Podcasts about United States district court

Plaintiff John Doe, represented by Eisenberg & Baum, LLP, has filed a civil lawsuit against defendant Sean Combs in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges claims against Combs based on actions detailed through the plaintiff's personal knowledge, along with other facts and information. The lawsuit initiates formal litigation, aiming to hold Combs accountable for alleged wrongdoing, though the precise details of the claims are yet to be outlined publicly.The case, brought anonymously under the name "John Doe," suggests sensitivity surrounding the allegations or potential concerns for the plaintiff's safety or privacy. As the legal process advances, further specifics regarding the nature of the allegations and the damages sought are expected to emerge, clarifying the basis for this legal action against Combs.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.637615.1.0_1.pdf

Jonathan Fombonne is the Deputy County Attorney and First Assistant County Attorney in Harris County, Texas. After graduating from Swarthmore College and the University of Michigan Law School, he started his career with a clerkship for Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr. Prior to his current appointment, he practiced law at law firms in Texas and New York, maintained a significant pro bono practice, and was a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP. Jonathan, his wife Lauren, and their children live in Houston, Texas.

Speakers: Sean Fitzpatrick, after working for a few years as a prosecutor litigating felony and misdemeanor cases, started his firm FitzPatrick Law, LLC in 2016. FitzPatrick's current practice area is civil litigation focusing on insurance and injury law. FitzPatrick served on the Young Lawyers Division board for years as director and chair prior to his current term on the New Mexico Board of Bar Commissioners. FitzPatrick is also the current Chair of the New Mexico State Bar Well Being Committee and serves on the Uniform Civil Jury Instruction Committee. He believes a healthy work life balance makes better lawyers and you can find FitzPatrick running, biking, or participating in other Type 2 fun activities with his wife Eva and their son Liam when not practicing law.Noell Huffmyer is a civil litigator.  She currently serves as in-house counsel at Acadia Healthcare.  Prior to joining Acadia, Noell spent several years at the Rodey Law Firm and previously clerked for Judge William Johnson at the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico. Noell is a proud graduate of the UNM School of Law.  Upon graduation, Noell was honored by the law school's faculty with their Faculty Award and, in 2024, the law school's alumni association recognized her with its Alumni Promise Award.  Noell is an active member of the New Mexico legal community, acting as adjunct faculty at the law school as well as serving on the Albuquerque Bar Association's Board of Directors.  Steve Scholl loves being a trial lawyer and helping others learn and perfect the art and science of trial practice. Steve is a 1989 graduate of UNMSOL and describes himself as a “36L” because he's never really left Bratton Hall. He can be found almost any time roaming its hallways with a Rules of Evidence book in hand. Steve keeps his life in balance. Away from the office and law school, he and his wife of 46 years, Chris and their hound, Winnie the Pooch, will be found with their kids and grandkids on “the lake” on their boat Time Flies; driving one of their old vintage cars around in pursuit of the perfect huevos rancheros; camping in one of their restored 1950's canned-ham campers; traveling to some far off land; or, just hanging out or having a party at home. Steve is a member of Dixon Scholl Carrillo, PA and represents both plaintiffs and defendants in civil cases.Disclaimer: Thank you for listening! This episode was produced by the State Bar of New Mexico's Well-Being Committee and the New Mexico Lawyer Assistance Program. All editing and sound mixing was done by the State Bar of New Mexico and/or the State Bar Foundation. Intro music is by Gil Flores. The views of the presenters are that of their own and are not endorsed by the State Bar of New Mexico. The content is not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment or legal advice. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified health provider with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition.The views expressed in this podcast are solely those of the participants and not intended as statements on behalf of their employers. 

On this episode, host Paul W. Grimm speaks with retired U.S. Magistrate Judge Beth P. Gesner about settlement of civil cases in federal court, and in particular, the magistrate judge's role in facilitating settlement discussions. They also discuss several strategies judges can utilize to more effectively manage settlement of their cases, such as maintaining a calendar, holding everyone accountable to deadlines, memorializing agreements that are made between parties, and ensuring that key decision makers are always part of settlement discussions.ABOUT THE HOST Judge Paul W. Grimm (ret.) is the David F. Levi Professor of the Practice of Law and Director of the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School. From December 2012 until his retirement in December 2022, he served as a district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, with chambers in Greenbelt, Maryland. Click here to read his full bio.

John R. Tunheim is an American lawyer who serves as a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Judge John Tunheim served as chairman of the Assassination Records Review Board which oversaw the collection of government records relating to the assassination of President Kennedy. This episode Judge Tunheim joins me to discuss the most recent JFK hearing and disclosure, while also discussing some of his time on the ARRB.

Since President Donald Trump took office, his administration has ignored court rulings on a range of issues from press access to deportations. Now, a federal judge might hold him in criminal contempt of court. We'll unpack the Zeno's paradox of constitutional crises. Plus, where luxury goods actually come from and why you may want to think twice before buying one. And if you're looking to zone out, turn on the “Great Moose Migration.”Here's everything we talked about today:@kyledcheney.bsky.social‬ on Bluesky“What happens if a president and the federal government fail to follow a judge's orders?” by NBC NewsJ.G.G., et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al. from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia “What to do in case of a constitutional crisis” by CNN“How is civil society responding to the US constitutional crisis?” from the Brookings Institution“Trump's China tariffs spark viral TikTok work-arounds” from Fast Company“'Chinese Warehouse' TikTok Videos Urge Americans to Buy Directly From Them” from Newsweek“Ignore advice to buy direct from Chinese factories with DHGate, others” from The Washington Post“The ‘Great Moose Migration' Livestream Captivates Sweden” from The New York TimesGot a question or comment for the hosts? Email makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

Since President Donald Trump took office, his administration has ignored court rulings on a range of issues from press access to deportations. Now, a federal judge might hold him in criminal contempt of court. We'll unpack the Zeno's paradox of constitutional crises. Plus, where luxury goods actually come from and why you may want to think twice before buying one. And if you're looking to zone out, turn on the “Great Moose Migration.”Here's everything we talked about today:@kyledcheney.bsky.social‬ on Bluesky“What happens if a president and the federal government fail to follow a judge's orders?” by NBC NewsJ.G.G., et al., v. Donald J. Trump, et al. from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia “What to do in case of a constitutional crisis” by CNN“How is civil society responding to the US constitutional crisis?” from the Brookings Institution“Trump's China tariffs spark viral TikTok work-arounds” from Fast Company“'Chinese Warehouse' TikTok Videos Urge Americans to Buy Directly From Them” from Newsweek“Ignore advice to buy direct from Chinese factories with DHGate, others” from The Washington Post“The ‘Great Moose Migration' Livestream Captivates Sweden” from The New York TimesGot a question or comment for the hosts? Email makemesmart@marketplace.org or leave us a voicemail at 508-U-B-SMART.

04/14/25: Joel Heitkamp is joined by the Executive Director of the North Dakota Ethics Commission, Rebecca Binstock. Prior to serving in this role, she had the privilege to serve as the pro se law clerk with the United States District Court for the District of North Dakota. A House recommended several sweeping changes to the North Dakota Ethics Commission’s budget, including cutting a new full-time staff member and adding a new six-month deadline for processing ethics complaints. (Joel Heitkamp is a talk show host on the Mighty 790 KFGO in Fargo-Moorhead. His award-winning program, “News & Views,” can be heard weekdays from 8 – 11 a.m. Follow Joel on X/Twitter @JoelKFGO.) See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

   Slam the Gavel welcomes back Dr. Bandy X. Lee to the podcast. Dr. Lee was last on the podcast Season 4, Episode 23 (1-31-2023). Today we discussed Dr. Bandy Lee's lawsuit with impeachment initiative to bring transparency to the Star Chamber-like family court (Press Release).     Family courts are nefariously secretive, like the Star Chamber in England, which had been abolished approximately four centuries ago. Transparency is ESSENTIAL for deterring family court abuses which include judicial bias, witness perjury and CPS/Guardian ad Litem one-sided interviews.     Dr. Bandy Lee's lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey challenges the constitutionality of the dark secrecy cloud that hangs over family courts nationwide. The Judge in Dr. Lee's case censored her for writing about family court proceedings, ordering it to be removed from the internet and holding her in contempt under the threat of imprisonment is she should speak or write about the serious health and financial abuses she has professionally witnessed. A PRIOR RESTRAINT IN BLATANT FASHION OF THE VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT.     Both Dr. Lee and her constitutionally acclaimed Attorney, Bruce Fein are available to the media.To Reach Bandy Lee:  bandylee.com***** Supportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)Maryann Petri: dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.comhttps://www.tiktok.com/@maryannpetriFacebook:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/guitarpeace/Pinterest: Slam The Gavel Podcast/@guitarpeaceLinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/maryann-petri-62a46b1ab/  YouTube:  https://www.youtube.com/@slamthegavelpodcasthostmar5536  Twitter https://x.com/PetriMaryannEzlegalsuit.comhttps://ko-fi.com/maryannpetri*DISCLAIMER* The use of this information is at the viewer/user's own risk. Not financial, medical nor legal advice as the content on this podcast does not constitute legal, financial, medical or any other professional advice. Viewer/user's should consult with the relevant professionals. Reproduction, distribution, performing, publicly displaying and making a derivative of the work is explicitly prohibited without permission from content creator. Podcast is protected by owner. The content creator maintains the exclusive right and any unauthorized copyright infringement is subject to legal prosecution. Support the showSupportshow(https://www.buymeacoffee.com/maryannpetri)http://www.dismantlingfamilycourtcorruption.com/

