American court hearing recordings and interviews - Listen to the BlockFills 4/15/2026 bankruptcy hearing in Delaware (In re Reliz Technology Group Holdings)

Episode Date: April 17, 2026

The hearing starts approximately 4 minutes and 40 seconds into the recording.

Catch them in, please be seated. Good to see you all. Mr. Asman, good to see you as well. So, Ms. Packard, it's your request. So want to hear from you first. Yes, good afternoon, Your Honor. Tara Packer of Moore-James on behalf of the committee appointed in these cases. Your Honor, we're here on a discovery dispute in connection with the committee's objection to the debtor's third interim cash collateral order,

including the proposed 506C and 552B waivers included therein. The committee served deposition notices for a Rule 30B6 witness, and Mr. Renzi, the debtors CRO directed those issues. We understand that Mr. Renzi will be the witness in this contested objection, but the debtors have refused to produce any witness, and they cite to rule 731-B, and we acknowledge that that rule imposes a certain time frame with respect to being able to depose an individual in this case, and we don't mean to offend the court in any way, but we are operating in what we believe is in exigent facts here.

Because there were material changes made to the order on Monday night. Yes, that's right. Yeah, okay, I understand the argument. Okay, but please go ahead. Yeah, I mean, Your Honor, you hit the issue right on the head. We would seek to depose the witnesses here in this case, and we understand that the hearing is set for the 16th, and there's only a few one day, I think now at this point.

In order to get that done, we have asked for an adjournment of time that was not accepted. we believe that that is warranted here on these facts. We took a look at the current interim order entered by Your Honor, and there isn't an end date at which cash use will expire. It's our understanding that there is an increase for the amount of cap or spend in this case, and we understand that with the third interim, that will go up. So, you know, to the extent that Your Honor is open to, you know,

extending this out just a bit so we can give folks time to be prepped. That's absolutely fine with us. If it's okay with you and for other folks, that would be ultimately our ask. Right. Let me clarify one thing. So the committee saw the 506C and 552B language for the first time on Monday night when it was filed. Yes. At 619, Your Honor.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Will Mr. Asbin be making the presentation, Mr. Hurst? Yes, Your Honor. Good afternoon, Darren Asman, for the debtors from McDermott, Will & Chulte.

There's really three issues we had with the subpoenas that were issued. One, as counsel noted, is the procedural issue. It's not an appropriate timeline. But putting those issues aside, there are two other probably more important issues. One is related to the scope of what they seek to elicit for Mr. Renzi. The 506C waiver is the only issue that the committee has raised in its objection. I don't know what facts one would possibly need. That's not already in the record to argue whether a 506C waiver is appropriate or not.

But if you look at the topics that were scheduled for the deposition, they go well beyond the scope of anything that somebody could possibly need related to the 506C waiver. For example, they ask for all the facts and circumstances related to the bill. procedures order, which, by the way, the committee already signed off on, Your Honor has already entered the order approving the bid procedures. I won't go through all the topics. There is one topic on there that says the facts and circumstances related to the third interim proposed order, including the proposed five or six. That's the 30B6 notice, though. That's not the notice of Mr. Renzi's deposition. That's a separate issue, right?

Mr. Renzi will be the 30B6 witness, so it's really one and the same. Okay. But my concern is that there are topics that the committee intends to go well beyond that do not relate to the 506C waiver. The third issue is Mr. Renzi's availability. The committee didn't note this in their email to chambers. Putting aside the procedural and scope issues, we told the committee that Mr. Renzi is unavailable. And I can quickly walk through why he's not. It's all related to Blockfields.

This morning, we spent three or four hours preparing for a town hall that we hosted. We actually wrapped that up about 20 minutes ago with creditors in this case. Mr. Renzi is now in the process of preparing for an interview with a special committee in this case. That's taken place this afternoon for three, four, five hours. I don't know exactly how long. The remainder of the evening, we are preparing Mr. Renzi for a hearing tomorrow. And then tomorrow morning, he's traveling by train from Boston, where he resides to Delaware for the hearing. Having said all of that, Mr. Renzi is willing to make himself available tomorrow at noon.

That's when he gets in around that time to Delaware. So he would be available from 12 to 2 for two hours prior to the hearing. I know that that's not ideal, but that's literally the only time he has available to do it. The only request that we have of the court is that the court made clear, and all parties agree, that this deposition of Mr. Renzi is related solely to the one issue that the committee has objected to, which is the 50-s surcharge waiver. Okay. Ms. Packford.

Thank you, Your Honor. I would like to say a few points in response, if you don't mind, which is we think that the topics that we put forth tie in to the 50-60 issues. We would like to get an understanding of the sale process that happened pre-petition, how that's impacted with respect to the term sheet, the post-petition process, and how we ended up with a 506C waiver as well as a 550-2B here in this case. What we are happy to always do is meet and confer. We have not been able to do that because right now we have been told that he's not going to be put up at all. So we're at an impasse, unfortunately. With respect to the time frame specifically, I'm not sure two hours will be enough for us, even if we did reduce the scope here.

