American court hearing recordings and interviews - Prima Wawona bankruptcy hearing January 29, 2024 (In re MVK Farmco, Delaware bankruptcy case 23-11721)

Episode Date: February 3, 2024

--

Okay, good afternoon, counsel. This is Judge Silverstein. Thank you for gathering on quick notice. I received the motion to shorten in connection with the settlement that the debtor has entered into with various parties. And I received the objection. And rather than, well, I want to hear parties on it before I make a decision. with respect to the motion to shorten. So let me hear from the debtor as to the necessity of shortening notice on this and how it dovetails with confirmation. Good afternoon, Your Honor, for the record, Joe Barry of Young Conaway on behalf of the debtors. Your Honor, you're gonna hear, I think, from me

and for Mr. Fidel from Kirkland and Ellis today on this. But to kick us off, Your Honor, we do appreciate you gathering us to vet the motion is short and notes. We do realize that we're asking the court to expedite a hearing on a rather important development of the case. But for context, I wanted to respond very briefly to some of the points that were made in the objection, which is that the disclosure statement,

Your Honor, that was filed back in October and every iteration of it thereafter contemplated an ongoing investigation. of various claims conducted in part by Young Connoe and in part by Kirkman and Ellis. And the disclosure statement, in fact, specifically reveals and insights to ongoing investigations into the objecting parties and potential plans against them, given their roles with the company. So it shouldn't have come as any surprise that there was a reservation of claims baked into the disclosure statement.

And, in fact, Your Honor, if there was any doubt, as Your Honor knows, at the dissuant statement hearing on the 27th, it was announced in open court that there were ongoing sort of more global negotiations with Predators Committee, the lenders, and other parties, about, you know, potential global settlement that would get an unsecured recovery to the general insecure predators, which is what we've achieved. But unless there be any doubt in the minds of the Gator-on parties, Your Honor, on January 9th, the debtors sent to Mr. Garrowan's counsel a letter specifically asserting claims against the Garrowan parties and making a demand on behalf of the estate with respect to those claims.

Very shortly thereafter, Your Honor, within a matter of about three days, the debtors and Mr. Garolans' counsel engaged in discussions about including or potentially including, the Garoan parties in the global settlement. Thereafter, the Garillon worked with us. We had several conversations with Mr. Garawan's counsel about the potential development of a proposal to include him in the settlement. And in fact, those discussions were ongoing, Your Honor, on January 18th.

The significance of January 18th, Your Honor, is that date is 21 days from the February 8th hearing. And the communication we actually received from Mr. Garrowan's counsel was, please don't file your settlement papers because we want to see if we can be involved in it, essentially, hold off filing your settlement papers. We waited the balance of last week to see if the negotiations among the parties, including Mr. Garawan and the creditors committee directly, could bear fruit,

but again on January 18th we were told by Mr. Garawans' counsel to please hold off. So, Your Honor, you know, there should have been no surprise to Mr. Garawan that he wasn't going to be a release party under the plan and that certain claims were being specifically reserved as he's been a part of these negotiations since at least, you know, early January. Your Honor, with respect to sort of the need for speed, again, Mr. Garrowan is the only party to date that's objected. We think that he has received an abundance of notice that I think his participation in these settlement discussions in our minds militate against the objections that he's filed. And importantly, you know, we have, and Mr. Fidel can probably speak more to this, but we do have the equitization. transaction under the plan that needs to be closed for purposes of, among other things, funding the ongoing maintenance and preservation of the properties that are subject to that

deal. So, Your Honor, you know, while there may be a tad bit of wiggle room in the schedule, there are certainly not more than a matter of days. And as we understand it for Mr. Garawan, through his counsel, they're looking to kick things out 30 days. And I think, you know, we do think it's important, Your Honor, to note that without revealing any substance of discussions that, that, you know, the debtor has asserted claims against Mr. Garawan. He's been involved in some negotiations within the global settlement. And as we stand here today, he's not a part of that global settlement.

And, you know, we don't know what motivations are driving Mr. Garawan necessarily, but one motivating factor may be that this is an attempt to, you know, leverage his way, you know, into a better part of the settlement than he otherwise might be able to leverage his way into by, you know, threatening to push this whole process out by some, you know, unstated period of time, citing unfairness, which, again, I think the record demonstrates that there has absolutely no unfairness or prejudice to Mr. Garouan in this process. So, Your Honor, I do want to pause and ask, Your Honor, if you have any questions, I do also want to give my colleague from Kirkland and Alice, Mr. Fidel, an opportunity to weigh in here

in the event that I've sort of missed something or glossed over anything that's of important to our position. Well, let me ask this question. Am I going to be getting other objections to confirmation? And in particular, I'm also thinking about the intra-creditor dispute? You're all here. Go ahead, Jamie. Sorry, Mr. Berry. This is Jamie Fidel from Kirkland and Ellis.

