Podcasts about watkins llp

  • 23PODCASTS
  • 26EPISODES
  • 33mAVG DURATION
  • 1MONTHLY NEW EPISODE
  • Apr 2, 2025LATEST

POPULARITY

20172018201920202021202220232024


Best podcasts about watkins llp

Latest podcast episodes about watkins llp

Brief Encounters
S2:E2 | Mark Austin | Why tech companies should IPO in the UK

Brief Encounters

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 2, 2025 33:09


In this episode. Richard is joined by Mark Austin CBE, Partner at Latham & Watkins LLP, former Chair of the Listing Authority Advisory Panel, and an expert voice on the evolving landscape of public markets.Together, Mark and Richard unpack the transformation of UK listings, recent reforms, and what's being done to make London a more competitive destination for companies going public. If you're a founder, legal leader, investor, or just curious about the future of UK capital markets, this one's for you.Mark's links:LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/mark-austin-2673a414/UK Listings Review: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-listings-review

International Bankruptcy, Restructuring, True Crime and Appeals - Court Audio Recording Podcast
Intrum chapter 11 bankruptcy ruling, read by the bankruptcy judge on the record 12-31-2024, appealed by creditors via notice of appeal filed 1-13-2025

International Bankruptcy, Restructuring, True Crime and Appeals - Court Audio Recording Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 14, 2025 55:40


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

united states america ceo new york director time new year texas europe action law service state new york times russia office failure ny russian board dc plan professional class financial judge congress record security code court supreme court llc employees sweden tx capital rights wall street journal treatments cure consistency euro surrender proof principal acceptance rejection attorney norway agent stock judgment swedish sec markets powers relief motion delivery claim consistent stockholm account parties conditions payments burden claims compliance contracts individuals appeal estate considerations supplements proposal assets releases compromise classes professionals allowed distribution aa public policy lp requirements consent declaration satisfaction trustees launched regulations subject stern file stays interpretation entry document map retention preserving ruling certificates documents bankruptcy d d bb implementation rand lowe counsel disclosure main street purdue confirmation positions effectiveness cc circuit preservation alvarez persons denied object cooperation esq holder affiliate contribution officers lien elimination ee interests 1b agreements schedules findings sas expenses reasonable instruments rubio venue valid securities litigation withdrawal objections interpreting cancellation nominees absent filing assumption cures publication eligibility conclusions ff manner entity ballots nominee clause leblanc rothschild classification voluntary entities sw restructuring proceedings citibank waiver united states supreme court liens coupled llp commencement sections robert johnson amendments objection lender reservation filed lenders termination allocation exchange commission estates successors tex ste latham affiliates district court discharge allowance nw holders neil gorsuch 1a proofs petitions dismissal exemption kroll dismiss liabilities southern district insurance policies united states constitution mailing substantial modification reimbursement insurers modifications purdue pharma memorandum authorization russian federation jurisdiction whitlock reinstated debtors comb liquidation computation impaired remainder heeding defaults sek affidavit good faith feasibility incase specifications insolvency distributions incorporation estimation injunction bad faith cir disputed consummation 70m creditors lindquist third parties fifth circuit debtor united states district court reinstate confirmation hearing sio case management reinstatement amended insurer reorganization fof reversion avianca consummate revocation tranche forthe issuance bankr solicitation article ii ltl best interests eurobonds k street vesting business day article v federal rules rcf exhibit c article iii adequacy civil procedure applicability pursuant third circuit case no injunctions 23f purchase price ahc payable bankruptcy court regulation d 44b securities act capitalized 42k 24b 24a bankruptcy code article iv 27a united states code ad hoc committee business days article vi holdco united states securities 33a 27b insurance carriers final order intrum 5h uniform commercial code oid estoppel subsection exhibit b philippine airlines bloomberg l theunited states this court docket no 48h new york law texas council i10 no discrimination mtns united states bankruptcy court little creek comity i6 quinn emanuel urquhart watkins llp 40f 26c restatements a-class i19
Brown Girl Power
Tips for Law School Mentorship

Brown Girl Power

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 10, 2024 45:09


Learn about how to find a mentor in law school that can help you navigate the tough journey. Guest spealer on this episode is Bhavin Shah a graduate of University of Pennsylvania Law School, a former judicial intern and currently an Associate at Latham & Watkins LLP. 

