23andMe - Audio of April 22 2025 Bankruptcy Court Hearing, case 2025-40976 before the US Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, #bankruptcy, #privacy, #data, #genetics #sale #truecrime #23andMe

Just a

moment to get

set up.

If you're on Webex, please mute. We have that under control. Mr.

Spigel, we can begin.

Twenty three and Me Holding Co.

Let's have appearances in the courtroom, please.

Good afternoon, your Honor. Tom Riske and Nathan Wallace, Carmine McDonald on behalf of the debtors.

Good afternoon, your Honor. Christopher Hopkins of Paul Weisz, Riffle, Warren and Garrison as proposed co counsel to the debtor.

Good afternoon, your Honor. Eric Wilson of Kelly Dry and Warren, proposed counsel for the creditors committee. Welcome to St. Louis. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nick Slidicky of Stinson, co counsel proposed co counsel for the Unsecured Creditors Committee. Good afternoon, Mr. Slidicky.

Good afternoon, Your Honor. Robert Hirsch, Norton Rose Fulbright on behalf of the diplender JMP Capital. Good afternoon.

And in a much less important position, Your Honor, Tom Dowaskin, for CoreWeave Inc, a subtenant of the debtor.

You're very important, Mr. Dowaskin. Don't fool yourself.

Good afternoon, Your Honor Carol Ryczyk and Joe Schlotzauer on behalf of the U. S. Trustee.

Good afternoon.

Any other pencils in the courtroom? All right. How about on the WebEx?

Good afternoon, Michael St. James.

Go ahead. Go ahead. Was that you, Mr. St. James?

Yes, your honor. Good afternoon, your honor. Michael St. James appearing on behalf of the Matilda Avenue Landlord.

I'm sorry. Which landlord? You cut out for just a second.

I apologize. Matilda Avenue, the main landlord.

Thank you, Matilda. Got you.

Good afternoon, Robert. Tobias Keller of Keller Bend, Unity Kim, appearing on behalf of the Davis Beach Class Action plaintiffs.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, your Honor. This is Abigail Ryan with the National Association of Attorneys General, appearing on behalf of the states of Arizona, the state of Connecticut, the District Of Columbia, the state of Florida, the state of Illinois, the state of Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, the Ohio attorney general, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, the Commonwealth of Virginia, Washington State, and the office of the West Virginia attorney general and the state of Wisconsin. Thank you, your honor.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, your honor. Heather Crockett on behalf of the State of Indiana.

Crockett?

Good afternoon, your Honor. Can you hear me?

Yes.

Arla Milligan with the Texas Attorney General's Office appearing on behalf of the State of Texas.

Very good. Good afternoon. I see a few other folks with cameras on, but I'm not hearing anyone. Any other anyone else need to enter an appearance?

Good morning, Your Honor. Daniel Meadell with the people of the State of California.

California, all right, welcome. Just a second, let's make sure we don't have anybody else in the WebEx, and then we'll go back to the court.

Good afternoon, Your Honor. Kevin Barnes, Class A shareholder.

Shareholder. Okay, that's right. Welcome back.

Thank you.

Alright. And we have one more appearance in the courtroom.

Yeah. My apologies. Allison Espack with City of the State of Missouri, attorney general's office.

Very good.

Thank you.

All right. Mr. Riske, any general updates about the case before we get into motion by motion?

You're on read my mind. Before we jumped into the agenda, I was going to ask Mr. Hopkins to give a little summary of what's been going on behind the scenes since we last hear your honor.

Certainly. Very good.

Good afternoon again, your honor.

For the record, Christopher Hopkins of Paul Weis, Rifkin, Morton, and Garrison is proposed co counsel to the debtors. I'm joined today in court by my colleague, miss Grace Huts, and I believe there's representatives from the company on the line as well. As mister Riske said, your honor, I I think we just wanted to spend a few minutes providing the court an update you know, the key events since we were last here, coming attractions. And then I'd mister Wilson, you know, on behalf of the committee will wanna make a few remarks before we dive into today's agenda.

That'd be helpful.

So since the first day hearing, you know, the company's been hard at work, you know, preserving, you know, the value of the business, making the transition to operating as debtors in possession, and obviously engaging with all the various stakeholders that have, an interest in these cases. The committee was appointed on 04/03/2025. Shortly thereafter, they retained their advisers. And really since then, we've been working very closely, making sure that we're bringing them up to speed. We're getting aligned as best we can on key objectives and working collaboratively to try to resolve any potential issues.

And thus far, your honor, I'm pleased to report we've had a very constructive dialogue. We're here today with at least with the committee on a fully consensual basis, and we we sincerely thank mister Wilson, his team, his co advisers for working so constructively with us because, you know, as we said at the first day hearing, I think driving to consensus in the case and minimizing disputes is going to be critical to the overall success of the process. Turning to other aspects of the cases, I think your honor is aware kind of the main event here is the ongoing sale process. Pleased to report that since the filing, there's been significant interest. Molis has been working with potential bidders and really progressing that along, and we're very pleased with how it's been proceeding to date.

Most of the interest that the debtors believe is actionable today is coming from US based public and private companies. These are companies that have strong track records with respect to data privacy. Many of them operate in complementary businesses to our existing business. And we believe would make good stewards of the customer data and for continuing the company's mission of advancing genetics based science and therapeutics here in The US. We are working hard, your honor, to try to secure a stalking horse bidder.

The deadline under the procedures currently is April 25 to file that notice that then starts the clock. And so assuming we get there with a potential bidder on a stalking horse bid, our plan would be, you know, to file that notice, believe under our procedures, parties and interest have five days to object. And if we needed to, your honor, we would set up a hearing or we would ask the court to set up the hearing to approve that stalking horse bid on our May 6 hearing, which is fortunate timing because that's just inside of the milestone under the dip facility we're asking your honor to approve today. Other developments, it's really the usual engagement with stakeholders. We've been having discussions with many of the state's Attorney General, the U.

S. Trustee's Office, obviously the committee, as I mentioned, counsel to the data breach claimants, trying to just make sure that they're involved in the process. They're getting information and we're trying to work constructively with them to resolve issues. As I'm sure your honor is aware, these cases are getting an enormous amount of media attention. We asked our PR consultant, and I think the count just from the petition date is over four fifty different articles or broadcasts about these cases.

