American court hearing recordings and interviews

The court posted this recording to its docket a few days after posting the recording starting at 11:27 am the same day.

--

Posting the official audio recording of the US Supreme Court oral argument in Trump v. United States on presidential immunity. The argument was held yesterday, April 25, 2024 and is quite interesting. Commentators observe that, regardless of the outcome of the argument, the willingness of the Supreme Court to hear the case slowed down court cases against former President Trump, such that they will likely not proceed far by the upcoming November 2024 election. Stay tuned, as the cases unfold. The recent reversal of the conviction of Harvey Weinstein in New York shows that outcomes can and sometimes do change on appeal, though reversal on appeal is thought by some to be unlikely.

--

--

--

--

hearing concerning request for bankruptcy court approval of the proposed BlockFi settlement with FTX/Alameda

--

--

--

oral argument in adversary proceedings 23 50379 & 23 50380 adversary proceedings brought in connection with the FTX/Alameda chapter 11 proceedings in the District of Delaware styled Alameda Research Ltd v Rocket Internet Capital Partners II SCS et al.

--

starting with an update on distributions on claims

--

--

For filings in the Yellow Corp chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings see https://dm.epiq11.com/case/yellowcorporation/dockets

--

--

--

Issue before the US Supreme Court on appeal: Whether the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Donald Trump excluded from the 2024 presidential primary ballot. For links to the articles below, see the SCOTUSblog at https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/trump-v-anderson/: SCOTUSblog Coverage A packed courtroom for the Trump ballot case (Mark Walsh, February 8, 2024) Supreme Court appears unlikely to kick Trump off Colorado ballot (Amy Howe, February 8, 2024) Eric Olson on disqualifying Trump from the presidency (Nate Mowry, February 7, 2024) Supreme Court to decide whether insurrection provision keeps Trump off ballot (Amy Howe, February 2, 2024) Supreme Court agrees to hear Trump plea to remain on Colorado ballot (Amy Howe, January 5, 2024) Trump asks Supreme Court to keep him on 2024 Colorado ballot (Amy Howe, January 3, 2024)

--

--

This is an exceptionally interesting bankruptcy court hearing in the complex international bankruptcy proceedings of FTX/Alameda. It opens with the bankruptcy court's bench ruling with respect to certain issues concerning the estimation of the IRS claim against FTX/Alameda. Does anyone knows... if the IRS wins that it has a multi billion dollar claim then couldn't that lead to the arguably statutorily mandated and arguably optimal result in the chapter 11 cases? In other words could an IRS win lead to return to customers of their stakes, then the rest of the cash, crypto etc. goes to the government/taxpayers, and what is left over would go to creditors with lower priority. Possibly, optimally, the chapter 11 cases could be wrapped up from there without a lot of litigation hanging out on the back end like clawback litigation. But the various litigants and counsel representing them would know better what suits their interests and concerns etc.

This is an exceptionally interesting bankruptcy court hearing in the complex international bankruptcy proceedings of FTX/Alameda. It opens with the bankruptcy court's bench ruling with respect to certain issues concerning the estimation of the IRS claim against FTX/Alameda. Does anyone knows... if the IRS wins that it has a multi billion dollar claim then couldn't that lead to the arguably statutorily mandated and arguably optimal result in the chapter 11 cases? In other words could an IRS win lead to return to customers of their stakes, then the rest of the cash, crypto etc. goes to the government/taxpayers, and what is left over would go to creditors with lower priority. Possibly, optimally, the chapter 11 cases could be wrapped up from there without a lot of litigation hanging out on the back end like litigation. But the various litigants and counsel representing them would know better what suits their interests and concerns etc.

--

--

For information about the chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings see https://dm.epiq11.com/case/terraform/info BBC article: Cryptocurrency firm Terraform Labs files for bankruptcy in US 22nd January 2024, 09:51 EST https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-68055557

--

--

--

--

MATTER GOING FORWARD (DIP motion) Debtors’ Motion for Entry of Interim and Final Orders (I) Authorizing the Debtors to (A) Obtain Senior Secured Superpriority Postpetition Financing and (B) Use Cash Collateral, (II) Granting Liens and Superpriority Administrative Expense Claims, (III) Providing Adequate Protection to Prepetition Secured Parties, (IV) Modifying the Automatic Stay, (V) Scheduling a Final Hearing, and (VI) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 463; 1/8/24]

THIRD AMENDED NOTICE OF AGENDA FOR STATUS CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 24, 2024 AT 2:00 P.M. (ET), BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOHN T. DORSEY AT THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE, LOCATED AT 824 NORTH MARKET STREET, 5TH FLOOR, COURTROOM NO. 5, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801This hearing will be conducted by Zoom only.Parties may observe the hearing remotely by registering nolater than January 23, 2024 at 4:00 p.m.To attend this hearing remotely, please register using the eCourt Appearances tool on the Court’s website at www.deb.uscourts.gov.MATTERS GOING FORWARD:1. Motion of the United States Trustee for Entry of an Order Directing the Appointment of an Examiner [D.I. 176, filed on December 1, 2022]Status: This matter is going forward as a status conference.2. Complaint for Avoidance and Recovery of Transfers and Obligations Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. §§ 105, 547, 548, and 550, Breach of Fiduciary Duty Pursuant to Antiguan Common Law and the Antigua International Business Corporations Act, and for Disallowance of Claims Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 502(d) [FTX Trading Ltd. et al. v. Lorem Ipsum UG et al., Adv. Pro. No. 23-50437 (JTD) – Adv. D.I. 1, filed on July 12, 2023]Status: This matter is going forward as a status conference.