The TWENTY30
Salman Al-Sudairi, leading Saudi lawyer and markets advisor talks new Saudi IPO regulations, reforms

The TWENTY30

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 23, 2024 49:04


Saudi Arabia's Capital Market Authority recently published new guidelines for the offering and listing of foreign companies on the Kingdom's Main Market, the Tadawul. Leading Saudi attorney and go-to advisor for nearly every major IPO in the past decade (including Saudi Aramco's blockbuster 2020 listing and recent share sale) Salman Al-Sudairi joins The TWENTY30 Podcast for an exclusive conversation about the new rules and guidelines, the evolution of the Kingdom's stock market, and how Vision 2030's reforms are pushing greater interest in investing in Saudi Arabia. Salman Al-Sudairi is a partner at Latham & Watkins LLP, one of the leading law firms in Saudi Arabia. He's worked on roughly 50 IPOs and offerings on the Saudi Stock Market, and has experience advising on all aspects of sukuk transactions and IPOs. Qualified to practice in both New York and Riyadh, Salman advises government entities, local and international companies, and private equity funds in complex commercial transactions in a wide range of industries. The new guidelines published by Saudi authorities clarify rules surrounding the three avenues through which non-Saudi companies may list their shares in Saudi Arabia, a subject of interest for companies looking to establish their presence in the Kingdom and tap into its capital markets. The regulations also stipulate that a non-Saudi company that wishes to cross-list or dual-list on the Main Market “must demonstrate the added value that it will bring to the Saudi Exchange and the Saudi economy as a whole.” Salman also discusses with The TWENTY30 Podcast the status of the legal profession in Saudi Arabia, the challenges and opportunities facing lawyers and companies working on setting up their operations in the Kingdom, and looks ahead to new changes and reforms potentially on the horizon. Joining The TWENTY30 Podcast hosts Lucien and Hanaa, Salman Al-Sudairi also discusses human capital in Saudi Arabia, particularly in his profession, and how he feels it is important for established large law firms to train and develop young Saudi legal talent. In addition to his role as leading markets advisor and attorney, Salman was also appointed by Supreme Order from HRH Crown Prince Mohmmed bin Salman in 2023 to serve on new board of directors of King Saud University. He also serves as a Member Board of Trustees at the Red Sea Film Foundation. You can read Latham & Watkins LLP's report on the new changes, authored by Salman, here: https://www.lw.com/admin/upload/SiteAttachments/Saudi-Exchange-Publishes-Guidelines-for-Offering-and-Listing-of-Foreign-Companies.pdf Get The TWENTY30 Podcast in your inbox so you don't miss anything on our coverage of Saudi Arabia's transformation. Sign up free here: thetwenty30.beehiiv.com Follow The TWENTY30 on Linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/company/the-twenty30/   Subscribe for free wherever you get your podcasts:   Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/0uuKNWrgbQPMBIx3XY6YGU   Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-twenty30/id1742574206   YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@thetwenty30   You can also email the show's hosts with their first names (Lucien @TheTWENTY30.com) or (Hanaa @thetwenty30.com) or email Hosts @ TheTwenty30.com.   The TWENTY30 Podcast is a production of The TWENTY30 Media Group, LLC.    ©The TWENTY30. All rights reserved. 

New Project Media
NPM Interconnections – Episode 56: Eli Katz | Latham & Watkins LLP

New Project Media

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 5, 2023 34:36


In this week's edition of the NPM podcast, Eli Katz, partner and global vice chair of Latham & Watkins' Energy & Infrastructure Group forecasts when the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will provide full guidance on the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022.In addition, Katz provides an update on how some of the mechanics of the tax transferability clause are being worked out within the confines of the legislation and discusses the current state of some other aspects of the bill.Later in the program, Katz outlines M&A trends in the renewable and energy transition space to focus on for 2023.New Project Media (NPM) is a leading data, intelligence, and events company providing origination led coverage of the renewable energy market for the development, finance, advisory & corporate community. 

