American court hearing recordings and interviews - Listen to the 7/23/26 FTX bankruptcy hearing - including KYC & customer claims issues

Episode Date: July 23, 2026

--

a large agenda today so let's get right to it miss Brown good to see you good to see you your honor for the record Kim Brown from Landis Rathenkov appearing today on behalf of the FTX Recovery Trust as your honor notes we do have a rather large agenda there were initially 12 items we filed our second amended agenda right before the hearing and that appears a docket number 36,045 that's right unless your honor never say that again hopefully hopefully unless your honor prefer other the trust would ask that we proceed taking the agenda a little out of order we would start first with item number seven which is mr. Chen's motion for

reconsideration and after that we would turn to the Malamid matters starting first with item number 10 on the agenda which is the trust motion to strike Arjunct's joinder and after that then turning into the substantive motions related to mr. Malamid starting first with the motion to reconsider the June 2nd order and then turn to the motion related to revising the description of the arbitration and then lastly we would close out the hearing with the status conference related to Mirren's motion or order withdrawing counsel that sounds like an excellent way to proceed thank you

your honor then with that we will turn the virtual podium over to mr. Chen with respect to this motion item number seven okay thank you very much mr. Chen are you with us yes I am can you hear me I can Ken, thank you. Please go ahead when you're ready. Sure. Good morning, Your Honor. My name is Dairo Chen. I'm representing myself. So last November, the court said my claim that I had finished my KYC was new and not backed up. I accept that. All I had back then was my memory. The record is very different now. The trust's own objection admits that I uploaded my identification document on September 23, 2023, in paragraph 8 and paragraph 20.

And I know firsthand what that document was. A scan I personally made of my real physical driver's license, valid until 2030. I did not photograph a paper copy. And here's the irony. This time, the new claim comes from the trust. The earlier objection said only that my document was not valid. No reason given. The word photocopy appears for the first time in its July 16th objection,

and the only support it offers is the phrase records reflect. No image, no log, no report. their own rose-bent screenshots, photos of paper copies, and edited pictures, which understood, but a scan of real license is none of those. So my request is simple. Make the trust show the record behind their claim of a photocopy. If there is a real problem with my document, give me 14 days to fix it. If there is none, correct my status.

Thank you, Your Honor. very much happy to hear from the trust good morning your honor for the record Alexa Cranesley from Sullivan and Cromwell on behalf of the XTX recovery trust your honor I won't belabor the points that we set out in our objection I'll just respond to mr. Chen's points the purported new evidence that he's referring to is his own request to the FtX privacy team requesting what documents are in our possession the privacy team merely sent to him whatever he had previously uploaded in September of 2020

What he had uploaded via the KYC vendor, as we set out in our objection, was not sufficient for KYC passing purposes. All the other facts with respect to the follow-ups and the request to submit valid form that is not a photocopy or a scan were sent to him. There were 14 different reminders sent to him. Numerous reminders were sent directly from the KYC vendor that explicitly says that the form that he had submitted was not valid. photocopies, scans, copies are not valid for purposes of KYC. None of those facts have changed, Your Honor. Those were the same facts that were before you at the November hearing. And so we submit that Mr. Chen has not provided what was valid for KYC purposes, what he previously uploaded.

Nothing has changed with respect to what he previously uploaded in September of 2020. He chose not to take any action until he filed his previous motion before you last year. All he did subsequent to your ruling in November was to ask for copies of what he previously submitted. Your Honor, the trust submits that as per the vendor's instructions, what he previously submitted was not satisfactory for KYC purposes. None of that has changed. He missed the deadlines. He didn't take any action prior to the deadlines to comply with the KOC requirements,

and so we submit that there's no reason for the court to reconsider your prior order. Okay. Thank you very much. Mr. Chen, I'm happy to give you an opportunity to reply if you wish. I still think they haven't really explained what was wrong with my previous submission. By their vendors' records, any written records, I believe all my submission was unsatisfactory to their standards. And they didn't specifically ban a copy of the real physical ID, which I personally made, which I believe meets their requirement. Okay.

