American court hearing recordings and interviews - QVC Group - Listen to the bankruptcy hearing held June 8, 2026 starting 5:15 pm

Episode Date: June 10, 2026

continuing questioning of Mr Meltzer

All right, we're back on the record in 26-90447. So, Mr. Meltzer, we're almost done. I want to talk to you about the releases of the offices and directors that are being provided under the plan. You understand, I believe you testified earlier, that offices and directors of all the companies, including QVC group, are getting releases, correct? Correct. Okay. But as you sit here today, you are unable to... to identify any record of any investigation undertaken by the Cobrey and Kim firm to investigate

those claims. Isn't that correct? I don't think that's correct. As I testified very early on, we were extremely concerned in the very early stages of the investigation, of the engagement, that there may be, in part because of the – the – corporate reorganizations there may be claims that could be viable claims that would be valuable to the estate that were brought that could be brought against various officers and directors either current or passed and we directed

Cobrey and Kim to do that investigation and analysis can you identify one director on the board of QVC group that authorized the 2020 to cash management plan? I don't know who was on the board at that point, but we did the analysis. Whether I knew who they were, I instructed Cobury and Kim to find out who they were and to do an analysis and do an investigation of all of those people that may have an input or have been a part of that been a part of those transactions. Can you identify one director on the board of 22 of QVC group in 2022 that your council interviewed as part of their investigation? No, but I wouldn't necessarily know them anyway. Okay, but you're you're confident or you're not that

the record in this case will reflect that Cobrey and Kim interviewed at least one director who was on the board when the cash management plan was approved in 2022. I am confident that Cobrey and Kemp, given their reputation and integrity, did the appropriate investigation of those parties who could have been subject to either self-dealing transactions or other, I would say, conflicted transactions that would be. result in us having to do an analysis as to whether they ought to be subject to a release. Can you identify one slide deck where Coburn and Kim provided you the results of their investigation of the directors and officers?

I can't remember the exact slide deck, but I have a recollection that there was a slide deck in which was provided to us as one of the special committee meetings in which they suggested that they did a full investigation of those whether it was in the slide deck or it wasn't in the slide deck I made this point to the to Bovey and Kim firm from the minute they were engaged okay I just want to turn back to px152 So this is again the special committee restructuring update. We saw this further earlier. There is no page on this deck at all that talks about any investigation or any analysis of claims against officers and directors of KVC group is there. I haven't re-looked at this, but whether it's there or it's not there, I can tell.

tell you under oath that I made this request and they respond to that request. Okay. But as you sit here today, you have nothing in writing that you can identify to substantiate that this investigation actually occurred. I don't have anything in writing in front of me. That's correct. Okay. So you testified earlier that the threat of these claims,

the QVC Inc threatened to wipe out, those are your words, Mr. Meltzer, to wipe out QVC growth. Do you remember saying that? I do. How is the settlement, other than these releases, any different than QVC Inc. wiping out QVC Group and litigation? Say that again? How is the settlement that you have negotiated any different than QVC Inc. wiping out QVC Group other than the preferred shareholder releases? Well, again, I think that overstates the case.

What we negotiated was it's not only wiping out. It is also putting all of those stakeholders in a position where they no longer have what amounts to massive liabilities. So it's the release. It's the release. That's the difference between that and wiping out. He's the middle of his answer. Yeah, let him finish. I'm sorry.

Go ahead. The releases by themselves are only part and parcel of our liability protection approach to the settlement. As part of the settlement, reasonable people can disagree about it, But it wasn't because we didn't feel like we had looked at it extremely closely, and we had looked at the potential for what the magnitude of those claims could be against various stakeholders, and that we hadn't had Cobrey and Kim take the deepest dive possible into whether there were any viable claims that remained that should be assets of the estate. Mr. Mitzler, Maltzler.

You have transferred, to settle this claim, all of the asset value of QVCG other than paying the Gen 1 secure creditors, right? That's what you've done. Correct. And remaining administrative, not remaining administratively insolvent. That's no different than wiping out QBCG, is it? That's your characterization. Nothing further. All right, we have two minutes.

Yes, go ahead. Yes. I understand. Okay. Because getting up and getting down and getting... We'll wait. A little more difficult. Have you...

I'm going to be reported from... Oh. ...location? It's all. Rotation? No, it's all recorded. We don't have live court quarters anymore. Right, Mr. Kobe?

Your Honor, I have no questions. All right. Thank you. All right, you may step down. Thank you, sir. Yeah, you're excused. Yes. Yeah, yes.

So, hold a second. Do you want me to rest first? Oh, I'm sorry. I mean, Your Honor, Mr. Meltzer is our last witness in our case in chief. so the debtors rest. I understand the committee has some debt designations. I don't know if they want to do that at this time.

I'm not certain they're in the courtroom, but I do see Mr. Feinstein right there, and so maybe that's our last exercise of the evening. All right, Mr. Feinstein. I'll get right to you. Okay, you hit it. Okay, all right, I got it. Go ahead, Mr. Glenn.

Oh, I'm sorry. Did you want to say something? Yes, you are. We had some exhibits, move into evidence. I think they're fully consensual if we could get that housekeeping out of the way. Okay. All right. Let me let Mr. Feinstein go and then we can do that. Thanks very much, Your Honor. Can you hear me okay? I can hear you fine. Yes. So, Your Honor, for the record, Robert Fein-Sight, but Chilsey Stang Zian Jones were a proposed

counsel to the official creditors committee. Thank you for allowing me to address the court. remotely my partner Theo Heckel was supposed to be in court today handling this aspect of the case. But this is Heckel is hours away from delivering their first trial. So Mr. Hekel is where he should be today on filling in. So the witness I want to address, Your Honor, was a Reef Gomgaat of Cygnus. So the committee, and he is the largest holster in Mr. Glenn's preferred stockholder group, the Cygnus. So the committee noticed, and on May 29, we conducted the Rule 30B6 deposition of Cygnus Capital Advisors, LLC. The witnesses I mentioned was Mr. Gungat, who identified himself as Cygnus' chief investment officer.