Pioneers and Pathfinders
Karen Silverman

Pioneers and Pathfinders

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 7, 2022 34:08


We have had numerous guests on the podcast focused on legal tech, but in today's conversation, we talk about practical governance strategies for AI and other frontier technologies with Karen Silverman, the CEO and founder of The Cantellus Group. Karen advises Fortune 50 companies, startups, consortia, and governments on how to govern cutting-edge technologies in a rapidly changing policy environment. Her expertise is informed by more than 20 years of practice and management leadership at Latham & Watkins LLP, where she advised global businesses in complex antitrust matters, M&A, governance, ESG, and crisis management. Karen is a leading voice in the governance of AI and other frontier technologies. She is a regular speaker at conferences and forums, and her thoughts on the governance oversight and real-world applications of AR, AI, VR, and other nascent technologies have been featured in numerous journals and publications. Most recently, Karen launched a series on Luminate+, a streaming platform for cutting-edge legal content featuring the most respected thought leaders of the profession. Karen's series, “Where Lawyers Meet Tech and Tech Meets the Law,” is about how new technologies affect the substance and practice of law, and what all lawyers need to know in order to be effective counselors. In our conversation, we talk about how Karen developed her level of expertise in business and legal issues around frontier technologies. We also discuss what The Cantellus Group does and the type of companies they work with, together with her views on the knock-on effects of machine learning on the culture of the practice. And of course, we talk about the changes necessary in the regulatory framework to keep up with the speed of change in technology.

FedSoc Events
Competition and Innovation Policy for Tomorrow

FedSoc Events

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 6, 2022 87:55


As global crises abound, from pandemics to war, society cries out for myriad new technologies, from healthcare and high tech to manufacturing, energy, environment, and food. This panel will explore how the antitrust and patent systems can best foster competition and innovation in each of these vital areas. What are the key ideas to bear in mind when sculpting these specific legal systems? What are the agencies like the PTO and DoJ Antitrust Division best able to accomplish; and what legal rules help them do their best work? How do the courts fit in? What roles are best played by large business firms compared to small and medium enterprises? This panel will explore the lessons that can be drawn from big changes made over the past century to the patent-antitrust interface such as the 1952 Patent Act and the 2011 America Invents Act with an eye towards how best to use them to shape the legal systems for tomorrow.Featuring:Hon. Makan Delrahim, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP; Former Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, U.S. Department of JusticeProf. Christine Haight Farley, Professor of Law and Faculty Director, Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, American University Washington College of LawHon. Andrei Iancu, Partner, Irell & Manella LLP; Former Undersecretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director, U.S. Patent and Trademark OfficeHon. F. Scott Kieff, Fred C. Stevenson Research Professor of Law, George Washington University Law School; Former Commissioner, U.S. International Trade CommissionModerator: Hon. Ryan T. Holte, U.S. Court of Federal Claims

The FS Club Podcast
How BAFT Is Changing Payment Commitments, How DLT Payment Commitments Will Change Trade

The FS Club Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 26, 2022 49:02


Find out more on our website: https://bit.ly/3DyD6d3 The paper-based process of international trade and trade finance, along with many other commercial transactions, is staff intensive, cumbersome, susceptible to fraud, and costly. Widespread efforts to convert paper documentation into digital form to address these issues have had to contend with both technological and legal barriers. In an effort that culminated last year, the Bankers Association for Finance and Trade (BAFT) saw an opportunity to significantly “leapfrog” forward the digitisation of trade finance with the emergence of blockchain/distributed ledger technology (“DLT”). Recognising that all trade transactions involve payment commitments, a BAFT Working Group produced standardized rules for the transformation of a payment commitment into a digital asset to be used in any trade finance solution sitting on any DLT platform. It published open-sourced business and technical standards for a Distributed Ledger Payment Commitment (“DLPC”), a simple legally binding, enforceable, interoperable, and negotiable financial instrument in digital form. These standards have been used in international trade transactions by Skuchain, a Silicon Valley fintech and, coincidentally, are mirrored in eNotes™ created by Swiss fintech, FQX AG, that are being used in trade finance and a myriad of capital markets transactions. Scott will highlight the main characteristics and benefits of the DLPC, and its potential for growing use as law reform globally is spurring digitalisation, and Sriram and Philipp will illustrate the practical uses of DLPC and eNotes™. Speakers: Scott Stevenson is Senior Vice President of #Trade at the Bankers Association for Finance and Trade (BAFT), Scott has responsibility for leading the association's trade-focused policy, practices, and education initiatives, and provide support its trade-related councils and committees. Before joining BAFT, Scott was the Senior Global Manger, Trade and Supply Chain Solutions at the International Finance Corporation (IFC) the private sector arm of the World Bank Group. He joined the World Bank in Jakarta, Indonesia as a member the Corporate Restructuring and Governance Group that was formed in response to the 1997 Asia Financial Crisis. Prior to the World Bank Group, Scott was with Standard Chartered Bank, where his last position was based in Singapore and he served as the Asia Regional Head for Financial Institutions. Scott has a BA in Economics from Colgate University, and an MBA in International Finance from York University, Toronto, Canada. Sriram Srinivasan is a passionate entrepreneur looking to bring efficiencies into the Supply Chain. He is the Founder & CEO of Skuchain. He has previously built a company selling risk management solutions to wall street firms, founded an ecommerce startup during the dot-com heyday and played Entrepreneur-In-Residence with a small silicon valley fund. He has been a qualified Captain of ocean going merchant ships, enjoys hackathons and has done the Executive Program at Stanford GSB. Dr Philipp von Randow is a co-founder of FQX. He currently serves at FQX as advisor on matters of legal strategy. Philipp is also a Retired Partner of Latham & Watkins LLP, a global law firm providing high-end legal advice in complex business transactions. He was co-founder of and resident in the firm's Frankfurt office. Chairman: Patrick L Young is Executive Director of Valereum PLC (Aquis VLRM). Patrick has over 30 years experience in investing and has been working online since 1994.