We are watching two elections today, in both Florida and Wisconsin. There is a lot on the line in both.The Atlantic reports a story about an “innocent” person with no connections to any form of criminal activity, a five-year-old son with disabilities, and an American wife who is removed from the country for no good reason in an effort to attack Trump and his policies. It is a story that, as it turns out, when you look a little deeper, is more “fake news” than a personal tragedy. The Atlantic ends up showing that even when the Trump administration messes up, it is good for the country.U.S. Senior District Judge Edward Chen, a federal judge in San Francisco, moved to postpone the Trump administration from ending a Biden-era program that shielded hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants from deportation. Rep. Andy Biggs unveiled a resolution to remove James Boasberg, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, for alleged “failure to maintain the standard of good behavior” mandated by Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution.Marine Le Pen, head of the right-wing National Rally Party of France, has been banned from running for president by a French court as she faces lawfare similar to what Donald Trump faced here. Elie Mystal said that all laws passed before 1965 should be considered “presumptively unconstitutional,” saying that before the Voting Rights Act was passed, the United States was an apartheid country. Hooters of America is filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, hoping to rebrand as they try to survive.Become a supporter of Tapp into the Truth: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/tapp-into-the-truth--556114/support Tapp into the Truth on Rumble. Follow, watch the older shows, and join the live streams.If you love high-quality jerky, you need to check out Jerky Snob. They deliver small-batch, artisan jerky straight to your door every month—no MSG, no nitrates, just premium cuts and bold flavors. You can choose from 2, 4, or 8-bag subscriptions, and every delivery brings something new and delicious. One of my favorite things is the variety—spicy, smoky, sweet, all from different craft makers. It's like a jerky tasting adventure every month. Plus, it makes an awesome gift! Grab your subscription at tappintofood.com and treat yourself to better jerky. If recent events have proven anything, you need to be as prepared as possible for when things go sideways. You certainly can't count on the government for help. True liberty requires self-reliance. My Patriot SupplyDiversify and protect your hard-earned wealth. Use America's Premiere Conservative Gold Company, Harvard Gold Group. Use promo code TAPP.Support American jobs! Support the show! Get great products at great prices! Go to My Pillow and use promo code TAPP to save! Visit patriotmobile.com or Call (817) 380-9081 to take advantage of a FREE Month of service when you switch using promo code TAPP! Morning Kick is a revolutionary new daily drink from Roundhouse Provisions that combines ultra-potent greens like spirulina and kale with probiotics, prebiotics, collagen, and even ashwagandha. Just mix with water, stir, and enjoy!If you are a content creator in need of a professional drone or you just enjoy flying a drone on the weekend, EXO Drones has you covered!  EXO Drones Plus, get 15% off your order by using this link.Follow Tapp into the Truth on Locals Follow Tapp into the Truth on SubstackHero SoapPatriot DepotBlue CoolersKoa CoffeeBrainMDDiamond CBDSauce Bae2nd SkullEinstokBeanstoxBelle IsleMomento AIHoneyFund"Homegrown" Boone's BourbonIsland BrandsBlackout Coffee Co.Full Circle Brewing Co.Pasmosa Sangria  

What happens when a determination of death GOES WRONG?In this episode of the Standard of Care Podcast, hosts Samantha Johnson and Nick Adams break down a real and heartbreaking case where EMS medics declared a 14-year-old patient deceased—only for him to be resuscitated at the hospital nearly an hour later. The fallout? A legal battle that made its way to the Supreme Court, and a patient left with devastating consequences.With legal nuance and clinical insight, Samantha and Nick walk through the case from street to courtroom. They explore the intersection of qualified immunity, the complexities of assessing patients with conditions like cerebral palsy, and the chilling legal and ethical risks that come with the determination of death in the field. This episode will change the way you view determination of death—and might just save your career someday.Listen now on your favorite podcast platform or directly at https://flightbridgeed.com/standard-of-care/. While you're there, explore our award-winning and nationally recognized courses that are helping thousands of providers stay sharp, safe, and legally sound.Key TakeawaysDon't shortcut your assessment. "Cold to the touch" and single-lead asystole aren't enough—especially in patients with neurological conditions that can present atypically.Qualified immunity protects government providers—until it doesn't. It's not a license to cut corners.Thorough documentation and a second-by-second account of your decision-making process can be your legal lifeline.Cross-agency coordination and quality assurance are essential. What one crew misses, another might catch—but how that's handled matters.EMT and paramedic education rarely prepares you for the weight of calling a death. Clinical training must evolve to meet that responsibility.When in doubt, initiate resuscitation. Let the ER be the place of final determination—not the living room.ReferencesStacy Williams, on behalf of her minor grandson, J.J. v. Andrew Williams and Joe Spradlin, United States District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, Civil Action File No. 4:23-cv-289 (January 26, 2023), available at https://bencrump.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/Doc.-1.-Plaintiffs-Original-Complaint.pdfFOX 26 Digital. (2023, February 2). Lawsuit Filed Against Houston Paramedics Who Refused Emergency Care to Disabled Teen. FOX 26 Houston. https://www.fox26houston.com/news/lawsuit-filed-against-paramedics-who-refused-emergency-care-to-disabled-teen Wallace, R. (2025, January 10). US Supreme Court Declines Case of 2 Houston Paramedics Who Mistakenly Declared Teen Dead. FOX 26 Houston. https://www.fox26houston.com/news/us-supreme-court-declines-case-2-houston-paramedics-who-mistakenly-declared-teen-dead FAST25 | May 19-21, 2025 | Lexington, KY

This week we are pleased to bring you one of our most popular episodes of 2024. Please enjoy, and we will be back next week with more insights from the Corruption, Crime, and Compliance podcast.Have you heard of the recent controversies around Boeing 737 MAX and its safety? Have you wondered what is being done about the concerns around it? In this episode of Corruption, Crime, and Compliance, Michael Volkov delves into the latest developments in the Boeing 737 MAX case, highlighting the recent plea agreement proposed by the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Boeing 737 MAX case took another dramatic turn. On July 24, 2024, the Department of Justice filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas a proposed plea agreement with Boeing. Under the Plea Agreement, Boeing will plead guilty to the original Information filed in 2021 with the Deferred Prosecution Agreement ("DPA"). The discussion focuses on Boeing's alleged failure to implement adequate compliance measures, leading to significant risks and violations, and the ongoing legal and ethical implications of the case. Tune in to hear a detailed analysis of the complexities and legal ramifications of Boeing's recent plea agreement and what it means for corporate compliance and accountability.You'll hear him talk about:Certification Issues: Boeing failed to ensure its 737 MAX certifications were accurate, risking false certifications to the FAA.DOJ Plea Deal: Boeing agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to defraud the U.S., facing opposition from victims' families who find the resolution insufficient. The plea agreement, which has been filed under Federal Rule Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), requires the Court to approve and accept the deal. The Court can reject the plea deal and require the parties to renegotiate the terms.Victims' Rights: The proposed resolution has been controversial because of the opposition of the families of the victims, who have opposed the plea agreement and general disposition of DOJ's investigation and prior resolutions as insufficient to vindicate the public interest and their rights as victims of Boeing's malfeasanceCompliance Failures: Boeing breached its DPA by not implementing effective compliance controls, particularly in safety and quality processes.Independent Monitor: Boeing will be monitored for three years and must invest $455 million in compliance and safety improvements.Ongoing Challenges: Boeing's anti-fraud measures still have gaps, with broader implications for industries where safety is critical.Resources:Michael Volkov on LinkedIn | TwitterThe Volkov Law Group

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast:https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast:https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast:https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Joaquín "El Chapo" Guzmán is one of the most notorious drug lords in history, known for his leadership of the Sinaloa Cartel, one of the most powerful drug trafficking organizations in the world. Here's a comprehensive summary of his arrest, extradition, and trial in the United States:Arrests:February 1993: El Chapo was first arrested in Guatemala and extradited to Mexico, where he faced charges related to drug trafficking. He was later transferred to a maximum-security prison in Mexico.January 2001: He managed to escape from the prison with the help of bribed prison guards, hiding in a laundry cart. Following his escape, he continued to lead the Sinaloa Cartel and expand its operations.February 2014: Mexican authorities captured El Chapo in Mazatlán, Mexico, after years of pursuit. This capture was a result of a joint operation by Mexican and U.S. law enforcement agencies.Extradition:January 2016: Guzmán was extradited to the United States to face charges related to drug trafficking, money laundering, and other criminal activities. His extradition came after a lengthy legal battle and diplomatic negotiations between the U.S. and Mexico.January 2017: El Chapo was arraigned in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York, where he pleaded not guilty to a 17-count indictment.Trial:November 2018: The trial against El Chapo began in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The trial garnered significant media attention due to the high-profile nature of the case and the sensational details of Guzmán's alleged crimes.February 2019: After a three-month trial featuring testimonies from over 50 witnesses, including former associates and law enforcement officials, El Chapo was found guilty on all counts, including engaging in a continuing criminal enterprise, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses.July 2019: Guzmán was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole, plus an additional 30 years, and ordered to forfeit $12.6 billion. The sentence was handed down by Judge Brian Cogan in a federal court in Brooklyn, New York.Life in Prison: El Chapo is currently serving his sentence at the United States Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility (ADX) in Florence, Colorado, often referred to as the "Supermax" prison, known for its strict conditions and high-security measures.El Chapo's arrest, extradition, and trial marked a significant victory for law enforcement agencies in their efforts to combat international drug trafficking and organized crime.(commercial at 8:13)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:chapo-us-resp.pdf (courthousenews.com)Become a supporter of this podcast:https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

