American court hearing recordings and interviews - Season 6. Episode 20. November 6, 2023. In re BlockFi Inc. et al., chapter 11 bankruptcy case no. 2022-19361, audio of hearing held in the BlockFi bankruptcy proceedings pending in NJ, USA #crypto

Episode Date: November 7, 2023

--

Okay, good morning, everyone. This is Judge Kaplan, and I'm going to start my calendar momentarily. We have a number of BlockFi Inc. Matters on for today. All parties and counsel are appearing remotely. I have no one in the courtroom. We are joined by at least two self-represented parties, who I will hear when I call their matters. well and for those as a reminder who wish to be heard who I haven't called please use the raise hand function so let me start with appearances on behalf of I guess both the plan administrator and the debtor initially filed these motions good morning your honor this is Kenneth Ollett of Brown Rudnick General Counsel for the plan administrator I'm joined by our

local council, Genova Burns, Dan Stultz, and Don Clark, I believe, are both on the line. And we are also joined by our co-council from Haynes and Boone. Good morning, everyone. All right. I have the agenda. How does council wish to proceed with what matters? So, Your Honor, we thought we'd start with a short status update on the ceiling motions. from there

we'd propose that we move on to the claims objections which are essentially the main event of the hearing. That's fine. To give your honor just a little bit of background, as you know the plan went effective on October 24th

in Brown Rudnick and Haynes and Boone have both been retained as counsel of the plan administrator and that's the role that we are both appearing in today. The plan administrator has succeeded to both the role of the committee and of the debtors in respect of these plan claims objections. The plan administrator's focus is now on preparing for distributions, and a large part of that is cleaning up the claims register.

So moving to the ceiling motions, based on your Honor's ruling ruling, we will be getting, all parties will be getting both the debtors, the committee, We'll be getting unredacted versions of the appropriate affidavits and filings on file. There's just a lot of paper. We haven't been able to get that on file yet, but our view is that as soon as we get those on file, those objections will be mooted. And unless Your Honor has any questions on that, we also informed the U.S. trustee of that, and they had no objection to proceeding as a status conference on these issues.

So what's your intention that we just carry the sealing motions or just do an, I can mark them order to be entered? Our view was that we would carry the motions and then as soon as we filed the unredacted versions, those would be withdrawn as a move. I believe there's one where Genova Byrd is asked to seal the monthly fee statement that involves certain personal information of members of the official committee. unsecured creditors. We certainly want that carried and we seek to have that entered. But given the number of sealing motions that are on file where we wanted to carry it to moot it out, we figured that we would just carry all of those motions to a later hearing. All right. Do we have a date? I know we have a January date. Is that the date we're looking at? I believe that we were trying to set up some additional omnibus objections,

or on this hearing date they thought one was the 28th of November, but that's from memory, unfortunately, so that may not be accurate. That is correct, Your Honor. All right. Okay. So do you want to carry the sealing motion to the 28th for now, and then we set up more dates? Yes, Your Honor.

Why don't we do that? Tuesday, November 28th. Just looking over my clerk back. Does that make sense? Sure. All right. Ben, we'll do 1128 at 10 a.m. And we'll mark off all the pending ceiling motions will carry to that date.

Thank you, Your Honor. You're welcome. Now, on the claims objection matters, Lauren's Susan from Haynes and Boone will be handling the objections where there was no response as well as, I believe, Mr. Cotrim's. I will then handle Mr. Wynn's response as well as his corresponding motion, and Mr. Kanoitz will handle the limb claim objection if that works for your honor. That's fine. Let's proceed. Ms. Sisson? Good morning, Your Honor.

Good morning, Your Honor. For Ms. Sisson, Henson, moving for the plaintiff, administrator. I'm going to be addressing the 10th and 11 omnibus objections to claims generally. Those are at docket numbers 1437 and 1450. As the initial matter, we're going to be submitting revised proposed orders on both omnibus 10 and omnibus 11. The proposed order for omnibus 10 is going to be revised to reflect that some claimants have withdrawn their claims entirely through the cruel website. And so we'll be removing the proposed modifications and expungements of those claims. Just for ease, for my court recorder, we're talking about number nine on the agenda. Is it eight and nine on the agenda?

I believe so. Your Honor, yes. Number omnibus ten is stock at 1437 and 11 is 14. All right. T, I'll give you the calendar marked up there. All right. Please proceed. Thank you.

And then for the proposed order for Omnibus 11, we had some errors with the surviving claim numbers on about 20 of the claims. And we also had the same situation where a dozen or so claimant slip through their claims formally with roll. And so on the point in caution, we're going to move those creditors where there was an issue with the surviving claim numbers to the next Omnibus objection, just to ensure that they get notice of exactly what's. happening with their claims. So we will submit those orders after the hearing. And that is under the 11th? Under which under us were both? Just 11. Just 11. So 11, apart from what we resolve today or what has been resolved, 11 will continue with respect to certain claims. That's correct. Yeah, we were planning on just placing those on in too long this entirely just to kind of clean up the

the calendar a little bit. And we can mark exactly what's being on the week when we've sent in in order to the court. All right. So we'll mark that 1128 at 10 a.m. All right. Thank you. And then to turn briefly to a few of the responses that were filed to Obfibus 11, and there were three responses that were filed at docket number 1647, 1648, and 1650. We filed one reply to those at docket in 30. And as we detail on that replies, our understanding that those responses were filed mostly to say that they agree with the treatment of their claims, or just kind of as a placeholder because counsel had been retained late in the process. So we have reached out to and spoken with counsel for those various responses,

and it's our understanding that they don't oppose the treatment of their claims. counsel for the creditor who filed the response at docket 1650, asked me to inform the board that he did withdraw his response this morning. All right. Do you have the name on that one? Cindy Katzinell. Okay. That was Mr.

It's actually the estate of Kerman Katznell. Mr. Gorski, Mr. Gorski? Correct. Thank you. We also filed a reply at docket 1836 to, two responses that were filed after the response deadline by Mr. Grattan. Those were at dockets 1822 and 1823. I haven't spoken with the creditor, but it's our understanding that the objection is

to the dollarization of his claim at the petition date amount. And so in our reply, we've simply cited to the plan and the provisions of the code that provide that a claim is determined in U.S. dollars as of the petition date. Well, we have Mr. Grattan here. Should we address that claim now? Sure. All right. Mr. Grattan?

Good morning. Good morning, Your Honor. Good morning, everyone. Have you had the opportunity to review the reply that was submitted on behalf of the administrator? Yes, I have. Your Honor. And do you wish to add anything to your papers or make further argument? Well, the one thing I'd say, Your Honor, is that I did BlockFi and Prol somehow have had my email incorrect, although it's been correct throughout the whole operation of BlockFi.

