American court hearing recordings and interviews - Season 3. Episode 16. Jan. 16, '24 (2 of 2) In re Core Scientific, Inc et al chapter 11 bankruptcy case 22-90341, audio of hearing held in bankruptcy proceedings pending before the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas #crypto

Episode Date: February 3, 2024

--

Okay, Judge Lopez back on the record in core scientific. Give everyone, I'm hoping to get settled in again. Mr. Carlson, can you just either give me a thumbs up or just acknowledge that you can hear me? I just want to make sure that we can all hear each other. Yep, we can hear it. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay, so before the court is consideration of the,

fourth amended joint chapter 11 plan filed by core scientific and and its affiliated debtors. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1334 is certainly a core proceeding consideration of plan confirmation under 28 U.S.C. 157B2. There's been proper notice of today's hearing and based upon the declarations that have been submitted and certificates of service, the court will take judicial notice of them. There's been proper notice of today's hearing and required service of all required documents in connection with planned confirmation. The court notes that the debtors seek a couple of things today.

One is final approval of the disclosure statement and then second confirmation of the plan. Court notes that on November, maybe it was November 17th, it was November 17th, the docket number 1447. This court entered an order scheduling a combined hearing on the adequacy of the disclosure statement and confirmation of the plan. The court at that connection with that order, I also conditionally approved the disclosure statement, but I also approved the form in the manner of the disclosure statement. I established on a final basis solicitation voting procedures, notice and objection procedures for objecting to the plan, and also some procedures regarding rights offerings

and notice procedures regarding the rejection of executive contracts, or either assumption or rejection of executory contracts here. In terms of the votes, and the court considers the declarations, that have been submitted in connection with plan confirmation, there is certainly overwhelming support for this Chapter 11 plan. It certainly is the result based upon the statements that have been submitted to the court in connection with the declarations. Plenty of work, a lot of hard work has gone into this. So congratulations to all the professionals for incredibly hard work placed in connection with this case.

Certainly I want to thank Judge Isker, a tirelessly hard worker. I'm still here at 6.30 in the morning, despite a freeze. Just kind of just what he does. And so I express my appreciation to Judge Isker for his work in connection with that. Certainly the parties have as well. Let me just note. I'll start with the disclosure statement, and there's one objection to the disclosure statement,

but I know by the Hoffman parties also to plan confirmation, but I'll start with the disclosure statement in section. Again, I start, as always, with the text. Fifth Circuit and this I say Supreme Court have always said we start with the text, and that the text is always the alpha, and the court is to presume that Congress meant what it said in a statute and read it literally. So we turn to Section 1125 of the Bankruptcy Code to determine whether a disclosure statement contains adequate information. And adequate information is defined as containing the type of information to allow a,

hypothetical creditor or investor of those who are entitled to vote, to whether to make an informed decision as to whether to vote to accept or reject the plan based upon my review of the disclosure statement and the declarations that were submitted. And I would know that each of the declarations were admitted without objection. Parties were here could have been cross-examined. And no party elected to cross-examine any witnesses. So those statements and those declarations, as a matter of evidence, are unrefuted based upon the record before the court.

The disclosure statement does contain adequate information. There is more than enough information about the history of the debtors. The proposed treatment of creditors and equity holders will receive under the plan there is information about tax consequences, matters that have been conducted in connection with the case. There are large and bold statements about the proposed exculpations and the proposed consensual third-party releases that the plan provides information about planned classes and history about the mediation as well. I take comfort that the disclosure statement. was reviewed by two active committees in this case, right? You had the unsecure creditors committee and you had an equity committee,

and both who played very active roles in connection with this case, and no objection was submitted by those parties. That's not determinative, but it does give the court some comfort, that two committees put fiduciary duties to the estate and to their constituencies reviewed it. and took a hard look at this disclosure statement. I'm going to overrule the objection, the Hoffman-Farney's.