I would note that the objection deadline to the plan did pass on this previous Friday. So in terms of other parties other than Mr. Sats' clients, who I saw just came off camera and certainly speak to himself, I expect that, no, there would not be any other objection. and the debtors have granted Mr. Zatz's clients an objection to tomorrow. There is some discussion between the debtors and Mr. Zatz's clients on further, potentially a short-term objection extension. But other than that, no, we do not believe that there would be any further objections. Is that the only extension you've granted?

I believe we have also granted an extension to the office of the U.S. trustee. Okay, so we don't, so the objection deadline hasn't really passed yet. Okay. Do you have anything else, Mr. Fidel, that you'd like to add to Mr. Barry's report? The only thing, Your Honor, would be that in terms of the deadlines under our dip, the milestone for entry of the confirmation order is February 9th, or in other words, one day after the scheduled confirmation hearing. And in conversations with counsel to the dip lenders who are on the line,

their clients are not at this time willing to extend that deadline. And therefore, if confirmation is delayed, I think the debtors would be in serious risk of violating that dip and potentially not having further funding and potential administrative insolvency. And the reason that February 8th in particular is important is because that the dip sizing and the only financing that the debtors had available contemplated funding through February 23rd. So if confirmation has moved past February 8th, we are going to run extremely close to the 14-day appeals period. And therefore, the plan is in serious jeopardy of never being confirmed if it's quite further beyond February 8th.

Your Honor, just briefly on this point, you know, we're dealing with living things here. We've got these trees that have to be taken care of, and the budget has been sized to make sure that we can take care of the trees and everything. And pulling this off on the timing that we are, while it's not quite scientific, it certainly can be challenging. Obviously, at the end of the day, Your Honor, it's your decision on the timing, but we are very concerned if the timing changes that there's going to be real loss of value. And I just wanted to make that point. So the lenders aren't going to take care of the trees after confirmation? Oh, no, it's certainly going to take care of the trees after confirmation. It's that if confirmation is delayed, we don't know that there's going to be funding.

We're going to have to do a bunch of other things. We're going to have to get approvals to lend the money. I mean, we've got, you know, my client met life, and then we've got the 30 farm banks have to suddenly go and change their budgets and do authorization and so forth. You know, this lending group just can't pivot, you know, pivot very quickly. If you know what I'm saying, it's just we need time to do things. Also, we are concerned that the harvest is coming, not the hard, well, the early harvest is coming up. And our efforts to manage all of this dependent upon things being in place at a certain point in time.

It's just, you know, the messaging of all of this might cause prejudice as well. Okay, thank you. Let me hear from Mr. Garawan's counsel. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Morgan Patterson, on behalf of Mr. Garawan and his assistant. entity who are both unsecured creditors and existing equity holders. Your Honor, can you hear me okay? I can.

Thank you, Your Honor. And I echo Mr. Berry's comments that we appreciate you fitting us in this afternoon. I won't belabor the arguments that we made in our objection, but it is obviously extremely concerning that the debtors are attempting to utilize a truncated 9019 process to end run around the party's rights in the code. Let me start by responding to Mr. Siegel, since he spoke most recently. I would just note, Your Honor, that we are certainly sympathetic to the bank's predicament. However, I would remind the court, Your Honor, that we did not put the banks in this position.

We did not choose to have a plan filed in November and then have it completely revised by a 1919 motion just a few days ago a week and a half in advance of confirmation. So Mr. Garawan is very supportive of the trees and the land landing in the right hands and being taken care of. This is his family's business, and that is something that matters very much to him. And so I would just note that we're certainly sympathetic to Mr. Siegel, but the code provides Mr. Garawan the rights to respond to the plan as appropriate. So let me back up, Your Honor, too, and respond to Mr. Berry's commentary. and then I have a few other points to make, if Your Honor will allow it. I think, you know, there's certainly no secret to the court that there was a discussion of a settlement in the works, Your Honor. And we put this in our objection.