Obviously, from the appearances we have today and from the first day hearing, your honor knows that there's is a lot of regulatory attention being put on the process and we're doing everything we can together with the committee to work with the AGs in The U. S. Trustee to again, like I said, to bring them along in the process and try to get everybody comfortable with what we're trying to achieve here. In terms of coming attractions, for today's hearing, I believe other than potentially a couple of issues that will come up through the agenda with CoreWeave and potentially a couple of minor issues on the case management motion. Our understanding is we're here today on a fully consensual basis.

And again, we thank committee of the U. S. Trustee and everybody else who worked with us ahead of today. I'm sure your honor is aware we'll be back here before you next Tuesday.

Right.

There's a couple different things on the agenda, but I think the main events of that hearing are going to be, you know, on the one hand, the debtor's motion to appoint an independent customer data representative. I'm sure the court is aware that there have been many parties who have filed their own motion seeking appointment of a CPO or a similar individual. Your Honor, just a few brief remarks on that because it is not up for today, but just to alert the court. We are working with the AGs, the US Trustee and the committee to try to bridge the gap between where the debtors were in in their CDR motion and where the parties are on the CPO motion. Because there does appear to be violent agreement that an independent individual is the right thing for these cases given the importance of the customer data and the related issues involved in connection with the sale.

And so from the debtors' perspective, we feel like there is a the gap that exists today is bridgeable. Obviously, we can't promise consensus. And there are given the importance to the sale process of these issues in terms of how the customer data is treated in the sale, what is permitted to be transferred, etcetera. These are very important issues in the cases, but we do think that this is an issue that can be settled. And so we're working hard to do that.

If we're unable to reach a resolution, I mean, just to flag for the court given the issues involved, I think we're on for 01:30PM central start time.

Correct.

That may be tight given that given the substance of that motion and given that we also have the bar date motion up for that hearing. We'll obviously keep the court updated, but I just wanted to put, if your Honor has time for us maybe earlier in the day, where we could potentially move up the start time that maybe We'll take a look

at that and we can be in touch with Mr. Riske, Mr. Mister Zlutticki about those issues. And then to the extent without taking time away from your negotiations to the extent that you that the parties can stipulate to some of the facts, obviously, that would expedite to hear it. Of course, your honor.

Yeah. Of course.

And I mean with that, your honor, I don't want to take up too much time, unless your honor has any questions for me. We're very focused on the sale process. We're very focused on pushing forward and trying to dual track in connection with the sale process, the plan confirmation process as well. We don't want to spend more time in bankruptcy than we need to given the cost. And so company is hitting its stride as a debtor.

We're advancing everything that needs to be advanced. And we hope that the sale process continues to drive towards a successful outcome that's going to provide meaningful distributions to our stakeholders at the end of the day.

Sure. Thank you. That's very helpful. I didn't have any particular questions, so but I appreciate the open. Okay.

Thank you, Your Honor. With that,

I'd cede the podium to Mr. Wilson. Very

good.

Good afternoon, your honor. Again, Eric Wilson of Kelly Dry, proposed counsel for the creditors committee. Also with me in the courtroom is missus Boughlin, my colleague. Your honor, as mister Hopkins mentioned on the the April 3, the United States Trustee appointed a seven member committee. That committee is comprised of four trade creditors that are continuing to support the business.

There are three plaintiffs that represent several million litigation claimants. Committee has retained my firm as lead counsel, the Stinson firm as well as FTI Consulting, all respectively and subject to this court's approval, of course. We have applications that are in progress. What I wanted to share today is that since its appointment, I can tell you this committee has been very focused on getting to a value maximizing transaction that will preserve this business. It's focused on finding answers to questions surrounding this company's path to Chapter 11, including potentially improper insider influence.

And it's also focused on exiting chapter 11 here as quickly and efficiently, as possible. In a case like this, in an unusual case like this where you have no secured pre petition debt, obviously, that administrative cost is of paramount concern to general unsecured creditors. So that's something that we are monitoring very closely as these cases progress. We've had a number, as Mr. Hopkins pointed out, of productive conversations with various parties, including the lenders and the debtors.

Very happy to be here today on a fully consensual basis. So I think our view now, while there is still obviously a lot of work yet to be done, we're off to a very good start. We're continuing our discussions with the debtors over the sale process and the procedures that were approved by your owner on the first day. Initial signs that we're getting are that those procedures are working well. If there are issues that we're unable to resolve, we'll certainly bring them to the court's attention.

I will also say that the committee is very sensitive to the concerns that have been raised by the various states' attorney general that relate to the sale and the need to comply with the debtor's privacy policy. This is particularly given the composition of this committee where we have not only creditors, but we have representatives of consumers that are former and present customers of this company. So they're acutely aware aware of these data privacy issues. We're confident from what we've seen so far that the sale will and can protect and serve all of those different interests. That includes both the consumers and the creditors.

The debt that are available here are really far beyond the projections that those folks could expect outside of Chapter 11 and outside of your Honor supervision.

And

we're currently working now that sort of this consensual hearing is behind us to, as Mr. Hopkins mentioned, find a qualified individual, a representative to help facilitate that process. That's not an issue for today. That's for next week's hearing. So for now, as we stand here today, we're looking forward to working and continuing to work with various stakeholders and the debtors as well as the regulators in this court toward a successful sale process and a prompt exit from these Chapter 11 cases.

So unless you have any questions for me, Your Honor, that's really all I have for you today.

Okay. No, I didn't have any particular questions. I do want to thank you and your constituents for working together with the parties to resolve the matters today. Far be it from me to tell you or anyone else that you should not litigate some issue that's important to your clients. But if it's something that can be worked out, that's always appreciated.

Thank you, Your Honor. I appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you.

Your Honor, may we proceed with the agenda items?

Let's.

I'll cede the podium to, Ms. Hodes on the first item on the agenda, the DIP motion.

Very good. Welcome back, Ms. Hodes.

Good afternoon. For the record, Grace Hudson, Paul Weiss on behalf of the debtors. Before jumping in, I would just like to remind the court that we filed several declarations, around the petition date that support the first day relief that we're seeking approval on a final basis today as well as the DIP motion. If it's right with the court, I would just ask that we rely upon those declarations that were previously admitted into evidence.

Certainly.

The witnesses are on the line if if anybody would like to cross examine them. But like mister Hopkins said, we we think we're here largely consensual today.

That makes sense to me.

