring loophole where high-value but fewer transactions escape tax liability while lower-value, high-volume transactions bear the burden. Simplifying compliance frameworks in this way eases administrative challenges for businesses, particularly those lacking dedicated tax resources.On a broader scale, New Jersey's move highlights the need for uniformity in sales tax laws. The patchwork of state-specific thresholds creates barriers to interstate commerce and drives up compliance costs for sellers. A consistent revenue-only threshold nationwide would modernize tax systems to reflect the realities of e-commerce, replacing rules designed for brick-and-mortar operations.If adopted, New Jersey's policy could set a precedent for other states, as economic pressures push legislatures to secure steady revenue streams. A shift to revenue-based thresholds could reduce friction, lower compliance costs, and pave the way for a fairer, more streamlined sales tax landscape in 2025 and beyond.Say Goodbye To Sales Tax Headaches? Sales And Use Tax Simplification This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

What do Trump's executive orders do, and how do we fight them? On his first day in office as the 47th president of the United States, President Trump signed a slew of executive orders (EOs) that impact the LGBTQ+ community, as well as many others. It is important to note that executive actions do NOT have the authority to override the United States Constitution, federal statutes, or established legal precedent. Many of these directives do just that or are regarding matters over which the president does not have control. Given that, many of these orders will be difficult, if not impossible, to implement, and efforts to do so will be challenged through litigation. Currently, much is unknown about whether or how the administration or other actors will comply with these directives, and in most instances, rules will need to be promulgated, or significant administrative guidance will need to be issued in order for implementation to occur. These are processes that take time and require detailed additional plans to be developed. Today we talk to our friends Brandon Wolf, National Press Secretary of the Human Rights Campaign and journalist Christopher Kane.  We will discuss the specific anti-LGBTQ orders, what they mean, and how we collectively and individually can fight them.   With co-host Brody Levesque

BIG NEWS: On Tuesday the South Dakota Senate debated and voted on our Article V application for fiscal restraints, jurisdictional limits, and term limits on the federal government. Listen in to history in the making, then stay tuned as COS President Mark Meckler joins Senior Vice President Rita Peters, as well as Regional Directors Andrew Lusch and Deanna Becket for their live reaction. By a vote of 23-9, the South Dakota Senate approved of the resolution. Will South Dakota be state #20 to join the movement? NOTE: The resolution would still need to make its way through the South Dakota House in order to achieve final passage. SJR 502 is a resolution "applying to the United States Congress for a convention of the states to propose amendments to the United States Constitution regarding the imposition of fiscal restraints on the federal government, further limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office for members of Congress and other federal officials." Introduced by Senator Mehlhaff. COS LIVE Homepage 

In the immediate aftermath of the mammoth fires in Los Angeles, Ralph welcomes Douglas Heller, Director of Insurance at Consumer Federation of America to fill us in on what to expect from the industry and how to get the most out of your fire insurance claims. Then, our resident constitutional scholar, Bruce Fein, returns to present a list of constitutional crises to expect upon the second coming of Donald Trump.Douglas Heller is a nationally-recognized insurance expert and Director of Insurance at Consumer Federation of America. In addition to conducting research for and providing expertise to consumer rights organizations, Mr. Heller is a member of the U.S. Department of Treasury's Federal Advisory Committee on Insurance, an appointee of California's Insurance Commissioner, serving as a board member of the California Automobile Assigned Risk Plan, and he serves on the Executive Board of the Coalition Against Insurance Fraud.A key thing for everybody to know is that the premiums that we have paid over the last several years here in California—and this really goes across the country, but in California in particular—have put the insurance industry in a perfectly healthy position to deal with the claims, as dramatic and as severe as these fires are and the amount of damage that they caused…For the insurance companies to cry poverty in the wake of the buildup of capital over the last several years would be outrageous, and so we're going to be watching for that.Douglas HellerThe story around the country was that California was already a terrible hellscape for the insurance companies to do business in. When in fact, they were doing far better than the rest of the country. One of the big trade journals that reports on the industry has said that State Farm has been kept afloat by its performance in California over the last couple of years. And it was more a kind of a climate opportunism—after ignoring the potential (and then, growing) impact of climate change on property risk for years and decades, the insurance companies finally had this kind of revelation that oh they can talk about climate change as a new risk and a justification for demanding whatever they want.Douglas HellerBattle lines