Law of Code
#66 - Can't Be Evil NFT Licenses w/ drafters Miles Jennings, Mark Radcliffe and Ghaith Mahmood

Law of Code

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 12, 2022 77:15


The 'Can't Be Evil' licenses are a set of six NFT licenses developed by lawyers and operators in web 3 - each license grants “different sets of rights with different degrees of permissiveness”. The licenses have been deployed on Arweave (a decentralized storage, similar to IPFS) and can be directly linked on-chain by smart contracts. The licenses are available on the a16z website (document containing the six licenses) or a16z's repository on Github. Miles Jennings and Chris Dixon published an introduction with background on the licenses that is also available on the a16z website. Miles Jennings (@milesjennings) is general counsel and head of decentralization at Andreessen Horowitz (a16z) crypto, where he advises the firm's portfolio companies and DAOs on decentralization and protocol design, oversees the firm's investments, and works on regulatory and policy matters. You can find Miles' conversation with Laura Shin here. Mark Radcliffe (@markfradcliffe) is senior partner at DLA Piper, where he assists companies in strategic intellectual property advice and venture financing. Mark has worked in Silicon Valley for 30+ years and has significant experience in applying the law to the issues raised by new technologies, such as open source software, blockchain, and domain names. In 1994, he assisted Network Solutions, Inc. in developing the first domain dispute resolution system - which is still the basis for the system in use today. The link to the recording of Mark's NFT webinar is here: Non-Fungible Tokens: Technology and Legal Overview | Events | DLA Piper Global Law Firm. Ghaith Mahmood (@GhaithMahmoodLW) is a partner in the Los Angeles office of the law firm Latham & Watkins LLP, and a leader in the firm's Digital Assets and Web3 practice group, and also of the firm's Video Games and Esports group. Ghaith advises clients on all aspects of intellectual property and technology transactions, from developing, licensing, and commercializing IP assets, to advising on the IP aspects of strategic transactions. In the blockchain space, he has particular expertise advising NFT projects of all shapes and sizes, from some of the biggest NFT platforms and marketplaces in the world, to individual NFT projects trying to figure out what rights and utility to grant to their NFT holders. Show highlights: [3:00] Why draft these licenses? [13:30] What projects should use these licenses [16:00] How NFT projects can incorporate the licenses [21:00] Lawful ownership [26:00] Terminating sublicenses [34:00] Notice [39:00] Hard forks [45:40] Fractionalizing & much more. If you enjoyed this episode, please consider leaving a review. You can subscribe to our newsletter to stay updated on the latest episodes. Disclaimer: Jacob Robinson and his guests are not your lawyer. Nothing herein or mentioned on the Law of Code podcast should be construed as legal advice. The material published is intended for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only. Please seek the advice of counsel, and do not apply any of the generalized material to your individual facts or circumstances without speaking to an attorney.