Thank you very much. I'd like to take a short break and I'll come back on the record and well thank you Thank you Classic Albums Live is back at Massey Hall Experience the greatest albums ever made exactly as you remember them Note for note cut for cut classic albums live Only at Nassie Hall Tickets and packages on sale now at nassie hall.com

Eight iconic nights Music from eight iconic bands Get ready Toronto, it's back Classic Albums Live returns to Massey Hall The albums you love live live on stage. Note for note, cut for cut. Featuring music from the Beatles, Pig Floyd, Led Zeppelin, You Two, and more.

Plus, Toronto debuts for Saturday Night Fever, Alanis Morissette and Steely Dan. Make your night iconic. Classic albums live, only at Massey Hall. Tickets and packages on sale now at Masseyhall.com. Mr. Chen, I want to apologize. We are back on the record. I did not review your matter before taking the bench today,

given the scope of the items on the agenda, I did not see it. So I am not prepared to roll on your motion. I will do so at the next omnibus hearing. So you may register for an appearance, and I will give my ruling then. Okay? So I will take it under advisement. Thank you very much. Just one more information.

I can submit the record if you need. I just don't want it to be documented because it's my personal ID. Oh, I understand. I don't need anything further at this time. I will review the pleadings, and then if there needs to be next steps at the next hearing, I will instruct you then. I understand. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Okay, let's move on. Thank you, Your Honor. Good morning. Brian Gluckstein, Sullivan, and Cromwell for the FTX Recovery Trust. We will move to what is agenda item 10, which is the trust motion to strike the joinder that was filed by Argent in the Melamink Claims matter. Your Honor, just a level set. We are not here today with respect to anything having to do with Arjun's claims. That is 100% clear.

Arjun will have its day in court and undoubtedly will argue at that time why the global settlement in the confirmed plan shouldn't apply to its claims. Arjunct's reported joinder that was filed less than three days before the trust reply brief was due to the Melvinanit motion is nothing looking like. like a joinder does not seek reversal of the court's June 2nd 2026 order as mr. Malam it does but rather argues throughout its case as to why its own claims should not be interpreted as being barred under the plan's global settlement at bottom your honor argent disagrees with the outcome in the mellimate matter if the court is enforced the global settlement and related plan provisions which has also been enforced against numerous claims and proceedings over a period of years, including here with respect to Mr.

Malam's asserted arbitration claims. We submit the court should not entertain Argent's invitation to broadly reconsider that order here in connection with an order that is only applicable to Mr. Malamon's claims. And we submit that for at least three reasons, Your Honor. First, as I noted, Argent's submission is a 55-page merits brief. that requests affirmative relief concerning the application of the plan's global settlement as it relates to Argent's own claims, attempting to raise new arguments about the interpretation, size, and effect of the plan that were not raised by Mr. Malaman in its pending motions or at prior proceedings before this court concerning Mr. Malam's claims. Courts will strike affirmative request for relief as improper joins or some set cases that affect our motion.

Argin is not permitted to seek relief in an unrelated contested matter, nor through a brief that far exceeds the scope and the size of the parties to this dispute. In addition, Your Honor will recall that counsel for Arjun informed the court at our last hearing, dealing with the disputed claims reserve, that the parties were confirmed regarding a scheduling order to litigate the Arjun claims, which has now been agreed and is being documented for submission to the court. That schedule specifically includes the opportunity for the parties to raise in brief threshold issues such as the application of the global settlement under the schedule to be submitted that will occur in October of 2026. Argent should not be permitted to jump to line and press its own claims related issues today. Mr. Malam's motion in paragraph 106 is asking for reconsideration for purposes of reversal. in order to permit his notice of arbitration to proceed. Argent, in contrast, expressly concludes in its brief that it takes no position as to the order

as applied to Mr. Malamon's claims. As a result, what Arjun is doing is seeking affirmative relief reconsideration for purposes of litigating questions of interpretation with the global settlement in connection with the order entered in the Malamon proceeding. Arjun argues that it's not delving into the merits of its own claims. We submit that that is demonstrably false. Paragraphs 42 through

