American court hearing recordings and interviews - Listen to the Ultinon Motion Holding B.V. et al. April 9 bankruptcy court hearing

Episode Date: April 19, 2026

--

Good afternoon. This is Judge Lopez. Today is April 9th. I want to call Elton on. I'll take appearances at the virtual hearing, so I will turn on my camera. And if parties wish to hit five star, I will unmute your line. 312 number. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Brian Lowe and Clifford Chan to propose counsel for the debtors. Okay. Good afternoon. A 302 number. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Matthew Son at D.A. Piper, on behalf of LUMOLID's holding BB.

Okay. A 2-1-2 number. Your Honor, Christian Jensen, Sullivan, and Cromwell, on behalf of Banco, Santander. Good afternoon. Okay. Okay, just give me one moment and we'll get started. Okay, I'll turn it over to the moving. Thank you, Your Honor.

Again, Matthew Sarnett, D.L.A. Piper, on behalf of Luminlands. Your Honor, thank you. I'm starting by saying thank you to your honor and your staff for accommodating us on emergency basis today. We filed a motion at docket number 91, seeing limited relief from the automatic stay, so that Lulaids may take a procedural ministerial step in the Netherlands to prevent the lapse of its prejudgment attachment on certain accounts at Citibank in the Netherlands from expiring or lapsing it by operation of the law.

Your Honor, at the outset we filed earlier today a declaration from my colleague, Mr. James Menker, pursuant to federal civil procedure 44.1, attaching a memorandum of law from our colleagues that fueled Fisher in the Netherlands to provide, Your Honor, with certain excerpts of Dutch law and their applicability to the relief we've requested today. So, Your Honor, I think whether or not Your Honor grants modification of the stay comes down to whether the debtor should be permitted to utilize the automatic stay as a sword here, rather as a shield. Certain facts are not in dispute. The debtors acknowledged and have stayed in their first state declaration and elsewhere that pre-petitioned in Lundits obtained a leave from a Dutch court. obtained a prejudgment attachment of certain accounts at Citibank in the Netherlands. And Your Honor, I'll say the debtor referring to the Dutch entity as opposed to the other debtors in this case, which are not exactly related to that action. So, Your Honor, I think first perhaps it makes sense to seek to move the admission of Mr.

Banker's declaration filed at document number 98. I communicated this to the debtors and we spoke beforehand. And we don't intend to call witness today, Your Honor, but I think makes good sense to move that into evidence first. Is there any objection? Your Honor, for the record, Brian Lowe on behalf of the proposed counsel for the debtors, Mr. Sama did and I did speak. I certainly don't have any objection to admitting the Declaration and the English translation. We received the declaration a couple hours ago.

So there are some paragraphs in the declaration that I think may go beyond translation of Dutch law and may offer opinion or potentially expert testimony. I noticed that the individual that signed a memo is in the courtroom. Otherwise, I think this would be hearsay. So we just haven't had a chance to look at the numbered paragraphs in great detail. So to the extent that Your Honor is going to take that into consideration for the truth of a matter, certainly I may want a second and shoot to review those more carefully. Give us much time as you need. And, Your Honor, Mr. William is correct.

He's signatory to that memorandum of law. Mr. Willem is on the line with us today. He's advised that he would agree to testify as needed. However, I don't think there's actually much of a dispute as the Dutch law. I believe the paragraphs, my colleague for the debtors, is probably referring to takes the law and applies it to the timing issue at hand here. Which paragraph are you focused on, Ms. Salon? As you look, it's, well, frankly, Your Honor, we haven't, we haven't had a chance to really dig into all the paragraphs, but if you look at the exhibit, if you look at the exhibit, there are relevant provisions of Dutch law in,

in Dutch and in English a translation. No problem with those. Above those paragraphs seem to be a statement as to the applicability or interpretation of the law. Kind of the construction of the law itself. So you're fine with the... I see. Yeah, and to go back to Mr. Samma's point,

Your Honor, I don't know that, I know there's been a lot, of paper pushed back and forth on Dutch law. I don't know at the end of the day how relevant it is to this court's decision. So, and given to Dick Clarence is in the courtroom, I think my hearsay objection is going to be overruled. I would just ask that if we get into the substance of those paragraphs, that we take a second and allow me to dig into the substance. I think that's fine. That makes sense to me. Thank you, Your Honor. All right, so, well, I made it subject to Crosson.

