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

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 50380adversary 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

Hearing agenda, per:UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY In re: WEWORK INC., et al., Debtors.1 Chapter 11 Case No. 23-19865 (JKS) (Jointly Administered) NOTICE OF AGENDA OF MATTERS SCHEDULED TO BE HEARD ON FEBRUARY 5, 2024, AT 10:00 A.M. (ET) To: All Parties Receiving Electronic Notification of Filing via the Court’s CM/ECF System 1 A complete list of each of the Debtors in these chapter 11 cases may be obtained on the website of the Debtors’ claims and noticing agent at https://dm.epiq11.com/WeWork. The location of Debtor WeWork Inc.’s principal place of business is 12 East 49th Street, 3rd Floor, New York, NY 10017, and the Debtors’ service address in these chapter 11 cases is WeWork Inc. c/o Epiq Corporate Restructuring, LLC 10300 SW Allen Blvd. Beaverton, OR 97005.Case 23-19865-JKS Doc 1289 Filed 02/03/24 Entered 02/03/24 13:36:22 Desc Main Document Page 1 of 3 2 46964033PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the following matters are currently scheduled to be heard on February 5, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. (prevailing Eastern Time) before the Honorable Judge John K. Sherwood: I.MATTERS GOING FORWARD 1. Debtors’ Motion for Entry of Interim and Final Orders (I) Authorizing the Debtors to (A) Continue Using the Cash Management System, (B) Honor Certain Prepetition Obligations Related Thereto, and (C) Maintain Existing Debtor Bank Accounts, Business Forms, and Books and Records; (II) Authorizing the Debtors to Continue to Perform Intercompany Transactions; (III) Waiving Certain U.S. Trustee Requirements; and (IV) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 20] Related Documents: A. Interim Order (I) Authorizing the Debtors to (A) Continue Using the Cash Management System, (B) Honor Certain Prepetition Obligations Related Thereto, and (C) Maintain Existing Debtor Bank Accounts, Business Forms, and Books and Records; (II) Authorizing the Debtors to Continue to Perform Intercompany Transactions; (III) Waiving Certain U.S. Trustee Requirements; and (IV) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 105] B. United States Trustee’s Limited Objection to Debtors’ Motion for Entry of Interim and Final Orders (I) Authorizing the Debtors to (A) Continue Using the Cash Management System, (B) Honor Certain Prepetition Obligations Related Thereto, and (C) Maintain Existing Debtor Bank Accounts, Business Forms, and Books and Records; (II) Authorizing the Debtors to Continue to Perform Intercompany Transactions; (III) Waiving Certain U.S. Trustee Requirements; and (IV) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 1182] C. Notice of Filing of Revised Proposed Final Order (I) Authorizing the Debtors to (A) Continue Using the Cash Management System, (B) Honor Certain Prepetition Obligations Related Thereto, and (C) Maintain Existing Debtor Bank Accounts, Business Forms, and Books and Records; (II) Authorizing the Debtors to Continue to Perform Intercompany Transactions; (III) Waiving Certain U.S. Trustee Requirements; and (IV) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 1210] D. Debtors’ Reply in Support of Entry of a Final Order (I) Authorizing the Debtors to (A) Continue Using the Cash Management System, (B) Honor Certain Prepetition Obligations Related Thereto, and (C) Maintain Existing Debtor Bank Accounts, Business Forms, and Books and Records; (II) Authorizing the Debtors to Continue to Perform Intercompany Transactions; (III) Waiving Certain U.S. Trustee Requirements; and (IV) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 1244]Case 23-19865-JKS Doc 1289 Filed 02/03/24 Entered 02/03/24 13:36:22 Desc Main Document Page 2 of 3 3 46964033E. Second Interim Order (I) Authorizing the Debtors to (A) Continue Using the Cash Management System, (B) Honor Certain Prepetition Obligations Related Thereto, and (C) Maintain Existing Debtor Bank Accounts, Business Forms, and Books and Records; (II) Authorizing the Debtors to Continue to Perform Intercompany Transactions; (III) Waiving Certain U.S. Trustee Requirements; and (IV) Granting Related Relief [Docket No. 1248] Status: A hearing on this matter is going forward.II. MATTERS GOING FORWARD ON A PRELIMINARY BASIS 2. Motion of T-C 501 Boylston Street LLC and T-C 33 Arch Street LLC for Entry of an Order (i) Compelling the Debtors’ Payment of Postpetition Rent and Related Charles, and (ii) Requiring Adequate Protection of the Landlords’ Interests [Docket No. 1213] 3. Motion of Multiple Landlords to Compel Payment of Post-Petition Lease Obligations, Request for Adequate Protection and for Other Appropriate Relief [Docket No. 1216] 4. Joinder of the Building at 575 Fifth Office Owner LLC to Landlord Motions to Compel Payment of Post-Petition Rent and Related Charges Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 365(d)(3) [Docket No. 1279] Status: A hearing on these matters is going forward on a preliminary basis with approval of the Court.Dated: February 3, 2024

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 CoverageA 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)

FTX/Alameda US bankruptcy court hearing January 31, 2024, #crypto #cryptocurrency #cryptonews #sbfThis 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.

For information about the chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings see https://dm.epiq11.com/case/terraform/infoBBC article: Cryptocurrency firm Terraform Labs files for bankruptcy in US22nd January 2024, 09:51 ESThttps://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 FORJANUARY 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 19801This hearing will be conducted by Zoom only.Parties may observe the hearing remotely by registering nolater 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.