Fringe Legal
Setting up legal teams for success with UpLevel Ops

Fringe Legal

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 25, 2022 39:06


Legal operation teams have been increasing in popularity. In this episode, Liz Lugones and Sumi Trombley from Uplevel Opsshare why Legal Ops teams matter, why you should care, and how to leverage them to level up your legal team (in-house and at firms). Uplevel Ops are offering a complimentary 30-minute consultation, you can find more here.  In the episode, we discuss: (03:12) Why should you care about legal operations (LegalOps)? (04:21) Law school vs. practice (08:12) Enabling fail-fast thinking in legal teams (11:11) It's not just about technology  (16:32) Embedded in the organization (21:25) Creating space for creativity and ideas (28:38) Celebrating success (30:49) Gaining trust (34:25) Shifts in legal operations Article referencedStriving for Imperfection: The Complicated Relationship of Lawyers and Project Management by Sumi Trombley & Liz LugonesKey quotes(edited for a better reading experience)People and lawyers want to be able to solve the problems of their clients, but in doing so, and what's the best way to do it doesn't always mean here's the legal answer. Maybe they're looking for optionality, a strategic partner, or they are looking to reduce the risk. Whatever the answer is,  you have to talk to your business counterparts to be able to figure that out.The thing that Liz hit on was 'the therapy' - that aspect of legal operations is the bridge from getting to, I know the legal answer, to how do I deliver it to my client in a way that makes them happy and feel like they have the best result. Sometimes you're not likely to go to the person who's giving you the advice and say, "I don't like the way you're giving me the advice." You need a buffer, and that's the legal operations buffer. With that in place, you can express the problem. The legal ops professional can go share it as the buffer: "I'm generally hearing from these people, And here's what I suggest we start to do to help facilitate."Often, I believe people in the profession think that legal operations are putting technology in, right? Or you're putting a process in. And I feel like the conduit that legal offspring is legal ops is not all those things. Legal ops is a mindset that needs to happen in the culture of the org, for the department to get better. The buffer is the data coming out of the technology you put in there.About the guestsElizabeth "Liz" Lugones, COO/Senior Advisor, UpLevel OpsLiz has built and managed Legal Operations teams in various industries in both public and private companies over her 20+ year career. She excels in global project management and business reengineering, with particular expertise in process improvement, change management, cross-functional collaboration and team building, but her true passion is helping others find their own strengths and talents and harness them for the value of all.Before joining UpLevel, Liz served as the Senior Director of Legal Operations at WeWork. Prior to WeWork, Liz served as Director of Legal Operations at a diverse range of companies, including UnitedLex, DXC Technology, Becton Dickinson, and MetLife. She also worked at Citigroup as Manager, Strategy and M&A.Liz holds a BA in Political Science and Journalism from Rutgers University, is certified in Lean Six Sigma and fluent in Spanish. She is based in New Jersey.Sumi Trombley, Senior Advisor, UpLevel OpsSumi Trombley practiced in law firms and in-house legal departments for more than a decade before coming to UpLevel Ops. Sumi previously served as Director, Legal at enterprise legal services provider Marshall Denning, LLC, where she managed and trained a team of junior and senior attorneys and developed and implemented resource optimizing processes for RFPs and pre-litigation disputes. She is known for her ability to provide strategic guidance and cost-effective solutions.Prior to joining Marshall Denning, Sumi was Legal Counsel at Hewlett Packard Enterprise, serving as a de facto general counsel to top enterprise IT outsourcing accounts. She started her legal career at the law firms of Paul Hastings LLP in New York and Latham & Watkins LLP in DC, practicing corporate finance and securities law.Sumi holds a JD from Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law, and a BA in Political Economy from Georgetown University. She is based in Maryland.

Bruin Success
Nikhil Gupta, J.D. '15 of the Golden State Warriors

Bruin Success

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 11, 2022 28:22


Nikhil Gupta is Associate General Counsel for the Golden State Warriors. In this role, he advises the organization on a wide range of commercial, litigation, regulatory and compliance matters. He previously served as Associate Counsel for the San Francisco 49ers for two years. Prior to that, he practiced corporate and transactional law at Latham & Watkins LLP in Los Angeles. Nikhil received his JD from UCLA School of Law and his BBA from University of Michigan. Before law school, Nikhil did a year of service with City Year in Detroit public schools.