seem to be drawn—at least in my opinion—between the “Drill baby, drill. All we need to do is rake the leaves” camp versus “Hey, this is another wake up call to the climate crisis.” Because this was a severe weather event. And there were four major fires at once, and no fire department, whose main daily job is medical emergencies, is equipped to deal with that. Especially since the first two days the winds were so high—hurricane force winds—they couldn't get helicopters and airplanes into the air to make the drops in these canyons. And I don't think there's any amount of brush clearing that would have stopped these winds from whipping up these embers to send them into these residential districts.Steve SkrovanBruce Fein is a Constitutional scholar and an expert on international law. Mr. Fein was Associate Deputy Attorney General under Ronald Reagan and he is the author of Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy, and American Empire: Before the Fall.The Trump regime has a high probability of being the most lawless dictatorial regime in American history. All presidents violate laws, but Trump has taken this to a new, boastful level of variety.Ralph NaderThe reason why it's more likely that Trump will use this dragnet in a more abusive ways, is because he and his FBI nominee have said openly that they're going to do everything they can to persecute, to go after their enemies list…The only limitation on abuse is that they don't have the manpower to actually use it all.Bruce FeinWe're the guardrails—not Congress anymore. It's the people who have to stand up and protest and not send scoundrels back to office if they're not discharging their obligations under the United States Constitution. If we aren't the guardrails, there aren't any out there.Bruce FeinNews 1/15/251. In Gaza, CNN reports a ceasefire deal has finally been reached. This comes on the heels of negotiations between the warring parties, attended by envoys of both President Biden and incoming President Trump, with Egyptian and Qatari mediators. Under the terms of this deal, Hamas has agreed to free the remaining 33 Israeli hostages in their custody, while Israel will “free hundreds of Palestinian prisoners.” Trump's apparent demand for an immediate settlement with this many Israeli concessions comes as a shock. Israeli journalist Erel Segal, widely seen as a Netanyahu proxy, is quoted saying “We're the 1st to pay a price for Trump's election. [The deal] is being forced upon us… We thought we'd take control of northern Gaza, that they'd let us impede humanitarian aid.”2. In more foreign policy news, the American Prospect is out with a piece on the gifts received by senior foreign policy officials in the Biden Administration. According to this report, Bill Burns – Director of the Central Intelligence Agency – has in the past year received “an $18,000 astrograph, an $11,000 Omega watch, and a ceremonial Saudi war sword.” By comparison, Secretary of State Antony Blinken received $600 worth of memorabilia and “several acrylic landscape portraits.” As this piece notes, individuals cannot keep these gifts – they become public property – yet the disparity in these gifts does reflect the difference in perception toward Blinken and Burns. As one State Department official put it, “When you want someone to drink champagne, you send Blinken. When you need someone to actually fix s**t in Brazil, the Middle East, or Russia, you send Burns.”3. And in the final days of his administration, AP's Matt Lee reports President Biden will reverse Trump's decision to designate Cuba a state sponsor of terror. The state sponsor of terror designation resulted in Cuba facing even harsher sanctions than they had during the decades-long embargo and led to multiple critical shortages of essential goods like fuel. Since the designation was announced in 2021, many have called for it to be reversed, including New York State Senators and representatives in New York, Massachusetts and Minnesota, as well as local representatives and labor unions like the UAW, UE, and others, per People's Dispatch. It is unclear why Biden is taking this action now and Trump can reverse this move as soon as he takes office.4. Turning to labor, NBC reports the Services Employees International Union (SEIU) will rejoin the AFL-CIO, 20 years after leaving the labor federation. With SEIU back in the fold, the AFL-CIO will represent over 15 million workers. AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler is quoted saying “We are the, probably, only institution in the country that has an infrastructure in every city, in every state, in every workplace, that is a mobilizing machine…And as they say, outside power builds inside power.” This move is widely seen as an attempt to consolidate worker power ahead of Trump's return to office, though the unions have resisted saying so explicitly. The Teamsters left the AFL-CIO around the same time as the SEIU, but have made no moves to rejoin the labor federation and have instead opted to strategically align themselves with Trump. It remains to be seen which strategy will yield better results.5. In more labor news, Fast Company reports servers at Waffle House franchises around the country claim “the chain forces them to do janitorial work and dishwashing for [sub-minimum] tipped wages, robbing them of up to $46.8 million.” As this piece notes, “Wage theft…is a common practice. As of 2017…workers lose $15 billion annually in minimum wage violations alone.” Moreover, “From 2021 to 2024, the Department of Labor recovered more than $1 billion in back wages and damages for 615,000 employees in the U.S.” Waffle House is a particularly egregious