Thank you, Your Honor. So, and again, going back to that, I don't think there's actually a disagreement of the Dutch law here. And so I'll walk through kind of an overview of why we're here today on an emergency basis, which is a direct result of that law. So, on March 20th, my client initiated action to obtain a pre-judgment attachment on those accounts in the Netherlands. by application of Dutch law, that starts a 21-day clock for Luma leads to serve what's called a writ of summons on the Dutch debtor. That expires tomorrow at the end of the day. Without serving that writ of summons, the attachment lapses by operation of law. And so as I understand it, the writ of summons is a simple document.

that provides a docket date, which my client is advised will set for April 2027. In between now and that date, there will be no material action from numeralds. There will be no need for material action from the debtors, no court intervention or action that simply will set the timeline. And we've proposed it as April 27 to avoid any contention that something might happen before what I understand to be

a quick Chapter 11 case where there's a moving expedition to our plan and confirmation. You said, can you just two questions. What is the, and parties can disagree, what is your understanding of the legal effect of a writ of summons? Your Honor, my understanding of the legal effect is simply to preserve the prejudgment attachment and then set a date where claims will be filed. Usually, as I understand it, practice in the Netherlands, you file something the day before the docket date setting forth your claims against the counterparty. As I understand, there's no other legal effect in terms of deprivation of any rights, claims, interests, defenses for either my client lulids or for

the debtor. And so if I modify the stay, what is your understanding of what happened legally, then someone would file something in the Netherlands. and sets in April 27th date and then what happens on April 27. And to be, to be clear, Your Honor, April of 2027, so a full year from now. April of 2027, that's different than April 27. Got it. You're saying you're going to put this far out, you're going to put this far out in advance so that this is not an issue and not a day.

You're just kicking this out for, got it. Thank you. That's the claim. Exactly, Your Honor. That changed. Okay. Got it. Got it.

So you're saying you just want to preserve the right here, go file something, push it, put it out a date far out, and see – and everybody – and then the case will have whatever rights, but everybody's rights are preserved. Exactly, Your Honor. My client just wants to preserve the status quo and not by operation of law lose out on its pre-dgment attachments, which has that 21-day deadline. Okay. And so, Your Honor, looking at the xenon anesthesia factors that the court usually looks at in terms of whether or not there's cause to modify the stay, we identified a couple in our papers. The debtors responded with some pushback. So, first and foremost, I don't think there's any interference with these chapter 11 cases. preserving the status quo

does not remove any rights the debtor has to either I know they put in the papers this potentially without saying anything this potentially could be a preference they have the right

that rights deserve they can file a preference action tomorrow if they would like there's no diminution value because this pre-judgment attachment happened pre-petition the debtor did not have access to this 600

thousand and change pre-petitioned by virtue of this prejudgment attachment. I don't believe there's prejudice to creditors, Your Honor, because they are in the same boat tomorrow if Your Honor grants this motion as they are today, and their rights are reserved as well. In terms of two factors raised in the debtor's response, readiness for trial, I think this might be a different conversation if this was an act to collect on a debt or even to liquidate our claims. This is just to preserve our pre-judgment attachment and kick the can down the road a year from now, if that's even relevant then. And then finally, Your Honor, the debtors respond with the creation of a judicial lien that might be avoidable. As I understand

that, Your Honor, my client has a judicial lien. I think whether or not that's avoidable is the subject of a potential adversary proceeding, which would entitle my client to do process defenses. I'm not sure if that factor is relevant today, as it might just amount to, will be an advisory opinion if this court were to rule that that was the preference when it's not actually before the court today. So, I think under the circumstances, this is a procedural step, the ministerial act under Dutch law to keep the parties where they are, to potentially say platform for the party,

to negotiate a global resolution without the clock ticking and without my client losing its rights under Dutch law just simply by the passage of time. So if Your Honor has any questions, of course, otherwise I defer to my friends on the other side. Okay, no questions. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. All right, who wishes to speak next? Good afternoon, Your Honor, again for the record, Brian Lowland.