And so the first time, I never received the objection until very late, which was why I didn't have the opportunity to respond. My most recently reply, the state was made on October 31st. That is incorrect. I submitted that response on Friday, October 27th. That's fine. I'm accepting it, and I've reviewed it. Do you wish to address the response to the reply with respect to basically the plan, and the terms of the plan and the terms of the plan?

of the code under 502B requiring the treatment. You've finally broken loose from work. Three friends, one tea time, and then the text. Honey, there's water in the basement. Not exactly how you pictured your Saturday. That's when you call us,

Cincinnati Insurance. We always answer the call because real protection means showing up, even when things are in the rough. Cincinnati Insurance. Let us make your bad day better. Find an agent at CINFIN.com. Of your claim, consistent with the dollarization effort as a petition date.

Yes, Your Honor. I would like to make a couple of points. I know Your Honor's read the response, and my main point would just be that in this case, I think we are moving into a new area of law, And I think in the future, these cases, the dollarization of Bitcoin specifically will no longer be an issue. This is an opportunity for the court to recognize that now. I would say that BlockFi was a cryptocurrency company.

They presumably believe in cryptocurrency. They built their business around selling cryptocurrency, loaning out cryptocurrency, earning interest, from cryptocurrency paying interest on cryptocurrency, holding collateral of clients in cryptocurrency. Of all those cryptocurrencies, BlockFi has by far the strongest case as a worldwide currency. It's currently pulling developing nations out of poverty. It's the only original, fully decentralized cryptocurrency

with the cap supply, hack-proof, untamperable. There's so many arguments for why with this company in this situation with Bitcoin specifically, there's no reason why this claim could not be in Bitcoin since that's the collateral that was trusted

with them. I'll give one further example. In my view, this is one more situation where BlockFi is going to be able to do a disservice to their clients in the fact that as an example, my Bitcoin, 67

in Bitcoin, it's currently worth double the amount at the petition date. So if BlockFi gave me 100% payback, I would actually receive 50% of the value of my claim, and they would be able to walk away saying that they returned 100%. Of course, we know it won't be 100%. And by the time this is actually paid out, they may be able to say they gave me an 80%, payback when in fact I'll walk away with the 15% value, most likely, of my actual claim. And that's just the argument, Your Honor, is just that this collateral was trusted with BlockFi. I was told by BlockFi that it was kept secure with Gemini.

And the entire reason for going into this agreement with BlockFi was so that I wouldn't have to sell my Bitcoin. So the argument would be, Your Honor, that this is a new area of law. This is not. This is very different from a normal security interest with stock. There is no reason why a cryptocurrency company such as BlockFi should not honor the claim, and the court should not honor the claim in the currency in which the collateral was trusted to the debtor. All right. Thank you.

Ms. Sisson, any additional comments or response? Just briefly, Your Honor. We definitely understand where Mr. Grady is coming from. You know, there's a lot of similarly situated predators. Blockby did allow a multitude of coins on the platform, dozens of other coins other than Bitcoin and Ethereum. And so really, you know, the plan is confirmed. The plan says what it says.

And in order to be able to deal with in a state of disguise with tens of thousands of creditors, you know, it's something that needed to be done and is supported by the code. And so we would just stand by the fact that, you know, we needed to do the dollarization in order to be able to administer the estate properly. All right. Thank you. The court appreciates the arguments raised by Mr. Greta. We're addressing the claims with respect to the BlockFi lending account and the BlockFi Inc. not necessarily the BlockFi Wallet, which is claim number 29-265. This court previously has addressed the differing treatment between wallet holders

and those holding collateral claims as well as BlockFi Inc. general claims. The court has been guided by the terms of service with respect to all of these accounts. court is also guided, of course, by the plan which was consistent with the code in Section 502B. If there needs to be changes, the court is not in the position to make the changes. It has to be congressional changes in how claims are treated, taking through account new types of claims that arise. 502B calls for the dollarization of claims as of the petition date. and the court is not in a position to pick and choose among creditors, especially with a confirmed plan that dictates the treatment of all creditors,

holding all types of claims based on all different types of tokens and coins. So again, I appreciate the issues that are raised. I don't necessarily disagree in the unfairness of it. But it would be equally unfair to start picking and choosing which creditors are afforded differing values for their claims based on the nature of the coins themselves when it's inconsistent with how Congress has instructed our courts to treat these claims and the new agreement that has been reached under the plan. So I'm going to sustain the plan administrator's objection, and thank you for your time. You're welcome. Thank you. Ms. Isson, anything else on your end?

The last thing I'll be addressing is going to be the objections to Mr. Cochran's claims, and they are on the 7th Obamibus objection. They've been carried over a few times. The 7th Omnibis is at Docket 1311, and Mr. Cochrom has a response filed at Docket 4. Unfortunately, great. All right. And again, Mr. Cotram, I believe I saw.

Yes, Your Honor. There you are. Good morning. Good morning, sir. All right. You had a chance to review the replies filed on behalf of the plant administrator. Let me hear from you any specific response. I read the response, but the reason why I read the response.

But the reason why I'm thankful to being here is to be pro se, to bring the accurate facts of what has happened in my BlockFi account, what I have seen, what I have done there, Your Honor. I made my meetings because I was blessed to be an early veteran Shiba Innu. I'm a family man who lives in Arizona with my wife and four children. I have been the only person authorized and allowed to access my Blockfire account. my friend Giuliani, who was also a trader, had the great amount of my crypto on his coin account.

And he made that transfer starting from his footpoint account on September 13 of 2022. And I received 80 Bitcoin, 8,000 theorem on my Brockfire account in September 15 of 2022. There's a screenshot, Your Honor, that I took on a 16,000. of that same month on September 16th, 2022, when I was at my home in Arizona, whereas you can see it's 40 Bitcoin in one account, for Bitcoin and another account, 4,000 through, between my wallet and my interest account. Sometime after Block 5 bankruptcy owner, I tried to log into my account.

I was unfortunately able to do so. wait a while to get back to my account and I wasn't able to. On February 12, Your Honor, I received a letter in the mail with two things forms, one for my wallet, one for my interest account. I filled them both out by myself. I sent them over. Crawl, the agent, received them on the 23rd of February, 2023. sometime after that, Your Honor.

