American court hearing recordings and interviews - 9/19/23 hearing audio in the Prime Core/Prime Trust #bankruptcy, Delaware case no 23-11161, #crypto

Episode Date: September 23, 2023

official publicly available audio

All rise. Good morning. Please be seated. We're on the record in Prime Corps Technologies, case number 2311161. Good morning. We're here today in connection with the first aid motion.

I'm going to see today's agenda. Your Honor, previously admitted the testimony of Mr. George both in connection with his first date's declaration and by way of proper with respect to the creditor matrix motion. Any objection? Does anyone expect to cross-examine Mr. Law today? Okay, hearing none, it's midden. Thank you, Your Honor.

Your Honor, we're working from our amended. No, I don't, but I do recall looking at it. I did look at it. So if you just identify the motion. Okay. We have a sort of certification of no objection on the case of the meeting. And we'd like to thank your honor for action. And to receive no informal comment for objections and real property leaks,

in fact, it was for first, and again, in certain amendments. By way of background, the lease was 100% pre-edition reduction in force. The debtors no longer had a special margin. Also in light of the debtors made the business on October 31st. We surrendered and the premises received correspondence from the landlord, after hearing would be canceled, and showing support for the relief. Okay, here was my concern with the motion. It had to do with paragraph three of the proposed order that authorizes the debtors to abandon any property,

located at the premise free and clear of all liens, claims, encumbrances, interests, and rights of third parties, and it further provided that the landlord could dispose of abandoned property without further notice to any party claimant an interest in the abandoned property. Judges in this district have expressed concern with rejection orders that authorize abandonment of non-landlord property without notice and free and clear of third party liens, claims, and encumbrances. The concern here is that third-party property can be disposed up without any notice to the third party, and frankly, the court doesn't have authority to strip a third-party of its property rights without notice. In addition, the free and clear language provided in the proposed rejection order can't be approved in connection with Section 544 abandonment. Section 544 relates to a state property, and unlike Section 363, it doesn't provide for free and clear relief.

So consistent with rulings of other judges in this district, the free and clear language can't be approved in connection with abandonment. So with that in mind, and to promote consistency on this multi-judge bench, I would require modification of paragraph. three and what I would propose and obviously the parties could confer and suggest alternative language but I would propose that it read in paragraph three the debtors are authorized to abandon any abandoned property located at the lease premise which is what you have and then strike to the end of that paragraph and instead write and the landlord shall be free to dispose of such property and its sole and absolute discretion

without liability to the debtors or any other, sorry, consenting third party and without notice or order of the court. Because I have no idea if there's third party property there and whether or not the third parties have been given notice and whether or not they consent to it. Okay. Okay.

Yes, if you don't think there is any, then it should not be an issue. Exactly. Okay. So if you could just submit a clean and a black line under Serta Council, that would be great, and we'll get it entered. And if you haven't heard it before, you'll hear it in other hearings with respect to rejection and abandonment. Governmental bar date, environmental bar date, invented claims bar date, rejection claims, part date, and also after filing the motion, we had, originally we had included five or three non-claims under the general market separate

so we've added that into the additive a separate as a military claim bargaining notice we also made some additional changes that order and posted a publication notice because while the promotion cost of their publication there inadvertently had not was there any questions your honor has a perspective motion I had a question and a concern first of all I think

I appreciate that the committee consents the United States trustee, and I heard the committee's counsel loud and clear about timing at the last hearing, but I think that the timing is too aggressive. And I would propose that because it's a 21 day, which is the absolute minimum here, and I appreciate the need for speed, but I'm going to ask that the parties consider a 30-day deadline. as to the general bar date. And I had a question with respect to the actual notices. Generally, it's my preference that a notice actually state the date of a bar date. And here it appears that the onus is on the creditor to calculate what the deadline is based on when the debtors do a certain action. Right.

file their schedule. Right. And that to me is difficult for creditors and it should be, it should provide a date certain. And I'm not certain how you can do that. Do you know when you anticipate filing your schedules? Yes, Your Honor, I tell you it and file it, they will have to date. Okay, that would be terrific because I think it's very difficult for creditors to determine a deadline. And then if there's an issue about when they received it and, you know, They don't necessarily get notice of when schedules are filed. So I just prefer not to have the onus on the creditors. Particularly, you have a pretty large creditor body here.