And then just before jumping into the the substance, I just wanted to flag that we filed the, proposed final orders on the claims agent website on April 7. Once the committee got retained or appointed and their advisers were retained, we worked with them, to, you know, hear their concerns and feedback on the the final orders. We made some changes to those orders, with their consent and filed revised proposed orders, on the claims agent website last Friday. So those are, largely the latest. I think a few of them have been updated in the hours leading up to this hearing, which I'll flag for you.

But, if you've had a chance to review those, those are largely current.

I think we're either mostly caught up or entirely caught up. So I appreciate that. But, yes, as you and your colleagues go through, if there are highlights, other than, very basic stuff like adding serve to the committee, that sort of thing. No need to highlight those. But, but anything more significant, please feel free to do that as you go through the hearing.

Okay. Great. So turning to the agenda, the first item is the dip motion. This was filed at docket 28, back on the petition date. Just in a nutshell, you know, this is our motion seeking approval of a post petition financing facility in an amount up to $35,000,000 to be provided by JMB Capital.

This is an entirely new money facility. We don't have any pre petition funded debt as has been mentioned. The motion, you know, we we did include a summary of the key terms, but I think there's a few things worth flagging. The way this dip is structured is that after, the the order is entered that we're seeking approval of today, the debtors would have immediate access to up to $10,000,000 of that facility. And then the remaining up to 25,000,000 would be available, if the court approves the stocking horse agreement, by May 7.

That is either acceptable to the dip lender or provides for repayment in full of the dip obligation. The dip has a 14% interest rate payable in cash. The outside maturity date is September 30, subject to earlier triggers if there's a plan effective date, sale closing, kind of the standard maturity events that you might see in facilities like this. And while the court previously approved the work fee, the hundred thousand dollar work fee for, the DIP lender's advisers and a commitment fee, we're also seeking approval today of a 4% exit fee, which, you know, similar to the way that the dip is structured, would only apply to the first ten million, until we kinda unlock access to that 25,000,000 down the line. The goal of this facility is, you know, just to provide us with additional liquidity as we navigate the an efficient and expeditious sale process, that's already underway, and we're hoping that this financing gives our buyers potential buyers, our customers, our vendors, reassurances that we're continuing to operate as normal.

We have, access to sufficient liquidity to get through that process and then distribute the proceeds of any eventual sale to stakeholders. We do have a record in support of the dip facility, which reflects that this is the best available option to us right now. Mister Swift of, Molis, the debtor's investment banker, he submitted a declaration. It details an extensive pre petition marketing process, both for a sale and financing, where the debtors reached out to over 100 parties. And, ultimately, when the the board's special committee determined to pivot to an in court process, we received three indications of interest, from parties to provide debt financing and ultimately determine that JMB's proposal was, the best option available to us under the circumstances.

So we spent a lot of time negotiating that proposal, both between the debtors and JMB leading up to the petition date and then afterwards, with the drafting and and negotiating the final order, the dip credit agreement, and then engaging with the committee once they were appointed to incorporate their feedback. So we do think this is, you know, gaining access to this liquidity is within the debtor's sound business judgment, and should be approved today. The as I mentioned, the the committee had had significant input onto into this order. The version that we submitted on Friday of last week incorporates their comments as well as some comments from, one of the landlords to one of the rejected leases and Chubb, one of the debtors insurers. Over the last few hours, we've also included additional language, from CoreWeave, which we believe resolves their objection to the dip, which would, come up in two places in the order and basically provide that the cash collateral and the dip collateral shall not include their security deposit, which is about I think it's 220 some thousand dollars.

However, that the dip lender would have a lien on any residual interest of the debtors in that security deposit. So if, you know, for example, we were able to retain that under applicable law, the dip lenders' liens would attach

the main

damage to the property, something like that. Is

that Yes.

Yeah. Okay. Okay. That makes sense.

So that is the only change since Friday. I'm happy to walk through any questions or any of the comments from the committee. But, if you are familiar with the order that was uploaded last week, that should be the only change.

Okay. So, yes, the coreweave, of course, that was one of my questions, whether the coreweave objection is still alive. As we just discussed, there are multiple motions for appointment of a consumer privacy ombudsman and at least one for an examiner. Would the fees and expenses of a CPO or an examiner be included in the carve out under the debt?

The way it's structured right now, it's that it's it's debtor professionals and committee professionals. So, you know, I think we're we're certainly open to including other state professionals if if this person would fall within that.

But I don't

I don't know the state of

your discussions, and I don't I don't want to interfere with the negotiations that

Yeah. So right now, we just have, we have fees in the dip budget for an independent representative. The the way that the the our motion to appoint a consumer data representative is structured is that it would be, like, an independent fiduciary. So their fees would be covered under the dip budget, but they're not currently in the carve out.

Okay. Does the lender have a position on that particular issue? I don't again, I don't want to interfere with the negotiations. I also don't want to create a situation where the financing causes a problem for next week if we can avoid it.

Sure, sure.

Good afternoon, Your Honor. Again, Robert Hirsch, Northern Rose Fulbright on behalf of the DIP lender. I think our position is there is counsel to credit. They're not in the carve out as of now because they don't exist as of the time that the hearing. Just the estate professionals of the committee, usual people that should be carve out are in the carve out.

I think our position frankly is we'll see what happens next week. If they ask to be in the carve out, we'll obviously address that. But they are there is a line item in the debt budget, so they would be paid through the budget.

I see. So they'd be paid in the ordinary course even if they're not in the carve out.

Right. And again, we're not I don't have authority to say they should be in the carve out or not because it's not an issue for

the day. I did give you about ten seconds to respond to my question.

And that's usually more than I get. So that's fine. And I appreciate that. But, no, we're just we'll address that certainly, and we will be reasonable and address that as needed. Okay.

That's helpful. Thank you. I think that's all I have.

I think this court raised counsel.

Yes. Mr. Doveston. Your Honor, we received at 09:30 this morning a screen snip of proposed language regarding the return of the security deposit. I just heard that it was actually two places in the order.

All I asked for is the ability to see the proposed order before it's submitted. But conceptually, we're okay with

this. Okay.

Thank you. That's very helpful. That's very helpful. Those are all the questions I had. Mr.

Wilson, did you have anything to add on behalf of the committee? I don't mean to drag you up to the lectern for each of these motions. If you're satisfied, that's fine.

That's just fine with us, Your Honor. We're satisfied. I think the committee's changes were reflected in the order that's submitted previously.

Okay. Very good. Very good. All right. Well, in that case, I will grant the DIP motion on a final basis and ask the debtors to submit an order.