offender, with 90% of workers surveyed reporting they had experienced some form of wage theft in the past year. The state minimum wage in Georgia, where Waffle House is based, is a meager $5.15 per hour, yet the tipped minimum is even lower at just $2.13 – a starvation wage. One worker, Melissa Steach, is quoted saying “Corporations can't keep throwing us around because we make all this money for them…And what are they really doing with it? They are not supporting their workers. They can't keep screwing us around. We're here. We're worth it.”6. On the other end of the spectrum, Apple CEO Tim Cook's staggering compensation package hit nearly $75 million in 2024, according to the Hollywood Reporter. Converted to an hourly wage, this equates to roughly $600 per minute. This is a substantial increase from his 2023 total of $63.2 million, but still lower than the nearly $100 million he received in 2022. In October, Apple reported its services business, including Apple Music and iCloud, hit a revenue of $24.97 billion for the quarter, a “new all-time high for the company.”7. In more tech news, the Intercept reports Meta – parent company of Facebook, Instagram and WhatsApp – is relaxing their content moderation rules as they relate to hate speech. The Intercept received leaked training materials to this effect, which explicitly outline what users are now allowed to say. These officially permitted statements include “Immigrants are grubby, filthy pieces of s**t,” “Jews are flat out greedier than Christians,” and simply “I'm a proud racist.” The Electronic Frontier Foundation's international freedom of expression director Jillian York is quoted in this piece saying, “While [Meta's previous censorship regime] has often resulted in over-moderation that I and many others have criticized, these examples demonstrate that Meta's policy changes are political in nature and not intended to simply allow more freedom of expression.”8. In a more positive story of social progress, EuroNews reports that the Italian Bishops' Conference has issued new guidelines all but clearing the way for openly gay men to enter the priesthood. According to the newly issued report, titled "Guidelines and norms for seminaries,” "When referring to homosexual tendencies, it's… appropriate not to reduce discernment only to this aspect, but, as for every candidate, to grasp its meaning in the global framework of the young person's personality.” In 2023 Pope Francis told the AP that “being homosexual isn't a crime,” and has endorsed the church “blessing” same-sex unions. Women remain entirely excluded from the priesthood.9. On the domestic front, Axios reports Justice Democrats – the progressive insurgent group – is planning a new wave of primary challenges to unseat “corporatist” incumbent Democrats. While the group's number one target seems to be George Latimer, who ousted Congressman Jamaal Bowman from his newly redrawn seat last cycle, spokesperson Usamah Andrabi told Axios the group is, “keeping every deep blue district on the table.” However, many of the prominent House progressives are shying away from this effort. Pramila Jayapal, former chair of the Progressive Caucus said “I think given what's at stake we feel really urgently that we need to protect all incumbents,” while Ilhan Omar said "There are folks who endorse against their own colleagues, but I don't."10. Finally, Public Citizen co-presidents Rob Weissman and Lisa Gilbert have written a letter to the chairs of the Trump Transition team asking to be named members of the Department of Government Efficiency, aka DOGE. In this letter, Weissman and Gilbert express their “concerns about DOGE's structure and mission,” particularly with regard to its proposed leaders Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, who “hold financial interests that will be directly affected by federal budgetary policies,” but also makes the key argument that DOGE's mission to “slash excess regulation” and “cut wasteful expenditures” must be tied to the other “half of the picture: more efficiently regulating corporations to better protect consumers and the public from harmful corporate practices.” They argue that their “appointment to serve as members of DOGE” would enable them to serve as “voices for the interests of consumers and the public who are the beneficiaries of federal regulatory and spending programs.” Rather than an earnest plea for an appointment, this letter is more likely meant to expose a key issue with the DOGE project: those in charge of cutting supposed government waste are riddled with conflicts of interests. They have too many fingers in the pie. If Trump were serious about reducing government spending generally – and corruption specifically – he would appoint people like Weissman and Gilbert, not Ramaswamy and Musk. And they would start with the unbelievably bloated, unauditable Pentagon budget.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe

A victorious day for the COS South Dakota team! On January 17, 2025, the South Dakota Senate Committee on State Affairs heard public testimony on SJR 502 (COS Action's Article V Resolution). Rick Santorum gave expert testimony and answered questions from the committee members. Watch COS LIVE Sign the COS Petition SJR 502 is a resolution "applying to the United States Congress for a convention of the states to propose amendments to the United States Constitution regarding the imposition of fiscal restraints on the federal government, further limiting the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limiting the terms of office for members of Congress and other federal officials." Introduced by Senator Mehlhaff. 