And then the final question I have is I was just curious. This is more from my information, but in this instance, it requires creditors to file an application or a motion for payment of an administrative claim. and I was just curious why that is supposed to fill in out a form. No, I was just curious. I mean, sometimes you do a separate form for admin claims as opposed to requiring motions, but I was just curious what the thought process was. Is that it was incredibly time-consuming to go through the claims reconciliation process,

which you really need to do before plan confirmation to make sure you have money set aside for disputed admin claims, which you might not have, especially in a case like this, where we don't have a year ago around this case, And so to make sure that it's brought to our attention right away, and to make sure everybody's on notice, that is the preferred path that you pick in here. I do think the bankruptcy code...

Contemplate. Understood. Practice in this jurisdiction and many others is file a claim and an admin claim. I don't really like that approach, but particularly in this case that I would... Okay, I just was curious if there was a different thought process in cryptocases. And is there any issue with that also being a 30-day case? deadline. Okay. Thank you. That would be terrific. With that, with those modifications, I'll sign the revised order when it's filed. Thanks.

I proper at the first hearing on August, sorry, September 13th, the trustee-house and how done the trustee focuses on the ballot. Thank you. Mr. Cudia. The U.S.T. objects to the motion to the extent that it called for the adjudgment of names of natural persons and any information of corporate entities. and also to the extent that it calls for service by email of any party that is not specifically consented to segment rating. On redaction, Section 107 provides that the default its disclosure, it's the movement's burden.

Its position of the United States' trustees that have not established an undue risk of identity theft for other unlawful injury from disclosure of names only. Many of the cases cited in their briefs involve disclosure of well more than just names, sometimes all the information. The motion itself contains speculation about potential arms. Now, Mr. Law does address, and it did address in his testimony, the last hearing,

of some of the items that he's been made aware of that have happened. But, of course, those items have happened in the essence of any disclosure. Mr. Kudia, could I interrupt you a second? Certainly. And maybe this is better suited for the debtors' counsel. but are the individual names that are being sought to be redacted are these customers are they creditors do you know what category they fall into okay so I went back and I looked at my notes from the prior hearing and it was talking about end users and I'm sorry mr. Cootie I

didn't mean to hijack your argument but maybe I should acquire a little bit more of the debtors. So what exactly does it mean when it's an end user? But is it their name that's used or is it the integrator's name? Okay. And so wait, before you sit down, I'm sorry. So you seek to redact individual names of customer, customers, employees, and end users. Is that correct? End users would be included in customers.

Okay. And so, and the corporate identity of whom? Customers only? Okay, I just pulled the proper because I want to revisit it. And I may have to take a little break to revisit it probably, but. Okay, if you reached out to

buy integrator customers, asking not to have their needs. that there is sort of a ripple effect, relationships with those customers. Okay, thank you for clarifying. Mr. Cootie, and my apologies. It's fine, Your Honor. As far as the business customers, they do, again, make statements that they have agreed,

that the parties hold the items confidential. That doesn't mean that that's something that the court should necessarily find needs the standard of one or so. Also, I just wanted to add, There are positives to disclosure of the names that sometimes tend to be overlooked. Transparency in the bankruptcy process builds trust. The ability of a creditor to see how their claim is listed in schedules without assistance from a claims agent or having to make it on call.

