American court hearing recordings and interviews - BitcoinDepot/BTM Listen to the bankruptcy hearing held 6/9 https://bitcoindepot.com/ #BitcoinATM

Episode Date: June 12, 2026

--

All right, good afternoon. This is Judge Lopez. Today is June 9th. I'm going to call the 3 p.m. case of Bitcoin Depot 2690528. I'll take appearances in the courtroom. Anyone on the line, please hit 5 star, and I will unmute your line. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Paul Heath with Vincent Nelkins on behalf of the proposed counsel of debtors on behalf of Bitcoin Depot. with me today in the courtroom is Abigail Emery on the phone or my colleagues Jessica Pete and Sarah Zogelman who will be handling our presentation today. Good afternoon. Mr. Owen, good afternoon. Good afternoon, Judge Howe went for the U.S. trustee. Okay, I'm going to unmute a few lines here. He's a 202 number. I apologize, Your Honor. You got cut off temporarily.

Ah. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, sir. I think it was my line you were referring to. It is. It is. Trisholaney. Thank you, sir. On behalf of the United States client. All righty.

A 2-1-2 number. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Jim Burbage of Wilkie Far and Gallagher proposed counsel to the official committee of unsecured creditors. I'm in the virtual courtroom today with my partner Paul Labov. We are trying to get our camera to work, so apologies in advance. No worries. We can go old school. As long as I can hear you.

There's a 5-1-2 number. Good afternoon, Your Honor. This is Abigail Rushing, Ryan, with the National Association of Attorneys General. On behalf of the NAG client states, which now include the state of Alaska, Arkansas Department of Commerce, District of Columbia, Georgia Department of Banking and Finance, state of Iowa, the people of the state of Illinois, through their Attorney General, the state of Minnesota, Montana Commissioner of Securities Insurance, the state of North Carolina, the Department of Commerce, and Division of Financial Institutions of Ohio. the state of Washington and the state of Wisconsin. Good afternoon. A 2-12 number. Good afternoon, Your Honor. William Howell, the false and inferred

for the pre-petition lender here to review credit partners. Good afternoon. I've got two more. A 713 number. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Best to Keith, Vincent Alkins for the debtors. All righty.

And a 214 number. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Sarah's local name of Vincent Alkins on behalf of the debtors as well. Okay, anyone else? Please hit five star and I will unmute your line. All right, a 248 number. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

This is Judith Greenstone Miller and with me is Kim Ross-Kleason on the 313 number. And we are serving as counsel for Up Connect Management LLC. Okay, good afternoon. And we are from past to Houston Hollister, LLP. Okay. Let's see. So those lines that I have unmuted, please keep yourself muted, and I will turn things over to the debtors, and I'll check the line in a second. Thank you, Your Honor.

Your Honor, thank you for making time for us today. As always, we appreciate it, and thank you right at the outset. All the parties who have worked so constructively with us since we were before you last week. I do believe that we have brought to you a, I believe, a largely consensual agenda at this point today for the efforts of all those parties. We have a number of items that are from our first day hearing, and we also have some carry over from last week. And at this point, I believe that we have resolved the open issues, which, as I know, it has taken a great deal of cooperation effort from everyone, and we really appreciate. it. Your Honor, I would propose this evidence and we can talk through the different motions. I know earlier today and I thank you for doing so. You had entered some of the orders that we had submitted on, you know.

I have one order as standing for the critical vendor order that we submitted on CNO. I'm not sure whether your honor had questions on that one or whether that was just done. No, it's probably in the hopper somewhere, but I'll sign it. Great. So if I may, I'll start with evidence. We've got our witness and exhibit list filed at docket number 152 today. We have declarations from Mr. Cita Baker, who is available on the line that you're to enter into evidence along with the balance of the witness exhibit list at number one through

14. Unless there are any questions, Your Honor, I respect to the request that these be submitted into evidence. Okay. Any objection to the admission of any of these documents just for today's hearing? Okay, they're admitted. Thank you, Your Honor. Again, you're appreciative of the time and effort to bring consensual orders and the balance of the verdict on the agenda, I believe, have really been addressed your efficiency earlier today and then the critical vendor motion that we just touched on. I think where we would start our presentation today would be with

respect to the cash collateral order, I believe we have addressed all of the comments from the parties, which were largely clarifications of rights for some of our lease financing parties and incorporating feedback from the committee to make sure that they were appropriately included in various provisions and that their rights were preserved there. I do believe we have an amended order on the docket. So let me confirm that. Yeah, I saw something at docket 1-80 that was filed, kind of a second interim order. Coming on just before and ahead of this hearing, yes, Your Honor, and that's preserved through the just in for nature through the challenge period.