There was an announcement at the hearing on the 17th that the debtors, the committee, Payne Schwartz, and the banks have come to an agreement. And shortly thereafter, we noted in our objection that there was a demand letter listed. and there was maybe, you know, two or three phone calls about a settlement, both with the committee and with the debtors. That being said, from that point on, for the last, I'd say at least week or two, there has been nothing but silence. From our perspective, I somewhat thought that the settlement had fallen apart since I had never seen anything filed.

So I don't believe that just because the parties were clear of a potential settlement being out there, that it somehow created an onus on Mr. Garawan to bring the concerns to the court. I'm not sure, Your Honor, how we would have done so even if we wanted to do that. So I don't think that the fact that there were some preliminary discussions of a settlement between Mr. Garawan and the debtors and the committee, that that somehow now means that Mr. Garawan cannot appropriately address the change in his treatment under the plan. So, Your Honor- Is there change in his treatment under the plan, or is there just a settlement here?

And I'm really- Well, I want to focus on, well, answer that question first for me. No, Your Honor, I would admittedly say that we're a bit confused about that as well, because the plan that's on file, Your Honor, is releases Mr. Garawan, releases his entity that he holds his equity through. And we, you know, studied that plan and as of the objection deadline on Friday, we chose not to, I mean, we did, we did two very small objections that weren't related to, to those releases or the plan generally. It was two small issues that will, that I would say are we would refer to as limited objections. Mr. Garrow won on Friday refrain from opting out

of the releases and essentially determined he would just let the, you know, the plan go forward as it was. And once the 1919 was filed, Your Honor, I think it contemplates the changing of the provisions of the plan. I don't see how the two could coexist. If the Garawan claims are being put into a trust under the 2019 for the benefit of unsecured creditors to be pursued at a later date, I'm not sure how then the debtors could confirm a plan which releases Mr. Garawan. I think there has to be revisions to the plan. certainly other revisions, Your Honor, that not just with respect to my client, there seem to be other revisions that will need to be made as well, you know, a Guck Trust, all of these things

are not contemplated in the plan. So, you know, while number one, we don't think that the 2019 was put on appropriate notice because it should be 21 days and we should have that time allotted to prepare a response. We also are somewhat just assuming that there is going to be another plan coming down the pike here, which is in alignment with that 1990. and we are alerting the court that we are concerned about the timing is there as well. The code provides 28 days generally for parties to object to a plan, and we believe we should be afforded that as well. And had these provisions, had Mr. Garawan been this sole entity who's left to be sued, essentially, which we do not understand the debtor's thought process there, but putting that aside,

if that had been the proposal in November, we certainly would have. treated this case and the plan itself very differently. I think Mr. Garawan would have pursued discovery, obviously opted out of the releases, obviously objected to the plan, all of things he chose not to do based on the terms of the plan that were on file. So how long does Mr. Garawan think he needs to do the discovery he's going to do to object to the plan, which clearly he would have the right to do and change, you know, change his position because of the singular effect on him. I'm not sure that it affects too many other people and how they, well, nobody got to vote on

the plan but the secured creditors. So I'm not sure that it unsecured. I'm not ruling on this, but I'm not sure unsecureds are adversely affected by this. Again, I'm not making a decision because I don't have all this in front of me. But I understand Mr. Gerwan will obviously. change his position, but that's as a release party, not as necessarily as an equity holder, unsecured creditor, that hasn't changed, but as a release party, that's changed for him. What does he need? What kind of discovery does he need?

Well, I think, Your Honor, that there is discovery that would necessarily result from the fact that all of these parties are being released by creditors, not necessarily the bank, the investigation that was done and how the resulting conclusion the debtors came to. So our view is that we would need 30 days, and that's what we've asked the debtor to do. And so your discovery is not necessarily into why Mr. Garawan and his companies are not getting a release,

but why others are? Well, I think, Your Honor, they necessarily go together. I mean, you heard from us of the disclosure statement that there was great concern about the release to the other parties. Payne Schwartz in particular, that was a great concern to Mr. Garawan and his entity, given that, you know, his view, he brought the derivative action against the parties. It feels very strongly that it be pursued, and now it's being settled.

And, you know, why that decision was made versus not releasing Mr. Garawan and his entity would be a source of objection for us with respect to the plan. So that is something we would seek discovery on. Your Honor, may I have you heard on this? I'm not sure if Ms. Patterson is done. Okay, my apologies. Thank you, Your Honor. I would just note, Your Honor, that I do think I realize that Mr. Garawan's unsecured claims are somewhat dwarfed in the magnitude of the amount of investment and equity he holds.