Bottom Line Faith
Reissue – Advancing the Kingdom while Practicing Law with David Hazelton

Bottom Line Faith

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 2, 2022 30:50


Bottom Line Faith is the program that bridges the gap between faith and business. Today's show features David Hazelton, Senior Partner at Latham & Watkins LLP. bottomlinefaith.org/

Alliant Specialty Podcasts
How Insurance Fits into the Cryptocurrency Ecosystem

Alliant Specialty Podcasts

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 17, 2021 18:55


The global digital asset market continues to evolve. With more organizations exploring the opportunities presented by digital assets, insurance is going to play a critical component in mitigating risk due to an unstable cryptocurrency ecosystem. Ron Borys and Glenn Morgan speak with Adam Zuckerman, Latham & Watkins LLP, on understanding the risks associated with digital assets and the need for regulations and common standards in the industry.

To the Extent That...
Business Law Section Leadership: Episode 1: A Conversation with Michele Johnson

To the Extent That...

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 7, 2021 24:10


In this episode, Kelly Galligan Dunn, M&A Attorney at Rutan & Tucker, LLP, speaks with Michele Johnson, Global Chair of the Litigation & Trial Department at Latham & Watkins LLP, on career development and strategies, community involvement, and work-life balance. This series is sponsored by the Business Law Section's Career and Practice Development Committee.

SCOTUScast
Georgia v. Public Resource.org Inc. - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 15, 2020 39:07


In its very first case on copyright, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall was faced with the question of whether its own reports are protected by copyright, and decided in the negative. This term, the Supreme Court is called upon to clarify the scope of that decision, which it has not further clarified since two cases heard in 1888. The question presented in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. is whether the annotations to the Official Code of Georgia are "government edicts" and thus not within the scope of copyright, even though they lack the force of law. This case also raises implicit questions as to other quasi-governmental publications of which the copyright status is often surprisingly amorphous.To discuss the case, we have Zvi Rosen, Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law at George Washington University School of Law and Sy Damle, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

SCOTUScast
Georgia v. Public Resource.org Inc. - Post-Argument SCOTUScast

SCOTUScast

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 15, 2020 39:07


In its very first case on copyright, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Marshall was faced with the question of whether its own reports are protected by copyright, and decided in the negative. This term, the Supreme Court is called upon to clarify the scope of that decision, which it has not further clarified since two cases heard in 1888. The question presented in Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. is whether the annotations to the Official Code of Georgia are "government edicts" and thus not within the scope of copyright, even though they lack the force of law. This case also raises implicit questions as to other quasi-governmental publications of which the copyright status is often surprisingly amorphous.To discuss the case, we have Zvi Rosen, Visiting Scholar and Professorial Lecturer in Law at George Washington University School of Law and Sy Damle, Partner, Latham & Watkins LLP.As always, the Federalist Society takes no particular legal or public policy positions. All opinions expressed are those of the speakers.

Parallel Insights
Nick Goss, co-founder and COO of Parallel Markets, discusses private market capital raising structures

Parallel Insights

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 13, 2019 26:00


Nick Goss, former securities lawyer at Latham & Watkins LLP and investment banker at Credit Suisse, explains the various types of capital raising structures that are available to US entrepreneurs. Reg D 506(b), Reg D 506(c), Reg CF, Reg A, and A+, he helps to simplify the landscape highlighting what the positives and negatives are with each. You won't want to miss this.

Bloomberg Law
Former U.S. Solicitor General Garre on New Term

Bloomberg Law

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 7, 2019 13:18


Former U.S. Solicitor General Gregory Garre, a partner at Latham & Watkins LLP, discusses the controversial cases facing the Supreme Court in the new term. He speaks with Bloomberg's June Grasso. Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

Bloomberg Law
Former U.S. Solicitor General Garre on New Term

Bloomberg Law

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 7, 2019 13:18


Former U.S. Solicitor General Gregory Garre, a partner at Latham & Watkins LLP, discusses the controversial cases facing the Supreme Court in the new term. He speaks with Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

Chevy Chase Presbyterian Church
A Blueprint for Building Bridges of Justice | Allyson McKinney Timm| Jan. 27. 2019

Chevy Chase Presbyterian Church

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 28, 2019 20:19


As part of the Season of Justice, CCPC welcomed Allyson McKinney Timm Founder and Director of Justice Revival to preach on Sunday January 27 and lead Open Forum. Allyson McKinney Timm is a theologically trained human rights lawyer whose commitment to justice ministry has been inspired by her faith journey. Her writing has appeared in Sojourners, California Lawyer, USA Today and The Independent. Previous to founding Justice Revival, as the Robert M. Cover-Allard K. Lowenstein Fellow in International Human Rights at Yale Law School, Allyson taught and supervised students in the Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic. Earlier in her career she established and led the Uganda Field Office of International Justice Mission; worked as an associate with Latham & Watkins LLP; and served pro bono with the United Nations International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Office of the Prosecutor. Allyson is an elder in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). Justice Revival inspires, educates, and mobilizes Christian communities to respond faithfully to the call to justice by standing in solidarity with the oppressed and defending the human rights of all.

