American court hearing recordings and interviews - Klöckner Pentaplast - third bankruptcy hearing in US chapter 11 bankruptcy case in Texas (December 16, 2025)

Episode Date: February 21, 2026

--

Good afternoon. This is Judge Lopez. Today is December 16th. I'm going to call the 1 p.m. Case 2590642. Cleopatra. I'll take appearances in the courtroom. Parties wish to make an appearance on the line. Please hit five star and I will unmute your line. Good afternoon. Thank you, Your Honor. Jack Luz from Kirkland Ellis here on behalf of the debtors along with some of my colleagues from Kirkland Ellis. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Michael, Jay Cohen, Gibson, Dunn, Croucher. I'm with my colleague, Robert Fitzgerald.

We're here on behalf of the ad hoc group of dip lenders and first-endlers. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Eric English and Megan Young-John from Porter Hedges, LLP. We're local counsel for the debtors. Good afternoon. Okay, I'm going to unmute a few lines. Here's a 2-1-2 number.

Good afternoon, Your Honor. Can you hear me? Just fine. Good afternoon. Great. Daniel Saval from Coburn. And Kim, I'm here on behalf of the special committees of the boards of directors of debtors, Cleopatra Senior Holdings, GP, and Cleopatra, Cinco. And I'm joined by my colleague, Martine Forterey.

Perfect. Good afternoon. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. Can you hear me okay?

Good afternoon. Good to see you again. To see you again. And, yes, I'm in the right place. This is the right hearing for me. For the record, Brian Collier of Moseau, on behalf of Mazuma Capital. Corporation, Mazuma is a subsidiary of onset financial. I mean, you may recognize from another case that

saw before this one, it will be long after. Our leases are being assumed that they're the plan. I'm just here as a creditor slash party of interest. Good afternoon. Here's a 312 number. Mr. Scott, I think you, can you check your line? Make sure that you're... I was double-muted.

Sorry, Your Honor. Good afternoon. Good to see you again. This is Sean Scott of Mayor Brown on behalf of Co-Foehl. Fos-F-F-NANCH, GFBH, which is one of the factoring parties here. Good afternoon. And a 202 number. Good afternoon, Your Honor.

Andrew Jimenez for the United States of P. Good afternoon, Mr. Jimenez. Anyone else wish to make an appearance, please hit 5-star, and I will unmute your line. A 713 number. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Casey Dory Denton's USLLP. here on behalf of Factorous Brands from the factoring parties.

Good afternoon. Okay. Counsel, I'll turn it over to you. Mr. Luce. Thank you, Your Honor. Today we are here on confirmation of the debtors pre-packaged Chapter 11 plan. We filed our confirmation papers over the weekend, as well as an order and revised plan yesterday, Your Honor. We had one objection from the Office of the United States Trustee.

focused primarily on the third party releases. We did work with Mr. Jimenez to at least narrow their issues, but were unable to fully resolve their issues specifically as it relates to the third party release and injunction, which we're prepared to argue today. Your Honor, I would start by just housekeeping the evidentiary support for today's hearing is contained in the declarations of Mr. Hurleyhee, Mr. Hickman, Mr. Beggeman, as well as our voting declaration. Those are at docket numbers 230, 231, 232, and 233. So to start things out, I would request that those declarations be entered into the record.

All of the witnesses are appearing remotely. Okay. Anyone have any objection to the admission of these documents for purposes of today's hearing? declaration okay they're admitted thank you your honor so what I would propose to do your honor is to focus our argument primarily on the issues that are open and rest on our papers for the sort of general factors as it relates to approval of the disclosure and the confirmation I would note at the outset your honor consistent with what we'd said at the first day we did go out in complete solicitation the voting deadline

was last week we had the vast majority of voting creditors and the vast majority of those entitled to vote did submit ballots to accept in the neighborhood of 1.6 billion dollars of the first lien claims voted to accept in the neighborhood of 280 million dollars of the second lien holders voted to accept in both classes there was a single no vote but obviously we clear the thresholds for voting by a significant margin all of this is set forth in more detail in the voting declaration. In addition, Your Honor, as is relevant to what will actually be argued today, we did proceed with a comprehensive noticing program to all affected parties of this