But it is still, you know, from his perspective, I think unfair to unsecured creditors himself included, that they're, not getting to vote on the plan that, you know, they may have looked at the plan differently. You know, then we all know how creditors respond to a plan where they're getting nothing. I'm sure they looked at it, thought I'm getting nothing and put it back down again. So I think that creditors also, in addition to Mr. Garawan, should be afforded the opportunity to look at the terms now. Does it make sense that all of the entities are being consolidated for distribution? Is that fair? Is the plan feasible? These are all issues that I think this settlement, presumably.

will change with respect to the plan. So I just wanted to make that point as well, Your Honor. I'm certainly also happy to answer any questions that you have. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Your Honor. Okay. Good afternoon, Your Honor. Can you hear me okay? Great. Thank you. Andrew Zapp, Wayne Case, on behalf of Bravo Bank as a bridge agent. I just wanted to seek up to respond. You had posed the question as to, you know, what the expectations are for confirmation. As Mr. Fidel mentioned, we had our rejection deadline extended. That's also the case, by the way, for Royal Bank of Canada, who's the

ACCO agent, and we're working with them to evaluate our options. As you know, negotiations have been ongoing in connection with the inter-creditor dispute or the intra-credit dispute. It may be both. You know, we've been trying to work that out, but at the moment, there's still no resolution, and we may well be facing the possibility of having to move forward and objecting, the confirmation and to the extent is at all relevant for purposes of the motion for short notice with respect to the settlement with which we reserve all rights. You know, that confirmation hearing slash dip hearing slash possibly settlement hearing could very well be a very, you know, complex long hearing with, you know, a number of different

arguments and witnesses that need to be addressed. So I just want to make the court aware of really just for its own calendar and scheduling purposes that we may be in store for a true contested hearing on February 8th, if that's called. Thank you. Ms. Casey. Good morning, Your Honor. Linda Casey on behalf of the United States' trustee. Your Honor, I'm pinching for Rosa Sierra Fox, who I've had like about three hours on this case.

But my client does object to the short notice. It is my understanding that the plan is going to be changed in two principal ways, which makes us object to the short notice. The first is the change in the released parties, both adding specified people and potentially removing one person. And the other change is there's now going to be a GUC distribution. There's going to be a GUC distribution trust. There will be a trust agreement.

There will be the identification of the trustee. And we think that's all, you know, that there needs to be notice and process and unsecured creditors should have an opportunity to see that. So we do object to the motion to short notice. We think confirmation should be kicked out, and there should be proper notice of these changes. If Your Honor were inclined to grant the motion to shorten, we think that as to the settlement, the objection should be due on the hearing date, because it's just a really shortened period of time. But we do think that there are notice and process issues that would require confirmation to be kicked out and to have the entire plan redrafted and sent out to people.

We're concerned that the opt-out deadline passed before this motion was filed. And so that's our position on this motion. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Barry. Thank you, Ryan. Thank you, Ryan. About the U.S. trustees position that we now have a Guck Trust, we have a potential recovery for general unsecured creditors, and those parties know nothing about that.

So, Your Honor, I think the original plan, there was going to be no recovery to general and secure creditors. They were deemed to reject the plan. The settlement that's being proposed here will ensure recovery to the GUCS. In other words, they're doing better under this proposal, and we're not asking at this time to re- solicit their votes. So we think that in this circumstance where they were proposed to, and I've done this in many plans, where they were proposed to receive a recovery of X and under the settlement, they're actually receiving a settlement of X plus something. There's no need to solicit or to redone us the disclosure statement of the plan.

They're simply doing better. They're getting a recovery where they weren't getting anything before. They're doing better, but they're doing, I agree. And I'll confess I haven't thought about this. But, yeah, if I already have got trust set up and I already say who my person's going to be and how it's going to work and the process for, for example, reserving for disputed claims and all that kind of thing. And I already have that set up and then guess what? I was going to get a 10-cent recovery and now I might get a 20-cent recovery.