I'll make findings that notice was appropriate and sufficient under the circumstances. The debtors have established that they're unable to obtain unsecured credit as administrative expense. Entry into the facility is a reasonable exercise of the debtor's business judgment. The diplender is prepared to extend credit in good faith and should be entitled to protections of Section three sixty four. And to the extent that 6,004 applies, I'll waive that and we'll be effective immediately.

Do you need any additional findings, miss Hutz?

That's all. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next item on the agenda is the final cash management order. This, the motion was filed at docket 12, and this is the debtor's request to continue their existing cash management system. The court previously entered an interim order for this motion, and the only changes since the interim order to the final order are just some comments from the committee, again, that were reflected in the version that was uploaded last week. I'm happy to walk through those or otherwise, we would ask that this order get entered on a final basis.

Okay. I think we picked up on the changes, which are pretty straightforward from the interim order. So no, I don't have any additional questions. I'll grant the motion on a final basis and please submit an order.

Great. Thank you. Next item is, agenda three. This is what we're calling the PC obligations motion, the motion which is filed at docket seven. This is the motion to pay certain obligations related to the, affiliated nondebtor professional medical corporations that provide medical services to patients through the debtor's telehealth platform.

Again, the court entered this order on an interim basis, and there was just small changes added at the request of the committee giving them some, notice rights and adding them to the reservation of rights, again, reflected in the versions uploaded last week. I'm happy to answer any questions otherwise. We would also ask that this order get entered on a final basis.

Okay. I have not had any questions on this one.

I can see it either

next year.

Sorry, please. If you're on

the WebEx, please mute yourself.

The changes also appear to be straightforward. So I'll grant the Professional Medical Corporation motion on a final basis and please submit an order.

Thank you, your honor. Next item on the agenda is number four, the customer programs motion, which was filed at docket number nine. This is our motion to maintain and administer the customer programs and pay certain pre petition obligate obligations related to such programs. Again, on this one, we just added, some reservation of rights language for the committee, and there was one additional paragraph, in the version that was uploaded last week, around just giving some clarifying language to one of the third party retailers who sells the debtor's products.

Yeah. It's good. Is that Woot?

That was Woot.

Yep. What does Woot do?

Woot is, an Amazon subsidiary that sells products.

They sell the kits.

They sell the kits. And then, remit proceeds less any commissions back to the debtors under the applicable agreements.

Okay. Alright. So that's effectively an executor contract anyway. Yep. Okay.

They just wanna clarify in language that they can continue doing what they should be doing. Okay. And I think that's the only other change on that one. So with that, we would ask that this order also get entered on a final basis.

Okay. Besides the clarity on Woot, for which I thank you, I did not have any additional questions. I will grant the customer programs motion on a final basis, and please submit an order on that as well.

Okay. Will do. Thank you. Next is critical vendors. This one is at doctor number 15.

This is our request to pay certain pre petition claims held by critical vendors, five zero three b nine claimants, foreign vendors, all in the ordinary course of business. This one, we also just incorporated some comments from the committee both to the order and to the form trade agreement that's attached to the order. They're all included in the versions filed last or uploaded last week. So I'm happy to answer questions. Otherwise, again, we would ask for this one to get entered on a final basis.

Okay. Thank you. I did not have any questions on the critical vendor motion. And with that, I will grant it on a final basis. Please submit an order.

Okay. Thank you. Just a couple more from me. Wages motion, agenda item number six. This was filed at document number 11.

This is the debtor's motion to pay certain preposition wages and benefits and continue those in the ordinary course. Again, with this one, the only changes were a few comments made at the request of the committee that were included in the versions last week. So we would ask this one get entered on a final basis.

K. And having reviewed, this motion in the order as well, I didn't have any questions on this. So I'll grant the wages and benefits motion on a final basis, and please submit the final version of the order on that as well.

Will do. Thank you. Next item is the taxes motion. This is docket number 14. We're seeking authority to pay pre petition taxes and fees to various authorities who collect them.

On this one, we made a few changes to the final order that was uploaded last week. The most substantive is just increasing the amount because the debtors, realized that they had some sales tax for pre petition asset sales that they had collected but not yet remitted. And it was not discovered in the when we first filed the motion, so that change was actually made at, the company's request. The committee, I understand, has signed off on that, and we also added just a few cleanup changes at their request. But those are the only changes in that one, all of which were in the versions uploaded last week.

Okay. So that was an increase from 482,000 to 682,000.

Is that right?

Okay. Does anyone have an objection to the increase in the amount of taxes that should be paid? And in particular, does anyone think the debtors should not pay the sales taxes that they owe? I didn't think anyone would object to that. Okay.

That that was the only question I had flagged, and, the explanation makes sense. So I'll grant the tax motion on a final basis. Please submit an order.

Thank you, your honor. Next item on the agenda is the coral retention application as the claims and noticing agent and as well as administrative adviser. The changes in this order, which, again, were included in the versions filed last or uploaded last week, were changes made after discussions with the clerk of the court following the first day hearing. I don't believe the committee had any additional comments on this one, so the version last week should be the the version we're asking to be entered today. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Otherwise, we would ask for approval of this one as well on a final basis.

Okay. I didn't have any questions about the Kroll application, and so I'll grant it on a final basis. Please submit an order.

K. Thank you. And then the last one for me today is the insurance motion, DACA number 13. This is the motion to maintain and administer the pre petition insurance program. The changes in this order, were made at the request of the committee as well as Chubb, one of the debtors insurers.

Those changes were included in the version uploaded last week, So we would ask for approval of this one on a final basis as well.

K. I don't have any questions on this one, so I will grant the insurance motion on a final basis. Please submit the order.

Will do. Thank you very much. I'm gonna turn the podium over to Mr. Wallace.

Very good. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Your Honor. Nathan Wallace on behalf of the debtors.

Good afternoon.

Your Honor, next, if we could take up the utilities motion, Similar to the previous motions, there were there was practically nothing in the way of substantive changes. Your Honor, there was, I would point out, a small increase in the aggregate utility reserve that is contemplated by the motion. That went from $1,700 to $95.00 $5 And that is just a reflection of one additional utility service that was not initially identified but later became identified. But again, as with the other motions, the creditors committee had a few comments that we've incorporated in the order that was submitted to the court. There were no other formal or informal comments or objections.

And we would ask that the court enter the version of the order that was uploaded previously.