A federal court heard arguments from Karen Read's defense team in a critical hearing Wednesday, as they pushed to dismiss two of the charges against her, citing double jeopardy. This was one of two hearings scheduled that day, and it could determine whether Read faces another trial for the 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. Read, 44, of Mansfield, is accused of striking O'Keefe with her SUV outside a home in Canton on January 29, 2022, then allegedly leaving him in a snowstorm after a night of drinking. The defense, however, has long maintained that she is the victim of a coverup and that O'Keefe's death was caused by others—potentially even law enforcement officers. For over 90 minutes, Chief Judge Dennis Saylor listened to arguments dissecting whether Judge Beverly Cannone properly declared a mistrial and whether she should have polled the jury before doing so. Read's attorneys claim they spoke to jurors after the trial, and those jurors confirmed they had reached a unanimous verdict: not guilty of second-degree murder, not guilty of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. If that's the case, the defense argues, retrying Read would be a blatant violation of her constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Defense attorney Martin Weinberg made the case clear: “We had a lengthy argument in front of the chief judge of the United States District Court on issues of profound constitutional significance. The question is whether or not the Norfolk District Attorney can reprosecute Ms. Read when there's such strong and compelling evidence that the prior jury acquitted her.” But the prosecution wasn't having it. Caleb Schillinger, representing the DA's office, countered that the jury never filled out verdict slips or sent any notes to Cannone indicating they had reached a partial verdict. His argument was simple: “There were no acquittals.” He pointed out that if the roles were reversed and the prosecution tried to argue the jury had found her guilty, Read's team would have objected just as strongly. Judge Saylor acknowledged the weight of the issue and promised to issue his opinion quickly, knowing that whoever loses will appeal. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking—the retrial is scheduled to begin on April 1. This federal hearing came hot on the heels of another major development. Just the day before, during a hearing in state court, Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan made a statement that raised eyebrows: The federal investigation into O'Keefe's death was officially closed. But outside the courtroom, Karen Read wasn't so sure. Speaking to reporters, she questioned whether the probe was actually over, referencing a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office she received just a month earlier. “If I take him at his word, that would be a very dangerous endeavor of mine,” she said. “But I've seen a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office from one month ago, and it said it was ongoing. It was a four-page, single-spaced letter.” The conflicting statements only add to the controversy surrounding the case, fueling speculation about the integrity of the investigation. If the probe was still active just weeks ago, what changed? And why the sudden declaration that it's over? Read's legal team isn't slowing down. They were right back in Norfolk Superior Court later that same day, continuing to fight through pretrial motions. Whether or not she faces trial again, one thing is certain—this case is far from over. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #LegalDrama Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

A federal court heard arguments from Karen Read's defense team in a critical hearing Wednesday, as they pushed to dismiss two of the charges against her, citing double jeopardy. This was one of two hearings scheduled that day, and it could determine whether Read faces another trial for the 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. Read, 44, of Mansfield, is accused of striking O'Keefe with her SUV outside a home in Canton on January 29, 2022, then allegedly leaving him in a snowstorm after a night of drinking. The defense, however, has long maintained that she is the victim of a coverup and that O'Keefe's death was caused by others—potentially even law enforcement officers. For over 90 minutes, Chief Judge Dennis Saylor listened to arguments dissecting whether Judge Beverly Cannone properly declared a mistrial and whether she should have polled the jury before doing so. Read's attorneys claim they spoke to jurors after the trial, and those jurors confirmed they had reached a unanimous verdict: not guilty of second-degree murder, not guilty of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. If that's the case, the defense argues, retrying Read would be a blatant violation of her constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Defense attorney Martin Weinberg made the case clear: “We had a lengthy argument in front of the chief judge of the United States District Court on issues of profound constitutional significance. The question is whether or not the Norfolk District Attorney can reprosecute Ms. Read when there's such strong and compelling evidence that the prior jury acquitted her.” But the prosecution wasn't having it. Caleb Schillinger, representing the DA's office, countered that the jury never filled out verdict slips or sent any notes to Cannone indicating they had reached a partial verdict. His argument was simple: “There were no acquittals.” He pointed out that if the roles were reversed and the prosecution tried to argue the jury had found her guilty, Read's team would have objected just as strongly. Judge Saylor acknowledged the weight of the issue and promised to issue his opinion quickly, knowing that whoever loses will appeal. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking—the retrial is scheduled to begin on April 1. This federal hearing came hot on the heels of another major development. Just the day before, during a hearing in state court, Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan made a statement that raised eyebrows: The federal investigation into O'Keefe's death was officially closed. But outside the courtroom, Karen Read wasn't so sure. Speaking to reporters, she questioned whether the probe was actually over, referencing a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office she received just a month earlier. “If I take him at his word, that would be a very dangerous endeavor of mine,” she said. “But I've seen a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office from one month ago, and it said it was ongoing. It was a four-page, single-spaced letter.” The conflicting statements only add to the controversy surrounding the case, fueling speculation about the integrity of the investigation. If the probe was still active just weeks ago, what changed? And why the sudden declaration that it's over? Read's legal team isn't slowing down. They were right back in Norfolk Superior Court later that same day, continuing to fight through pretrial motions. Whether or not she faces trial again, one thing is certain—this case is far from over. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #LegalDrama Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

A federal court heard arguments from Karen Read's defense team in a critical hearing Wednesday, as they pushed to dismiss two of the charges against her, citing double jeopardy. This was one of two hearings scheduled that day, and it could determine whether Read faces another trial for the 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. Read, 44, of Mansfield, is accused of striking O'Keefe with her SUV outside a home in Canton on January 29, 2022, then allegedly leaving him in a snowstorm after a night of drinking. The defense, however, has long maintained that she is the victim of a coverup and that O'Keefe's death was caused by others—potentially even law enforcement officers. For over 90 minutes, Chief Judge Dennis Saylor listened to arguments dissecting whether Judge Beverly Cannone properly declared a mistrial and whether she should have polled the jury before doing so. Read's attorneys claim they spoke to jurors after the trial, and those jurors confirmed they had reached a unanimous verdict: not guilty of second-degree murder, not guilty of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. If that's the case, the defense argues, retrying Read would be a blatant violation of her constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Defense attorney Martin Weinberg made the case clear: “We had a lengthy argument in front of the chief judge of the United States District Court on issues of profound constitutional significance. The question is whether or not the Norfolk District Attorney can reprosecute Ms. Read when there's such strong and compelling evidence that the prior jury acquitted her.” But the prosecution wasn't having it. Caleb Schillinger, representing the DA's office, countered that the jury never filled out verdict slips or sent any notes to Cannone indicating they had reached a partial verdict. His argument was simple: “There were no acquittals.” He pointed out that if the roles were reversed and the prosecution tried to argue the jury had found her guilty, Read's team would have objected just as strongly. Judge Saylor acknowledged the weight of the issue and promised to issue his opinion quickly, knowing that whoever loses will appeal. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking—the retrial is scheduled to begin on April 1. This federal hearing came hot on the heels of another major development. Just the day before, during a hearing in state court, Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan made a statement that raised eyebrows: The federal investigation into O'Keefe's death was officially closed. But outside the courtroom, Karen Read wasn't so sure. Speaking to reporters, she questioned whether the probe was actually over, referencing a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office she received just a month earlier. “If I take him at his word, that would be a very dangerous endeavor of mine,” she said. “But I've seen a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office from one month ago, and it said it was ongoing. It was a four-page, single-spaced letter.” The conflicting statements only add to the controversy surrounding the case, fueling speculation about the integrity of the investigation. If the probe was still active just weeks ago, what changed? And why the sudden declaration that it's over? Read's legal team isn't slowing down. They were right back in Norfolk Superior Court later that same day, continuing to fight through pretrial motions. Whether or not she faces trial again, one thing is certain—this case is far from over. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #LegalDrama Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

A federal court heard arguments from Karen Read's defense team in a critical hearing Wednesday, as they pushed to dismiss two of the charges against her, citing double jeopardy. This was one of two hearings scheduled that day, and it could determine whether Read faces another trial for the 2022 death of her boyfriend, Boston Police Officer John O'Keefe. Read, 44, of Mansfield, is accused of striking O'Keefe with her SUV outside a home in Canton on January 29, 2022, then allegedly leaving him in a snowstorm after a night of drinking. The defense, however, has long maintained that she is the victim of a coverup and that O'Keefe's death was caused by others—potentially even law enforcement officers. For over 90 minutes, Chief Judge Dennis Saylor listened to arguments dissecting whether Judge Beverly Cannone properly declared a mistrial and whether she should have polled the jury before doing so. Read's attorneys claim they spoke to jurors after the trial, and those jurors confirmed they had reached a unanimous verdict: not guilty of second-degree murder, not guilty of leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death. If that's the case, the defense argues, retrying Read would be a blatant violation of her constitutional protection against double jeopardy. Defense attorney Martin Weinberg made the case clear: “We had a lengthy argument in front of the chief judge of the United States District Court on issues of profound constitutional significance. The question is whether or not the Norfolk District Attorney can reprosecute Ms. Read when there's such strong and compelling evidence that the prior jury acquitted her.” But the prosecution wasn't having it. Caleb Schillinger, representing the DA's office, countered that the jury never filled out verdict slips or sent any notes to Cannone indicating they had reached a partial verdict. His argument was simple: “There were no acquittals.” He pointed out that if the roles were reversed and the prosecution tried to argue the jury had found her guilty, Read's team would have objected just as strongly. Judge Saylor acknowledged the weight of the issue and promised to issue his opinion quickly, knowing that whoever loses will appeal. Meanwhile, the clock is ticking—the retrial is scheduled to begin on April 1. This federal hearing came hot on the heels of another major development. Just the day before, during a hearing in state court, Special Prosecutor Hank Brennan made a statement that raised eyebrows: The federal investigation into O'Keefe's death was officially closed. But outside the courtroom, Karen Read wasn't so sure. Speaking to reporters, she questioned whether the probe was actually over, referencing a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office she received just a month earlier. “If I take him at his word, that would be a very dangerous endeavor of mine,” she said. “But I've seen a letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office from one month ago, and it said it was ongoing. It was a four-page, single-spaced letter.” The conflicting statements only add to the controversy surrounding the case, fueling speculation about the integrity of the investigation. If the probe was still active just weeks ago, what changed? And why the sudden declaration that it's over? Read's legal team isn't slowing down. They were right back in Norfolk Superior Court later that same day, continuing to fight through pretrial motions. Whether or not she faces trial again, one thing is certain—this case is far from over. #KarenRead #JohnOKeefe #TrueCrime #LegalDrama Want to listen to ALL of our podcasts AD-FREE? Subscribe through APPLE PODCASTS, and try it for three days free: https://tinyurl.com/ycw626tj Follow Our Other Cases: https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com The latest on The Downfall of Diddy, The Trial of Karen Read, The Murder Of Maddie Soto, Catching the Long Island Serial Killer, Awaiting Admission: BTK's Unconfessed Crimes, Delphi Murders: Inside the Crime, Chad & Lori Daybell, The Murder of Ana Walshe, Alex Murdaugh, Bryan Kohberger, Lucy Letby, Kouri Richins, Malevolent Mormon Mommys, The Menendez Brothers: Quest For Justice, The Murder of Stephen Smith, The Murder of Madeline Kingsbury, The Murder Of Sandra Birchmore, and much more! Listen at https://www.truecrimetodaypod.com 