Bottom Line Faith
070 – Advancing the Kingdom while Practicing Law with David Hazelton

Bottom Line Faith

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 31, 2018 30:11


Bottom Line Faith is the program that bridges the gap between faith and business. Today's show features David Hazelton, Senior Partner at Latham & Watkins LLP. bottomlinefaith.org/

Cambridge Law: Public Lectures from the Faculty of Law
'Rising Executive Pay: the Final Countdown?': Bobby Reddy (audio)

Cambridge Law: Public Lectures from the Faculty of Law

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 7, 2016 13:30


At the end of November 2016, the British Government published an open consultation green paper on corporate governance reform, seeking views on proposals relating to executive pay, employee and customer voice, and corporate governance in large private businesses. The consultation is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/corporate-governance-reformIn this latest edition of the Faculty's series of videos entitled "Law in Focus", Bobby Reddy discusses the government's ambitious green paper. In particular, Bobby casts a critical eye over the proposals revolving around executive pay and employee representatives on boards of listed companies. Rising executive remuneration has long been an emotive issue, and following some high profile instances of extreme executive pay and the rising disparity between executive and regular employee pay, the theme is once again in the headlights of the regulators. Furthermore, Bobby analyses the government's latest proposals with respect to the related topic of representing employee interests in listed companies, which fall somewhat short of previous governmental statements advocating requirements to directly appoint employees as members of boards.Bobby Reddy is a University Lecturer in Company Law, specialising in corporate governance, corporate finance and corporate law in general. He is a former corporate partner at the global law firm Latham & Watkins LLP having practised in London and Washington D.C. in the areas of public and private mergers and acquisitions, private equity, investment funds, regulatory, cross-border transactions, and company representation. He is also a trustee of the charitable corporate governance think tank, Tomorrow's Company.For more information about Mr Reddy, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/bv-reddy/77252Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Law In Focus
'Rising Executive Pay: the Final Countdown?': Bobby Reddy (audio)

Law In Focus

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 7, 2016 13:30


At the end of November 2016, the British Government published an open consultation green paper on corporate governance reform, seeking views on proposals relating to executive pay, employee and customer voice, and corporate governance in large private businesses. The consultation is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/corporate-governance-reform In this latest edition of the Faculty's series of videos entitled "Law in Focus", Bobby Reddy discusses the government's ambitious green paper. In particular, Bobby casts a critical eye over the proposals revolving around executive pay and employee representatives on boards of listed companies. Rising executive remuneration has long been an emotive issue, and following some high profile instances of extreme executive pay and the rising disparity between executive and regular employee pay, the theme is once again in the headlights of the regulators. Furthermore, Bobby analyses the government's latest proposals with respect to the related topic of representing employee interests in listed companies, which fall somewhat short of previous governmental statements advocating requirements to directly appoint employees as members of boards. Bobby Reddy is a University Lecturer in Company Law, specialising in corporate governance, corporate finance and corporate law in general. He is a former corporate partner at the global law firm Latham & Watkins LLP having practised in London and Washington D.C. in the areas of public and private mergers and acquisitions, private equity, investment funds, regulatory, cross-border transactions, and company representation. He is also a trustee of the charitable corporate governance think tank, Tomorrow's Company. For more information about Mr Reddy, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/bv-reddy/77252 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty. This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Law In Focus
'Rising Executive Pay: the Final Countdown?': Bobby Reddy