But we're happy to continue to meet and confer and see what we can do. Otherwise, again, we would ask, you know, because this issue here, in our view is an increase in cap and spend, if Your Honor would be open to adjourning this piece of the case that would be what we would ask for. And when you say this piece of the case, could you specify? Of course, of course, Your Honor. I'm sorry. So we understand that there is multiple contested issues before we're on around the 16th.

And with respect to our objection, what we would ask for is to adjourn that if Your Honor will be open. I understand, you know, if Your Honor would be open to maybe just adjourning the entire thing, which is fine, but I think we want to respect you and your time, and we don't want to impose anything on the court. So that's what that means when I say that. No, look, my job is to hear the stuff that's never been in a position. I'm interested.

Look, I'll make a few observations. First, if I'm to understand this right, the 5O6C and 552B language, I think it's paragraph 7 of the order, was first disclosed to the committee on Monday evening. That's a choice. But, debtor can't then fall back on the procedural. argument that there deserve seven days when they disclosed it three days before hearing. So that doesn't work. I am not inclined to adjourn tomorrow's hearing because there's there's at least one other objection.

There's the Bertram objection and they've got their own issues. So simply saying we're going to continue operating under the second interim order when they've got a live objection for something that was noticed to be heard tomorrow. I'm not sure that that would be appropriate. So it's going forward in some fashion. I would, as far as the scope, I mean, I looked at the 30B6 depot notice. I don't have a lot of problem with the scope. I mean, you're talking about the bid procedures and all that.

Like, all this goes to the disposition of the collateral, and that's what 506C addresses. So I think it's in play. And the issue is emergent now because of the inclusion of this language on Monday night. So I'm not surprised that we're here. So what I could suggest the debtor does and is for consideration of a third interim order, abandon that paragraph because the committee is going to get a chance to take their discovery on it. And I'm not sure that dropping this on them. I think they deserve the courtesy of seeing the order before you filed it.

Like that, this is nobody's first time doing this, and that's surprising to me. But to drop it on them a couple days before the hearing and then say, well, our witness is busy, that's not going to work. So if you want to go ahead with it, see. that language tomorrow. I doubt you're going to be very happy with the outcome. But you, and like I said, and you still got to deal with the Bertram objection. So, you know, in terms of what to rule here, it's like, yeah, you're going to get your deposition. You're entitled to seven hours. And you don't have seven hours before the hearing, so the debtor's got to do something about that. That's kind of a debtor problem. It's not a committee problem. It's not a me problem either.

So, you know, that's where I am. So I think, you know, I can leave the parties with that information to figure out what they want to do. But, you know, normally with the 506C and 552B issues, you know, you see it in the first interim order and we say subject to a final order. So everybody knows from the first day of the case that that's something that the debtors are going to be asking for. That's not what happened here. So analogy to other cases and other circumstances doesn't necessarily really work here. That's a significant give by the estate, and it requires more due process than this. So I don't really – I think maybe the committee and the debtors need to discuss.

you know, how they want to approach this problem. But, you know, short of the debtors resolving all of the objections prior to the hearing, there's going to be a hearing in some fashion tomorrow on the third interim final dip, or the third interim dip, or cash collateral, I should say. John, we hear you out in clear. I think it requires some communication also with Celsius. Yes. There are counsels on the line here, but I don't, I think we have your views on this.

The only thing I want to mention, because I don't want the court to be left with the thought that we just didn't share this draft at all with the committee, there was a mistake on our part. We've apologized to the committee for, we sent an incorrect red line to them. That 506C language was in drafts prior to us filing it, but we inadvertently sent them one that showed it was taken out, and that's on us. We have to put that on the record when we make mistakes like that. Yeah, I appreciate that. The ECC's council, we would never try to do something like that.

I just felt they need to make sure the court understood where, you know, how things played out that way. And it's unfortunate if it played out that way. Yeah, no, thanks for sharing that, Mr. Edmund. I do appreciate that. And, you know, things happen from time to time. But should I leave the parties with this issue? And you can figure out how you want to handle it. And, you know.

I think so, Your Honor. Yeah. I think we have very good guidance from you on what's expected of the court at this point, and we'll have to work with the committee and Celsius to figure out what we're going to do in advance of tomorrow. I agree, Your Honor. Yeah. And, Frank, I think you ought to work with Mr. Bircham's counsel as well. You've got a live objection, and there are a variety of ways that could go.

Okay. So, anything else? I don't have anything more. Okay, thank you. If there's anything you need in advance of the hearing or any updates that you want to provide, just let us know. But otherwise, I look forward to seeing you at two tomorrow.

Okay, thank you. Okay, we're a job.