The ability of the creditors to organize among themselves and the ability for creditors to avail themselves of claims. traders or other legal ways of getting money now instead of perhaps money at some date in the future. And finally on that subject, Your Honor, to the extent the court is inclined to grant the debtor's motion, we ask that it be time limited, such as the orders at FTX have down. Circumstances do change as the case goes on. And I can think of, for instance, one of their cited reasons being employee poaching, that certainly will go away at some point during this case.

in this case. So I would ask that consistent with FTX, that any order authorizing redactions be named with a time deadline. Mr. Cudia, is the relief being sought by the debtors in this case any different than the relief that was granted in FTX? I don't believe it was, Your Honor. I believe that relief, it's, you know, I've just reviewed the, you know, the latest motion. for an extension of the credit matrix, and it does tend to hit the same issues, customer list, safety of the customers, and that this one does. Is the fact that this debtor is a custodian of crypto different than the fact that FTX, for example, is a trading platform?

Well, certainly there are differences, but to be honest, the I have not prepared in that area. Okay. I was just, and maybe that question is better suited for the debtor. You know, is this, given what this debtor does, is there a different reason, or is there less of a reason for protection of information? I'm not sure if I would put it as more or less of a reason. Certainly they have an intermediary between them, whereas F.

F.TX have a lot of direct customers. And on the mail service, owner, it's U.S. position code and the rules just simply don't allow even though we sympathize with the debtors position wanting to save money 9036 requires consent to mail service in our email service in writing main conditions cited by the debtors exist to some extent in every case that's in this court and further email is that our regulatory bodies could certainly have made the change that the debtors requesting here which email service should they have desired to do so so unless your honor has any further question That's all I have on this.

Well, let me ask you, what is your position? If an entity such as this does all of its communications by email, and let's assume for a minute that there's some type of agreement between the parties providing for email service, would that be sufficient to meet the standard of providing consent for email? I'm not sure if it technically meets the standard, Your Honor, But I know that in some cases that has been relied on.

I can think of Pierce Street, for one, where that has been relied on as a reason for email service where evidence was introduced specifically in the terms of service with the website. Unless you have anything else, I don't. Thank you. Good morning. May it please the court has recognized the N.

FDX case that has considerable value in public disclosure of the coverage. risk could diminish the value of that list and has recognized how the FPS score it was appropriate to grant the relief. Finally, with the respect to the notice, notices appropriate. So, Mr. DeWiler, I've read the committee's pleading, and the committee raises some compelling arguments, but I don't have any substantive evidence on what's set forth in the committee's pleading. committee's pleading and I'm struggling with that. So, Your Honor, I think you can take judicial notice.

I think the court is allowed to take judicial notice outside of this proceeding and look, for example, at the FTS case where there was an announced act in that case and the parade of forables that occurred there and the parade of forables that it really hent those, but I think, Your Honor, you take additional notice of those outside of the record of this case where great affordable for publicly disclosed and it's not only the potential for email phishing and scans but there's also a real potential and important notice of this is what I'll call physical bullying appear at the homes present themselves as being of a circled statute or

category and then bullying or trying to bully the customer is doing an act that would be detrimental to be informed that in what you're doing. So, Your Honor, I think you can take judicial cases and FDX being a very good example. What about in terms of customer list in 107B, I have no evidence of diminished value? Your Honor, I think again taking the judicial notice of the FDX case was of considerable value. Here I believe there has been testimony offered in connection with the procedures and other evidence that they presented earlier in the case. in the case that the customer list is of critical importance and value to the debtors and there may be others in the sense of a witness to testify but I do believe you have sufficient evidence for you with regard to the bid procedures and otherwise that this customer list of interest in this case and we move forward with a sale.

Thank you Mr. Deweiler. I know if your honor has any other question but the committee fully support. Let me ask the question if the court were to grant this relief on a limited basis as United States trustee has set forth What would the committee's position be on the length? With respect to the FDS type of order, Your Honor, I can have to confer with the debtors counsel There is a limitation that's okay most importantly that there would be an opportunity for the extent post-comprom. You know there's real concern there too that the predators will be out there.