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Attorney S. Diane Clair. She is an Atlanta native who knows the city and metro counties very well. She received her Bachelor's degree from Georgia State University and her Juris Doctor degree from Florida A&M University College of Law. Diane Clair has courtroom and trial experience and is also great at negotiating resolutions outside the courtroom. She is admitted to practice law as a member of the Georgia Bar as well as the Georgia Court of Appeals, United States District Court of the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Georgia. Attorney Clair is also a Professor in the Paralegal Program for Kennesaw State University. We handle Real Estate Purchase Contracts, Residential and Commercial Closings, Landlord-Tenant matters, deed preparation, title searches, and HOA/COA law. If it's in the Real Estate legal field, we handle it. Have you prepared your estate? We can prepare your Will, Trust, or Power of Attorney. We can also prepare any deeds to manage your real property within your estate or place property in a Trust. Did you have a loved one pass without a Will? We can assist your family with filing a Petition for Letters of Administration to have a representative appointed to handle their estate. #BEST #STRAW #SHMSSupport the show: https://www.steveharveyfm.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Attorney S. Diane Clair. She is an Atlanta native who knows the city and metro counties very well. She received her Bachelor's degree from Georgia State University and her Juris Doctor degree from Florida A&M University College of Law. Diane Clair has courtroom and trial experience and is also great at negotiating resolutions outside the courtroom. She is admitted to practice law as a member of the Georgia Bar as well as the Georgia Court of Appeals, United States District Court of the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Georgia. Attorney Clair is also a Professor in the Paralegal Program for Kennesaw State University. We handle Real Estate Purchase Contracts, Residential and Commercial Closings, Landlord-Tenant matters, deed preparation, title searches, and HOA/COA law. If it's in the Real Estate legal field, we handle it. Have you prepared your estate? We can prepare your Will, Trust, or Power of Attorney. We can also prepare any deeds to manage your real property within your estate or place property in a Trust. Did you have a loved one pass without a Will? We can assist your family with filing a Petition for Letters of Administration to have a representative appointed to handle their estate. #BEST #STRAW #SHMSSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Attorney S. Diane Clair. She is an Atlanta native who knows the city and metro counties very well. She received her Bachelor's degree from Georgia State University and her Juris Doctor degree from Florida A&M University College of Law. Diane Clair has courtroom and trial experience and is also great at negotiating resolutions outside the courtroom. She is admitted to practice law as a member of the Georgia Bar as well as the Georgia Court of Appeals, United States District Court of the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Georgia. Attorney Clair is also a Professor in the Paralegal Program for Kennesaw State University. We handle Real Estate Purchase Contracts, Residential and Commercial Closings, Landlord-Tenant matters, deed preparation, title searches, and HOA/COA law. If it's in the Real Estate legal field, we handle it. Have you prepared your estate? We can prepare your Will, Trust, or Power of Attorney. We can also prepare any deeds to manage your real property within your estate or place property in a Trust. Did you have a loved one pass without a Will? We can assist your family with filing a Petition for Letters of Administration to have a representative appointed to handle their estate. #BEST #STRAW #SHMSSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Indianapolis community is celebrating Black history with three trailblazing federal judges.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana featured a conversation with all three.Inside the Birch Bayh Federal Building and courthouse, history, progress, and perseverance took center stage as the community gathered for a conversation with the Honorable Ann Claire Williams, Honorable Candace Jackson-Akiwumi, and Honorable Doris Pryor, all Black women who have made history in the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.Williams was the first woman of color to serve on a district court in the three-state Seventh Circuit after a nomination from President Bill Clinton. She was also the first judge of color to sit on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and third Black woman to serve on any federal circuit court.She says it's an honor to be a part of living history with two other Black women.Williams, who's now retired from the bench and works at law firm Jones Day, says it's important in any career to think about the people who will come behind you.The judges discussed their journeys to the bench and the importance of representation, mentorship, and the impact of diversity on the justice system.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In today's chapter, we dive into the murder of a woman that history seems to have forgotten. Not anymore. In December of 1969, Bani Yelverton, a young Black woman with a promising future in modeling, was found murdered in her friend's New York apartment under circumstances that baffled investigators. With no sign of forced entry, few concrete leads, and a city gripped by upheaval, the case soon went cold. Who wanted Bani dead—and why? Connect with us on Social Media!You can find us at:Patreon: The Book of the Dead PodcastInstagram: @bookofthedeadpodX: @bkofthedeadpodFacebook: The Book of the Dead PodcastTikTok: BookofthedeadpodOr visit our website at www.botdpod.comFeaturing a promo for True Crime CaliforniaTrue Crime California is a podcast about crimes that take place in, you guessed it - the great Golden State of California. Brought to you by Cindy, a former host of Twisted Listers Podcast, these stories will cover everything from well known crimes we've all heard about, to more obscure stories that need to be told. Join in weekly for new cases, with occasional  multi-episode arcs for the bigger cases out there, with mini episodes coming soon too! This podcast is creepy, interesting, and all California, all the time.Listen hereBani Autopsy: Sex Assault. (1970, January 9). The Daily News, 54.Cafe Owner is Charged in Model's Death. (1970, January 18). Daily News, 38.Company, L. T. (2023, December 17). “We're now part of his flock”: Father Divine - Lantern Theater Company: Searchlight - Medium. Medium. https://medium.com/lantern-theater-company-searchlight/were-now-part-of-his-flock-father-divine-69bb65cb981eJohnson V. City of New York. (1975). In Case Text (No. 71 Civ. 763.). United States District Court. https://casetext.com/case/johnson-v-city-of-new-york-2/Nab Cafe Man in Model's Killing. (1970, January 18). The Daily News, 4.Papers of Ophelia DeVore, “black is beautiful” pioneer, come to Emory | Emory University | Atlanta GA. (n.d.). Emory University. https://news.emory.edu/stories/2013/05/upress_ophelia_deVore_papers/index.htmlSepia Model Murder, 1969: The Slaying of Bani Yelverton. (2024, July 17). CrimeReads. https://crimereads.com/sepia-model-murder-1969-the-slaying-of-bani-yelverton/Village Restauranteur Arraigned. (1970, January 18). The Sunday Record, 3-A.Woman Murdered in Greenwich Village. (1970, January 9). The Buffalo News, 61.