On June 13, they emailed me a request for more documentation in groups of claims. Around that time, I tried to check back in my Wi-Fi account one more time. I was able to log in finally, and when I saw, I was shocked that my wallet account had zero on it

and all the history had been wiped out. My interest account had four payments, on it and all the history for 2022 had also been wiped out. On August 3rd of 2023, the debtor's file in motion to expunge one claim into modify the other claim. And I was blessed enough that on August 21st, I was able to retain Mr. Shapiro to help with this matter. Mr. Shapiro requested Block 5 and the debtor's agent crawl for extra information.

some relevant information on this, and they were not given. No relevant information was given to us, nothing regarding a hacks or security breaches or internal hack that could have happened. And I also have been advised that the veterans have filed a motion to quash the subpoena. So one more reason. They don't want to give out any information regarding relevant information regarding any hacks or insider hacks. Your Honor, many questions remain an answer at this point on this. Once the debtors, they are only saying what they have done,

but we don't see any documentation from them. We don't see who is doing that research on their end. And the debtors have not met the burden of proof to sustain their objections to my claim, which is prima facie evidence of the deposits. I do not know your honor what happened to the deposits after the petition date because I had no access to my accounts. I also do not know what happened to my accounts after that. It's my understanding that during the petition, the bankruptcy, Block 5 and Crowe's agent, was victim of a security breach for a hat. That was a fact we got an email from them.

that Kroll had been picked about a hack. That's one time to be said to everybody. And I believe that my concerns about loss of my deposits as a result of data hacks, breach or inside a hack. It's pretty many for the recovery from the data, Your Honor. Your Honor, is with the utmost respect

that I request this court to deny the debtor's claims, the claim to modify, and the claim to expunge my opinion. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Kaltrow. Ms. Sissom? Yes, thank you, Ron. As Mr. Houtram said, he did file to

replace. One was asserted against Blockby, E, and locked by lending, and the other against Blockified Wollet. The wallet claim is the one that we're seeking to expunge, and we're seeking to modify the other claim to one against Blockify Inc in the amount of $0.4 cents. Mr. Hotron submitted an initial affidavit to support the claims to Crowell, stating that he deposited 40 Bitcoin and 4,000

ease into both his via and his wallet accounts in September 2020. A review of Blockbys Records, which we have provided to former counsel from Mr. Bertram, show that he made a small deposit of less than two Bitcoin in 2021. He traded that coin for some Ethereum, and then he withdrew the balance a few months later. The four cents that's reflected in the debtor's books and records is basically a pool of interest that occurred on a fractional portion of the Bitcoin and the Ethereum that was left in the account. We provided Mr. Kotram a full transaction history for the account. We also did a full search for emails between Mr. Kotrum and employees Blockby, help desk tickets, and we also provided identity verification requests showing the emails that Mr. Kodrum.

that Mr. Cochin received when he sought to withdraw in April of 2021, and he had to upload a selfie and his driver's license in order to initiate that withdrawal. We provided Mr. Cochon's counsel with all of the evidence that we had in relation to the account the entire time that it was open. After we provided the records, we then moved to quash the subpoena based on what was remaining that was not relevant to the claim. That motion to Foch was unopposed, and it was granted by this court on October 10th. After that time, the court also granted the withdrawal of Mr. Potram's attorney.

The second certification that Mr. Cotram filed in relation to his claims introduces a second individual, Mr. I think it's Viera. I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing it correctly, but the second certification indicates that Mr. Vierra, is the one that initiated the deposit in September of 2022, and states that he doesn't retain any records of the transaction. Mr. Cotron's response included two screenshots intended to support his claims. One of the screenshots, I believe, is a showing the withdrawal of the 80 Bitcoin and 8,000 Ethereum from Mr. Viera's account, but the dates don't match what Mr. Cotron and Mr. Viera say when they say that occurred.

And then there's a second screenshot that is included, which has a couple of discrepancies. First, it says that the screenshot user has three active crypto balances, but the debtor's put them records, and Mr. Potrum's claims reflect that he only ever put Bitcoin onto the platform and traded it for Ethereum. So there was never a third crypto balance in his account. The screenshot he provided also shows balances of overseas. $6 million in both his via and his wallet. And that brings me to what I think is the most important point

regarding the deposit that Mr. Cotram is alleging, which is that it is an impossibility. Per the settlement with the SEC, after February of 2022, U.S.-based via clients could no longer put new funds into their via, whether that was by depositing it directly from an external wallet or from moving it from their wallet to their via. And so the transaction that's represented in that screenshot is not possible after February of 2022.

I did confirm with Block 5 that Mr. Cochran never had a non-U.S. address on his account and never requested a change of address on his account. And then finally, Your Honor, as Mr. Coaching said today, the subpoena and his response do allude to the concept of a data hack or a security breach, Blocki has not received any reports of anything similar to what Mr. Kodrum is alleging could have happened. And I think if someone were to be attempting to fraudulently remove his point from the platform, they would have needed to remove it and also to wipe out any trace of it ever being on the platform in the first place. the controls that Block I had in place for withdrawals

means that there's no way someone could take that amount of point off the platform even if they turned it into cash first, even if they tried to do a wire or an ACH withdrawal rather than just move it to an external wallet. All of those occurrences would have prompted an identity verification process that Mr. Potron would have had to undergo in order to get that point off the platform. And in fact, we did provide him with records

to show that he needed to complete that process when he did the withdrawal of the small quantity of Ethereum in ABLE 2021, which was the last movement that we saw initiated by him on the platform. So, you know, to sum up, Your Honor, I think the books and records that are very clear. Sir Potrum has a claim of four cents against Block by Inc., and nothing more. And if the court doesn't have any further questions, we would just ask that the court grant the objection and that the claims be modified and expunged as per the sample. All right, thank you. Mr. Kaltrow, I see your hand raised.

Yes, Your Honor. I just want to address that she mentioned there were three crypto in there. When I filed my claims, I did not have access to my block back out, so I did the best of my ability, which probably mattered, which was the 80 Bitcoin and the 8,000 Ethereum. The Jamie and Ida said it was worth $100, just to make that point to the court. Thank you for listening All right, thank you.

The court has considered the issues raised with respect to the objection filed by the plant administrator relative to Mr. Cottram's claim number 5503 for which the administrator seeks

to modify is also a claim to expung expunge under claim number 3419. The bankruptcy rules and the bankruptcy code provide for a shifting of burdens with respect to claims adjudication. Bankruptcy Rule 301F provides that a filed proof of claim that is prepared and complies with the bankruptcy rules constitutes a prime official. constitutes prima facie evidence of its validity, both in terms of its amount and the basis.