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

There have been few changes and additions to the United States Constitution since it was ratified in 1788, despite life being wildly different now a few centuries later. To really put the document into a modern perspective, author AJ Jacobs decided to literally live by the Constitution for a full year and documented the experience in his new book The Year of Living Constitutionally. In today's episode, AJ spoke with Ryan about his inspiration for the book, the contradictions of the Founding Fathers, and the evolution of Presidential power. AJ Jacobs is a New York Times Bestselling author, journalist, lecturer, host of The Puzzler podcast, and self-proclaimed “human guinea pig”. Check out his latest book The Year of Living Constitutionally! Pick up a signed copy of AJ Jacobs' book, The Year of Living Constitutionally at The Painted PorchFollow AJ Jacobs on Instagram @AJJacobsInc and X @AJJacobs. Check out AJ's podcast The Puzzler!

Since the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1788, there have been 60 presidential elections, which have been run every four years.  Over time, a system was developed for the election of the president, including how parties select a candidate and how votes are selected. Some of this has been done via legislation, some via tradition, and some via constitutional amendments.  However, before any of this was established, the very first presidential election was held, which was unlike any other.  Learn more about the Election of 1788 and how the United States figured out how to elect a president on this episode of Everything Everywhere Daily. Sponsors Sign up at butcherbox.com/daily and use code daily to get chicken breast, salmon or ground beef FREE in every order for a year plus $20 off your first order! Subscribe to the podcast!  https://link.chtbl.com/EverythingEverywhere?sid=ShowNotes -------------------------------- Executive Producer: Charles Daniel Associate Producers: Ben Long & Cameron Kieffer   Become a supporter on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/everythingeverywhere Update your podcast app at newpodcastapps.com Discord Server: https://discord.gg/UkRUJFh Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/everythingeverywhere/ Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/everythingeverywheredaily Twitter: https://twitter.com/everywheretrip Website: https://everything-everywhere.com/  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode of the Tactical Living Podcast, hosted by Coach Ashlie Walton and Sergeant Clint Walton, we delve into the often controversial topic of politics in policing. When first responders take the oath to uphold the Constitution, they are, knowingly or unknowingly, committing themselves to the realm of politics. The impact of local, state, and national policy changes can have a profound effect on the day-to-day work of law enforcement officers. We explore what these changes mean for officers on the ground and provide five practical ways to stay informed, adapt, and maintain integrity while navigating the complex landscape of modern policing. The Connection Between Policing and Politics: Upholding the Constitution inherently means engaging with the political landscape. We'll discuss how politics, laws, and policy decisions directly influence the work of law enforcement, from how officers respond to incidents to how they engage with the community. Five Practical Ways to Navigate Policy Changes in Law Enforcement: Stay Informed on Local, State, and Federal Policy Changes: Understanding how changes in legislation impact your duties is crucial. Set aside time to regularly review policy updates, new laws, and local government decisions that could affect how you perform your job. Use trusted sources, department briefings, and professional organizations to stay up-to-date. Engage in Open Conversations Within Your Department: Participate in department meetings, training sessions, and briefings that discuss the implications of new policies. Open communication with your colleagues can provide clarity, foster understanding, and offer practical solutions for adapting to new guidelines. Join Professional Associations for Legal Guidance: Consider joining professional organizations or associations that provide legal updates, policy analysis, and advocacy for first responders. These groups can offer valuable insights into how policy changes will impact day-to-day work and provide a platform for legal support. Learn to Adapt with Integrity: Policy changes might require you to adapt your approach, but it's crucial to do so without compromising your values or integrity. We'll discuss how to maintain professionalism and uphold your personal ethics, even when new policies challenge your standard operating procedures. Educate the Public and Engage in Community Dialogue: Be proactive in educating the community about how policy changes impact your role as a first responder. Engaging in honest and respectful conversations with the public can build trust, offer transparency, and help bridge the gap between law enforcement and the community. Understanding the Impact of Policy on Daily Operations: We'll explore specific examples of how policy changes—such as use-of-force guidelines, body camera requirements, and de-escalation tactics—can affect the daily responsibilities of officers, and what that means for the safety of both first responders and the community. Balancing Personal Beliefs with Professional Duties: Law enforcement officers may face conflicts between their personal beliefs and professional duties due to political pressures. We'll discuss how to navigate this balance, ensuring that you remain true to your oath while also respecting diverse perspectives within the community. How Policy Shifts Influence the Public's Perception of Law Enforcement: Policy changes can significantly impact how the public views law enforcement. We'll discuss the importance of staying ahead of public perception, understanding the community's concerns, and how to communicate effectively about the realities of policy-driven changes in policing. Join us as we delve into the intersection of politics and policing, offering practical advice on how to navigate policy changes while staying true to the oath you took to uphold the Constitution. Whether you're a seasoned officer or new to the field, this episode provides valuable insights into managing the political side of law enforcement with integrity, clarity, and professionalism.     