Stanley Ference, Stanley has an extensive background in intellectual property law, including Online Counterfeiting. He advises clients on all aspects of patent, trademark, and copyright law. Stanley's practice includes litigation for both plaintiff and defendant, patent prosecution for computer-related technology, trademark prosecution and oppositions. Stanley has argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and has served as an expert witness. He is an E-Discovery Special Master for the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Ference was selected to the 2022 Pennsylvania Super Lawyers list. In 2020 Stanley was recognized by Best Lawyers in America, Chambers & Partners, IP Stars and Super Lawyers. He has also been recognized as a Lawyer of the Year by U.S. News and the firm has been recognized as a Best Law Firm.Highlight Bullets> Here's a glimpse of what you would learn…. Importance of protecting intellectual property (IP) for e-commerce businesses.Challenges posed by online counterfeiting and its impact on brand owners.Legal options available for e-commerce sellers facing IP infringement.Differences between patents, trademarks, and copyrights.Emotional and financial toll of counterfeiting on entrepreneurs.Strategies for enforcing IP rights and taking legal action against infringers.The role of online marketplaces in IP protection and their limitations.Mindset shifts for entrepreneurs regarding counterfeiting as a sign of success.Continuous monitoring and enforcement of IP rights as a necessity.Actionable steps for e-commerce sellers to secure and enforce their intellectual property.In this episode of the Ecomm Breakthrough Podcast, host Josh Hadley discusses the critical issue of online counterfeiting with Stanley Ference, a leading patent attorney from Pittsburgh. Josh shares his personal struggles with intellectual property (IP) protection, emphasizing its importance for business growth. Stanley offers expert advice on navigating IP challenges, including patents, trademarks, and copyrights. He highlights the necessity of proactive legal action and continuous enforcement to protect e-commerce brands. The episode provides actionable insights for seven-figure business owners aiming to scale, stressing the value of professional legal guidance in safeguarding their intellectual property.Here are the 3 action items that Josh identified from this episode:1. Prioritize IP Registration and Enforcement: Secure patents, trademarks, and copyrights for your products, and be proactive in monitoring for infringement. Regularly enforcing these rights is essential to protecting your brand from counterfeiters and should be a core business practice.2. Consider Legal Action When Facing Infringement: When encountering counterfeits, consult with a legal expert to assess your options, even if you don't have formal IP protections in place. Legal professionals can help you navigate complex cases, and actions like asset freezing orders can have a significant impact on reducing counterfeit activity.3. Be Prepared for Ongoing IP Protection: Recognize that IP enforcement is an ongoing effort. Regular monitoring of marketplaces and prompt action against infringers will help maintain your brand's integrity and reduce the risk of long-term damage. Stay organized and informed to streamline your IP protection strategy effectively.Resources mentioned in this episode:Josh Hadley on LinkedIneComm Breakthrough ConsultingeComm Breakthrough PodcastEmail Josh Hadley: Josh@eCommBreakthrough.comAmazon Brand RegistryApex Program for PatentsMy Life in Court by Louis NizerFerence LawBill Gates on LinkedInSteve Jobs on LinkedInSteve Wozniak on LinedInSpecial Mention(s):Adam “Heist” Runquist on LinkedInKevin King on LinkedInMichael E. Gerber on LinkedInRelated Episode(s):“Cracking the Amazon Code: Learn From Adam Heist's Brand Scaling Secrets” on the eComm Breakthrough Podcast“Kevin King's Wicked-Smart Tips for Building an Audience of Raving Fans” on the eComm Breakthrough Podcast“Unlocking Entrepreneurial Greatness | Insider Secrets With E-myth Author Michael Gerber” on the eComm Breakthrough PodcastEpisode SponsorThis episode is brought to you by eComm Breakthrough Consulting where I help seven-figure e-commerce owners grow to eight figures. I started Hadley Designs in 2015 and grew it to an eight-figure brand in seven years.I made mistakes along the way that made the path to eight figures longer. At times I doubted whether our business could even survive and become a real brand. I wish I would have had a guide to help me grow faster and avoid the stumbling blocks.If you've hit a plateau and want to know the next steps to take your business to the next level, then go to www.EcommBreakthrough.com (that's Ecomm with two M's) to learn more.Transcript AreaJosh 00:00:00  Welcome to the Ecomm Breakthrough podcast. I'm your host, Josh Hadley, where I interview the top business leaders in e-commerce. Past guests include Kevin King, Michael Gerber, author of The E-myth, and Stephen Pope of My Amazon Guide. Today, I am speaking with Stanley Ferentz, one of Pittsburgh's leading paten...

Tsay JBR LLC v. United States District Court for the Central District of California

Diego García Luna is a former Mexican government official who served as the head of Mexico's Federal Investigation Agency (AFI) from 2001 to 2005 and as Secretary of Public Security from 2006 to 2012. He was arrested in Texas, USA, on December 9, 2020, on charges of drug trafficking and accepting bribes from the Sinaloa Cartel. García Luna has pleaded not guilty to the charges against him and his case is ongoing in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.In this episode, we hear testimony from several witnesses who not only drop the dime on Garcia Luna, but they had some very interesting things to say about the former president of Mexico Felipe Calderon and the corruption that he was allegedly involved in.(commercial at 7:40)to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Former Mexican president accused of supporting Sinaloa cartel | The Seattle Times

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES:Information about the U.S. Courts Rulemaking Process2015 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureJudicature article on the 2015 Discovery Amendments (PDF) ABOUT THE HOSTJudge Paul W. Grimm (ret.) is the David F. Levi Professor of the Practice of Law and Director of the Bolch Judicial Institute at Duke Law School. From December 2012 until his retirement in December 2022, he served as a district judge of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, with chambers in Greenbelt, Maryland. Click here to read his full bio.

In this week's episode, Hemma visits Catherine Razzano, a veteran legal and compliance expert and Head of Global Legal Compliance at social media giant TikTok. Learn about Catherine's transition from private practice to in-house compliance work as she shares her journey from a prestigious clerkship and partnership track in Big Law with an FCPA and white-collar practice to leading in-house compliance teams at General Dynamics, Panasonic, and TikTok. Hemma asked Catherine about the challenges and benefits of working under a monitorship, with Catherine emphasizing the importance of relationship building and trust. Catherine also shared her experiences leading teams under scrutiny and pressure, including during the pandemic and at TikTok. Catherine discusses the source of her firm commitment to mentoring and sponsoring the next generation of ethics and compliance leaders. Tune in to hear inspiring insights on the importance of intentionality and finding your passion when navigating transitions as we enter the second quarter of the century in 2025. Highlights include: Managing compliance teams under scrutiny and pressure Culture-building in global organizations Navigating different industries as a compliance professional Following your passion for career growth and transitions The importance of mentoring and sponsorship Biography: Catherine Razzano is the Head of Legal Compliance at TikTok, the social media giant where she leads a global team of compliance professionals. She joined TikTok from Panasonic Avionics Corp., where she was hired in 2018 to help the company strengthen its compliance systems while under independent oversight following an investigation into violations of U.S. antibribery law. Before Panasonic, Catherine was an Associate General Counsel and Director of International Law & Compliance at General Dynamics after leaving her white-collar criminal practice at prestigious law firms, Cadwalader Wickersham and Taft and Clifford Chance, LLP, and serving as Judicial Law Clerk to the Honorable John M. Facciola in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Thanks, as always, to our sponsor, Corporate Compliance Insights, and our wonderful #GWIC community. You can join the Great Women in Compliance community on LinkedIn here.

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

Join us as the Honorable Andre M. Davis, a retired judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, shares insights from his extensive legal career. Judge Davis discusses his early influences as a law clerk in the courts where he eventually served, his professional journey through the state and federal benches, and what motivates him today.

Two-time Emmy and Three-time NAACP Image Award-winning, television Executive Producer Rushion McDonald interviewed Attorney S. Diane Clair. She is an Atlanta native who knows the city and metro counties very well. She received her Bachelor's degree from Georgia State University and her Juris Doctor degree from Florida A&M University College of Law. Diane Clair has courtroom and trial experience and is also great at negotiating resolutions outside the courtroom. She is admitted to practice law as a member of the Georgia Bar and the Georgia Court of Appeals, United States District Court of the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Georgia. Attorney Clair is also a Professor in the Paralegal Program at Kennesaw State University. Company Description * Law firm practicing everything Real Estate Law, Estate Planning and Probate, and Business and Contract LawTalking Points/Questions * - Real Estate Investing- Estate Planning to get your affairs in order an pass down generational wealth- Being a business owner entrepreneur #STRAW #SHMS #BESTSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Attorney S. Diane Clair. She is an Atlanta native who knows the city and metro counties very well. She received her Bachelor's degree from Georgia State University and her Juris Doctor degree from Florida A&M University College of Law. Diane Clair has courtroom and trial experience and is also great at negotiating resolutions outside the courtroom. She is admitted to practice law as a member of the Georgia Bar and the Georgia Court of Appeals, United States District Court of the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Georgia. Attorney Clair is also a Professor in the Paralegal Program at Kennesaw State University. Company Description * Law firm practicing everything Real Estate Law, Estate Planning and Probate, and Business and Contract LawTalking Points/Questions * - Real Estate Investing- Estate Planning to get your affairs in order an pass down generational wealth- Being a business owner entrepreneur #STRAW #SHMS #BESTSupport the show: https://www.steveharveyfm.com/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Attorney S. Diane Clair. She is an Atlanta native who knows the city and metro counties very well. She received her Bachelor's degree from Georgia State University and her Juris Doctor degree from Florida A&M University College of Law. Diane Clair has courtroom and trial experience and is also great at negotiating resolutions outside the courtroom. She is admitted to practice law as a member of the Georgia Bar and the Georgia Court of Appeals, United States District Court of the Northern District of Georgia and Middle District of Georgia. Attorney Clair is also a Professor in the Paralegal Program at Kennesaw State University. Company Description * Law firm practicing everything Real Estate Law, Estate Planning and Probate, and Business and Contract LawTalking Points/Questions * - Real Estate Investing- Estate Planning to get your affairs in order an pass down generational wealth- Being a business owner entrepreneur #STRAW #SHMS #BESTSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found Click On Picture To See Larger PictureFirst it was John Kerry calling for a climate emergency, now the IMF calls for carbon restrictions. 11 State Attorney sue, BlackRock, Vanguard and others. Personal savings has been revised lower. Inflation is heating up again. Putin signs law recognizing Bitcoin. Trump talks to Dimon using backchannels. The [DS] knew they could not beat Trump in the election because they were to big to rig, so they moved their plan and surprises to after the election. Putin warns Trump that the [DS] might try to assassinate him once again. Once Trump gets into the WH, the tables are going to turn and the hunted will become the hunters. Trump is saving the best for last.   (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:13499335648425062,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-7164-1323"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="//cdn2.customads.co/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); Economy IMF Calls For Economy-Crushing Carbon Restrictions That Dwarf COVID Lockdowns  Globalists also presented climate lockdowns as a kind of collective social punishment in the event that populations refused to cut carbon output on their own.  As World Economic Forum "Agenda Contributor" Mariana Mazzucato argued in 2020: "Under a “climate lockdown,” governments would limit private-vehicle use, ban consumption of red meat, and impose extreme energy-saving measures, while fossil-fuel companies would have to stop drilling. To avoid such a scenario, we must overhaul our economic structures and do capitalism differently. Many think of the climate crisis as distinct from the health and economic crises caused by the pandemic. But the three crises – and their solutions – are interconnected..." Source: zerohedge.com 11 State Attorneys General, Led by Ken Paxton, Take on BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street in Groundbreaking Anti-Trust Lawsuit Over Coal Market Manipulation A groundbreaking lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas accuses financial giants BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street of colluding to manipulate the U.S. coal market. The case, spearheaded by Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and supported by 10 other state attorneys general, alleges that these firms have used their substantial ownership stakes in major coal producers to suppress competition and artificially raise energy prices. The states listed as plaintiffs are” Texas Alabama Arkansas Indiana Iowa Kansas Missouri Montana Nebraska West Virginia Wyoming According to the 108-page complaint, BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street collectively hold controlling stakes in multiple coal companies, including Peabody Energy and Arch Resources, which account for significant portions of U.S. coal production. The suit alleges that these firms formed an “output-reduction syndicate,” leveraging their shareholder influence to force coal companies to cut production, ostensibly in alignment with environmental goals like the Net Zero Asset Managers Initiative. The complaint details how these firms' actions have allegedly suppressed coal supply despite rising demand for electricity. The result? Skyrocketing coal prices and increased costs for consumers at a time when many are already grappling with inflation. According to the press release:   Source: thegatewaypundit.com Ford Pleads for Government Aid to Sell EVs Nobody Wants The UK government is being pushed by the Ford Motor Co. to mandate consumer incentives to push drivers into electric vehicles (EVs) as an industry backlash grows over imposed sales targets and the marketplace flatly rejecting the product. Lisa Brankin, Ford UK's chair and managing director,