I think we're proposing at June 30th final date there, though I would ask my colleagues to weigh in if I've mistaken of anything on that. I don't, Mr. Hien, I don't see a red line. Is there someone can just kind of walk me through and kind of the big ticket items? I've got a red line here for you, Your Honor. So I approach to that.

Yes. Thank you. What are the big ticket items besides it really is taking out emergency hearing stuff. That's correct. And it's really rolling things forward. And as Ms. Pete pointed out, we are most grateful that we're able to work through this issues

with the Council of the Silverview, counsel of the committee. We also added, just because it was easier to do it by stipulation, I'm not sure it really addresses cash collateral. We have two equipment lenders. that we, you know, we put statements in about their positions and basically get afforded them replacement liens on their own equipment and also provided for them to receive certain reporting. We're, of course, attaching the new budget. We've got comments in here from the Unsecured Creditors Committee and also a reservation on behalf of Ms. Miller's clients, Op Connect, in a footnote 5. The new footnote 5, I'm really...

Correct. Okay. Page 7 and page 8 are basically the statements on our two equipment lenders, which are VFS and NFS. Okay. We've kind of rolled some of those concepts for definitionally. I'm just flipping through here, Your Honor. No, no, no, I see it. Through. Over on page 14, we include, as I mentioned,

moment ago, replacement liens for both NFNFS and VFS. And their counsel signed off in this, by the way. No, that may. Wow. Page 15, we included a provision that if their equipment is sold, it would be segregate. The proceeds would be segregated, subject to further order of the court. Got it. Did it.

I don't hear any of the budget. flipping, Your Honor. Yeah, I'm flipping with you. This is just kind of definitional stuff. It pretty much was. I think the only, I think the rest of it, Your Honor, is largely definitional. As we previewed at the first day hearing, we would like to schedule a final hearing sometime the week of June 22nd. At this point, I expect that we will most likely serve up a fully consensual.

order. This allowed us some time for the committee to get up to speed and stuff like that, but we had undertaken with Silverview, who's our primary secured lender, to have a hearing that week. I would ask that, you know, maybe it'd be Wednesday or Thursday that week. I really think all we'd need is about an hour on your docket at most. Okay. Okay. And so I'll need to fill that in on paragraph 21 and probably upload an order for you. I can, I can, if parties are okay with it, I can do it, but just hold me to it and watch me do it. The last time I said I was going to do something, I entered it blank in another case, so I'm trying to stop on my game.

Let me ask, does anyone wish to be heard in connection with the proposed second interim order authorizing use of cash collateral or the proposed timing, proposed date? Tell me the date again that you were thinking about. I think the week of June 22nd, you know, either 24th or 25th would work well for the debtor. Again, Your Honor, I don't anticipate the hearing would be any longer than an hour. And it would be our goal, obviously, working with the committee, Silverview, and our other constituents to present hopefully a fully agreed order at that time. Let's see. Final order, I should say. I think this makes a lot of sense, just pushing it out to another interim and then preserving everyone's rights.

That's exactly what we plan to do. So, and I do see them and I approve all of the stipulations in here. I have zero concerns with them. Let me, the week of June 22nd. What was the preferred date? It would be great on the 24th or 25th, which I think is Wednesday and Thursday, if memory serves me correctly. Rosario, could I do 9 a.m. on June 24th? Okay, let's do that.

June 24. And I think at this point an objection deadline the week before, Your Honor, it seems to me, would be given the notice we've had out here, should be soon. Oh, I think so, too. I think so, too. June 17, the budget is attached. I think the budget remains reasonable and fair and consistent with the initial order. We really have just rolling everything forward.

Yes. At the same time, providing additional rights for optimum in the NFS parties and the other lien party that if anything gets sold in the next few weeks, that you will get it there. And this all makes sense to me. So let me hear from VFS. Counsel, if you're on the line, you may need to hit five star. I'm not sure I've unmuted your line. Mr. Comstant, I can't hear you. Can you hit five star or check your line and see if you've muted?