That places the burden upon an objecting party to rebut the prima facie elements of the claim. Once that is done, and in order to rebut, the objective must produce evidence, which, if believed, would refute at least one of the allegations that are essential for the, of the legal sufficiency of the claim. If the objecting party produces sufficient evidence to negate one of the, one or more of the sworn facts underlying the proof of claim, then the burden reverts back upon the claimant to establish by preponderance of the evidence, the validity of the claim as to both its amount and liability. Here, the evidence submitted by the claimant, Mr. Kaltrum, is insufficient to overcome the, or to

satisfy, rather, the burdens imposed upon by the federal rules of bankruptcy procedure and the code. The plant administrator has rebutted in their submission the validity of these claims, taking issue with whether or not any of the claimed 80 Bitcoin or 8,000 heathed, were ever deposited. There is nothing before the court in the records provided by the claimant, apart from a suspect screenshot which would support the existence of these deposits. There are no email transactions, email records, transaction records, any of Blockby's own

internal documentation which supports any of these deposits. The court is not a position to give credence to screenshots. which are inconsistent with the facts that have been laid out in the objection, and which have inherent credibility issues relative to contradictions that are existing with the facts of record. In essence, Mr. Cotram has not met his burden by a preponderance of evidence, as required under In re Allegani International, which is the Third Circuit decision that lays out these shifting burdens. At this juncture, the court has no choice but to sustain the objection filed by the plan administrator. Thank you.

You're welcome. Ms. Sisson, do we move on to other claims? Yes, and I apologize, Your Honor. I meant to move to admit exhibits A and B to our reply before I began my argument. So if we could possibly do that now, I would appreciate it. That's fine. They were attached to the submission. They are documented and they are in the record.

Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. I'm going to proceed the podium to Mr. Al-Lead at this time. All right. Thank you, Your Honor. The next objection is the objection to Mr. Wins. claims and I see Mr. Wins has joined the hearing if you'd like to turn it over to him or I can give a brief summation of he's filed both a motion and a response to our claims

objection. Well, why don't I turn to Mr. Wins first? Mr. Wins, good morning. I have reviewed your motion and your reply that was filed. Let me give you this opportunity to amplify it. I appreciate it, Your Honor. Thank you. Good morning to you as well. I have several points to make, if I may. First of all, Mr. Clark, I think, said that my motion was not timely, but it was. It was filed on the 16th of October 21 days past.

It wasn't entered until the 17th, apparently, but my copy of the motion is filed stamp. So it was timely. On the other hand, the opposition to the motion was not timely. According to local rule, 1913-2A-2, it should have been filed and served at least seven days before the hearing. And it was not. And I'd like to ask the court to treat it as no reply, to disregard the reply, and to consider the motion as unopposed in the court's discretion. And if the motion is unopposed, the court has the discretion to grant the motion for good cause at the court's discretion. And a citation on that is in Ray Franklin,

1997, 210 bankruptcy reporter, 560. So that's about the timeliness. And I checked, and I I think this system said when I spoke for a few weeks ago that BlockFi Inc. does have the Bitcoin to repay my small amount of Bitcoin 4.2 Bitcoin. And that is shown by BlockFi's own records attached to an exhibit to my objection in response to the chance of omnibus objection to certain. claims. And according to their assets and liability statement on 0.77.3,

they mentioned on that place that they had $3,262,500 worth of Bitcoin just there. And I'm sure they have much more in other places. I also pointed out in my moving papers that

our contract would block I agreed that that's my Bitcoin. I have the ownership and rights to the Bitcoin. They were only supposed to hold it for security. And contrary to what I think I saw in Mr. Clark's proposed opposition, I was never given a margin call on that. I was always proper and complete on my loan situation with Blockthai, what BlockFi used to do is set its customers a warning that Bitcoin price had dropped

and they needed to make a further deposit to avoid a margin call. And I always did that. I was always in fine status with them and always willing and able to pay that a loan off. I just couldn't find it convenient to do so and was taken by surprise when they filed for Chapter 11. And at that point, they refused to be paid off. and said that they were freezing the interest. And I want to do the equitable thing here, Your Honor, and pay them what I owe in principle and interest on my two loans,

which at last accounting was approximately $42,000. I don't mind if they had additional interest on that for the intervening months. I just want to be equitable here, Your Honor. But according to my moving papers and the few authorities that I cited, I do have the right to get my Bitcoin back. And I'm simply asking the court to approve my claim. I filed my claim in BlockFi, Inc. back on January 10th of this year. And I wasn't sure who had the Bitcoin, so I filed additional claims against their other entities.

But it's a very small amount of Bitcoin. But it's very important to our retirement savings. I'm 77, my wife is 76, and we cannot wait years to see what happens with us. We need to get our Bitcoin back, and that is why I have made this motion. And, Your Honor, I don't believe they have presented any evidence at all. I appreciate your citing the Allegheny case. I know you're very familiar with it. I was going to cite it to you, but there's no need for that because you know all about it.

And my claim was specifically that I wanted and was entitled to the return of those 4.22 Bitcoin and species sheet. The 10th omnibus objection to certain claims mischaracterized my proofs of claimant being for a money amount. Now, I did state the approximate money amount it was worth on a claim at that time. as being around $79,000. But I was very clear in point six and seven on my attachment to the original proof of claim, and the others were basically identical, that I was entitled to and was asking for the return of the Bitcoin in specie. So what I'm asking, Your Honor, to do to approve my claims and our claims, and also direct. the debtors' counsel to cooperate with me in deciding how much interest needs to be paid back

and make arrangements for returning the 4.22 Bitcoin. Now, there's also a little bit of other cryptocurrency. I don't know if it's in the wallet or in the interest account, but it's about $2,000 worth, I think, and if you could add that to the order to, Your Honor, I'd be grateful. So I think Your Honor is all honest. On top of this, and I probably don't have to say more, but I wanted to mention also that the court has broad equitable powers to make an order in the interests of justice. And that has been upheld both by the Supreme Court in the United States v. Energy Resources, 495 U.S. 545, 1990, as well as in an earlier decision from 1939, 308 U.S.

295, pages 307, 308. The court has brought equitable, equitable powers to make whatever order is right and equitable within the confines of the bankruptcy code. So I would very much appreciate your honor. I was really surprised that anybody wanted to reply to my objection because it's such a small amount of Bitcoin and so important to our family. and it's so documented by Bitcoin's own statements, I mean block tie's own statements, that there really shouldn't be much dispute about it.

So I will appreciate it, Your Honor. I want to mention, too, that I said in my papers, I thought I'd filed a notice of appearance and request for documents, which I find that I did, document number 119 in the record, and I asked for all notices pursuant to Rule 2002 and also all pleadings and documents, and I don't think I ever got anything. I don't recall getting anything before I finally, a few weeks ago, got this onnum of subjections, 10th omnibus objections paper.