hearing, including providing notices of non-voting status as relevant, along with the full solicitation package to those who are entitled to invoke, inclusive of the opt-out forms that will be the subject of argument today. As relates to the opt-outs, we did receive 132 opt-outs. So your honor, unless your honor has any questions as it relates to approval of the disclosure statement and the 1129 factors outside of the release provisions, I would propose to rest on the papers there,

but happy to answer any questions your honor might have as it relates to the argument or evidentiary support. You just point me to the voting declaration. That is at. docket number 233 it's a good bit two on this right got it that's what I needed to say okay hey I knew I had seen it somewhere and I couldn't find it and you pointed me right to where it need to be so perfect that's all I needed to see okay that is two voting yeah it's quite a lot of support I'm glad yes we were pleased to see that

your honor and it's consistent with the restructuring support agreement we signed up ahead of these cases that was supported by the vast majority of first lien and second lien holders that provided for the plan that's before your honor today there haven't been any substantive changes to the plan we did file a revised version of the plan that included primarily cleanup as well as a few comments that were responsive to comments we received from the United States trustee to narrow those issues where we could so as we sit here today we're poised to confirm a plan

that would de-leverage the debtors by approximately $1.3 billion, provide for a transition of ownership of the companies to the existing first-lean lenders, and provide incremental funding. The dip was fully funded, Your Honor, following the entry of the final order. That funding is sized to fill the entire capital need of the debtors, inclusive of providing sufficient capital to meet the obligations under the plan, namely payment of general unsecured claims in the ordinary course of business, a significant portion of which, as your owner might imagine, were paid during the course of this case.

So that leaves us with the United States trustee's objection, Your Honor. The trustee raises a few points in their objection, primarily as it relates to the third-party release, which I'll spend a little bit of time on. The United States Trustee also objects to the injunction provision. The United States Trustee requested in their objection some languages that relates to government claims, which we did include in the plan. And then the United States Trustee has raised an objection to waiver of the 14-day stay, I think based primarily on, you know, did we carry our burden to show that that's actually necessary here? So I'll spend a bit of time on the three points that are open. And I won't belabor at Your Honor because Your Honor has heard this argument before and it's come up in a number of cases and it's obviously a developing area of case law, especially in the wake of Purdue.

But in this circuit, it has been clear for some time from, you know, the Zale decision in the mid-90s and then Pacific Lumber, which is most frequently cited that non-consensual releases are at best. frowned upon but have been dissent that you know not allowed in this circuit for sometime even prior to the produce vision the Purdue decision makes that clear across all circuits and so the analysis in this circuit for a long time has been what constitutes consent and there is a body of case law on this and the US trustee focuses a lot in their brief about consent being interpreted under sort of state law contract provisions And as this court is recognized in other courts and this district and circuit have recognized,

that's not necessarily the case. That's not the way that your honor has interpreted in the past and other courts in this district have interpreted in the past. Instead, what you've looked to is the way that the Fifth Circuit and some lower courts interpreting that guidance have viewed this question of consent. It's not necessarily that must it be a contract under state law. It's that this circuit, the Fifth Circuit has provided guidance that non-consensual releases are not allowed, but you can give a consensual release under a bankruptcy plan. And so it's really about what provides, what is sufficient for consent. The Fifth Circuit obviously is not ruled directly on the type of opt-out provisions that we have here,

but in Republic Supply and a handful of Fifth Circuit cases that have followed, from that decision as well as lower court decisions. Courts have looked at are the releases specific and disclosed? Are the releases integral to the plan? Is it a condition to settlement and are they given for consideration? Here we satisfy all of those factors. The releases were are incredibly detailed. They were disclosed and provided to all parties in interest.