Here you are. Yes, sir. That's better. Much better. I quickly jump in. I was provided this interim collateral order to have the M.S. this morning. I send an email back with additional questions. So I would just note that we don't, you haven't signed off on this. As long as being rolled forward, we're hopeful better than when I can work on the questions I hope. I think that's fair. And so this is, and this is just kind of keeping status quo for the next few weeks. I think it all makes sense. I'll approve it. And everybody's rights are obviously reserved in connection with the final. And since it's just a few weeks away, I feel kind of.

comfortable but but you're but so duly noted council all right I have signed it and filled in the blanks well filled in the blanks first then signed it and it is off to docketing where do we go next I'm going to defer to miss Pete all righty that thank you your honor miss Pete thank you your honor the next item in our agenda is our bidding procedures order we have not yet filed our revised bidding procedures order but I do believe that we've reached agreement with the parties and that we will be able to file a form of order that everyone has approved following this hearing. If I may, Your Honor, I would walk through some of the proposed changes particularly to address

some of the comments your honor raised last week. Give me a second. Let me. No, no, no. I was just grabbing a pen and thank you for her ever put the pens up here. But duly appreciate it. I don't know who's on there again. Thank you.

I've got a pen. I'm ready to go. Thank you, Your Honor. So with respect to the debtor's proposed schedule, so we've worked over the course of the last week with the committee and with the states with respect to their concerns, and I think that we've reached a resolution, and I'll walk through if I said, the key points there.

With respect to the schedule, we have agreed to modify the schedule to move the proposed deadline to June 22nd. It had been June 24th, now Monday, June 22nd. I have an auction the next day. There has been a gap there, now we're moving that up. The next day, June 23rd, of course, and then have a notice that goes out on the 24th of June. And then a sale objection deadline, which our initial motion has advocated proposing an earlier objection deadline in mid-June

and a supplemental deadline after the auction concluded of July 1st. We are now just proposing one objection deadline on June 29th, so that's following Monday after the after the deadline, giving parties more time to understand and process what the aspects are proposed in the sales or sale. The seal hearing, Your Honor, as we noted before, the timing is there driven by, as we spoke about in the Institute of Baker's declaration, both what we think is the three-fourth nature of the diligence process and sale process here and critically the limited liquidity runway we are still seeking a sale hearing for the morning of July 2nd.

With respect to the balance of the bidding procedures, we've made changes to incorporate language that will we think address and mitigate the concerns raised by the states. Most importantly we've clarified that the debtor is not proposing to sell customer information that was obtained through transactions customers completed using the debtor Bitcoin kiosks. There may be sale of personal information associated with the other business lines, particularly the cut gambling platform, but the kiosks and information obtained in those transactions will not be sold.

Nor will any licenses or registrations permit authorizing the debtors under state law to operate as a money transmitter or simply just not seeking to sell that parties that are looking to buy the assets will either be using them for other purposes or have their own licenses or obtain them in their own in their own talk so if somebody buys the stuff the registration that may have worked for bitcoin depot is not going to be essentially tried to be sold to someone they'll have to if they buy the stuff and they want to register they'll they'll they'll go through whatever the state whatever licensing agency is available to them. Exactly, Your Honor.

All right. Makes sense to me. The state's also requested notice of the location by kiosk once we actually have APAs to be proposed, with you have a notice of boarding fitter that goes out, and we accepted that change. We think that's fine to it will be able to provide them with that detailed notice. We have made the state's complication parties in the video process, or rather, the National Association of Attorney General, a complication party, as counsel to the state. And that I think summarizes most of the key changes that we have spent time working through with the parties over this past week. We have made some other changes in the order that you will see in order to clarify that

rights are preserved with respect to language that the client states would like in the sale order and we'll work through that in connection with actual proposed bill orders together and to ensure that notice goes out of the sale to customers via email within three visit days of the fitting procedures order if it was entered today. Okay. Apart from that, Your Honor, I think that the comments we received were pretty minimal. You know, we were able to work quickly with the parties. We did have some comments from the committee addressing their concerns around preserving

their ability to object to a sale in the event that there is an objection related to a credit or an issue with that that just doesn't have to come through a challenge under the cash color order. They can file a sale objection and have their rights to serve there on adding that objection. certain language to address that. Beyond that, though, Your Honor, I think that really hit on the key point center that we're in the revised order that we'll be submitting and that we're sort of the focus of the parties leading up to today. Okay.