It's really a plan confirmation objection. They don't really object to the language. They just object to what the proposed plan does to their, to be securities plaintiffs. So I'm going to overrule the objection. Disclosure statements, this disclosure statement is long, But there's a lot going on in this case, and I don't believe that this disclosure statement was in any way intended to confuse anyone.

I think it was tried to write it in plain English. And really, there were charts in the disclosure statement that provided helpful summaries for parties there. And so you could quickly see what you're going to receive under the plan. And I would note, this plan is providing a tremendous recovery for unsecured creditors. I'm now shifting gears into the plan confirmation. So I'm approving the disclosure statement on a final basis as containing adequate information within the meaning of Section 1125. The record supports it.

The court has done an independent review of that disclosure statement, and I believe it does contain adequate information. And then the sole objecting party I find is really objecting to plan confirmation to the words, not to the adequacy of the information contained therein. So now we turn to plan confirmation. And for plan confirmation, you really look at a couple of different sections of the bankruptcy code. You look at section 1123, which provides what a plan has to provide and what a plan may provide and for based upon the declarations. Again, all unrefuted and the court's independent review of that plan. The plan does contain all of the required provisions within Section 1123A.

I would note that Section 1123B provides what a plan may provide. and one of the things it does is include any other provision not inconsistent with the applicable provisions of this title. So you can provide for things that the code doesn't expressly say need to be included so long as it's not inconsistent with the case. So not inconsistent with the Chapter 11. And so I would note that 1123 also provides that parties may settle and resolve matters. And so there are a number of settlements that are contained within this Chapter 11 plan. That's entirely appropriate. And there are exculpations which are permitted under the code.

And there are third-party releases. And I find that their party releases are appropriate under a Chapter 11 plan. And I find support for that in terms of the settlement provision under 1123, but also on the 1123B because it's something that is not inconsistent with Chapter 11. Again, I really want to provide that there's a difference between what is properly known as, I guess what we call the non-consensual third-party release is when I would call Purdue Farmer, which is certainly a subject of lots of writing and thoughts in the Supreme Court has taken the case up and heard oral argument and will rule one way or the other on that.

So, but that's not, this plan does not contain non-consensual third-party releases. If it did, the parties would be asking me to sign an order saying that regardless of what people thought about the plan or what the treatment of a claim or what the rights people had, that the court would then sign an order, essentially imposing the release upon the third party. That's a non-consensual. Even if you don't consent, it's your stuff. You must live with it.

That is what is being taken up at the Supreme Court. That's not what we have here. And I'd also note, for the record, 1123B3 is what the plan can provide for the settlement of any claim or interest belonging to the debtor or to the estate, and I find that to be very important. So I think non-consensual third-party releases can be provided. The way this third-party release works in this case is parties were a connection with the court's order at 1447. The court authorized a form of an opt-out notice where parties were to receive notice.

and if they elected to opt out of the chapter after out of the releases under the plan, there was a form and they could check a box and if they provided notice of it back. And the releasing party language in the Chapter 11 pride provides that if you affirmatively checked it out, or if you received notice but didn't elect to, didn't provide notice one way or the other, the fact that you received the notice would bind you to the releases. That is what's provided here. It's not a non-consensual third-party release. They're different.

So I'll deal with the 1129 standards, and then I'll get to the Hoffman objection. So with respect to 1123, I find that every provision of 1123 is appropriate, and as well as the settlements under 1123B3 and the provisions under 1123, Six, they are appropriate. With respect to Section 1129, based upon the unrefuted evidence, but the court has also conducted an independent review and reviewed the plan carefully. I find that every applicable provision of Section 1129 is satisfied.

The requisite votes are here. The structure is provided. The plan satisfies every applicable provision of 1120. And that's unrefuted based upon the declaration. But you look at the code and you look at the plan, and the plan does satisfy 1129. So incredible amount of work, and it provides a tremendous recovery for both unsecured creditors, right, and also equity holders, including participation in, as counsel to the equity committee provided provides a really unique opportunity and one that you don't see very often, a good recovery for equity holders. So does the plan comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 11?