So, that board certainly would want to stay. Thank you. Thank you. For the agreements, the healthy provisions that permitted the disclosure of entities, failing to do so the constituted post-pedition police

of the contracts, which would trigger immunitiated claims. And that we also testified the disclosure of names would severely jeopardize their relationships with their integrator customers and institutional clients.

And he also testified that, as I discussed previously, they received inbound requests from their integrated customers requesting that the debtors don't publish their names anywhere in the public domain. And he testified that the customer was highly proprietary and that public disclosure of their director or indirect customers would give competitors an unfair advantage and cause irreparable harm to the debtors restructuring efforts,

the first aid proper. So with respect to- Do you want to point me anywhere in particular in the transcript? Can I just hand you up for conference? Thank you. What my Cioschistee made was that we cited to the motion items that happened in the absence of disclosure. I would say that if there were a disclosure

that these circumstances would most certainly be severely act, but severely exacerbate the risk to customers. With respect to whether this is unique from FTS, Or Celsius, which I guess is a lender, right? So are those situations different? No, I don't think so. I think this is something that is going to have the entire cryptocurrency industry, no matter what the player is doing.

I think, you know, there's always going to be customer lists and there are always going to be, to be serious that those lists being disclosed. Back to the timing, the time limit that the idea is suggested, Mr. Jordan testified that to serve the notice of connection alone would have cost $10.2 billion. We're going to serve the sale notice. We have to serve a bar date notice. We're going to serve a notice of confirmation during eventually. And just the notice of the connection alone is enough to sort of lead up our entire budget.

With respect to service, obviously if you draw something in the mail theoretically you'll get return mail saying it was undeliverable what processes in place for undeliverable email your honor we do get the bounce backs for other deliverable emails and we have been working with it's better on the company to find alternative emails in certain circumstances the problem is that the contact person in particular company is no longer there and you find a new contact person So we've been working to resolve those issues.

If we cannot do so, we serve them by mail. So if you get it bounced back and you can't find an alternative, then it's mail. If that fails, then we rely on the publication. If parties wish to read it at this earlier date, it can certainly find it to make. We feel that this release should be granted. Just, can you identify yourself for the record? Yes, of course, Erin asked. For events that happened yesterday and morning,

in short yesterday morning, and I can tell you this, one, because I was counseled to the way, Yesterday morning, emails went out to every single creditor in the Voyager case and every single creditor in the Celsius case. These emails, even in this case, and they're in the case, I was fooled by it because I have creditors in the Celsius case. It looks like it came from at stredo.com literally says that. It has their logo, everything on it, and it makes it appear as if you need to click this link to change or get your withdrawal of some time. And we've already received reports of Voyager customers who have lost significant money. basically what happens is a fishing scan. You click this link, they say,

give us your digital wallet address to get your distribution. And when you give that new wallet address and you link it, you give them access to it, they immediately train everything that's in that wallet. That happened yesterday morning, it's continuing through today. And the reason that they can perpetrate these scams is because they're able to get access

to bits and pieces of information. Whether they pull together your person last year from this case, they pull different, you know, where you're addresses from another case or from another source. is frightening. And this is not the first fishing scan that's happened, but this is the scariest one because I clicked on it. Nothing happened, thankfully. But that's what's going on in all these crypto cases, and that's what we are trying to protect it. And these are people who are just getting all their cryptic, sorry it's not a evidence. Okay, well, let me ask one other question about email service. Does, is email service a what and done? I mean, other than if you get a bounce back? All right. I am going to take a little break because I want to read the transcript from before but so I'll take this

under advisement so that maybe you can finish the rest of your agenda so others don't have to sit here if that's okay I will certainly let you know I just want to take a minute because I did I looked at my notes from before but I didn't revisit the transcript honestly I assumed that would be further evidence so I will return to that and make sure I've read it fully no I can, if it's going to be the same testimony, I'll just go read it. Item 8 on our agenda, which was our motion for final relief on the insurance. The debtor receives an informal comment on the broker.