Let me open it up and see if anyone wishes to be heard. Ms. Miller, I'll start with you. Good afternoon, Your Honor. We had worked with the committee who worked with the debtor. regarding various comments that we had to the bidding procedures order and the bidding procedures which are attached as an exhibit to the proposed bidding procedures order. And we appreciate that the majority of the comments were accepted, but we have one comment that we just received notice at 358, two minutes prior to the hearing, that they did not accept.

prior to that we were under the impression they had. On page 14 of the bidding procedures attached as Exhibit A, they defined consultation parties. We had asked them to include the committee members and their counsel so that we were not in any way having any adverse asking for rights beyond what other committee members might want. But specifically, we are concerned as to what they're going to do with our records. As you'll remember from last time, we have taken the position that the debtors do not have the authority to sell the routers because the routers are subject to an executory contract and don't constitute property of the estate. It's very difficult right now to know whether or not we are not going to have to attend the auction and whether or not we're going to have to object to the sale on that basis. We are beginning conversations with the debtor to try and sort through the issue. But the way that the wording is right now of the consultation parties, it's ultimately up to the debtors as to whether or not we're allowed in the room to see what people are trying to bid on and whether or now they're trying to bid on property that we think constitutes our property or whether or not they're trying to assume an executive contract and to somehow convince us to allow the routers to go as part of the purchase.

I don't understand why we can't attend. It's not like there's not going to be a room for us, and we merely want to be there to protect our interests in the routers. And moreover, we want to be able to address whether or not we have any issues if ultimately the contract is assumed and the routers are to go with that assumed contract. So unfortunately, I didn't have an opportunity. before the hearing this afternoon to have that conversation with the debtors, but I don't understand what the concern is, and I just don't want to leave it to their discretion is whether

at the end of the day they think I should be allowed in the room with my client. Thank you. Anyone else? Wish to be heard. Your Honor, Jim Berbidge of Wilkie Far and Gallagher, proposed counsel to the official committee of unsecured creditors? Yes. Your Honor, just briefly, I can confirm what this be her description of the comments that are going to be set forth in the revised form of bidding procedures order. Those do reflect the committee's substantive comments, both respect to the sale timeline milestone, and then some additional comments with respect to the bidding procedures. With respect to Ms. Miller's, that is something that the committee,

you know, we would be comfortable certainly with having committee members there at the auction and as a consultation party. We are also open to moving forward as we get closer to an auction to the extent one is going forward, having a reasonable conversation with the debtors in terms of which parties are going to be allowed to attend the auction, given the issues that are going to be. I understand that that's an open issue. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you.

Anyone else? Peene, I'll give you an opportunity to respond. Thank you, Your Honor, and you know, we are certainly happy to engage with Miller and her client regarding their concerns as the contract. Ms. Pete, before you do, I may give Ms. Maltini an opportunity. I just saw her hand went up, and then I'll give you an opportunity to kind of respond to everything at one time. Yes. You're on, unmute your line, Ms. Maltine. Sorry, Your Honor.

No worries. My concern does not relate to the issues Ms. Millen. to the issues Ms. Miller raised. So if you'd like to just simply continue that and call on me later, that's fine. No, let's get, let's let's let me hear them all at one time. Yes, sir. First of all, I wanted to thank the debtors for working with the states.

It was a very easy set of discussions to have and we appreciate the good faith in the effort that they've extended to us. This issue really, it's more of an issue for down the road, but it does affect potentially the sale. As you know, the debtors are interested in abandoning certain the keyoffs being located in the state of Minnesota because by the end of the year, it will be unlawful for them to be there.

And I'm not sure what the best solution is to deal with that, because we, of course, would like to see Minnesota's laws and force, and the debtor, of course, may not have the funds available to remove the equipment. So it had been my suggestions to debtors in the course of our discussions that they include those assets in sale, that they try to make them attractive to potential buyers and perhaps sell them at a much lower rate than they might other tiats. Certainly they have the lesser commercial value since they would have to be removed probably

in order to do. But I want to put that out there because, you know, if we could actually get those sold, even even if it's for an extremely low price, a level perhaps not any price at all, since they seem to have a negative value to be saved, certainly this is an opportunity to maybe find a win-win to that particular problem. And they're open to that.

I leave it to their good business judgment and the experts they pertain to conducting this sale on how best you do that. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. Okay. I'll turn to counsel. Thank you, Your Honor.

Oh, go ahead. Thank you, correct, for Adam. Yep, go ahead. Thank you. With respect to the concerns raised by Ms. Miller, apologies for the timing, but the, you know, we are, the debtors are more than happy to engage with Miller and her clients regarding the concerns around those contracts.