Yes. Within the Bankruptcy Code, yes. Court finds that the plan was proposed in good faith and not by any means forbidden by law. So I'm going to approve the exculpations that are provided for in the plan. I'm going to approve the settlements that are provided under the plan under Section 2019, which talked about a little bit earlier. But again, a plan can contain settlements. 1123B says that you can.

The settlements in this case have been plenty of notice of them. And there's no objection to them. But the court also considers what's in the best interest of the estate. and I do find that they do. So now we turn to what I would call the Hoffman objection, which is an objection to the consensual third-party releases. I disagree with one of the arguments made by counsel that these are really non-consensual third-party releases.

I think if you look at the language in a non-consensual case and you see this one, and you will know when you're dealing with a non-consensual third-party release, and when you have a consensual one here, there's an opt-out notice where people can affirmatively vote to opt-out. That was approved by the court in the middle of November, and that order was never contestant. But I also, and I'll stand on it, I think due process was provided.

those procedures were there to provide due process notice to parties. And proof of them is that the objecting party actually received notice of that opt-out notice as reflected in their objection. Counsel is affirmative representative of represented, and they elected not to for, you know, didn't want to waive the ability to make the argument today. I got it. Some courts may take strong positions on that, but I think, I'm going to consider the arguments one way or the other today

and whether the non, technically, not returning one, even if you receive it, technically binds you to the opt-out. So the waiver was going to work one way or the other. But they elected not to opt out. And so here we are. So let me kind of take the arguments up one by one. And again, we start with counsel argues that the text of the bankruptcy code doesn't expressly permit that. I think, and I'm confirmed, at 1123B6 expressly allows this to happen.

It's exactly the type of thing that the code permits, right? As long as it doesn't run afoul anything of the code, this doesn't run afoul a non-consensual third-party release. This is a release between which parties can, for sure, notice and have the ability to make an informed decision as to whether they choose to be bound by it or not. And they did. Many people received notice, and that's what they did. I think Mr. Secarides confirmed on the record that to the extent someone received a notice

and they're bound by it. But to the extent someone comes in, but they have to come in and just say that they didn't receive notice, right, and prove. I've never heard of this case. I never received notice, and they're not bound by that. I think that's appropriate. I didn't turn to the support for the relief request. And again, I then turn to what is uncontested,

and that is Mr. Goldman's declaration. Mr. Goldman, the independent board member, he's not a defendant in the class action, submitted a declaration, said that the independent board conducted its own investigation, considered whether it would be appropriate to grant whether the estate should offer these releases to these parties and found that it did. And it states its reasons there. After conducting an extensive investigation upon potential causes of actions and claims,

and it talks about when the special committee met and the processes that the special committee met and the reasons why. and the special committee, according to Mr. Goldman, reviewed the third party releases as part of its oversight and supported the inclusion of them and felt that there were reasons for that essentially his understanding was that their party releases were material inducement for parties to enter into the RSA into the settlement.

That's unrefuted. And parties could have questioned Mr. Goldman, but they elected not to. Whether that's enough, it's enough for me. It's unrefuted. Mr. Goldman is here. He's going to have asked some questions, but no one refuted the fact, and certainly the Equity Committee, Creditors Committee, debtors, numerous parties.

It's not the fact that they wouldn't question them. It's the parties, material parties are here, read the declaration, and no one and told me that they support the plan, including, which that has to include the third, and I'm going to be, excuse me, the consensual third party releases. So I think just looking at the, that certainly gives the court comfort that what we have here. Is there a subject matter jurisdiction for the court to consider? Certainly there's related to jurisdiction between the matters that are subject to the class action.