Mm-hmm. And we've got a certification council on the 18th, and your honor is your order, according to a big day at the we filed certification council, which accepted this motion on 18th. And thank you, Your Honor, for entering an order on the speech. That brings us to council to Anchorpoint, which, I thought were resolved, but I would let, there was an issue that comments from BMO Harris Bank may have inflicted with Inkercoigne's concerns, so I'll let them discuss that a minute. We received informal comments from the Chesapeed Office, and we received, and that was with respect to our request for

urgent interim labor at the 3.45 requirements. In addition, we received an objection by the tricks, which I believe is resolved through by a carryover of the language in the interim order to the file. And a second objection was filed by VML Paris. With your permission, I would like to take up the objections rates by the M.S. D.M.A.R.S. in terms, with respect to the M. Trustee's comments and request for further an interim waiver, the debtor's advice you proffer the testimony of the law with respect to the evidentiary basis for that. objector proper? I hear no one. Thank you, Your Honor. If calls testified, Mr. Law would testify that the company has an account at Beck the Company in the amounts of approximately $1 million.

He would further testify that the debtors are required by Nevada State Law to maintain a $1 million capital reserve in a depository account at one or more Nevada banks in connection with their Nevada taxterter. Mr. Law was testified that he has been informed that when the Comblank Bank Bank have not executed a UDA with the office of the United States trustee. He would testify that he has also been informed that RectaConlink is unwilling to execute a UDA. Is unwilling? Unwilling. And that none of the Nevada Trust banks have executed with executed UDAs.

He would further testify that he's been informed the debtors reached out to their current surety law underwriter to ascertain the cost of securing a bond with respect to that $1 million at what's having. He would testify that is understanding. that is understanding the debtors should be deposed $1 million in collateral, so that would be $2 million total of costs and fees associated with the bond. In connection with that account, he would testify that I was getting a bond in connection with the account would not be feasible given the debtor's current cash forecast.

He would testify that Nevada Trust Charter is what enabled by trust to act as a retail trust company. He would further testify that the Nevada Trust Charter serves as the foundation for the debtor's business allowing the crime trust to act as a custodian and transmit via encrypted currency in the law and other states. Mr. Law was satisfied that with the Alpernabala trust charter the debtor's prospects of achieving a going to concern sale to be significantly hindered. That would include Mr. Well's testimony with respect to the judge requests for a further into labor with 345 requirements.

Any cross-examination? Okay, I hear none. So what we have done also to address Mr. Kviyah was to pull out of the final cash management order the 345 requirements and create a second interim separate second interim order. May I push? Yes, please. Thank you.

We share this order with Mr. Fugia and committee and they had no issues with this. It's designed to extend our deadline, our waiver deadline until the next hour of this hearing, which is October 5th and if for some reason that gets moved, we put in language. leader of the earlier of the gift or the and the trustees office is okay with this language just if you're here to the United States trustee yes sir okay well let me ask this where do we stand on other objections vis-a-vis an interim order a second interim order oh okay

okay so now I'll turn to the the BMO objection actually let's walk through the red line if that's okay your honor Okay. Do you have a copy? Okay. Certainly. Do you have an extra copy? Thank you.

I would have an extra copy. Thank you. This is the address to reflect that we have new address as we get given the premises of corporate headquarters. Each two we just added the in order to the family. Each three in the address of the L. Harris, the added bank claims. This was something that was in the motion. This was the preferred language? Yes.

Okay. to paragraph five, next to that paragraph, it adds some additional language with respect to the things that the bank can do. Also, at the request of the committee, is all subject. We clarified it's subject to the final path. And then at the end, you'll see there's the end of that paragraph on page 5 in the red line. There is a card out for making it clear that they cannot automatically debit attorneys fees from the debtors' cash management accounts, and that they do not have an amount administrative priority or super priority claim and a bankruptcy code.