We were advised at the time that Mr. Gungat would not be attending the confirmation hearing, so we're proceeding in his absence with designations from his deposition transcript. that the joint deposition designations were filed on June 1, 3rd. It's at docket number 400. Referred shareholders adopted and incorporated the committee's designations, and they added their own designations. I don't believe there were any objections to any of the designations coming into evidence, so we're here to move them into evidence.

I'd like to do that now and also just give your honor a few quick highlights of the testimony. All right. So first, we have the designations admitted. We have no objection to the designations coming in. We do object to Mr. Feinstein, basically doing a closing argument, talking about those designations. The designation speak for themselves on the court. Your Honor, I will limit myself to only facts, no argument,

and it will take all three minutes. Right, go ahead, Mr. Fonstein. Thank you very much. So, first, Your Honor, we designated the testimony knowing that Cygnus historically is focused on opportunistic, special situation and distressed investing. The first investment by Cygnus in QBC preferred was about a year ago when I bought 100,000 shares in the price in the mid-teens.

This was at page 11 of the transcript. At page 12, the witness testified that the second purchase was 1.1 million shares and that the price was between 40 cents to $0.2.2. 50 per share, and this was post-petition. The petition was filed on the 16th. The disclosure statement revealing the settlement, the intercompany claim settlement was on the 17th, and between that date and the 27th,

when the first 2019 statement was filed, Cigness acquired about another 1.1 million shares at obviously deeply discounted prices. I also want to point to the testimony under the alternative plan, General Walsker creditors at QBCG would not be paid in full. The motion to terminate ex-cicity said they would be paid at the minimum amount, but at the deposition, the witness said that General Enstere Creditors would receive $0.95 to $0.95 cents and eventually be paid the balance with interest,

although that wasn't in any of the writing or the motion papers. when we asked if under the alternative plan when the resolution of intercompany claims would take place the witness had no estimate of time and no estimate of cost and as to funding the litigation contemplated by the alternative plan the only commitment letter for financing came from Cigna's the same entity it came on May 27th to Mr. Ager and it was for $3 million only for the cost of litigation and any attorney's fees would have to be done on a contingency basis.

Other than Cigmas, no other preferred shareholders provided a commitment letter to fund intercompany claims litigation, and he had not seen any communication from any other preferred shareholder with respect to any possible funding. That's all I have your honor. Thank you so much.

All right. All right, thank you. I'm sure. Your Honor, I apologize. With regards to the exhibits, as you remember, Mr. Colligan came in every day, met and conferred with his colleague on the other side, made certain it was a full of consensual list. I don't have Mr. Colligan in the courtroom right now. All I would ask is that they're able to meet and conferring.

We do this first thing tomorrow morning. That's fine, but I wanted to announce the court that we are resting. We will not be providing any testimony based on what we've heard over the last few days. So I just want to be absolutely clear. You're not calling any of the five FTI experts we've wasted days. Great. Your Honor, we can be prepared to close tomorrow. All right.

We would like until Wednesday if that's okay Wednesday morning. We don't even have the transcripts yet for the closing, so I think it would help the presentation to do it on Wednesday morning. All right, so tomorrow, so Wednesday, I had you starting at 10, then I had something at 430 does it make sense do you think it's going to go more than three hours going back at one your honor if you tell us it has to be less than three hours it should be less than three hours we absolutely i've already seen all the slides you used them in the opening well okay so first of all please file all your any slides you use please go ahead and file them so um because this is a kind of

very in-depth um factual record And so I think the slides help and I may ask after closing for briefing on limited issues. So if we could come back, I think 1 o'clock on Wednesday, if that makes sense, and we'll have until 4.30. Okay. Is that, I mean, do you think it's going to go more than three hours? I don't, which is why we were hoping to do it maybe in the morning. Okay. Well, look, I'm, if you all can do it in the morning, I think that I was going to bring you back at 10,

but when we come back at just to make sure I'm done with everything I have in the morning, like when we come back at 10.30. Great. And then we'll have, we'll just go till when we finish, because at that point, I don't have anything until 4.30. We will meet and confer and discuss splitting the time, so this has some boundaries for the Okay, and then don't forget Mr. Feinstein, I'm sure. Your Honor, this should not be three hours of argument. Okay.

All right, thank you. Thank you. All right, so we will be in recess until, Oh, so in Farrow. No, I don't have colleagues. So why don't we do this? Indulge me, I'm sorry. His colleague is not there.

I believe this is fully consensual. Can we present the stipulation? Oh, yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah, and I do believe that in our last In our last conversation with George, they – I'm not trying to – Yeah, we –

George indicated that his team is working on a joint exhibit, you know, a comprehensive exhibit that we are going to review. So you read my mind because that was like, you know, the first thing I was going to ask you after the end of the argument, I want one list with all of the agreed-to exhibits. It's already in progress. Thank you, Your Honor. We will provide that. All right. Thank you. All right. All right, so we'll be in, I guess we'll be in recess until 10.30?

1030. On Wednesday. On Wednesday. Yes. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you.