And again, that's unrefuted evidence submitted by the debtors in connection with this case, that there is a class action pending in the Western District of Texas and that there are causes of action that relate to things that happen, But, you know, when the case, you know, include actions taken by court itself, right, and that there are litigation of matters involving actions taken while members were acting as board members of court, right? Like, this is a related to jurisdiction. This is clearly related to jurisdiction, right? It may not arise in connection with the Chapter 11 case, but certainly this involves matters that are integral.

to the Chapter 11 case itself. These are estate causes of action, right? There are indemnity allegations, and all of that is completely unrefuted based upon the record and based upon the declaration. So the court finds that the declarations themselves, there's in evidence, and there's no evidence to refute it. So I find that there is related to jurisdiction

that the court can consider. Going to the form of the notice, and again, I asked Mr. Kim this a couple of times, there is no party that's standing before the court today who says that they didn't receive the notice. Not one. Not one party who is standing here before the court who says that they did not receive the notice or that they didn't understand what the notice said. As a matter of fact, what I did here at counsel for three, at least three of those members

of the class action conducted legal analysis as to whether they should accept and vote, opt out of the plan or not. So clearly they, the parties, Mr. Hoffman and potentially two other parties, certainly had really strong legal representation, received the notice. They can't come in and say other people didn't receive notice. And anything else is just pure hearsay. I don't know who received notice, who didn't receive notice. But what the plan does to say is if you did, if you received notice,

and you're bound by it, by the consensual leases, if you didn't opt out. But if you didn't, then you can come into court and say you never received the notice, right? So they're not affected by what happens here today. We just have to conduct a little bit of evidence to determine whether someone is or didn't do it. When you look at the cases as to whether these consensual third-party releases are appropriate, the court finds them completely appropriate. There's been much said about an Eastern District of Virginia case. That case is completely different than what's going on here, right?

Here there is a specific targeted group, and the opt-out mentions the class action. Parties had the ability to read and understand that there was a class action and potential settlement of claims that relate to this Chapter 11 case and that relate to the estate and that the estate has the ability to settle under a letter. And either they opted out or they didn't. and they receive notice. If they receive notice, then they're bound by it. Mr. Kim is purporting to represent, again, parties who, many people who filed proofs of claim in this case.

They were smart enough to go file proofs of claim in this case, received notice in this case, and I've heard no evidence that these individuals are not capable of reading and understanding what that notice said or did. And quite frankly, we held a hearing as to whether the adequate. City of the notices already considered, and that was done in the middle of November. So I also question whether Mr. Kim has the standing to object for other people who are not present here today. But even taking the legal argument on its face, certainly his clients knew and understood. He's a really smart lawyer, and he articulated that he understood exactly what was purported

to be released. and they made decisions. And it's not for this court to make a decision today as to what the legal effect of that is. The legal effect is what it is, and it will have whatever effect that it has. But are these consensual third-party releases appropriate? Absolutely. The debtor has provided the support as to why it chose to include that in the plan. There's a consensual, the creditors committee, the equity committee has reviewed

these plans, no objection to that, they are well aware of their constituencies, equity, and unsecured creditors. Of all, these committees have reviewed no objection to that, no objection that it was a material inducement to entering into it. And there is a provided uncontested evidence that that's the case. So when you look at all of that, are these consensual releases appropriate? They are. if parties have received notice, the opt-out notice, is appropriate.

It happens all the time in Chapter 11 cases. And the fact that these are securities plaintiffs, the court understands that there could be mom-and-pops involved here. And mom-and-pop on secure creditors, too, right? It's mom-and-pop secure creditors sometimes in cases, right? So you certainly consider that, and that's why you're... you look at the form of the notice way up front and consider who may receive this notice and whether they can make an informed decision at that time in connection with the opt-out notice. So there's really two layers of analysis that go on.

One is at the time with the ballot and approving the form of ballot. That's when I really take a hard look at that and make a determination that whoever's going to receive this, whether they're sophisticated or unsophisticated. And I don't like to also make the generalization that mom and pops aren't unsophisticated. So I'm going to reject any. Plenty of really, really smart people out there. But I got it. Maybe not everybody can read and understand that.