NOTICE OF AGENDA FOR HEARING SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 17, 2024 AT 3:00 P.M. (ET), BEFORE THE HONORABLE JOHN T. DORSEY AT THE UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE, LOCATED AT 824 NORTH MARKET STREET, 5TH FLOOR, COURTROOM NO. 5, WILMINGTON, DELAWARE 19801 This hearing will be conducted by Zoom only. Parties may observe the hearing remotely by registering no later than January 16, 2024 at 4:00 p.m. To attend this hearing remotely, please register using the eCourt Appearances tool on the Court’s website at www.deb.uscourts.gov. MATTER GOING FORWARD: Pretrial Conference Regarding the Estimation of Claims Filed by the United States Department of the Treasury – Internal Revenue Service

--

--

For the ruling handed down by the court see: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca11/23-12958/23-12958-2023-12-18.htmlThe State of Georgia v. Meadows, No. 23-12958 (11th Cir. 2023)The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit considered an appeal by Mark Meadows, former White House chief of staff under President Donald Trump, who sought to move his state criminal prosecution to federal court. The state of Georgia had indicted Meadows for crimes related to alleged interference in the 2020 presidential election. Meadows argued that because these actions were taken in his official capacity, they should be heard in federal court according to the federal-officer removal statute (28 U.S.C. § 1442(a)(1)). The district court denied this request because Meadows' charged conduct was not performed under the color of his federal office. The court of appeals affirmed this decision. It ruled that the federal-officer removal statute does not apply to former federal officers and even if it did, the alleged actions leading to this criminal action were not related to Meadows’ official duties. The court concluded that the former chief of staff’s role does not include influencing state officials with allegations of election fraud or altering valid election results in favor of a particular candidate, regardless of the chief of staff's role with respect to state election administration. Therefore, Meadows was not entitled to invoke the federal-officer removal statute.

--

--

--

This is the official court audio, sorry about the sound quality.

--

--

--

--

Harrington v. Purdue Pharma L.P.Docket Number: 23-124Date Argued: 12/04/23

For news about this oral argument to the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, see https://reorg.com/ftx-examiner-appointment-appeal/. Third Circuit Hears Argument in FTX Examiner Appointment Appeal; Parties Spar Over Whether Statute Is Mandatory, Sullivan & Cromwell Potential Conflicts of Interest Wed 11/08/2023 18:48 PM A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit heard oral argument today in the appeal in the FTX Group cases by the Office of the U.S. Trustee of a bankruptcy court order denying its motion for the appointment of an examiner. The panel, consisting of Judges Luis Felipe Restrepo, Stephanos Bibas and Anthony Joseph Scirica, took the appeal under advisement without indicating the timing of their decision. The FTX Group debtors are seeking to confirm a plan in June 2024 and targeting a July 2024 effective date. The appeal was certified by U.S. District Judge Colm Connolly in the absence of controlling precedent regarding whether the appointment of an examiner is mandatory if the debt threshold in section 1104(c)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code is met. The statute provides that a bankruptcy court “shall” appoint an examiner to investigate the debtor “as is appropriate” if the UST or a party makes such a request and the debtors’ fixed, liquidated, general unsecured debts exceed $5 million. The UST’s mandatory interpretation of the statute is challenged by the FTX group debtors and the official committee of unsecured creditors, which argue that the appointment of an examiner is discretionary. Bankruptcy Judge John Dorsey found that he had discretion to deny the UST’s request for an examiner, citing to the “as is appropriate” phrase in the statute as the operative language. He decided that appointing an examiner would result in substantial costs and duplicate the parallel FTX investigations by the debtors, the UCC, federal prosecutors, regulators and Congress and thus denied the request... [for more see https://reorg.com/ftx-examiner-appointment-appeal/]

For news coverage of this argument, see https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/20/trump-gag-order-appeal-argument-00128093 TRUMP INDICTMENT ‘A careful scalpel’: Appeals court signals it will cut back on Trump’s federal gag order A three-judge panel consisting of all Democratic appointees suggested the gag order may have gone too far in restricting Trump’s speech. By JOSH GERSTEIN and KYLE CHENEY 11/20/2023 01:42 PM EST A federal appeals court panel appeared poised to significantly narrow a gag order imposed against Donald Trump by the judge presiding over his Washington, D.C. criminal trial. The three-judge D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals panel raised concerns that the order — which bars Trump from targeting witnesses, prosecutors and courthouse staff in the criminal case related to his effort to subvert the 2020 election — created murky restrictions that stifled the former president’s right to push back against his detractors, particularly in the heat of a presidential campaign.... [for the rest of the article, see https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/20/trump-gag-order-appeal-argument-00128093]

This is the oral argument leading up to the court ruling re Trump presidential immunity handed down on December 1, 2023. For news about the ruling see article below: D.C. Appeals Court Rules Trump Can Be Sued for Inciting Jan. 6 Attack Katherine Pompilio Friday, December 1, 2023, 11:07 AM In Blassingame, the court found that Trump is not protected under absolute immunity from civil claims for damages incurred during the Jan. 6 riot. On Dec. 1, a three judge panel for the D.C. Circuit ruled in Blassingame v. Trump that former President Donald Trump can be sued for civil damages for inciting the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The court ruled that Trump is not protected by presidential “absolute immunity from civil damages claims predicated on his official acts” as established in Nixon v. Fitzgerald. According to the panel, Trump cannot enjoy this immunity because his actions as alleged by the plaintiffs leading up to and on Jan. 6, 2021—including conspiring with allies to “obtain a second term despite his defeat in the 2020”—were not part of his official presidential duties, and therefore are not protected under absolute immunity. Writing for the court, Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan asserted that, “When a first-term President opts to seek a second term, his campaign to win re-election is not an official presidential act.” You can read the opinion here or below: https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/d.c.-appeals-court-rules-trump-can-be-sued-for-inciting-jan.-6-attack