The Supreme Court's latest term was one of its most significant for administrative law. The Court ended Chevron deference, declared a right to a jury trial in securities fraud adjudications at the Securities and Exchange Commission, and expanded the statute of limitations to challenge agency decisions. Other leading cases included a challenge to a major Trump-era rulemaking on guns and a challenge to a significant federal environmental implementation plan. The Court's opinions have raised important questions about the separation of powers, the role of Congress, and the future of regulatory governance in America. Now that the Court has issued its rulings, the panel considers: What comes next for the regulated public, Congress, executive branch agencies, and the States?FeaturingHon. Paul D. Clement, Partner, Clement & Murphy, PLLCProf. Cary Coglianese, Edward B. Shils Professor of Law and Professor of Political Science; Director, Penn Program on Regulation, Penn Carey Law, University of Pennsylvania Prof. Philip A. Hamburger, Maurice & Hilda Friedman Professor of Law, Columbia Law SchoolHon. Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, Judge, United States District Court, Middle District of FloridaModerator: Hon. Neomi Rao, Judge, United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit

In this special episode we hear the Hon. Jed S. Rakoff – Senior Judge, United States District Court, Southern District of New York – deliver a speech to the Association entitled "The U.S. Supreme Court's History as a Regressive Institution." Judge Rakoff's speech is part of City Bar's Benjamin N. Cardozo Lecture Series, which is inspired by the legacy of Benjamin N. Cardozo "and his love for the law, passion for justice and sympathy for humanity." First presented in 1941, previous speakers in the series have included Robert H. Jackson, Felix Frankfurter, William O. Douglas, Earl Warren, William J. Brennan, Jr., Marian Wright Edelman, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, among many others. Judge Rakoff was introduced by Judge Raymond Lohier, of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, after a welcome from City Bar President Muhammad Faridi.

IntroductionLIVE from your ESG USB-C DIY LOL DEI Vape Pen, it's a Business Pants Friday Show here at October 18th Studios, featuring all of your favorites: AnalystHole Matt Moscardi! On today's weekly wrap up: Meta employees have acne but don't call CVS's Karen Lynch, meth-flavored TikTok, 3-headed CEOs, and even one-headed CEOs named Jamie that love to talk Our show today is being sponsored by Free Float Analytics, the only platform measuring board power, connections, and performance for FREE.Story of the Week (DR):CVS ousts CEO Karen Lynch, names Caremark head as new chief DR MMCVS Health Corp. named David Joyner as its new chief executive officer, ending a tumultuous tenure for current CEO Karen Lynch at the pharmacy giant.Longtime executive Joyner, 60, took over Thursday, according to a Friday release. The move comes after the company repeatedly missed earnings targets, setting off unrest among shareholders that spilled into public view in recent weeks.Last month, major CVS shareholder Glenview Capital began a significant push for changes at the company, CNBC previously reported.CNBC reported last month that CVS' board had engaged strategic advisors to weigh its options, including the potential of a breakup of its insurance and retail businesses.Joyner most recently oversaw the company's pharmacy services business as president of CVS Caremark, a similar position to the one Lynch held before she assumed the top job in February 2021. He began his career at Aetna in pharmacy benefit services and previously held the role of executive vice president of sales and marketing at CVS Health.“We believe David and his deep understanding of our integrated business can help us more directly address the challenges our industry faces, more rapidly advance the operational improvements our company requires, and fully realize the value we can uniquely create,” Chairman Roger Farah said in a statement.Lynch also stepped down from the company's board of directors this week, the company said Friday. Joyner will take a seat on the board, and Farah will assume the role of executive chairman.FFA: Karen Lynch (16%) vs. Roger Farah (16%)Meta fires staff for abusing $25 meal creditsMeta recently fired some employees for misusing a Grubhub meal perk.Roughly two dozen employees were terminated for abusing the company's meal credit system.The Grubhub perk is intended to support employees who work at locations where free meals aren't provided by a cafeteria or when employees work late and need food delivered to the office.Instead of purchasing meals, some Meta employees used the $25 credit to order other items, including laundry detergent, wine glasses, and acne pads, the person familiar with the situation said.The roughly two dozen staff were fired for a repeated pattern of misuseAmazon invests in nuclear energy, hot on the heels of Google and MicrosoftBig Tech continues to go nuclear as the artificial-intelligence boom drives energy demand to new heights.Amazon announced on Wednesday that it's anchoring a $500 million investment for X-energy to develop small, advanced modular nuclear reactors, which would provide carbon-free power for some of its data centers.Microsoft last month helped advance a plan to reopen the Three Mile Island plant, the site of one of the worst nuclear disasters in US history, and Google on Monday announced a partnership in small-modular-reactor tech with Kairos Power.A Sam Altman-backed nuclear power stock soared 150% in a monthParamount Will Allow Its 3 Co-CEOs to Resign and Receive Severance If They Are DemotedWith Paramount Global poised to be taken over by Skydance Media in 2025, the three execs running Paramount as co-CEOs — George Cheeks, Chris McCarthy and Brian Robbins — now have an additional provision in their employment agreements that will let them quit and receive severance benefits if they are demoted from their co-CEO roles.In addition, Cheeks, McCarthy and Robbins were each awarded grants of $3 million worth of restricted share units Prior to securing the deal with Skydance, Paramount dismissed former CEO Bob Bakish and formed the three-member Office of the CEO effective as of May 1 comprising: George Cheeks, president and CEO of CBS; Chris McCarthy, president and CEO, Showtime/MTV Entertainment Studios and Paramount Media Networks; and Brian Robbins, president and CEO of Paramount Pictures and Nickelodeon.guaranteed severance payments equivalent to two times their annual base salary plus twice their annual target bonus amount, among other benefitsFor Bob Bakish last year that severance would have amounted to nearly $50MThe change in compensation comes at a time when Paramount is aiming to reduce annual costs by $500 million ahead of its merger with Skydance Media. As part of these cost-cutting measures, Paramount started job cuts in August and plans to lay off 15% of its U.S.-based workforce in three phases by the end of the year."US judge orders Boeing, DOJ to detail diversity policy before deciding on pleaA federal judge on Tuesday ordered Boeing and the U.S. Justice Department to detail the impact of diversity and inclusion policies on the selection of an independent monitor before he decides whether to accept the planemaker's plea deal.While ordering DOJ and Boeing to respond to a series of questions about the diversity and inclusion policy and how it might affect the selection of an independent monitor, he also pointed out that it was not a disputed facet of the plea agreement."Critically, Boeing did not voice any objection to this provision," the judge said in his order.O'Connor also wants the planemaker to detail how its existing diversity, equity and inclusion policies "are used in its current compliance and ethics efforts."U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor held a hearing Friday as he considers whether to approve Boeing's agreement to plead guilty to conspiring to defraud regulators. The deal would include oversight for three years by an independent monitor.Reed Charles is a United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. O'Connor has become a "go-to" favorite for conservative lawyers, as he reliably rules against Democratic policies and for Republican policies.Elon Musk is bringing lawsuits to Texas. A judge with Tesla stock keeps hearing themBillionaire Elon Musk seems to have found a new favorite federal judge: Reed O'Connor in Fort Worth, Texas.Musk's social media company X has filed two major lawsuits against groups he sees as antagonists, and O'Connor is presiding over both of them, even though none of the parties is based in Texas.So far, O'Connor has delivered stunningly pro-Musk decisions, which have gained widespread attention.What has garnered less attention: O'Connor's investment in Tesla, between “$15,001 and $50,000” of Tesla stock, according to his most recent publicly available financial disclosure filing.The order is the latest hurdle Boeing faces to avoid a potentially embarrassing trial and plead guilty to misleading the Federal Aviation Administration and violating a 2021 deferred prosecution agreement.Assholiest of the Week (MM):SEC charge hinges on director's lack of ‘social independence' DR MMYou're kidding SEC - on average, 20% of every US large cap board is connected inside two degrees JUST FROM OTHER BOARDSWe just covered Parker Hannifin on our show Proxy Countdown and found that 100% of the board worked within 250 miles of one another, and 40% of them were from Ohio!Where are the regulations on this? If you're policing social independence, barring directors from future directorships, just because it wasn't disclosed - NONE OF THEM ARE DISCLOSED!It can't be that a former employee of the company like Leslie Kilgore on the Netflix board, who worked under Reed Hastings AT NETFLIX from 2000-2012, can NOW be considered “independent” on a board… WITH FOUNDER REED HASTINGS… and not have a lack of “social independence”?Digital tobaccoTikTok knew its algorithm harmed kids, accidentally revealed internal documents show14 states are suing TikTok35 minutes from starting use of the app to addiction - that's faster than meth where dependency can take days to weeksMeta must face US state lawsuits over teen social media addictionVOTE EVERY DIRECTOR ON A DIGITAL TOBACCO COMPANY BOARD OUT OF EVERY OTHER BOARD THEY SIT ONThere are 40 directors of Alphabet, Meta, Snap, and PinterestThose directors have 72 directorshipsThere are 22 of them that have directorships on other boardsEliminate OTHER dual class asshole companies, and you have 15 directors to vote out - stop selling digital tobacco or you lose your jobUnited Airlines (NASDAQ:UAL) Board of Directors Approves Share Buyback ProgramFour years ago we bailed out the airlines after UA posted a 6bn loss followed by a 1bn lossThe last year net income declined 15% to less than 1bnThe highest TSR performer on the board that approved this has a history of .488 batting average - meaning they are below average of .500 - and they are the HIGHEST ON THE BOARDOf the 13 bloated board members, two have earnings batting averages above .500 - the rest are all below .350!This is one of the worst performing, most interconnected boards in America - and they are spending over $1bn they don't have to grease the palms of investorsYou can send thank you notes to Vanguard (14% of shares) and Primecap (9% of shares) when they stop serving you hot food and force you to sit in an overhead binGoodliest of the Week (MM/DR):DR: Teen tobacco use falls to 25-year low as fewer pick up e-cigarettesDR: Union petitions skyrocket under Biden, doubling for the first time in 50 yearsMM:Supreme Court Allows E.P.A. to Limit Power Plant EmissionsMM: JPMorgan's Dimon Says Economy ‘Remains Resilient'Headliniest of the WeekDR: JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon Says We Shouldn't Put Our Heads In The Sand, 'We Have To Find A Better Way To Help The People Who Get Hurt By AI'Jamie Dimon suggests he'll remain at JPMorgan for a very long time: "I intend to be doing what I'm doing — I almost guarantee I'll be doing this — for a long period of time, or at least until the board kicks me out"MM: JPMorgan CEO Dimon says cash is very valuable when the future looks ‘treacherous'Who Won the Week?DR: 3-headed CEOsMM: The Shareholder Primacy podcast with Mike Levin and Ann Lipton - Activist Investors Are Podcasters NowPredictionsDR: Disney's post-Iger succession planning is to replace him with six-headed CEO:Chadwick "Chaz" Van Buren III – The overly confident CEO who insists on golfing metaphors during board meetings.Reginald P. Throckmorton – Always talking about the "good old days" and using phrases like "back in my day."Wellington "Wells" Haverford – A CEO who embodies the old-school, silver-haired corporate type with a massive corner office.Bartholomew J. Wainscott – A pompous executive with a fondness for outdated business jargon like "synergy" and "paradigm shift."Milton C. Kensington – Known for his oversized suits, outdated tech skills, and resistance to change.Horace F. Farnsworth – The CEO who refuses to retire, always seen with suspenders and a comb-over.MM: Kids start playing a new game called “Jamie Says” in which a kid says something louder and louder and everyone else called “the reporters”, writes them down furiously