So anyway, that's the situation, Your Honor, and in the interest of justice, I'd very much appreciate it if you would approve my claim. in order that the debtors' counsel work with me for repayment and for provisions to provide my cryptocurrency back to me. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Wins. Mr. Allent. Good morning, Your Honor. So the plan administrator is certainly sympathetic to Mr. Wins' flight here.

BlockFi owed a great deal of money and crypto to a lot of people, and they are certainly entitled to their money. the issue, of course, is why we're here, that we don't, that block file simply doesn't have it. As Mr. Wins reflected, said, the debtors originally objected to Mr. Wynne's claim on the 10th on the subjection is inconsistent with the books and records. There's a couple key issues here. I think there's a very minor dispute over the exact amount of Bitcoin. We think it's 4.209.

versus Mr. Wins' calculation of 4.22. But ultimately, this is a legal question. What are Mr. Wins' rights against Blockfile lending? And what is his claim? We've interpreted Mr. Wins' claim to be a secured creditor as essentially arguing that he has a property interest in the Bitcoins in a manner similar to the BlockFi wallet rather than an unsecured claim.

Unfortunately, Mr. Wins is simply not correct. The key part of his loan agreement is Section 4D, and Mr. Wins attached his loan agreement to his response. It's docket number 1633, and page 23 of that PDF begins that section. The relevant language is on page 64, where it's. the contract reads that borrower agrees that lender may for its own account, pledge, re-plege, re-hypublicate, re-hypocket, sell, lend, or otherwise transfer or use any amount of such collateral, separately or together with other property, with all attendant rights of ownership from time to time, without notice to the borrower or to any of the collateral, and that lender may do so without retaining in its possession or control for delivery,

a like amount of similar collateral. And the issue, Your Honor, is that that makes what Mr. Wins holds an unsecured claim for the return of his collateral. Just like every other lending customer, Mr. Wynn pledged his collateral and he has an unsecured claim for its return. BlockFIE lending LLC does not have the assets to meet those unsecured claims. that claim, unfortunately, on the filing of the petition became an unsecured claim that was converted into dollars pursuant to Section 502B of the bankruptcy code. And so Mr. Wins essentially became an unsecured creditor

in the amount of approximately $68,000, and I believe that is before the set-off that he is entitled to under the compression plan. And that language that I just cited is similar to the language that was in the BIA accounts, where Your Honor held that that created non-secured claim. And it is similar to language in more traditional finance lending arrangements, such as we cited a case from the Lehman Brothers liquidation, where a bank had pledged collateral to a Lehman entity with similar language,

with similar language that Lehman was allowed to re-hypublicate cell or otherwise dispose of the collateral. There's a number of factual differences in the setting of that case, but it's specific that when that becomes a unsecured claim for the return of the collateral. And all of that is why, Your Honor, the plan treated loan collateral claims in this way, that loan collateral claims are converted into dollars as of the petition date. Any creditor will automatically get the benefit of the set-off. BlockFi will not be seeking to have Mr. Wins repay his loan, or Mr. Wins could have opted into the loan repayment program,

but that would not have been able to deliver Mr. Wins, the 4.2 Bitcoin he requests, because, again, Mr. Wins is an unsecured creditor, and Blockade, I think, simply does not have the assets to make unsecured creditors whole. As a result, the plan is a separate and independent reason for why Mr. Wins' claim must be modified in the amounts, specified in the pent-pom of a subjection that the plan was confirmed without objection by Mr. Wins

to treat his claim in that way. But he's a pro se creditor. We're not trying to have a gotcha here. The plan was right to do what it did. And although it is a severe hardship to Mr. Wynn and every other creditor, that is unfortunately what the facts and circumstances and the bankruptcy code require in that situation. The only other thing that I would mention is that Mr. Wins objects that the plan administrator's response to his motion. And just to reiterate, the motion essentially duplicates his objection to the 10th omnibus

objection. It seeks the same relief. We filed a relative, the motion simply refers to his objection. We filed a relatively perfunctory response that again simply refers to our forthcoming reply to his objection. But that was filed on the 30th, and so it was timely under the local rules. Mr. Wins is a pro se creditor. If he needed additional time, we would, of course, have been willing to push this, but based on Mr. Wynne's presentation, it doesn't appear that he lacked the time to prepare for this hearings. And so we'd request with that objection to the timeliness of the response to his motion, the older rule. And with that, I have no public, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Ollette. Mr. Wins, what's your

respond. Yes, your honor, concerning the contract, Mr. Allen is trying to say that because there is some language in the contract that says that BlockFi could dispose of, I talked to kayak trade or whatever, Bitcoin. I'd like to point out that your honor reads the contract as a whole. And as I pointed out, there was very specific language in the, that contract stating that I was the owner of the Bitcoin. It was my Bitcoin, and they were holding it for security.

And I would suggest, Your Honor, the language that Mr. Allett was referring to is intended for cases where there is a default, and that it allowed Block Fy to do what it needed to do or wanted to do in case that the borrower defaulted on the loan and they had to sell the Bitcoin or do what they needed to do. that never occurred in my case, and there's never been any evidence presented before this court that anyone ever did sell pledge, hypothetical, or whatever, my Bitcoin. There was simply no evidence of that. So, as Your Honor pointed out from the Allegheny case, in order to shift the burden, evidence must be presented that show that the claim is invalid.

and there was certainly no evidence at all presented in a tenth omnibus objections filing. All it did was refer to my approves of claim and give them a dollar amount and completely ignore the fact that my claims were very expressive and clear that I was claiming to be a secured creditor and why. and in my attachment specifically on point six and seven, I stated relevant points to that and said that it was my property and I was intending to pay what was due in order to get my property back

and asking the court to order that the debtors' counsel cooperate with me to see that that happened. So that's a specious argument pointing to a little bit of language in the contract, which is contradictory to utter express in specific language that I pointed out in my papers that say that I remain the owner of the Bitcoin and they're only holding it for security. And there's no reason to invoke that language that Mr. Allen pointed out if there wasn't any default. And there never was. I kept my agreement perfectly with BlockFi.

And I was entitled at any time to pay off my loans and to have, my block five back, except that by filing for Chapter 11, the debtor prevented that. So the equitable result here, Your Honor, and I'm trying to be perfectly equitable, is to order that my claim is upheld, or my claims. It seems like Mr. Allen was suggesting that more of the Bitcoin is held in BlockFi lending or trading or something like that, but I'm sure it's all covered, but it's very little Bitcoin, but as you know, a Bitcoin today is worth about $35,000 per Bitcoin. That's a very substantial part of our retirement savings. So to be equitable, Your Honor, I ask that my claims be sustained, or such claims as need to be sustained.