Brian Lohan, look for chance, proposed counsel to the debtors. We also would like to thank you for hearing this on an expedited basis and accommodating Luma Led's motion, and we appreciate you and your court staff's cooperation on this. This is an important issue for the debtors, as it involves $600,000 of the debtor's cash, which is a meaningful amount given these debtors' estates and the stated goals of these cases.

As Mr. Feldman explained at the first day hearing, these cases are simple and straightforward. They're meant to preserve the debtor's assets, primarily consisting of claims and causes of action for the benefit of all creditors, and to transfer those assets into the litigation trust for the claims to be monetized in the future. Our goal was to make this one of your easier cases, Your Honor, and we still hope to achieve that goal. As Mr. Feldman also explained to the court at the first day hearing, the debtors had hoped to file these cases with a fully big plan disclosure, statement and litigation trust agreement. However, the debtor's timeline for filing was moved up because Luma has had on an ex parte basis sought to freeze the debtor's cash.

The others learned of this if they were moving cash into a B of A account and just for your honor's benefit, I'm sure you know this, but BAA is a U.S. trustee authorized depositor and Citibank is not. And the transfer from the Dutch account was rejected because Citibank had a freeze on the debtor's account. And I want to note that the cash is just frozen. No possession or control transfer to Lumillettes. And, you know, as I mentioned, this covered $600,000 of debtors cash,

and I believe the debtors entered with about $3.4 million as of the provision date. You know, debtors were and are keenly focused on maintaining the status quo, including by maximizing assets available for pro-Rat distribution to its creditors. And thus, after we learned the cash was frozen, the debtors immediately pivoted to filing these cases to prevent any further action from being taken by Lumulence or any other creditor, for that matter. You know, and in our response, we highlight that our pre-petition secured lenders, Mr. Jensen represents, have a pledge over that same account.

But for whatever reason, that was never perfected, and actions were not taken by the debtors to remedy that for the very reasons I just mentioned. That brings us now to the Lumillense motion. And I mentioned you a little bit earlier, Your Honor, despite references to Dutch law, I think the issue before the court is pretty simple and straightforward. And I like to frame this as to what this is and what this is not. And what this is not, Luma is not seeking to take a near procedural step. This is also not an effort by the debtors to deprive Luma Lent of its underlying claim once the amount is agreed upon. In fact, Your Honor, I would represent to the court that if Lumillade wanted to have its claim adjudicated in the bankruptcy court on an expedited basis, I'm sure we could take steps to figure that out, and we would be amenable to that.

But what this is, is Lumillade taking a substantive step, not just a procedural one, to host petition initiated claim against the debtors to obtain a preferential advantage over the debtor's other credit. including Mr. Jensen's clients. So in other words, this is exactly the reason for the automatic stay. And perhaps most important, and I will raise this again in a few moments, if the debtors were to file bankruptcy in Netherlands, the freeze would go away and the debtor's assets would be available for distribution to all unsecured creditors, which is exactly the result of debtors seek in these Chapter 11 cases. So who is Moomeleds?

Mummelaidez is an unsecured creditor. It is a party-deal pre-petition contract, And according to Lumiland, it has claims relating to the pre-petition breaches under that contract. But Lumillade is not a secured creditor. No security interest was granted to Lumiland's under the pre-precision contract, and it's not a secured creditor. Let's talk about the Dutch process in question. My understanding, and I'm not an expert on Dutch law, but in reading papers over the last 48 hours, including Lumillade's motion, My understanding is there are three steps.

Step one, ask the Dutch court on the next part-kate basis to freeze assets. And by the way, these steps are taken by unsecured creditors. Secured creditors, my understanding, has their own steps to take for remedies that do not include these steps. Step two, then Luminolids have to initiate a claim on the merits, and finally, step three, it has to obtain a judgment on the merits. and all three steps are necessary to obtain enforceable judgment. Step one happened six days before filing, and as a result, the debtor's cash was frozen in one of its bank accounts.