In this episode, we analyze a recent court decision from the United States District Court of the Eastern District of Missouri regarding a law requiring PFRs (people required to register) to post signs at their homes on Halloween stating “No candy or treats at this residence.” The plaintiff, Thomas L. Sanderson, challenged the statute, arguing […]

In this podcast episode, Dr. Jonathan H. Westover talks with Jessica Childress about how to report workplace misconduct, including discrimination, harassment, and bullying. Award-winning attorney Jessica Childress (https://www.linkedin.com/in/childressjessica/) is the author of Peace: Leaving a Toxic Workplace on Your Own Terms. Ms. Childress has practiced employment law for over eleven years, representing organizations of all sizes and individuals in employment law matters. She is the Managing Attorney of the Childress Firm PLLC, a boutique employment law firm, based in Washington, D.C. Ms. Childress holds a Bachelor of Arts in Government and African American Studies from the University of Virginia and a Juris Doctor from the University of Virginia School of Law. Ms. Childress graduated Phi Beta Kappa and with High Distinction from the University of Virginia in 2007. Prior to launching the Childress Firm PLLC, Ms. Childress served as an associate at two global law firms and as an attorney at the United States Department of Justice. Ms. Childress has litigated retaliation, discrimination, sexual harassment, non-competition, trade secret, unfair labor practice, and whistleblower cases before various tribunals. She serves clients in general business transactions with employees and independent contractors. Ms. Childress drafts agreements such as employment agreements, consulting agreements, severance agreements, and confidentiality agreements. Ms. Childress is admitted to practice in Virginia, Maryland, and the District of Columbia. She is also admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. Ms. Childress has held leadership roles in the National Bar Association's Young Lawyers Division and the Washington Bar Association's Young Lawyers Division. Ms. Childress is a member of the Metropolitan Washington Employment Lawyers Association and the National Employment Lawyers Association. She has been the recipient of several honors, including the National Bar Association's 2018 Young Lawyer of the Year Award, the Washington Bar Association's 2017-2018 Young Lawyer of the Year Award, the National Bar Association's 40 under 40 Best Advocates Award, the Kim Keenan Leadership & Advocacy Award, the Greater Washington Area Chapter of the National Bar Association's Rising Star Award, and recognition by the National Black Lawyers as one of the top 100 black attorneys. In 2022, Ms. Childress received the Women Owned Law organization's Woman Legal Entrepreneur of the Year Award. Ms. Childress has been named to the 2020, 2021, 2022, and 2023 Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers Rising Stars lists. Only 2.5% of practicing attorneys in Washington, D.C. are selected to receive this honor. Ms. Childress is a 2022 graduate of the Aspen Institute's Justice and Society program. Ms. Childress serves as a contributor for Arianna Huffington's international media outlet, Thrive Global. She has been featured in numerous publications, including Forbes, Essence, the Huffington Post, Success, and Entrepreneur. Check out all of the podcasts in the HCI Podcast Network! Check out the ⁠HCI Academy⁠: Courses, Micro-Credentials, and Certificates to Upskill and Reskill for the Future of Work! Check out the LinkedIn ⁠Alchemizing Human Capital⁠ Newsletter. Check out Dr. Westover's book, ⁠The Future Leader⁠. Check out Dr. Westover's book, ⁠'Bluer than Indigo' Leadership⁠. Check out Dr. Westover's book, ⁠The Alchemy of Truly Remarkable Leadership⁠. Check out the latest issue of the ⁠Human Capital Leadership magazine⁠. Each HCI Podcast episode (Program, ID No. 655967) has been approved for 0.50 HR (General) recertification credit hours toward aPHR™, aPHRi™, PHR®, PHRca®, SPHR®, GPHR®, PHRi™ and SPHRi™ recertification through HR Certification Institute® (HRCI®). Each HCI Podcast episode (Program ID: 24-DP529) has been approved for 0.50 HR (General) SHRM Professional Development Credits (PDCs) for SHRM-CP and SHRM-SCPHR recertification through SHRM, as part of the knowledge and competency programs related to the SHRM Body of Applied Skills and Knowledge™ (the SHRM BASK™). Human Capital Innovations has been pre-approved by the ATD Certification Institute to offer educational programs that can be used towards initial eligibility and recertification of the Certified Professional in Talent Development (CPTD) and Associate Professional in Talent Development (APTD) credentials. Each HCI Podcast episode qualifies for a maximum of 0.50 points.