I think Ms. Citizen said some of the entities don't have any assets, that that's fine. and to direct debtors' counsel to work with me so that I can get my 4.22 Bitcoin back. Thank you, Your Honor. Thank you, Mr. Wins. All right. This matter comes before the court on the objection by the plant administrator to various claims as part of the seventh, I'm sorry, the 10th omnibus objection at issue specifically of the claims of Mr. Wins, claim number 1324 and claim number 3052.

This court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1334. This is a core matter under 28 U.S.C. Section 157B. I've already explained in prior matters the shifting burdens, and Mr. Wins is very familiar, as he's noted, with the Inre Allegani International case of the Third Circuit. at 954 Fed Second 167. Mr. Wins implores the court to use its equitable powers, and the court is, again, like the plan administrator, is sympathetic with the reasons why it should, it would be appropriate, if possible, to offer equitable relief.

The problem is it's not possible. The Supreme Court has made it clear in law v. Siegel that the bankruptcy courts do not possess the power to use its equitable jurisdiction, its equitable authority, when it contravenes specific statutory rights or other fundamental rights under the law. And that's what we have here, that as a matter of law, Mr. Wins, unfortunately, you're not entitled to the return of the return of the law. Bitcoin. This court has already ruled in this case, it has become law of the case, with respect to BIA accounts, that there is a difference in the terms of agreement between the various accounts. And the wallet holders negotiated in their terms of service for certain rights to retain title to the Bitcoin that was entrusted. with the debtor.

And this differs significantly from the terms of agreement in both the interest accounts and the loan collateral accounts, the loan accounts. And I have to disagree with your interpretation of the language that was cited, Section 4D of the loan agreement. And I appreciate that your argument is that such language should only come into effect when there's a default. but that's not what the language says. It says that the lender may for its own account, pledge, re-pledge, re-hypublicate, re-hypocket, sell, lend, or otherwise transfer, or use any amount of such collateral separately or together, and this is where it's important, with all attendant rights of ownership

from time to time without notice to the borrow. It's not limiting its rights to a default. And it's that language that other courts, and I'll refer to Judge Glenn's opinion in the Celsius networking matter, I'm sorry, Henry SELC, LLC, 647 bankruptcy reporter, 651, that used comparable language that interpreted comparable language to limit the ability of certain account holders to retain interest in their, digital assets. The fact is that those who were customers as part of the loan accounts and had loan collateral claims are treated differently under the terms of service and also treated differently under the plan, which is a binding agreement between the estate and the creditors and the parties in interest. The plan has been confirmed. And indeed,

Article 3 of the plan, Section C.4, reiterates that loan collateral claimants such as yourself will receive pro-rotted distributions of the remaining dollarized value of their collateral in either digital assets or cash according to the terms of the confirmed plan, and the claimants who do not elect the loan repayment treatment will have their outstanding loan balances set off against the dollarized value of their claim, and they will receive pro-rotted distributions on the remaining claim amount in either digital assets or cash according to the terms of the confirmed plan. The plan does not provide for a return of your specific Bitcoin or other digital assets for those with loan collateral claims. It provides for a pro rata distribution of either cash or digital assets,

at a dollarized value as of the petition date. I've accepted the filings, even if I were to consider the plan administrator's response to your motion as being late. It wouldn't matter. As a matter of law, your motion cannot be granted. The interpretation of the language of the terms of service, agreement are consistent with other courts beyond simply digital currency bankruptcy filings and this court is required to enforce the terms of the

confirmed plan and to treat all creditors within the class of claims that you hold the same and the court's not in position even if equity were to were to compel a different result to treat creditors separate I have to treat all creditors the same across the board for those reasons and for the reason set forth in the both the objection to the claim and they'll apply the court denies Mr. Wynne your motion for turn over the Bitcoin and sustains the objection filed by the plan administrator. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor.

But just your remark there, there's no evidence. There's no evidence. No evidence was presented to the court that they ever did any of those things. Sell, hypothicate, re-pledge, or whatever. Even granting for the sake of argument that they had the right to do that, and your interpretation of the contract based on other court rulings as well, apparently, is that they have the right to do that. There's no evidence that they ever did, and there's clear language in the contract.

It's contradicting that that says the Bitcoin belongs. to me. I understand your position. We'll just have to disagree. Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor. All right. Thank you. Mr. Allette, are you continuing with other claims? No, Your Honor. I'm going to see the virtual podium to Mr. Canowitz. Mr. Canowitz. Good morning. Good morning, Your Honor. Richard Canowitz, Hansen-Boon for the plan administrator. Your Honor, this is hopefully going to be very brief. This is in connection with the 11th on the bus claim objection. Mr. Lim has filed a response. Your Honor's rulings today, as well as in the past, dictate the outcome. We're just seeking to reduce and overstated unsecured claim to dollarize it as of the petition date based on the

Bitcoin pricing at that time. It's a reduction about $500,000. All of the arguments that were raised in the response have been addressed today, whether you know, you're talking about the plan construct, the bankruptcy court code construct. This is an unsecured claim that is entitled to treatment pursuant to the code and the confirmed plan. The other issue raised in the response, again, you touched on it confirmation was whether or not the plan administrator, wind-down debtors could bring the claim objection. Your Honor previously ruled on it. I don't need to we hash Your Honor's verbiage that's found in the transcript that we cited to. But the reality is this. Under 502A, any party in interest can object to the claim. This claim objection was filed

on September 6 by the debtors. The committee, a party in interest, joined. The wind-down debtors take from both the debtors and over the committee. Therefore, the claim objection is still live, irrespective of whether, Your Honor, found, and I don't think you should find, a waiver and or some sort of estoppel. None of the elements for waiver and or estoppel can be established. The reality is that this was a misinterpretation by Mr. Lim of the plan and how the claim's reconciliation process would work, and we would ask, Your Honor, to simply reduce this unsecured claim by approximately $500,000 as we set forth in the claim objection. And I'll reserve any time for your honest questions or rebuttal, I believe Ms. Gelfin is here to argue on behalf of our

client. And he did submit a declaration, which we have no objection to being submitted as part of the record, and we have no cross-examination for Mr. Lennon. All right. Thank you. Ms. Gelfon. Good morning. Good morning, Your Honor. Thank you for entertaining us today. You may recall that at the confirmation hearing, Your Honor indicated that perhaps this matter was more fit and was actually a matter that should be dealt with on the objection to claims. You invited us back and all the rights of my client at that time were reserved. I do want to point out a few things. First of all, the proof of claim. The proof of claim was filed by former counsel, not Akerman. It was very clear with a rider explaining why and how it was valued. It was no intention to just use a value

and not explain it. We are actually in a very different position from the other creditors in this case, including the other creditor who just went before us seeking equitable relief. Only my client has raised the issue of equitable estoppel as to the debtor's objection. As Your Honor appreciates, equitable estoppel has three elements, and we believe they've all been met today. The first one is a representation made to induce an action. I don't believe there's any dispute that the purpose of the plan is to induce a creditor from the debtor standpoint to accept the plan. The second element is reliance. In his declaration,