76 of the filing, for example, are entirely about Argin's own claims. Second, Your Honor, Argent lacks standing to seek the affirmative relief of reconsideration in the contested matter because it has no direct stake in the trust dispute with Mr. Malaman. The only asserted interest that Arjun has in this dispute is the possible effect of the legal reasoning that underlies the June 2nd order, how that might have on Arjun's own separate claims dispute. But this is the type of generalized litigation interest that is insufficient to establish standard. Courts uniformly hold that if a party is seeking affirmative relief in a contested bankruptcy

matter, it must establish Article III constitutional standard. Concern that a ruling may create a harmful precedent does not create the injury in fact required to establish standing. It's cited in multiple cases, including the Yvon case, 672, BR 269, as part of Judge Goldblatt's opinion in 2025. Beyond that, Arjun's standing under Section 1109B of the Bankruptcy Code, while certainly broad, is not limitless, Your Honor. Courts generally hold that a party must have a financial or legal stake in the outcome of the particular matter, and that here would be Mr. Malam's claims, the claims themselves, in order to be heard. Argent's status that this disputed creditor does not entitle it to seek affirmative relief in every contested matter before this court.

It has no direct legal or financial interests in the Malamian claims and is not seeking allowance or disallowance of those claims in his reported joining. Argent dismisses these infirmities by simply saying that filing jointers is commonplace in multi-creditor bankruptcy disputes. That, of course, is true, but the context is important. It is true with respect to motions and matters where the party has a direct stake in the outcome, or in general case matters such as Planned Confirmation, or as Arjun appeared at the last hearing, the reduction of the disputed claims reserve to use the examples that are referenced. This is different, Your Honor.

It is a contested matter between the trust and Mr. Malamit, as to which Argent has no interest at its expressly not to the evidence. expressly not taking a position for or against the allowance of his claims. The fact that Arjun is interested in a legal question is insufficient. It needs a legal or financial interest in the claim itself. The June 2nd order on its face does not bar Arjun's claims. The trust certainly believes that the plan does do that, but Arjun will have the opportunity to argue why the application of the plan settlement to which claims does not bar them in the Argent claims litigation.

That issue is not before the Court today in this contested matter, and we submit is why Argent should not be heard. The specific issue before the Court was addressed in the June 2nd order, and the subject of Mr. Malam's motion for reconsideration is whether Mr. Malam's claims asserted in an arbitration proceeding between him and the trust are enjoined by the plan. Third, Your Honor, even if Argent were permitted to seek affirmative relief in another claims dismute such as this, it failed to comply with the rules to get proper notice is required. The reconsideration that Argent now seeks, reexamining the court's established precedent and into the global settlement,

would require an appropriate motion on notice to the trust. Argent cannot skirt these requirements by calling its motion. Classic Albums Live is back at Massey Hall. Experience the greatest albums ever made exactly as you remember. them. Note for note, cut for cut. Classic albums live. Only at Nassie Hall. Tickets and packages on sale now at nassiehall.com. To rest on a false premise that Argin has the right to request the court right to slate clean with respect to aspects of the plan confirmed almost two years ago. And that has been a subject of years of proceedings before this court. Arjun's predecessors, the Silberate entities that actually filed these claims had every opportunity to participate in the relevant plan confirmation of related proceedings.

proceedings. Argent cannot and should not be permitted to interfere with the trust administration of Mr. Malamit's claims and the limited matters that are substantively before the court today. Finally, Your Honor, in the event the court is inclined to allow Silvergate in connection with the pending Malamit claims litigation to advance these arguments, the trust does respectfully request the briefing schedule be said so the trust can respond in writing to the joint on appropriate calendar. I'm happy to answer any questions to the court. has right. I do not. Thank you. Mr. LeBlanc, we meet again. Good morning, Your Honor, and thank you,

and I apologize again for not being here last month when this issue arose. But it's interesting to me because I did listen into the hearing. The reason we filed what we did, and I don't think, Your Honor, is confused about this, is because of exactly what happened at the last hearing and because of the pleading that was filed. The debtors here, the trust, has taken the position that what happened in Mr. Malamud's case, and Your Honor's decision with respect to the interpretation of 5.2, their words, law of the case, and therefore I presume they believed to be binding on us.

That was first raised to us on June 16th, and then argued before the court on June 18th at the motion to reduce the claims, or to reduce the reserve amount. Again, my partner, Mr. Perry, who was here, said we've just learned of this argument. Your Honor, we're getting up to speed of it. At the time, Mr. Malamit had already filed his motion for reconsideration on the 16th of June, on the same day that that issue was raised by the trust.