But we took care of that in the middle of November. I found that it was appropriate and no one challenged that. I look at the notice again, the notice prescriptions. I read the ballot again. I find that it's appropriate. And it worked. People did opt out. Why so many people?

Why did a number of people opted out? I don't have any evidence as to the number and the why. The question is, as a matter of law, is it appropriate to have it in? Yes, and there's no case that parties can cite. It finds that it's inappropriate. No binding case, certainly on this court. Non-consensual, well, there's an argument, but we don't have non-consensual here. This is a purely consensual, and people were provided the opportunity,

and parties were either provided notice of it or not. And so that includes members of the class action, It also includes members of unsecure claims. I'm going to find that it's appropriate. It's certainly permissible under the law and the evidence supports it, and there's no evidence going the other way. So I'm going to approve the consensual releases as part of the plan. I'm going to approve the settlements that are contained in the plan.

I'm going to approve, well, I've already approved the declarations that are submitted in connection with plan confirmation. I did note that Mr. Bindford had one kind of reservation of rights here in connection with kind of rejection damages, and it sounds like that's going to be worked out, but to the extent I need to, I'm also going to support his ability to kind of reserve his rights. Going through my notes here. I do know that there were some other supplements provided in connection with the plan supplement. I'm going to find that those supplements are approved as part of this confirmed plan, and it does not require any additional solicitation in connection with the plan.

They were non-material modifications. I would also note. I know that there was a lot of discussion about Mawa. I think Judge Isker, and again, I don't just read cases just because Isker approved something that I agree with it or not agree with it. I don't think he does the same thing for me. But I do think the reasoning in the Houston regional case is really instructive here. And I think it's the right analysis, right?

The debtor could potentially be liable based upon the outcome. I can exercise third-party releases the impact on the securities litigation. There's a conceivable effect on the debtor's ability to issue indemnification. And nobody refuted that. And I think it's really, really important. The indemnity obligation weighs heavily on me here. So what else can I say? I think I have jurisdiction if satisfied the procedures in connection with this case.

I've already approved them. I think, and again, I know there was a request to do an omnibus opt-out. I think I didn't, for the reason, stated on the record, and I stand on that. I did not allow an omnibus claim, I'm not allowing an omnibus opt-out. Those parties who chose to opt-out had the ability to do so. So I'm going to overrule the objection. I think it complies with the letter of the bankruptcy code. The text of the code permits it.

The unrefuted evidence before the court establish a sufficient basis. All the other provisions of Section 1129 are approved and satisfy 1129 and 1123. The settlements are approved. So, again, Mr. Carlson, I've reviewed the proposed confirmation order. I know that there were some additional language that was added. Is there something else that I need to consider in connection with this? or does anyone wish to make a comment on the proposed confirmation order? I know there's been enough thanks of Judge Isker,

and I've already given him. I'm going to thank him anymore for all of his hard work here. Let me just turn to the confirmation order. Mr. Carlson, is there something I need to think about, are there any additional tweaks coming, or should I, is the proposed form of order that was filed at 1741, the version that we need to look at? That's final changes we made were clean up and then one additional pair.

Okay. Let me just ask you, does the order, I reviewed the red line, so I haven't looked at the clean. Does the clean attach the right plan to it, or is that something I need to do? It does the line. Just give me a second. Okay. I've got an 1130 that I told we're going to start at 12, and now it looks like it's going to start around 12-15, so I'll, turn to that. Mr. Carlson, I'll get that sign that on the docket. My real thanks to all the

parties here today. Congratulations. I was not here when the case started, but I'm happy to have been a part at the connection with the confirmation of this case. Sounds like an incredible work with that. Incredible value has been preserved for parties. I appreciate the arguments of Mr. Kim as well. I think gives me even more confidence. And I think parties are entitled to come in and object, and that's part of the process. And so I think the process worked just fine today. Parties were able to appear, and I'm glad that we were able to all kind of conduct ourselves and not be able to lose anything by proceeding by video today.