And it was clearly indicated that you have an opportunity to opt out. We have evidence that the process worked because we got 132 opt-outs through this process. And we had in bounds and we worked with parties to make sure they understand. This was also a fairly lengthy solicitation process. It was about 37 days from launch to the deadline. Obviously we had some holidays in there, but it was a good amount of time for parties to receive and consider the notice. These releases taken as a whole and including the third party release are integral to the plan

in a condition to the overall settlement embodied in the plan. obviously there are substantial benefits to the plan in terms of the de-leveraging and new capital provided that will set the company on firmer footing to continue to be a counterparty and an employer and will now be owned by the lenders and we anticipate a source of value for the recovery going forward and the releases were of course given for consideration the releasing parties made significant contributions. It's easy to point at things like agreeing to a significant

de-leveraging, agreeing to cancellation of equity, agreeing to provide substantial new money. Other parties have provided, you know, significant personal time investment into ensuring that these cases go smoothly. The U.S. trustee often points to the related parties' provision, but the related parties provision while broad is meant to be protective of the parties making the primary contributions to the success of the restructuring. These entities have people that carry out actions on their behalf, and if those people are not protected in the same way that the actual entities are, then it blows a pretty big hole in the release. And it's been acknowledged that, you know, this is the best way to provide protection for the state. those parties and in any event it was disclosed clearly to all parties who were affected and they had an opportunity to opt out of those releases if they if they

would like to one other point that I thought worth noting in the US trustees papers is that the US trustee talks about contractual consent under state law and that there only should be a deviation from that rule in extraordinary circumstances. They cited some case law to that effect. And I thought that was interesting because it can be easy to think that because we make the same argument in all of these cases that these aren't extraordinary circumstances that it's just like any other. But large complex Chapter 11 restructurings, even though the people in this room see them all the time are extraordinary transactions, the types of commitments that the parties are making here

to make this restructuring work, I think do warrant a specific rule, and that's, I think, why the Fifth Circuit has interpreted it this way. I don't think the Fifth Circuit's interpretation of how third-party releases should work is necessarily a commentary on broader contracting principles. It's an acknowledgement that these are very specific circumstances and specific provisions tied to these types of transactions in Chapter 11 plans, and that's why they've sort of laid out the factors that they believe support those types of provisions being approved. As it relates to the injunction provision, Your Honor, the U.S. trustee cites to Zale, and Zale does say that...

third party non-consensual third-party releases and injunctions that support such types of releases are not allowed in the Fifth Circuit. I think it's important to note that the Zale Court was specifically referencing injunctions to support a third-party release, and I think that's correct because the court was probably saying, you know, you can't do through an injunction that what you could not do through enforcing a specific type of release. and the court was just, I think, acknowledging that a permanent injunction has the same effect as a release itself. But it was tied to the specific type of release that the court was considering, which would be a non-consensual third-party release, which we don't have here. I think Judge Perez acknowledged in the container store bench ruling, which I thought was instructive, this is more of an administrative function of the plan than a substantive provision. and the substance is in the releases themselves. The injunction is just meant to carry out the court's release that the court has already approved

and provide a mechanism for enforcement of those releases. I do think it's appropriate that this court effectively retain jurisdiction to interpret its own order and enforce its own releases as opposed to compelling the debtors to raise the release as a defense and whatever court inaction is brought, the best venue for interpretation and enforcement of the releases through the injunction provision is this court. As it relates to the 14-day stay, Your Honor, here we are looking to emerge as efficiently

as possible, which isn't necessarily to say that we'll emerge within 14 days, although we're trying to work as expeditiously as we can. The confirmation order also provides broader authority to start taking steps toward emergence. This was a privately held company with a fairly complex holding structure from both a corporate and tax perspective. And it takes, it will take a series of complicated steps to transition ownership from the current owners of the company to the lenders. And certain of those steps, we'd like to ensure that we have authority to do immediately

after confirmation so that we can stay on a path toward emerging as quickly as possible. We did provide some support for that in our declarations. And that's why, Your Honor, we believe that the waiver of the 14-day stay is appropriate here. Those are my relatively brief comments, Your Honor. Happy to answer any questions Your Honor has. Otherwise, I would reserve for any response to the arguments of the U.S. trustee. Thank you. Let me ask if anyone else who supports the plan wishes to be heard.