And again, the cash is not in possession of LomaLeds, nor is it under LumaLeds control. But step one is not enough. Lumares needs step two and step three, neither of which happened pre-petition, both of which are required. And that's why they're here today. Lomeleds is seeking this court's blessing to take step two because the automatic state prevents them from doing so, and thus Luma-Lead is attempting to turn its own security claim into effectively of judgment lane. And that's the purpose of the automatic stay. It is preventative and disruptive in nature. If a creditor, if a creditor is granted security interest, which we

don't have here, which fails to protect prior to the debtor filing, the automatic stay prevents that creditor from taking actions which could have been taken pre-petition. Filing in UCC is easy, But the automatic state prevents a creditor from running into this court and saying, let me just take the procedural step of hitting a button and filing this UCC document with the Secretary of State to perfect my lien that was unperfected on the petition date. And similarly, perhaps more analogous, if an unsecured creditor wants to obtain a judgment lane, it must initiate a proceeding, obtain a judgment, levy or attach that judgment pursuant to the state law or ruled in the court,

and if a debtor files bankruptcy before that creditor gets to a judgment, attaches the judgment, the very purpose of the automatic stage is to stop the creditor's efforts in its tracks and not allow any further steps, no matter how substantive or procedural they are. And turning to the substance of our response. And before addressing why cause does not exist, I want to quickly address the motions, Aluminolid's motion's brief discussion of 362B3. So just let me just kind of just make sure, just from your understanding. So step one has already kind of occurred, right? They've got an next part to order, and I think we all agree it expires in three weeks,

at least that's, and it expires tomorrow, if you will. Or maybe it's, on April 10th is the more accurate raise. And so your understanding of what they want is to now go do step two, which is kind of file this, which preserves their right to the prejudgment attachment, right? and then step three is they're going to have to go file a litigation claim right essentially kind of litigate

the claim to a judgment I should say and then kind of get a judgment correct step three is actually getting to a decision on the merit of the claim step two is filing the claim here's the question I've got is let's under

judge law let's say step three happens, right? What's the effect of the prejudgment attachment at that point? Is it just to segregate the funds or is it really granting a lien on the funds or does someone then have to take the additional step? In other words, is this, is it more akin to permanent injunction relief, you know, pending resolution or is it more akin to a a preservation of assets so they don't go anywhere until a lawsuit gets resolved.

So, Your Honor, I want to make sure I understand the question. Are you talking about the interim between step two and step three? What are you talking about after a judgment has been? Really, to be fair to you, I'm kind of thinking about both, right? At some point that the merits are going to have to be adjudicated as to the amount of a claim. and let's just whatever the claim number is, right? What is the effect of, if step two goes into effect, what then happens?

Do they have a lien if there's a judgment or do they not have a lien? Or do they, is there a step after that? In other words, is the effect of what's happening segregation of funds so they can't be used or is it really kind of as we think American terms, you know, you can look to this collateral to satisfy your judgment to the kind of with priority over others. Yes. So my understanding, to my understanding at least between step two and step three is that the

property is basically segregated and frozen. So it can't be dissipated by the company. It can't be transferred. It can't be moved. It's there. Now, I believe, and I just want to go back to, did I guess? I did file also a declaration that attached, and I probably should have mentioned this at beginning in my presentation, Your Honor, I apologize.

But at docket number 95, I did file a declaration which attached excerpts from the Coda Civil Procedure from the Netherlands Commercial Court website with a link to the website, as well as a couple select provisions with both Dutch and English. I only had able to read the right-hand column, the English side. I don't know if others can read. but I'm trying to find the I'm trying to find the provision that I think is responsive to your question. If you just give me one second, 7,7001 to 3. So seven, so I found page 14 of 18.

Which document number are you looking at here? Are you a docket number? 95-1, Your Honor. 95-1, okay, let me just get there. Okay, okay. What do you want me to look? So, if you look at page 14 of 18, okay. It's got to Article 703.