I think it was entirely appropriate to do so. And so my thanks to all the professionals involved. We'll see each other another day. for those who are here for the 1130, now the 1215, I'm going to just give five minutes and allow parties for the Corps to kind of clear off, and then we'll start with the status conference. I'm going to start in five minutes. Thank you, I interrupt.

We had a couple of things left. Oh, that's right. You have other stuff. That's right. Well, I lied. I lied, 1215. There's some other stuff. That's right.

Okay. those are the additional settlements right yeah good I'm glad you spoke up thank you let's take them up so we have we have two settlement motion a disputed claims motion and an uncontested substantial contribution claim motion filed by the equity group so starting with the motion to approve the settlement with Oklahoma gas and electric that's at back at number 1711 mr. Bullittrose is our declarant support of that motion, 1725 in the declaration. This is a pretty straightforward settlement.

They provided electricity. OGEini provided electricity to the debtors, a Skogi facility, free petitions. We have an executory contract with them that we seek to assume. And as part of assuming that agreement, we made some amendments to that agreement, and we're settling their cure claim in the form of an allowed general and secure claim. They had filed an $8 million, approximately $1 million,

claim in connection with some construction of a substation of the facility an $8 million claim they've settled it we settled with them for $4.8 million as an allowed general industry claim and we've made some amendments to the to the amended agreement going forward including the requirement that they provide they provide operational electricity electrical capacity about less than 100 megawatts for for five years and so we think the settlement is beneficial to the debtors. The one thing I would note, I believe our ad hoc note holder group is still reviewing the agreement and they have a consent right. They've asked

that the court hold off just for a day or so until they can get their consent that they need from their clients for entering it, but still wanted to present the motion. That's for the one at 1711. That's for the one at 1711. That's correct. Okay. Does anyone wish to be heard in connection with this motion? Yeah, Your Honor. It's Chris Hansen with Paul Hastings, again, on behalf the ad hoc committee. Mr. Carlson's right, Your Honor. We're still discussing the emergency motion with our clients. We may have some issues with the construct in which it's being paid, which could include equity. I think our thought is it's much better and much more preferable to effectively assume this and pay a cure cost in cash, but we'll talk to the debtors more about that.

Okay. What do you want me to, what are the parties asking me to do today? Kind of, how do you want me to handle this, Mr. Carlson? I think we, I think if we could, we can reach out to chambers over the next day or two to give us to status update it to where we're at. Okay. Okay. Okay. That works for me. Mr. Hansen, that work for you?

It does, Your Honor. Okay. Do you think by Friday someone can just reach out to my case manager one way or the other? and just let her know if we need to do something or if there's just hold off yes no problem okay thank you so from there we go to the foundry settlement motion that's filed a docket number 1712 this is another i think straightforward claim settlement motion here foundry um the debtors host foundries uh equipment mining uh equipment miners And in connection with a transaction-free petition, they have asserted an $18 million claim approximately.

You seek to settle that claim for a $5.5 million allowed general answer claim. And also intend to assume the hosting agreement and pay any care costs associated with that as the gas of today. There aren't any care amounts. So those are the terms of the settlement that we'd like to move forward and ask the court. enter the order filed with the motion that's a document number 17. Anyone wish to be heard in connection with this motion? Okay, the court did have an opportunity to review this. I believe emergency consideration is appropriate under the circumstances

that are settling a claim with foundry. The court has considered the revised settlement agreement finds that it is appropriate, satisfies business judgment, and is a sound exercise of the debtors' business judgment, and there are certain, it's in the best interest of the estate, so I will grant the settlement at 1712. Thank you, Your Honor. The last item that the debtors have on the agenda