Thank you, Your Honor, and good afternoon. Rob Fitzgerald of Gibson, Dun & Crutcher on behalf of the ad hoc group of first lien lenders and dip lenders. I'll be brief, Your Honor. Stepping back, we really view this case and this plan as the product of extensive consensus building through the hard work of the participants around the table, and we thank all the parties around the table for building this consensus. We believe, as you noted, that this consensus is amply reflected in the voting declaration and the largely consensual nature of today's here. hearing, we do support the approval, the confirmation of the debtor's plan that was filed yesterday evening with the changes that were reflected in that filing. And we're in agreement with the form of order that reflects those revisions. As it relates to the releases, which, as Mr. Blues noted,

is frankly one of the only major points that's open at this time. We can confirm from the lender's perspective and from the RSA party's perspective that the releases were extensively negotiated They were a critical part of the global deal and global transaction that is embodied in the plan and was reflected in the RSA. We support the debtor's position in respect of the non-debtor releases. And with that, unless Your Honor has anything else for me, we would respectfully request that the court end of the confirmation order. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wishes to be heard?

Mr. Jimenez. Oh, Mr. Scott, I just want to – or anyone else. Just me kind of going once. Yes, Your Honor. Again, for the record, Sean Scott of Mayor Brown on behalf of Kofod. Your Honor, we are supportive of the plan, including, as noted in paragraph 81 of the confirmation order, that it does not propose confirmation order, that it does not alter or modify the rights of the factors under the program documents. I just wanted to denote, for the record, we do continue to work with the debtor on certain post-petition amendments that will contemplate by our agreements. and we hope and expect those will be finalized well in advance of the effective date,

but just wanted to reserve rights around those ongoing discussions and negotiations. But that's for another time date, and we hope to get that done in advance of effectiveness. So with that, we are supportive of the proposed west. Thank you. Just give me one moment. Mr. Jimenez. Thank you, Your Honor. Andrew Jimenez for the United States, 50.

Your Honor, before going into arguments, I would like the opportunity to cross-examine Ms. Lettiche-Janes regarding the stradal regulation declaration. You wish to the voting declaration? Yes, Your Honor. Okay, sure. Let's turn cameras on and cross-examine. Let's see. I see you there, Ms. Johnis. Can you hit five-star?

Have I unmuted your... Ms. Sanchez, have I, can you hit five star? I may have unmuted your line already. Just to make sure. There you are. All righty. Good afternoon. Can you, you're already, your declarations in, but let me just go ahead and doubly swear you in

for purposes of this examination. Can you raise your right hand? Do you swear to tell the truth? The whole truth had nothing but the truth? Thank you. Okay. And you understand the oath that you took is the same that you would take if you were alive.

in the courtroom with us here. Can you confirm whether there's anyone in the room with you? Nobody's there. Okay, and I'd ask that you please put aside any papers or any notes just to answer the questions that are presented to you. And if there is an objection that is raised, if you hear it, just please give me a moment to resolve the objection. Okay? Okay, Mr. Jimenez, you may proceed. Thank you, Your Honor. Ms. Sanchez, good afternoon. Oh, hey, hold up. Before I, before I again is there who's going to handle who's the lawyer that will handle any objections here I just want to make sure that that I've hit far saw your honor that would be Sarah Kimmer all right who's on camera there by mr. Kimmer I didn't want you to have to throw your hands up for

an objection to get a record there are you there can you check your line I think I've unmuted you but okay perfect I apologize mr. Jimenez sorry that was the one question I forgot to ask, you may proceed with cross-examination. Thank you, everyone. Ms. Sanchez, good afternoon. My name is Senator Jimenez. Are you able to hear me? Good afternoon, Mr. Jimenez. Yes, I can hear you. Thank you.

Ms. Sanchez, could you please tell the cord how many class three ballots were sent out to members of such class? Sure. So does it okay I told my declaration just to get the exact number for him? Mr. Jimenez, are you okay with that? I am. Also, Your Honor. I have it right here.