We have included reservations of rights language specifically addressing some of those concerns. With respect to the consultation parties in the auction process, We believe it's in the best interest of the sale process and a reasonable exercise of the better business judgment to go forward with the proposed procedures, which contemplates the committee counsel as the advisors as the consultation party. The committee as a fiduciary body will act efficiently through that voice. In terms of the auction, we are contemplating, including the bidding parties, the main group,

attending the auction. We want to keep that streamline, keep that process efficient. So it's a simple, it's a simple proposition, Your Honor. I think I do think the procedures give us, you know, flexibility to discuss and to modify who attends the auction down the line if that becomes appropriate. But at this time, we think that keeping the focus on the folks that are bidding and the handful of complication parties through their advisors is is going to be the best, it's been the best interest of the process. Yeah, I want to thank all the parties. I think the time was well spent from getting everyone comfortable.

I'm comfortable with the timing that is being proposed here and additional language, clarifying things I'm going to have no issue with. I'm actually comfortable with the consultation parties as they are, But I'm going to note, you know, I think the notice is going to have to be relatively, you know, a good notice of what's getting sold. So Ms. Miller can, you know, can immediately tell if her routers or contracts related to the routers. And I'm sure parties are going to continue to talk to make sure that it's really clear so that we don't run into, you know, an issue that, you know, the day before the hearing folks are trying to figure out what it is that that's being sold. or not being sold. So I'm comfortable with just being the consultation,

kind of not including them as consultation parties, but I think the smart move is going to be, once that notice goes out, to kind of maybe make a phone call and make it really clear as to what's being sold and not being sold, and someone kind of doing a deep die, at least proposed to be sold or to be assumed

so that folks can run a check and make sure that router XYZ-2-4 is or is not being included. so that they can make an objection or not object at the time. But get me in order, and I'll sign it. Thank you very much, Your Honor. In terms of the order, I appreciate this comment, and we'll take that as we're moving forward here, in terms of the order and proposed dates and deadlines,

I believe in our last hearing, Your Honor had mentioned maybe 9 a.m. for July 2nd for a hearing. Is that what we should? Yep. Let's do it. 9 a.m. Wonderful. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you.

We will get that on file shortly after this. Okay. But I think, you know, I know people are going to get it on file, but I want get whoever's the notice folks to start doing the notice thing and start getting it out. But I'll sign the order. I'll be around, but I know get me the order and I'll sign it, but let's get those folks working. All right. I believe that brings us. I'm going to take the next agenda item and move forward to item nine, which is the order

seeking payment of the work fee to Hillco. This is dialed at docket number 136. This request was initially incorporated in the bidding procedures order and after consultation with the United States trustees office, we separated it into this motion and provided the additional time rather than seeking it for less. Wednesday. The motion seeks entry of an order authorizing the debtors to pay a $300,000 work free to Hillco as a proposed asset disposition consultant. This was an initial step for the retention for getting Hillco retained, getting them working. They are often running.

They have been engaging with parties and they are doing that on good things. that they have sort of additions to their engagement on the debtor seeking approval of this initial fee. The balance of their attention terms, however, are entirely subject to a later motion to just be clear about what we're speaking today versus in the future. You know, this balance of their complication structure will be entirely subject to that later motion.

The, when we're seeking today has had this, the, we deem to fully, fully earned and we believe that this is reasonable exercise of the debtors of the judgment that the youth employment of HILCOM in this process will be deeply valuable to the debtors in their process. HILCO has extensive relevant experience and having them start work immediately without delay again given the needs for speed in this process that's been emphasized to date was essential.

Okay, anyone wish to be heard in connection with this matter? Your Honor, Jim Berbache of Wilkie Far and Gallagher proposed counsel to the official committee of unsecured creditors. Yes. So the only thing we would note on this, Your Honor, as Ms. Pete mentioned, Hillco has not filed their retention papers. We have not seen the Hillco engagement letter. So whenever those papers do get filed, we will be evaluating from the perspective of the committee. this initial work fee and how it fits within the larger compensation structure. I just wanted to make that clear on the record that we are sort of viewing this,

similarly to Ms. Pete, that it is sort of a two-step process where this interim, or this initial order would pay the initial fee, but the larger compensation structure is, it remains subject to the entry of retention order. We can call it a Texas two-step. I like it. We'll use that. No, I got it. As long as everything is subject to kind of further court review and the papers and