that disputed claims motion, we filed that in early December. That's, you know, in connection with our plan and implementation of the plan, we seek a court order of basically establishing the maximum amount of claims that each of our remaining contingent and liquidated and disputed claims can recover on. And we're doing that for purposes of being able to determine the appropriate share count

and distributions of shares on the effective date to those holders that, you know, have a lot of claims with. And, you know, fortunately, we've been able to resolve, I think, the vast majority of our outstanding dispute claims, but there are still some dispute claims that we're going to have to sort through post-emergence. So the order essentially seeks to cap what those claims would be, and I believe no pending objections of many of the parties. The one thing I will note is we reached a settlement in the agreement on principle with two of the claimants that are on one of our schedules. And so we do need to make a few updates based on the settlement that was reached where they're going to basically move from our disputed claims schedule to our allowed claim schedule. and so it'll have a slight impact on the ultimate amount of shares or claim amount that are being set aside for our excuse me, but we wouldn't tend to file later today.

The updated schedules to reflect that. Is that going to change the order itself, Mr. Carson? Are you going to submit like, or did you? Yeah, it'll change just the exhibit to the order, and so we'll file just file a, we'll just file an, an order with an updated schedule attached to it. You know, with the red line. Okay. Anyone wish to be heard in connection with this motion?

Okay. In connection, the court has already approved confirmation of the plan. This is a logical next step to the relief requested in connection with the plan confirmation. The court's going to find that emergency consideration is appropriate. and I will approve the relief requested in the motion, subject to a change to the schedules, which is reflecting a further settlement. Mr. Carlson will upload or have someone to upload an order

and just reach out to Ms. Saladanya today. We'll do you think you are. Okay. What do I be, substantial contribution? Is that set for today, or is that something and a party still thinking about it. I know it's still out there. My understanding is it's not contested

and somebody from the schedule. All right. Can someone confirm whether this is, or does anyone have any objection to that relief request? Mr. Mezzler, I think, hold on me see if I can get you here. Your Honor, while we wait for Mr. Madler, this is Mr. Hansen again with Paul Hastings. On behalf of the Ad High Committee, we did with

our objection, and I believe we're the sole objection to the scatterment application for substantial contributions, so I think with that it's uncontested, but obviously, Mr. No, no, I just like to hear it on the record just to make sure, because sometimes, you know, it's just easier for someone to confirm to figure it out, so I appreciate it. Mr. Mazel, there was an order, a proposed order. I think with the motion, is that the one that you still want me to sign? Good afternoon, Your Honor. Can you hear me?

Yes, yes, you can say good afternoon. That's right. We're shifted. That's true. Bob 24. Your Honor, we had from the official equity committee, we had a request to add one paragraph into the proposed order, which just states what we already said in our papers,

which is that if we get paid in, In full, we'd reimburse all the members of the ad hoc group that have already paid. And if we don't get paid in full, then to the extent that we are paid in amount, it would reduce the total amount of own. And if there's enough, we would reimburse pro rata to each member. How do you propose to? We would submit a revised order, Your Honor. Okay.

Mr. Miles, I want you go ahead and do that. And if you can reach out to my case manager, I will approve. there was one objection that rejection has been withdrawn the court, which means that really this has been no objection to this motion. It's been filed for some time. The court, I did have an opportunity to review it and consider it. I find that the relief requested appropriate based upon all the work that has been done to get to this point.

Court doesn't grant these lightly. Every case needs to be considered. its own and the fact that there's been no objection that the court will grant these in another case so i think everybody should by sending a message it's every case stands on its own but in this case i do take a look at the record and take a look at the the lack of the support for on that lack of opposition here and i will grant the relief request of mr mysler just go ahead and submit a revised order and and i'll get at time Thank you, Your Honor.

Okay. All righty, folks. Mr. Carlson, is there anything else I owe you all today? That's it, Your Honor. All righty, folks. Thank you very much. And again, congratulations to everyone.