Okay. On the one added utility account, is that by agreement of that utility? Or might we hear something from them further asking for more?

I believe it's by my knowledge.

Okay. I mean, it's not very much money, so I don't want to make too big a deal out of it. But if they disagree, we will hear from them, I'm sure. So we'll address that as

needed. Okay. Very well, yes.

Thank you.

That was the only question I had about the utility motion, and so I will grant it on a final basis if

they

submit an order.

Next, Your Honor, we have the net operating loss motion. Your Honor, with this one, we received no formal objections. Again, we took comments from the Unsecured Creditors Committee, incorporated them in the version of the order that was submitted. And we believe that, that order that has been submitted can be entered on a final basis. So I'm happy to answer any questions your Honor may have on that motion.

Okay. That seems straightforward as well. Didn't have any questions on that. So I will grant the transfer NOL worthlessness motion on a final basis. And you said you've already submitted the final version of that, so we're taking care of there.

Thank you, Your Honor. Next, Your Honor, we have the case management motion. This is one for which we received an objection from the multidistrict litigation class counsel. And I'll kind of go through their objection here. Your Honor, the multi district litigation class counsel raised a couple of issues with the order.

The first one has to do with paragraph 11 of the proposed order that we submitted. As to that, I think the class counsel was looking for clarity as to the notice procedure that's contemplated within that paragraph. So so that essentially provides that for for the class claimants that are represented by class counsel, we'll provide notice to class counsel, and that will sort of be imputed upon the class members. And the objection raised an issue that there are putative class members that are not presently known by class counsel. So therefore, they have no way of getting those individuals notice.

And again, the debtor's intention was never for the class counsel to be straddled with a burden of giving notice to those individuals. And so we've proposed some language that would clarify that and would make clear that the class counsel's only burden as far as receiving notice would be as to those class members that are known to class counsel and not the unknown cutative class. So again, we circulated language and that may need a little bit of refining, but I think we can hopefully sort that out before a final version of that order is submitted to Your Honor. And then separate from that, your honor, the other issue that was raised in the objection, has mainly to do with paragraph 13, where we provide sort of a mechanism for giving notice to to pro se individuals who have a data breach claim that file something within the bankruptcy case. And we felt it was necessary to do this because these individuals, may be a part of that putative class that are not presently represented by class counsel that then file their own claims.

And I I think, your honor, I'll note that this was not explicitly mentioned in the objection, but this was sort of something that came up through subsequent discussions between the debtors and the class counsel. But I I think class counsel's issue there is similar to the issue that they bring up within their objection, that has to do with the part date motion. And that issue is that we propose giving notice to those individuals either through U. S. Mail or through email.

And the reason for that is efficiency purposes. There could potentially be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of, millions of pro se individuals that file something in this case. I'm I'm not saying it would be that many, but there's a potential there. And so the idea of giving those individuals service via email is to sort of alleviate the burden on the estate to have to do physical mailing to each of those individuals if that class of individuals proves to be large. But but, your honor, to sort of address, another aspect of the objection that has to do with the bar date motion that was included in the case management objection by class counsel, I I think the issue class counsel has is with debtors potentially giving notice to class members via email and not sending out physical traditional mail to those individuals.

And and and that is not something that is that that needs to be decided through the case management order. In fact, we've included explicit language in the case management order that says, nothing therein or rather, I should say, anything in the bar date order is going to control as to how the bar date order is served and how the claims are served. But but your honor, just speaking to that bar date objection, there are potentially 7,000,000 individuals that would need to have service mailed to them that are potentially part of the data breach class. And the cost to administer that mailing would be between $15,000,000 and $17,000,000 the debtors estimate, which would be a very massive drain on estate resources. So I think from the debtors' perspective, we're looking for a way of effectuating that notice in a way that is efficient and does not drain the resources of the estate.

And we're hopeful that we can come to an agreement with the class council on what that looks like.

Okay. So is everyone in agreement that the noticing of the bar date is next Tuesday's issue and not today's issue? How the bar date will be noticed is an issue for next Tuesday, not for today. Is that right? Absolutely.

Okay. Because I did the language that says the bar date order controls, I did not pick up on that immediately, but there is in paragraph 22, the interim order. This doesn't supersede February, which would cover the same ground, I think. So it does seem to me that exactly how notice of the bar date is served, sent, etcetera, noticed is an issue we'll deal with next week. But the unknown class member issue, it sounds like that is resolved or resolution is in the works?

Yes. I would say that's resolved in principle, Your Honor, just subject to us finding language to put in the order that is agreeable to Class Counsel.

Okay. Let me hear from Class Counsel then about their views about where things stand.

Thank you, Your Honor. Again, it's Tobias Keller of Keller Bannuity Kim appearing on behalf of the Class claimants. So just to clarify the record on a couple of items, there is a settlement class that has been established by Judge Chin. There is a multi disciplinary litigation. The matter has been tentatively settled and approved and we had begun the process of implementing that when this case was filed.

Council referred to a cutitive class member. There are no cutitive class members. There are class members at this point. And there has been class counsel identified there. They're my co counsel through this process.

And the issue is a significant one. We raised two issues. Frankly, we got this we got hired I think forty eight hours before we had to respond. The first one is fully addressed, which is so long as the order provides that, class counsel is only responsible for giving notice and sharing information to the people who are contractually in contract with the class counsel, which is 31 plaintiffs, and the markup to the order I think largely addresses that. We can make sure that the language is proper.

The second issue is a real Trojan horse and we are concerned about it here. As counsel noted, they're in our class alone in excess of 6,300,000 class claimers. And on the one hand, the bar date motion is where this will really come to a head and we will be arguing that and are prepared to put that off. But the proposed notice here, which is what I think of as a standard notice motion, states that notice and service accomplished in accordance with the provisions set in this order shall be adequate in all respects pursuant to the bankruptcy code, the bankruptcy rules and the local rules. We don't know what notices are being given throughout the case.

We do want to accept the bar date notice, but that's not the only thing we want to accept. The fact that our class, these are people who you couldn't imagine more intimate information. I think this is the genomic information, these names, addresses, ethnic inclusion, but information had been taken from the debtors who in our view were negligent in maintaining the data. It has been published on the dark web. These 7,000,000 people, it may be inconvenient for the debtor to notice 7,000,000 people, but the fact that it's inconvenient doesn't mean that we can run roughshod over due process.