Your Honor, the simple reality is the reason we filed what we did is because it's critically important for Your Honor to not be misled and to get this wrong. That's what's important to us. Your Honor needs to have a decision on this that is consistent across cases and that interprets the plan correctly. We believe that the Malamid decision that was the subject of the reconsideration motion is wrong as it relates to the interpretation of Section 5.2. Your Honor, we took the time to file a very fulsome argument with respect to that with very, very clear intent, Your Honor. We have claims that are hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars against this estate that it is now argued were waived,

released, compromised, something, are valueless as a result of Your Honor's interpretation in the Malamid decision of Section 5.2. We will advance to the court at the appropriate time, and we think it's in connection with this motion, that that's simply wrong. It is irreconcilable with the language and irreconcilable with the conduct of the debtors, with other parts of the plan. We'll deal with that, Your Honor. But the idea that we would sit by and let this decision, or let a hearing happen here,

without being heard with respect to the reconsideration of this issue, when it is the issue. And to be clear, we have not identified dozens and dozens or even more than one case in which this has arisen before Your Honor, and the one case in which it did, and we cite this in our papers, it was purely dicta. Your Honor found that the claim at that, the Breen claim was untimely, and Your Honor had, and I don't mean this majoratively, but had mused about the application of 5.2, but your order with respect to the Breen claim, didn't reference So the only time the court has actually addressed this is in the Malamud decision. We are seeking reconsideration of the provision of the Malamid decision that interpret section

5.2 in the way that the debtors have advanced. That is what we, what's what we joined in, and that's what we, and that's what Mr. Malamit is seeking, we join him in that completely. If Your Honor find some other reason that Mr. Malamid can advance his claims, that's not our issue. That is the point that we have made in our, in our joiner. Your Honor, at the end of the day, the idea that the FTCS trust would assert that we don't have standing to be heard on an issue that they raised is law of the case and precludes our claim, that's not a meritorious argument, to put it lightly. I mean, just two years ago, Justice Sotomayor, for a unanimous court overturned the Fourth Circuit, finding that 1109 standing was lacking. for a creditor there because in that instance it was a plan issue and the court had found, the bankruptcy court had found that it was neutral to that creditor.

The Justice Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous Supreme Court, and Your Honor knows how rare that is these days. The unanimous court said 11.09 is capacious and standing is freely granted. The statute itself says we are entitled to be heard on any matter as a creditor of these cases. And Your Honor will note that our joinder is five. I don't know the docket number off the top of my head. I have it here. It's 35,000 something.

That's because it was filed in the main case. We're not asking to participate in a contested matter, or in an adversary proceeding rather. We are proceeding in the main case, in connection with an issue that the debtor's identified has the gravest consequence to our claim. And yet the debtor is saying we don't have an interest in this, legally cognizable interest.

I don't know how one could make that our judgment. one could make that argument, Your Honor. I don't think it's a credible argument, just like I don't think their interpretation of Section 5.2 is a credible argument. So, Your Honor, what I believe, Your Honor, we filed as fulsome of pleading as we did because we think it's important for, Your Honor, to have all the information when you consider this question. I have no issue if the debtor needs more time. We'll do it in a month. We'll do it in two months. Whatever they want to do, I just want to make sure Your Honor is not misled about what the plan says, what Section 5.2 says, about how ubiquitous it is in plans that Your Honor has approved repeatedly, that this is not a sui generis provision that was created for the purpose of the FTC claim that has some purpose that is nowhere disclosed and no finds it no purchase in the language of the provision. So, Your Honor, we're fine if the court says, I want to get Folsom briefing. I want to make sure we get this right.

But what we can't stand for is to be back here on a dispositive motion. And Mr. Gluckstein's right. When we filed our motion for reconsideration, we had not yet agreed to a schedule. We do have a schedule agreed. It does call for dispositive motions. We had raised us. We had asked for this, affirmatively, Your Honor, to set a schedule that we could litigate these two competing claims in one form, given that, Your Honor, we have the great fortune of having one judge who presides over both cases.

We'll litigate it there. It doesn't matter to me. But what we can't have is a situation where Your Honor perpetuates the finding that Your Honor found in the Malamah decision that, again, we think Your Honor was misled to, and that that is then used against us in the future. And I'm confident Your Honor doesn't want to have inconsistent rulings. So we're fine if they want to push it off and brief it fulsively.