Some contacts for that, Your Honor. On September 5th, counsel for BMO sent comments to perform a final order. Among other things, they requested elimination of the CAF in the final work, which they also requested the first day in order authority to unilaterally audit debit and otherwise deducts from the diver's bank account. their attorney's fees, and they wanted a super priority administrative claim in the order. On September 7th, we reached out to council asking for precedent, as none of us had ever seen us outside of the content of the dip motion, a dip lender's request, and even then that would be a dip order.

On the 11th, we sent us an order from Williams Industrial Services that's currently before Judge Sheeden, and it's Mr. Qudey as the representing the U.S. trustee in that case as well. The order did not support any of these provisions that were requested. I shared these requests with the US prestige office and committee the same day. And then on September 12, we issued numerous emails and phone calls to try to come to a resolution. On the 13th, council filed its objection on the docket and requested the inclusion of language that very different from the language originally requested and even different from the proposed language I've less being from council following discussions with the MO's Delaware council who were

able to negotiate the language in paragraph 5 we have shared this form of order with committee interest and your point that so this is contested yes okay okay good morning as miss Kandiston indicates I did not plan to speak today I thought we were resolved and maybe we are but I I need some clarification. We followed an objection that requested that the language, which I believe is now in paragraph 8 to be added. It begins with notwithstanding anything.

The contrary basically says that they're not going to use the money in the customer accounts. They put that in the order. We were grateful. We thought we're done. But now we're understanding, there's an emails. I actually just saw as I got here this morning, that paragraph five, that, that

Apparently notwithstanding anything on the floor might not apply to paragraph five such that there could be charged backs or offsets against the money that they said that the debtor of representative would not in fact be spent. So we need clarification on that point. Obviously if they're charging, if they're purporting to charge bank fees against customer accounts, we still have an objection. If not, we're all good. So I think I should be a verification for Mr. Galler on that one for the debt or something. Do you all need a break? Do you all need a break? Okay, just go ahead.

I'm on the Morrison of office with the Troutland and Pepper Hamilton Sanders on behalf of Anchor Point LLC. I rise to just reiterate the same issue as VITRIC's councils did, although I think we are resolved with BMO, but the language of paragraph 5 relates to all banks and there are some customer accounts held by non-BMO banks. So the issue would be for those other banks will paragraph 8 Trump

and customer accounts will not be used for transfer as well. And who is your client? Anchor coin LLC. Did they file written objection? So we had informal discussions with the debtors prior to the objection deadline related to paragraph requesting that inclusion and were told that that would be in there. Sorry, I just want to make sure I didn't miss something. No.

Okay, that's fine. I understand things are fluid. That's okay. I'm just making sure I missed, didn't miss something. Your Honor, to counsel for Hagerkorn's point, I had requested that this were late only to B.M.O. Harris, but B.M. Harris required that we just make it more general and include all banks.

So all that is together. Good morning, Your Honor. Good morning. Several of the debtors, certain fees and charges. But, you know, paragraph two, we already had this plan. which that allowed your payments to be made and also a cap. So it's a little bit of my it's all new,

but regardless, I think we can get through it. Paragraph five talks about, it does two things in our view. One, it allows for the application of the fees and costs that arise, which kind of spells it out a little more in details of what those might be. Of course, the subject to the pre-petition cap, the pre-petitioned subject to the cap. The other thing that does in our view is allows the operation of the agreements to move forward in the ordinary course of business so that we're not coming to the court every time as an insufficient fund of the amount to, you know,

from state to apply to set up against that bank fee, for example. As it relates to paragraph 8, that is specific to customer accounts. And I can clarify to the court that the intention by being able to be able to be able to be, is not to make application against customer accounts, it's the operating account, that we've governed the application of fees and costs that were asked for a number of service. The extent that the resolution of this is that

we modify back the language from all banks to BMO bank, as long as BMO bank is governed, I guess we're okay. And that's the thing that we move the minimum line debt is approved. but I don't think there's a conflict between paragraph 5 and paragraph 8 because we're not... Does that resolve the objections?