I can also put it on the screen if you did it in a presenter row. Yeah, let's do that. Thank you, Your Honor. Can you see the screen or do you need me to enlarge it? I can see it, thank you. Well, that makes one of us.

All right. I'm the old man who needs it. Hold on. Go ahead. Is that better? Ms. Sanchez? I can see it, yes. Thank you.

Okay. And your honor, is this better for you as well? Yes. Okay. Okay, Ms. Sanchez, this is your declaration. Tell me where you want me to go. As you would in mind, just putting it to the chart, Exhibit A, at the beginning of Exhibit A, please. I'd rather.

So for class three, we received a total of 538, and ballot, of which 537 were accepting and one rejecting. And then for class four, we received a total of 79. Okay, but for class, I'm sorry, sorry to interrupt you. Go ahead. Yes, so for class four, we received 70, nothing total valid. Okay, and my question is for class three, how many ballots were sent out?

Oh, how many ballots? As part of the solicitation process. Of course, yes. So if you will see, we actually have it as unknown due to the fact that the first lien picture analysis of publicly traded security. It's really hard to quantify that amount, which is kind of why you see that unknown.

We know the total world of dollars, not just total holders, just the way that they are hit. And the same will be true for class four? Correct. Okay. And then also as part of the solicitation process, the debtors sent out notices of non-boating status and opt-out forms to those parties not entitled to vote. How many notices of non-voting status were sent out by the debtors? We sent out approximately 16,640.

So essentially any party that was not already being served about it thought that opt-out form. So the entire world of creditors. Okay. How many were returned on deliverable? Deliverable we received, I believe, is around 300. I can pull up an exact number if you need that, but that was. the total estimate. Okay.

Thank you, Ms. Sanchez. Those are other questions I have for you. Okay. Any further redirect? No, Your Honor. Thank you. Okay.

Ms. Sanchez, you are officially off the virtual witness stand. Thank you very much. Thank you, Your Honor. All right. Mr. Jimenez? Any further argument? Any argument, I should say.

Yes. Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. So, Your Honor, I'll start with the third party releases and the up-out mechanism. This argument, Your Honor, is fully briefing our objection, and I know the court is familiar with our argument because this is not the first time we've referenced the argument.

So I don't want to take too much of the court's time arguing something that we have already briefed to the court. However, Your Honor, I do want to point out that this issue is evolving, And I know that here in the Fifth Circuit, this issue is under appeal, so we're waiting on that too. But I just wanna bring to the court's attention that recently in a district court in New York

did rule, this is in the- In the goal case. The goal, linear areas, intelligents, made a ruling regarding consent under state contract law and federal contract law and ruling essentially that the Ups out did not provide consent for this type of third party releases.

And that's something I want to bring up to the court's attention. Your Honor, I want to point out that in this case, Your Honor, as we just heard, more than 16,000 notices of non-boating status were sent out, and only 132 opt-out forms were returned. I think, Your Honor, from my point of view, that shows a very low participation, and in my point of view, it's not enough to support that this is a mechanism that is a success. in reaching out to the parties that are gonna be affected by these certified releases.

So it might be that is something of concern, Your Honor. I wanna move, Your Honor to the discussion of the issue of the injunction and the gatekeeping. Your Honor, here the injunction also includes a gatekeeping provision. So I'm going to discuss those briefly as two separate issues. there is the issue of how our argument

that the injunction shouldn't be allowed under the plan, but also, Your Honor, separately is the gatekeeping provision. We have the discussion with the better regarding the gatekeeping provision and the better made some changes to exclude some parties that were included in that gatekeeping provision. However, we think the gatekeeping provision

is still objectionable, Your Honor, because it includes the release parties. Under the Highland 2 case, in order to comply with Fifth Circuit decision in High Line 2, Your Honor, the gatekeeping provision should only extend to the ex-culpated parties. Not the additional parties here,

the release parties, which in turn includes related parties, and that will be very extensive application of the gatekeeping provision. You're providing it to a lot of people. So a lot of people here that we, sometimes we don't have, we don't know, clearly who they are because this related parties,

it's a long list of people and we just, I think, do not identify, we don't know who they are. So the gatekeeping probation, your honor still does not comply with Highland II. In order to comply, then the release parties would be to be stricken out of the gatekeeping paragraph within the injunction provision. And finally, Your Honor, there is the waiver

of the 3020E state after the, After the confirmation of the plan, we sustain that it's not warranted in this case and that the 14-day stay should not be waste. And thank you, Your Honor, for listening to my argument. No, thank you. I'm just running them down. Okay. Let me just ask if anyone who hasn't spoken wishes to address the court. Let me at one moment.