Okay. It looks like section one. It says where the attaching party has obtained an execution title. And the main action that is eligible for enforcement, the pre-judgment attachment converts into an executory attachment provided the title has been served on the attachee and where the attachment was made in respect to a third party on the third party attached attache so i think your honor and again this is this is you know interpreting an english translation of dutch law i think a step has to be taken before they have the lean where they have to obtain an execution title in order to

be eligible for enforcement on the, on the, with essentially the freezing and segregation of assets. Okay. All right. What else do you wish to tell me? Sorry? Is there anything else you wish to tell me? Sorry, that was my question. I didn't want to, I asked you a question, kind of mid-presentation. I just wanted you to go back to what else you wish to tell me. I apologize. I interrupted you, and I wanted you to kind of get back and make sure that you had the opportunity to present to the court. Thank you, Your Honor.

And I'll just turn briefly to our response. And before addressing why cause does not exist, I want to quickly address Lumillade's motion brief discussion on 362B3. Mm-hmm. Debtors position is 362B3 exemption does not apply here. First, the debtors maintain there is no interest granted to which post-petition perfection relates to. and any actions post-petition are creating new rights by filing a new claim.

In our response, we note that Lumillade is effectively relying on the relation-back exemption, which this court is probably most familiar with in the context of perfection of mechanics' liens under the various state laws. And not surprising, two of the three cases cited by Lumillade's involved mechanics liens. We also note that the relation-back exemption is to be narrowly construed, and its purpose is to protect and spike of the surprise, intervention of the bankruptcy petition, those whom state law protects. And that's quoting the Second Circuit case that we said in our response. Lumillade does not, nor can it point to any applicable

law that afforded the same special protection that, for example, mechanics lien claim it has under express state statute. Lumillade's argument is based on the fact that it must do something, that it could have done pre-petition, but the automatic stay is now preventing it from taking action. It is not arguing that it has a special right to take that action, notwithstanding the imposition of the automatic stay. And as I previously mentioned, I think this is important. I think there's two main elements I think are very important in this presentation. This is one of them and the other is the preference of them to come to.

As I previously mentioned, Dutch law would not protect Lumillads as the effect of a bankruptcy order in the Netherlands would be to terminate all judicial enforcement and a cancellation of all attachments, which is exactly the effect, the denial of the motion will have. have. Thus, this completely undercuts any suggestion that 362B3 applies, and frankly, it also goes to cause, Your Honor, as well. And support for that is in Exhibit 2 of my declaration. It's Article 33BA of the Code of Civil Procedure. So that leaves us with whether this court should lift the automatic stay for cause, and the debtors believe this is a clear situation

when no cause exists, and the creditor should not be able to take any action to prefer itself to the detriment of the other state creditors. Lumillads correctly cites the 12 senon factors and accurately knows that the factors are not necessarily assigned equal weight and only relevant factors need to be considered. But notably, despite a fact-intensive inquiry, Lumillette supports a position for cause

based on self-serving conclusory statements rather than facts. Several factors are relevant and guide this court to deny the motion. The letters believe the key relevant factor here is factor nine. Whether movement's success would result in the judicial lean, the board of a debtor. And this is in the xenon factors that go into consideration for cause. This factor makes this issue simple and straightforward for the court. The debtors don't believe any interest was created pre-petition. Luma-leds disputes that. The court does not need to decide this issue. It is a large part irrelevant because if this day is lifted, any action taken,

even if the effect of which is to perfect an interest obtained six days prior to the petition date, which is better dispute. The result is an avoidable preference and it is the key relevant xenon factor. And that makes sense, Your Honor, as the automatic stay exists to prevent this very situation. And moreover, as we note, this is not a situation where proceedings have progressed and are ready for trial. It's the opposite. Lumillade is seeking to take the first step in filing its claim. In terms of judicial economy and impact on the, an impact of the stay, undoubtedly, Lumillads will say that it is impacted by not lifting the stay. Every creditor that has stayed in the middle of taking an action against the debtor will say the same. But as I mentioned,

the state is protective, preventative, and disruptive, and that's his purpose. On the other side, the debtor's estate and the other creditors, including Mr. Jensen's creditors that lent the estate more than $100 million would be harmed by allowing one pre-petition unsecured creditor to temporarily better position itself at the expense of the estate. The consequence will result in the debtor's expending time and resources to avoid Luminance preference and delay the ultimate disposition of the cases. Your Honor, the debtors believe Lumillate's efforts to obtain this preferential treatment of the debtor's other creditors must be denied for the following four reasons. One, no exception to the other next day exists to permit it to bring its claim.