Mr. Lim testified that he relied on the representation in the plan that the claim objection to his claim would be released. It appears that the wind-down debtor's position is

that it was unreasonable for Mr. Lim to rely on the definition of causes of actions that stated that the debtor was releasing, quote, any right to object to or otherwise contest claims or interests. That's a definition. It appears that Wind Down debtors believe that Mr. Lim had a duty to go all through the plan, look at every article, determine if these articles

contradicted the plain language of the definition of cause of action. And to go even farther outside the plan to the disclosure statement, to see what that was about. I don't want to re-argue what we argued at confirmation. A lot of that appears to be re-argued by the Wind-down debtors, but I do want to point out the debtors painstakingly to put in the plan, and almost all the articles and then the articles relied upon by the Wind-down debtors, except as provided in the plan. It always says, here's the representation,

except as provided in the plan. Again, it's the client's position that the plan provided for this release right in the definitions. As far as changing positions, there's no dispute that Mr. Lim changed his position, the third element. It's in his dexterity.

The declaration, the wind-down debtors point to a conversation taking place after voting was closed, where we were advised it was never the intention to release objections to claim. Yet, the release was placed in the plan, specifically in the definitions. The relevant conversation is not what took place after Mr. Limer, relied. The relevant time is when he was making the decision of what to do. And that was a Friday afternoon, and it was not my favorite day. I don't like doing these ballots the last day at the last hour in case there's a glitch. But here we found ourselves because the client was struggling. Should he opt out of the third party release, like a lot of the ad hoc members did, 10,000,

and we heard it the confirmation hearing. Or should he vote to accept the plan and not opt out? And he knew that there was going to be this objection to his claim. He knew his claim was disputed. I made a call to the committee before we voted. And I asked, said, I got to tell you guys, I think you released objections to claim. I got a call back later saying we brought it to the debtor's attention. It's going to be fixed.

well, I'm not going to go back to the fix. We know that the debtors came to this court, and they did get confirmation, and the court did find that 1129A had been met. However, at the time that Mr. Lim voted, it was clear under the plain language of the plan to this creditor that his claim's objection was being released. I want to talk a little bit about accountability. These crypto cases have been a learning experience for all of us, and it's been incredibly fascinating to watch them travel through the different courts. BlockFi, who filed last, clearly did a fantastic job of getting this plan confirmed early on. But that doesn't mean that there's no accountability.

there is no accountability to read the definitions, to make sure the general lease is correct. If you're going to read anything, it would be a general release in the exculpation clause. And the accountability even goes farther than that because creditors like Mr. Lim, it's their first interaction with the federal courts. He's never been in a federal court. And I'm sure there are many, many, many other creditors in the same situation. And that's why the court has painstakingly made this venue friendly to all these pro-state creditors,

put special procedures on the webpage, opened up the Zoom, because these creditors are coming here, and they're going to walk away with an impression of what happened in this federal court. And if the debtor is not held accountable at this stage on an equitable estoppel theory, for making a promise and then turning around and changing that promise after a creditor relied and changed position. That's the real issue. And making the debtors accountable on this, it's a little, little thing in this case. They got their confirmation.

They got their technical amendment. And, you know, you can understand why amendments that are more than technical require research. solicitation. So we don't find ourselves in these crazy positions that we're in today, which is a creditor who relied on a plan, gave up rights, and now is being told, no, you shouldn't have relied on it. You actually should have read everything and made a decision like Your Honor made, but the client wasn't the judge. And as far as the joinder, Your Honor, this objection is not going to be alive after today, it will be raised due to Cotta. The committee made a decision not to file their own objection. Instead, they join in support. That's their language, the debtor's

objection. So the committee as a joinder, they're joining rises and falls on the debtor's objection. Your Honor, we ask that you look at this a little differently. My client's equitable request does not contribute the legal rights of others. No one else is similarly situated. There will be no floodgates on this that will open. The appeal pending does not address this issue. My client's in a unique position, the debtors committee, and everyone else who read that plan should be accountable

for putting a general release of the objections to claim in the definitions and in the plan itself. and Mr. Lim, because he relied on it in good faith, should be allowed his claim, Your Honor, in the full amount. Thank you. Let me just clarify, before I turn back to Mr. Kenowitz, Mr. Lim, when you say he relied and gave up certain rights, what did he give up by voting? he gave up the but he voted in favor of the plan which may have done anyway

because Mr. Lume had no desire to delay distribution but as his declaration states he would have opted out of the third party release he would have been in a position to join class actions that may be brought against third parties we have 10,000 creditors who opted out

and now Mr. Wasn't he given that opportunity? He wouldn't get the release, Your Honor. He wanted the release in exchange for the general release of the objections to claims. He had to do two things, vote in favor of the plan and opt out, and not opt out. And it was a no-brainer. At that point, they released it. Of course I want that release.

If he had decided to opt out, he would not have been entitled to the release. But he had that opportunity to decide to opt out. It didn't change based on the language. He always had that opportunity, correct? Yes, Your Honor, but from an equitable estoppel position, the debtor makes a representation intending that the creditor rely on it. They represent all claims objections are released in the definition of causes of action, right in Article 1.

Mr. Limry lies on that, and he changes his position. But he's afforded, before there are any consequences from his decision on how to vote, he's afforded the opportunity to change his vote. The debtor recognizes that there's a language issue, and before there are any consequences, before our plans confirmed, before the process is even completed, they come in and they make a modification, and they recognize they make the modification for clarity. They recognize that it might have an impact on his choice, and they say, go ahead, change your vote. So where is, where has he been prejudiced? Unfortunately, Judge, the changing of the vote after the fact is not how the damages are looked upon when you have equitable estoppel. The equitable estoppel arises, what did he give up? look back. We don't look forward and say, oh, you could have changed your vote. He wanted the

release. I mean, from a damage standpoint with equitable estoppel, it's not what he gave up as far as the opt out. It's what he didn't get. But what he wanted was something that nobody else could get and would have created, as I found earlier, an absurd situation where any claim would be valid simply by accepting. It could have been for billions. And nobody hopped on the bandwagon, and I really worked with the debtor, but the fact doesn't change. The language is in there.