These people are entitled to information. We have a simple solution, of course, which is to certify our class and allow us to file a class proof of claim. And then as your honor becomes familiar with where our class action is, there is a detailed process that Judge Chen was deeply involved in in order to identify, ferret out, and give notice to our class members. It is not a single email, where they have to respond within thirty days or they're out of luck. So that is the bar date motion and we'll be filing our objection today and we'll be prepared to address that at the bar date motion or as some counsel suggested maybe we just need to brief this class proof of claim issue separately.

But in the meantime, an order that has an omnibus provision that says that email notices which are not authorized under the federal rules of bankruptcy procedure unless there's consent, an omnibus provision that says that this kind of notice is adequate, doesn't pass muster with us, Jonah. I will stop at this point, but I did want to lay that out and I'm happy to address any questions the court has.

All

right. Mr. Keller, where's the particular language in the interim order that you're taking issue with?

I'm pointing out in this case, paragraph 16.

Okay. Hold on a second.

Which just says the omnibus provision that says that an email notice or the notice that are put forth in the order, which in the case of our class members would be a single email, are deemed adequate in all respects.

Okay. I'm seeing 14 in the interim order, but must be 15 in the final. Okay. Mr. Hopkins?

Thank you, Your Honor.

For the record, Christopher Hopkins with Paul Weisz, Rifkin, Morton and Garrison proposed co counsel to the debtors. Just a few comments on this. And I do agree that we can litigate this issue if we have to in connection with the bardate motion. But what just to be clear about what our proposal on this order provides. So there there would be a specific carve out that says except as provided by subsequent order of this court, and then we specifically call out the bardate notice.

We call out solicitation pleadings because those are those are obviously important notices that that need to go out more broadly. So so the court's bard eight order, the court's disclosure statement and solicitation procedures order, those will expressly override anything that's in this case management order by the terms of our proposed markup. And second, just to make the point about notice because I think it's important that Your Honor hears it from us as the debtors and all the other stakeholders here as well. The the the push for email or or a mailing, you know, due process is important. That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but it's exceptionally material in this case.

And if if, you know, I realize this is not in the record. If we need to, we'll put it in through a declaration from Kroll in connection with the bar date order. The cost of mailing a bar date notice to the data breach claimants is approximately between $15,000,000 and $17,000,000. It's about $2 in mailing times about 7,000,000 people. You do that two times, we've used up 100% of the proceeds of the DIP facility.

And so we are trying to work with everybody to certainly provide as robust a notice program as we possibly can. We want everyone to have notice. I think the extraordinary media attention makes it extraordinarily likely that a significant population of our customers and stakeholders are aware of the bankruptcy. On things like the Bard aid order, we do need to give we know who these people are, we can find them. We have their email addresses.

If there's bounce backs, we can work with folks on a a subsequent mailing to ensure that we're doing everything we can to try to get people noticed in a reasonable way. But this is not just the debtors trying to, like, gotcha, a a data breach claim. That's not our intention at all. But if we have to do one mailing in this case, we don't have enough liquidity to get to a sale process. And I think that's just an important reality given the this case is somewhat unique, your honor, where we have a large class action of people who we know who they are because they signed up for accounts and we know exactly who was affected through the forensic work we've done related to the data breach.

In an opioid case, you can rely on publication notice and other things because you don't necessarily know who every individual customer is. And so that that is the balance the debtors are trying to strike here. And and I think that again, we'll come back to your honor, and hopefully, we can just work out language on this case management order with class counsel. But I think given the comments made, I just wanted to kind of level set and explain the debtor's perspective on on these issues. Sure.

Okay. Has mister Keller seen the language you just described about acceptance provided in the subsequent order of the court?

I know mister Keller is I think we got a markup last night and we sent something back this morning. This is something I think, Your Honor, unless someone on the team tells me otherwise, we can either work with them and submit a proposed form of order later today or if we have to, we'll just kick it to the twenty ninth.

Okay. I

mean, it does seem to me that as to this order governing much more basic and routine noticing than the bar date, plan solicitation, claim objections, those sorts of things that might directly impact a particular creditor, there ought to be some language that will allow this to work and then we can focus on those more specific notices and more specific regulations for them if we need to. Mr. Keller, is that have you seen a relatively recent version of the language that we're talking about?

Yaron, we have seen them. They arrived briefly before the hearing, and I wasn't ready to comment on them because I hadn't yet had a chance to share it with the clients. I understand the import of your Honor's comments, which is sending out an email is cheap and easy and for relatively issues of relatively little import, there should be no need for mail in. The issues around Bar date, around plan and the like are very significant issues and we are prepared to pass them until next week or again perhaps until a motion and briefing is done on our Class Proof of Claim. But for all the concern about the cost of the mailing, Mr.

Hopkins is right. We are very concerned about a gotcha where you immediately winnow down our 6,300,000 people to a few tens of thousands because they've been become confused by notice by public notices that their claims have been settled in a class action because the emails are misdirected, because they don't know what to do with the emails, because they don't have to value their claims. So, I expect we can come up with with with common language that will work for general noticing, but this issue around bar date, the issues around plan and and the like are ones that we absolutely have to protect our clients' rights on because this is the whole bottle of wax.

Okay. Well, I think we are protected for today by the references to the various provisions of rule 2,002 that are already in the order, by the conceptual language that you've talked about, subsequent orders of the court that set out more specific requirements. So I think with that and I'll let you work on the exact language to make sure the parties are comfortable with that. But I think with that, we have a basis for a final case management order, and I'd be prepared to grant that subject to you working out that language and recognizing that more specific things will be dealt with in more specific orders later on.

Thank you very much, Your Honor. That works for the debtors.

We appreciate the import of your comments, Your Honor. We'll see if we can get ourselves to a consensual form of order. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll cede the podium for Mr. Riske, Your Honor.

Your Honor, Mr. Dwoskin and I are still endeavoring to try and settle the rejection motion. Could we possibly pass it for a couple of minutes while he calls his client and some other people?

Sure. I was gonna say it seems to be the same issue as the dip, but maybe it doesn't. So I'll just keep my mouth shut.

They've raised a new issue today. Oh,

there we go. Okay. Yes. Why don't we pass the

motion today? I believe

we have the security deposit issue worked out. There's another issue that they're making some calls on right now. Okay. Could we possibly go to Agenda Item number 14, our firm's attention, your Honor?

Yes. Let's do that.