I honestly, I can't imagine what they'll say about it, but I have no issue with that. All we care about, Your Honor, is Your Honor should not do this. You can't perpetrate the interpretation of 5.2, we think, on the record. And if that means we take more time and Your Honor decides it on a record that they believe is more fulsome, I have no issue with that. What is untenable to me is that Your Honor would do it, would strike our joinder, not let us be heard, make a decision there, and then face this same issue in November when the briefing is completed in our dispositive motions.

and I'm confident, Your Honor, can't reach the conclusion they're urging you to find now. And then, Your Honor, will have inconsistent decisions. But, again, we're fine with the delay. What we think is unacceptable is the idea of striking our motion. So we simply can't be heard with respect to an issue that they have argued affirmatively, clearly, directly impacts and discharges our claim. So unless Your Honor has any questions, we urge the Court to deny the motion to strike or just adjourn everything and let them file what they want to.

and we'll come back i i don't know how they'll defend it i'd love to see how that happens thank you your honor did you want to add anything to this i do your honor good morning your honor david adler from mccardarder in english on behalf of set malamid we filed a joinder um in response to their opposition to the motion to strike that's stock at number three six oh four six i believe um i just want to step back for a second and not note that in the motion to enforce, which was filed on April 2nd, 2026 at docket number 35243, there is point three, is the point regarding section 5.2 of the plan. And it starts on page 20 of the motion.

It goes to the beginning of page 22. It's a total of seven paragraphs long, and it talks about generalized allegations of fraud. It doesn't say anything about all fraud claims are released. Talks about generalized allegations. That's what we were responding to back in, when we filed a response, when we were here at the hearing on May 14th.

We think there are fundamental issues of fairness. If the court is going to let Mr. LeBlanc brief it, I think that's appropriate, and I think that we should be allowed to participate that as well and that the court should delay its decision on our motion to reconsider until that false and briefing happens so my my request is simply that you know your honor should allow mr. LeBlanc to go forward and we should be able to get the benefit of that rather than having inconsistent rulings from the court

thank you thank you thank you your honor they're very clear and direct because I find the language is used offensive. The trust did not mislead the court. Mr. LeBlanc and Argent had shown up on the scene here very late. He just suggested that this issue has only come up once other than that's not accurate. We've discussed this previously.

Regardless, this is the point at issue here today. The trust responded to a motion that was filed by Mr. Malamah for reconsideration of the court's order. Okay. Days before this hearing was set to proceed, Argent filed, what's now been described as fulsome briefing on their views with respect to the global settlement issues, not only as to interpretation, but with respect to their claims.

That is an issue that will be addressed in the Argent claims litigation. the trust in connection with the prior hearing in connection with the disputed claims reserve preview that we believe that the global settlement has applicability in the Argent claims dispute. They undoubtedly are going to argue, whatever it is they argue, but part of that is going to, I'm sure,

include why their claims are different. I believe that representation was made, to Your Honor, at the last hearing, that they would argue why their claims are different. The questions to how and whether to apply these provisions to their claims is an issue, Your Honor, for another day. What they're asking to do now is to walk into this proceeding at this stage of the proceeding, this late stage of the proceeding, and suggest that everything that's happened should be thrown out, and we should start parsing their interpretation of what they are assuming is the underlying reasoning,

of the June 3rd order. The June 3rd order, of course, cites, June 2nd order, Your Honor, pardon me, cites to various provisions in the confirmation order and the plan with respect to the court's decision with respect to Mr. Malama's claims. There aren't findings of fact, there aren't a reasoning underlying in it. So a lot of what we're hearing

Classic Albums Live is back at Massey Hall. Experience the greatest albums ever made exactly as you remember them. Note for note, cut for cut. Classic albums live, only at Massey Hall. Tickets and packages on sale now at Masseyhall.com. ...conjecture from Mr. La Blanc. The trust absolutely believes in and will as needed if and when in respect to the urgent claims or otherwise will respond to,

how the global settlement provisions work and why the cherry-picked snippets that appear in the various documents that have been filed are taken out of context. The court has more context, frankly, than Argent does at this point, having been through these proceedings for an extended period of time. The limited question before, again, I come back to where I started, the limited question before the court today is whether to grant reconsideration of the June 2nd order with respect to Mr. Malamish arbitration notice. We had advanced multiple bases for the injunction being enforced against that claim.