Well, okay, no problem. But that isn't this situation. I have a lot of structure that's not apparently in this plan that unsecured creditors might have an interest in. But again, I think under the original plan, they were getting zero. And I think that the structure of a gut trust here where whatever they're getting is better, it doesn't, I don't want to say it doesn't matter, but the actual administration of the trust for the plumbing, the place to put in a trust agreement, we will obviously disclose it as part of the confirmation process. But here, where the unsecure creditors aren't voting on the plan, they're deemed to reject it,

and whatever they're getting is going to be superior to what they were proposed to get and plan they're deemed to reject anyway is always going to be inferior. So I don't know that the actual wiring that goes into the Guff Trust is in any way prejudicial to a creditor who yesterday wasn't getting anything. And today is at least getting something. And what we're talking about is the mechanics of getting the check into their hands. The check's going to get there. It's just a matter of the committee, the debt. and the other institutes parties figuring out the again the electrical wiring to get

that checking with their hands yesterday they weren't getting that check I do understand that as I said I haven't thought about it in this particular context before that the US trustee has raised so that we all can think about it I did notice that there are new release parties I don't know how that would happen I did that wouldn't happen I could tell you right now I would not release parties at this point in the process. So I'm just telling you that. Your Honor, may I make sorry Mr. Berry. I just wanted to clarify there are no new release parties your honor it's the the equity holders were were released in the

solicitation version of the plan it is excluding a release party. I thought there were some parties added it's not okay but Enumerated for the point of clarification, there were parties that were specifically enumerated by name, and I believe that McKinsey would be contemplated by one of them. But it is the debtor's position that those parties were already released through the definition of related parties and affiliates in every version of the plan. That's not the way one really wants to name people when you're asking for a specific release of a party that's been involved in the case. I don't know whether I would permit it or not then. Okay, Mr. Barry, go ahead.

I stopped you. The only other point I wanted to, I think, warranted some mention, Your Honor, is this idea of Mr. Garawan's, quote, treatment being different. Again, the disclosure statement itself makes a very specific disclosure around an ongoing investigation into Mr. Garawan.

And it also contemplates that there will be a plan supplement where there will be retained causes of action, which is true of every plan. So Mr. Garon was on notice when we followed the disclosure statement that there was an ongoing investigation of claims against him. He was on notice. His counsel has said that they've thoroughly read the disclosure statement and plan and relied on its contents. The disclosure statement itself says there's going to be a very specific. schedule of retained causes of action that are going to be filed before the objection deadline. And on the 19th of January, a week before the objection deadline that was Friday, we filed a schedule

of retained causes of action, which includes the causes of action against Mr. Garillon. So it cannot be that on the confirmation objection deadline of last Friday, they were completely blindsided that there was a reservation of these causes of action because there's explicitly in the plan supplement, which is contemplated by the... On the 19th. The same day that objections were due? His objection was filed on this past Friday, I believe, correct?

Your Honor, I'm happy to clarify that if that's helpful. The plan supplement was filed on the 19th, and it does list Mr. Garawan, but it also lists, it also notes that released parties are not retained. So it does carve out back. that we're, I mean, it's the reality is that we're released under the plan, whether they said they were doing an investigation or not. I mean, the treatment's different because a new plan would not release us. Okay.

I don't know that it's treatment, but nonetheless, I think that it's a difference. Is Mr. Garawan, before the settlement, was Mr. Garron a released party? Mr. Barry? I believe under the definition, he was included as a release party under the definition. But again, the plan. Or maybe he is, but by the part that the juxtaposition of those two provisions, but now you're saying he's not. He has a fundamentally different approach to this now.

I don't think it's, I wouldn't say now he's not, Your Honor, though we asserted these claims, going back to early January, we asserted these claims against him. He was a part of the negotiations over this global settlement. He was aware that he wasn't being released in the plan. If he wasn't, he wouldn't have any reason to engage with us. He wouldn't have any reason. So why wasn't he excluded in the, why was he included in the release parties in the plan that was filed with the court if everybody knew he wasn't going to be?

Because he was carved out. He was carved out by virtue of the investigation that's referred to in the disclosure statement. He was carved out by virtue of the plan supplement that says those are retained causes of action. Again, he was, it's, it's, it's, it's, it's. To us, Your Honor, it's a little much for him to have engaged in a settlement with the debtors and the committee with the expectation and understanding that he had already been released under the plan. Okay, so are you telling me that if I trace through this plan, I will come to the conclusion that under the plan that was filed by the debtors, Mr. Garrowan was not a released party.

No, as I said, I think he's included in the definition of released parties, but I think that there are other aspects of the plan that make it clear that it's subject to the ongoing investigation that was underway when the disclosure statement was filed and it's subject to it not being on the retained causes of action this is there's no surprise here your honor i did the mr. girl on can't have whether there's a surprise or not should he then have object you're saying he should have objected a full-blown objection to the plan even though under the plan he's a released party because of the fact that there were ongoing investigations. So he should have just done that.