Thank you, Your Honor. Tom Riske for the record. Your Honor, my firm has sought retention as co counsel with Paul Weiss at the first day hearing. We went through how we're going to be dividing up tasks and duplicating efforts and doing everything we can to have this case work as efficiently as possible through whatever work we can. There have been no formal or informal objections raised to our retention application.

So with that, I'd ask that it be granted as submitted, Your Honor.

Very good. I didn't see any objections either. Didn't have any questions for you. So I'll grant the Carmody McDonald application on a final basis, and please submit an order.

Thank you, Your Honor. I believe Mr. Hopkins will do the Paul Weitz retention application next.

Okay. Your honor, I'll be handling the, the retention applications for Paul Weiss, my firm, Molas, and and A and M. So on the Paul Weiss retention application runner, which was agenda item number 15 and filed on the docket at docket number 31, we've received no objections, formal or informal. So unless your honor has any questions, I think we'd respectfully request that the form of order we submitted to Chambers be entered.

I did not have any questions, so I'll grant the application on a final basis, and we'll look for that order and get it entered.

Thank you very much, Your Honor. So the next one is agenda number 16. That's the retention to retain Molas as investment banker for the debtors. That was originally filed at docket number 29. Following the appointment of the committee, there were negotiations about Molus' proposed fee structure under their engagement letter.

And the parties were able to reach a consensual agreement that is set forth in paragraph three of the revised form of order that was submitted to the court that was language specifically agreed to as among the debtors, Molas, and the committee. I'm happy to walk through the modifications. It's helpful for your honor. But if you've had a chance to review the order, you can just skip to any questions you have and respectfully request the order.

I have reviewed them. And since they're consensual, I don't know that we need to go through any level of detail. And no one's jumping up complaining they're not consensual, so that's a good sign. So with that, no, I'll go ahead and grant the application on a final basis. And if we don't have that order already, if you please send it in, the final final version.

And then the, the last one of the day from me is agenda item number 17. That's the application to designate mister Matt Kavarta of Alvarez and Marcellus, the debtor's CRO, and to authorize certain additional personnel from A and M to provide support services to mister Kavarta. Same status on this one, your honor. We're not aware of any formal or informal objections. I would note for the record, there was language added, I believe it's paragraph three

of

the proposed form of order that addresses the the scope of the indemnification that A and M and its personnel are entitled to ensure that it complies with the U. S. Trustee's J Alex protocol. So again, your Honor, unless you have any questions for me, we'd respectfully request entry of the order.

Okay. I'm going to look over here briefly and let mister Slotsar?

I have to stand up for something, your honor. We got all dressed up today. Yes, your honor, the comments Mr. Hopkins made are accurate. I have reviewed the language they suggested, and it is acceptable to my office.

Very good. And with that, I will grant the Alvarez application on a final basis.

Thank you

very much, sir. Thank you.

I will cede the podium to

Goodwin. Oh, actually, your honor, I I think

I would be ceding the podium to either, Lewis Rice for their retention application or for, mister Rob Lemons at Goodwin

for theirs, whoever wants to go

first. Good afternoon, your honor. It's Robert Lemons with Goodwin Proctor. We're here simply to ask the courts to enter the final order on our retention as special counsel or as constituted special committee. No objections were filed, the court had entered the end of the order previously.

So we humbly request that the court entered the order finally approving our retention.

Okay. And didn't have any questions for you, Mr. Lemons, so thank you. So I will grant the Goodwin Proctor application on a final basis. And please submit an order if we don't have it already.

Thank you. I believe that Louis Rice submitted one yesterday, but if your chambers doesn't have it resubmit.

I think we do. I think we do. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you.

All right.

And the Lewis Rice application? Anyone from Lewis Rice?

Your Honor, it's Mr. Lemons again. I'm not sure if anyone from Lewis Rice is in the courtroom. I think they had, thought that our retention applications would be entered without hearing since no objections were filed. I I happen to be listening to the hearing, anyways, but I'm not sure if anyone from Lewis Rice is on as a result.

I don't see anyone in the courtroom from Lewis Rice. Alright. Does anyone wish to be heard in opposition to the Lewis Rice application? I think so. Alright.

And I believe we have a final order that we received yesterday. Didn't have any questions on that. So I'll grant the Lewis Rice application on a final basis, and we'll take a look at that order.

Thank you, Your Honor. We'll let them know.

All right. Should we return to the motion to reject?

I'd like to, Your Honor. But I believe Mr. Dwoskin has another suggestion.

Yes, sir. Mr. Dwoskin.

Your Honor, I have been sent a proposed order, which has the debtor not only having the lease rejected as of the date of bankruptcy, which is just a breach, but also terminating the debtor's right to possession as of the date of bankruptcy. In a normal case, the debtor moves out and returns possession to the landlord, and that's how it goes. But in this case, we're the subtenants of the master landlord. So if the debtor rejects its possessory rights as of four weeks ago, then we've been trespassing. It conceptually, it doesn't make any sense for the possessory rights to be rejected retroactively.

Tom quite properly is concerned about post petition rent obligations to the master landlord. And I think I heard mister, Saint James say he was on the line. If I maybe not.

He was.

He was. Okay. Is that the same property? He said Matilda Avenue.

Attorney for the master landlord. I just tried to call him, left a voice mail. If we can work something out with the master landlords so that our right to continue possession isn't jeopardized, I don't care. But as of right now, if we reject if we give up our if they give up their possessory rights four weeks ago, then I don't know what that does to our settlements. And we actually have an agreement with the master landlord to remain in the space.

But and again, I'm local counsel. I I don't have the depth of knowledge that, the lawyer who hired me does. But somehow or another, the concept of when the lease with the subtenant with Corweave actually begins, I haven't been made aware of. So I I can't let an order be entered rejecting the debtor's possessory rights because that dispossesses me.

So Mr. Whiskey, are you oh, go ahead, Mr. St. James.

If I may briefly, your Honor. There's really just two things to be said here. The first is that, Coralweave has an appointment agreement. This is, like most things in bankruptcy, a question of money. If the debtor is responsible for paying a month's rent or if Coralweave is responsible for paying a month's rent.

And, you know, unsurprisingly, we think that the bankruptcy answer is what governs questions to bankruptcy rejection. So all of the case law on bankruptcy, consistent with our agreement with the debtor at least up until four minutes ago if it's changed. But up up until four minutes ago, bankruptcy law says basically, you can reject as of the date the order is entered, but you're you're obligated to pay rent through that date. And that, I think, is the birthplace case in the eighth circuit, and it's it's, at home in the ninth circuit, and there are cases in Delaware and and the Southern District Of New York as well. Or you can retroactively reject, but retroactive rejection means you surrender possession as of the retroactive rejection date, which is, as I say, what our understanding with the better have been at least unless it's changed very quickly.