Secure your firearm with my buy one get one free affiliate code from STOPBOX http://stopboxusa.com/LEOWARRIORS All viewpoints discussed in this episode are for entertainment purposes only and are simply our opinions based off of our own experience, background and education. Want to be a guest on Tactical Living? Send Ashlie Walton a message on PodMatch, here: https://www.podmatch.com/hostdetailpreview/1594754484675x841981803913560400 #policepodcast #policeofficer #leowarriors #thinbluelineusa #firstresponder #lawenforcementpodcast #LawEnforcement #LEOWarriors #politics #PoliceOfficersAssociation    ⩥ PLEASE SUBSCRIBE TO OUR YOUTUBE CHANNEL ⩤ https://geni.us/wAtlvPu     CLICK HERE for Amazon's Today's Deals on TACTICAL GEAR: https://geni.us/KmvaOVM (Affiliate Link) (Ad) Some product links are affiliate links which means if you buy something by clicking on one of our links, we'll receive a small commission.   CLICK HERE to join our free Police, Fire, Military and Families Facebook Group: https://geni.us/YM5tsB   Check out our website and learn more about how you can work with LEO Warriors by going to: https://www.leowarriors.com/   Like what you hear? We are honored. Drop a review and subscribe to our show.    The Tactical Living Podcast is owned by LEO Warriors, LLC. None of the content presented may be copied, repurposed or used without the owner's prior consent.   For PR, speaking requests and other networking opportunities, contact LEO Warriors: EMAIL: ashliewalton555@gmail.com. ADDRESS: P.O. Box 400115 Hesperia, Ca. 92340 ASHLIE'S FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/police.fire.lawenforcement   ➤➤➤➤➤➤➤➤➤➤➤➤➤➤➤➤➤➤ This episode is NOT sponsored.   

University of Dallas history professor William Atto discussed the decade leading to the 1787 Constitutional Convention and the key compromises that led to the ratification of the United States Constitution. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The Learning Leader Show With Ryan Hawk Full show notes at www.LearningLeader.com My books: Welcome to Management - https://amzn.to/3XWyZAH  The Pursuit of Excellence - https://amzn.to/4eX9vtP  The Score That Matters - https://amzn.to/3zPub7Z  My guest: After years of serving as a high school government and law teacher, Sharon McMahon took her passion for education to Instagram, where more than a million people rely on her for nonpartisan, fact-based information as “America's Government Teacher.” In a time where flashy headlines and false information often take the spotlight, Sharon is a reliable source for truth and logic. Sharon is the author of: The Small and The Mighty – Twelve Unsung Americans Who Changed the Course of History, From the Founding to the Civil Rights Movement. Notes: What did Teddy Roosevelt, Abraham Lincoln, and FDR have in common? The ability to articulate a vision that others wanted to follow. They were great communicators. If you want to lead people, it helps to become a fantastic storyteller. It helps to be able to stand up in front of a group of people and share the vision in an entertaining and informative way. And then execute on that vision. Be a doer. “The best Americans are not the critics, they are the doers. They are the people who went for broke when everyone else yelled to turn back. They are those who know that one becomes great because of who they lift up, not who they put down.” I've never observed anyone, regardless of field, achieve lasting prominence while voicing rancor or focusing much on the failings of others. Create and share, support others, and enjoy. Givers and creators always prevail. - Andrew Huberman Door-to-door sales helps you deal with rejection. It's good for you. When you see a new person at the gym, celebrate them. Help them get acclimated. The Hello Girls -- AT&T -- Pioneer of telephones. They were doing their jobs wearing gasmasks with bombs exploding around them. Echo Chambers – As a leader, what you don't know, can hurt you. Do not surround yourself with “yes men” or “yes women.” You need a diversity of viewpoints. You should feel uncomfortable on a regular basis. You should told you're wrong from the people you surround yourself with. If you're not, then you're living in an echo chamber. Also, pay attention to a broad spectrum of media. If you only watch one news channel or read one newspaper, you will probably end up in an echo chamber. Then develop friendships with people who think differently than you. They're not wrong because they think the way they do. Instead of judging them, why not be curious and learn more about their viewpoint. Gouverneur Morris – One of Alexander Hamilton's best friends and one of our founding fathers. He contributed as much or more to the early republic than Ben Franklin or John Adams. He conceived America's great statement of purpose, the one still recited by schoolchildren. He's the author of the Preamble of the new United States Constitution. “The best Americans are not the critics, they are the doers. They are the people who went for broke when everyone else yelled to turn back. They are those who know that one becomes great because of who they lift up, not who they put down.” I have learned that no one reaches their final moments of mortal existence and whispers to their loved ones, “I wish I had gotten in some more sick burns in the comments section on Facebook.” Advice: "Be the "can-do" person. Have the best attitude in the room. Be amazing at whatever you choose to do. Be the person that others love to work with."