The court issued a ruling on the basis of Section 5.2. Mr. Malam is asked to reconsider that. That dispute, that is a contested matter, a claims dispute between the trust and Mr. Malamon. Arjun has not come in and exercised its right as creditor to object to that claim. They have not taken a position either way. What they're seeking to do is weigh in on what they believe is an underlying legal issue that could have negative consequences for them.

And we submit if the law is clear that that is not sufficient to establish standing. This is not a question of whether they can be heard with respect to general matters in the case. This is affirmative relief of reconsideration that they have filed as a joinder. And again, it is anything but the arguments that they are advancing and the issues with respect to the urgent claims. By definition, go far beyond what Mr. Malam had presented in his motion for reconsideration. So again, we suggest, Your Honor, we submit that the course forward here is to consider the limited issues as the up. application as to Mr. Malam's claims and whether any reconsideration is necessary on that order today and to deal with Arjun's issues in the Argent litigation at an appropriate time.

But certainly if the court wants to deal with this at this time, we do believe in additional briefing on this issue would be necessary. Thank you. Okay. All right. Well, thank you very much. I do think that Argent has a right to be heard on this issue, whether it is in the context of the motion that is pending before the court or the issue that will be the exact issue that will be litigated in their claims dispute so either way you view it there could

be a risk of inconsistent judgments so they have a right to be heard and it should be done for efficiency purposes at the same time so if we need to adjourn this hearing to let the briefing play out with respect to

Argent's pleadings because it seems as if the trust is arguing that there is something different with respect to 5.2 that will be applied to Argent than they would to Mr. Malamud I'll give you the opportunity to try to make those arguments so it sounds like we can't move forward based on Mr. Gluckstein's arguments or your request so how should we proceed as for a point of clarification wrong is the court suggesting that we would be addressing the application of

Section 5.2 to Arjun's claims? You said that. You said in your argument that there could be some novel or that 5.2 might be applied differently to Argen's claim and so therefore you should have the right to be able to address that in your arguments with respect to Argent. If you feel it should, I'm happy to consider it in your response of briefing.

Yeah, I'm just trying to understand if we're litigating Argent's claims now, because that seems premature. I think we're litigating the issue of the interpretation and scope of Section 5.2. And that has dramatic implications in this case to claims of all creditors, and in fact, the trust claims that maybe it's bringing against other third parties. So I think that we should just have a hearing on that. and the chips will fall as they fall. Okay, Your Honor. We are in a, because of the positions that the trust is taking with respect to 5.2,

all creditors could be implicated. All of your adversaries might be implicated. So if you want more time to brief, I'm going to give it to you. Okay, Your Honor, yeah, that's helpful clarification, to try and understand the scope of the briefing and what's going to be, which is important time. You can determine the scope, but this is the hearing on it. in my opinion because I do understand how it would be argued that it's law of the case or somehow issue preclusion and I'll just be having this hearing over and over and over again with a risk of inconsistent judgments and I do not want that to happen and I will try to avoid that

I understood okay so with the timing Argent now is on notice of it and they have the right to be heard on this issue because of the dramatic consequences of my interpretation to their claims So I think your suggestion of having your ability to respond is a good one, and I think it's a fair one. It's unfortunate that it will lead to the adjournment of today's hearing and further delay, but I'm more than willing to entertain that to give you the opportunity to respond to it. Thank you, Your Honor. And then I would expect a reply by Argent, and then it should be fully briefed. Okay, understood, Your Honor. Okay.

Okay. Okay, so then that means that there may not be any remaining matters with respect to Mr. Malamad going forward today. Good morning, Your Honor. David Adler from McCartar in English. I believe that's correct. Okay. And I just want to say that the second motion, the motion to clarify necessarily has, you know. Yes. Okay.

Thank you. It's dependent on my ruling on the motion to consideration. Okay. So then we are left with, I believe, Ms. Brown, one matter? Mr. Galaxine, I'm sorry, go ahead. Yes, Your Honor. It's just the status conference in the adversary proceeding against Mirren at all. Okay.