I'm just looking at the confirmation order. Okay, before the court is consideration of confirmation of the amended joint prepackaged Chapter 11 plan of Cleopatra Finco, SAA, the RL, and its debtor affiliates under Chapter 11 of the Code. Let note this case started on November 4th of this year as a prepackaged Chapter 11 plan. Court finds that it has jurisdiction to consider the confirmation of the plan, and there's been proper notice and service of all required documents in connection with plan confirmation and in connection with the hearing for today. Just note, I make note that the court has admitted certain documents and declarations into evidence which form the basis of the court's ruling today.

I'll start with the disclosure statement portion of it, which is can be, it's just done pre-bankruptcy, but still 1125, still applies. It still has to provide adequate information within the meaning of Section 1125, which is to provide voting parties information, adequate information to make an informed judgment whether to vote to accept or reject the plan and no objections were filed.

The court still finds that it has a requirement to provide that analysis and conduct kind of an analysis under the law. And I've reviewed the disclosure statement, and I do find that it satisfies Section 1125, provides information about the history of the company provides about kind of proposed plan treatment of the plan the classes in the plan tax information information about the confirmation process and everything you would want in connection with a disclosure statement so I find that there's been adequate

kind of publication and service for in connection with the objection and kind of objection deadlines in connection with this case as well, and I look at all the certificates of service to inform the court's judgment. I note this based upon the voting declaration submitted by Ms. Sanchez, I do find that the plan enjoys extraordinary support, close to 99% in each class in class 3 and 4 voting to accept the plan. And I think in one class, there was only one party who voted to reject the plan. You rarely ever see numbers that high, even when there's a lot of support.

That's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's that's rare air support in connection with this plan. And the plan was solicited with sufficient time. So I'm going to, you look at that. So turning to kind of 1122 and 1123, I find that those two sections of the code have been satisfied. Nothing runs afoul. Any of them, I find under 1129, that the plan has been filed in good faith and not by any means forbidding my law. Obviously, the overwhelming support tells me something as well. I do note that we hold hearings today, both what you call hybrid hearings, where folks could come in person and people can also appear by video and raise any objection.

I think that's important to, so I think due process has been served and obviously the overwhelming support by this plan speaks volumes. I also note that there were some language requested by some parties and parties. even after solicitation worked, right? That means it tells me that the debtors and their professionals, you know, received phone calls and then returned them and worked with parties and their lenders to kind of achieve these results. So congratulations to each of the parties for working together. I like old school cases where parties work together,

and sometimes there's disagreements and people work through it. That's what makes the Chapter 11 process, and quite frankly, in the United States is that the quality of the restructuring professionals that appear and can work through complicated issues. So 1129, the plan has been proposing good faith. All the voting requirements have been required as well. I'm going to just note, and I'll make good faith findings on behalf of the debtors. their professionals, the independent directors, the lenders, everybody has appeared before me, and I take judicial notice of the record before the hearing. Even in pre-packs, you, there is kind of, you just don't get this level of support without

efforts to work, and I take notice of that, and so I'll make good faith findings on the record about each of their professionals. So I'm turning now to the objections raised by the Office of the United States trustee here. And kind of view them in separate buckets. One is kind of the, I would call it the notice of the opt-out argument one, and it's kind of the gatekeeper and then related injunction in the 30-20. Note in this district that opt-outs have been granted. But they're not always, not always.