A Police Chief in the Florida city of Okeechobee decided that he had the authority to override the United States Constitution because it was an “emergency”. Tune in to see how well that went for him and the city. During our SOTG Homeroom from www.SOTGU.com we will consider the value of being dangerous on demand. Where should you not go in the aftermath of a natural disaster?  Also, we have a Tech Talk from EOTech Inc. How important are portable radios during this time in our history? Can't you just rely on your phone? During our Froglube Pro Tip Professor Paul discusses a frozen pistol. Thanks for being a part of SOTG! We hope you find value in the message we share. If you've got any questions, here are some options to contact us: Send an Email Send a Text Call Us Enjoy the show! And remember… You're a Beginner Once, a Student For Life! TOPICS COVERED THIS EPISODE Huge thanks to our Partners: EOTech | FrogLube | Hi-Point Firearms | Spike's Tactical [0:03:11] EOTech Talk - EOTechInc.com TOPIC: Verizon confirms service is back online after a major outage www.cnn.com Buy Radios And Learn to Use Them Before You Buy Another Gun www.shootingnewsweekly.com CH3 Project amrron.com [0:19:58] Pro Tip of the Week - FrogLube.com TOPIC: Apocalypse Pistol Test: Frozen Gun [0:32:39] SOTG Homeroom - SOTG University TOPIC: Looters hit at least two Augusta stores; charges expected theaugustapress.com [0:46:19] Police Chief Violates 2A Katrina Lite: Florida City Moves to Illegally Ban Gun Sales in Aftermath of Hurricane  www.shootingnewsweekly.com Who TF thought this photo was appropriate? www.cityofokeechobee.com Florida City Gun Sales Ban Was ‘Mistakenly' Ordered, Not Enforced After National Blowback www.shootingnewsweekly.com FEATURING: Shooting News Weekly, TheAugustaPress.com, AmRRON.com, CNN, Madison Rising, Jarrad Markel, Paul Markel, SOTG University PARTNERS: EOTech, FrogLube, Hi-Point Firearms, Spikes Tactical FIND US ON: iTunes, Stitcher, AppleTV, Roku, Amazon, GooglePlay, YouTube, Threads, Instagram, Facebook, X

A Facebook spokesperson has apologized for the platform's censoring of an iconic photo from the assassination attempt on Donald Trump, chaos erupts in Venezuela following Sunday's election after both sides declared victory & we're lifting the veil, Former Vice President Joe Biden wants to shred the United States Constitution to reform the Supreme Court before he's finally out of office, we joined last night's “White Dudes for Harris” event, and so much more!GUEST: Josh FirestineGo to www.1775coffee.com/crowder right now and pick up your first bag. Use code CROWDER to save 10%SOURCES: https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/sources/Join MugClub to watch this show every day! http://louderwithcrowder.com/mugclubNEW MERCH! https://crowdershop.com/Subscribe to my podcast: https://rss.com/podcasts/louder-with-crowder/FOLLOW ME: Website: https://louderwithcrowder.com Twitter: https://twitter.com/scrowder Instagram: http://www.instagram.com/louderwithcrowder Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/stevencrowderofficialMusic by @Pogo