And we asked for that status conference, Your Honor, just to discuss with the court to path forward in that case. Can you refresh me where we stand? Yes, I can, Your Honor. We were last before your honor in this case a while ago. It was in September of last year in 2025. And at that hearing, it was in connection with a motion to compel with respect to jurisdictional discovery and issues. And at the time, there was a motion pending by the defendant both to dismiss and seeking to compel arbitration, which is an issue that we have faced in other adversarial proceedings and we have understood your honor's rulings and the scope of some of those.

After that hearing, we engaged with counsel at the time from Mr. Miron about both resolution and the path forward in the case, given the guidance that the court had provided in that matter. In March of this year, in March of 26, the defendant stopped engaging with us on the path forward in the case. And what we subsequently learned was that Mr. Miron also stopped engaging with his counsel. And that led to Mr. Miron's counsel ultimately filing a motion to withdraw from the case in late May of 2026, which the court granted on June 18th entered an order of granting the withdrawal motion, and the basis for that, as I understand it, is that Mr. Miron terminated his counsel as a representation. In that order, Your Honor, the court entered a directive that Mr. Muren obtained replacement counsel within 30 days, or by July 20th, 2026,

so that he would have new counsel in the matter could proceed. Mr. Miron has not obtained replacement counsel by the court's deadline of July 20th, nothing has been filed, and we are not aware of him retaining the counsel, and he has not otherwise engaged with the trust or we know the court in terms of proceeding on any sort of pro se basis or anything such.

That is not a surprise to us, Your Honor, based on our conversations from Mr. Muran's counsel at the time he was terminated. We were, it was suggested to us that the belief was that Mr. Mirren was declining to further engage with the litigation process. And so we are now in a situation where Mr. Mirren has not complied with the court's directive. We do not have somebody on the other side of the case to advance this. And we think it is important to advance this. If he's not going to defend the litigation, at some of the court, appropriate time the trust would like to move forward with the motion for default.

And so that's the reason why I stand before you today on this matter, Your Honor. We would like, if the court wants to make any further directives or not, our request would be that we be permitted by some period of time that if Mr. Mirren has not gotten new counsel and noticed new counsel or otherwise engaged in this litigation, that we be committed to file a motion for default judgment. Okay. Let me ask, is anyone appearing today on behalf of Mr. Maren or is Mr. Maren joining us by Zoom? Okay, I'm not hearing anyone.

Thank you for getting me up to speed on the matter, and I do recall entering that order and setting that deadline. I believe the outgoing counsel had submitted that order and it was entered on C&O. Um, your path forward is one that I understand. And I will leave it to you to determine when you want to file the motion and whether that is the correct way to proceed and, and the timing of that. I'm not saying, oh, I just, I'm not going to give a directive. So I leave you to play this out as you think is appropriate and then file the appropriate paperwork. Okay, that is fine, Your Honor.

We just wanted to table the issue for the court. Sure. And make sure if there was something else that would prevent. that we will then move forward into course okay I appreciate that I will wait to to receive you know the appropriate paperwork and maybe that would spur on further developments if any but sounds like it may not and I'll deal with the circumstances when they're presented to me okay great thank you very much your honor okay all right is there anything else then before we adjourn

just just one quick point of clarification your honor and I should have mentioned it when I was up here before. As you know, there's a separate proceeding going on in Singapore, and Your Honor has, obviously, enjoying the prosecution of the claims. We have a correspondent with Siak to advise them what the status is. We just want to confirm on the record that we can tell them that this matter is going to be heard at a later date without violating your report, Your Honor's injunction. I'm we view it as not prosecution, just advising the court or advising the tribunal, you know, what the status is, which they've asked questions about, and we find ourselves in the position that, you know, if we answer the question, we're going to be accused of violating your honor's June 2nd order.

So I just want to confirm on the record that we can advise Syak that this will be heard at a later point in time. that limited correspondence does not seem like you would violate the stay and would be helpful to the administration of these proceedings so i don't see how it would be inappropriate if it goes beyond that scope yes it should be limited to that communication thank you your honor okay and to be clear that arbitration is in fact currently stayed is that correct that's correct okay and i would expect it to remain stayed until i make my decisions yes your honor okay all right thank you very much we'll stand adjourn