And that's fine by us. Then, mister I'm sorry. Then CoreWeave has its rights under the SMDA, we're not here pestering the bankruptcy estate for essentially $1,000,000 It's $1,000,000 a month of rent under the master lease. And we all part company the way we thought we were going to part company when we got the motion that said we want to reject retroactive as of the petition date. And we sorted out as as has already been suggested with CoreWeave based on the SMDA and their appointment agreements.

But, you know, this idea that suddenly at the very last minute, we are suddenly retroactively going back in time, and somehow that will permit the landlord to exercise I don't know what based on some theoretically some theoretical trespass is

No.

I mean, that's why we don't have hearings at the last minute. I think. Hold on.

Hold on. Alright. Hold on. There so I'm learning there is an SNDA, presumably, that's been in place for some time. Right?

There's a there's an entorlement agreement that's been in place. It was basically the consent to sublease included in the entorlement agreement.

There's an entorlement agreement. Okay. Have the party aside from what the lawyers are doing here today, have the parties worked out who is going to pay the rent for the last month effectively? Do the parties know the

No, your honor. That's what this is about.

Well, I don't

The landlord, your honor, if you approve our rejection of Mr. St. James' lease today, we have an agreement that we're done. That's the value we're trying to protect. They will not file an administrative claim in

this case.

Okay. I guess what I'm asking is, has CorWeave already acknowledged that they need to pay the rent for that month, roughly month period? Mr. Dewoskin is not in loop, and I understand that. Correct.

I can give your honor

Go ahead.

Yeah. The full story. Filed this motion for retroactive relief on the petition. As mister St. James, we didn't seek expedited that it went on regular notice.

Certain parties filed objections. We're adjourning one today that has a substantive objection. CoreWeave filed an objection related to the deposit. Since the first time CoreWeave popped their head up in this case, it has been give us our deposit back. My answer has never been no.

It has been, I think that makes sense, but let's work out that you get set offs because you have not been paying rent. Conceptually, we were moving in that direction. Until the past two days, it has changed to saying, hey, there's something in the lease. We don't think we owe rent. Just give us the whole deposit back.

Just give us the whole deposit back. And then as Mr. St. James said, today, they're just looking at the order for the first time complaining about retroactive relief when the debtor has worked with mister St. James and this client to get out, do everything we can to make it clear that this property was properly surrendered prior to the petition date so we can effectuate this retroactive rejection by his consent and move forward.

So they haven't even filed an objection on this issue, your honor. Honor. And I think we have conceptually an idea we'll just escrow the security deposit until further order of court. I'm confident we can get that worked out in short order. But I don't think adjourning this hearing for them to articulate this objection that they've had over a month to articulate is in the best interest of this estate.

We have a great proposed resolution with the landlord who has a potential sizable administrative claim in this case. And I we and we haven't even gotten to the business justification of all these rejections, your Honor. But I'd be fine with adjourning this for a couple of minutes if Mr. Dwoskin wants to call him. But I think we have to move forward on this, Your Honor.

So just so I'm clear, the KR Optech, that's a different property, totally unrelated to this. Okay. Okay. So, mister Dwoskin?

Your honor, again, being late to the game, I don't necessarily have all the facts. The concern expressed to me was if the possession is relinquished retroactively that I don't know if we have an agreement with the landlord. We we owe rent for March 23 through today or the future, however long the lease last. I still don't know how to turn this off. So if it's just a matter of money and where it goes, that's fine.

My concern is I understood it from Horweave's lawyer was that it would in some way jeopardize our continued occupancy in the space. So Okay. So as long as mister St. James is saying your occupancy isn't at risk, just pay us the rent, I think we're okay with that.

Okay. Mr. St. James, that sounds like a solution that your client would be acceptable with, I mean, would be agreeable with. Isn't that the case?

If CorWI is responsible for the rent, you're not suggesting they don't have the right to possess the property either retroactively or going forward because there's an

an employment agreement. It's basically when they have to start paying us and what they have to start paying us. Now, obviously, if they say we're staying here, but we're never gonna pay you, then that does affect possession because they aren't entitled to stay there without paying us.

Of course.

Of course. But short of that, we agree. It's just money, and and they shouldn't be able to hide behind the debtor and say we're not going to pay you even though the debtor is not going to pay you either.

Okay. Well, mister Dolesky just said his client acknowledges that they're on the hook for March 23 forward. So I think I think that

pay the debtor or whether we pay Yeah.

You figure out who whom to pay it to. And if you pay it to the debtor, the debtor's gotta pass it along. Of course. Pay it. Okay.

So I think everybody's on the same page then. So, alright. So we're going to continue the motion as to KROptek LLC to next week at 01:30, next Tuesday at 01:30?

Yes, sir.

Okay. I will then grant the motion as to other properties, other executory contracts, everything else involved in the motion besides the KR Optech, effective as of the motion date and for the reasons stated in the motion. And so the core core reef objection as to the potential for trespass, etcetera, is resolved by the landlord's acknowledgment that core right to stay as long as the rent is paid, and that seems to take care of us. So I think we're all set there. Thank you

very much, your honor.

Your honor, may we have the language in the order that was agreed upon? That the debtors' rights of possession terminate as of the petition date.

Yes. That's fine. Yes. Yeah. That's fine with Mr.

Dwoskin as well. So I think Thank you. Okay. Perfect. Anything further on the motion to reject?

Nothing you're understanding.

Okay. That is the end of the agenda. Anything further from the debtors?

For the record, Christopher Hopkins of Paul Weisz, Rifkin, Morton and Garrison now co counsel to the debtors. You can drop the proposed.

Right, right.

I think that's all we have. I'm sure Mr. Riske will coordinate with your chambers if we may need more time for next week.

Sure.

We can handle that. But otherwise, we'll be back in a week unless your Honor has anything else for us.

No, I don't think so. Anything from the committee or other parties?

Eric Wilson, Kelly Drive, Post County Committee. Nothing further from us, Your Honor.

Okay. Very good. Well, thank you again, everyone, for working out so many of these issues and simplifying today's hearings. And we'll see everybody next Tuesday. We'll be adjourned.

Take care,