A week before, the debtor filed a schedule of retained causes of action and included the causes of action against Mr. Garrowan. So on that basis, he was, I mean, the public was aware that the retained causes of action included the causes of action against Mr. Garrowan. You know what? I don't think, I don't think, I don't think Mr. Garrowan's participation in the settlement negotiations really can be overlooked. His expectation, it was, to me, it was virtually impossible for his expectation to be, he was getting a release. Otherwise, why would he have any, any intention or any desire or any reason to negotiate with the creditors committee over a settlement and participation in a global settlement if his view was all along, I'm getting a settlement.

if he didn't believe that the language and disclosure statement regarding the ongoing investigation in the plans limit carved him out of that. I just, I don't, it doesn't make any sense to me and to the debtors why someone would even engage in negotiations if their view all along as I'm getting a release so much to matter. Patterson, do you have any final remarks? Yes, Your Honor. I'm happy to address those points. I would just first back to the retained causes of action, Your Honor, they're subject to the releases. So it was, you know, seemed to us, appear to us very clearly that Mr. Garawan and his entity were released parties under the plan. It was my understanding, and I think everyone's understanding from the discussions that the committee had an objection, the fact that the constituents were not getting any recovery.

And so there were discussions to resolve that, you know, whether or not I think that we are bound by and only able to respond to what is on the docket. And that is what Mr. Garawan has done on Friday when the objection deadline came and the opt-out options were where we had to make them. We had no choice but to respond to what was on the docket, which is the plan that releases him. And so that is what we responded to. And now that has changed. And the bottom line for us, Your Honor, is that we should be given an opportunity, a full and fair opportunity to respond to that change.

Okay. At that time, was the supplement on file? It was, Your Honor. And the supplement lists Mr. Garawan and Payne Schwartz and lots of other parties as retained causes of action. However, it says that it's subject to the release and that released parties are not retained causes of action. That's what the plan says. Listen, circumstances seem to have changed here. And I think the debtor needs to put some thought into.

to the U.S. trustees' concerns that have been raised about process generally. I'm not ruling on that. That's in the first instance for the debtor to decide what it needs to do in the circumstances of this particular case and the plan that was on file and the settlement that's been reached. But I'm not shortening the notice on the settlement. I think it wanted objections to be due like Friday. And that's not happening. So we're going to move confirmation.

We already have a hearing on February 28th, MVP, at 10 o'clock. confirmation is moved till then. Discovery, if you have, can't agree on discovery, and this then includes the banks. Everybody needs to decide what they're doing, get their discovery out and concluded so that we can have a hearing on the 28th. If it goes longer than that, I'll have to deal, I'll deal with it at that point in time. But I'm not going to move it 30 days, this is the request, but I'm going to move it 20 days to the 28th. And I think that's sufficient time for the settlement. It's sufficient time for whatever discovery needs to be done in connection with the plan, at least based on what I know as of now.

Your Honor, may I have you heard on one point? Yes. Understood Your Honor's ruling. I do just want to reiterate the great concerned that the debtors have with pushing confirmation to that extent and our ability to fund these Chapter 11 cases given where we are with the dip lenders and would just respectfully request if your honor could consider a shorter term extension of confirmation it strikes me that regardless of who owns these assets and it's the banks they're going to have to fund it before confirmation or fund it after confirmation okay So I don't understand, except for the logistics, what the significant concern is.

And they're going to have to fund the expenses of the estate. If they don't want to do that, we're in a whole different ballgame. But in terms of the assets, since this plan contemplates that the lenders own them, unless I'm getting something wrong here, they're going to have to pick those expenses up whether they're the owners or they're the lenders. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you. Your Honor, Morgan Patterson of Womble, Bon Dickinson. Just one follow-up.

I wonder if Your Honor would consider setting a date for filing the revised plan and further objections. I'm happy to also try to talk to the parties. I just have concern if it's not filed for another week or two that we continue to not be 100% sure what the term are. I'm going to set a date because I think the debtors have to determine on their own. what the appropriate process they have, not only for with respect to Mr. Garawan, but whether there are or not any concerns about other creditors generally. And I have not done that evaluation, and I don't know. So I think the debtors need to make that determination in the first instance

and to ensure that when we get to the 28th, that there are no due process concerns. Understood, Your Honor. Thank you. Okay. Thank you very much then. We are adjourned. Thank you, Your Honor.