On December 15, 1997, ten-day-old Delimar Vera died in a tragic housefire when the Philadelphia home of Luz Cuevas and Pedro Vera caught fire unexpectedly. After a brief investigation, the fire department identified a faulty heater as the cause of the fire and deemed the baby's death an accident and claimed that the girl's remains had been completely destroyed in the blaze. Luz Cuevas was skeptical of their explanation and struggled to accept her daughter's death.Six years after the fire, Luz was at a party where she ran into Pedro's cousin, whom she hadn't seen in several years. The woman, Carolyn Correa, had with her a little girl named Aaliyah, whom she claimed was her daughter, though Luz didn't remember her having children or being pregnant six years earlier. Even more suspicious was that six-year-old Aaliyah bore a striking resemblance to Luz herself and she couldn't shake the feeling that Aaliyah was in fact her own supposedly dead daughter, Delimar. Had Luz Cuevas been right all along? Had Delimar somehow managed to survive the fire? And if so, why was she now in the custody of a strange woman she hadn't seen in six years?Thank you to the incredible Dave White of Bring Me the Axe Podcast for research!ReferencesBenson, Clea, and Rusty Pray. 1997. "10-day-old baby dies in N. Phila. fire." Philadelphia Inquirer, December 16: 38.CBS News. 2004. New twist in baby ID case. March 9. Accessed June 28, 2024. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/new-twist-in-baby-id-case/.CNN. 2004. Mom finds kidnapped daughter six years later. March 2. Accessed June 28, 2024. https://www.cnn.com/2004/US/Northeast/03/01/girl.found.alive/.Cuevas v. City of Philadelphia. 2006. 05-3749 (United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania, August 11).Egan, Nicole Weisensee. 2005. "Her side of the story." Philadelphia Daily News, October 13: 3.Frisby, Mann. 1997. "Heater blamed in fire that clais infant." Philadelphia Daily News, December 16: 10.George, Jason. 2004. "Girl found and woman held after a ruse lasting years." New York Times, March 3: A13.Gregory, Sean. 2004. Back from the blaze. March 15. Accessed June 28, 2024. https://time.com/archive/6737931/back-from-the-blaze/.Pompilio, Natalie. 2004. "Kidnapped girl returned to birth mother." Philadelphia Inquirer, March 8.Pompilio, Natalie, and Joel Bewley. 2004. "Case of child once believed dead is far from over." Philadelphia Inquirer, March 6.Pompilio, Natalie, and Thomas Gibbons. 2004. "Woman suspected of kidnapping girl 6 years ago turns." Philadelphia Inquirer, March 2.Soteropoulos, Jacqueline. 2005. "Abductor of infant gets 9 to 30 years." Philadelphia Inquirer, September 24: 1.Tampa Bay Times. 2004. Daughter lost in fire returns, but questions swirl in family. March 7. Accessed June 27, 2024. https://www.tampabay.com/archive/2004/03/07/daughter-lost-in-fire-returns-but-questions-swirl-in-family/.The Record. 2004. DNA testing helps mom find only daughter. March 2. Accessed June 28, 2024. https://www.recordnet.com/story/news/2004/03/03/dna-testing-helps-mom-find/50702564007/.See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In this month's series, I'll share cases of vacations that turned deadly.  Even in the most serene and beautiful locations, murder never takes a holiday.   This week, an award-winning television producer, his beautiful and successful Brazilian-born wife, and young children take a family vacation to a tropical resort.  When Monica Beresford-Redman is found murdered just yards from their hotel suite, her husband becomes the main suspect.   Was the circumstantial evidence all pointing to Bruce Beresford-Redman as the murderer merely a series of coincidences or proof of his guilt?  Was he a victim of terrible luck, or did he resort to murder?    Sources:  48 Hours: Bruce Beresford-Redman: The Verdict, Season 28, Episode 22, 2015.  In the Matter of the EXTRADITION OF Bruce Ainsley BERESFORD-REDMAN. United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California. Dec. 2, 2010.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Beresford-Redman https://abcnews.go.com/US/documents-detail-beresford-redman-death-mexico/story?id=12815694 https://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/beresford-redman-cancun-murder-tv-producer/2419136/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7453793/Survivor-producer-jailed-wifes-death-spotted-release.html https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/general-news/a-survivor-producer-a-dead-2-755386/   Sponsors:  Lume - www.lumedeodorant.com - Use discount code ONCE    Links:  YouTube - https://www.youtube.com/@OnceUponACrimePodcast CrimeCon UK - September 21st and 22nd in London. Get your discounted ticket by using my discount code ONCEUPON when you purchase your ticket at www.crimecon.co.uk. 

The Rich Zeoli Show- Full Episode (06/25/2024): 3:05pm- During yesterday's show, Director of Strategic Communications at the Republican National Committee Tommy Pigott highlighted the difference between Donald Trump's weekend appearance in Philadelphia and Joe Biden's recent trip to the city—Trump left a $500 tip at Tony & Nick's Steaks, while Joe Biden got confused in a Wawa. Pigott explained: “If the Biden campaign actually wanted to put these concerns about Joe Biden to bed, they would put him out there more in unscripted environments—but they don't…Joe Biden cannot do anything without being perpetually confused.” Will Biden be able to hold it together for 90-minutes during Thursday's debate? 3:20pm- Media Attacks Judge Aileen Cannon: In his latest opinion piece for The Wall Street Journal, William McGurn writes of the “vilification of Judge Cannon” by The New York Times's news division: “It's similar to the statement by 51 former intelligence operatives two weeks before the 2020 election that Hunter Biden's laptop “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.” Their statement was sprinkled with caveats that didn't matter because its only job was to give Joe Biden something to get him through the last crucial days of the election.” You can read the full editorial here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/taking-down-judge-aileen-cannon-1c4bf9ab?mod=opinion_lead_pos9 3:35pm- During MSNBC's Morning Joe, host Joe Scarborough attacked the credibility of Judge Aileen Cannon—the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida judge who is overseeing Donald Trump's alleged mishandling of classified documents case. Similarly, while appearing on CNN, former White House Ethics Czar Norm Eisen questioned Judge Cannon's motives—suggesting she is simply doing the bidding of Donald Trump. Rich explains that the media is making a coordinated effort to delegitimize Judge Cannon. 3:45pm- Will Donald Trump be able to attend the Republican National Convention? On July 11th, Trump has his sentencing hearing for his conviction in the “hush money” trial involving payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels. Rich notes that Trump could—unjustly—be sentenced to house arrest or even prison time. The RNC convention begins on July 15th and ends on July 18th. 4:05pm- While appearing on CNN, National Press Secretary for the 2024 Trump Campaign Karoline Leavitt had her interview cut short by anchor Kasie Hunt. Hunt accused Leavitt of attacking her CNN colleagues Jake Tapper and Dana Bash by suggesting the two moderators of Thursday's debate have regularly expressed disdain for Donald Trump and support for Joe Biden. A montage pieced together by Newsbusters proves Leavitt's point—Tapper and Bash are not objective. One clip even shows Tapper referring to Trump's presidency as a “national nightmare.” 4:10pm- Nicholas Fondacaro of Newsbusters reports: “CNN could be facing a defamation liability rivaling or exceeding the $787 million Fox News paid out to Dominion Voting Systems. NewsBusters recently reported on Florida's First District Court of Appeals affirming that plaintiff Zachary Young could seek punitive damages, in addition to economic and emotional damages, from the Cable News Network in a civil trial after they allegedly defamed him regarding his work in getting people out of Afghanistan.” He continues: “The case hinges on CNN's use of the phrases ‘black market' and ‘exploited' to describe Young's legitimate business helping corporately sponsored Afghans escape the country as it collapsed around them and the Taliban retook control.” Fondacaro writes that Young ultimately saved 24 people. You can read the full article here: https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2024/06/24/cnn-could-be-forced-pay-upwards-1-billion-defamation-suit 4:30pm- A “fat beach day”? Yes, it's a real thing—and it's coming to New York as part of an effort to support body positivity. 4:40pm- MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell hilariously asked Biden Campaign spokesperson Adrienne Elrod whether it is a problem that all of President Joe Biden's debate advisers are “white men in their 60s.” 4:45pm- Could Black voters in Milwaukee determine the 2024 presidential election? Brakkton Booker of Politico writes: “Polls suggest the president is trailing his 2020 performance in [Milwaukee] and surrounding county. In Wisconsin's April Democratic primary, his performance within the city limits lagged well behind the rest of the state. There's one big reason why: Black voters in Milwaukee. An influential bloc that can determine if the state remains blue or flips this fall, these voters have serious and lingering doubts about Biden and whether he's delivered on his promises to them. There's no danger that Donald Trump will carry this historically Democratic city in November. But there is a considerable risk that an anemic showing in Milwaukee could cost Biden this critical swing state—and possibly the election.” You can read the full article here: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/06/21/biden-black-voters-enthusiasm-gap-milwaukee-00163496 4:50pm- Zeoli Show History: For the first time ever, Rich compliments Matt's return music selection. 5:05pm- Could Black voters in Milwaukee determine the 2024 presidential election? Brakkton Booker of Politico writes: “Polls suggest the president is trailing his 2020 performance in [Milwaukee] and surrounding county. In Wisconsin's April Democratic primary, his performance within the city limits lagged well behind the rest of the state. There's one big reason why: Black voters in Milwaukee. An influential bloc that can determine if the state remains blue or flips this fall, these voters have serious and lingering doubts about Biden and whether he's delivered on his promises to them. There's no danger that Donald Trump will carry this historically Democratic city in November. But there is a considerable risk that an anemic showing in Milwaukee could cost Biden this critical swing state—and possibly the election.” You can read the full article here: https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/06/21/biden-black-voters-enthusiasm-gap-milwaukee-00163496 5:20pm- Democrats aren't winning the policy argument so they've already pivoted to fear mongering. For example, Democrat political strategist James Comer recently claimed that if Donald Trump wins, he will establish a “theocracy.” Meanwhile, Associate Editor of The Washington Post Ruth Marcus is predicting that the Supreme Court may “chip away at the right to same-sex marriage.” 5:25pm- Hillary Clinton is BACK! with a new book due to be released just weeks before the presidential election: "Something Lost, Something Gained: Reflections on Life, Love, and Liberty.” 5:40pm- BREAKING NEWS: A House Judiciary Committee investigation has found evidence suggesting “CIA contractors colluded with the Biden Campaign to discredit [the] Hunter Biden laptop story” ahead of the 2020 presidential election. You can read more details here: https://judiciary.house.gov/media/press-releases/new-information-shows-cia-contractors-colluded-biden-campaign-discredit-hunter 6:05pm- Rich has to leave early to host 1210 WPHT's Politics and Pints with New York Times best-selling author Jack Carr from Zlock Performing Arts Center Bucks County Community College in Newtown, Pennsylvania. America's Radio Guest Host Mike Opelka closes out the show! 6:15pm- Hillary Clinton is BACK! with a new book due to be released just weeks before the presidential election: "Something Lost, Something Gained: Reflections on Life, Love, and Liberty.” 6:30pm- Earlier this month, Attorney General Merrick Garland testified before the House Judiciary Committee. During one notable exchange, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) asked who—or what— gave Garland the authority to appoint special counsel Jack Smith? Judge Aileen Cannon—the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida judge handling Donald Trump's alleged mishandling of classified documents case—is considering whether Smith's appointment is legally invalid. 6:50pm- Over the weekend, Congressman Jamaal Bowman—perhaps best known for pulling a fire alarm in a Congressional office building—held a profanity laced rally in the Bronx. During the event, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio made sure she embarrassed herself as well by screaming and dancing on stage like a lunatic. Rep. Bowman may very well lose his primary battle to George Latimer later tonight.