Two, cause generally does not exist to modify the automatic state to allow it to do so. Three, any interest that the Lumillette may obtain if the motion is granted is an avoidable preference. And finally, Your Honor, denial of the motion will preserve the status cause that exist today from the debtor's perspective. Or unsecured creditors, including LUMLEADS, will share pro rata and the distribution of the debtor's assets. One last thing I would like to directly address to the court. It has not been raised or alleged.

I touched on this several times throughout my presentation, but the debtor's decision to file these Chapter 11 cases were exactly for the reasons stated in the first aid declaration and by Mr. Feldman at the first day hearing. This was not an end run around Dutch law. In fact, as I've mentioned several times, It would have filed for, if we would have filed for bankruptcy in the Netherlands, Luma-Leds would be in the same position as it would be if you denied the motion.

So we are using the automatic stay, neither as a sword or a shield. We are taking advantage of the U.S. bankruptcy code as we're permitted to do and is appropriate in the situation. Mr. I don't have any questions. I see the podium. Okay. I'm going to note there was a Chapter 11 case filed by Oldenon on March 26th of 20206. Shortly thereafter the court granted certain first-day relief.

We're still at the end of what I would consider the infancy of this Chapter 11 case. On April 7th, there was an emergency motion request. relief from the automatic stay to serve a writ of summons in accordance with Dutch law. The relief requested included emergency consideration of the motion because on April the 10th, there's a lapse of a pre-judgment attachment as described in the motion and by the party's today under Dutch law. So the court granted emergency consideration of the motion on two days' notice,

because these are obviously an important issue for the movement here. The court has considered the evidence. And so I'll note, I'm going to grant emergency consideration of the motion. I think the April 10th date was important and it was important to get a ruling from the court and not simply, if you will, allow this to lapse in effect without having an opportunity to be heard. The court has in the

record a declaration from a Dutch council law firm of summarizing and translating applicable Dutch law on this issue. And what is clear are a few things. One, that before this case filed on March 20th, which was about six days before this case filed. A Dutch court granted Lumillade leave to levy a pre-judgment, attachment against one of the debtors bank accounts, city bank accounts in the Netherlands pre-judgment attachment was affected under Dutch law and kind of

the notification contained in order to Citibank to retain, to kind of retain these assets. So these assets are effectively frozen in a bank account, in a city bank account. And in March, the debtor filed for bankruptcy. a few days later I would know that the first day declaration did kind of identify these issues so but today we're here under Dutch law the parties agree that third parties attachment lapses automatically by operation of law unless you know the party initiates a claim in the main action within prescribed period of

time. It's a statutory prescription and that expires tomorrow and it would have to be a writ of summons has to specify a certain docket date. Mr. Sine has indicated and they would put it well far out in advance so there wouldn't be any issue here so City Bank was notified of the prejudgment attachment on March 20th, so the three-week period expires on April 10th, unless there's this procedural step of initiating claims in the main action. So this kind of, one is kind of how that are obviously objects

and says the automatic stay should not be lifted. If there's two arguments raised by Limelized one is that this is just kind of this is accepted from under 362 and a B3, it's just a continuation of perfection. I will tell you, I gave everyone an opportunity to testify. It's not entirely clear under Dutch law. But this prejudgment attachment operates more

as like a freeze order. kind of freezing the assets there until a judgment can be rendered to kind of allowing someone to kind of have the money frozen in a certain account. And 362B3 really talks about taking steps to perfect a lien. And that applies with mechanics liens and statutory liens where by a certain date you may have a statutory lien, but that lien requires additional paperwork to file it with the Secretary of State to perfect that lien. This is different. This isn't, and I'm not convinced that based upon the presentation under me, it's clear that under Dutch law this act of filing that what life wants to do

is essentially going to perfect anything. So, 362B3 is this is the automatic stay is in effect on this. And the question is, should it be lifted? the parties are correct that bankruptcy code provides that the stay can be lifted for cause and cause is the fact and extensive circumstance depends on the facts and circumstances of each case you know courts have considered a number of factors