Law In Focus

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 7, 2016 13:40


At the end of November 2016, the British Government published an open consultation green paper on corporate governance reform, seeking views on proposals relating to executive pay, employee and customer voice, and corporate governance in large private businesses. The consultation is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/corporate-governance-reform In this latest edition of the Faculty's series of videos entitled "Law in Focus", Bobby Reddy discusses the government's ambitious green paper. In particular, Bobby casts a critical eye over the proposals revolving around executive pay and employee representatives on boards of listed companies. Rising executive remuneration has long been an emotive issue, and following some high profile instances of extreme executive pay and the rising disparity between executive and regular employee pay, the theme is once again in the headlights of the regulators. Furthermore, Bobby analyses the government's latest proposals with respect to the related topic of representing employee interests in listed companies, which fall somewhat short of previous governmental statements advocating requirements to directly appoint employees as members of boards. Bobby Reddy is a University Lecturer in Company Law, specialising in corporate governance, corporate finance and corporate law in general. He is a former corporate partner at the global law firm Latham & Watkins LLP having practised in London and Washington D.C. in the areas of public and private mergers and acquisitions, private equity, investment funds, regulatory, cross-border transactions, and company representation. He is also a trustee of the charitable corporate governance think tank, Tomorrow's Company. For more information about Mr Reddy, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/bv-reddy/77252 Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.

Cambridge Law: Public Lectures from the Faculty of Law
'Rising Executive Pay: the Final Countdown?': Bobby Reddy (audio)

Cambridge Law: Public Lectures from the Faculty of Law

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 7, 2016 13:30


At the end of November 2016, the British Government published an open consultation green paper on corporate governance reform, seeking views on proposals relating to executive pay, employee and customer voice, and corporate governance in large private businesses. The consultation is available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/corporate-governance-reformIn this latest edition of the Faculty's series of videos entitled "Law in Focus", Bobby Reddy discusses the government's ambitious green paper. In particular, Bobby casts a critical eye over the proposals revolving around executive pay and employee representatives on boards of listed companies. Rising executive remuneration has long been an emotive issue, and following some high profile instances of extreme executive pay and the rising disparity between executive and regular employee pay, the theme is once again in the headlights of the regulators. Furthermore, Bobby analyses the government's latest proposals with respect to the related topic of representing employee interests in listed companies, which fall somewhat short of previous governmental statements advocating requirements to directly appoint employees as members of boards.Bobby Reddy is a University Lecturer in Company Law, specialising in corporate governance, corporate finance and corporate law in general. He is a former corporate partner at the global law firm Latham & Watkins LLP having practised in London and Washington D.C. in the areas of public and private mergers and acquisitions, private equity, investment funds, regulatory, cross-border transactions, and company representation. He is also a trustee of the charitable corporate governance think tank, Tomorrow's Company.For more information about Mr Reddy, please refer to his profile at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/people/academic/bv-reddy/77252Law in Focus is a collection of short videos featuring academics from the University of Cambridge Faculty of Law, addressing legal issues in current affairs and the news. These issues are examples of the many which challenge researchers and students studying undergraduate and postgraduate law at the Faculty.This entry provides an audio source for iTunes U.

Cause Talk Radio: The Cause Marketing Podcast
158: This Chicago Law Firm Teaches Middle-Schoolers to Do the "Write" Thing

Cause Talk Radio: The Cause Marketing Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 29, 2016 22:01


Today on Cause Talk Radio, Megan and Joe talk to Robin Hulshizer, a partner at Latham & Watkins LLP and Chicago chairwoman of Do The Write Thing, an initiative of the National Campaign to Stop Violence.  Each year, the program invites sixth-, seventh- and eighth-graders in the Chicago area to submit essays about the impact of youth violence on their communities. Students write about how violence has affected their lives, the causes of it and what that they can do to help reduce it. On the show, Megan, Robin and Joe discuss: How Robin's last name is a curse word in German. Really. How Do the Write Thing is geared to middle-schoolers to help them address violence. How Latham & Watkins LLP got involved with Do the Right Thing and the National Campaign to Stop Violence in 2008. How Latham & Watkins LLP views community involvement as a business objective. How the program works and begins with outreach to Chicago teachers every fall. How Robin plans to grow the program with improved educational resources and partnerships. How Latham & Watkins employees get involved with the program. How the legal industry is embracing cause initiatives and why it's so important. How Latham & Watkins communicates with clients about their purpose initiatives.  Links & Notes Do the Write Thing Chicago Latham & Watkins LLP Pro Bono & Community Service Pizza Hut's Cause Marketing Brings in the Dough for Young Readers How H&R Block Uses Cause Marketing to Cultivate Tomorrow's Clients