And the fact that only Mr. Lim, number one, caught it and alerted the debtors. And number two, took advantage of his rights. And that's even perhaps more of a reason when we get back to accountability to give Mr. Limbous relief because it won't open the floodgates. I think in other jurisdictions

and different circumstances, perhaps other creditors would have jumped on this van wagon. We cannot change that they put that in the definition. And we cannot change Mr. Lim's deck, Leration, that is not disputed. All right, thank you. Let me hear from Mr. Kenowitz.

I appreciate it. Your Honor, you have it, right. Let me break this down. The issue today is whether Mr. Lim has an excessive claim. He does. Period. End of story. As a matter of law, it should be reduced.

The question of voting or not voting has nothing to do with whether or not the wind-down debtors can bring a claim objection. It's just that simple. one issue has nothing to do with the other. If a creditor didn't vote at all, but still has an excessive claim, the wind-down debtors, get to bring a claim objection. Okay, so they're separate and apart. The idea that Mr. Lim gave up something by voting one way or another,

he didn't, he can't rely on his own imagination and saying, I'm going to interpret language this way, I'm going to vote a certain way, and then I'm going to give up rights. He didn't give up any rights. All he gave up was a voting to approve or reject. He voted to approve or opting in or opting out of a third-party release. And he made decisions. Nothing to do with his claim objection.

What he wants you to do is to actually believe that the debtors wrote in, in the first instance, a waiver. That's not what we wrote in. That's not what this court found. We clarified it. We told him about it. And he still wants to go down this route saying, oh, my vote impacted the ability to object to a claim. And that's not true.

They're separate and distinct. And getting back to the issue of who could bring a claim objection, the committee raised this issue. It's live in front of your honor. Okay. So you have parties in interest protecting the estate from excessive claims. That's all we have here. Okay.

You don't even have to reach the issue of voting, not voting, and what that meant. You could just see that there was a. Outstanding claim objection by the debtors that was joined by the committee that has to be upheld in accordance with 502A and the way the plan has been written and construed by your honor. All right. Thank you, Mr. Kenowitz. Ms. Galton? Any response? You would just say that this is not a 502 issue at this point. Yes, they brought the objection under 502, but the creditor has brought a defense. equitable defense saying they put a general release in the Article 1 definition of causes of action. I relied on it. No one disputes it. I changed my position by giving up third party claims. No one disputes it. That's what this is about. I recognize and concede that the proof of claim

filed by former counsel, by the way, not Aikerman, LLP, the proof of claim didn't not value on the day of the November filing. And there was a whole rider attached as to their thinking, and we just heard from a creditor, his thinking, but we're different than that creditor. And I think it's a good thing no one else jumped on it. But I do think accountability, just a little accountability, says you put it in there.

It's not the creditor's job to go to disclosure statements and all these paragraphs and say, oh, they didn't mean to release it. And that would be really where we would rest, Your Honor. Thank you. Thank you. The court is familiar with the issues that have been raised. Obviously, the court addressed it as part of the plan confirmation process

and found that the interpretation of the language, when this court took the disclosure statement and the plan as a whole, as well as in the context of how Chapter 11 are prosecuted and the claims allowance procedures that are recognized, viewed the interpretation of Mr. Lim as being untenable as far as what the impact would be, and it could possibly lead to absurd results. The court is cognizant of the argument of equity. The court is familiar with case law that repeat that equitable maxims must be applied flexibly so that you cannot apply an equitable rule in a fashion that will operate inequitably.

And if we were to do so here to allow this claim in this amount, in this fashion, as sought by Mr. Lim, it would in effect impair the rights of other creditors who are going to receive less than they're entitled to necessarily. That's not equitable either. Mr. Lim had the opportunity to adjust his actions prior to any consequences from his voting. He was well aware of the position that the debtor would take with respect to. His interpretation was well aware that the committee

and ultimately the plan administrator would take opposing view. He had the opportunity to adjust his actions in such a fashion that he would be treated like all other claimants holding the same type of claims in his class. The court is not going to sustain the objection of the plan administrator. It's a creative and certainly an objection which I believe will probably be instructive in other cases when drafting language. But at the end of the day, Mr. Lim is not being prejudiced in any other fashion as compared to other creditors with the same types of claim. and we can't use an equitable rule that will in effect treat others inequitably. So, objection sustained.

Thank you, Ms. Galvan. Thank you, Your Honor. Mr. Kanoit or Mr. Allett, do we have any other matters? Yeah, I think Mr. Alette was going to address some open matters with the quarter. All right, thank you. Yes, Your Honor. We just wanted to preview for you where the three arrows objection is that we have agreed on a mediator and expect to submit a agreed on mediation order

to Your Honor shortly. Most likely later this week, we have, for the most part, agreed on a schedule with one open issue that we are likely to submit to Your Honor for resolution this week. But we believe that we've got all of the dates agreed to. That said, of course, there are discovery issues and if any of those discovery issues on other side, you know, require the court's intervention, we will bring those to, Your Honor, at that time. Thank you. Where do we stand with the FTX claim? That's going to be resolved in Delaware?

It's going to be resolved in Delaware, Your Honor. We're working with the FTCS debtors on the motion to lift the automatic stay that was provided for in the settlement agreement with the FDX debtors and the Block by debtors, as well as working out the schedule for mediation that's called for under that settlement. What will we be doing with the objection? I think it's at 1376 of the docket to the FDX claim. Am I carrying it for now, or will we be withdraw, or will you all be withdrawing it?

We would like it carried for now. Once the order lifting the automatic stay is entered at that point, we would believe it should be withdrawn. But until that order lifting automatic stay and implementing the mediation is entered, it should be carried. Then we'll just carry it to the 28th date. I believe we have a date, so we have the 28th. I think we have a January date.

We're probably going to need to come up with some. additional dates, correct? Correct, Your Honor. I believe that we also submitted a proposed December omnibus date. I don't unfortunately remember what it is off the top of my head, but we can get in touch with your chambers and set a number of upcoming omnibus dates

if that would work for your honor. I think it always works best when they leave me out of it. So I'll let you speak with my chambers. and Becca Earl. All right. Just for the record, I know we do have Mr. Sponder of the U.S. trustee sitting here. He couldn't resist coming down. Are there any other issues that anyone wishes to address? Mr. Sponders? Thank you, Your Honor. Jeff Sponder from the Office of United States Trustee. The issue that I was here for, thankfully Ms. Bilski was on earlier with respect to the redactions, so that was taken care of, but we have no other issues, Your Honor. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Any other council or party? Then I appreciate your time and the arguments. Thank you very much. We're adjourned. Thank you, Your Honor. We are off. It's interesting.