in connection with matters bankruptcy courts but again it's fact intensive to you know not every factor applies in every case you've got to consider the facts on the ground and make an assessment as to whether cause is there but courts do you know sometimes there's litigation in cases sometimes there were acts that happen pre-petition and sometimes you know you kind of have the melting ice cube it it really depends on the facts and circumstances of every case and in this case you know really what's what's being asked of the court is to kind of allow

um as to kind of continue having those those funds frozen in that account until there can be a judgment and the merits and that that could happen some time in you know 2027 if you will maybe earlier and what court would decide that whether it be this court or a Dutch court and is an unknown question, whether this would create a lien ultimately and whether that lien could be avoided. It's not entirely clear to me that this would qualify even as a judicial lien because a lien secures payment, and it's unclear that even under, you know, one could certainly have assets. available for which to collect but in a plan in which there was an erratable distribution

assets to a similarly situated creditors I don't you know it doesn't secure a right to payment so it's it's questionable whether there's a lien and I'm looking at the definition of lien under section 101 and whether that would be whether that would require a preference action to to resolve I I do think The relief requested is really just to freeze the money. As I can tell, the best under Dutch law. And again, the court is just presenting based upon the translations that have been provided to this court and make no assessment, final assessment, as to whether that's, you know, I think, I'm going to deny the relief requested,

but I don't think there's cause to lift the automatic say. I think, I know, from what I can tell, multiple unsecure creditors in connection with this case. And a plan would require use of those funds, and there's still going to have to be litigation to determine these issues. And I certainly think, Limelands, at the appropriate time, would be able to continue its litigation and proceed in the appropriate court to go liquidate, its claim. That being said, I don't, I think the right answer for today is to tell the debtor that I don't want any money moving today without me knowing where it's going. I don't want those funds to dissipate as a matter of bank. I think if this is going to be a fast Chapter 11 plan, which is what everybody's telling me.

I don't know if it is or it isn't, but I don't, I think the right answer is the money stays right where it is. The money doesn't move into another account. The money stays there. This account, this prejudgment attachment may lapse, but I still think parties have the right to make sure that there'd be something there in the event. And it seems to me that Mr. Jensen and Mr. Sarnan and Mr. Lohen should, and others can come together and figure out. what's the best course of action I think protracted litigation on all these issues seems like it's going to get very expensive and no one's really going to benefit aside from professionals and on this and I think it's in the best interest of the

estate for parties to just take a day get in a room and figure all this out if that's what it takes but mr. son I think I'm going to give you the functional equivalent of what you may be looking for is that I know maybe the debtor can convince me that it needs money to go do export And parties will be able to look to that. But today won't be that day. Today it'll just be the day where everything kind of stays status quo. Parties will get back to work, but I don't see this as a lean issue,

a security interest issue under, even under Dutch law. I think we're still preserving status quo. And I think I get really comfortable. That seems like under Dutch law. this wouldn't this would have gone away anyway but this be filed in the United States so I'm not sure that that's really relevant to me one way or the other but what I do think is just preserving everyone's rights so that this case can proceed and parties who are getting notice in a foreign jurisdiction kind of have some

comfort that the court is taking everything one step at a time and looking at everything one step at a time so I'm going to encourage the parties to kind of you know I don't I don't know there's this estate just really could just use some some good old conversations to figure out the best way to proceed and and it seems that's exactly what debtors council wants to do and I just strongly encourage creditors to see if they can start talking Anyway, that's my ruling. But yes, Mr. Lohen.

I just wanted to assure the court that I take your words of encouragement to heart. It is the intentions of the debtors and the very professionals to move forward quickly and expeditiously. I met what I said at the top of my presentation. I know you did. And I want everyone to hear it. And that's the way I'm thinking about it. And so that's why I'm kind of ruling the way that I'm ruling, but still kind of making sure that stuff isn't going to move from one place or the other,

and all of a sudden everything is gone. Just let's keep everything where it is for now, and we'll see where it goes. And I understand that that may require 345B extensions or whatever they need. And we'll get there. So I thank everyone for their time. Thank you.