I mean, there's on behalf of the tricks. I believe it does. Unfortunately, my co-counsel, my email me to confirm. He is on the line this morning, but I believe it does. So, yeah, we'll just... Do you need... Okay. I don't think there's a conflict in 5A,

and I think if debtors counsel, it sounds like, agreed that they agreed that AID would control us. not allow the use and offset against customer. Customer. Okay. Any issue with the committee or the United States trustee? All right. Is the...

I would think the parties want something in the order. So if you could just modify the order and submit it under certification counsel after the objectors have an opportunity to look at the proposed language. Yes, I would certainly do that. consistent with Mr. Gallard's comments yes I'm looking at your interim mortar right now okay I have no issue with the end of order yes could you upload it so on the docket for people to see I would like to take a break to look at the transcript for the prior hearing the proper

Would the parties be amenable to a short break or would you prefer that I get you back on by Zoom at a later time? I think of the short break. Okay, let's take a short break. I'm going to endeavor to return back here no later than 1130 and hopefully before that. Okay? All right, we stand in a minute six. Thank you all for your patience. Thank you for allow me the opportunity to review the transcript.

I did review the uncontroverted testimony of Mr. Law that was presented at the first day hearing through proffer. No additional evidence has been presented. The names of individuals sought to be redacted include here both customers, employees, and vendors and others. With respect to customer lists, they are protected. under Section 107B as a trade secret or commercial information. Mr. Law testified that customer information is highly proprietary

and would give competitors an unfair advantage. He explained that confidentiality agreements govern the relationship with integrators and that customer data and confidential information is property of the integrators and the integrators retain all legal rights with respect to, customer data, including confidential information of end users. In addition, the value of the business is maintained and maximized by ensuring competitors are not able to solicit customers. Here, debtors are contemplating on sale, and their customer list is potentially a valuable

asset of the debtor's estate. Mr. Law stated it would cause irreparable harm to the restructuring efforts if the information is disclosed. As a result, customer lists, which include integrators and end users, will be redacted. With respect to employees, Mr. Law testified that current and former employees have been threatened, and targeted attacks in the cyberspace are not uncommon. In addition, employees may be poached. According to Mr. Law, employees have irreplaceable knowledge and specialized skill,

critical to the debtor's restructuring efforts. Given the potential risk of injury to employees and the restructuring, the court will permit redaction of their names and other PII under Section 107C. Finally, with respect to creditors, if they are a creditor who is an institutional creditor or a corporation or individuals such as vendors or the like, then therefore identifying information should be disclosed as required by the bankruptcy code. With respect to service, under the unique circumstances of this case, and based on the commercial agreements that the debtors have with integrators and end users,

as cited and quoted by Mr. Law, the court will permit email service. However, as represented by debtors' counsel, if email is returned as undeliverable, And a new deliverable email address cannot be found. Debtors must effectuate service by first-class mail, overnight mail, or hand delivery. Also, an appropriate affidavit of service or certificate of service must be filed with respect to all service. Additionally, if any party who is receiving email contacts the debtor and requests mail service and lobe email, the debtors must comply. Are there any questions with respect to that portion of ruling? Consistent with the current order provides that if the customer opts into physical mail service

or that will serve them. Consistent with the local rules. Yes. Okay. And with respect to the corporation, we'll carve those out and revise from the board. Okay. And then the only other thing I would ask is that we set a status conference on this issue. this issue in 90 days.

So one around after November 19th or December, excuse me. Okay. Would you like me to add some additional language with respect to what we just pressed if the email returned in their sale? Please. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.

Okay. I will share it with counsel to the K in the U.S.S.D. office and submit an end of the case. Okay. Thank you. Anything further for today? Okay, again, thank you all for your patience. Have a great day. We stand adjourned.