and Hocco's okay with this, this makes sense to me. This, I will, I will approve the order. I know it's my presentation. I turn the floor over to my colleague, Mr. Goldman. All righty. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Sarah Zulgemann on behalf of the debtors. I will be taking up the rejection procedures next,

which is item number eight on the amended agenda. The motion was filed at docket number 109 and was mostly taken up with this court at last Wednesday's hearing. I believe we are resolved with all the relevant parties on this motion and the proposed revised form of order was filed shortly before this hearing

at docket number 179, and that also included a red line to the proposed form of order or regular file with the motion. This proposed revised form of order reflects informal comments to receive from the committee, the debtor's term loan agent, and equipment financing party in FS, as well as a contract counterparty. We shared the proposed order with the United States trustee, and they confirmed that they did not have any further comments. I also believe we are in agreement with the National Association of Attorney General for purposes of entry and rejection procedures order today,

but I'll give the party the second to step in and defer to them. Can you kind of point to me of kind of what the changes are? Absolutely. To start, and I'm working through Exhibit B at Rocket 179, we included clarifying language that the rejected contract scheduled schedules will be presented in alphabetical order. That was a request from the committee. We also added NFS and equipment financing parties. as well as to propose counsel to the committee

to the list of parties or received service of the rejection notices and any objection from contract counterparties or other parties and interests to those rejection notices. We've also added in consultation rights for the committee prior to the debtors considering to set off a recruitment with respect to any security deposit held by the contract counterparties in excess of $10,000.

There's also consultation right for the committee with respect to the abandonment of the Bitcoin GEOC. as well as the removal of any contract from the rejection schedule. In addition, we've added clarifying language that to the extent that the debtors do remove a contract from any rejection schedule, that they will file a rejection notice notifying the necessary parties. And the revised order also contemplates retroactive rejection effective back to June 3rd with respect to any rejection notices that are filed within the next day or within the day after. the order enters.

And finally, we've included language requested from the term loan agent regarding their liens and the abandoned property staying in place and language from a contract counterparty that clarifies that with respect to any personal property that is leased to the debtors by a third party or owned by a third party. This day would be modified in order to allow third parties to recover and dispose of their personal property that has been abandoned without further order and notice to the court. And that is all the things that we have here. So the only change I'm going to make to this is a thousand is just way too big.

I did this during the old Enron days, and it was just impossible to go find your contract. When I was a young baby lawyer, it was really hard to find the contract. So giving somebody a notice with a thousand page on it, how many people are you? potential releases are there? We, the debtors have over 8,000 contracts. It's a large universe. And debtors and their advisors are still working through a comprehensive analysis of their contract portfolio. We do expect there, because we're in a wind down scenario here, we do expect there to be a large number.

Our contracts that are up for rejection, it depends on, you know, the self-process generally, and trust that is shown. But also, I will flag that the vast majority of these contracts are, similar types of agreements or agreements with retailers that allow the debtors to place and operate the Bitcoin kiosks and retail stores, gas station, grocery stores, etc. So most of them are the same nature of contract. The same what? For the same type, the same nature of contract. Would it be with the same counterparty? It would be very different counterparties with an alphabetical order. There may be overlapping counterparties and certain of these are. I believe there are some master release agreements,

but they would not all be exactly the same. I think we're going to have to bring the number down to like 400. A thousand, it gets really hard to flip through it and see it. I'm just concerned about it. It may cost a little bit more, but I think it's the, I think in fairness to parties so they don't have to dive through. Because what ends up happening is, in my experience, it either gets really long or they shrink it really hard

and you got to then go get cheaters to then go find where your contract is. And that gets really tricky. I will sign this and I will do up to 400, but you're not going to get me at 1,000. If you want it, I'll sign it today. If not, I'll still sign it at 400 and let you figure out. You'll let you come back and ask for another day. I think we can make 400 work, Your Honor, and we appreciate that acceptable.

All righty. I will sign the order. Anything else we need to take care of today? Thank you very much. All right, folks. Thank you very much. I will sign the order. I'm only going to make the change to the order,

and if there's any corresponding change to the exhibits, then those folks can make the corresponding change, okay? All right. Thank you. Will you let my case manager know once the revised bidding procedures? I'll be around, and I'll sign it tonight. It doesn't matter how late. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. We're adjourned.