And so I think you can look at even recent cases in this district, and it's not always kind of a given. Some cases require them. Some cases courts will step in. I think Judge Perez recently noted that in a case where there was proposed for an opt-out, and he said, no, let's do an opt-in. I think that's right. Every case is different. And you've got to look at the facts in every case. There were a number of parties who opted out and I I know there are a larger number of folks who received this opt-out

But when you're getting paid in full I think things got a lot easier So I don't see much there in terms of kind of whether the mechanism worked but didn't work When you when you're getting a notice of non-voting status because you're getting paid in full everything that you could have asked for and your claim is You you it's we getting paid and full your rights are there. And the release is here. I do find are narrowly tailored to kind of the issues related to the case, and so they're not kind of releasing non-debtor on non-debtor towards.

I have nothing to do with the connection with the case itself. It's really related to the restructuring and what's being advanced here. And so I look at those things because it's important because you can't just propose a broad release against just anything. I think they're narrowly tailored towards the case here. someone overrule the office of the United States trustee on that. I do note, and I, I, that there were a number of, based on the testimony, a number of parties who may have perceived undeliverable, and to the extent there is someone who never got the piece of paper, right?

that's not a that's not a an opt-out that I'm going to enforce and I would ask parties to take a look at my take home decisions on that and so if someone I think the way the process has always been set up in our district is that you someone actually gets a piece of paper and has the opportunity to check the box or not check the box and and so if someone just didn't get it but I think there's about the numbers are where they are but if someone did receive it and certificates of service will confirm that that's another issue for another day and I just raised that there just to note I know it came out in the testimony so I thought it was important to kind of raise that I think the injunction issue really kind of and of dovetails with the opt-out if you

permit the opt-out then the injunction kind of works with it as well and I I do note I think the gatekeeper function that we do which kind of relates to the injunction as well. I'm not trying cases. I'm not getting into any litigation to confirm it one way or the other. It's just to confirm as an order of providing a release,

an order providing an exculpation. And by the way, the exculpations that are provided here, I think, is the right answer under Highland, for what it's worth. I think the parties to whom it's limited to provides the right answer. But I think the gatekeeper function here

works and I do note if right if there's a argument about whether you know let's making something up employee is an employee or not an employee about a dispute about that that's a whole other issue that we'll have to take up another day but if someone is specifically named right I can then point to that point to the order and get it going there could be what I would call concurrent jurisdiction to just determine if there was actual litigation as to whether someone was or wasn't kind of specifically within that that realm and that's consistent with what I've done in other cases as well but parties coming here to

have me take a quick look at it quite frankly the district courts send me sent it back to me in the first instance anyway so it's just we'll be here one way or the other so I think that that works as well and with respect to the 30-20 I'm gonna grant it in this case there's a bunch of international moving pieces and stuff has to get started and you have 99% support here so I I do think there's a cause to kind of get it to going. 99% on both ends and unencumbered parties for the majority. This is a consensual restructuring.

I approved a plan confirmation yesterday in which one was not approved. So again, every case is different. Every case has its own set of facts. We'll take everyone up on their own. But I think the trustee is right to raise these issues. They're doing their job. And it's a tough one in this district because they have to read just as much paper as I do. And that's a lot of paper and a lot of work.

And so they're kind of unsung heroes in the process. So I thank them for their work. But I want to congratulate the debtors, their professionals, and everyone involved in connection with this case. It's a successful restructuring. And I wish everyone the best. And I wish everyone a happy holiday. I've reviewed the proposed form of order. And I'll get it signed that on the docket.

I do know there are still some kind of pending applications that are out there. Just take them up, C&O or whatever or COCM or whatever that is. And just let my case manager know. But I want to get that done.

I just people start to disappear in the next 14 days, but I'm except when it comes to FIAPs, you know, they want to get all that stuff But I think I want to make sure that applications are in, but I also don't want to kind of swamp my folks with So but just as soon as it is it's there COC but just a simple email to my team We'll make sure and we'll get it done, but it'd be great to just kind of put a

But if obviously we need to have a hearing, we'll have the hearing. So anyway, we're adjourned. I want to thank everyone for their time Thank you. Have a good day. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. All right I will turn my camera off and and um